Near Miss of the Day 3: Audi caught on film – but police won't act

Plasterer's Radio wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

Plasterer's Radio wrote:

Audi went through a give way sign when cyclist was on the roundabout. Don't muddy the waters talking about hand signals.

So multi lane rounabout; if someone is in any of the lanes no one can enter even if the lane they need is clear? Not much point having multi lane roundabouts then is there?

Clown. Passed a give way sign and almost collided with another road user.

GIVE WAY SIGN.

I assume you apply the same when entering a dual carriageway from a side road? Are all lanes empty? No. best give way then. Motorway slip roads?

In both of these cases those entering should give way.

GIVE WAY

Apparently writing in all caps adds some weight.

wycombewheeler wrote:

Plasterer's Radio wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

Plasterer's Radio wrote:

Audi went through a give way sign when cyclist was on the roundabout. Don't muddy the waters talking about hand signals.

So multi lane rounabout; if someone is in any of the lanes no one can enter even if the lane they need is clear? Not much point having multi lane roundabouts then is there?

Clown. Passed a give way sign and almost collided with another road user.

GIVE WAY SIGN.

I assume you apply the same when entering a dual carriageway from a side road? Are all lanes empty? No. best give way then. Motorway slip roads? In both of these cases those entering should give way. GIVE WAY Apparently writing in all caps adds some weight.

What is the Give Way marking for? You are having a lot of difficulty with this one, but then you feel you need to back up your original comment. Why is there a Give Way marking?....

wycombewheeler wrote:

Plasterer's Radio wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

Plasterer's Radio wrote:

Audi went through a give way sign when cyclist was on the roundabout. Don't muddy the waters talking about hand signals.

So multi lane rounabout; if someone is in any of the lanes no one can enter even if the lane they need is clear? Not much point having multi lane roundabouts then is there?

Clown. Passed a give way sign and almost collided with another road user.

GIVE WAY SIGN.

I assume you apply the same when entering a dual carriageway from a side road? Are all lanes empty? No. best give way then. Motorway slip roads? In both of these cases those entering should give way. GIVE WAY Apparently writing in all caps adds some weight.

Wycombewheeler.... I would suggest your surrender your driving licence at the current time as you clearly have no clue on how to drive.

The cyclist was on the roundabout, and therefore had priority over the Audi entering the roundabout, no if's no buts.

The cyclist was positioned in the middle of the lane on the roundabout, so irrespective of whether he was taking the second or third exit at the roundabout the Audi had to give way.  Or do you believe in your head that if you were on a roundabout in a car indicating to take the 3rd exit, that a car coming from the direction that the Audi entered has priority over you because the are coming in too fast?  Nope didn't think so.

The lay up of that roundabout makes it clear that someone who is turning left would almost completely avoid the roundabout as the lane to turn left is almost set back from the entrance that the Audi driver joined at.

Motorway and dual carriageway slip roads are a completely different situation, as they are designed to allow you to build up speed and merge with the traffic not give way and stop.  Or are you one of those people who is frightened to join a motorway and stops on the slip road?  

Rule 259

Joining the motorway. When you join the motorway you will normally approach it from a road on the left (a slip road) or from an adjoining motorway. You should

-give priority to traffic already on the motorway
-check the traffic on the motorway and match your speed to fit safely into the traffic flow in the left-hand lane
-not cross solid white lines that separate lanes or use the hard shoulder
-stay on the slip road if it continues as an extra lane on the motorway
-remain in the left-hand lane long enough to adjust to the speed of traffic before considering overtaking.

craigstitt wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

Plasterer's Radio wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

Plasterer's Radio wrote:

Audi went through a give way sign when cyclist was on the roundabout. Don't muddy the waters talking about hand signals.

So multi lane rounabout; if someone is in any of the lanes no one can enter even if the lane they need is clear? Not much point having multi lane roundabouts then is there?

Clown. Passed a give way sign and almost collided with another road user.

GIVE WAY SIGN.

I assume you apply the same when entering a dual carriageway from a side road? Are all lanes empty? No. best give way then. Motorway slip roads? In both of these cases those entering should give way. GIVE WAY Apparently writing in all caps adds some weight.

