The latest video in our Near Miss of the Day series shows a common hazard cyclists encounter when riding on the inside of a stationary queue of traffic – when one motorist invites another who is waiting to turn right to carry on, both unaware that there is a cyclist approaching.
It happened on Friday morning as road.cc reader Andy, commuted through the South Side of Glasgow. Luckily, Andy, who was riding in a bus lane, managed to swerve out of the motorist’s way.
“I think the driver was lucky I wasn’t something bigger as he had no hope of seeing anything past the van in the other lane,” he said.
“Not bothered submitting to police, as I’m sure they’ll do nothing apart from maybe phoning the driver,” Andy added.
> 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">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
71 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 274: Turning driver almost hits cyclist riding in bus lane”
Great reactions Andy.
Great reactions Andy.
Nicely avoided, but I think
Nicely avoided, but I think you should submit it to the police anyway. If they do nothing, raise a complaint and thus get it added into their stats. Sooner or later, they’ll have to start doing something with near misses if people keep doing this.
Absolutely report it. They
Absolutely report it. They need the repost in their stats to show there is a problem, even is no further action is taken.
In many cases, even a traffic officer calling and making the point that part of their job is talking to people who’s loved ones are not coming home because of innatentive drivers might be enough to jolt a “normal” driver to take more care.
Sure the boy racers won’t care, but the majority of drivers would take the call and learn from it.
When approaching a junction,
When approaching a junction, on the inside of queing traffic, I tend to go into defensive cycling mode, and almost expect any turning vehicles not to have seen me.
I realise In probably going
I realise I’m probably going to get some blow back from this but what exactly do you think the driver did wrong? They appear to be attempting a completey legitimate right turn across stationary tragic and stopped when they saw the rider on the inside. If anything, the rider needs to exert some caution aproaching junctions like, not just go barrelling through
squidgy wrote:
Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users. Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken, then make the turn. Do not cut the corner. Take great care when turning into a main road; you will need to watch for traffic in both directions and wait for a safe gap.
Remember: Mirrors – Signal – Manoeuvre— Highway Code
There wasn’t a safe gap and the driver had very poor visibility for watching for cyclists.
They shouldn’t be performing a right turn if they cannot be sure that it is safe to do so.
Also:
When turning
keep as close to the left as is safe and practicable
give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction.— Highway Code
hawkinspeter wrote:
Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users. Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken, then make the turn. Do not cut the corner. Take great care when turning into a main road; you will need to watch for traffic in both directions and wait for a safe gap.
Remember: Mirrors – Signal – Manoeuvre— Highway Code
There wasn’t a safe gap and the driver had very poor visibility for watching for cyclists.
They shouldn’t be performing a right turn if they cannot be sure that it is safe to do so.
Also:
When turning
keep as close to the left as is safe and practicable
give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction.— Highway Code— squidgy
I sometimes despair at this attitude many current cyclists have that their own safety is the reposonsibilty of everyone else. I’m not alone here in thinking that the rider contributed greatly to the near miss and should have been aware of the potential danger. The driver stopped in time and there was no collision. In my mind this is just a case of one road user giving way to another.
If we as cyclists are going to mix it with vehicles we have to be prepared for some give and take. There seems too much take and not much give from either party.
Chris boardman is right that we all need to stop this them and us rhetoric and learn to coexist
squidgy wrote:
Seriously?
A vehicle turning right does not have priority and must make sure that it is safe to do so.
A vehicle (e.g. a cyclist) continuing straight along a road does have priority (excepting crossings etc) and should not have to slow/stop at every possible junction that a careless driver may decide to pull into.
Personally, I’m always careful in this kind of scenario as I understand that some drivers don’t understand the rules and how priority is supposed to work, even when it’s clearly laid out in the Highway Code. So, I would use the bus/cycle lane but watch out for turning vehicles.
It’s nothing to do with us/them – you’re getting very confused. If a bus was progressing down a bus lane with a line of stationary traffic on its right, what would you think should happen if a cyclist coming the other direction decided to turn right in front of the bus? Would you blame the bus for not watching out for its own safety? Obviously not.
