Near Miss of the Day 913: "Heart-stopping" moment as cyclist barely manages to make through gap after oncoming car driver follows overtaking van, ignoring cyclist

Here's a road with obstructions on one side (bollards), that you cannot see if it's totally clear due to a tight bend at the end of the road narrowing. They've had to put up signs to tell drivers not to enter until it's clear, I suspect some will say 'the bollards are on your side, you need to back up!', but that really isn't the case at all...

https://maps.app.goo.gl/j7PRkGJYuZKJq5br9

I guess the finer argument would be whether you regard parked cars like bollards (effectively a permanent immovable - so what you've shown appears just to be a single track road section) or whether the fact that they can sometimes not be there makes any theoretical difference.

In the event in this one - I agree, cyclist should have slowed up a lot more or stopped before meeting the van.  And as soon as the van in front of them moved right the driver behind should have been ready to take action also.

The general driving behaviour of simply following the vehicle in front without further thought is still problematic (though common).  Too easy for drivers to lose situational awareness.

In the bigger picture the UK's "informal parking, almost everywhere" also is problematic!

I would argue there is absolutely no difference between a parked car being a temporary obstruction and a bollard being a more permanent obstruction. An obstruction is an obstruction, I don't see any discrimination between the two in the Highway Code.

HoarseMann wrote:

I would argue there is absolutely no difference between a parked car being a temporary obstruction and a bollard being a more permanent obstruction. An obstruction is an obstruction, I don't see any discrimination between the two in the Highway Code.

You don't overtake a bollard though.

hawkinspeter wrote:

You don't overtake a bollard though.

Definitely not - they get terrible road rage if you try.

hawkinspeter wrote:

You don't overtake a bollard though.

I would say you do if it's an obstruction in the road, as these are.

Ultimately, there was an easy way for a cyclist to avoid this situation. That cannot be said of all dodgy driving that occurs around cyclists.

Now we're down to the pedantry!  Are you a road maximalist or not, a lumper or a splitter?  Is a bollard that's concreted in "an obstruction in the road" - if e.g. it is the intention to stop vehicles driving on a section of the road?  Or is that ... a change to the road - so said section isn't really "road for driving on" any more?

What about one of those rising ones - if you aren't permitted to pass it is it just an "obstruction"?

I'd say if a permanently installed one - or even solidly "temporary" one - has fallen over (perhaps hit by a speeding cyclist?) and rolled into the main carriageway then "obstruction" would be a fair term.  Otherwise not so much obstruction as a case of "where, sir, is your road?"  To modify the original quote - "you don't overtake a house though."?

chrisonabike wrote:

To modify the original quote - "you don't overtake a house though."?

I think there's plenty of examples in another thread of drivers treating houses as obstructions

hawkinspeter wrote:

chrisonabike wrote:

To modify the original quote - "you don't overtake a house though."?

I think there's plenty of examples in another thread of drivers treating houses as obstructions

case in point...
https://maps.app.goo.gl/5pRjwXnkd2yKZSPi8

HoarseMann wrote:

Here's a road with obstructions on one side (bollards), that you cannot see if it's totally clear due to a tight bend at the end of the road narrowing. They've had to put up signs to tell drivers not to enter until it's clear, I suspect some will say 'the bollards are on your side, you need to back up!', but that really isn't the case at all...

https://maps.app.goo.gl/j7PRkGJYuZKJq5br9

As Chrisonabike points out, there's a difference between immobile bollards that are designed to change the width of a roadway and parked cars. That bridge has been deliberately altered to only allow traffic one way at a time, so I wouldn't expect either direction to have priority and it would be more of a first come, first served arrangement.

HoarseMann wrote:

Now I don't agree with that. At the point the road narrows due to parked cars, there are no lanes anymore. It's just a narrow section of road.

The road does not narrow due to parked cars. The road remains the full extent of the road. However, one side of the road has parked cars on it, and drivers using that side of the road have a duty to other road users whose side of the road they may be encroaching if they intend to proceed.

