Near Miss of the Day 482: BMW driver in high-speed close pass

Confirmation bias.

Yup, the white line thing is one where the police could legitimately classify you as a witness - and file it in the "witness" box.

but its a slam dunk prosecution for them,they just have to fill in the paper work, its not a subjective assessment like a close pass, its a factual evidence based assessment, its not like they even have to go down the rabbit hole of motor racing track limits and tie themselves up in knots about how far over the white line actually counts.

around my way, solid white line sections of roads are there to prevent people from overtaking on roads where you cant see ahead far enough to judge a safe overtake, so the benefit for oncoming traffic is they dont end up in near head on collisions with someone too impatient to wait for their sightlines to improve, which seems quite an important road safety statement.

part of me always dreads riding on roads like that, not because Ill be overtaken/close passed, thats just a given, but because one of these days the next oncoming vehicle will be just that few seconds closer on the road and Ill be in the box seat to watch a completely unnecessary collision with a combined impact speed of at least 80mph, which will likely result in serious injuries to the occupants of those vehicles.

Not a slam dunk if the driver can argue they didn't know the cyclist's speed - didn't that crop up in a nmotd or a wtjs comment ?

Your last para - I worry I am going to get caught up in the crash as colateral.

I'd argue that if the car driver did not establish the speed of the cyclist before overtaking, that equates to proof that they were in the wrong.

I see the 'do not cross a double white line to overtake unless overtaking something travelling under 10mph', as a way to provide a sense of reasonability around a pretty objective rule. i.e. this enables people to avoid getting stuck for excessively long periods behind a very slow moving vehicle. 

So, in the instance where a car has overtaken without at least first slowing to the speed of the vehicle they need to overtake, they have not been held up at all, so therefore should not have overtaken across the double white lines. 

The right conduct should be.... double white lines, slow to wait behind slower moving vehicle until either the double white lines end, or you establish that the vehicle is travelling below 10mph. In this case you can look at opportunities to safely overtake.

Now without filmed evidence, none of the above is provable, however when there is coverage of a vehicle overtaking without slowing, that could, and IMO should, be classed as a slam dunk. 

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

I'd argue that if the car driver did not establish the speed of the cyclist before overtaking, that equates to proof that they were in the wrong.

So I guess they could ask the cyclist, except the cyclist is not required to know.

The law is an ass if it requires motorists to know the speed of a cyclist, whilst accepting that the cyclist does not.

Well it isn't in reality that hard - you slow down until you are keeping pace with the cycle/horse-rider/maintenance vehicle.  Then you look at your speedometer.

But I do think that aspect of the rule is more relevant to other motor vehicles than to cyclists/horse riders.

Velo-drone wrote:

Well it isn't in reality that hard - you slow down until you are keeping pace with the cycle/horse-rider/maintenance vehicle.  Then you look at your speedometer.

But I do think that aspect of the rule is more relevant to other motor vehicles than to cyclists/horse riders.

Do you know how much it costs  a BMW driver in wear and tear on his/her brakes, clutch and engine to slow down to the cyclists speed and then accelerate to his/her imaginary speed limit?<sarcasm off>

Sriracha wrote:

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

I'd argue that if the car driver did not establish the speed of the cyclist before overtaking, that equates to proof that they were in the wrong.

So I guess they could ask the cyclist, except the cyclist is not required to know. The law is an ass if it requires motorists to know the speed of a cyclist, whilst accepting that the cyclist does not.

Is it an ass though? Why is the cyclists legal obligation (or not) to know their speed any relevance at all to this scenario? I'm saying from a video evidence perspective, if the driver does not slow down to the speed of the vehicle, they can not have assessed whether a pass was legal. The actual speed of the vehicle they are coming up behind is irrelevant in this situation. 

Sriracha wrote:

The law is an ass if it requires motorists to know the speed of a cyclist, whilst accepting that the cyclist does not.

It's the driver's responsibility to obey the law. It is not permissible to overtake another road user that is going in excess of 10mph.

And that's it.

Whether the rider is aware of their own speed is hardly pertinent - after all, it's not like the driver is going to ask them.....

If in doubt, do nowt....

Captain Badger wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

The law is an ass if it requires motorists to know the speed of a cyclist, whilst accepting that the cyclist does not.

It's the driver's responsibility to obey the law. It is not permissible to overtake another road user that is going in excess of 10mph.

And that's it.

Whether the rider is aware of their own speed is hardly pertinent - after all, it's not like the driver is going to ask them.....

If in doubt, do nowt....

I think the law states something slightly different. It is not permissble to cross the solid white lines to overtake another road user doing more than 10mph. Personally I would rather they crossed the line if I was doing 15-20, than tried to pass me without crossing the line.

Sriracha wrote:

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

I'd argue that if the car driver did not establish the speed of the cyclist before overtaking, that equates to proof that they were in the wrong.

So I guess they could ask the cyclist, except the cyclist is not required to know. The law is an ass if it requires motorists to know the speed of a cyclist, whilst accepting that the cyclist does not.

