The latest video in our Near Miss of the Day series shows the moment a cyclist was struck by the wing mirror of a motorist driving under a narrow bridge.
Richard, the road.cc reader who sent in the clip of the incident, which happened just after the first lockdown was eased last year, said: “I had had so many unpleasant experiences with drivers at this time that I decided to fit a camera to my bike. I’m glad I did.
“I have not submitted it before as the driver wanted me to pay for his wing mirror which hit me.
“He called the police who attended, interviewed us both and took our details. They then told me it was a civil matter and left us to it.
“They were very nice. I showed them the video on my dash cam which I think helped, you will see that the road sign indicates I have right of way under the bridge.
“I have heard nothing since but I was relieved that I was covered by insurance as part of my British Cycling membership.”
> 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
70 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 520: Cyclist hit by driver’s wing mirror coming under narrow bridge”
Faced with on coming traffic,
Faced with on coming traffic, through a narrow gap. I’d have stopped.
Even though the sign on the left says I’ve priority.
There’s no point getting knocked off, just to prove you’re in the right.
I would’ve stopped too – in
I would’ve stopped too – in the middle of the oncoming white SUV / Ute when they had enough time to stop. They shouldn’t have gone first and neighter should the
van gone.
Good on the rider for calling the cops.
He didn’t … read again.
He didn’t … read again.
I’m also not convinced you understand what the priority sign in the UK actually means …
I generally have a lot of
I generally have a lot of sympathy for those who experience close passes and/or dangerous drivers, but this is ridiculous.
The cyclist does not have “right of way” (which does not actually exist in any case), they have priority…. IF they reach the bridge first. Both cars were already coming through when they reached the bridge, and trying to squeeze by in those circumstances is mad.
I would disagree, it has
I would disagree, it has nothing to do with who reaches the bridge first, the drivers all passed a sign to tell them that oncoming traffic has priority, they also crossed over giveway lines, where they are required to wait until the way is clear of oncoming traffic (in this case the rider)
Yes they did – however we are
Yes they did – however we are talking about bounds of reasonable here – the first driver can clearly get through. The second driver – doubtful whether he can see the cyclist at the point at which he starts through the bridge – at which stage it’s nonsense to say that he should stop up and reverse at the point at which he is able to rather than proceed through. Likewise, it’s nonsense to say that the cyclist – fully able to see the situation ahead – shouldn’t just slow a little – or even stop for a moment to allow a safe pass.
If someone else barges through at that point, then they would patently be in the wrong. But this is just an example of failure to comprehend the meaning of what is meant by “sharing the road”, or by having “priority” (which is itself different to the non-existent ‘right of way’)
Velo-drone wrote:
Because he just followed straight through behind the previous vehicle without being able to see whether or not there was traffic he should be giving way to. Is this the fault of the cyclist? Or the driver who is not 2 seconds behind the scenic? If the driver cannot see what is coming, it is because they have chosen not to be able to see before crossing the give way lines.
no one is suggesting he should reverse, but having made the original error he could move over, as evidenced by the larger van at the narrowest point of the road. The pickup is through the restriction before impact but the front wheels never steer.
Velo-drone wrote:
Untrue. You don’t have to have reached the bridge before the other vehicle reaches it; if you will reach the restriction before the other vehicle is clear of it then they should give way (although if they’re already in the restriction then they should be ceded to). That’s why there’s no give way markings on the priority side. The same goes for overtaking parked cars.
That said, stupid move by the cyclist to not even slow down and – as has been said elsewhere – no attempt to avoid the collision as required by the HC:
“The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.”
It’s not about wh reaches the
It’s not about wh reaches the bridge first – it never is. Even f there were no marking that would indicate no one has priority, and you should proceed with caution.
In this situation, the cars have been instructed to give way to oncoming traffic. That would mean that you have to allow oncoming to complete their manoeuvre (in this case passing the bridge) without deviation or deceleration. This even the scenic at front failed to do (although I’d say that error could be forgiven). The following vehicles barged through, either “follow me”, or deliberately using scenic’s manoeuvre to force through. Either way it does not look good on those drivers.
The fact remains that the priority did not lie with the vehicles, and the three drivers failed to concede that. Note that this does not say that the rider was right to continue as if those drivers were behaving themselves. The situation was clear to the rider on approach, and they should have let it go.
Non-starter!
Non-starter!
I think the van driver should
I think the van driver should have waited (fat chance) but the other 2 vehicles were already progressing through the bridge and were past the give way before the cyclist got to the priority sign.
I would have stopped if it were me.
while I would also have
while I would also have stopped in order to avoid a collision.