It astounds me at times that drivers don’t take responsibility for the danger that they pose to other people – seems like they expect everyone else to just move out of their way even when they clearly don’t have priority and are performing a dangerous maneouvre.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Seriously?
A vehicle turning right does not have priority and must make sure that it is safe to do so.
A vehicle (e.g. a cyclist) continuing straight along a road does have priority (excepting crossings etc) and should not have to slow/stop at every possible junction that a careless driver may decide to pull into.
Personally, I’m always careful in this kind of scenario as I understand that some drivers don’t understand the rules and how priority is supposed to work, even when it’s clearly laid out in the Highway Code. So, I would use the bus/cycle lane but watch out for turning vehicles.
It’s nothing to do with us/them – you’re getting very confused. If a bus was progressing down a bus lane with a line of stationary traffic on its right, what would you think should happen if a cyclist coming the other direction decided to turn right in front of the bus? Would you blame the bus for not watching out for its own safety? Obviously not.— squidgy
Squidgy…. I’m with you on this, watch the video again, you can clearly see from 50m out that there is car waiting to turn, you can see it edging into the gap, the cyclist was not paying any attention to the traffic conditions and what “could” happen, at the end of the day it is up to the car driver to ensure it is safe, but the cyclist isn’t doing enough either, in reality there isn’t a car driver out there that wouldn’t make that turn, we can argue all day long they shouldn’t do it, but as a cyclist I prefer to ride with care on the basis that it makes no difference what the law says, I assume the car driver will do what they consider to be OK, after all my family saying… I was in the right when I am dead doesn’t really help them, we can all go high and mighty on this one, but for me, this one was perfectly avoidable if the cyclist was actaully watching the road, there are plenty of others whereby the cyclist could do nothing, this isn’t one of them.
hawkinspeter… clearly I don’t disagree with the highway code, but you have to realise that no matter how much we cry and scream about the car driver not following the HC there is a standard which falls short, instead of just laying blame to every car driver, we sometimes need to look at how we can avoid the situation, like I said, makes no difference who was to blame if you are dead, when looking up meant you are not.
bigbiker101 wrote:
So, if a bus was travelling along the bus lane where the cyclist was, would you expect the bus to stop to allow the right turning car or would the bus come to the conclusion that though the car would like to turn right, it has to wait for the bus to go first?
As a cyclist, I can anticipate right turning cars at every single road junction, every single empty drive and also anywhere that a car could possibly park. Sometimes, you have to forgo some caution for actually travelling at a suitable speed and that entails relying on drivers not doing dangerous right turns.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Seriously?
A vehicle turning right does not have priority and must make sure that it is safe to do so.
A vehicle (e.g. a cyclist) continuing straight along a road does have priority (excepting crossings etc) and should not have to slow/stop at every possible junction that a careless driver may decide to pull into.
Personally, I’m always careful in this kind of scenario as I understand that some drivers don’t understand the rules and how priority is supposed to work, even when it’s clearly laid out in the Highway Code. So, I would use the bus/cycle lane but watch out for turning vehicles.
It’s nothing to do with us/them – you’re getting very confused. If a bus was progressing down a bus lane with a line of stationary traffic on its right, what would you think should happen if a cyclist coming the other direction decided to turn right in front of the bus? Would you blame the bus for not watching out for its own safety? Obviously not.— squidgy
Yes, seriously. The driver may have been a bit fast starting their manoeuvre but evidently were paying enough attention to spot the rider appear from the blind side of the van. Why compare a massive bus to a cyclist. That achieves nothing. Any confusion is in the attitudes of the cycling revolutionaries that seem all too ready to give their 2 peneth about the highway code and what drivers are required to do with little or no regard for rider personal safety. I’m all for calling out dangerous close passes and near misses, but this one dosnt register on the radar.
squidgy wrote:
Seriously?
A vehicle turning right does not have priority and must make sure that it is safe to do so.
A vehicle (e.g. a cyclist) continuing straight along a road does have priority (excepting crossings etc) and should not have to slow/stop at every possible junction that a careless driver may decide to pull into.
