Now and again in our Near Miss of the Day series, we feature a video that doesn’t quite fit that description, because rather than a close pass, the motorist actually hits the bike rider with their vehicle … and that’s we have in this latest video, with the van driver involved smacking into a cyclist taking part in a time trial with such force that the vehicle’s door mirror broke off and was left on the road.
Several drivers gave road.cc reader Ooblyboo plenty of space before the van driver came up from behind and hit him, leaving him bruised but thankfully nothing worse.
“It was on 8 May,” Ooblyboo told us. “I was racing in a VTTA 10-mile time trial on the F11/10 course near Tring on the A41. It was a Sunday morning, about 9.30am – traffic was light and conditions were good. Overcast, no low light, warm and dry.
“I got one hell of a thump – the whole wing mirror came off. If you look closely in the video you can see bits of it bouncing down the road. I just heard a very loud bang and suddenly I was covered in bits of glass and plastic and I felt a sharp pain in my backside.
“I didn’t initially know what had happened to me but quickly realised I had been struck by the van’s wing mirror at what must have been at least 60mph.
“The driver just carried on and after I briefly checked myself over I decided to continue the race as it was the only way I knew how to get back to HQ (I don’t live in the area) and I didn’t want to stop on the dual carriageway. I had heavy bruising but didn’t require hospital.
“I reported it to the organiser who produced a thorough report for CTT [Cycling Time Trials] and were very helpful.
“I also reported it to police who took some time to investigate but I am pleased that they did follow through with the investigation and eventually I was informed that the driver was found guilty at court of three offences – driving without due care and attention, failing to stop at the scene of an accident and failing to report an accident.
“They didn’t initially tell me what the penalty was but after some back and forth they eventually told me that the driver received points and a fine. I don’t know how many/how much.
“I don’t know what the driver was doing but watching the video, it appears to me that they must have been distracted by something – we will never know,” Ooblyboo continued.
“As far as my feelings on this: I was incredibly fortunate that the mirror struck only my body and not the bike. A couple of centimetres further to the left and I might not be around to tell the tale.
“It shows how vulnerable we as cyclists are on the road and it also shows why it is crucially important that drivers remain focused and in full control of their vehicle at all times. Sadly the standard of driving in this country seems to be falling. I haven’t ridden an open-road TT since.”
Ooblyboo added: “As per the rules of the event, I had a flashing front and rear light and helmet, and I had only put the Cycliq Fly 6 on the bike on a whim, having only bought it about two weeks beforehand! They are well worth having.”
> Near Miss of the Day turns 100 – Why do we do the feature and what have we learnt from it?
Over the years road.cc has reported on literally hundreds of close passes and near misses involving badly driven vehicles from every corner of the country – so many, in fact, that we’ve decided to turn the phenomenon into a regular feature on the site. One day hopefully we will run out of close passes and near misses to report on, but until that happy day arrives, Near Miss of the Day will keep rolling on.
If you’ve caught on camera a close encounter of the uncomfortable kind with another road user that you’d like to share with the wider cycling community please send it to us at info@road.cc or send us a message via the road.cc Facebook page.
If the video is on YouTube, please send us a link, if not we can add any footage you supply to our YouTube channel as an unlisted video (so it won’t show up on searches).
Please also let us know whether you contacted the police and if so what their reaction was, as well as the reaction of the vehicle operator if it was a bus, lorry or van with company markings etc.
> What to do if you capture a near miss or close pass (or worse) on camera while cycling
78 thoughts on “(Not so) Near Miss of the Day 828: Driver hits cyclist at speed, leaving door mirror behind”
Jesus Christ, that’s as close
Jesus Christ, that’s as close as you get to dying and laughing about it. Driver should be banned for years ffs
How did the cyclist stay
How did the cyclist stay upright then?
Edit: Just read the report. Every other car managed to move over in plenty of time so he was planily visible. And for the driver, he would have been visible for at least 6 seconds as that is the amount of time from when the porsche moved over. Still not looking at the road for that amount of time is only careless.