I still don’t see why you think the rider has to reach the sign before he gets priority, all three drivers proceeded over giveway lines in the face of oncoming traffic. In the first frame they were all behind the line, the first driver is maybe OK, but the followers ain’t.
The rider should still have stopped in the face of this abimal driving though
The priority sign shows the
The priority sign shows the start of where it is narrow and also indicates a hazard ahead for which one should reduce speed.
It will always be judgement as to whether the give way traffic can slip through in time and defensive riding/driving would take account of that. Priority is not the same as right.
Not even sure it was a cyclist makes any odds. Monday in a car, in a 30, in ra residential road. Oncoming driver accelerates towards me to get past parked car on his side forcing me to slow significantly.
Moronic when it is lockdown – what is the hurry ?
hirsute wrote:
Maybe they’d really taken the messaging to minimise time out of the home to heart?
The priority to oncoming sign
The “give priority to oncoming” sign categorically does not mean “you must wait until you can’t see any oncoming traffic on the road ahead” – it means if you can see oncoming traffic, then you should give it priority.
The “priority over oncoming” traffic sign categorically does not mean “you have the right proceed in all circumstances and everyone else should get out your way and if they don’t then they’re in the wrong”.
The first driver was clearly able to proceed without obstructing the cyclist. He did so. Anyone who has a problem with that is insane.
The second car & van should perhaps have waited – but I would question , with the vehicle(s) proceeding in front of them, they could actually see the cyclist until they were already going through. Again, the sign does not prohibit you from following another vehicle through. Mr BMW could and indeed should have moved in to give more space and all would have been fine (as the van did) – but given that he wasn’t doing so, belting straight on anyway is a bit mad. If the roles were reversed, and the car was belting through on the basis of having priority, despite a cyclist oncoming (perhaps following a large vehicle) and not moving over there would rightful apoplexies going on – I don’t see that this is much different.
The Beamer should have moved over a bit, so he was being a bit of a knob. But the situation was clearly & easily avoidable, and the cyclist deliberately chose not to avoid it.
Was that really necessary?
Was that really necessary? What point were you making?
I know this bridge well –
I know this bridge well – just down the road from where I live. There are clear give way markings for the 3 vehicles coming towards the cyclist and the 2nd and 3rd vehicles should have given way. That said, both when driving and cycling, I know I have to be able to stop and avoid anyone who fails to give way.
And I bet you see oncoming
And I bet you see oncoming vehicles like that around 50% of the time – cycling towards them though would be stupid!
I thought it was the duty of
I thought it was the duty of all road users to avoid collisions if possible.
On the face of it (bearing in mind I wasnt there, don’t know the road and the camera often distorts speed and distances), the cyclist made no attempt to avoid a collision by slowing down. The cyclist does the rest of us no favours, but reinforces the “cyclying jihadist” image some motorists seem to have of us, when in fact we are in the main just normal, reasonable people who like cycling and often like driving cars too.
Jules59 wrote:
He doesn’t represent me – but you’re right, it was a stupid move!
Jules59 wrote:
Is it not also the duty of the VW pickup who doesn’t move left at all but holds his line? (Having already failed to give way at the lines) The mercedes van behind leaves a much bigger gap when the cyclist becomes apparent.
Maybe now the driver has lost a mirror for his faiure to observe the rules he will not be so quick to bully cyclists in the future.
To be clear I would not have gone for this gap, because self preservation, but I do not believe that cyclists asserting their priority gives us a bad name.
Graveyards are full of people
Graveyards are full of people in the right. Whilst that doesn’t excuse the behaviour or remove the responsibility of ‘others’, it is a poignant reminder that sometimes it’s best to brake, pause and consider what’s going on here before going head to head with something that you will come off worse from.
Capt Sisko wrote:
I cannot impress upon you enough how much I hate it when people say that!
Wouldn’t the answer be for
Wouldn’t the answer be for the cyclist to just stop in the middle of the carriageway, and wait for those drivers to cede priority to him as the sign tells them to, rather than to charge for a very narrow gap?
520 in and we’ve finally
520 in and we’ve finally found the one – cyclist 99% at fault!
alansmurphy wrote:
Less than that, the cars are all ignoring the give way to oncoming traffic lines, following the philosphy of might makes right. This is the first error, which they are dependant on the actions of the cyclist to alleviate, by giving way when he has priority.
