Near Miss of the Day 674: “The driver is going to have to inconvenience someone,” say police – that “someone” was a cyclist

nicmason wrote:

Average driver. Better than some worse than others Like most people. 

So a scale of 0-10 you're a 5. How would you rank the driver in the clip?

IanMK wrote:

...

So a scale of 0-10 you're a 5. How would you rank the driver in the clip?

This one goes up to 11...

Everything's relative....

Well, they didn't go round the roundabout the wrong way so 8.

IanMK wrote:

nicmason wrote:

Average driver. Better than some worse than others Like most people. 

So a scale of 0-10 you're a 5. How would you rank the driver in the clip?

Most drivers think they are 8.5 apparently...

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

IanMK wrote:

nicmason wrote:

Average driver. Better than some worse than others Like most people. 

So a scale of 0-10 you're a 5. How would you rank the driver in the clip?

 

Most drivers think they are 8.5 apparently...

 

Wasn't there a survey years ago that found that British Drivers thought that they were the best in Europe. Italian drivers actually agreed with the pan-European belief that they were the worst. Overall German drivers came out on top.

IanMK wrote:

Wasn't there a survey years ago that found that British Drivers thought that they were the best in Europe. Italian drivers actually agreed with the pan-European belief that they were the worst. Overall German drivers came out on top.

It would be interesting to know how many Italians actually ranked themselves as bad drivers as opposed to their compatriots - I've heard many, many drivers complain that the general standard of driving is too low but I don't think I've ever heard one describe themselves as a bad or even a weak driver. 

Yes, which is why it is harder to get convictions on even careless driving as you state a driver who drives the wrong way on Roundabouts AND already been sent on a Re-education course is the average standard. 

And even after the course, still the average driver still defends driving like the above as OK because the cyclist is still alive. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

....

And even after the course, still the the still average driver still defends driving like the above as OK because the cyclist is still alive. 

TFTFY

I never defended the driver. it was poor. my comment was on the cyclist who could have reacted more quickly. You're all (rightly for once) condemning the driver so need to add to that.

nicmason wrote:

I never defended the driver. it was poor. my comment was on the cyclist who could have reacted more quickly. You're all (rightly for once) condemning the driver so need to add to that.

But none of us were victim blaming, so you needed to do that?

an observation. hardly victim blaming. But whatever.

Read your own post again.  You absolutely blamed the cyclist.

I didnt blame the cyclist for the incident. I commented on their approach to dealing with it/

nicmason wrote:

I never defended the driver. it was poor. my comment was on the cyclist who could have reacted more quickly. You're all (rightly for once) condemning the driver so need to add to that.

How much more quickly than quickly enough to avoid a collision is required in an emergency Nic? Come now, we need an above-average-driver's opinion on this...

oh....

First words were Cyclist cycled into problem. Just sounds to me like you want to blame him for not doing what I assume you do which is stopping each time a car wants to overtake.

And right for once? So in 674 NMotd and countless other videos of atrocius driving including people knocked off from behind, you think this driver is the only one who did something wrong. And you class your driving as average........

Yep, it is people like you which means Dangerous driving is Careless at best in courts as it doesn't fall dangerously below the average driver. 

nicmason wrote:

I never defended the driver. it was poor. my comment was on the cyclist who could have reacted more quickly. You're all (rightly for once) condemning the driver so need to add to that.

The article is about the police reaction to the incident. Most of the discussion was about the threshold for it being actionable. You twisted it to gaslight the victim (and potential future victims of idiots like this driver).

The mistake the driver made, was using his breaks in the middle of an overtaking manouevre - he slows for the speed bump before the van becomes visible.  At which point is the cyclist to know that going to whether the driver is abandoning the overtake (in which case it would be prudent to continue at the same speed), or is just pausing for a break during the overtake.