A bit disconcerting to read a
A bit disconcerting to read a username including ‘boo’ and also being in a TT race !!
Interesting read though with the idea of the lesser speed diferential and the TT tuck and core reducing the effect of the wing mirror hit.
“Door mirror” – excellent.
“Door mirror” – excellent.
Well this one flies – must be
Well this one flies – must be a wing mirror!
I wonder if cycling at about
I wonder if cycling at about 30mph, which is what our best club TTers do, might have helped?
I note the following driver apparently feeling intimidated by a following car and reluctant to be fully in the other lane shortly after.
What speed do think I was
What speed do you think I was doing?
IanMSpencer wrote:
This appears a thoroughly bad take.
I read this as “Should have pedalled harder to avoid being hit”
As if, in a time trial on just about the fastest course in the country he wouldn’t have been going as fast as possible. And that would have been north of 25mph, probably closer to 30mph.
Perhaps you can clarify your statement?
No, he’s right. I was doing
No, he’s right. I was doing 30mph on this section but my average for the whole ride (including the bit where I got hit by a van and slowed to check myself over) was only 29.1mph. That 0.9mph would have made all the difference ?
I read IanMSpencer’s comment
I read IanMSpencer’s comment as stating that due to the cyclist’s own high speed, the actual collision speed was lowered with the fortunate result of mitigating some of the impact. Not at all saying ooblyboo was at fault for not cycling faster.
That is a fair point – I didn
That is a fair point – I didn’t read it that way. Perhaps he can clarify?
Sorry for the ambiguity. Yes,
Sorry for the ambiguity. Yes, the point I was trying to make was that if that was a guy on a tourer pottering down the road at 10mph the speed differential would have been say 50mph. Riding at 30mph the speed differential is 30mph. The higher speed may have actually reduced the injury. My phrasing was trying to explain that the rider was probably doing about 30mph based on what I understand from our TTs Think of my awkward phrasing as a compliment 😉
I suppose also that the still high speed differential actually helped the mirror to do it’s safety job (to make a contrary point). Often when people get brushed by a car the speed differential isn’t so high and the mirror doesn’t detach. I’m wondering if the detaching mirror helped avoid being pushed over.
Just intrigued by the mechanics of what happened because being hit solidly by a vehicle at 60+mph doesn’t bare thinking about. As the rider notes in the article, something about the way they were hit led to a lucky escape with minor injuries.
Ok – apologies. I do think
Ok – apologies. I do think the speed differential helped, as did being in a tucked position as my core was engaged and helped control the blow. And yes, the mirror detaching completely, while dramatic and not very fun, almost certainly helped.
Which raises another
Which raises another interesting point – a good tuck on TT bars as opposed to elbows out on the hoods. Most cyclists would have had their arm smacked, steering the bike hard involuntarily and throwing them off into the road.
Not often you’d get me giving bonus marks to TT bars!
IanMSpencer wrote:
That’s not how physics works.
The mirror detaching means it has applied more force, not less.
The faster you go, the less likely you’ll be knocked off with this sort of impact. Momentum, kinetic energy and gyroscopic effect in the wheels all add up to the rider/bike being harder to change direction.
Well, yes and no. Any skier
Well, yes and no. Any skier knows that if you fall over standing up you don’t pop out of your skis due to insufficient force and it can then do more damage so it is not a simple increasing force does more damage question. You can fall at speed and the skis go flying off without problem, at lower speed they can detach but twist knees in the process. I’m not sure what the physics is, but I know it is not a simple straight line formula.
With a wing mirror, a low force doesn’t move it, a medium force bends it but it is still there, a high force detaches it. In this case, a slower impact might have folded the mirror so it is then attached to push the cyclist sideways (they don’t fold in massively on most vehicles). By detatching, the majority of force was forwards rather than sideways and then there was no lump on the side of the vehicle remaining to do further damage.
pavlo wrote:
This appears a thoroughly bad take.