Personally, I’m always careful in this kind of scenario as I understand that some drivers don’t understand the rules and how priority is supposed to work, even when it’s clearly laid out in the Highway Code. So, I would use the bus/cycle lane but watch out for turning vehicles.
It’s nothing to do with us/them – you’re getting very confused. If a bus was progressing down a bus lane with a line of stationary traffic on its right, what would you think should happen if a cyclist coming the other direction decided to turn right in front of the bus? Would you blame the bus for not watching out for its own safety? Obviously not.
— hawkinspeter Yes, seriously. The driver may have been a bit fast starting their manoeuvre but evidently were paying enough attention to spot the rider appear from the blind side of the van. Why compare a massive bus to a cyclist. That achieves nothing. Any confusion is in the attitudes of the cycling revolutionaries that seem all too ready to give their 2 peneth about the highway code and what drivers are required to do with little or no regard for rider personal safety. I’m all for calling out dangerous close passes and near misses, but this one dosnt register on the radar.— squidgy
hawkinspeter wrote:
I have been a cyclist for 30 years and intend to carry on being one. Riding like a dick and and shitting myself when a predictable incident occurs isn’t something I’ve done for many a year. Experience counts for much and i learnt a lot commuting into London in previous years. Fortunately I don’t have to deal the those hazards any more and my commute is mostly in country lanes, not without their own hazards particularly in darker months. My safety is my priority and not anyone else’s. Ive found it works quite well.
squidgy wrote:
I’m still curious what your opinion would be if a taxi was proceeding along the lane where the cyclist was and the right-turning car performed exactly the same maneouvre. Care to enlighten me?
hawkinspeter wrote:
I’m still curious what your opinion would be if a taxi was proceeding along the lane where the cyclist was and the right-turning car performed exactly the same maneouvre. Care to enlighten me?
— squidgyNo way in the world would a taxi driver drift into a dangerous situation like that.They’ve had too much experience.If a collision had occurred the turning driver would be liable,of course.Up to that point it’s up to both drivers to drive with due care and attention.
Argus Tuft wrote:
I take it you have never been in a taxi nor ever seen one.
hirsute wrote:
Not in the UK,I’m sorry to say!
Argus Tuft wrote:
I’d like to meet one of your taxi drivers, they seem nice.
In my experience, the Taxi driver would be going more than 24mph, using a GPS device stuck to their windscreen and also sending texts on their phone hidden down the right hand side of their seat.
[quote=hawkinspeter]
[quote=Argus T— hawkinspeterI’d like to meet one of your taxi drivers, they seem nice./
We’ve evolved a unique transport system on the Southern Moreton Bay Islands.
There are no Vehicle Inspection Facilities,it’s an honour system,basically.Ex mainland vehicles are virtually free.Registration is half the normal fee.Inter-Island passenger transport is free.If you’re a bit short and need to get to the mainland just turn up at at the vehicle barge and ask a car driver if you can be their “passenger”.Even though cars are cheap,bikes are everywhere.Homebrew Ebikes are popular.A mate of mine has a mid drive and a hubmotor on the same bike.The Police use discretion wisely.
A local would never drive past anyone who looks like they’d like a lift.It’s somewhere between Communism and Anarchy,and it works perfectly.
We have taxis,but not as you know them.They’re superannuated 12 seater Maxitaxis and more or less meet the ferries,picking up other passengers as required. The fare structure couldn’t be simpler-$5 up to 5 ks radius,$10 everywhere else.If you’re off for a night out at the RSL or the bowls club (there’s nowhere else) you’re picked up and taken home gratis.
It’s cycling heaven-a mix of sealed roads and miles of gravel backroads through the bush,with firetrails and some difficult sections for the adventurous.In most Australian states,riding on the footpath (pavement) is permitted and it seems to work ok.
Sorry to go off topic,but you did mention taxis!
Argus Tuft wrote:
That sounds lovely and quite at odds with a lot of Australian states’ attitudes to cyclists (and tailgating being a past-time).
