Near Miss of the Day 23: Featuring a U-turning SMIDSY driver

davel wrote:

Likewise, petal. dinosaurJR had you pegged.

I hope he's OK after his public meltdown.

Mungecrundle wrote:

Yes, it is very much a post match analysis by armchair pundits who were were not on the pitch and who have the benefit of hindsight and multiple replays.

The "ohh, you didn't want to do that" comments are annoying. But take the ego of personal critiscism out of the equation and the technicalities of who was right and who was wrong, and what is left is often a little nugget of roadcraft that is worth picking up.

Over the years I have benefitted from driver and rider training by some highly experienced instructors. The nuances of roadcraft, particularly the body language of other vehicles was something they all picked up on. Another common thread is that no matter how good you think you are you, if you learn nothing new from every single journey, then you have almost certainly missed something. For many, just using a vehicle to get from A to B without crashing is enough. For cyclists, we have more to loose if things go wrong, so I really do believe that we have a vested interest in aspiring to improve our situational awareness skills. Strip away all the hi viz, protective helmets, blinky lights. The most critical element to our personal safety that we actually have control over is simply (and rather tritely) not being in the wrong place at the wrong time and you can shift the odds in your favour.

Thanks to the OP for sharing the video and taking the flack that they may not have been expecting.

Spot on.

Run along, Don: the grown-ups who actually ride bikes are talking.

davel wrote:

It's not bad advice, but the criticism of cyclists for doing anything less than text-book in these situations is laughable (isn't aimed at srchar - I know he's a London commuter and not one of these usual 'first responders'). Whenever these videos are posted, there's a set of 'oooh, you don't wanna do that' commenters that point out any imperfections that they think they can spot in the riding. Do they ever commute on a bike? Filter in traffic? Because if they do, they sure as shit don't always do it perfectly or accurately measure every risk. Meanwhile, while they're clogging up cyberspace with those inane observations designed purely to make themselves feel better, the person wanging a ton of metal threateningly across the road gets nothing more than an acceptance of twatty driving, a 'yeah, the driver could have done this, BUT enough of that - here' s a list of what the silly cyclist didn't do....'. Also, I'm slightly skeptical regarding how much watching pitch and tilt of cars driven by relatively serious drivers doing 100mph+ on track days applies to watching wallies who are liable to do anything with zero notice at 20mph in barely legal contraptions on a commute in London. But as a general point I think it's fair.

You don't half talk some crap, davel.

ClubSmed wrote:

It's too short of a clip for me to be sure, but it does seem like the car may have it's hazzard lights on indicating that it is about to perform a manouvre that other road users need to be wary of?

They weren't hazard lights, they were brake lights, and if they were hazards, they would have been being used illegally.  What idiot would use hazard lights to show that they were doing a u-turn?  Possibly the same kind of idiot who does a u-turn without looking I suppose.

"Never use them as an excuse for dangerous or illegal parking. You MUST NOT use hazard warning lights while driving or being towed unless you are on a motorway or unrestricted dual carriageway and you need to warn drivers behind you of a hazard or obstruction ahead."  Highway code.
 

don simon wrote:

And old trick I was taught when riding a motorbike was to watch the car's wheels.

1. They stay on full lock.

2. They didn't stop moving/rolling.

3. It looks like the brake lights come off while the vehicle is still moving.

The car did nothing to indicate that it was parking, in my most humble of opinions.

I think you've now learnt that it doesn't matter how many times you have been able to do something, it is no indicator of the future.

I'm glad you didn't sustain any serious imjuries in this near miss.

4. They're driving perpendiculart to the parking bays.

Henry Dalton wrote:

Thanks for the comments guys. There are too many to respond to in detail.

Just a few points to make

1) I have ridden this route for a number of years at similar speed without incident

2) I originally thought that when the driver moved to the left he was intending to park.

3) There was another cyclist immediately behind me who shouted at the driver

      ( you may be able to hear him in the footage ) - so this was a near miss for 2 cyclists not just one.

