Near Miss of the Day 915: Cyclist slams on brakes to avoid driver who ignored him and turned across... but says “no point in reporting” due to Police Scotland’s lack of online close pass portal

newbankgyratory wrote:

Either -

1. The cyclist was completely masked by the silver SUV - the car driver wasn't aware of the cyclist at all.

2. Car driver knew cyclist was approaching and pulled out regardless

Suggest - respectfully - cycling more defensively by anticipating bad driver decisions.

Physically the first isn't true as you can see the car from the bike. It may be *harder* to see a bike (motorists looking for *cars*...) but in this case they could have missed an oncoming motorbikes or car.

So the first should be rephrased as "the driver did not make sufficient observation so they weren't aware of the cyclist at all".

How should they cycle "more defensively" - they managed to avoid a collision here despite the driver's error?

Should they send a man ahead with a red flag to alert drivers? Only cycle at walking pace? But that is also not "defensive" - perhaps a driver was following the cyclist, or planning an overtake (anticipate bad decisions, remember?)

There's only so much defensive cycling you can do short of not cycling at all. Because you have to balance the potential bad decisions of ALL drivers.

chrisonabike wrote:

"the driver did not make sufficient observation so they weren't aware of the cyclist at all".

I've had two of these recently. Yesterday some girls in an Audi suddenly appeared from a parking space on my right. They hadn't seen me (or even looked properly) - fortunately I had seen them and managed to slow-down and let them out. A week or so ago I had another one where an SUV exited from a parking space on my right, again they appeared suddenly and I was able to stop and let them out. (We were both going to the same Christening party and the driver apologised "I just didn't see you".

In both cases my car (small estate) had been masked by an on-coming car at the decision-point of is-it-clear-for-me-to-pull-out-or-not.

Unfortunately you have to anticipate these kind of situations when driving - and - I respectfully suggest - when cycling.

newbankgyratory wrote:

Unfortunately you have to anticipate these kind of situations when driving - and - I respectfully suggest - when cycling.

You're correct and we all do but a) we shouldn't have to as cyclists with the new Hierarchy of road users and b) the driver should be held accounatble for their error of judgment. Just because it's how things are doesn't make it right.

I imagine every cyclist reading this would have avoided a collision but it's those cyclists who haven't had long experience of cycling on the road who would suffer in situations like this through no fault of their own.

newbankgyratory wrote:

Suggest - respectfully - cycling more defensively by anticipating bad driver decisions.

The only way the cyclist could be more defensive in that situation would be to ride more slowly and cede priority to all cars at every opportunity even when the law and the Highway Code indicate otherwise, something that can bring its own problems: in the last month I had a driver tell me it was my fault that they left hooked me because I was going too fast and should have slowed to let them overtake and turn ahead of me, Mrs H had a driver tell her that it was her fault they left hooked her because she was going too slowly and if she'd been going faster she would have cleared the junction before they got there. The rider in this video was cycling in a straight line at a perfectly reasonable speed in broad daylight with clear sightlines when confronted with an appalling bit of driving. Suggest – respectfully – that suggesting they should have been cycling more defensively to prevent this situation is victim blaming at its finest.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Suggest – respectfully – that suggesting they should have been cycling more defensively to prevent this situation is victim blaming at its finest.

Not victim blaming - poor driving is poor driving. This specific instance masked the approaching cyclist so that the driver couldn't see them at the important decision-point of is-it-clear-for-me-to-pull-out-or-not.

Rendel Harris wrote:

left hooked me because I was going too fast and should have slowed to let them overtake and turn ahead of me, Mrs H had a driver tell her that it was her fault they left hooked her because she was going too slowly and if she'd been going faster she would have cleared the junction before they got there.

I am sorry about your's and Mrs's left-hook experiences - bloody-minded MGIF mentality is baffling. However, diifferent instance to being masked by oncoming vehicles.