I read this as “Should have pedalled harder to avoid being hit”
As if, in a time trial on just about the fastest course in the country he wouldn’t have been going as fast as possible. And that would have been north of 25mph, probably closer to 30mph.
Perhaps you can clarify your statement?— IanMSpencer
I read it as, the cyclist doing 30, rather than 15 or 20, is probably why the impact didn’t knock them off, because the closing speed was reduced.
is it just me but that felt
is it just me but that felt alot like the van driver steers into that…?
I did wonder that to start
I did wonder that to start with but I think it was pure lack of attention. Whatever the driver was doing, they weren’t looking at the road or me.
Or the other cars in front
Or the other cars in front who seemed to move across the road for some strange reason.
You’re more forgiving than I
You’re more forgiving than I am, or maybe I’m just a cynic at heart, but from where they start to be visible on the road, to when they pass you, imo, it was a deliberate attempt to buzz you or scare the xxxx out of you.
no doubt as a reaction to the TT event and that self entitlement road rage of damn all those cyclists making me drive in the right hand lane to overtake and pay attention, that they miscalculated, though fortunately not badly enough to have ended with another KSI stat, at which point everyone would have blamed the stupid road for the danger, and not the idiotic drivers.
Awavey wrote:
It did appear that they moved toward the white line but then back in again just before hitting the human being.
Whether deliberate or just driving for quarter of a mile at 60mph+ without looking where they were going… this should be an instant ban and extended test at the minimum. It’s pure luck that this was not a KSI.
Awavey wrote:
Worry not, Martin will be along shortly to explain how this was, in fact, an excellent overtake.
Never mind how fast the
Never mind how fast the cyclist was going, the point is how the driver didn’t lose their licence? They have clearly demonstrated beyond all doubt that they are incapable of driving in a safe manner and not killing people, but they still keep their licence. This is not acceptable, and they should be immediately banned and have to sit an extended test before they are allowed to drive again.
This incident reinforces the impression that driving is a right and if some random cyclist gets killed, well, that’s a shame but, you know, cyclists!
Fucking points and a fucking
Fucking points and a fucking fine. Fucking hell…
(question unrelated to events
(question unrelated to events)
Are there many such roads in the UK and is it customary for cyclists to ride there? Not interested in starting an argument, I’m sure it’s legal to cycle there and that’s that. Just wondering about how ‘normal’ this type of situation is.
Where I am, on this type of road (dual carriageway with divider) cycling would be prohibited and even if allowed, personally I don’t think I’d risk it.
Xenophon2 wrote:
Yes there are quite a few A roads like that, often used to bypass town centres. You can cycle on any road in Britain except motorways. Generally cyclists avoid them but they’re often used – as here – for time trials due to the fact that they offer long traffic-light-free stretches.
I wouldn’t ride on them for a king’s ransom myself, but it’s perfectly legal.
I know all the arguments /
I know all the arguments / discussions around victim blaming etc and, like you, I would never ride on an A road like the one in the video.
BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP wrote:
I would but only on the hard shoulder. I wouldn’t ride on a dual carriageway without a hard shoulder.
My original view was that
My original view was that they were good for TTs because the traffic can be light early morning and you don’t have to worry about cars entering from side roads or oncoming traffic. Obviously I have now revised my view and think TTs on closed tracks/roads, although more difficult to organise, are the way forward.
Rendel Harris wrote:
They also use them for time one trials because they are fast, due to better road surfaces, and also because of the draft from passing vehicles.
I recall a report of a time trialist being disqualified for riding close to the line between lanes, in order to make cars pass closer and gain a benefit.
.
.
Yup – agree with Rendel (don’t want to make a habit of that!!) – it’s legal, but a long way from safe.
.
‘I may be dead, but at least I was in the right’.
.
