A cyclist who changed the way he approached a roundabout in Gloucestershire after receiving two close passes, has said “I can’t believe I wasn’t hit” when the driver of a SsangYong Rexton SUV subsequently made a very close pass on him at the same location in Bishop’s Cleeve, just north of Cheltenham in Gloucestershire.
Richard, the road.cc reader who submitted the footage, told us just as with the two previous incidents, no action was taken against the motorists involved other than a warning letter being sent to one driver, and also gave us some more detailed background of his experience of dealing with police when sending them videos of close passes.
“After a year of hearing nothing from my OpSnap reports to Gloucestershire Constabulary I’ve started asking for the outcomes of my reports after a year has elapsed,” he said. “After a short delay and chasing up for the first one I’ve been getting speedy responses to my requests.
“From January to March 2023 I’ve had warning letters and one points and fine. That was the first one I’ve had since my first report in August 2020.
“I’ve recently had the results for April and all 3 were NFA [No Further Action]. One of them was a close pass at the roundabout which featured in NMOTDs 674 and 848 so I thought I’d send it in to show how things are progressing in Gloucestershire.
https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-674-driver-inconveniences-cyclist-288521
https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-848-299017
“After the first two I’ve been taking the centre gap in the traffic calming humps before the roundabout,” Richard continued. “It has mostly worked but not this time.
“In my submission I mentioned Highway Code Rule 153, allow cyclists to pass through traffic calming and don’t overtake in traffic calming areas. I mentioned not overtaking before a junction and not overtaking at roundabouts if turning left. I also mentioned the fact the oncoming car had to pull in and stop. I also mentioned I was very frightened. It turns out all these fell on deaf ears.
“Any way, I’d value your readers’ opinions of the value of taking the central gap at this point in the road. As I said it’s worked well apart from this one.
“Having not viewed the video for a while, I can’t believe I wasn’t hit. It certainly felt very, very close at the time.
Richard added: “I’ve attached a graph which shows outcomes of reports to OpSnap in Gloucestershire for 2023. You will note a sharp rise in NFA from March 23 to April 23 when this occurred.”
> 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
106 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 902: “I can’t believe I wasn’t hit””
The driver shouldn’t have
The driver shouldn’t have passed with the junction coming up. The cyclist shouldn’t go into the middle of the road without a shoulder check. I also don’t understand why they didn’t go to the leftside of the speed bump. Far less risky.
There could have been a pot
There could have been a pot hole you couldn’t see, or as is often the case the edge of the hump is so close to the kerb side that it’s safer to pass through the middle. Also, how do you know he didn’t shoulder check? Maybe he did and the vehicle was travelling too fast to change course? Either way, the driver was in the wrong and caused that situation.
Given both cameras are
Given both cameras are mounted on the bike, not the rider, you have absolutely no way of knowing whether the rider shoulder checked or not.
As for passing to the left of the speed bump being safer, that leaves you no room for manoeuvre as it places you firmly against the kerb, it also invites drivers to pass and to assume you are turning left at the roundabout based on your road positioning and to left hook you. Personally I would have moved out a bit earlier and signalled right to make my intention 100% clear if I were going straight across that mini roundabout.
because youd like to think if
because youd like to think if youve shoulder checked and saw a vehicle like that whose commited to the overtake fairly early on, you wouldnt then keep moving towards it, thats where the danger is, plus knowing the vehicle must then cut back across you quickly to make the roundabout, thats why it feels like theres no shoulder check.
also hard to tell from the video, but those speed bumps dont look unrideable, the bumping of the cars passing over them seems more to do with the speed they hit, than the height of them.
Id keep in prime, just ride the bump, the centre line isnt a good spot to be in even without the overtake.
I can see your argument but
I can see your argument but unless I am familiar with the speed bumps or left absolutely no choice by traffic then I won’t risk “riding” them as they vary in dimensions and quality of construction so much. I have ridden over a few and regretted it in my time when they turned out to be more like a kerb than a gentle speed cushion. The layout of the road gives cyclists 3 not ideal options – ride in the gutter and pass to left of the speed bump, ride over a speed bump or ride in the middle and pass between the two humps.
That was my thinking. I
That was my thinking. I assumed a shoulder check hadn’t been done because it’s too risky to go into that position with a car closing in behind. If they did do one early enough to not see what was happening, it’d have to be 5 seconds before they got to the part of the road they’d done the check for, which in my opinion is too long to know it’s still clear.
Agree I move out well in
Agree I move out well in advance of a roundabout or if I am turning right. I run 2 cameras, one bar mounted, other helmet. Mainly to prove I have indicated and shoulder checked because the police need little excuse to NFA anything. I pretty much take the lane anyway or ride an aggressive secondary position.
If you actually read the
If you actually read the article you’ll see exactly why he didn’t go to the left of the speed bump. When he did, he got close passed by other drivers (links to other NMOTDs are in the article). Perhaps the problem isn’t the cyclist’s positioning, and is in fact all down to aggressive and impatient drivers.