I’ve eaten some Moreton Bay Bugs when I was visiting a friend in Brisbane – very tasty!
hawkinspeter wrote:
As an Islander,I often despair of Australians myself 😉
squidgy wrote:
No they weren’t paying more attention, otherwise they’d have proceeded with more caution. They’ve pulled up to the van, decided their 10 seconds is more important than someone’s life, tried to accelerate across a junction and then been fortunate that their brakes exceed their driving ability.
Really? So no incident could ever happen to you. What about a horse bolting from a field, scaffolding falling from a building, a drunk driver smashing into you from behind? All your fault?
squidgy wrote:
Undue care and attention for one, couldn’t see into the inside lane clearly and made no attempt to edge out slowly and simlly maintained their speed In the turn.
Define “barrelling through”? You mean travelling at a moderate speed (hence being able to avoid) and expecting another road user to show caution when turning across a lane with limited vision!
This would fail you on a bog std driving test all day long, suggest you get some proper training before driving on the road again.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Undue care and attention for one, couldn’t see into the inside lane clearly and made no attempt to edge out slowly and simlly maintained their speed In the turn.
Define “barrelling through”? You mean travelling at a moderate speed (hence being able to avoid) and expecting another road user to show caution when turning across a lane with limited vision!
This would fail you on a bog std driving test all day long, suggest you get some proper training before driving on the road again.— squidgy
I’ll define barrelling through as not moderating speed when approaching a potentially hazardardous situation., something that should be obvious to even the less experienced rider. Given the junction ahead and the stationary traffic i wouldn’t call their speed moderate.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Undue care and attention for one, couldn’t see into the inside lane clearly and made no attempt to edge out slowly and simlly maintained their speed In the turn.
Define “barrelling through”? You mean travelling at a moderate speed (hence being able to avoid) and expecting another road user to show caution when turning across a lane with limited vision!
This would fail you on a bog std driving test all day long, suggest you get some proper training before driving on the road again.— squidgy
Evidently they were paying attention, far more than the rider
squidgy wrote:
I think the driver was going slightly too fast and too advantage of the red car making the turn thereby thinking it was safe.
However, I would have been going a bit slower on my bike as it is clearly an upcoming hazard.
I’ll add I’ve avoided a few collisions in my car simply by slowing down at hazardous points eg yesterday, someone came round the bend partly on the wrongside, but at least I was able to stop.
Had this happen to me this
Deleted.
Totally agree with Squidgy
Totally agree with Squidgy here. There was no way the turning driver could have seen the cyclist, and when he did he hit the anchors. I saw no attenpt by rider to show care and attention at an obviously dangerous junction.
… should add that
… should add that personally if at all possible I would ride down the right hand side of the line of traffic to avoid just this sort of thing….
MarkiMark wrote:
Although I have discovered a few times, that does not stop some drivers turning right out of a side road through a gap in traffic. I’m a bit more cautious at those situations now.
I’m siding 52/48 with the
I’m siding 52/48 with the rider and I predict this tread with continue for well over 3 years without satisfactory resolution
Basically expect drivers to do something stupid/careless where ever they have the oppotunity, being right is no help to a deadman
So this is my video. To
So this is my video. To answer a few points, I did eventually decide to report it to the police, meeting them tomorrow morning so will see what they say. I decided it was worth it just for the education of the driver if nothing else. While they might have realised they were in the wrong and have vowed to be more careful in future, there’s also a good chance they put it down to bloody cyclists appearing out of nowhere.
According to Strava I was travelling at about 24 mph here, so admittedly reasonably speedy but definitely not speeding. Keeping pace with the rest of the traffic I’d call it.
My issue with the driver’s behaviour is the speed they turned at, he/she had no view into my lane due to the van in the other lane.
Someone mentioned you can see the car waiting to turn. You can just about see the top of it over the other cars, but this camera is on top of my helmet so is probably 20cm higher than my eyes, so I couldn’t see it.
I should say I’m not annoyed at the driver endangering a cyclist, I’m annoyed at the driver accelerating across a lane of traffic he can’t see. If I’d been in my car and that had happened I’d be just as annoyed.