4) This is now being investigated by the Met Police.

 

1) Not sure this is relevant unless a car happens to be turning in front of you in exactly the same circumstances.

2) Poor awareness on your part, its very clear from his positioning that he isn't parking.

3) The fact that two cyclists showed poor awareness doesn't make it any less poor.

4) The police will do absolutely nothing, as they should.

luiandlui wrote:

Henry Dalton wrote:

Thanks for the comments guys. There are too many to respond to in detail.

Just a few points to make

1) I have ridden this route for a number of years at similar speed without incident

2) I originally thought that when the driver moved to the left he was intending to park.

3) There was another cyclist immediately behind me who shouted at the driver

      ( you may be able to hear him in the footage ) - so this was a near miss for 2 cyclists not just one.

4) This is now being investigated by the Met Police.

 

 

1) Not sure this is relevant unless a car happens to be turning in front of you in exactly the same circumstances.

2) Poor awareness on your part, its very clear from his positioning that he isn't parking.

3) The fact that two cyclists showed poor awareness doesn't make it any less poor.

4) The police will do absolutely nothing, as they should.

 

Hello, Willo. It's been a while...

don simon wrote:

Quote:

And really - have a look at your spellings in previous posts. Mistakes happen. You can make your point without strikethrough sarcasm, but if you're going to pull people up on English, try doing things like spelling parties, responsibility and manoeuvre correctly.

You actually went looking good on you as you picked up on I was being lighthearted as I a;lways am fortunately a bit of fat finger spelling was still understood and unambiguous I still haven't a fucking clue what this is supposed to be.

Quote:

Why are you also making it binary when even those (incl me) saying it's MORE the responsibility of the driver are mostly not saying the cyclist doesn't have ANY responsibility.

I'm sure that you'd fully agree that if the cyclist had dabbed the breaks, we wouldn't even have a video to be debating. That's how week this supposed close pass is.

 

So you are saying if a driver goes through a red light and collides with someone on green then it is appropriate to blame the victim for not anticipating the manoeuvre. After all the victim could have dabbed the brakes and so avoided any debate.

Fifth Gear wrote:

So you are saying if a driver goes through a red light and collides with someone on green then it is appropriate to blame the victim for not anticipating the manoeuvre. After all the victim could have dabbed the brakes and so avoided any debate.

No, he's saying that the car's body language was more suggestive of a U-turn than a parking manoeuvre.  There's no incident here AFAICS, so no blame to apportion.

If you want to be pedantic, a green light signals "go if the way is clear", not "go regardless of the circumstances".  Both on the bike and in a car, anticipating a RLJ from another bike or car has saved my skin on numerous occasions.  You can't play the blame game when you're dead.

srchar wrote:

Fifth Gear wrote:

So you are saying if a driver goes through a red light and collides with someone on green then it is appropriate to blame the victim for not anticipating the manoeuvre. After all the victim could have dabbed the brakes and so avoided any debate.

No, he's saying that the car's body language was more suggestive of a U-turn than a parking manoeuvre.  There's no incident here AFAICS, so no blame to apportion.

If you want to be pedantic, a green light signals "go if the way is clear", not "go regardless of the circumstances".  Both on the bike and in a car, anticipating a RLJ from another bike or car has saved my skin on numerous occasions.  You can't play the blame game when you're dead.

You are wrong to say there is no incident. Careless driving is still an offence even if a collision did not occur. Inanimate objects like cars do not have body language. It's easy for you to interpret the intention of the driver with hindsight. We can all do that, but since we are not all mind readers the rest of us have the Highway Code and the law to inform us rather than your subjective opinion.

It's great that you are a mind reader and don't have to play the blame game. Good luck with that while it lasts.

Fifth Gear wrote:

srchar wrote:

Fifth Gear wrote:

So you are saying if a driver goes through a red light and collides with someone on green then it is appropriate to blame the victim for not anticipating the manoeuvre. After all the victim could have dabbed the brakes and so avoided any debate.