30% cyclist fault, 70% bully drivers
wycombewheeler wrote:
I think that’s reasonable although I’d lean towards 50:50
Broken down into actions leading to contact
The initial action is drivers barging through give way, 100% drivers fault
2n action. On seeing situation rider still tried to squeeze past vehicles already established (disregarding the legality of establishment, the reality of it is that the drivers are occupying the space). 100% riders decision
And the driver also then
And the driver also then refuses to move left to leave sufficient gap which the van driver behind manages. The Pickup is even through the restriction before impact and should be moving to their side regardless.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Fair point, well presented!
I can admit when i was wrong,
I can admit when i was wrong, I focussed on the path of the bike and hadn’t noticed the kerb on the right. The pickup should be moving left regardless and the van does try and move.
I think the cyclist gets a little close to the first vehicle coming thru, the second vehicle is tailgating then goes into bully mode, the 3rd vehicle is tailgating and tries to abandon…
I think I would have stopped
I think I would have stopped rather than try to go through the gap.
BUT:
The essential problem with these ‘give priority to oncoming traffic’ signs is that a large number of motorists don’t think that a cyclist counts as being ‘traffic’, and therefore don’t think that they have to cede priority…
brooksby wrote:
It’s easy to have these thoughts, because we tend to remeber a lot more when drivers to this to us when we are cycling than when they do it to us when we are also driving.
There are plenty of drivers who think if they will be 70% through the restriction when the oncoming road user arrives, they do not need to give way. Some others on this thread seem to agree with this view.
When this happnes to you when you are driving, remind yourself it isn’t persecution or cyclists, some drivers are crap or agressive all the time.
I tend to remember instances
I tend to remember instances where I know had I been in a car and not on a bike the oncoming traffic would have stopped and ceded priority to me correctly, and some of that is yes even the rubbish ones mostly recognise immovable wide objects can block their path whilst a bike can leave an inviting gap,even if it’s still not wide enough to pass through.
But on a bike I can probably count on one hand in all the years I’ve been riding that when I had priority on a bit of road, a vehicle actually stopped for me. Even learners under instruction, they’ll still drive for the nonexistent gap than cede road priority.
So part of me looks at that video and thinks yes discretion would have been the better choice there to stop, maybe slow hand clap them all as they passed you,but the rebel in me says stuff it they should have waited.
First thought:
First thought:
I would have stopped…’graveyards’ and all that.
Second thought:
Width of vehicle; Car wide, Pickup wider, Van widest…and yet..Width of available road where vehicle meets cyclist; Car, narrow, Pickup, narrower, Van narrowest.
It looked to me as if the Pickup had plenty of room to pull to the left on exiting the constriction.
Third thought:
Pickup driver was a ‘might is right’ merchant who could easily have given way before the bridge, and then chose to stick to his line coming out of it.
Fourth thought:
I would have stopped…etc.etc.
Regardless of rights of the
Regardless of rights of the road, it is generally best policy to avoid contact with other vehicles where possible, whether you’re on a bike or driving a car. If the OP was driving a car, would he have carried on and driven into the vehicles wrongly not giving way? I doubt it.
I was the cyclist.
I was the cyclist.
f you watch carefully the pickup has time to move to the left after it has come through the narrowed part of the road (7.0s), as the first driver did, but, the way I see it, the driver chose not to and continued to drive straight at me. I hadn’t really expected that and in my opinion I avoided a major collision by moving out of the way. Unfortunately my arm caught his door mirror as I did so. I had slowed down. You will notice that the van managed to leave enough room despite the fact that it was actually at the narrowest part. You will also notice that the van stopped unlike the pickup who didn’t seem to me to even slow down after he had seen me.
To me this is a classic example of following the car in front hoping that everthing will be OK but not being able to do anything if it isn’t.
I will take your comments on board however and I will make every effort to allow myself to be bullied into giving way in the future. I do like a challenge. Apologies for giving you all a bad name.
If you think it is bad on
If you think it is bad on here, don’t look at the facebook comments, apparently you instigated the whole thing 🙂
“I will take your comments on
“I will take your comments on board however and I will make every effort to allow myself to be bullied into giving way in the future.”
There are other ways of taking control in such a situation, you had plenty of time to be aware of what was unfolding.
Check behind for following vehicles.
If safe to do so (with regard to any other road users)
Slow down / stop if necessary
Make eye contact with driver
If it isn’t going to complicate things, indicate for them to complete the move, wave them through as it were.
They are going to carry on anyway, but you have managed the situation, you might even get a nod of appreciation for your tolerance, you lose 5 seconds of your time (compared to how long were you waiting around to talk with Police and other hassle you now have?) and it is safer for everyone.
You also had a pedestrian in the mix there. The drivers were in no danger at all, however you were and a slightly more serious collision knocking you onto the pavement, emergency braking from one of the vehicles or other possible scenario could have ended up with the ped also being involved.