It’s the drivers who make it
It’s the drivers who make it unsafe though, and once you come around to that view, you realise all roads are equally unsafe whilst we allow drivers a literal licence to kill.
Awavey wrote:
Absolutely this^
It is dangerous drivers that are the problem. If the public see A-roads as the problem then all A-roads needs to be closed until the problem is fixed.
Flip that around though and
Flip that around though and you see the problem: “I have ‘rights’ but occasionally I can get killed for exercising them, and the law doesn’t take that seriously. So what do those ‘rights’ actually mean?”
This one’s “recreational” but it still holds. It’s like the state built a coconut shy on your commute / school route route. Over time it got used for archery, then firearms. Now the state encourages you to walk to work or school – for health! – and notes the range has a good safety record. They say they guarantee your right of way across the shooting range (“share the range”) and they’ve put up signs with guidance for people to not shoot when others are crossing. They’re considering if they need a review to maybe come down harder on any rogue shootists…
That type of road is only
That type of road is only 10mph higher on the speed limit then the country lanes that cyclists do have to use regularly. And with the long sight lines and room for manouvreing. I would state it should actually be safer then the ones with lots of turns, narrower and with less chance of meeting a car on the wrong side of the road.
as many have said, it is
as many have said, it is perfectly legal to ride here, and many judge it to be dangerous. I feel thet a large part of that danger comes from the fact that riders are so rarely encountered on this type of rad, to the extent that drivers don’t expect them to be there and aren’t looking out for them. However if the drivers were alert to the presence of riders (perhaps if they encounered them more often) then these roads should be safer and cause less driver frustration as the site lines are such that they have much more time to move over (and have a lane to move into) to preform the overtake safely.
If only organised events like this had to put out additional high viz signage to let drivers know about the race and warn them that riders woul be present….. Oh wait….
On a side note, what a strange country this is that a dual carriagway like this (with 70 mph speed limit) permits cycling and yet a motorway (which has wider lanes and better site lines again) doesn’t allow it on the hard shoulder.
For people who don’t know,
For people who don’t know, such events are marshalled and signed. People with poor observational skills aren’t likely to absorb what they are being warned about if they even managed to lift their eyes from their phones to notice that there are signs.
The other unfortunate aspect is that riders are spaced out, departing at minute intervals typically, so drivers will come across lone cyclists rather than a group.
Without being victim blaming, the reality is that we know many drivers are proven to be unable to apply the attention required to the task of driving to be able to make riding on any road safe for cyclists, but a dual carriageway clearly offers drivers more opportunity to switch off or switch over to something of more interest to them. Therefore I do think we have to accept that the risk of very poor driving killing people is too high on this type of road.
Our club has had a time trial rider killed on a major road and escape with the momentary lack of attention defence. Given that the law repeatedly demonstrates that this standard of driving is only a minor, understandable deviation from the standard of driving required, is have to agree that dual carriageway time trialling on NSL roads is high risk, we cannot depend on drivers – or the law encouraging proper behaviour.
Your post is too
Your post is too accommodating to drivers.
There is such a road near me that is used every week by TT riders where a lady was sadly killed earlier this year. She was hit by a van driven by a local man.
I used to use OSM mapping on
I used to use OSM mapping on my Garmin generated by a German team. I got them to amend their road weightings because the UK appears to be the only place where a road defined as a trunk road allows cyclists. In Europe, a non-motorway trunk road would by definition ban cyclists. I guess it goes back to historical right of way laws in England (specifically because Scottish law has different right of way concepts). Part of that is that in England we only have defined rights of way anything else is permissive or banned, but that right is well-guarded. Other countries are more relaxed about access.
We made a navigational error this year and we’re led round M42 J10 which is a junction with the A5. That was scary in a group.
Xenophon2 wrote:
That is true , actually there are places where in a such road any motor vehicle that cannot reach the speed of 50km/h is banned. And it makes sense, as they are practically immobile objects in the middle of the road. Just remember in Friends TV Show when Ross had taken his dad’s Porssss and was super slow, the policeman just issued him a ticket.