Can’t see if he makes a
Can’t see if he makes a lifesaver or if mirror is fitted. The area to the left of the bump is too narrow and could have poor surface or glass and that position would still encourage the motorist to pass closer to avoid the oncoming vehicle as they would have continued due to their lane being clear. Personally I also would have gone to the right. All in all. Shoddy road craft from the motorist. Passing within traffic calming measures, passing closely, forcing another road user to take evasive action, passing too closely to a junction.
The SsangYong Rexton is 1
The SsangYong Rexton is 1.995m wide. Looking at the video, it looks to me as if the driver was intending to give Richard at least the recommend 1.5m clcearance by going all the way into the opposite lane. It only became a close pass because Richard made it a close pass by moving into the middlde of the road.
FrankH wrote:
It became a close pass when the driver made the decision to continue an overtake maneouvre even though they no longer had enough space to do so safely.
There is always the option to
There is always the option to brake…
ktache wrote:
That’s a new one on me, they fit brakes to cars now do they?
for me the drivers intent was
for me the drivers intent was to straddle the speed cushion, rather than hit both square on, that it gives the cyclist, assuming they then dont move in their lane, reasonable amount of space is kind of just coincidence.
stonojnr wrote:
Whatever the driver’s motivation, the result is that he was giving the cyclist 1.5m (probably more) so if the cyclist maintained his position there would not have been a close pass. Yes, the driver could have braked. Yes, it was a poorly chosen place to overtake. But the close pass happened because the cyclist didn’t maintain his posistion.
What about rule 153 as
What about rule 153 as mentioned in the article? It’s one of the most clearly worded rules in the HC. The cyclist had every right not to expect an overtake at that point. Add to this the fact that the driver is overtaking in to oncoming traffic, which actually had to stop to avoid being hit. I would be reporting this as careless and inconsiderate driving and expect action to be taken.
Just because drivers don’t know about rule 153 doesn’t mean that the police should also ignore it.
maybe so, but its clumsy as
maybe so, but its clumsy as hell bit of driving, an oncoming car literally has to stop to enable them to complete their overtake without causing another crash, and the outcome of all that for them is they turned left at the roundabout anyway.
had they waited just for another 10secs to see how the situation in front of them had developed, it would have saved everyone the bother of having to deal with them.
Yes, to avoid the speed hump.
Yes, to avoid the speed hump. Nothing to do with taking primary. If a car did this to a bike there would, rightly, be uproar. Don’t dilute the message of cyclists’ rights to be on the road by trying to excuse this self-entitled behaviour.
The driver did do this to a
The driver did do this to a bike, and outside of this website, no fecks appear to be given, let alone an “uproar”.
But it says “When you
But it says “When you approach these features reduce your speed. Allow cyclists and motorcyclists room to pass through them.” Surely the cyclist is entitled to pick their line?
It then goes on “You should not overtake other moving road users while in these areas.” So the driver is NOT entitled to overtake. It really can’t be clearer.
but thats the problem its
but thats the problem its should not, not must not. and drivers will always claim theyre allowed to overtake you.
That’s my point. It’s not the
That’s my point. It’s not the failure to adhere to one ‘should not’ but a series of failures (I’m not going to list them all as they have all been mentioned elsewhere) to comply with the HC that some forces will see as careless and inconsiderate. Also it’s not just about the cyclists. The overtaking driver is also massively inconsiderate of the oncoming driver.
FrankH wrote:
So much driver ignorance, they must have relaxed the driver training qualifications over the last 20yrs. This is a straightforward failure to adhere to rule 153 ‘do not overtake in a traffic calmed area and give time for cyclists to pass through it’. Yet the arrogance of some drivers (yourself included) is that if they decide to overtake, it is the person being overtaken that has responsibility to make it a safe overtake? Yield peasant!! I am coming through wether you like it or not, get out of my way!
Guess the SUV driver had
Guess the SUV driver had mission fixation and didn’t see the on-coming traffic … which had to stop to avoid a head on impact.
More likely a case of “fuck it, I’m doing it”.
Isn’t there rules about over taking in traffic calmed areas, at junctions, where you cant see clearly ahead, and what to do if there is on coming traffic?
If only there was a convenient *guide book* or collection of these rules for road users to *read* …
Nothing to see here, move
Nothing to see here, move along. It wasn’t a cyclist in a pedestrian area so no harm…
Beggars belief, yet again, looks like us cyclists will have to take the law into our own hands in order to get justice.
If reporting a case of poor
If reporting a case of poor driving I suggest checking the MOT and tax status of the vehicle beforehand – in this example both were valid but, if not, the police may be more inclined to consider the matter seriously.
YMMV but when I reported a
YMMV but when I reported a van who close passed me, whose tax and mot had expired, and it was a Sunday so there were no garages open they were driving to, they didnt even got an official warning letter, merely some words of advice from the police.
