Near Miss of the Day 274: Turning driver almost hits cyclist riding in bus lane

Argos74 wrote:

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?

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.

ktache wrote:

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?

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).

JWL wrote:

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 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:

JWL wrote:

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 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?

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:

hawkinspeter wrote:

JWL wrote:

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 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?

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.

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:

Panslanepaul wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

JWL wrote:

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 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?

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.

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).

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:

hawkinspeter 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).

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.

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:

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.

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).

jacko645 wrote:

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.

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.

lesterama wrote:

I am surprised at some of the comments here. For me, the fault is fully with the driver.

What is the driver's fault? Nothing happened!

srchar wrote:

lesterama wrote:

I am surprised at some of the comments here. For me, the fault is fully with the driver.

What is the driver's fault? Nothing happened!

I suppose we could argue that drink driving, driving at 80mph etc. is fine if nobody gets hurt... Nothing happened!

alansmurphy wrote:

srchar wrote:

lesterama wrote:

I am surprised at some of the comments here. For me, the fault is fully with the driver.

What is the driver's fault? Nothing happened!

 

I suppose we could argue that drink driving, driving at 80mph etc. is fine if nobody gets hurt... Nothing happened!

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:

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?”. 

And what's that got to do with this?  Being close-passed is nothing like the scenario presented in the video.

srchar wrote:

ConcordeCX 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?”. 

And what's that got to do with this?  Being close-passed is nothing like the scenario presented in the video.

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:

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.  

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:

ConcordeCX 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?”. 

And what's that got to do with this?  Being close-passed is nothing like the scenario presented in the video.

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:

lesterama wrote:

I am surprised at some of the comments here. For me, the fault is fully with the driver.

What is the driver's fault? Nothing happened!

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:

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.

Maybe you could explain it using a tedious picture of a squirrel?