Near Miss of the Day 902: “I can’t believe I wasn’t hit”

I have had a very close pass experience a couple of weeks ago where the driver admitted and took joy from passing close.  I have studdied the highway code extensively since then to see if I did anything wrong.  I didn't do anything wrong.

It was during that studying I stumbled across this video and sensed that the comments didn't make safe sense.  Comments saying or suggesting that "it is dangerous to ride over a speed hump".  This is rubbish.  Speed humps are specifically designed for cyclists to ride over safely.  It is suddenly swerving to ride between them (in the middle of the road) without taking look behind you which is dangerous.  In turn, a car 'should' not overtake at speed humps because cyclists do silly such as pulling into the middle of the road while forgetting to look behind, but it is not 'mandatory' for a car not to overtake at speed humps.  In this case the cyclist remained in the middle of its lane right up to the hump, so the car may have assumed that the cyclist was going to go safely over the centre of the hump per rule 72, leaving plenty of room for the car to pass per rule 163.

Nine out of ten Near Miss of the Day articles are good.  In this one it was both the cyclist and car who failed to follow rules which contributed this near miss.  There are many other comments which say the same.

By many commenters logic, if the cylist had been approaching the hump at the same time as a car coming from the oposing direction, then the car approaching from the oposing direction would have to stop before the hump to let the bike through the hump gap (because it is to dangerous to ride over the top) and only after that the car could drive over the hump.  This is absurd and irrational.

The cyclist may move over to the left, if they (the cyclist) think it's safe to do so. There is no "they MUST" about it...

Well just using the rules they quoted and the words they used "the bike should move" & "cars 'should' not overtake"

"Notice the word 'should'. It is not mandatory. "

Nuff said but I wasn't going to engage

Eng(ine) Fan?

I think they're actually at whataboutery/"6 of one..." but also not worth the bother. Opinions on what "considerate" means clearly cover a vast range.

Also Highway Code is not exactly the same as "the law". Some is...

From the video and discussion it's what most people know already - there's *no* place a faster vehicle won't try to overtake a cyclist. Plus at the end of the day there is almost nothing you can do to signal "not safe here". And finally even though the overtaking vehicle starts behind you, you'll still be held at least partly responsible for someone else's bad decisions.

Another troll.
Is the football season over or something?

You bounder! I was just about to write the same thing!!

You missed Rule 67, point 2 :-

"watch out for obstructions in the road, such as drains, service covers and potholes, positioning yourself so you can move to the left (as well as to the right) to avoid them safely"

What you have demonstrated though is why IDS' amendment is insidious if you consider moving right to be 'dangerous'.

Engfan refers to Engineering fan.  Like most cyclists, I enjoy the engineering behind cycling.  I am also a Mechanical Engineer.

Mr Hoopdriver,

Rule 67 is for potholes and therefore doesn't apply.  A speed hump is a calming measure, designed for vehicles to ride over 'slowly'.  Even if rule 67 was valid, the cyclist has broken rule 67 because he didn't "look well ahead" and instead "swerved suddenly to avoid the" hump, giving the car behind little notice.

chrisonabike,

There are no issues with a car overtaking a cyclist.  The issue is when there is not enough room to pass.  In this speed hump incident, the close call and danger could have been avoided if the cyclist had complied with Rule 72 and rode over the centre of the hump (as explained above, it was not safe to go to the left of the hump).  The car would have been able to safely pass in the way that it did (even though rule 153 says that it 'should' not have).  I don't think the driver intended to put the cyclist at danger.  The driver probably got a fright when the cyclist 'suddenly' pulled into the centre of the road, breaking rules 67, 68 and 72.  With narrow lanes, I tend to take the centre of the lane because I have decided that it is unsafe for cars to pass me. 

The reason why I have contributed to this article is because after 10,000km of riding, I had my first incident of a vehicle intentionally targeting me with a VERY close pass.  I caught up with the vehicle, and the driver started laughing at me before I even spoke to him, and then admitted he did it intentionally.  I think that the combatant approach presented by many comments here is causing retaliatory combative drivers (like the one I faced).  The highway rules are quite reasonable and good.  My experience is that fewer deaths, injuries, accidental close calls and punishment passes would happen if cyclists would just follow the highway code rules.  When I strictly follow the rules, it is very rare that I am in an uncomfortable situation.  Where as, people who are set on blocking the road whenever possible seem to get into all sorts of tight combative situations.  It is like they enjoy the personal conflict.