YMMV … when I reported –
YMMV … when I reported – with HD video – a bottle being thrown out of a car and hitting a ride member in the face, and despite said car having no VED or MOT at the time … the Police were more than happy that the driver “couldn’t remember the incident” and case closed with a clap louder than thunder and faster than lightning.
the Police were more than
the Police were more than happy that the driver “couldn’t remember the incident”
Yes, that sounds like The Filth many of us have to live and die with!
Aye. But that was Polis
Aye. But that was Polis Scotland. They’ve accepted the “cannae mind mr polisman” and made it a precedent.
Jimd wrote:
You can also check if it’s insured but it’s not exactly legal if you aren’t the owner of the car. I always check the tax/MOT to include in a report, it’s especially useful if I’m considering whether I’m going to report or not. If they also don’t have insurance I’ll just suggest it probably isn’t insured given the lack of tax and MOT and hope the police get the hint and check for themselves.
Thank you for the suggestion
Thank you for the suggestion but see NMOTD 630.
https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-630-police-explain-why-punishment-pass-not-prosecuted-286007
I always check TAX and MOT. I mentioned no MOT in that submission and nothing happend in fact someone else videod the same driver, about 6 months later I think it was, and still no MOT.
I’ve had a couple of
I’ve had a couple of arguments with drivers about rule 153. I’m sure we’ve all had overtakes like this as well as drivers overtaking and then break checking because they don’t want to smash their suspension. They are clearly ignorant of it which is no excuse and police should be taking action. However, what about the DVSA, Think!, or even local authorities that put in traffic calming measures?
But … what about them?
But … what about them? They’ve all very limited power to actually change behaviour. In this case especially – because they’re not directly enforcing this – that would appear to be the police.
The DVSA only gets the new learner drivers. And as soon as they’ve passed, they get daily retraining from the existing drivers! It might be able to do more if it was mandated to do re-tests, or “refreshers”. This could be good but looks vanishingly unlikely currently.
I’d say it’s more people “don’t want to know”. And it’s unlikely people will agree they’re wrong when challenged – especially if you did this as a stranger on the road. We all give ourselves a pass because we know we’re at least average drivers.
Possibly some of these ideas conflict with our heuristics for driving (likely the majority won’t remember the exact rules). And / or general culture – which is saying cars are for driving! Get a move on – don’t be slowing down other drivers!”
Recall the efforts to reduce drink driving – has had an effect but it’s taken a generation. With the police fairly heavily involved and the courts taking a dim view. None of those seems to apply here.
Your absolutely correct, of
Your absolutely correct, of course. Even within this thread there are a number of comments that don’t reference the Highway Code and certainly don’t reference rule 153, it is obviously the primary guidance on this road. In the couple of instances I’ve been involved in the driver has stopped to lecture me on road positioning and 1.5m (after I have gesticulated at them). I’ve then invited them to Google rule 153 whilst I wait. They’ve just driven off. I like to think when they got home they did look it up and realise they owe me an apology ??
I like to think when they got
I like to think when they got home they did look it up
Oh no they didn’t!
An impressively smooth
An impressively smooth overtake, timed to perfection. This guy has obviously had a lot of practice.
Sadly.
Sadly.
The driver would have thought
The driver would have thought they were overtaking safely as they gave the cyclist the entire width of the lane (rare a motorist does this). They would have been surprised by the cyclist moving into the centre of the road. I have a number of bumps like this on my commute and often have to brake and take the bump.
On the video here, would it
On the video here, would it make a difference to have pulled out to primary to go throught the speed cushions at the start of the video – say 4-5s earlier?
If the OP is here, do you have a view?
I’m not sure how I’d have handled it, so I’m musing.
Hi, I’m the OP. I think you
Hi, I’m the OP. I think you and Leadenskies have got it. I do now move out a lot earlier. The problem now is if a car leaves the roundabout and is coming towards me on the other side of the road. This nearly always means they meet me at the humps. In this situation I slow down and go over the right hand side of the bump, which is lower than the center, and this allows me to stay on my side of the road with a little room to spare. Most cars go slowly and move over to their left a little but even if they don’t I feel I have enough room for safety.
The main problem here, in my opinion, is the design of these “speed cushions”. They seem designed specifically to endanger cyclists while allowing cars, especially big ones, to drive over them without slowing down. There are a series of them all down the road. One of them is a blind bend with a huge pothole between it and the kerb, I always take this one in the center. There is another which has quite a deep gap on the left with a drain cover in it which means its full of debris. I’ve hit my right pedal on this in the past so I take that central. I quite often get overtaken but if the car is on the other side of the road and if they don’t pull in quickly I can’t really complain too much even if it’s close.
Yes I could go over the bumps but they are quite severe and would require slowing down a lot or risk losing my shopping as it jumps out of my rear basket.
The final point is if drivers obeyed rule 153 (yes it is a rule and therefore should be obeyed) there would be no problem.