Rendel Harris wrote:

The rider in this video was cycling in a straight line at a perfectly reasonable speed in broad daylight with clear sightlines when confronted with an appalling bit of driving.

i wouldn't consider it appalling driving - more typical driving.

newbankgyratory wrote:

i wouldn't consider it appalling driving - more typical driving.

These are not mutually exclusive things.

newbankgyratory wrote:

Not victim blaming - poor driving is poor driving. This specific instance masked the approaching cyclist so that the driver couldn't see them at the important decision-point of is-it-clear-for-me-to-pull-out-or-not.

Apologies for extra post but disagreeing about the "decision point".  Perhaps you're being descriptive but no-one should get a pass for this.  Not a driving instructor but I would have expected to fail the test here.  The "decision point" cannot be "after a vehicle has just passed me, blocking my view to the left".  You should have been viewing the direction before that, and if in any doubt make another check after the vehicle has passed.

Unless you think that it's OK when driving to give yourself less than a second to check if a road is clear to pull out - and / or just not bother checking in one direction?

We all know that drivers "look but do not see" or "don't see the cyclists" and that there is commonly poor driving on the roads.  It is unfortunately on cyclists to take extra care - but most cyclists do, most of the time.  None of that makes this something we should just accept (like people going well over the speed limit etc.).

I suggest - respectfully - that you STFU until you have something valid or constructive to add!

Dicklexic wrote:

I suggest - respectfully - that you STFU until you have something valid or constructive to add!

Thanks for the advice.

I've commented on this particular NMOTD because it appears to be very similar to a case where the cyclist - keen lady club cyclist - was going downhill along a tree-lined road and a driver crossed in front of them and killed them.

In that fatal case the cyclist was masked by an on-coming car at the is-it-clear-for-me-to-pull-out-or-not driver's decision point.

NB I spent quite a long time last night searching for the article that covered this but couldn't find it.

newbankgyratory wrote:

I've commented on this particular NMOTD because it appears to be very similar to a case where the cyclist - keen lady club cyclist - was going downhill along a tree-lined road and a driver crossed in front of them and killed them.

In that fatal case the cyclist was masked by an on-coming car at the is-it-clear-for-me-to-pull-out-or-not driver's decision point.

NB I spent quite a long time last night searching for the article that covered this but couldn't find it.

I assume that was the deceased's fault as well?

As per the comments by Rendel and Chris, there is only so far "defensive" cycling can go. If you ride (or drive) like you are literally invisible and assume no-one has seen you ever, you would never get anywhere.

In this instance, the turning driver has ample opportunity to see the cyclist - the cyclist was clearly visible for several seconds (if the driver had bothered to look), whilst being hidden for fractions of a second whilst the oncoming car passes. I can't see any "signs" that the cyclist could have used to anticipate what the car was about to do - no initial movement of the car or similar to indicate the car was about to pull out at that moment. And of course the cyclist was travelling at a speed that enabled them to avoid a collision, despite the car driver pulling out at pretty much the worst possible time. So all in all, not sure exactly what you think the cyclist should have done differently, beyond not leave the house. Or perhaps would that be your preferred solution - no pesky cyclists on the road?

It wasn't the case in the NMOTD, I've no idea where the crash newbankgyratory refers to happened, BUT there are some circumstances and in particular road layouts which make failure to observe more likely (and proper, timely observation more difficult).  A good article on one such is here:

https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/collision-course/

It also suggests mitigation - which should be basic knowledge for our designers and assessors.  Some of this is "legacy" but I'm not convinced our risk assessments are always taking cycling into account.  Roll on Sustainable Safety...

OnYerBike wrote:

I assume that was the deceased's fault as well?

That is quite a dirty statement.

In none of my comments have I laid blame on the cyclist - I think they were cycling along correctly. However, they were/could-have-been masked by the silver SUV - the tallness of the SUV is a factor here - and the exiting driver couldn't see them - almost resulting in a collision - saved by the cyclists ability and quick reactions.

I should have been more plain - if you are approaching a side road with motor vehicle about to emerge then - plan for and anticipate:

A. Them not seeing/caring and pulling out on you

B. An on-coming vehicle - especially large ones like lorries, vans, coaches, SUVs, pick-up trucks, etc - masking your approach.