I’m not going to slow down at every side street just incase someone does something stupid, apart from anything else everyone behind me would probably be very pissed off. Normally I do make sure to ease off if I see someone looking like they might be about to pull out in front of me, get ready to brake etc, but in this case I had no idea that car was there until he pulled out. I find slowing down ahead of junctions is seen as an invitation for someone to pull out in front of me and cause me to slow down even more.
jacko645 wrote:
That’s pretty quick and the rest of the traffic was hardly moving.
It’s not really the equivalent to slowing down at every side street as isn’t not the same visibility for either party. I’d have clocked that particluar bit as a hazard and slowed a bit more. But as I said above the driver should have not moved at the speed he did or assumed it was ok because the red car pulled out.
I guess as cyclist’s losing speed is annoying but I find my self now slowing down more for hazards regardless of the mode of transport, although picking up speed in a car is trivial.
I think the factor that makes
I think the factor that makes this just that little bit different from when we normally see this kind of situation is THE VAN that the car is turning in front of. Even small vans are 6 inches or so taller than most cars and (you may have noticed) they don’t have windows you can see through. I used to drive a wee VW Caddy van and I was very aware of how much less visibility I had and it is the same dfor other road users in the vicinity.
The turning car should have been more aware that his visibility was resticted and proceeded with caution (some may argue he did since he didn’t have a collision).
With the benifit of hindsight and Jacko’s camera I would suggest that Jacko could also have checked his pace a little when an important piece of road was not visible.
Lesson for me in the future is how I will view this film, and try and avoid this happening to me
A couple of years ago I was
A couple of years ago I was riding to work in the bus lane on Chiswick High Street. There was stationary traffic to my right and I was slowing down as there was a red light ahead. A Corsa cut across the stationary traffic and the bus lane to turn into a side road and I ended up flying into its windscreen.
Bike was a write-off, car was very damaged but amazingly I got away with some minor cuts and a small scar just below my eye. Full liability from the driver and all my kit (which had been cut off at hospital), glasses, helmet and bike were paid for by his insurance.
My point I guess is that I had no way of seeing him, or stopping in time despite the fact that I was slowing down anyway. Sometimes, sh*t happens.
As a retired Driving Examiner
As a retired Driving Examiner I’d call this one 50/50. Cyclist makes rookie mistake.
“Fail to notice potential hazard” . The driver should have checked the other lane was clear.Both would have failed a test.(I know there’s no cycling test). Rightly or wrongly I’d expect better from a cyclist as they’ve the most to lose.
I see this most days whilst
I see this most days whilst cycling to and from work. I would say that, in my opinion, whilst the standard of driving is shit, partly down to modern cars being so comfortable and easy to drive that they almost drive themselves, and more so, the lack of traffic officers, who were everywhere when I learnt to drive. Another factor is mobile phone use. Tests show that even if a driver has made a call or sent a text before getting behind the wheel, for a few minutes after they are not concentrating fully. Everyone seems to be in a rush these days, whilst not paying attention to their surroundings, not just behind the wheel. How many times have you walked down the street and have to sidestep people walking along staring at their phones? Finally, equal blame has to go to the rider. Travelling at 24mph down the inside of stationary traffic is a bit reckless, whilst you have the right of way, it means jack shit when you’re laid up in hospital for months, safe in the knowledge that you had right of way. The rider should have been aware of the approaching junction, and anticipated what may happen. Far better to overtake on the outside, something I always do in traffic. Six of one and half a dozen of the other, in my opinion. If the police have a word with the driver, they should also give words of advice to the rider.
The driver was going
The driver was going sufficiently slowly to be able to stop when they saw the cyclist, who didn’t need to deviate from his line and didn’t need to shout as though he’d just taken a baton round in the bollocks either, really.
2/10
This is so predictable it
This is so predictable it doesn’t even need a “near miss of the day” tagline to tell you what is about to occur.
A genuinely useful instructional video for all road users.
