Near Miss of the Day 714 (updated): Police stand by comments questioning cyclist's positioning despite Highway Code changes

hawkinspeter wrote:

judging by the number of needles left lying around.

Definiately need tubeless for that! Sounds like the road is the best option, often the way in Milton Keynes too.

HoarseMann wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

judging by the number of needles left lying around.

Definiately need tubeless for that! Sounds like the road is the best option, often the way in Milton Keynes too.

Mrs Hawkinspeter and I often walk through there when we go into town, so it's not as dodgy as some underpasses (the St Pauls under/overpass is the worst as there's blind corners everywhere - a muggers' delight).

Awavey wrote:

I dont think the police are right to criticise the positioning the cyclist took there at all, but clearly in a minority on that one.

Nope - I agree with you. I watched the video several times before seeing what the police were on about.

my guess is the police were saying in their mind the cyclist "created" the close pass because it looks abit like they steer too much to their right to block the car, which results in the hoot.

but I think thats just a drawback of having rear angle only footage, because you dont see the line the cyclist was taking, only in effect roughly where theyve been, and the cyclist isnt looking backwards at the moment, they are focusing on their exit line.

and no-ones mentioned yet the two filled in potholes/rough road surface on the exit, though hard on the quality of the footage to see how bad they are, they arent something youd choose to ride over and it clearly disrupts both cyclists ideal line/lane position, cam cyclist is forced further right to the gap in between them,and following cyclist goes further left into a kerb position even if you took the outside lane line you wouldnt want to end up there.

Awavey wrote:

my guess is the police were saying in their mind the cyclist "created" the close pass because it looks abit like they steer too much to their right to block the car, which results in the hoot.

Well, the police should appreciate that close-passing isn't an appropriate response on the road (possibly in supermarkets if there's a gaggle of chatting people - I like to passively-aggressively squeeze through the middle of them).

Had the sound off so didn't realise the horn was used. Even more need for the police to have a word...though they'll probably interpret it as a gentle warning...as in ' I'm so far up your arse, and about to overtake you in a really stupid place where there's no room, so "poop poop" just to let you know.'

As always the Simpsons predicted it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVklPXvjSt8&t=22s

yeah Id have to say I wouldnt have submitted that one, having gained some experience of what the police tend to act on and what they dont, that at best would have been simply advice offered to the driver.

thats why I say its one of those situations where you just ride it for the least amount of aggro & stress to yourself. if its the worst you get on a ride, its probably been a good day.

Even if I agreed with your assessment, which I don't because the driver has the greater responsibility under the HC, what the police then do is give the cyclist words of advice whilst refusing to do the same for the driver.

IanMK wrote:

Even if I agreed with your assessment, which I don't because the driver has the greater responsibility under the HC, what the police then do is give the cyclist words of advice whilst refusing to do the same for the driver.

Just because the driver has greater responsibility under the highway code, does not entitle the cyclist to drift across the road mid roundabout, which he did. Its a 2 lane roundabout, albeit without lane markings, which means its wide enough for 2 cars to round safely, but the cyclist has taken both lanes. As for the police giving the cyclist words of advice, the cyclist wrote to them asking for their judgement did he not?

We'll have to agree to disagree. Even if both road users make a mistake the hierarchy says the driver has greater responsibility. I don't see the driver taking responsibility in their actions. The cyclists submits footage and the police response is not balanced. It blames the victim. They don't explain (or possibly understand) why rules 186 and 187 do not apply in this situation or why the driver is allowed to use their horn aggressively because a vulnerable road user may have made a mistake.

Thing is Ian, we've all agreed the driver is a plonker, but that's not what this is about. The OP seems to be asking for feedback on his own cycling: "I would be happy to amend my cycling to make it safer for myself but I struggle to see how moving to the 'nearside' position would have prevented this close pass or made it safer to negotiate the roundabout.

So, thoughts?"

Telling him it's OK to wander all over the road or quoting the HC doesn't really help him.

Griff500 wrote:

Thing is Ian, we've all agreed the driver is a plonker, but that's not what this is about. The OP seems to be asking for feedback on his own cycling: "I would be happy to amend my cycling to make it safer for myself but I struggle to see how moving to the 'nearside' position would have prevented this close pass or made it safer to negotiate the roundabout. So, thoughts?" Telling him it's OK to wander all over the road or quoting the HC doesn't really help him.