Thank-you for the reply. Much
Thank-you for the reply. Much appreciated.
Yes – they seem to force cyclists into either the gutter or the middle of the road (literally), as well as being unuable by eg tricycles as far as I can see.
I admit that road hump design is not a thing I am as up to date with as everything else in LTN1/20 and developments.
Perhaps we need hump … gap … hump … gap … hump, where the gaps are 1m wide at primary point in both directions, spaced so that *no* motor vehicles (except motorbikes and half of 3 wheelers) can avoid the humps?
On a normal 6m carriageway with 3m lanes that might be 0.8m hump, 1m gap, 2.4m hump, 1m gap, 0.8m hump. Slightly adjusted for a 5.5m carriageway.
I’m sure there are pros and cons.
I have watched this several
I have watched this several times and read through the comments. I find that I put myself in the situation, as these (NMOTD) videos often evoke emotions of anger, frustration or even horror. First watch through left me feeling confused, as to what the OP’s thought process was. Now I think I understand.
The driver should not have overtaken here. I believe that is indisputable. But, I also believe a significant contributor here, to the near miss, is the OP’s apparent failure to look before moving out into the road. Given the knowledge of the road and planned manouvre, checking behind beforehand should be second nature and may well have avoided the danger that ensued.
Thank you for your thoughts.
Thank you for your thoughts. I didn’t shoulder check but I do have ears. I knew the car was there, I just couldn’t believe it would continue the overtake. What could I do at that point? I was already in the center of my lane. I could move to the left and pass close to the kerb and that would put me in the same situation as the first two incidents. That means trusting the driver to miss me as I then don’t have the option to move over.
I could have braked, come to a halt, let the car go through, doffed my hat and then continued on my way happy in the knowledge that I had not inconvenienced a dangerous driver in any way.
The problem here was caused by the inability of the driver to understand that a car could appear in the oncoming lane at any time as it left the roundabout. That’s why the highway code tells drivers they should not overtake at or approaching junctions.
If the oncoming car hadn’t stopped things would have been a lot worse and it must have been worrying for that driver as well as me. That’s another reason I was extremely disappointed that no action was taken against this driver.
Neil MG wrote:
You have no idea if they looked or didnt look. A car moving at 30mph or more would have covered the distance between being behind the cyclist and in the same lane, to being beside the cyclist and in the oncoming lane within just 2 seconds. The cyclist is about to negotiate a road obstacle, so will be looking at that and not expecting some fuckwit to overtake them on a speed bump.
Totally this. One of my near
Totally this. One of my near miss submissions illustrated this. Shoulder check – motorist entering filter lane thinking the vehicle in front was passing me but I knew was turning as I’d seen the wee flashy thing. ONE MISSISSIPPI; same motorist realises his mistake, swerves, accelerates hard and squeezes between me and a traffic island folding his mirror in for his effort.
In order to reinforce rule
In order to reinforce rule 153, maybe there ought to be double solid lines in the affected section…?
That is how Darwin awards are
That is how Darwin awards are won. The cyclist moves towards the center of the road, not even his lane.
I know the law stuff, of course there is poor driving for many reasons, but there must be some common sense too. Be prepared to face reality when riding, not what the law dictates, unless you fantasize of becoming a martyr.
WOW. Victim blaming at its
WOW. Victim blaming at its finest.
cyclisto wrote:
There are only two lanes in this road. The cyclist did not swap lanes, the driver did. The driver overtook on a speed bump, in the oncoming lane, with a car coming towards them in that lane. As you say, there must be some common sense and neither you or that driver seem to have any of it.
I am not the one grumbling
I am not the one grumbling about being close passed.
I try to stay safe on the road, and while as I said there was very bad driving, there was also bad riding too. I think not many truck drivers will be at this site, so let’s try preventing bicycle riders from doing things that can be similarly dangerous.
cyclisto wrote:
There was no bad cycling at all, and the cyclist didn’t do anything dangerous. Unless you think that just being on a bike is dangerous?
cyclisto wrote:
BIB … whats truck driving got to do with this.
and yes plenty of truck drivers ride bikes. Some of us carry the bikes behind our cabs or in the load space so we can go for a ride when the working day is over.
By “truck”, I mean real trucks, not thoes pissing little pick-up things that the Americans like to call ‘trucks’.
The Rexton driver moves to
The Rexton driver moves to overtake completely onto the wrong side of the road because he or she knows they can clear the speed bump without slowing despite the possibility and in this case the reality of oncoming traffic. Where the cyclist chose to pass the speed hump is almost irrelevant…to the left or over the centre the Rexton driver would have pulled in dangerously close to avoid the oncoming vehicle….the problem is the dangerous high speed overtake. That’s a full stop
In this case, I would not
In this case, I would not blame the motorist. At 0:02 of the video it’s clear to see that the car is on the opposite side of the lane. When the front of the car is at the half maybe even the quarter of the rear wheel of the bike, the cyclist moves fully onto the right side of his lane. so the where should the car go?