BTW, if the driver had positioned his vehicle fully in the right hand lane, he could have easily driven over the speed cushions without reducing speed and without damaging what ever precious cargo he was carrying and completed the overtake before the van came round the corner.

jh2727 wrote:

The mistake the driver made, was using his breaks in the middle of an overtaking manouevre - he slows for the speed bump before the van becomes visible.  

well, one of the mistakes anyway. The first mistake was to begin an overatke in the vicinity of a speed bump contraveing rule 153

Following up with breaches of 163  (do not get to close to the vehicle you intend to overtake) and also (move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in). The driver does neither due to applying brakes mid overtake (perhaps thats why rule 153 exists) and then finding an oncoming vehicle is approaching.

perhaps rule 162 (before overtaking make sure the road is sufficiently clear ahead) would have avoided that

Rule 167 is unequivacal "DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example approaching or at a road junction"

But of course breaching of 4 rules of the highway code is not sufficient to be considered below the standard of a carful and confident driver. WE only look at teh final outcome where the driver has painted themselves into a corner and responds by endangering the cyclist rather than another road user.

So as far as I can see the driver has breached 153, 162, 163 and 167 before the oncoming vehicle is involved, and only a second breach of 163 once the unforeseen (but entirely predictable) circumstances presented themselves. If only their was a guide which advised drivers how to act to minimise the chances of these unforseen circumstances causing a problem, [perhaps drivers could also be trained and tested in some manner. Maybe we could require them to be registered and identifiable so that action could be taken against those who wil not follow the rules, orin minor minor cases warning letters reminding them of the highway code as it pertains to their actions.

OR - we could just say people make mistakes, make allowances and try not to be killed.

Completely agree.  It's all very well being right, but it's not a great comfort when you're flat.  

Part of being a road user is anticipating mistakes, not just barrelling into complex situations at 30mph and then moaning because someone changes lane unexpectedly or whatever.  It's true for cars and its true for bikes

RobSC wrote:

Part of being a road user is anticipating mistakes, not just barrelling into complex situations at 30mph and then moaning because someone changes lane unexpectedly or whatever. 

Absolutely none of the above apply in this instance.

Wow, the cyclist was travelling at 30 mph as well as the car !

Did you bother to read anything that has been posted ?

I'll give you a clue based on what has been posted rule 153, 162, 163, 167

Or do you think like nicmason,  that bungle should have been omniscient ?

hirsute wrote:

Wow, the cyclist was travelling at 30 mph as well as the car !

Did you bother to read anything that has been posted ?

I'll give you a clue based on what has been posted rule 153, 162, 163, 167

Or do you think like nicmason,  that bungle should have been omniscient ?

He doesn't know what you're talking about. I suspect his first ever bike is a Ribble..

Captain Badger wrote:

He doesn't know what you're talking about. I suspect his first ever bike is a Ribble..

Still in the future then?

TheBillder wrote:

Captain Badger wrote:

He doesn't know what you're talking about. I suspect his first ever bike is a Ribble..

Still in the future then?

You got it!

PS, I've been worrying all weekend that was too obscure

If the cyclist was going at 30mph, then the car was speeding in a traffic calming zone which is another point ignored by the police then. Cyclist braked when necessary once the stupid drivers manouvre was apparent. Why do people think he didn"t?

There We Are Then.

mdavidford wrote:

Quote:

“Initially he has left plenty of room."

Maybe, but that's not really the point. He's also chosen to start an overtake when there's a speed hump and a junction that should both indicate to him that it's not an appropriate place to do so. Why does that not meet the standard for careless driving?

........

Quite. Did....until they didn't. A bit like saying "initially didn't run you over. Until they did".....

mdavidford wrote:

Maybe, but that's not really the point. He's also chosen to start an overtake when there's a speed hump and a junction that should both indicate to him that it's not an appropriate place to do so.

Indeed highway code rule 153 instructs not to overtake in locations with traffic calming

Quote:

153
Traffic-calming measures. On some roads there are features such as road humps, chicanes and narrowings which are intended to slow you down. When you approach these features reduce your speed. Allow cyclists and motorcyclists room to pass through them. Maintain a reduced speed along the whole of the stretch of road within the calming measures. Give way to oncoming road users if directed to do so by signs. You should not overtake other moving road users while in these areas.

(emphasis by me) note that it says road users rather than vehicles to be absolutely clear that this includes cyclists, and doesn't just refer to motor vehicles

Could also include pedestrians or wheelchair users where the footway is too narrow.