Griff most people here have agreed that the cyclists riding, specifically the drifting/straight lining of the roundabout was bad and that the cyclist should look at that point of their riding.

However, if they had ridden round the roundabout in primary position in their lane round the roundabout the driver would still have close passed as the rider would have been in broadly the same position as they exited the roundabout.  But the biggest difference in the situation would have been that the driver would have been carrying more speed as they would not have had to slow down as they had to in the clip, and that speed may have added to the danger.

There is also a good chance that the driver would not have used the chevrons to pass the cyclist if they had been able to carry more speed due to the fact that they could easily assume that they would have completely cleared the cyclist before the exit, thereby making the close pass worse.

TriTaxMan wrote:

However, if they had ridden round the roundabout in primary position in their lane round the roundabout the driver would still have close passed as the rider would have been in broadly the same position as they exited the roundabout.  But the biggest difference in the situation would have been that the driver would have been carrying more speed as they would not have had to slow down as they had to in the clip, and that speed may have added to the danger.

So you are saying that if the cyclist had maintained primary position, taking a longer route through the roundabout, and the driver had not had to slow, then they would have exited the roundabout in the same relative positions?  Doesn't compute! Just look at how much the gap between the two cyclists opens up due to the leading rider shortcutting the roundabout, despite the fact that the second cyclist is moving faster. I would personally have felt safer taking the route the second cyclist took, and being overtaken on the roundabout where the car was 2m to my right, rather than being squeezed on the exit.  

Griff500 wrote:

So you are saying that if the cyclist had maintained primary position, taking a longer route through the roundabout, and the driver had not had to slow, then they would have exited the roundabout in the same relative positions?  Doesn't compute! Just look at how much the gap between the two cyclists opens up due to the leading rider shortcutting the roundabout. I would personally have felt safer taking the route the second cyclist took, and being overtaken on the roundabout where the car was 2m to my right, rather than being squeezed me on the exit.  

No, I am saying that in all likelihood that car would have most likely been beside the rider, or possibly 3/4 of the way past the cyclist had the cyclist maintained primary position.  The second rider in the clip took secondary position (or possibly gutter position), hence the reason they dropped back so much. 

The lead riders position was within what would have been their lane for the vast majority of the journey round the roundabout and only veered out of that position at the very middle of the roundabout.  Maintaining primary position would have added maybe 2 or 3m more to the distance travelled by the lead cyclist.

I personally would never ride in secondary position on a roundabout because it gives a minority of drivers the excuse they need to try and overtake a cyclist on a roundabout rather than waiting behind for a couple of seconds.  At the 6 second mark in the clip there is more than a car's width between the Skoda and the 2nd cyclist.... some drivers would see that as a place where they could overtake.  Riding in primary takes that option away.

I think you're both saying largely the same thing; driver committed multiple offences, cyclist had less than perfect position in the road.

What the pass may or may not have been based on the cyclists position is not the issue here. The issue is the stance the police have taken. So, advice to the cyclist is improve your road position if you want the police to take action.

He's had several police submissions knocked back due to errors on his part. Even if they are minor transgressions of the highway code, he needs to work on ensuring the police are given no excuse to pin any blame on him.

HoarseMann wrote:

I think you're both saying largely the same thing; driver committed multiple offences, cyclist had less than perfect position in the road.

What the pass may or may not have been based on the cyclists position is not the issue here. The issue is the stance the police have taken. So, advice to the cyclist is improve your road position if you want the police to take action.

He's had several police submissions knocked back due to errors on his part. Even if they are minor transgressions of the highway code, he needs to work on ensuring the police are given no excuse to pin any blame on him.

I agree that if you are getting multiple submissions knocked back then there may be issues regarding the quality of their riding that they need to address.  But the biggest issue is definitely however the fact that the police seem willing to dismiss video evidence and criticise the cyclist for anything that they do wrong whilst completely ignoring what the motorist does wrong.

The police could easily have written a warning letter to the driver based on the horn use and chevron crossing.  But they chose not to, the reasons for which are yet unknown.