The speedbump could also be avoided on the left side … I don’t think this one has to be in “Near Miss of the Day”
MatzeLoCal wrote:
At two seconds of the front-facing camera video (14/15 seconds into the clip) it’s clear to see that a car has appeared in the oncoming lane. As soon as they saw that the motorist should have pulled out of the overtake and tucked back in behind the cyclist, rather than choosing to plough on with their manoeuvre as they did even though it forced the oncoming car to come to a complete standstill.
Rendel Harris wrote:
But but but they had to overtake a cyclist!
It’s clearly psychologically favourable for some to plough on and risk a collision rather than to drop anchor and be sat in front of someone else. At that point not only are you exposed as having made an error (rather than making a hasty exit) – you’re in the way.
The front video starts at a
The front video starts at a different spot!
If you want to compare front and back camera you should use markings as reference points.
So, lets first take the back camera.
It’s starts when the bike is at the end of the bus stop marking and and the car is approaching. When the rear of the car is at the end of the bus stop it already 3 quarters on the opposite lane.
Next reference point: The manhole cover
At that point the front of the car is nearly aligned with the rear of the bike. The car is fully on the opposite lane.
Also at this point, the cyclist starts to move to the center line of the road.
Now the front camera: The fottage starts much later, which is indicated by the curved wall to the left. This is about 10 Meter after the bus stop, and where the car is already started overtaking and is at least 3 quarters on the oppopsite lane.
Now at the manhole cover:
The cyclist is at this point when the silver car comes up, remember the ront of the car is already aligned with the rear of the bike. Also the car is on the far right of the street and the upcoming car come around a right turn corner the motorist might have seen the upcomming car when he is aligned this the cyclist, which is, due to his movement to the centerline much closer to the car as the motorist expected.
So the motorist had quite possbile seen the upcoming car way later and may has misjugded the situation and tried to pass instead of back off.
And to off course it’s a stuipd spot to overtake, but if the cyclist would have moved in his lane, that situation wouldn’t have been as dangerous.
If you want to do video
If you want to do video analysis, look at the pictures below using the drain cover before the speed bumps as a reference point. The oncoming car has already appeared before the cyclist reaches the drain cover (top picture). As you can see in the second picture, after the cyclist has passed the drain cover the overtaking vehicle is still behind him and therefore the driver had ample opportunity to see the oncoming vehicle and pull out of the manoeuvre instead of carrying on and putting themselves, the cyclist and the oncoming driver at risk.
“It’s a stupid spot to
“It’s a stupid spot to overtake” but you don’t blame the motorist.
Motorist ignored various HC
Motorist ignored various HC requirements that the overtake should not even have been comtemplated and ended up forcing oncoming traffic to halt but you aren’t going to blame the motorist. OK…
as to “The speedbump could also be avoided on the left side”
It’s already been addressed in the article and by the cyclist. Perhaps you could read those comments.
But the motorist is arguably
But the motorist is arguably to blame for overtaking despite the oncoming traffic and then having to cut in immediately in front of the cyclist to avoid colliding with it.
john_smith wrote:
No argument from me… would they be able to do that and pass a driving test?
I’ve no idea. At any rate I
I’ve no idea. At any rate I wouldn’t do it.
MatzeLoCal wrote:
The intention of speed bumps is to calm traffic. Rule 153 reaffirms this by stating drivers should not overtake other road users in a traffic calmed area. The driver is 100% at fault for ignoring the traffic calming. RTFHC.
MatzeLoCal wrote:
The driver should not be overtaking in a traffic calming area. It’s in the Highway Code in black and white. The driver is at fault.
I thought the entire point of
I thought the entire point of these gargantuan SUVs was that the drivers are higher up and get a better view of the road ahead? And yet somehow this one completely failed to see the upcoming speed bumps ??♂️
MattKelland wrote:
No, no, no, you’ve misunderstood. The entire point of these gargantuan SUVs is to bully anyone in a smaller vehicle out of their way. 😉
From drivers and their
From drivers and their problems
What a splendid cowcatcher.
What a splendid cowcatcher. Have you any idea what country that is? I could just see little President Putin driving around in something like that.
I understand it is Melbourne.
I understand it is Melbourne.
I get in the outback there would be reasons for it but in a city ? Hit a ped at 25 or T bone or rear end a vehicle and it’s going to be terminal.
But we have kangaroos*.
But we have kangaroos*.
* And crocs. And sharks. And sea snakes, and box jellyfish. Don’t forget to check for snakes and spiders when entering the vehicle also. And wildfires, and flash floods, and aussie rules football … in fact pretty much everything in Australia seems to be out to get you.
Ideally suited to the school
Ideally suited to the school run.
Keeps you and a couple of children safe on the dangerous streets of e.g. Cambridge – offers protection against 16th century stonework, 20th century concrete and 21st century bollards*. Can even cope with above-average drizzly weather.