Playing ‘Follow my Leader’ in
Playing ‘Follow my Leader’ in a car was something my Dad taught me to avoid myself, and anticipate in others. Pinch points like this are a favourite for drivers blindly proceeding because they are ‘shielded’ by the car in front.
Agree with the point about the pickup driver, they were playing a very mismatched game of chicken.
“I will take your comments on
“I will take your comments on board however and I will make every effort to allow myself to be bullied into giving way in the future.”
I would not take that away.
I’m all for being a bit awkward. Though I tend to look for scenarios where I can make the driver slow down and think whilst giving myself an escape route.
Given the bridge was a hazard, I would have expected a couple of chancers but would have positioned myself to let them know there are other road users. I have sometimes swept my arm over the windscreen with a whoosh to alert them that other road users exist.
We’ve all had similar
We’ve all had similar incidents and regardless of the outcome we can surely agree that it’s a form bullying. That being the case; why is there so much victim blaming?
I agree, imagine if the
I agree, imagine if the errant vehicle had gone through a red light when the cyclist had priority ( green ). That’s exactly the same scenario as here. We would be saying well done to the cyclist for avoiding a more-serious impact. And we would be calling for the motorist to be prosecuted. So I think we can say this here. Whilst naturally, having seen the risk, the cyclist would be wise to exercise self-preservation, I think we should point the finger at the “red-light-breaker” rather than saying the person on “green light” should have made a better job of avoiding getting hit.
its not exactly the same
its not exactly the same scenario as youve introduced a vehicle jumping a red light, not simply obeying an information sign, its nearer to when you are on a single track road or a road half blocked by parked cars and someone refuses to wait in a passing point.
but regardless I believe the highway code impresses on you as a road user to always give way if it can help avoid an incident and that you must be prepared to adapt, be patient and allow others to “make mistakes”.
which is why I dont believe even if you collided with a red light jumping vehicle its necessarily automatically 100% always their fault.
but back to this example, we dont have to be happy with the fact vehicles will merrily ignore giving priority to a cyclist in that situation, no-one is arguing thats ok, but if you choose to try and force & make those vehicles stop by taking your priority when its unlikely they will stop, then do be prepared for the consequences that follow.
It may have been your right
It may have been your right of way, but most of the vehicles were mostly through the pinch point under the bridge..Yes drivers do follow my leader attitude, you should have anticipated more vehicles behind the van.
Give way, save yourself from confrontation. We as cyclists expect cars to slow and even stop for us riders, so employ the same practices. It will be less painful
Clear as daylight, the
Clear as daylight, the comparison between the pickup and the van showing the pickup driver delibrately veering DANGEROUSLY far OFFSIDE into the path of cyclist, whereas the van driver passed SAFELY on the far NEARSIDE, as did the 1st vehicle.
Thus, there was just about sufficent width to pass safely, so why did the pickup driver NOT stay on his side as did other drivers ?
And those suggesting the pick driver could not see the road ahead, effectively are impling that pickup driver was incompetent, and or has impared vision – either way, pickup driver is a dangerous menance to the public, as many of them are, crashing, killing and injuring huge numbers, including children.
Any of those vehicles,
Any of those vehicles, including the scenic at the front could and should have stopped – they would (probably) have done so for a car.
But they didn’t. So in the practicality of the matter, I’d have (probably) stopped and let them go. It was an argument that I couldn’t win regardless of how right I was (although I might have made things awkward by taking primary and stopping).
The police response is irritating but not surprising.
Edit – ignore my comment on police response – I misread the OP
Happens to me on a narrow
Happens to me on a narrow bridge all the time, I have priority vehicle drivers ignore it. I’m not sure I’d take the, “Charge of the Light Brigade” approach to the issue!
When I am commuting I
When I am commuting I experience a similar scenario every day on a priority under a railway bridge. There is a stupid and dangerous shared path section under the bridge, that has a 6ft diameter oak tree in the middle of it which any cyclist would have to veer around. This also blocks the view to any pedestrians on the path. Hence I never use it. But the presence of the shared path section seems to suggest to drivers that the priority doesnt apply if its a cyclist coming through and I have had many encounters of them driving at me then hurling abuse for not using it. In this near miss video it does seem the rider was enforcing his priority else would have been stuck waiting for a driver to actually adhere to the give way. The pick up intentionally hit him in my view, as the vehicle appeared to steer towards the cyclist rather than into the gap. At the very least the police should have reprimanded the driver for not checking priority at the dotted line.
