Near Miss of the Day 646: Cyclist wonders whether police force “just supports aggressive and inconsiderate driving”

The hierarchy does not negate road markings.  The cyclist was in a left-turn lane, having left it too late to position before the lane divided.  His intention to go straight on is still subject to he need to give way when changing lanes, even with the hierarchy in place.

That's a great idea, let's extend it to other areas of life too - how about you have to pay £20 for posting a comment on here, which you get back if a single person likes your comment. That would certainly lower the number of vexatious and superfluous comments from you.

Careful. Pretty sure Nigel has more than one account.

Yep, one has just appeared.

He'd have got it back in this case, then.

So Flintshire,as you liked the post do agree that you have to pay £20 to submit reports to Police. Maybe pay £100 to get a guaranteed Careless Driving charge? 
 

hirsute wrote:

I can see why the police took that view as you did effectively change lanes too late. The driver should have realised from your road position that you wanted L2 but as you didn't take L2 immediately,

I tend to agree.  A more positive move to the lane would have avoided the situation.  The driver was inconsiderate but illegal is a stretch. 

I have to agree. When cars cut across lanes etc we state their indicator signal is not an agreement to swing across with out confirming the other vehicle is allowing it to happen, left hooks over cycle lane being a prime example of those normally

Personally i would have been across after the first check at 19 seconds showing the road was "empty". Then they will have to slow their approach or undertake.

But you then open the risk to an undertake,& the next 12 seconds then feels along time to be stuck out there, especially if you arent that quick or confident, and theres not alot of room on the exit.

I really dont know how I'd ride this one, without trying it.

but I'm curious about peoples views expressed on the signalling part, if it's not an agreement to move, if other vehicles arent allowing it to happen, what's the point in signalling as a cyclist at all ? because there are times when I can signal to turn right at a junction and no one is ever allowing me to manoeuvre to make that turn at all. In fact I had to alter my route to work because of that problem at a tricky junction, because i just couldnt get through the constant stream of traffic to turn right.

Awavey wrote:

I'm curious about peoples views expressed on the signalling part, if it's not an agreement to move, if other vehicles arent allowing it to happen, what's the point in signalling as a cyclist at all ?

I think it hinges on how early you're giving the signal, and how much opportunity you give the other road user to respond. If you're signalling in good time, while you still 'own the road', the onus is on the other person to respond to that appropriately. But you can't just fling an arm out and move over when they're already too close to reasonably concede the space.

Of course, there is, unfortunately, always going to be a grey area between the two. Ideally, this would be taken care of by both road users erring on the side of caution and then negotiating who takes the space. The problem comes where both assume that they're on the right side of that grey area.

agreed, and Im not expecting to just fling an arm out and move instantaneously regardless of the traffic behind me, Im saying when Ive put my arm out for a good 5 seconds of visibility, anyone at that stage approaching me from behind has had good sight of my intentions and I should reasonably expect them to give me the space to make that manouvre , and not attempt to overtake me, which always seems to be their default response.

though this NMOTD is a bit more complicated than just a right turn signal, because its just a change of lane and Im not even sure if Id signal it, the rider here still signalled clearly and early enough imo to have reasonably expected the van to respond positively to that and slowed to give the space

and yet the impression Im getting is people are still saying almost no dont expect that, but also saying own the lane at the same time, just because youve signalled unless the van driver allows it to happen, you're stuck in the lane you are in. In which case why bother signalling at all if you arent expecting the van drivers or any drivers permission to move, if you see the van just let it pass and roll in behind it.

For your point of signalling change of lane, I do if it is a genuine change of lane and my glance shows traffic is behind (even a distance behind) due to speed differences. (example place in a post further on). I don't if changing position in a single lane (pinch point or parked car needing me  to move over) as other cars should be attentive of that aspect although I still ensure nothing is coming and brake if cars behind have crap drivers who can't see past their own bonnet. 

It is always a tough call as when to do a signal then manouvre on a bike though. But my point previously was we have criticised cars for indicating and manouvreing and using the "well I indicated" as their defence.
In dicklexic's defence, the driver was still a cockwomble though as they didn't seem to touch the brake at all in the approach even seeing the cyclist getting closer (and pedestrian on the crossing refuge). 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

In dicklexic's defence, the driver was still a cockwomble though as they didn't seem to touch the brake at all in the approach even seeing the cyclist getting closer (and pedestrian on the crossing refuge). 

If anything, it looks like they might have sped up a little in order to make sure they got ahead "before that bike gets in my way" (though it's quite difficult to say because we can't see their full approach). At the least, I'd say they were going too fast for approaching a junction.

Ah, but if you concede that it was inconsiderate, then it may indeed be an offence (if the aggrieved party is inconvenienced).

I don't think there was inconvenience in this case, however - so no offence. The police response may have been 'correct' but could have been worded a little better.

I guess I would remove all ambiguity and get myself fully across in advance of the van, who moved across well before you did. From what I saw you left it open to the van driver to squeeze past you on the outside. Of course you would then have found them overtaking you on the inside or possibly through the roundabout, so I'm not sure you can win against someone determined to treat you as an obstacle. A courteous driver would have eased off and given you the space to safely negotiate the roundabout, but as you learned, the police are not interested in that.

And they have a cycle carrier mounted!

I think you were unlucky that there was a pedestrian crossing at the same time. I suspect the driver was focusing on that, rather than you and you got lost in their peripheral vision.

They were also the sort of driver who was not slowing down for anyone!

But there was also the risk if they had slowed and maybe even flashed you across into the lane ahead of them, that the pedestrian could have taken that as a cue to cross the road in front of the bike.