Basically, if B happens and you cannot see the emerging car yourself then prepare for A by slowing down.

i've picked up on this NMOTD because the demise of the lady cyclist in the similar situation at the cross-roads has been on my mind. (Please someone find the article and cross-link to it here.)

You are clearly implying that both incidents could have been avoided if the cyclists had cycled in what you consider to be a more prudent manner.

In this instance (I don't know about the other case you refer to) I see no evidence that the cyclist was "masked" by the silver SUV. I certainly wouldn't expect the cyclist to entertain the possibility that the driver hadn't seen them soley based on the fact that the line of sight was blocked for a fraction of a second, having been clearly visible for an extended period before that. 

It appears to me very much like the driver had already looked to their left decided it was "clear", and planned to pull out straight after the silver SUV had passed, and therefore was probably watching the SUV. I'm not sure what the driver thought by "clear" - maybe they looked but entirely failed to see the cyclist; maybe they saw the cyclist but misjudged the cyclist's speed; or maybe they saw the cyclist and just didn't care. In any case, I don't think the driver looked again between the SUV passing in front of them and starting to pull out.

newbankgyratory wrote:

However, they were/could-have-been masked by the silver SUV - the tallness of the SUV is a factor here - and the exiting driver couldn't see them - almost resulting in a collision - saved by the cyclists ability and quick reactions.

... for less than a second, having had all the time in the world to observe them before that, in good clear conditions, on a straight road...

The problem here isn't the car impeding the motorist's view - they are an incompetent driver (that's generous - it could be "they can see I'm going to turn so they should avoid me").  The only problem with that is it blocks the cyclists' view...

... but in fact on planning "A. Them not seeing/caring and pulling out on you" is exactly the issue - no need to invoke "B".  I have had a couple of near-hits when I've approached a side-road on my left where drivers have been looking straight at me but pulling out anyway.  No masking needed...

Left and right have different issues but "just slow down" is not a panacea - a car behind you may well attempt to overtake might just run into you if dozy (wouldn't the turning driver see them?  Turns out not everyone can see cars either).

Other road users will not expect this level of defensiveness because mostly everyone gets away with it.  But they're protected by doors / maybe have a side-impact protection system.  If I pre-emptively slowed for many side-roads because "you just can't tell" in a car would that be a driving test fail?  Will I start hating my cycle because of the beeping from behind / abuse as people pass?

The ultimate solution is of course far more cyclists about (so "look for cyclists" is normal) and a bit more awareness from drivers (and regularly removing the worst - might focus people!).  Unfortunately that's chicken and egg and there's very little motivation for change in our current system.

Give your head a wobble; nothing he's said is wrong. Typical of roadcc that no cyclist can do anything wrong/ incorrect or could do better.

It's poor driving, but vulnerable road users have to be more defensive - no good being right if they end up in hospital or a wooden box. This cyclist simply wan't alert enough......

Velophaart_95 wrote:

This cyclist simply wan't alert enough......

Er, except they were - that's why they were able to take action to prevent the driver causing a collision.

 I can't see what the cyclist did wrong/ incorrect or could do better on a clear road with good visibility. The only person at fault is the driver.

Velophaart_95 wrote:

Give your head a wobble

Such a useful phrase, it saves masses of time because as soon one sees it one knows it's not worth reading the rest of the comment as it's guaranteed to be stupid.

Velophaart_95 wrote:

It's poor driving, but vulnerable road users have to be more defensive - no good being right if they end up in hospital or a wooden box. This cyclist simply wan't alert enough psychic......

Being defensive is very important - but also is far from a guarantee of your safety.  As discussed with the other poster here hindsight can often be applied to a specific situation but it doesn't always give you a good general pattern you can apply, because the suitable "defensive cycling" can turn out to be different in different cases.