Road users with parked cars on their side of the road need to give way to oncoming road users if they use the other side of the road.

GMBasix wrote:

Road users with parked cars on their side of the road need to give way to oncoming road users if they use the other side of the road.

That's the misconception that a lot of people have.

The only point you need to give way is _before_ passing the obstruction. We cannot tell from the video here whether that occurred. 

Rendel Harris wrote:

Doesn't the concept of committment come into play here? ...

There's a general principle and what happened here.

In general, I don't see that "committed" gives carte blanche to initiate an overtake on the other side of the road just because the overtaker got there first. If you can see it to be clear and you can pass before approaching traffic gets there, you can go; if not, you wait. Inevitably, some instances will mean commencing before oncoming vehicles come into sight, but when they do there's a conflict that needs to be negotiated.

What happened here:

The second oncoming vehicle proceeded when they could not see their way to be clear on the other side of the road. It was straightforward follow-my-leader regardless.

However, it is also obvious what was going to happen from the cyclist's pov. It was obvious that there could be a following vehicle. I would have adopted a primary position shport of the parked vehicles to allow the onconing vehicle time to return, and me time to assess if there were following vehicles. Then I would have asserted myself into the lane giving clear indication for other oncoming traffic not to proceed.

Incidentally, there were gaps for the second oncoming vehicle to choose to pull in, if they had a mind for courtesy.

So,...

• The second driver put themself in a "committed" position beyond their reaosnable expectation of a clear path.
• The cyclist failed to anticipate that another road user would encroach on their path, however unreasonably the driver may have done so.

GMBasix wrote:

I don't see that "committed" gives carte blanche to initiate an overtake on the other side of the road just because the overtaker got there first.

Pretty sure that is exactly how the majority of British motorists think that it works.

At what point in the video did you spot the car following the van? If it was before the van was passing, then I call you out as Superman with x-ray vision and collect my £10.

I spotted it after the van started pulling back onto their side of the road. Luckily I have been driving and cycling for long enough that I don't assume that there is nothing I can't see immediately and compensate for that... something that we want drivers to do ie. why did you pull out if you couldn't see it was clear

So, it's a non-event so long as the cyclist has years of experience? I find that idea profoundly unsettling.

Common sense would probably tell you that you shouldn't assume that the road is clear if you can't see no? I know we all like to get out our high horses about the most minor infraction here sometimes but drivers are not perfect and nor can we expect them to be. The whole road system works on the vague idea that people have a little give and take. They let people out. They wait for a few cars to go past a line of parked cars before they get to go. If we all worked to the absolute letter of the highway code everyone would have a much worse time a lot of the time. 

If you are not looking for potential hazards on your bike then you should be and yes, you need a certain level of common sense to be remotely safe on our roads. Our roads are not entirely safe and drivers are a huge part of that. You shouldn't be cycling on them without someone else if you can't come across a situation like this and manage it easily.  

mctrials23 wrote:

Bit of a non-event no? If someone is overtaking cars on your side of the road and you are coming up to them then you just slow down and wait for it to clear. In the scheme of close passes this comes under "driver shouldn't be doing that but you saw it a mile off and barrelled into obvious danger". 

I was out yesterday and following a car on my side of the road (parked cars blocking the other side) and a middle aged women in an SUV obviously didn't want to wait for a cyclist so as soon as the car went past her, out she pulled straight into my path. Not a chance she didn't see me, just wasn't going to suffer the indignation of waiting for a cyclist.  

The cyclist saw the van driver overtaking and adjusted their speed to avoid any incident, but the car driver following behind the van clearly had no view of the road and was performing a dangerous and illegal overtake. The cyclist couldn't have seen the car driver in much the same way that the car driver couldn't see the cyclist - that's what makes the overtake so dangerous.

but also makes it dangerous for cyclist not to ride more defensively, because he/ she can't see what, if anything, is past the van.

