Near Miss of the Day 581: “I really did fear for my life” – Driver nearly hits cyclist head-on (includes swearing)

Mungecrundle wrote:

That one is almost as horrific as the head on with the lunatic in the car. Hope you followed it up with the transport company of the lorry involved.

I have contacted the company in question but have not had a response as of yet.

Luckily the cycliq camera takes much better footage in good conditions

Different police force, but sobering reading - even a retired police inspector for North Wales Police struggles to get his former mates to take any interest in a deliberate and pre-meditated attack with a car:
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/former-police-officer-says-driver-thr...
They take these things "very seriously", of course.

Sriracha wrote:

Different police force, but sobering reading - even a retired police inspector for North Wales Police struggles to get his former mates to take any interest in a deliberate and pre-meditated attack with a car: https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/former-police-officer-says-driver-thr... They take these things "very seriously", of course.

Quote:

Mr Edge, a former police inspector for North Wales Police, said he expected the driver to pull in as he approached, as there were parked cars on his side of the road, but instead Mr Edge was forced to pull into a lay-by to avoid being hit.

I'd be interested to see the results of a survey on this one.

How many of 'us' have ever had an oncoming vehicle actually stop and let you through, even if the line of parked cars was on their side of the road and technically (legally!) you have priority?

brooksby wrote:

.....

I'd be interested to see the results of a survey on this one.

How many of 'us' have ever had an oncoming vehicle actually stop and let you through, even if the line of parked cars was on their side of the road and technically (legally!) you have priority?

Usually folk force their way through, even against kids. There is one that sticks in my mind one though when a car backed down and moved in - I gave him a thank-you wave. I have a suspicion that he spotted my camera flashing red, so it was clear that he was being filmed - I have no way of knowing whether that is the case, or whether he genuinely reassessed and pulled in. Also I suppose that a fairly big bloke in primary might have figured heavily part of this reassessment - especially when as he initially went to go through I held ground and stood up on the pegs, which may be considered a sign that I wasn't going anywhere. (with a nod to conversation with Grouse above it was a narrow street at lowish speed with plenty of separation to see how things developed)

To be fair, if there is an adjacent lay-by on my side I'd be taking advantage of the opportunity it presents to ease the situation; whether I was driving or cycling I'd pull in to let the oncoming car by. Mutual cooperation is required in some settings, a few friendly hand signals, and all is well - although I appreciate that many times the oncoming driver enforces the "cooperation", especially if you are on a bike.

But that is not what this was about - the car driver then doubled back to attack the cyclist, and yet the police were not interested.

brooksby wrote:

I'd be interested to see the results of a survey on this one.

How many of 'us' have ever had an oncoming vehicle actually stop and let you through, even if the line of parked cars was on their side of the road and technically (legally!) you have priority?

Brooksby.... not very often is my experience.  Most recent example I have took place here (Ovingham Bridge)

 https://www.google.com/maps/@54.9662906,-1.8659678,3a,75y,324.85h,73.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOog56Hd15vraEPY6SHuugA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I was already on the bridge nearly half way across when a car decided that they had right of way and came onto the bridge.  He then shouted at me to use the "f@%king path" (the one that quite clearly states no cycling).  But the best part is, he was crossing the bridge towards a level crossing which was stopping cars (and the nature of that crossing means that the barriers are down for extended periods because there is a station right next to it).

Basically they were in a hurry and willing to get aggressive over it to rush to join the back of a queue of traffic.

never IME, Ive had learner drivers under tuition/test do it to me and even the police once, its a perennial problem as the street I live on has parked cars one side (most of the time, its slowly spreading to both) with gaps spaced out so vehicles could stop, and Ill ride down my side of the road usually in prime to stop overtakes from behind, but everybody just drives straight at me, some even deliberately accelerate to try to scare me out of their way.