Here someone was cycling - if not in primary position then far from the gutter so "defensively" - in broad daylight (but no "low sun"...), on a straight road, with perfect mutual visibility (except for under a second - after the driver had plenty of time to observe).  They were "aware" enough and travelling at a suitable speed so they avoided a collision.

As discussed at length just how "alert" do you need to be if you have to guard against the possibility of "drivers throwing themselves in the road"?  (After all, even not cycling and just walking on the pavement won't save you from being run over, nor staying in your house...)  And will "alertness" help you anyway as unfortunately for road use to be practical some measure of relying on other road users to behave within normal parameters is required? *  Consider - the observation of this driver was so poor / non-existent that it's possible they wouldn't have seen a truck (which almost certainly would have gone badly for them).

"Beware of being hidden from view of other road users" is sensible - only that will happen all the time (and in every position relative to the viewer).  Further I've had several occasions where it's clear that "make sure you have made eye contact" is far from a guarantee that you'll connect with someone's awareness...

Going at any speed (as Rendel noted) can cause issues.  Slowing down when you are expected to maintain speed and (because bike) you can only indicate this to following road users using the special flappy gesture (which they probably will be confused about) is not without problems either.

* There are of course better and worse infrastructure designs and rule sets.  The Dutch have gone further than the UK in looking at "human factors" and gathering evidence on how systems fare in practice and feeding that back to make designs that are safer even when people go wrong.

Velophaart_95 wrote:

It's poor driving, but vulnerable road users have to be more defensive - no good being right if they end up in hospital or a wooden box. This cyclist simply wan't alert enough......

I would argue that the cyclist was alert enough as a collision was avoided. The point that needs to be made is that, if I've understood the hierarchy of road users correctly, cyclists shouldn't have to be alert to mistakes by drivers as drivers bear the responsibility for taking care around cyclists just as cyclists have responsibility for taking care around pedestrians and horses.

Obviously that's the ideal and as things stand any road user needs their wits about them with the standard of driving as it is and vehicles designed to protect occupants rather than the people they hit. What is needed here is the driver being held to account for their incompetence, not to blame the cyclist or to make excuses for the driver.

Since this commentor didn't get back yet I thought I'd have a re-watch, just to see where they thought "cycling defensively" would help.

But first - the "but the cyclist was hidden".   Er... no.  Straight road, good mutual visibility.  Even with the rubbish resolution of the video the blue car is clearly visible at 4 sec in (and the cyclist would have been, if driver was looking / moved their head in case of side pillars).  Probably for longer.  See the screen grab showing this "invisibility" at about 6 sec - cyclist was "there to be seen" for the entire length of the clip before that...

Cyclist disappears behind silver car for less than a second.  Hard to tell but it looks like the blue car had only just started pulling out when the cyclist reappeard from behind the silver car.  If they'd been looking, they'd have had a second in which they could have aborted (putting them in the path of the white vehicle - but that's on them...)

So - "defensive cycling"?

Awareness / speed: as mentioned my first post the cyclist was going at a speed and observing sufficiently to deal with the situation (unlike the driver) so in this sense "they did their bit".

Position: it's not clear where the camera is so the cyclist could have been "in the middle of the road" or slightly to the left.  In this case that would have made zero difference to their visibility because they were "there to see" for several seconds.  And in fact in "primary" they are more likely to have been hit.

Observation: unless they are very tall and can see over the silver vehicle the cyclist likely couldn't see the driver start to pull out as they started that while behind the silver vehicle.

Prediction: I would expect the blue car to have seen the cyclist because conditions were perfect.  However there is always that risk (and "eye contact" is no guarantee - I've nearly been hit while staring into the face of drivers - they were "looking but not seeing").  The white car following the silver car is visible to the cyclist.  I guess that's a judgement as to whether you think "another car is coming so the driver won't pull out" or "they'll see a gap and go for it".

Van, so probably did not give a damn.

mattw wrote:

Van, so probably did not give a damn.

Car.

My mistake - sorry.

I watched another clip in between.

  Aw, that's so sweet that you think that would happen...