This is not an attempt to defend the driver, and cyclists shouldn't have to ride defensively, but I agree with mctrials that this is one that could have been avoided with a slightly more conservative approach.

I generally cycle to the reality of driving, not what should happen. I wouldn't have been expecting there to be nothing behind the van because a huge amount of the time there will be. As someone else said, people just follow a car overtaking because everyone expects this behaviour and doesn't just "go" when the first car has cleared the parked cars. 

No the car shouldn't do that but if this is the forethought and road craft this cyclist has, they are going to struggle on our roads when actually unexpected things happen. 

Personally I encounter enough really shit and dangerous driving that normal driving behaviour like this doesn't even register because I just slow down to make sure its clear before I can go. I would do the same in a car. I would even go so far as to suggest that kicking off about this sort of thing doesn't help our case for being taken seriously when it comes to road safety. There is always give and take on the roads. 

mctrials23 wrote:

I generally cycle to the reality of driving, not what should happen. I wouldn't have been expecting there to be nothing behind the van because a huge amount of the time there will be. As someone else said, people just follow a car overtaking because everyone expects this behaviour and doesn't just "go" when the first car has cleared the parked cars. 

No the car shouldn't do that but if this is the forethought and road craft this cyclist has, they are going to struggle on our roads when actually unexpected things happen. 

Personally I encounter enough really shit and dangerous driving that normal driving behaviour like this doesn't even register because I just slow down to make sure its clear before I can go. I would do the same in a car. I would even go so far as to suggest that kicking off about this sort of thing doesn't help our case for being taken seriously when it comes to road safety. There is always give and take on the roads. 

The general idea behind the Highway Code is to not require years of experience in order to be able to use the roads safely. If we're going to require cyclists to second guess all traffic conditions, then it's only going to be very experienced cyclists that will be able to use the roads and how do we expect the cyclists to get all that experience?

Yes, it's beneficial to be extra careful when your view is blocked by a van etc. but we still have to recognise when car drivers are overtaking recklessly and criticise them for doing so. It's similar to when using a cycle lane and approaching a side road on your left when going past a high sided van - it's wise to be prepared for a driver to attempt to turn into the side road, but ultimately, the onus is on the driver to only make a maneouvre when it's safe to do so and to anticipate that a cyclist might be hidden by the van.

You have to expect people to have some base level of common sense and problem solving to cycle remotely safely on our roads. If you cannot see a situation like this and think "perhaps I should slow down because there are car(s) coming directly at me and I don't know when it will be safe" then you are not safe to cycle on our roads. As I said, this is such a minor thing in the grand scheme of things drivers do but shouldn't that I have no idea how someone who can't handle this would react to something remotely surprising from a driver. 

"Non event" is putting it mildly. The cyclist has no one but himself for the situation he found himself in.

Really? Not the drivers of the vehicles on the wrong side of the road? They're blameless are they?

Don't know, don't care. When I find myself in a situation like that I tend to look for things I could gave done differently, and try to learn from them. The cyclist could have backed off. He chose not to.

As do I, as I can't control the actions of others. But that's different to blame.

There are very few situations on the roads that the "offended" party couldn't have compensated for but the question is always, how much can you expect people to compensate for. In this situation I would place the burden firmly on the cyclist. This is an every day occurence and I would say that this happens probably more often than not. In heavy traffic it always happens and if it didn't, one side of the road would never move. 

This comes under "this sort of behaviour is what keeps the roads moving" rather than "this sort of behaviour is dangerous". 

john_smith wrote:

Don't know, don't care. When I find myself in a situation like that I tend to look for things I could gave done differently, and try to learn from them. The cyclist could have backed off. He chose not to.

Looks as though he did back off to me - not to a complete stop but that's not an easy task on that road. I think what he did was reasonable; certainly more reasonable than the oncoming car that blindly followed the van.