I once had a fascinating conversation with a builder, who I stopped, who reckoned he'd saved my life for not driving into me, and I should be thanking him for that and that I should have been riding on my side of the road, I think he meant not in prime  bearing in mind at this point he was driving fully on the right hand side of the road, and my side of the road to him was basically the gap between the pavement and the yellow lines. I made sure I delayed him long enough to explain to him I wouldnt ride like that and to highlight  his lack of patience had cost him far more time than if he'd just waited not even 10 seconds to let me pass through. (it was also the conversation that made me realise its pointless talking to most drivers in these situations because they dont understand a damn thing)

brooksby wrote:

How many of 'us' have ever had an oncoming vehicle actually stop and let you through, even if the line of parked cars was on their side of the road and technically (legally!) you have priority?

I had an elderly woman recently who refused to pull in and we both came to a dead stop wheel to bumper. One thing lead to another and her angry male passenger jumped out of the car to try to force the point. 

Let's just say I doubt he will do something quite so stupid again.

I had one a long time back, car driver overtaking another car, at night, fast, no room, had to bail into the bushes and pull the bike with me.

My fully legal but weak early 90s light obviously not enough.  It was terrifying.

Good luck with your efforts.

Why not 100%?

Blackthorne wrote:

An extraordinary piece of sh*te and thank the cyclist for being ok. Just to play devils advocate here, could it have been possible that a) the driver was inexperienced or elderly, and b) the driver really did not see the cyclist?either way it is without doubt the driver to he 99% at fault and 

Perhaps.  

Inexperienced... shame they weren't carrying P plates! Inexperience to me denotes getting yourself into a situation that could have been avoided with the benefit of aquired knowledge. I'd find it hard to accept that o/taking in the wet and in the face of oncoming falls into this category.

Elderly... As elderly drivers are no more dangerous as a group than any other drivers (and safer than some other age groups) it's about as relevant as saying male or female. My experience of elderly drivers is that they are usually more cautious, slower, and less likely to perform dangerous o/taking maneuvers than younger drivers. Noting the use of the concept of "liklihood" in teh above, I just don't think that age as a general consideration is a relevant factor here.

Did not see.... That's probably worse than did see and did it anyway. The conditions themselves said "don't o/take". My opinion, and it is personal opinion , is that o/taking a road user that is making reasonable progress (albeit slower than you would like) is a bum move in any situation. In the wet and in the face of oncoming, it's facking murderous and calls for revocation pending extra training.

This particular driver is a complete w&nker and needs their licence taking off them.

My guess would be "didn't see". There would have been loads of spray from the wagon to add to the sketchy conditions, the cyclist's light would have been just another artefact of light spangling the windscreen.

So in those conditions you don't overtake! You have to realise that visibility is poor and you simply can't see. That's what annoys me so much when motorists get off on the SMIDSY excuse - the jury just agrees, "well, if the cyclists couldn't be seen (i.e. it's the cyclist's fault now), then what's a motorist to do?"

Sriracha wrote:

My guess would be "didn't see". There would have been loads of spray from the wagon to add to the sketchy conditions, the cyclist's light would have been just another artefact of light spangling the windscreen. So in those conditions you don't overtake! You have to realise that visibility is poor and you simply can't see. That's what annoys me so much when motorists get off on the SMIDSY excuse - the jury just agrees, "well, if the cyclists couldn't be seen (i.e. it's the cyclist's fault now), then what's a motorist to do?"

Quite, it's not that they "thought" there was a clear road, they deliberately accelerated hard into a situation that they were blind to. 

40 MPH road and I expect the truck is easily doing that.

It is a person who has woken up and is still tired but is in a rush to get in for the 6am shift and woe betide anyone getting in their way. 

The driver is 100% at fault - if you cannot be sure that it is safe to overtake and complete the overtake safely then you simply do not do it.... end of story.

Inexperienced or elderly - that is simply an excuse used by people to defend sh!tty driving

they really did not see the cyclist - I call BS on that they saw the cyclist and chose to overtake. 

Watch the video closely, as they start the overtake, they are giving the lorry a wide berth (almost touching the pavement on the side of the road where the bike is).  They spot the cyclist before their bonnet is fully past the back of the lorry, and rather than brake and abandon the maneuver..... they plow on regardless.