Room for a couple of junior longbows or kids’ mountain bikes also!
* Despite ground clearance may not be suitable for use above automated rising bollards.
So this is this cyclist’s 3rd
So this is this cyclist’s 3rd close pass???……Either he’s unlucky or there’s an issue with his road sense, or lack of it.
I’d be advising him to get some training…..
So you have never had a close
So you have never had a close pass. You must live on Sark
I regularly get close passed here at a blind bend NSL despite taking primary. I guess I need more training too.
Yep, I must need more
Yep, I must need more training too. I get closed passed at least once most times I go out. Last ride I was overtaken at speed while signalling to turn right, not for the first time. Is it really me that needs training?
Why does everyone hate this
Why does everyone hate this cyclist so much? I don’t think he did anything wrong at all.
Because they think he pulled
Because they think he pulled out towards the car and is then blaming the driver for being so close?
Velophaart_95 wrote:
I think the only training he needs is in how to get the police to get of their arses and do something about it and we probably all need some of that!
I really must get more
I really must get more training then. Even with 50 odd years of cycling experience I must be incredibly unlucky going by your rational. No matter how assertive I am I will get individuals who attempt left hooks, close passes, brake checks, verbal threats on a daily basis.
Velophaart_95 wrote:
If you live in London you get used to a rough average of one close pass every 5 km or so, or 10 a day if you ride 50 km most weekdays as I do. Absolutely nothing to do with road sense or training, I know trained bike instructors who would definitely agree that this is the case.
On average it’s between 1 and
On average it’s between 1 and 5 close passes on 15 daily kms.
Velophaart_95 wrote:
You clearly haven’t got a clue have you? I suggest you get your rusty bike out of the shed and try riding around your neighbourhood. You might need stabilisers as it’s obvious you haven’t ridden on the roads for a very long time.
I need more training to
I need more training to prevent 48mph passes into oncoming traffic.
Thank you for all the
Thank you for all the considered comments. I have thought about what happened a great deal over the last few days.
The driver was very close but they also overtook in a traffic calming zone, did not allow a cyclist to pass through taffic calming, overtook approaching a junction, overtook into oncoming traffic, overtook at a roundabout when turning left, forced an oncoming car to pull over and stop, and, worst of all, pulled in on me before the overtake was complete.
After reading all the comments I am led to the conclusion that it was NFA as Gloucestershire Constabulary thought that all those were acceptable because I chosen the central gap rather than the gutter. I have to admit that I thought this would be a definite points and fine when I submitted it.
I have to accept that it MAY not have been so bad if I had taken the gutter but NOTHING would have happened if the driver had obeyed the rules and not overtaken. That would mean adding a few seconds to their journey or more likely getting to the next traffic queue a few seconds earlier.
Will I continue to use the central gap? I will as I feel it is still the option most likely to deter this happening again. I will however take some critiscism on board and shoulder check before moving out and move out sooner.
Just off to book some training now.
I think both the cyclist and
I think both the cyclist and driver broke the law.
Rule 72 of the highway code states that the default position of a bike is in the centre of the lane and that when a faster vehicle approaches from behind, the bike should move to the left to let the car pass if it is safe to do so. When moving left the bike should stay at least 50cm from the curb. In this case the shape of the left side of the hump was too dangerous to move left and therefore the cyclist should stay in the middle of the lane, and ride over the centre of the speed hump. Nowhere in the code does it say that the cyclist should go to the right of the lane and dangerously ride in the middle of the road to get around the speed hump. So the cyclist broke rule 72. In doing so the cyclist also broke rule 68, which states that a cyclist MUST NOT act inconsiderately.
The car broke rule 153. This states that at road calming points such as speed humps, cars ‘should’ not overtake other road users. Notice the word ‘should’. It is not mandatory. I think that the purpose of this rule is to keep inexperienced/dangerous cyclists safe. The rule does not give cyclists a licence to ride in an inconsiderate way around a speed hump.
So, when the cyclist moved into the middle of the road at the last moment, after the car had already initiated the overtake, the car did break rule 153, however mitigation to this offence is that the cyclist broke Rules 72 and 68, and therefore a warning to the driver is appropriate. A warning to the cyclist is also appropriate.
The cyclists feeling that in future they should move into the middle of the road sooner also breaks rules 72 and 68. The correct course of action is to ride over the centre of the speed hump and reduce your speed if you need to. If you look over your shoulder and there are no vehicles within sight, then riding in the middle of the road to get around the hump is reasonable.
The cyclist may move over to
The cyclist may move over to the left, if they (the cyclist) think it’s safe to do so. There is no “they MUST” about it…
Well just using the rules
Well just using the rules they quoted and the words they used “the bike should move” & “cars ‘should’ not overtake”
“Notice the word ‘should’. It is not mandatory. ”
Nuff said but I wasn’t going to engage
Eng(ine) Fan?