If I was cycnical, and to use a good old fashioned lump of hyperbole.... it would be like a motorist who records dashcam footage of a car running a red light and nearly crashing into a third party, submitting that footage to the police and the police saying "you drove through a green light at 34mph in a 30 zone, so we are not going to take any action against the red light running motorist"

The law (in other regards) does not work the way this police force are suggesting that it does in this case. An offence by one member of the public does not permit other worse offences by another member of the public, who was momentarily inconvenianced, to be ignored. Especially when that second person has a clear duty of care to the first.

In the case I gave below, the police criticised my road positioning. I disagree with their assesment but deep down I know that my refusal to cede my right to stay in primary / strong secondary was at least in part beligerence and I didn't ague the toss with them. However, they did agree to have a word with the van owner which was the (minimum) result that I wanted. 

IanMK wrote:

The law (in other regards) does not work the way this police force are suggesting that it does in this case. An offence by one member of the public does not permit other worse offences by another member of the public

Absolutely. I would only add that in fact the cyclist has not committed any offence, we can argue the toss over his road position and judgement but there's no actual offence there, whereas the motorist has made at least four transgressions of traffic law in dangerously close following, attempting to make a pass on a cyclist on a roundabout in their lane, using the horn as an act of aggression and close passing.

Agreed. In that sentence, I was speaking in generalities and not specifically to this case.

Garage at Large wrote:

Top trolling there Rendel. Let's look at these supposed "offences":

1. Dangerously close following. Nope, the car was engaging in a perfectly safe overtaking manoeuvre when the cyclist decided to carelessly and maliciously veer from the left to the center of the road directly in front of the car.
2. Attempting to make a pass on a cyclist on a roundabout in their lane. See above, the driver wasn't in the cyclist's lane - the cyclist veered from the left hand lane into the middle of the road.
3. Using the horn as an act of aggression. Alerting others to danger is exactly the reason why cars have horns equipped. That's what the motorist was doing, alerting the cyclist who was cycling carelessly to danger.
4. Close passing. Please refer to the top two answers.

If the cyclist rides sensibly, there would be no problem. I put it to you that either the cyclist deliberately confected this incident for YouTube hits and clickbait, or that the cyclist needs to undertake a proficiency course. Or both.

Unfortunately these Highway code changes are proving to be exactly what both myself and top road safety experts feared: a charter for irresponsible cyclists, a disaster for societal cohesion, and an affront to decent and polite society.

Interesting approach there Nige.... but you are failing to grasp that the driver should have done a number of things on approach to the roundabout found in rule 184.  Such as "get into the correct lane" and "adjust your speed and position to fit in with traffic conditions" and "be aware of the speed and position of all the road users around you."

They did none of those and that was before the rider made their mistake.  Would you like to provide your expert analysis on those points?

We have frequently had discussions in the past about intent..... how you say it is impossible for a cyclist to prove intent from a close pass or other video submission..... yet here you are saying that the cyclist acted "carelessly and maliciously".  So please provide your evidence of the malicious intent from the cyclist in their manoeuvre.

Unfortunately for you Nigel you don't pay attention to the details.... this video was was taken in May 2020.... so has absolutely zero to do with the changes in the Highway Code..... but please feel free to argue on that point..... because if it was after the changes that came in on 29th January..... perhaps the police want to have another look for an offence perpetrated by the motorist.

TriTaxMan wrote:

 

Unfortunately for you Nigel you don't pay attention to the details.... this video was was taken in May 2020.... so has absolutely zero to do with the changes in the Highway Code.....

When you have a default troll "cyclist's fault" response ready to spaff onto any thread, why would you bother with such minor details?

IanMK wrote:

The law (in other regards) does not work the way this police force are suggesting that it does in this case. An offence by one member of the public does not permit other worse offences by another member of the public

But that is not what the police are saying. There's not been a clear breach of the law from either the cyclist or driver, just infringements of advisory rules.

To build a case of careless driving, they need to be sure the combination of those infringements, tempered by any mitigations, will convince a magistrate.

They should at least have sent out a warning letter to the driver. That does seem to be a bit anti-cycling, but there's not a great deal you can do about that as an individual.