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

Thank you for your thoughts. I didn't shoulder check but I do have ears. I knew the car was there, I just couldn't believe it would continue the overtake. What could I do at that point? I was already in the center of my lane. I could move to the left and pass close to the kerb and that would put me in the same situation as the first two incidents. That means trusting the driver to miss me as I then don't have the option to move over.

I could have braked, come to a halt, let the car go through,  doffed my hat and then continued on my way happy in the knowledge that I had not inconvenienced a dangerous driver in any way.

The problem here was caused by the inability of the driver to understand that a car could appear in the oncoming lane at any time as it left the roundabout. That's why the highway code tells drivers they should not overtake at or approaching junctions.

If the oncoming car hadn't stopped things would have been a lot worse and it must have been worrying for that driver as well as me. That's another reason I was extremely disappointed that no action was taken against this driver.

Neil MG wrote:

I have watched this several times and read through the comments.  I find that I put myself in the situation, as these (NMOTD) videos often evoke emotions of anger, frustration or even horror.  First watch through left me feeling confused, as to what  the OP's thought process was.  Now I think I understand.

The driver should not have overtaken here.  I believe that is indisputable.  But, I also believe a significant contributor here, to the near miss, is the OP's apparent failure to look before moving out into the road.  Given the knowledge of the road and planned manouvre, checking behind beforehand should be second nature and may well have avoided the danger that ensued.

 

You have no idea if they looked or didnt look. A car moving at 30mph or more would have covered the distance between being behind the cyclist and in the same lane, to being beside the cyclist and in the oncoming lane within just 2 seconds. The cyclist is about to negotiate a road obstacle, so will be looking at that and not expecting some fuckwit to overtake them on a speed bump.  

Totally this. One of my near miss submissions illustrated this. Shoulder check - motorist entering filter lane thinking the vehicle in front was passing me but I knew was turning as I'd seen the wee flashy thing. ONE MISSISSIPPI; same motorist realises his mistake, swerves, accelerates hard and squeezes between me and a traffic island folding his mirror in for his effort. 

Hi, I'm the OP. I think you and Leadenskies have got it. I do now move out a lot earlier. The problem now is if a car leaves the roundabout and is coming towards me on the other side of the road. This nearly always means they meet me at the humps. In this situation I slow down and go over the right hand side of the bump, which is lower than the center, and this allows me to stay on my side of the road with a little room to spare. Most cars go slowly and move over to their left a little but even if they don't I feel I have enough room for safety.

The main problem here, in my opinion, is the design of these "speed cushions". They seem designed specifically to endanger cyclists while allowing cars, especially big ones, to drive over them without slowing down. There are a series of them all down the road. One of them is a blind bend with a huge pothole between it and the kerb, I always take this one in the center. There is another which has quite a deep gap on the left with a drain cover in it which means its full of debris. I've hit my right pedal on this in the past so I take that central. I quite often get overtaken but if the car is on the other side of the road and if they don't pull in quickly I can't really complain too much even if it's close.

Yes I could go over the bumps but they are quite severe and would require slowing down a lot or risk losing my shopping as it jumps out of my rear basket.

The final point is if drivers obeyed rule 153 (yes it is a rule and therefore should be obeyed) there would be no problem.

Thank-you for the reply. Much appreciated.

Yes - they seem to force cyclists into either the gutter or the middle of the road (literally), as well as being unuable by eg tricycles as far as I can see.

I admit that road hump design is not a thing I am as up to date with as everything else in LTN1/20 and developments.

Perhaps we need hump ... gap ... hump ... gap ... hump, where the gaps are 1m wide at primary point in both directions, spaced so that *no* motor vehicles (except motorbikes and half of 3 wheelers) can avoid the humps?

On a normal 6m carriageway with 3m lanes that might be 0.8m hump, 1m gap, 2.4m hump, 1m gap, 0.8m hump. Slightly adjusted for a 5.5m carriageway.

I'm sure there are pros and cons.

Sadly.

But ... what about them?  They've all very limited power to actually change behaviour.  In this case especially - because they're not directly enforcing this - that would appear to be the police.