But the car is obliged to have a speedometer fitted...

they can argue, but its their obligation to be compliant with that rule, so its down to them to prove they checked properly. if not thats driving without due care & attention

look we all know with a number of rules in the highway code that motorists arent judging whether they should or shouldnt overtake a cyclist based on the the rules they should be following, they just see cyclist and go got to overtake now, but that doesnt mean we should just accept that situation, or not push back against it.

and if we arent prepared to do that, whats even the point of submitting a close pass?

I wish I could find the post/topic, but I thought the police response in that one was the driver couldn't know the cyclist's speed.
Or would it turn out to be another one where if you submit a foi, they say "we have no such policy".

The law says the pedal cycle has to be travelling more than 10mph. They have a witness for that namely the cyclist. Slam Dunk 😁

Awavey wrote:

but its a slam dunk prosecution for them,they just have to fill in the paper work, its not a subjective assessment like a close pass, its a factual evidence based assessment, its not like they even have to go down the rabbit hole of motor racing track limits and tie themselves up in knots about how far over the white line actually counts.

Not a slam dunk in the slightest, unfortunately. There's no proof of what speed the cyclist was doing and if it was 10 mph the drivers are allowed to cross the white line to overtake under Rule 129. The BMW should be done for, ironically, not going far enough over the white line, though a good brief can make all sorts of play with perspective etc. However if the police can be bothered they could easily get him/her by measuring the width of the lane and the width of the car to show how much space the cyclist really had.

To be clear, I reported this only for the close pass.  I don't care in the least that the driver crossed the solid white line.  I wish (s)he had gone further across - the road opposite was clear for a some distance ahead with good visibility - and he would have been driving considerably less dangerously by putting another metre between us than if (s)he'd stayed inside the line (in which case he'd probably have killed me).

I was indeed travelling over 10mph - probably around 20mph - and no doubt I could provide evidence of such from my GPX file (edit:  quick check - speed between 20kph & 28kph on this section). 

But I don't think it's reasonable actually that every car coming along that road should stay behind me at that speed until the solid line is gone.  I do think it is reasonable that if they are going to pass, they should do so without putting my or others lives at risk.  

Would I prefer drivers like that to think that they're more likely to be in trouble for crossing the white line than for tickling me with their wing mirror?   Not in the least.  

Absolutely, as I said - or have said elsewhere on this thread at least - the close pass was absolutely heinous and the f**ker should have the book thrown at them. I'm on your side 100%. I was just answering those who seemed to think that crossing a solid white line is an offence per se in any circumstances.

Ethical dilemmas:
Can we ignore the law if we feel that law is unreasonable?
Should the Police be allowed to decide which laws they enforce?

Awavey wrote:

but its a slam dunk prosecution for them,they just have to fill in the paper work, its not a subjective assessment like a close pass, its a factual evidence based assessment,

Personally the thing that winds me up most is when overtaking drivers are more comfortable endangering human beings than crossing painted lines on the road. So pushing for prosecution of drivers for doing so is likely to lead to more unsafe overtakes, rather than fewer.

The white lines are generally used when there is insufficient view ahead to safely overtake a motor vehicle likely travelling at 40-50mph, the distance required to safely pass a cyclist is a lot less, so in many cases it is possible to move out half across the white line, pass the cyclist and return where it would definitely not be safe to move out fully into the other lane and pass a car.

however

Awavey wrote:

part of me always dreads riding on roads like that, not because Ill be overtaken/close passed, thats just a given, but because one of these days the next oncoming vehicle will be just that few seconds closer on the road and Ill be in the box seat to watch a completely unnecessary collision with a combined impact speed of at least 80mph, which will likely result in serious injuries to the occupants of those vehicles.

I suspect that it is more likely the car will knock you off the road to avoid such a collision, but that even if it occured, the resultant vehicle positions would be unpredictable and you could well be in the fallout zone. The vehicles are unlikely to head dead on, but offside front corner to offside front corner, leading to rotation of the vehicles if the centre of mass is not aligned with the point of impact. 

Good question.  But nope. I have a long-standing cycling playlist that used to power me through the commute in London - but is now more in use to prevent me missing the start of the directions from Komoot, which tend to get dropped if I don't have something playing to provide a constant Bluetooth signal to the speaker.

I'd be disappointed if the police didn't follow it up for the white line infringement. The HC couldn't be clearer on that and in one short clip 4 clear breaches, more importantly the drivers are happy to cross the white line without any hesitation. It's almost like they are totally unfamiliar with the regulation.

But, but, but,

They are licenced, which to obtain they have passed a tesdt, and therefore have knowledge of the Highway Code.

And having insurance and licence plates they abide by every rule within.

I actually find roads with solid white line to be far scarier than those without, the solid white line makes them do weird things.

You're right of course. There are a couple of extended stretches near me, actually on a B road, where I feel, and am happier, that safe overtaking is possible. If a driver does hangs back, follows the HC and waits until it's safe to overtake then I'm holding my breath waiting for the idiots behind him that won't show the same level of patience and competance and will immediately close pass me. I'm sure we've all had that experience it's like a damn bursting as a stream of drivers rush to keep up with the convoy regardless of what might be coming in the other direction.