I think being more assertive earlier on and fully taking the lane before the markings begin. Or being less assertive later on and conceding if a vehicle is not going to let you into the ahead lane. You could also possibly go ahead from the left turn lane (these arrows are just advisory), but of course that would have other implications from vehicles pulling out in front of you or passing you on the roundabout.

Going ahead from the left lane would probably have been the action of choice for me given the unfurling situation and otherwise light traffic.

I'm hesitant to critique these videos too much as I know from personal experience that what it looks like on video and what it feels like on the road can be very different things, but as you ask I would have been across to the right-hand side of the lane while it was still single, aligned to hit the right-hand straight on lane dead in the centre when it appears, leaving the van driver in absolutely no doubt as to not only what I was doing (which you had already indicated) but that I was asserting my right to go first. I probably would have accelerated a bit too to increase the closing time between myself and the van as I moved across. From the video it looks as though the driver may have assumed from the fact that you didn't move across that you were intending to let them go first - they probably shouldn't have done, having seen your signal, but a lack of assertiveness in your manouevering was probably enough to sow doubt about your intentions. 

It's not often I agree with the police in regard to videos posted, but in this case I am in 100% agreement. 

NMOTD is useful even when the cyclist doesn't get it right. As Nelson Mandella apparently once quoted. "I never lose, I either win, or I learn".

I'm in complete agreement with the police on this one. The van was certainly driving assertively but not illegally or inconsiderately: they could have let you across, but had no obligation to. This wasn't a "near miss", either.

If you wanted to get to the rounadabout in lane 2 ahead of them, you had plenty of time to move across into the lane earlier before the split started, which would have more clearly stated your intention — most drivers wouldn't have had a problem with that.

Clear consensus emerging here.

As you know the junction, you are aware of the lanes in advance.  Moving early to take advantage of the right lane is key.  You made reasonable early observations and that would have been the time to position right, before the single lane became two.

Having delayed, you then became aware of the van approaching, and its speed, and the lane having divided into two.  At that point, you had a duty to give way to the van, regardless of your signalled intentions (the hierarchy of users doesn't take precedence over marked priorities; it isn't a licence to have priority).  You should have continued in the left lane, adjusting speed if possible to change lane after the van had passed, continuing obervations of the junction and behind you (thereby alerting any other following vehicles that you are trying to manoeuvre). 

Quote:

 Marcus said: “They are pinning this dismissal on the suggestion that I moved into the van's lane, yet the lanes are only 'separate' for the last 5m or so, and I was into the lane before the van arrived.

What appears in the video is that you move into the lane around one second before the front of the van is level with your rear, that you cross the line to do so, and you do so within a few metres of the bollards to the right.  This all gives the van driver very little time or space to do anything, at a time when his observation workload is increasing from assessing you to assessing the junction in addition.  As much as drivers are advised to use the '2-second rule'; it follows that anybody moving into that '2-second' field ahead of a driver takes that safety margin away, especially given the difference in speed.

You could possibly have used the left lane to continue on, noting that that is not specifically illegal but may be confusing and possibly obstructive to other road users.  Otherwise, your options, having trapped yourself in the left lane are to stop and reset in a gap in traffic, or detour left and correct your route afterwards.

The police response is a bit curt, but they have at least explained what they saw in the video and fed back to you.

The only advice the van driver might be given is that, approaching a mini-roundabout, with a cyclist indicating right on the approach, he might consider dusting off a bit more speed (but that depends on camera perspectives - he was certainly not going fast, except actually going through a junction with conflict). But the onus to give way here was on you, I'm afraid.

Good on you, coming on here, given the growing consensus.

'Fraid I agree with that consensus, arm signal or no, I think you need to get into the outside lane when it is definitely clear, rather than, as you say, assuming that the van will stay back because of the signal.

FWIW I dont think you did anything wrong, so dont treat what the others or even im saying as criticism of your riding, & I think the police could have better explained the NFA as I dont think it passes the threshold for action,but it doesnt mean you were in the wrong.

And I'm not as big a fan of the 'assertive riding' technique as the others are either because it's very easy to say well just take the lane in front of that van and block it and everythings then fine.

a decent considerate driver wouldnt have put you in the position you ended up with, so you know they arent a decent considerate driver, which means they probably will consider you as an obstacle instead, so you 'take the lane' and they just undertake you or force an overtake still, maybe even just draw alongside and force you to make space for them, or sit on your rear wheel and give you not enough room, using the horn no doubt, or cut you up by straight lining the roundabout or trying all the above on the exit. Do you really want that kind of driver behind you as you navigate that setup?

And those arent me just spitballing worst case scenarios, those are all things that have happened to me in this kind of road set up by 'taking the lane'.

So as I said on another thread,I'm not sure how I'd approach this one,without trying a few different things. I mean the irony being it should be easiest in low volume traffic scenarios and yet this literally was that with just a lone van.

And in most of the cases you mentioned, (and yes some of them might have meant Dicklexic being an unfortunate statistic) the submitted footage would have genuinely been 100% drivers fault and might have meant Police action. 

Absolutely, but it's the not wanting to be a statistic part that bothers me most,not the lack of police action in this case.

When we discuss owning a lane as a solution to these NMOTDs,like here, it often feels like we ignore the "and then what happens next part".

The trouble is you could become a statistic either way as shown here and, (as mentioned by another poster), illustrated in the cyclegaz video where owning the lane still meant drivers were asshats. In this case the Police was criticising it because the cyclist appeared to move across into the van and it does look that way in the video. But if the lane was owned, and the NMOTD does happen, then it is 100% driver error, and easier for Police to action bad driving. But as I mentioned, it is always a tough decision and does depend on the confidence of the cyclist. 

If I posted my Near misses, I would expect criticism of some of my cycling unfortunately including gutter riding and postitioning. However it is not the criticism of me that I don't post them.