I see this situation
I see this situation regularly. The when I’m riding down the inside of a queue like this, i ease off and cover the brakes at junctions. Especially where there’s a gap in the queue. It flags to me that exactly this is about to happen – driver waving car across not realising that I am coming down the inside.
So 50/50 – sometimes sh*t happens. And car stopped when he saw the cyclist.
I am surprised at some of the
I am surprised at some of the comments here. For me, the fault is fully with the driver. After 40 years’ cycling in cities, I advocate extra caution and a slower speed at junctions like these – to preserve life and limb, rather than for compliance with the Highway Code.
lesterama wrote:
What is the driver’s fault? Nothing happened!
srchar wrote:
I suppose we could argue that drink driving, driving at 80mph etc. is fine if nobody gets hurt… Nothing happened!
alansmurphy wrote:
i was very close-passed at speed by a motorbiker last week. When I caught up with him at the next lights (!) I expressed my disappointment, and his sole line of defence, repeated aggressively many times, was “Did I hit you? Did I hit you?”.
ConcordeCX wrote:
And what’s that got to do with this? Being close-passed is nothing like the scenario presented in the video.
srchar wrote:
I tend to agree, but both are near misses and I was trying to work out why I get furious with (and report) close passes, but wouldn’t consider reporting this one even though the outcome is the same (i.e. no injury). I guess it’s because had this been me, after the initial shock, I think I would have been a bit annoyed at myself for not anticipating it and riding more defensively. That’s not a criticism of the rider, I’ve had similar near misses and have learnt the lesson, and I’m not suggesting you can anticipate every incident that might happen. That’s also not to say the driver couldn’t and shouldn’t also have approached the turn more cautiously, but ultimately they did manage to stop and avoid a collision, so the police response (no offence, but have a friendly word) seems proportionate. Hopefully the driver too will have had a “that was close” moment and learnt to be more careful in future, even before police intervention. With a close pass though (1) you are totally at the mercy of whoever’s coming up behind – there’s very little you can do to mitigate the risk; and (2) the passing driver will usually have had plenty of time to see you, and has still decided, intentionally or carelessly, to pass too close.
quiff wrote:
This was exactly what I was getting at and perhaps should have explained; even when the road layout and traffic conditions mean that I move into primary position to prevent an unsafe pass, I still get close-passed, and it is almost by definition a deliberate decision made by the driver behind that their perceived* time is more important than my safety.
* – because you almost always catch them at the next traffic lights/junction/bus stop/tailback.
srchar wrote:
they’re both trying to justify / excuse themselves by claiming that because they didn’t hit anybody they did nothing wrong.
It’s what I believe is called ‘no harm, no foul’, which may be all very well in American football, but doesn’t really work in the rest of existence.
srchar wrote:
I don’t think you’ve quite grasped the concept of ‘near miss’.
I’d explain it to you, but I don’t have enough crayons to hand.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Maybe you could explain it using a tedious picture of a squirrel?
srchar wrote:
.
I get what people are saying
I get what people are saying about coming down the inside of traffic too fast, and honestly I probably will take it a bit slower down this section in future, but the important difference here is that this is a bus lane, explicitly so that you can go faster than the traffic in the outside lane. I can assure you buses and taxis will be going much faster than I was down here. As someone else pointed out, the bus lane markings disappear through the junction so perhaps better markings to make it obvious it’s still two lanes would have helped avoid this.
Yes the driver stopped in time to not hit me, but would they have stopped in time to not hit a taxi/minibus/actual bus? I’m not sure they would. That’s my issue with them.
jacko645 wrote:
i was knocked off my bike in similar circumstances a few years ago. The driver was at fault, was prosecuted, and I was given the choice of having him fined+points, or sent to a Maoist re-education centre. I chose the latter since I figured it might do someone else a favour.
I’m a bit more careful now in these situations , which is not surprising, but it does surprise me how often they arise and how often it’s because the driver in my carriageway has waved them through. I now never wave anyone through, whether i’m driving or cycling as the other person seems to take it as absolving them from checking – eg pedestrian walks across without looking, driver turns right without checking. Similarly, if someone waves me through I don’t take their word that it’s clear.
