Near Miss of the Day 893: Impatient driver damages van while trying to squeeze past cyclist on narrow country lane

If I have understood it correctly the police have to issue a NIP within a certain amount of time for the registered keeper to identify the driver. If they fail to do this the driver cannot be prosecuted.

For speeding the police will then decide whether to issue a FPN or offer a speed awareness course for speeds below 10% + 9mph otherwise its court. A speed awareness course can only be offered if you have not been caught speeding for 3 years.

I assume it's a similar system for a SCD course but with a range of offences rather than speeds.

These are only guidelines as far as I can make out and some forces (mentioning no names) may just take no further action even after a NIP has been issued. Not in the public interest seems to be one reason given.

I have seen it claimed that the police prefer courses as the revenue goes to them rather than the government. The cost to the offender is broadly similar but you don't get the points.

mattw wrote:

How does a NIP turn into an SCD course?

I thought they were mutually exclusive. Has WY police found a way?

An NIP is only a Notice of Intended Prosecution, prosecution (i.e. going to court) may not occur if the police decide to make the driver a conditional offer of FPN or Safety Awareness Course (and they accept). The only outcome that the issuing of an NIP precludes is a warning letter.

The test of a close pass is whether or not it was close - and this one was.

Squidfish wrote:

Not certain this qualifies as a close pass.

A Peugeot Partner van is a minimum of 180 cm wide and judging by the screenshot below the road certainly couldn't fit two of them abreast, the road must be 3 m wide maximum. The cyclist will be 30 cm or so out from the edge and will be about 50 cm wide, so even with the van going off road on the right hand side when overtaking, there can't be more than 50 cm between the van and cyclist as they pass, ergo it is definitely a close pass.

I agree with all that, and you can even add a bit for width of the cyclist.

LTN 1/20 (para 5.2.1) says it is 0.8m at the shoulders, and the dynamic kinetic envelope of a moving cyclist is 1m.

Squidfish wrote:

Not certain this qualifies as a close pass. Seems like the van was trying to make a wide pass and in doing so, ran over something. Foolish? Certainly. Dangerous? Well, we all know plenty of drivers would choose protecting their vehicle over protecting a cyclist, so the fact he hit a rock RATHER than the biker at least puts them above some. Hope he (I am going to go ahead and assume the driver is male) takes the right lesson from this.

You see this is the issue, a close pass is a close pass. There is no caveat. If you can't overtake and give someone enough space then its not a safe pass and shouldn't be attempted. 

In this case they could easily have been bumped back into the road by the rock or generally swerved as a result. They should have waited the 20s to pass safely and didn't. 

But but this was a hill, so the cyclist was going even slower than normal.  So the driver had to pass (otherwise they'd undershoot the minimum speed limit and someone would drive into them, or the clutch would burn out, or they'd be 30 seconds late, or in some other way the world would end).

Snark aside we shouldn't ever be surprised.  Everything from training* through road design (tend to be straight, wide, sweeping turns etc) to social pressure** is reinforcing the feeling that you definitely should not stop on the road and not going at the indicated limit at all times is wrong also.

* I recall my extremely thorough and pedantic driving instructor impressing on me the need to "make progress" where safe to do so.

** "Don't hold people up" or "get in their way" (cyclists!  We always are!) - and you'll get very quick notice e.g. horn used if others feel you're doing so.

I recall it was quite possible to fail your driving test if you didn't drive to the limit when possible.

.

And - after waiting, and then finally overtaking the cyclist - they would not be able to put their foot down for - what? - five seconds, and so gain back the massive amount of time that they had lost whilst being 'held up'.

.

Road Observation For Lunkheads?

The 'L' could be improved on but close

Losers, Loons?

ymm wrote:

I couldn't agree more with the cyclist's sentiments. Spot on! The driver is a pillock and will regret his impatience.

I would wager that the driver's version of the story, told down the pub, is how a bl00dy cyclist "made" him damage his van