Wycombewheeler.... I would suggest your surrender your driving licence at the current time as you clearly have no clue on how to drive.

The cyclist was on the roundabout, and therefore had priority over the Audi entering the roundabout, no if's no buts.

The cyclist was positioned in the middle of the lane on the roundabout, so irrespective of whether he was taking the second or third exit at the roundabout the Audi had to give way.  Or do you believe in your head that if you were on a roundabout in a car indicating to take the 3rd exit, that a car coming from the direction that the Audi entered has priority over you because the are coming in too fast?  Nope didn't think so.

The lay up of that roundabout makes it clear that someone who is turning left would almost completely avoid the roundabout as the lane to turn left is almost set back from the entrance that the Audi driver joined at.

Motorway and dual carriageway slip roads are a completely different situation, as they are designed to allow you to build up speed and merge with the traffic not give way and stop.  Or are you one of those people who is frightened to join a motorway and stops on the slip road?  

Rule 259

Joining the motorway. When you join the motorway you will normally approach it from a road on the left (a slip road) or from an adjoining motorway. You should

-give priority to traffic already on the motorway
-check the traffic on the motorway and match your speed to fit safely into the traffic flow in the left-hand lane
-not cross solid white lines that separate lanes or use the hard shoulder
-stay on the slip road if it continues as an extra lane on the motorway
-remain in the left-hand lane long enough to adjust to the speed of traffic before considering overtaking.

It's not about the Audi having priority over the cyclist. The cyclist is in a position appropriate for taking the 3rd exit and the Audi can then use the left lane without impeding the cyclist at all.
If I was in a car taking that position and indicating right I would not take issue with the Audi at all because he has entered the roundabout behind me and not impeded me.
Then the cyclist with no indication wants to take the exit he is almost in line with.
Try freeze frame at 5 seconds in; cyclist in right lane for straight on and turning right Audi in left lane passes. At 1s cyclist is in the correct position for his exit, if he holds this line and signals left after passing 1st exit, there is no problem, (Audi probably then passes him on his right) but he moves from here to the right by 3s (No signal) before trying to move back again (no signal.)
If a driver did that before left hooking a cyclist you would not be here defending the drivers priority.
It's really simple; give clear indication of your intentions, think ahead and be aware of your surroundings.

There are so many worse close passes out there I do not want the time of the police taken up by people submitting videos like the one above.

Jackson wrote:

Audis are the worst of the lot because it's the same type of guy who'd be driving a Porsche or a Lambo but with the added insecurity of not being able to afford one

And cyclists all jump red lights and ride on the pavement.

Why do people persist with this stereotyping bollocks?

Jackson wrote:

Audis are the worst of the lot because it's the same type of guy who'd be driving a Porsche or a Lambo but with the added insecurity of not being able to afford one

So wrong, Aston Martin would be my first choice with money no object. But even then I'd still need the Audi as they don't do an estate.

Jackson wrote:

Audis are the worst of the lot because it's the same type of guy who'd be driving a Porsche or a Lambo but with the added insecurity of not being able to afford one

Please stop with this utter tripe. I've only just bought one after 27 years of driving and the one I have is slower than other Japanese cars I've owned and WAY slower than motorbikes I've owned.

If I had the money the only Porsche I'd own would be a 70s 911, actually slower than most modem Audis.

Looking at all the cyclist colliding with car stories it seems the Corsa is killers choice of car.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

The cyclist is totally in the wrong here.

In the wrong lane for the exit he was obviously taking, should have been in the left lane if going straight on (2nd exit) and he moves into the right lane on approach to cut the roundabout/take the racing line.

That left lane isn't a left turn only it's for the 1st and 2nd exit, this is pretty clear IMHO and so he should have stuck in it but chose to cut the roundabout instead. Whilst there looks to be a line that might suggest it's a left only turn it isn't as that some debris/dust on the tarmac, that he then tries to cut back across into a lane that is clearly now not empty means he is in the wrong.