No way on this earth is this anything other than an example of a driver who should be removed from the road at the earliest opportunity

Blackthorne wrote:

An extraordinary piece of sh*te and thank the cyclist for being ok. Just to play devils advocate here, could it have been possible that a) the driver was inexperienced or elderly, and b) the driver really did not see the cyclist?either way it is without doubt the driver to he 99% at fault and 

No. The motorist was 100% at fault. They were not driving to the conditions of the road. They barrelled out regardless due to their impatience to overtake the HGV. 

The HGV would have been throwing up a serious amount of surface water to make an overtake dangerous. Especially as it was being driven at its limit meaning that the motorist would have possibly been in excess of 60 to make the pass. 

The weather is crap. Wet and heavily overcast resulting in poor visibility. Remember. You only overtake when safe to do so and you can see ahead. Imagine if it had have been a vehicle not using headlights rather than a cyclist.

The HGV driver had not dropped his speed to a level that would allow for a safe overtake. And anyway. In those conditions regardless of the tech in the car I would have dropped my speed to 45/50 simply because of the surface water, possible oil/diesel and muck on the road and visibility. I would also have kept my distance with the vehicle ahead.  All that stuff I was taught 35years ago when learning to drive.

Hoping that the cyclist gets some traction in regards to action from the authorities if not in a prosecution possibly a greater police presence along the road or change in speed limit especially as it has been mentioned that there has been other incidents.

This NMOTD needs an 18 certificate.

Have you got back on the bike ?

hirsute wrote:

This NMOTD needs an 18 certificate.

Have you got back on the bike ?

I had to ride home on the pavement all the way but I do not drive so this is my only way of getting to work, I have not been back on that road again yet though

its one of flaws of the Cycliq IMO,in lowlight conditions, vehicles moving above 30mph,obviously the rain doesnt help either, but the sensor really struggles to pick out readable plates in footage, you can see even with the truck though its not much further away its not readable at all, you can kind of make out like an S or 5 and 7 on the car.

I humbly suggest that the rear facing Cycliq 6 is able to take the rear plate of a head on passing vehicle though spray may be an issue. 1080p video does provide good resolution for VRN identification. Also a rear mud guard is needed to prevent rear wheel spray / mud coverage.

potentially yes, but I think it would still suffer the same problem with the light conditions and the speed the car is travelling for the sensor to be able to cope, its one of the things I wish camera reviews focussed on more because there maybe settings you could change, the frame rate, stabilisation,lighting, even camera position that would make it work better.

Im not knocking Cycliq specifically, my original GoPro was alot worse in those types of conditions,and struggled just on cloudy days.

but we dont buy these cameras to make exciting footage for youtube videos, we buy these cameras to offer a sense of protection that if someone does drive like a lunatic and put you in danger, youve got submissable evidence and a number plate.

Awavey, one place I find that always gives in depth reviews on tech is a guy called DC Rainmaker (www.dcrainmaker.com).  He breaks down most things like battery life, image stabilisation, frame rates, image quality etc.  He reviews most items of tech from watches, gps head units, cameras all cycling/triathlon related.

No amount of image stabilisation will fix subject movement, nor even constant camera movement - and here you have both in spades. What is needed is a fast shutter speed so that, whatever the frame rate, each frame is only open long enough to freeze the movement. And that is the one metric never given.

You said that last week and the response is they all have a picture resolution and fps setting. If you use vlc player, E will step through frame by frame.

The drift 4k+ will do 1080p at 120 fps and 4k at 25 fps

hirsute wrote:

You said that last week and the response is they all have a picture resolution and fps setting. If you use vlc player, E will step through frame by frame.

The drift 4k+ will do 1080p at 120 fps and 4k at 25 fps

So, still no shutter speed then?

I think you derive it according to here - roughly double

https://vimeo.com/blog/post/frame-rate-vs-shutter-speed-setting-the-reco...

The general rule of thumb for video cameras such as GoPro, TomTom and Garmin etc the shutter speed is approximately half that of the frame rate i.e. 60fps = 1/120th of a second. so that in essence the shutter is open for 50% of the time and closed for 50% of the time.  So the only way to increase shutter speed is to increase the FPS.

You cannot significantly change that ratio in video mode otherwise the video would appear jumpy.