Apportioning blame is the
Apportioning blame is the responsibility of coroners and inquests. Avoiding collisions in the first place is the job of all road users.
Your video high-lights a common scenario and that junctions are dangerous places where extra care is required. I hope a lot of people get to see it on youtube etc.
Is it at all relevant that
Is it at all relevant that the bus lane isn’t marked across the junction? The cyclist wasn’t in a bus lane when the incident occurred. Near miss, certainly. Driver totally at fault, not so sure. After all the driver made a major contribution by driving at a speed that allowed him/her to stop. Is riding into a blind spot at that speed “wanton”, who knows.
I met the police this morning
I met the police this morning and showed them the video. They agreed I’d done nothing wrong but weren’t sure it constituted careless driving so will just phone the driver to make them aware that they need to be more careful in future and emphasize that it was not my fault. Pretty much what I expected really.
Blimey two pages for this vid
Blimey two pages for this vid! Slow news week.
Not that my penneth be worth much, but I reckon this is a bit of a non story.. rider was doing 24mph on the inside lane (too fast) can see the car the car wing at what appears to be two and a half car lengths (e.g 40feet).
From the driver’s viewpoint, they was turning slowly and could not see the cyclist until about 25feet. I’m sure someone could do some maths here, but to me the driver had about 1.5seconds to react, which they did by stopping.
All I take from this video is that city cycling is dangerous, but we knew that already right, cause there’s just ‘more’ in a city.
Now where’s that squirrel, I think he’s nabbed my almonds.
This isn’t helpful. The
This isn’t helpful. The cyclist in that situation simply cannot expect a driver to see him/her. You need to know when to exercise extreme caution, especially when in traffic like that. There’s absolutely no need at all to be cycling at that speed when overtaking a long line of cars on the inside and there’s absloutely nothing to report to the police except one’s own lack of judgement and road awareness. This is a good example of a video that actually confirms the GCN point of view about the ‘near miss of the day’ feature.
I can’t see that as being the
I can’t see that as being the drivers fault. I ride in London daily – 16,000km a year. Those places where traffic splits when halted to allow cars to turn in are high risk areas – once you get to know your roads you watch for them carefully. You got to slow down, be cautious and be super observant.
I can’t see that as being the
I can’t see that as being the drivers fault. I ride in London daily – 16,000km a year. Those places where traffic splits when halted to allow cars to turn in are high risk areas – once you get to know your roads you watch for them carefully. You got to slow down, be cautious and be super observant.
JWL wrote:
I agree with being cautious around high risk areas, but I don’t see that the cyclist caused any danger to other road users. As far as I can tell, the motorist didn’t follow Highway Code Rules 180 and 183. Which rules do you think the cyclist wasn’t following?
hawkinspeter wrote:
180 is marginal and 183 doesn’t apply as the bus lane didn’t cross the junction.
How about rules 65, 68(!), 162, and 163? Trouble is we all know the Highway Code contains what amounts to conflicting information in places (e.g. rules around pedestrian crossings). So bandying them around doesn’t really help.
Anyhoo, plod says he (the cyclist) did nothing wrong but you can bet he won’t be doing 24mph there again anytime soon.
Panslanepaul wrote:
Huh? I’m having trouble seeing how the cyclist wasn’t following those rules. Rule 65 is about cycling in a bus lane, Rule 68 doesn’t seem applicable unless the cyclist was on drugs. Rule 162 is about starting to overtake, and Rule 163 concerns overtaking too.
Did you just make up random rule numbers in the hope that no-one would look them up?
You can argue about the cyclist travelling too quickly for your liking, but at the end of the day, there’s always a trade-off between speed and safety. He could stop in the distance that he could see to be clear and so I think he wasn’t going too quickly for the conditions.
It was the car turning right without sufficient visibilty to do so safely that created the dangerous situation and put the cyclist at risk of a collision.