Was pick-up in wrong, yes, he
Was pick-up in wrong, yes, he should not have just followed the car through, and neither should the van. The pick-up should also have moved left once through the gap.
Was the cyclist also in the wrong, I think yes.
I have had plenty of cases, driving, cycling or motorcycling that look a lot like that video. The difference was the moment I realised that my right of way had been compromised, I slowed down and simply conceded, but I did so by taking a prominant position in my lane/on my side of the road to ensure they saw me and that they had held me up. Does this approach help in the long run into shaming their action/driving style, maybe not, but simply riding into the gap as per the video probably doesn’t either, is stupid from a self preservation stand-point, and nor does it help the general image of bicycle riders (note I didn’t say cyclists). At most the cyclist should have slowed down and then maybe done a suitable (none-rude) wave/shake of the head to indicate displeasure.
Exactly this.
Exactly this.
It’s a DOOR mirror, not a
It’s a DOOR mirror, not a “wing” mirror. It’s 2021, not 1966.
Hopefully when you get to 100
Hopefully when you get to 100 posts of exactly the same content, you will call it a day.
It earned me a 4 month ban
It earned me a 4 month ban from posting anything here, believe it or not! Some people don’t like being corrected, it seems.
Apparently some people refuse
Apparently some people refuse to learn from their mistakes…
What “mistake” would that be?
What “mistake” would that be? Calling something by its correct name? Do you ever use the term “road tax”, by any chance?
To begin with I thought you
To begin with I thought you were very cleverly parodying the road tax/VED nonsense with your wing mirror/door mirror nonsense.
Alas, I was wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misnomer
Wing mirror is certainly a misnomer, as you have pointed out repeatedly.
However, as per the link “a number of misnomers remain in common usage — which is to say that a word being a misnomer does not necessarily make usage of the word incorrect.”
Language is not fixed or prescriptive. The fact that a “wing mirror” is not attached to the wing of the car does not make it a mistake to call it that. Everyone knows what “wing mirror” means and that is the only thing that matters in language – a common understanding. The etymology of the phrase is of academic interest but irrelevant in determining whether or not the phrase has been used correctly.
Although I see the similarities, there is an important distinction with “road tax”. Specifically, using the phrase “road tax” propogates the myth that car drivers and car drivers alone have paid for the roads, that this gives them the exclusive right to use them howsoever they see fit, and that any other road user is unwelcome. There is therefore a good reason to point out that misnomer, where as I see absolutely no benefit in your campaign to end use of “wing mirror”.
Everybody calls it a “log
Everybody calls it a “log book”, but they were replaced by V5C documents decades ago, just like “wing” mirrors have been, save for a few classic cars. Language changes.
So, what’s your take on
So, what’s your take on calling the instrument panel a “dashboard”?
Since hardly anyone wears
Since hardly anyone wears driving gloves these days, we should probably rename the ‘glove compartment’ the ‘old sweet wrappers and random forgotten about junk compartment’.
I call “glove boxes”
I call “glove boxes” dropdowns.
swldxer wrote:
Really? And there’s me thinking a dropdown was part of the toolbar on various software programmes and web sites. What do you call that lever by your left hand between the front seats? And that’s not a trick question.
Do they ? I thought people
Do they ? I thought people called it a V5.
swldxer wrote:
They’re still called a logbook you Charlie, Gov.uk, “Get a vehicle logbook (V5C)”. Honestly, if you’re going to try and be a pedant at least research your facts. Otherwise you just look a bit, you know…
They’re still called a
They’re still called a logbook you Charlie
Are you sure this isn’t the other idiot displaying Multiple Personality Disorder?
Really? Because it seems like
Really? Because it seems like this comment’s been doing the rounds for at least 55 years.
mdavidford wrote:
It feels that way definitely….
swldxer wrote:
Cambridge English Dictionary:
Wing mirror: a mirror on the outside of a car door that allows the driver to see the vehicles that are behind or trying to pass
Oxford English Dictionary:
Wing mirror: A rear-view mirror projecting from the side of a motor vehicle.
Now let’s have no more of your nonsense.
I thought this was the driver
I thought this was the driver’s fault. The cyclist could have handled it better, but it was the driver failing to obey the traffic sign that created the situation, so the driver is responsible.
I don’t think anyone is not
I don’t think anyone is not blaming the driver down to the above principle. The only thing people are noting is that the cyclist had plenty of notice that the cars were ignoring it and didn’t appear to slow down in case others were going to be arses.
Also, I would have been slowing because the traffic just past the bridge was at a standstill due to the the oncoming waiting traffic and a parked van so even if they had waited, the cyclist would have had to slow down / stop.