EngFan wrote:

Engfan refers to Engineering fan.  Like most cyclists, I enjoy the engineering behind cycling.  I am also a Mechanical Engineer.

Mr Hoopdriver,

Rule 67 is for potholes and therefore doesn't apply.  A speed hump is a calming measure, designed for vehicles to ride over 'slowly'.  Even if rule 67 was valid, the cyclist has broken rule 67 because he didn't "look well ahead" and instead "swerved suddenly to avoid the" hump, giving the car behind little notice.

chrisonabike,

There are no issues with a car overtaking a cyclist.  The issue is when there is not enough room to pass.  In this speed hump incident, the close call and danger could have been avoided if the cyclist had complied with Rule 72 and rode over the centre of the hump (as explained above, it was not safe to go to the left of the hump).  The car would have been able to safely pass in the way that it did (even though rule 153 says that it 'should' not have).  I don't think the driver intended to put the cyclist at danger.  The driver probably got a fright when the cyclist 'suddenly' pulled into the centre of the road, breaking rules 67, 68 and 72.  With narrow lanes, I tend to take the centre of the lane because I have decided that it is unsafe for cars to pass me. 

The reason why I have contributed to this article is because after 10,000km of riding, I had my first incident of a vehicle intentionally targeting me with a VERY close pass.  I caught up with the vehicle, and the driver started laughing at me before I even spoke to him, and then admitted he did it intentionally.  I think that the combatant approach presented by many comments here is causing retaliatory combative drivers (like the one I faced).  The highway rules are quite reasonable and good.  My experience is that fewer deaths, injuries, accidental close calls and punishment passes would happen if cyclists would just follow the highway code rules.  When I strictly follow the rules, it is very rare that I am in an uncomfortable situation.  Where as, people who are set on blocking the road whenever possible seem to get into all sorts of tight combative situations.  It is like they enjoy the personal conflict.

That's a whole bunch of bullshit, right there.

It's perfectly simple - a driver has no business attempting to overtake where there are traffic calming measures in place. The root cause of this near miss was the driver attempting to overtake where overtaking was not appropriate and not safe to attempt to do so.

EngFan wrote:

Engfan refers to Engineering fan.  Like most cyclists, I enjoy the engineering behind cycling.  I am also a Mechanical Engineer.

Mr Hoopdriver,

Rule 67 is for potholes and therefore doesn't apply.  A speed hump is a calming measure, designed for vehicles to ride over 'slowly'.  Even if rule 67 was valid, the cyclist has broken rule 67 because he didn't "look well ahead" and instead "swerved suddenly to avoid the" hump, giving the car behind little notice.

It is also for obstructions in the road,  so you are saying that a speed hump is not an obstruction which is contrary to its design goal.

The driver behind (and you) should have been aware of rule 213 :-

"Motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make."

QED

If calming measures such as speed humps were covered by rule 67, then rule 67 would mention speed bumps in the list of hazardous obstructions which the cyclist can ride to the left or right of for safety reasons.  Rule 67 does not list calming measures as obstacles, therefore they are not covered by rule 67.  Calming measures are designed to be ridden over safely (in an effort to reduce speed) and not to be avoided.  That is why they are not in rule 67 and are specifically mentioned in Rule 153.

Rule 213 advises cars on how cyclists have to avoid dangerous obstacles per rule 67.  Again, the list in Rule 213 says nothing about calming measures such as speed humps.

It is rule 153 which applies to the car looking out for cyclists who dangerously or inconsiderately ride to the right of a specially designed calming measure such as a speed hump.  Rule 72 says that the cyclist should ride in the centre of the lane (or to the left if it is safe), and says nothing about riding to the right.  Rule 153 advises cars that some cyclists are inexperienced/dangerous or inconsiderate and therefore cars 'should' not overtake cyclists at calming measures in an effort to protect cyclists from themselves.

The car didn't do what is should have by breaking rule 153, and the cycle also broke rule 72 amongst others, by suddenly shifting right into the middle of the road without looking behind.  The car was halfway through the overtake where there was plenty of room for the overtake when the cycle suddenly switched position into 'the centre of the road'.

EngFan wrote:

The car didn't do what is should have by breaking rule 153, and the cycle also broke rule 72 amongst others, by suddenly shifting right into the middle of the road without looking behind.  The car was halfway through the overtake where there was plenty of room for the overtake when the cycle suddenly switched position into 'the centre of the road'.

The camera appears to have been mounted on the bicycle, not on the rider's helmet, so how do you know that they didn't look?  (Simply saying, "If they'd looked, they would not have made that manouevre" doesn't count, BTW).