No hand signal is mostly irrelevant because a signal gives you no priority to move into a lane that isn't clear and it's pretty obvious it wasn't, a hand signal at the l;ast second still would give no time for the driver to react but may have let another driver behind know his intention, however he also didn't bother with a shoulder check either otherwise he wouldn't have tried moving into an unclear lane in the first place as there was another vehicle there and was perfectly allowed to be so.

Don't change lanes unless it is safe/clear to do so, surely if we apply this to motorists we must apply this to people on bikes too, there are rules there for a reason!

Those defending the cyclist have no idea whatsoever about the rules of the road, road positioning and what your responsibilities are to other road users, i hope you don't drive your car/van like the way this idiot rode his bike!

I agree with the cyclist's positioning being awful.

Hard to tell when the Audi entered the roundabout from the video, but it seems to me that they shouldn't have done so, due to where I *think* the cyclist was likely to be when they did. Can't see them on it, then they go past... Looks like they shouldn't even have been on the roundabout at that point.

Conclusion: looks like both in the wrong, to me.

burtthebike wrote:

Sad to see quite so many people blaming the cyclist for the dangerous driving of the car driver, and quite a comment on how such driving is now seen as acceptable, even by cyclists.  If you can't drive safely, especially around vulnerable road users, then you shouldn't be on the road.  If you drive so badly that you endanger other road users, the state should prevent you from driving.

If I was driving that car, I would have slowed down until I was sure what the cyclist was doing, not floored it to get past him, utterly careless of where he was going.  I'm not a perfect driver, or cyclist, but I do respect other people.  This driver didn't .

Sorry but you are so badly wrong and I suggest you go get some training on how to cycle and indeed drive properly as you're clearly not safe on either score!

The person riding decided to change lanes at the last second with no consideration whatsoever to other road users, what if he did that and it was another cyclist minding their own business, he would have most likely crashed right into them or forced them to swerve.

Here's a little starter for you and the rest with respect to lane discipline ...

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Sad to see quite so many people blaming the cyclist for the dangerous driving of the car driver, and quite a comment on how such driving is now seen as acceptable, even by cyclists.  If you can't drive safely, especially around vulnerable road users, then you shouldn't be on the road.  If you drive so badly that you endanger other road users, the state should prevent you from driving.

If I was driving that car, I would have slowed down until I was sure what the cyclist was doing, not floored it to get past him, utterly careless of where he was going.  I'm not a perfect driver, or cyclist, but I do respect other people.  This driver didn't .

Sorry but you are so badly wrong and I suggest you go get some training on how to cycle and indeed drive properly as you're clearly not safe on either score!

The person riding decided to change lanes at the last second with no consideration whatsoever to other road users, what if he did that and it was another cyclist minding their own business, he would have most likely crashed right into them or forced them to swerve.

Here's a little starter for you and the rest with respect to lane discipline ...

 

Thank you for your patronising nonsense.  I've been a cyclist for 57 years and a driver for 43 years and the only collisions I've had with other road users were their fault, not mine.  I'm pretty sure I'm a reasonable driver and cyclist, and my record would tend to suggest that is true.

If you think blindly obeying every rule is a sensible position to adopt, rather than adjusting your behaviour to that of other people and the situation, then you are in for a lot of trouble.  You're rather like the drivers who drive to the limit whatever the conditions because it must be safe, they're not breaking the speed limit.  Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools, and I'm sad to say, you're in the latter group.

burtthebike wrote:

Sad to see quite so many people blaming the cyclist for the dangerous driving of the car driver, and quite a comment on how such driving is now seen as acceptable, even by cyclists.  If you can't drive safely, especially around vulnerable road users, then you shouldn't be on the road.  If you drive so badly that you endanger other road users, the state should prevent you from driving.

If I was driving that car, I would have slowed down until I was sure what the cyclist was doing, not floored it to get past him, utterly careless of where he was going.  I'm not a perfect driver, or cyclist, but I do respect other people.  This driver didn't .

I don't think people are blaming the cyclist for the driver's bad driving. I personally think it's a long way short of dangerous. The 'article' claimed it was a near miss, stating the police didn't think there was enough evidence to prosecute. It doesn't really look like a near miss to me, except from the cyclist perhaps trying to pull into the car's lane without indicating. It's neither an example of a near miss, good driving, or careful riding. 