Stairlift and hoist company —
Stairlift and hoist company — perhaps they were sent out to “generate new business”?
That’s definitely a ban in my sadly-non-authoritative eyes.
Perhaps harsh penalties, for
Perhaps harsh penalties, for instance, mandatory gaol time for those who leave the scene of an accident and permenant loss of license without possibility of retest for those who are convicted of careless or dangerous driving would make people understand the responsibility of controlling over a ton of steel at speeds human evolution has not prepared us for?
Patrick9-32 wrote:
Absolutely.
Currently, there’s a perverse incentive to leave the scene of a collision if a driver has any alcohol or drugs in their system or believes that there’ll be no evidence to link them to it. The only exception should be for those oblivious drivers who don’t even know that they’ve hit someone/something and they should face an immediate and permanent driving ban for the sake of the public.
Would argue ‘obliviousness’
Would argue ‘obliviousness’ should be almost exclusively limited to HGV’s.
I can accept that a 44 Ton HGV isn’t going to respond much to hitting 80kg and its response may depend on load.
qwerty360 wrote:
That’s a good point, though I was thinking of some half-blind pensioner with their hearing aid turned off. There’s no point sending someone to prison just for being incompetent if we can ensure that they never have the chance to cause any further hurt.
Given the strike seriously
Given the strike seriously damaged their car they cannot have been unaware of the collision, and they must have had an inkling they had hit a cyclist. To not stop in such circumstances is quite callous.
I thought it was a deer
I thought it was a deer
Or sack of potatoes. And I
Or sack of potatoes. And I couldn’t stop there anyway – it’s a busy road with fast-moving vehicles…
Absolutely. If the penalty
Absolutely. If the penalty for this calousness was automatic prison sentences harsh enough to seriously fuck up your life nobody would drive away after this type of incident. The driver would absolutely know they had hit the cyclist here, unquestionably. Even if they were entirely deaf (deaf people can drive) they would have noticed the bump that would have been felt through the car and seen the missing wingmirror next time they looked over. There is literally no realistic excuse and points and a fine is laughable.
Patrick9-32 wrote:
But that could be weeks later!
They didn’t initially tell me
They didn’t initially tell me what the penalty was but after some back and forth they eventually told me that the driver received points and a fine. I don’t know how many/how much
The fact that the police are prepared to put much more effort into trying to not tell you information than the effort required to tell you immediately (despite what they’re claiming to you, or trying to imply, there is no restriction on what they can say about the case, GDPR et. etc.) shows that the points and fine were a gross under-penalty which they don’t want you to know about or spread around. People will argue that the problem is the courts not the police, but the truth is the entire justice system does not view even serious and almost deadly offences against cyclists as real offences.
And of course it is grossly
And of course it is grossly lenient. You should expect, though I realise not always receive, points and a fine for driving without due care and attention. So failing to stop / failing to report had what effect on the penalty exactly? And was there a “not guilty” plea, as implied by “found guilty at court”? (I suppose could have been misreported by the police, but wouldn’t bank on it). I was under the impression that these were serious matters. Guess not.
It doesn’t seem likely it
It doesn’t seem likely it went to court if Ooblyboo wasn’t called as a witness, or at least notified that they might be called as a witness on a certain date.
andystow wrote:
If the driver pleaded guilty in advance of the court date, then no witnesses are called. The hearing at court is just for the magistrate to review the evidence and determine the level of punishment to be handed out.
However, Ooblyboo should have been given an opportunity to attend the hearing from the public gallery. They also should have been offered to write a victim impact statement and have it read out in court.
I’m certain it must have gone to court, as leaving the scene cannot be dealt with via a fixed penalty notice.
According to the narrative
According to the narrative the criminal was “found guilty at court”. Which says to me (a) the case went to court; and (b) he entered a not guilty plea but was found guilty. Even if I am wrong on either or both of these, doesn’t answer the failing to stop / failing to report question.