No, he's saying that the car's body language was more suggestive of a U-turn than a parking manoeuvre.  There's no incident here AFAICS, so no blame to apportion.

If you want to be pedantic, a green light signals "go if the way is clear", not "go regardless of the circumstances".  Both on the bike and in a car, anticipating a RLJ from another bike or car has saved my skin on numerous occasions.  You can't play the blame game when you're dead.

You are wrong to say there is no incident. Careless driving is still an offence even if a collision did not occur. Inanimate objects like cars do not have body language. It's easy for you to interpret the intention of the driver with hindsight. We can all do that, but since we are not all mind readers the rest of us have the Highway Code and the law to inform us rather than your subjective opinion.

It's great that you are a mind reader and don't have to play the blame game. Good luck with that while it lasts.

The car was moving, the wheels rolling and turning right, the brake lights went on and then off. It's not hard to work out what the car was doing. Or perhaps it is, which would explain a lot. What it wasn't is parked.

The driver was at fault and the cyclist had his own fair share of fault, and luckily no one was hurt.

Are you seriously arguing about the "body language" of a car?

Fifth Gear wrote:

Inanimate objects like cars do not have body language.

Of course they do. The direction the wheels are pointing in, the suspension loading and roll in turns, the attitude of the car under braking or acceleration - these are the car's body language.  I appreciate it is not a widely-used term outside of motorsport, but that's how you anticipate the movement of a car on the track without indicators or brake lights.

You should learn to read cars in this way, it will keep you safer on the roads.

srchar wrote:

Fifth Gear wrote:

Inanimate objects like cars do not have body language.

Of course they do. The direction the wheels are pointing in, the suspension loading and roll in turns, the attitude of the car under braking or acceleration - these are the car's body language.  I appreciate it is not a widely-used term outside of motorsport, but that's how you anticipate the movement of a car on the track without indicators or brake lights.

You should learn to read cars in this way, it will keep you safer on the roads.

Thanks for your advice but I definitely don't need it from you. Where did you get your crystal ball?

Fifth Gear wrote:

srchar wrote:

Fifth Gear wrote:

Inanimate objects like cars do not have body language.

Of course they do. The direction the wheels are pointing in, the suspension loading and roll in turns, the attitude of the car under braking or acceleration - these are the car's body language.  I appreciate it is not a widely-used term outside of motorsport, but that's how you anticipate the movement of a car on the track without indicators or brake lights.

You should learn to read cars in this way, it will keep you safer on the roads.

 

Thanks for your advice but I definitely don't need it from you. Where did you get your crystal ball?

Don't take this as a personal insult. In the whole history of this miserable little clickbait series this is without doubt the best piece of advice on situational awareness.

Fifth Gear wrote:

Thanks for your advice but I definitely don't need it from you. Where did you get your crystal ball?

I ride 40km daily in heavy London traffic; circuit racing is a hobby of mine. I know that it is possible to read a car to anticipate what its driver will do next. Likewise for cyclists. If you can't do that and don't want to learn, it's your loss.

srchar wrote:

Fifth Gear wrote:

Inanimate objects like cars do not have body language.

Of course they do. The direction the wheels are pointing in, the suspension loading and roll in turns, the attitude of the car under braking or acceleration - these are the car's body language.  I appreciate it is not a widely-used term outside of motorsport, but that's how you anticipate the movement of a car on the track without indicators or brake lights.

You should learn to read cars in this way, it will keep you safer on the roads.

All good advice, none  of which would be needed if the loon in the car weren't too blind or thick to see what was behind him and too idle to use the indicator switch. The other lesson I take from this is to equip my bike with the brightest strobe I can buy, an airzound, and a couple of throwing axes.

[/quote]

All good advice, none  of which would be needed if the loon in the car weren't too blind or thick to see what was behind him and too idle to use the indicator switch. The other lesson I take from this is to equip my bike with the brightest strobe I can buy, an airzound, and a couple of throwing axes.

[/quote]

Throwing axes?  I was thinking more along the lines of a couple of RPGs.