You have no idea of what the driver's actions were other than the briefest view on the camera. You have no idea of what level of care he was taking, regardless of how it looked to you.  

You, Sir, are drivelling.

madcarew wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Sad to see quite so many people blaming the cyclist for the dangerous driving of the car driver, and quite a comment on how such driving is now seen as acceptable, even by cyclists.  If you can't drive safely, especially around vulnerable road users, then you shouldn't be on the road.  If you drive so badly that you endanger other road users, the state should prevent you from driving.

If I was driving that car, I would have slowed down until I was sure what the cyclist was doing, not floored it to get past him, utterly careless of where he was going.  I'm not a perfect driver, or cyclist, but I do respect other people.  This driver didn't .

I don't think people are blaming the cyclist for the driver's bad driving. I personally think it's a long way short of dangerous. The 'article' claimed it was a near miss, stating the police didn't think there was enough evidence to prosecute. It doesn't really look like a near miss to me, except from the cyclist perhaps trying to pull into the car's lane without indicating. It's neither an example of a near miss, good driving, or careful riding. 

You have no idea of what the driver's actions were other than the briefest view on the camera. You have no idea of what level of care he was taking, regardless of how it looked to you.  

You, Sir, are drivelling.

What rubbish. It's not 'the car's lane' it's the cyclist's, or anybody else on the roundabout, who must go into it to exit!

Without that rule roundabouts just wouldn't function! You'd always get on but hardly ever be able to exit lol!

rjfrussell wrote:

I can't work out what the cyclist was trying to do.

 

If he was intending to pull off into the road that he did intend to pull off into, it is pretty shocking riding-  wrong lane, surely, and no hand signal when he did decide to change into the left hand lane.

 

If he was planning to go on to a later exit, still bad judgment,  I think, as would have been safer to keep to the left and just ride round the outside of the roundabout-  perhaps with a right hand to indicate that he was not going off at each exit he passed?

 

 

Absolutely not. If you stick to the far outside as you take a late exit you will come into conflict with cars at every previous exit.

Take primary on exactly the same lane you would use if driving, if I have never had an issue taking this approach. It's clear to drivers where you are going.

Cyclist in the video takes opposite approach left lane right lane left lane for an early exit. The sort of crank lane discipline that annoys me when drivers do it.

turnerjohn wrote:

Highway Code suggests cyclist stay on the near side right the way around a round about which tbh is the safest place to be ....

No it doesn't and no it isn't.  The HC warns drivers that a cyclist may stay on the left around a roundabout and to look out for them doing that.  The safest position is in primary position, the position of maximum visibility, approaching and through a hazard like a roundabout in accordance with the National Cycling  Training Standard.

cbrndc wrote:

turnerjohn wrote:

Highway Code suggests cyclist stay on the near side right the way around a round about which tbh is the safest place to be ....

No it doesn't and no it isn't.  The HC warns drivers that a cyclist may stay on the left around a roundabout and to look out for them doing that.  The safest position is in primary position, the position of maximum visibility, approaching and through a hazard like a roundabout in accordance with the National Cycling  Training Standard.

which is roundabouts (no pun intended) the same thing . It's the safest place to be not where you then need to cross traffic to exit 

187
In all cases watch out for and give plenty of room to
 

pedestrians who may be crossing the approach and exit roads
traffic crossing in front of you on the roundabout, especially vehicles intending to leave by the next exit
traffic which may be straddling lanes or positioned incorrectly
motorcyclists
cyclists and horse riders who may stay in the left-hand lane and signal right if they intend to continue round the roundabout. Allow them to do so

turnerjohn wrote:

Highway Code suggests cyclist stay on the near side right the way around a round about which tbh is the safest place to be ....it's the line I take unless entry visibility is terrible....oh and hand signals whilst not easy at times do make a big difference 

If you're seriously suggesting taking the inside lane to take the 3rd, 4th or 5th exit of a roundabout then I can only assume you have never seen a roundabout...