It’s as Chris Boardman, in
It’s as Chris Boardman, in tragic circumstances, pointed out: road crime is not seen as real crime.
So are we going with “making
So are we going with “making an important business phone call”, “social media”, or “Netflix (other streaming services are available”…?
Ooblyboo was VERY lucky.
I reckon 80% of van drivers
I reckon 80% of van drivers regularly interact with their phones.
Well funny you mention it but
Well funny you mention it but Suffolk police just completed a week long campaign on the A14,A12 and A11 stopped 216 HGVs and vans, issued 213 TORs for 120 not wearing seatbelt, 41 using mobile phone, 33 roadworthiness, 25 insecure load,13 careless driving, 4 speeding and 4 no insurance. Along with seven arrests, 6 for drug driving & one driving whilst disqualified + possession of cannabis.
“Professional” drivers.
More of this, police!
More of this, police!
Awavey wrote:
So the rest of the drivers know that they’re safe to carry on regardless for maybe another year?
That’s poor feedback from the
That’s poor feedback from the police. You are entitled, under the victim’s charter, to be told of the exact outcome. You should have had an opportunity to submit a victim impact statement to the court and attend the hearing if you wished to do so (even if not called as a witness).
I think this footage should also be used by the police in an awareness campaign if you would permit it. There have been several instances of cyclists being hit by vehicles on this type of road; most with tragic outcomes. This footage demonstrates it’s a massive lack of attention on the driver’s part that causes such collisions. You were clearly visible to all who were looking.
Maybe the police thought that
Maybe the police thought that they were just a witness…
Remind me again why this isn
Remind me again why this isn’t just a way to save police doing work? (That could be a good thing of course but since it’s not the case for other types of crime involving injury or fear / trauma it really smacks of “crimes involving cyclists are on a lower tier / don’t really matter much, but we vaguely pretend that’s not the case”)
Remind me again why this isn
Remind me again why this isn’t just a way to save police doing work?
No, the police don’t need any help in not doing work, as they’re already pastmasters. Check both vehicles at Garstang MOT, Insurance and Tax Evasion HQ, at the Old Garstang Police Station. The BMW was first reported over 5 months ago- this house is passed by most police vehicles going to New Garstang Police Station half a mile away, and the vehicles are often parked outside on the road because of the narrow but deep frontage which has to accommodate up to 4 vehicles, coming and going.
More generally, the trunk
More generally, the trunk road problem many cyclists have is that it is not possible to go any significant distance without having to traverse them.
For example the A46 runs east west across Warwickshire and Worcestershire. Near Warwick it is fast dual carriageway and definitely a no go, and even the junctions are not accessible.
Near Stratford (say Snitterfield) there are crossing points but you need to ride several hundred metres along the A46 to hop between turnings either side. Interestingly they just introduced a cycling specific junction at one end of a road that emerges onto the A46, but provide no means of protection on a fast trunk road.
The saving grace is a wide edge marking which gives enough space for an unofficial cycle lane, and wide lanes with drivers who generally use that to give space.
A46
https://maps.app.goo.gl/QgRx9ze6RWHgbhCVA
That road to the right is explicitly engineered for cyclists yet no provision at this end.
Amen brother. One of the
Amen brother. One of the hidden costs / unmentioned consequences of our long-distance high-speed transport systems (including rail also) is that we’ve not just cut through communities and severed access. We’ve made it extra inconvenient to get a short distance to some places *unless* you’ve got a high-speed box. “Just take the A1 and turn off after a mile.” Or walk / cycle along a noisy traffic artery – if there is a thin crumbling line of tarmac to use, often littered with bits of vehicles. But maybe there is an alternative? A “quiet route” (requires travel on a windy B-road with fast cars and poor sight lines) which only takes 6 miles and a 50 meter climb…
Wasn’t that one of the (many)
Wasn’t that one of the (many) criticisms of HS2?