Eng(ine) Fan?
I think they’re actually at whataboutery/”6 of one…” but also not worth the bother. Opinions on what “considerate” means clearly cover a vast range.
Also Highway Code is not exactly the same as “the law”. Some is…
From the video and discussion it’s what most people know already – there’s *no* place a faster vehicle won’t try to overtake a cyclist. Plus at the end of the day there is almost nothing you can do to signal “not safe here”. And finally even though the overtaking vehicle starts behind you, you’ll still be held at least partly responsible for someone else’s bad decisions.
Another troll.
Another troll.
Is the football season over or something?
You bounder! I was just about
You bounder! I was just about to write the same thing!!
You missed Rule 67, point 2 :
You missed Rule 67, point 2 :-
“watch out for obstructions in the road, such as drains, service covers and potholes, positioning yourself so you can move to the left (as well as to the right) to avoid them safely”
What you have demonstrated though is why IDS’ amendment is insidious if you consider moving right to be ‘dangerous’.
Engfan refers to Engineering
Engfan refers to Engineering fan. Like most cyclists, I enjoy the engineering behind cycling. I am also a Mechanical Engineer.
Mr Hoopdriver,
Rule 67 is for potholes and therefore doesn’t apply. A speed hump is a calming measure, designed for vehicles to ride over ‘slowly’. Even if rule 67 was valid, the cyclist has broken rule 67 because he didn’t “look well ahead” and instead “swerved suddenly to avoid the” hump, giving the car behind little notice.
chrisonabike,
There are no issues with a car overtaking a cyclist. The issue is when there is not enough room to pass. In this speed hump incident, the close call and danger could have been avoided if the cyclist had complied with Rule 72 and rode over the centre of the hump (as explained above, it was not safe to go to the left of the hump). The car would have been able to safely pass in the way that it did (even though rule 153 says that it ‘should’ not have). I don’t think the driver intended to put the cyclist at danger. The driver probably got a fright when the cyclist ‘suddenly’ pulled into the centre of the road, breaking rules 67, 68 and 72. With narrow lanes, I tend to take the centre of the lane because I have decided that it is unsafe for cars to pass me.
The reason why I have contributed to this article is because after 10,000km of riding, I had my first incident of a vehicle intentionally targeting me with a VERY close pass. I caught up with the vehicle, and the driver started laughing at me before I even spoke to him, and then admitted he did it intentionally. I think that the combatant approach presented by many comments here is causing retaliatory combative drivers (like the one I faced). The highway rules are quite reasonable and good. My experience is that fewer deaths, injuries, accidental close calls and punishment passes would happen if cyclists would just follow the highway code rules. When I strictly follow the rules, it is very rare that I am in an uncomfortable situation. Where as, people who are set on blocking the road whenever possible seem to get into all sorts of tight combative situations. It is like they enjoy the personal conflict.
EngFan wrote:
That’s a whole bunch of bullshit, right there.
It’s perfectly simple – a driver has no business attempting to overtake where there are traffic calming measures in place. The root cause of this near miss was the driver attempting to overtake where overtaking was not appropriate and not safe to attempt to do so.
EngFan wrote:
It is also for obstructions in the road, so you are saying that a speed hump is not an obstruction which is contrary to its design goal.
The driver behind (and you) should have been aware of rule 213 :-
“Motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.“
QED
If calming measures such as
If calming measures such as speed humps were covered by rule 67, then rule 67 would mention speed bumps in the list of hazardous obstructions which the cyclist can ride to the left or right of for safety reasons. Rule 67 does not list calming measures as obstacles, therefore they are not covered by rule 67. Calming measures are designed to be ridden over safely (in an effort to reduce speed) and not to be avoided. That is why they are not in rule 67 and are specifically mentioned in Rule 153.
Rule 213 advises cars on how cyclists have to avoid dangerous obstacles per rule 67. Again, the list in Rule 213 says nothing about calming measures such as speed humps.
It is rule 153 which applies to the car looking out for cyclists who dangerously or inconsiderately ride to the right of a specially designed calming measure such as a speed hump. Rule 72 says that the cyclist should ride in the centre of the lane (or to the left if it is safe), and says nothing about riding to the right. Rule 153 advises cars that some cyclists are inexperienced/dangerous or inconsiderate and therefore cars ‘should’ not overtake cyclists at calming measures in an effort to protect cyclists from themselves.
The car didn’t do what is should have by breaking rule 153, and the cycle also broke rule 72 amongst others, by suddenly shifting right into the middle of the road without looking behind. The car was halfway through the overtake where there was plenty of room for the overtake when the cycle suddenly switched position into ‘the centre of the road’.
EngFan wrote:
The camera appears to have been mounted on the bicycle, not on the rider’s helmet, so how do you know that they didn’t look? (Simply saying, “If they’d looked, they would not have made that manouevre” doesn’t count, BTW).