I'm pretty sure that priority is with the vehicle in front, and I'm also pretty sure that the HC says for anyone to be aware that cyclists may have to suddenly move to avoid hazards etc in the road.

I can't wait for all your comments on nmotd 1 to 901 to explain how the cyclists was combative.

"With narrow lanes, I tend to take the centre of the lane"

"Where as, people who are set on blocking the road whenever possible "

You then act in a combative manner by your own description.

Everyone else seems to have dealt with this (including the clincher from ROOTminus1 on rule 163).  (And the victim has also considered things e.g. whether they should have moved out earlier / their assessment of the driver's intent)

Probably isn't worth it but ... just on the "combative approach ... combative situations ... enjoy the personal conflict" (I'm feeling I've read that here before?) - and leaving aside the internal contradictions (why would you approach someone for a sober discussion - not combative of course! -  if you thought they'd just tried to kill you?):

I've had abuse (including things thrown at me) by drivers who AFAIK had never met me before.  And perhaps had minimal "cyclist experience" (e.g. they were young).  Now I'm stereotyping and guessing that they're not avid readers of the comments on road.cc of course - but could you explain again how " the combatant approach presented by many comments here is causing retaliatory combative drivers (like the one I faced)"?  I'm presuming you hadn't preciously remonstrated with this driver?

Is it because those other cyclists (folks here) are not "follow(ing) the highway code rules"?  Is that where we're going wrong?

Actually, no need - unless you're particularly hot on the science / psychology?  I'm quite familiar with the "logic" which equates "actual physical threat to someone's life" with "annoyance caused by reading complaints from people protesting about said real, physical threats to their life".

FWIW I suspect it's the familiar features of human hierarchy at work: comments or complaints from those we see as "beneath" us come over as "cheeky" or "entitled" or a challenge to our status.  In some people the latter seems to be a trigger for violence.  Plus motor vehicles are force magnifiers - which means "I wanted to teach them a lesson" can be lethal.  Plus the general "out group" / simple "they're in our way".

EngFan wrote:

 In doing so the cyclist also broke rule 68, which states that a cyclist MUST NOT act inconsiderately.

 

How is it inconsiderate to ride on the safest line for the cyclist (not going over the hump) considering that overtaking is not allowed where traffic calming measures exist? Why should the cyclists stay left to facilitate an overtake which is not allowed?

Riding over a speed hump is an entirely safe line.  Riding between the humps is simply more comfortable.

Notice how the code says the the overtake 'should' not happen.  It doesn't say 'must' not.  Perhaps consult the definition of the two words.

The reason  why the car 'should' not overtake is the protect the cyclist from their own dangerous conduct.  In this case the cyclist didn't even look behind for a faster vehicle (see rule 72), before going through the centre fo the humps.

EngFan wrote:

The car broke rule 153.  This states that at road calming points such as speed humps, cars 'should' not overtake other road users.

You missed the important rule of the highway code that makes your entire argument moot:

Rule 163 - Overtake ONLY when it is safe and legal to do so.

Doesn't matter where in the lane the cyclist is, if the vehicle driver can't get past safely, they should not be attempting it.

Notice the word 'should'.  You even use it in your comment.

Perhaps learn the diffence between 'should' and 'must'.

Now do the bit where the driver proceeded with the overtake despite the presence of an oncoming vehicle (which had to stop to allow them through) and a roundabout (which they then failed to indicate for). To paraphrase the quote, one error may be regarded as misfortune, but together they look like carelessness.

So you have never had a close pass. You must live on Sark

I regularly get close passed here at a blind bend NSL despite taking primary. I  guess I need more training too.

Yep, I must need more training too. I get closed passed at least once most times I go out. Last ride I was overtaken at speed while signalling to turn right, not for the first time. Is it really me that needs training?

Why does everyone hate this cyclist so much? I don't think he did anything wrong at all.

Because they think he pulled out towards the car and is then blaming the driver for being so close?

Velophaart_95 wrote:

So this is this cyclist's 3rd close pass???......Either he's unlucky or there's an issue with his road sense, or lack of it.

I'd be advising him to get some training.....

I think the only training he needs is in how to get the police to get of their arses and do something about it and we probably all need some of that!

I really must get more training then. Even with 50 odd years of cycling experience I must be incredibly unlucky going by your rational. No matter how assertive I am I will get individuals who attempt left hooks, close passes, brake checks, verbal threats on a daily basis.