The cyclist has stated that he’ll probably not go so fast there in future which I think is a wise choice. I personally don’t go as quick as I can down either side of stationary traffic as you never know when a motorist will make a badly judged maneouvre. (Also, take-aways and schools at certain times can be very dangerous for unpredictable motorists).
hawkinspeter wrote:
Did I make them up? No, perhaps you should re-read them:
Extract from Rule 65 “Be very careful when overtaking a bus or leaving a bus lane as you will be entering a busier traffic flow.” This guy left a bus lane when he entered the junction.
Extract from Rule 68 You must not “ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner” arguably careless but maybe not, hence the bracketted exclamation mark.
As for rules 162 and 163, as you correctly say they concern overtaking, which is what this guy was doing.
Hope this clarifies things. I see you later agree that a 70/30 split of liability when filtering is ok. So perhaps we agree after all.
Panslanepaul wrote:
Rule 65 doesn’t seem applicable as when he left the bus lane, the lane ahead of him was clear i.e. no traffic flow. A right-turning vehicle is not considered part of the traffic flow.
I don’t think Rule 68 applies as he wasn’t careless – he had an empty lane ahead of him.
Rule 162 isn’t applicable as the road ahead of him was clear and I don’t consider that he was overtaking. I do concede that it could be argued that he was overtaking (undertaking) the stationary lane on his right, but I don’t believe that is the scenario that the rule is intended to apply to.
Rule 163 actually exonerates the cyclist with “stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left”, though again, I believe that section is more relevant to cars than bicycles (despite all vehicles having to follow the same rules).
If the cyclist were filtering, then I’d fully expect them to go slower and concede priority to other vehicles were applicable. Using a bus lane does not affect your priority to continue along a clear section of road, so in this instant, I believe it’s 100% the fault of the driver.
Luckily as no collision happened, this is more of a learning exercise. Hopefully the driver will take more care in future and the cyclist can also be wary of similar situations.
hawkinspeter wrote:
The only thing I would add to this is that the driver needs to learn from this too – and as this video has been submitted to the police, I believe they have some duty to ensure that this happens. If the motorist cannot see whether it is safe to proceed, and waiting will not change this situation, then the only option is to edge out carefully untill they can see better – anything else is careless driving at the very least (except perhaps reversing back and making a turn at a safer location).
What shocks me the most is
What shocks me the most is that there are cyclists posting here who would not use a wonderfully empty and wide bus lane just because there was some traffic in the rest of the road.
A badly laid out cycle lane (glorified paint) I might understand a bit, but a 4 metre wide bus lane?
And you do have to get a bit of a wriggle on in a bus lane, otherwise you often get agressive bus and taxi drivers up your arse and worse, ones who then badly overtake.
Sounds like a lovely island by the way, Argus. But I’m guessing you might have to worry a little more about the UV, Australia’s legendary killer creatures and it’s dive bombing magpies. Though, given the choice…
ktache wrote:
I was thinking yesterday, what is the point of a typical cycle lane. They are generally too narrow to allow a car driver to pass at a safe distance, without veering from their path. So presumably cycle lanes exist to make filtering easier and safer – which is the same reason bus lanes exist – this is also part of the design of an ASL – ASLs should have a cycle lane that extends to the end of where the queue of traffic usually starts (the idea is that cyclists should be able to filter through traffic to enter the ASL).
Case law – can’t remember the
Case law – can’t remember the name of the case, but if memory serves involved a filtering motorcyclist going past a gap, and a car driver turning through a gap in stationary traffic – was 70/30 against the car driver.
The reasoning being the car driver bore the majority of liability as turning into the path of a proceeding road user, but the motorcyclist would reasonably have been expected to observe the gap, and be aware of the possibility of a vehicle turning through the gap. Anyone remember the name of the case / confirm?
Argos74 wrote:
Sorry, haven’t heard about that case.
It sounds slightly different as it involves filtering which is “sharing” a lane with stationary traffic rather than being in your own (bus) lane. You’re expected to take extra care when filtering, so a 70/30 split sounds fair enough to me.
Meanwhile, a week later, and
Meanwhile, a week later, and 200m further on, a young woman is crushed to death in a left hook by a lorry. No idea who is to blame, but this isn’t just idle debate. We need better infrastructure and we need it now.