I’m pretty sure that priority is with the vehicle in front, and I’m also pretty sure that the HC says for anyone to be aware that cyclists may have to suddenly move to avoid hazards etc in the road.
I can’t wait for all your
I can’t wait for all your comments on nmotd 1 to 901 to explain how the cyclists was combative.
“With narrow lanes, I tend to take the centre of the lane”
“Where as, people who are set on blocking the road whenever possible “
You then act in a combative manner by your own description.
Everyone else seems to have
Everyone else seems to have dealt with this (including the clincher from ROOTminus1 on rule 163). (And the victim has also considered things e.g. whether they should have moved out earlier / their assessment of the driver’s intent)
Probably isn’t worth it but … just on the “combative approach … combative situations … enjoy the personal conflict” (I’m feeling I’ve read that here before?) – and leaving aside the internal contradictions (why would you approach someone for a sober discussion – not combative of course! – if you thought they’d just tried to kill you?):
I’ve had abuse (including things thrown at me) by drivers who AFAIK had never met me before. And perhaps had minimal “cyclist experience” (e.g. they were young). Now I’m stereotyping and guessing that they’re not avid readers of the comments on road.cc of course – but could you explain again how ” the combatant approach presented by many comments here is causing retaliatory combative drivers (like the one I faced)”? I’m presuming you hadn’t preciously remonstrated with this driver?
Is it because those other cyclists (folks here) are not “follow(ing) the highway code rules”? Is that where we’re going wrong?
Actually, no need – unless you’re particularly hot on the science / psychology? I’m quite familiar with the “logic” which equates “actual physical threat to someone’s life” with “annoyance caused by reading complaints from people protesting about said real, physical threats to their life”.
FWIW I suspect it’s the familiar features of human hierarchy at work: comments or complaints from those we see as “beneath” us come over as “cheeky” or “entitled” or a challenge to our status. In some people the latter seems to be a trigger for violence. Plus motor vehicles are force magnifiers – which means “I wanted to teach them a lesson” can be lethal. Plus the general “out group” / simple “they’re in our way”.
EngFan wrote:
How is it inconsiderate to ride on the safest line for the cyclist (not going over the hump) considering that overtaking is not allowed where traffic calming measures exist? Why should the cyclists stay left to facilitate an overtake which is not allowed?
Riding over a speed hump is
Riding over a speed hump is an entirely safe line. Riding between the humps is simply more comfortable.
Notice how the code says the the overtake ‘should’ not happen. It doesn’t say ‘must’ not. Perhaps consult the definition of the two words.
The reason why the car ‘should’ not overtake is the protect the cyclist from their own dangerous conduct. In this case the cyclist didn’t even look behind for a faster vehicle (see rule 72), before going through the centre fo the humps.
EngFan wrote:
You missed the important rule of the highway code that makes your entire argument moot:
Rule 163 – Overtake [b]ONLY[/b] when it is safe and legal to do so.
Doesn’t matter where in the lane the cyclist is, if the vehicle driver can’t get past safely, they should not be attempting it.
Notice the word ‘should’.
Notice the word ‘should’. You even use it in your comment.
Perhaps learn the diffence between ‘should’ and ‘must’.
Now do the bit where the
Now do the bit where the driver proceeded with the overtake despite the presence of an oncoming vehicle (which had to stop to allow them through) and a roundabout (which they then failed to indicate for). To paraphrase the quote, one error may be regarded as misfortune, but together they look like carelessness.
I think you’re all making the
I think you’re all making the mistake of responding to this obvious nutter as if with a rational human instead of the obvious fantasist and troll he is
I have had a very close pass
I have had a very close pass experience a couple of weeks ago where the driver admitted and took joy from passing close. I have studdied the highway code extensively since then to see if I did anything wrong. I didn’t do anything wrong.
It was during that studying I stumbled across this video and sensed that the comments didn’t make safe sense. Comments saying or suggesting that “it is dangerous to ride over a speed hump”. This is rubbish. Speed humps are specifically designed for cyclists to ride over safely. It is suddenly swerving to ride between them (in the middle of the road) without taking look behind you which is dangerous. In turn, a car ‘should’ not overtake at speed humps because cyclists do silly such as pulling into the middle of the road while forgetting to look behind, but it is not ‘mandatory’ for a car not to overtake at speed humps. In this case the cyclist remained in the middle of its lane right up to the hump, so the car may have assumed that the cyclist was going to go safely over the centre of the hump per rule 72, leaving plenty of room for the car to pass per rule 163.
Nine out of ten Near Miss of the Day articles are good. In this one it was both the cyclist and car who failed to follow rules which contributed this near miss. There are many other comments which say the same.
By many commenters logic, if the cylist had been approaching the hump at the same time as a car coming from the oposing direction, then the car approaching from the oposing direction would have to stop before the hump to let the bike through the hump gap (because it is to dangerous to ride over the top) and only after that the car could drive over the hump. This is absurd and irrational.