That they had originally said they’d put access tunnels under it or bridges over it, to allow cyclists and local traffic to get across the line, but then they discovered that it would add a cost that they couldn’t claw back in extra fees so decided to forget about it. Meaning that all those local A roads and B roads would simply run up against chainlink fence and stop, with a twenty mile diversion to the next crossing point for a major A road…
(Of course, at the rate they’re going, they’ll be lucky if HS2 makes it as far as the M25…).
I know Exactly the bit you
I know Exactly the bit you mean. I’ve frequently ended up on it from the Southwest side, usually to turn back on myself or ride back up past Charlecote or Moreton Morrell to get up North, instead of risking it. The incongruity of it is also that, on either side of the A46, there are perfectly lovely and quiet lanes that are easy to traverse by bike but, as you say, impossible to access without crossing the A-road.
There is one crossing just
There is one crossing just west of Snitterfield that has a bridge across the road. However, to get to that bit from the south say, you ride through Hatton Rock and have to go down the A439, which paradoxically although just an A road rather than a major trunk route, is worse to cycle along as the narrow road puts you in conflict as you ride the half mile to the next country lane, so using the bridge is no safer. The reverse leaves you grinding up a steep hill to a right turn with imaptient cars wanting to pass.
That being said, with patience, once you have crossed the traffic, cycling down the edge seems to be about as safe as you can get in either direction.
Also I lied about the cycling infrastructure. Turn that Goole Maps link round and you will see what is apparently a shared path which is actually just a re-marked and overgrown unused pavement – had the odd nettling along it. Someway up the road there is an odd warning sign warning of pedestrians crossing but no other obvious infrastructure. Keep going up the road and after several hundred metres, you will see the cycle lane ends at an unmarked crossing point which crosses to a nearly hidden gap in the hedge marked with a rusty pole (I kid you not – TBF the cycle lane marker has fallen off) where you can cut through to an old lane that then joins up to Park Lane. Saner cyclists would simply cycle further on the main road and use the right turn area marked in the centre.
Very lucky. A former work
Very lucky. A former work colleague of mine was killed after being struck by a door mirror at a much lower speed. Direct hit to helmet.
I can hazard a guess. The
I can hazard a guess. The driver was fucking about on their phone.
I was in this race. I’ve
I was in this race. I’ve ridden this course a couple of times plus another couple of DC courses on the A419/A417 a few times too. I’ve always felt relatively safe for the reasons already noted. All have been at quiet times and are well sighted. On the flip side the U44 course, which is a country A road to Cirencester (confusingly the A417 before it takes over the DC!) that runs kinda parallel to the A419 has been hell numerous times. Lots of very aggro drivers pushing past in places dangerous to riders and other motorists.
I rode it the before while I
I rode it the before while I was still of the opinion that I preferred DC courses and it felt absolutely fine. Unfortunately, when a driver isn’t concentrating, it doesn’t matter how ‘safe’ the course is.
I have just rung the
I have just rung the stairlift company in High Wycombe that employed this driver to ask whether he is still employed by them. He is not. They said this was as a direct result of the crash. I said that was the correct decision because this was a very serious crash and could easily have killed the cyclist. The driver would definitely have been aware of what he had done. There would have been marshall’s wearing high vis and signs warning of cyclists. The road was quiet and straight, the cyclist had lights. The driver made no attempt to move into the outside lane and was clearly not looking where he and his two ton weapon were going.
I had my right hip and left ankle smashed (lots of bits) by a delivery van last year. The driver got 5 points, £160 fine and some minimal court costs. He was given extra training by his supermarket employers.
Thanks for sharing hope you
Thanks for sharing hope you’re making a full recovery.
I applaud you contacting the company, makes me wonder where the HSE are with such matters. Perhaps if companies fleets were grounded for a week whilst proper investigations took place then employers would take more responsibility.
Thanks for sharing – this
Thanks for sharing – this wasn’t something I knew.