Near Miss of the Day 695: Cyclist has third dangerous overtake in a month on same stretch of road

brooksby wrote:

 

Lots of words in Welsh 'mutate' so that a hard consonent becomes a softer one in certain circumstances (so how 'beic' goes to 'feic').

My favourite Welsh words are ones like the loan-words back from English eg. tacsi (taxi) and sgriwdreifar (screwdriver).

Like ambiwlans?

meanwhile

English - Police

French - Police

German - Polizei

Spanish - Policia

Swedish - Polis

Dutch - Politie

Welsh - Heddlu

Perhaps because the vast, vast majority of the people in Wales don't speak Welsh.?

I dunno, just a thought.

30% and rising each year. And anyway there is Welsh on the sign as pointed out later.

At the end, there are 2 vehicles coming the otherway a few seconds after the overtake, so ' I got away with it' is not a defence for me and a warning is insufficient.

Thought the cyclist was a bit close to the car after the first overtake.

hirsute wrote:

Thought the cyclist was a bit close to the car after the first overtake.

Yes, without defending the motorist for committing the offences he did, the camera cyclist was ridign at around 23mph close behind the car in the wet.  If the car stopped suddenly, the cyclist didn't stand much chance of stopping.  Also, it suggests he's putting pressure on the driver to get past the cyclists ahead.

GMBasix wrote:

 

Yes, without defending the motorist for committing the offences he did, the camera cyclist was ridign at around 23mph close behind the car in the wet.  If the car stopped suddenly, the cyclist didn't stand much chance of stopping.  Also, it suggests he's putting pressure on the driver to get past the cyclists ahead.

I don't think he was putting pressure on the car at all, probably suggests that the gap between the 2 groups of cylists wasn't enough for the car to drop into!

Two things, I wouldn't slam on the brakes to create the gap in the wet and yes I'd probably be making a point abouth the driver dropping in there...

Can't say I'm on board with your stance. What happens a few seconds after someone completes an overtake in the space that they can see and judge to be able to make the overtake is, to me, utterly irrelevant. 

What I saw in that video was by and large a considerate driver. They gave space, and althought the space between the two cycling groups was small, when the pass was made, it was sufficient for a car to fit into.

The fact the gap closed was (to us cyclists) inevitable, especially when a bit of cyclist bloodimindedness is factored in, but no one was put at risk.

The first overtake left plenty of space, the cars speed was perfectly reasonable.

The driver then waited until the they had suitable vision of the road ahead in which to make the second pass and again, did so leaving plenty of room, at a reasonable speed, well in time to move out of the road should oncoming vehicles approach.

Look, I get it, it was a technical breach, they crossed lines they shouldn't have, but to call this dangerous is a bit of a stretch. 

I am confused, are people wanting cars to sit behind them indefinitely? Already admitted is the fact that the lines on this road are known to be restrictive for cars to overtake, so surely a bit of tolerance for the above example is reasonable. Personally, I'd rather a driver make a  judgement call as shown in this video, then sit behind endlessly waiting for conditions and markings to be perfectly aligned. 

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

What I saw in that video was by and large a considerate driver. They gave space, and althought the space between the two cycling groups was small, when the pass was made, it was sufficient for a car to fit into.

 

even before the overtake the gap between the cyclist groups was about 2 seconds. so clearly after the overtak either the gap in front of the car or the gap behind the car (or most likely both) will be below the recomended gap. So i realy don't see how the gap between was sufficient for a car to fit into. Physcially yes, safely while moving no.

I am confused

Yes you are, aren't you? The law about crossing unbroken white lines is on the statute books and the speed denoted by '10mph' hasn't changed since the Royal Assent- if you don't like it, enlist your local Tory MP and the Daily Mail and other hyper-junk press in a campaign to change it. Despite the fact that it is axiomatic for Lancashire Constabulary and other forces that cycles are always travelling at less than 10mph, the video shows otherwise- this is what is known as 'evidence'. It is not dependent upon the police dodges about being completely unaware of the cyclist's speed and completely ignoring the rather good GPS speedo, because on the video itself the cyclist is clearly maintaining about twice the limit. I am personally never travelling at less than 15mph when opposite unbroken white lines (except uphill, of course), because I make sure I'm not.

If drivers have to wait, it's just their hard luck. They may need to set out earlier if they don't want to sit behind endlessly waiting for conditions and markings to be perfectly aligned because the law says they have to wait. This Passat VO53 BLK was untaxed on 6th and 9th January and became 'taxed' on the12th, very likely because the police quietly 'gave him the nod'. Because of the evasive police response, I think he was uninsured as well. He's towing a trailer with a taxed Land Rover plate SP13 HCE. Lancashire Constabulary is desperate to do nothing about this case 

What you have said though is the outcome justified the manoeuvre.
Maybe I have been on too many backs roads where I have avoided a collision due to caution and 'someone could be coming round that bend'.
Just because the driver got away with it doesn't mean the overtake was ok or risk free

One of the things I have learnt from submitting videos to the police,and I suspect this is because the likes of Mr Loophole do exploit this kind of stuff.

Is basically if they prosecute this, the defence has a loop hole that says your speed data,however accurate you claim it to be still isnt officially calibrated to the level the law requires for speed related offences, and as the speed is critical to the prosecution case, it basically isnt going to succeed

A warning,probably covered merely as careless driving, is I suspect the best & only outcome available and many forces would probably treat it as NFA.

Should be zero tolerance - immediate 3 points and a fine or Driver awareness course

Except, in reality, the police have pretty much infinite tolerance for almost any traffic offence and have no intention of imposing any penalty whatsoever unless they're forced to (speeding excepted, because all the work is done for them)- especially when cyclists are involved. And that even extends to untaxed and probably uninsured vehicles being driven on public roads