The DVSA only gets the new learner drivers.  And as soon as they've passed, they get daily retraining from the existing drivers!  It might be able to do more if it was mandated to do re-tests, or "refreshers".  This could be good but looks vanishingly unlikely currently.

I'd say it's more people "don't want to know".  And it's unlikely people will agree they're wrong when challenged - especially if you did this as a stranger on the road.  We all give ourselves a pass because we know we're at least average drivers.

Possibly some of these ideas conflict with our heuristics for driving (likely the majority won't remember the exact rules).  And / or general culture - which is saying cars are for driving!  Get a move on - don't be slowing down other drivers!"

Recall the efforts to reduce drink driving - has had an effect but it's taken a generation.  With the police fairly heavily involved and the courts taking a dim view.  None of those seems to apply here.

Your absolutely correct, of course. Even within this thread there are a number of comments that don't reference the Highway Code and certainly don't reference rule 153, it is obviously the primary guidance on this road. In the couple of instances I've been involved in the driver has stopped to lecture me on road positioning and 1.5m (after I have gesticulated at them). I've then invited them to Google rule 153 whilst I wait. They've just driven off. I like to think when they got home they did look it up and realise they owe me an apology 🤔🤣

I like to think when they got home they did look it up

Oh no  they didn't!

YMMV but when I reported a van who close passed me, whose tax and mot had expired, and it was a Sunday so there were no garages open they were driving to, they didnt even got an official warning letter, merely some words of advice from the police.

YMMV ... when I reported - with HD video - a bottle being thrown out of a car and hitting a ride member in the face, and despite said car having no VED or MOT at the time ... the Police were more than happy that the driver "couldn't remember the incident" and case closed with a clap louder than thunder and faster than lightning.

the Police were more than happy that the driver "couldn't remember the incident"
Yes, that sounds like The Filth many of us have to live and die with!

Aye. But that was Polis Scotland. They've accepted the "cannae mind mr polisman" and made it a precedent. 

Jimd wrote:

If reporting a case of poor driving I suggest checking the MOT and tax status of the vehicle beforehand - in this example both were valid but, if not, the police may be more inclined to consider the matter seriously.

You can also check if it's insured but it's not exactly legal if you aren't the owner of the car. I always check the tax/MOT to include in a report, it's especially useful if I'm considering whether I'm going to report or not. If they also don't have insurance I'll just suggest it probably isn't insured given the lack of tax and MOT and hope the police get the hint and check for themselves.

Thank you for the suggestion but see NMOTD 630.

https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-630-police-explain-why-punishment-pas...

I always check TAX and MOT. I mentioned no MOT in that submission and nothing happend in fact someone else videod the same driver, about 6 months later I think it was, and still no MOT.

FrankH wrote:

The SsangYong Rexton is 1.995m wide. Looking at the video, it looks to me as if the driver was intending to give Richard at least the recommend 1.5m clcearance by going all the way into the opposite lane. It only became a close pass because Richard made it a close pass by moving  into the middlde of the road.

It became a close pass when the driver made the decision to continue an overtake maneouvre even though they no longer had enough space to do so safely.

There is always the option to brake...

ktache wrote:

There is always the option to brake...

That's a new one on me, they fit brakes to cars now do they?

for me the drivers intent was to straddle the speed cushion, rather than hit both square on, that it gives the cyclist, assuming they then dont move in their lane, reasonable amount of space is kind of just coincidence.

stonojnr wrote:

for me the drivers intent was to straddle the speed cushion, rather than hit both square on, that it gives the cyclist, assuming they then dont move in their lane, reasonable amount of space is kind of just coincidence.

Whatever the driver's motivation, the result is that he was giving the cyclist 1.5m (probably more) so if the cyclist maintained his position there would not have been a close pass. Yes, the driver could have braked. Yes, it was a poorly chosen place to overtake. But the close pass happened because the cyclist didn't maintain his posistion.

What about rule 153 as mentioned in the article? It's one of the most clearly worded rules in the HC. The cyclist had every right not to expect an overtake at that point. Add to this the fact that the driver is overtaking in to oncoming traffic, which actually had to stop to avoid being hit. I would be reporting this as careless and inconsiderate driving and expect action to be taken.
Just because drivers don't know about rule 153 doesn't mean that the police should also ignore it.