Near Miss of the Day 520: Cyclist hit by driver's wing mirror coming under narrow bridge

"I will take your comments on board however and I will make every effort to allow myself to be bullied into giving way in the future."

I would not take that away.
I'm all for being a bit awkward. Though I tend to look for scenarios where I can make the driver slow down and think whilst giving myself an escape route.

Given the bridge was a hazard, I would have expected a couple of chancers but would have positioned myself to let them know there are other road users. I have sometimes swept my arm over the windscreen with a whoosh to alert them that other road users exist.

We've all had similar incidents and regardless of the outcome we can surely agree that it's a form bullying. That being the case; why is there so much victim blaming?

I agree, imagine if the errant vehicle had gone through a red light when the cyclist had priority ( green ). That's exactly the same scenario as here. We would be saying well done to the cyclist for avoiding a more-serious impact. And we would be calling for the motorist to be prosecuted. So I think we can say this here. Whilst naturally, having seen the risk, the cyclist would be wise to exercise self-preservation, I think we should point the finger at the "red-light-breaker" rather than saying the person on "green light" should have made a better job of avoiding getting hit.

its not exactly the same scenario as youve introduced a vehicle jumping a red light, not simply obeying an information sign, its nearer to when you are on a single track road or a road half blocked by parked cars and someone refuses to wait in a passing point.

but regardless I believe the highway code impresses on you as a road user to always give way if it can help avoid an incident and that you must be prepared to adapt, be patient and allow others to "make mistakes".

which is why I dont believe even if you collided with a red light jumping vehicle its necessarily automatically 100% always their fault.

but back to this example, we dont have to be happy with the fact vehicles will merrily ignore giving priority to a cyclist in that situation, no-one is arguing thats ok, but if you choose to try and force & make those vehicles stop by taking your priority when its unlikely they will stop, then do be prepared for the consequences that follow.

brooksby wrote:

I think I would have stopped rather than try to go through the gap.

BUT:

The essential problem with these 'give priority to oncoming traffic' signs is that a large number of motorists don't think that a cyclist counts as being 'traffic', and therefore don't think that they have to cede priority...

It's easy to have these thoughts, because we tend to remeber a lot more when drivers to this to us when we are cycling than when they do it to us when we are also driving.

There are plenty of drivers who think if they will be 70% through the restriction when the oncoming road user arrives, they do not need to give way. Some others on this thread seem to agree with this view.

When this happnes to you when you are driving, remind yourself it isn't persecution or cyclists, some drivers are crap or agressive all the time.

I tend to remember instances where I know had I been in a car and not on a bike the oncoming traffic would have stopped and ceded priority to me correctly, and some of that is yes even the rubbish ones mostly recognise immovable wide objects can block their path whilst a bike can leave an inviting gap,even if it's still not wide enough to pass through.

But on a bike I can probably count on one hand in all the years I've been riding that when I had priority on a bit of road, a vehicle actually stopped for me. Even learners under instruction, they'll still drive for the nonexistent gap than cede road priority.

So part of me looks at that video and thinks yes discretion would have been the better choice there to stop, maybe slow hand clap them all as they passed you,but the rebel in me says stuff it they should have waited.

alansmurphy wrote:

520 in and we've finally found the one - cyclist 99% at fault!

Less than that, the cars are all ignoring the give way to oncoming traffic lines, following the philosphy of might makes right. This is the first error, which they are dependant on the actions of the cyclist to alleviate, by giving way when he has priority.

30% cyclist fault, 70% bully drivers

wycombewheeler wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

520 in and we've finally found the one - cyclist 99% at fault!

Less than that, the cars are all ignoring the give way to oncoming traffic lines, following the philosphy of might makes right. This is the first error, which they are dependant on the actions of the cyclist to alleviate, by giving way when he has priority.

30% cyclist fault, 70% bully drivers

I think that's reasonable although I'd lean towards 50:50

Broken down into actions leading to contact

The initial action is drivers barging through give way, 100% drivers fault

2n action. On seeing situation rider still tried to squeeze past vehicles already established (disregarding the legality of establishment, the reality of it is that the drivers are occupying the space). 100% riders decision

And the driver also then refuses to move left to leave sufficient gap which the van driver behind manages. The Pickup is even through the restriction before impact and should be moving to their side regardless.

wycombewheeler wrote:

And the driver also then refuses to move left to leave sufficient gap which the van driver behind manages. The Pickup is even through the restriction before impact and should be moving to their side regardless.

Fair point, well presented!

I can admit when i was wrong, I focussed on the path of the bike and hadn't noticed the kerb on the right. The pickup should be moving left regardless and the van does try and move.

I think the cyclist gets a little close to the first vehicle coming thru, the second vehicle is tailgating then goes into bully mode, the 3rd vehicle is tailgating and tries to abandon...

Capt Sisko wrote:

Graveyards are full of people in the right.

I cannot impress upon you enough how much I hate it when people say that! 

Jules59 wrote:

The cyclist does the rest of us no favours, but reinforces the "cyclying jihadist" image some motorists seem to have of us, when in fact we are in the main just normal, reasonable people who like cycling and often like driving cars too.

He doesn't represent me - but you're right, it was a stupid move!

Jules59 wrote:

I thought it was the duty of all road users to avoid collisions if possible.

On the face of it (bearing in mind I wasnt there, don't know the road and the camera often distorts speed and distances), the cyclist made no attempt to avoid a collision by slowing down. The cyclist does the rest of us no favours, but reinforces the "cyclying jihadist" image some motorists seem to have of us, when in fact we are in the main just normal, reasonable people who like cycling and often like driving cars too.

Is it not also the duty of the VW pickup who doesn't move left at all but holds his line? (Having already failed to give way at the lines) The mercedes van behind leaves a much bigger gap when the cyclist becomes apparent.

Maybe now the driver has lost a mirror for his faiure to observe the rules he will not be so quick to bully cyclists in the future. 

To be clear I would not have gone for this gap, because self preservation, but I do not believe that cyclists asserting their priority gives us a bad name.

And I bet you see oncoming vehicles like that around 50% of the time - cycling towards them though would be stupid!

while I would also have stopped in order to avoid a collision.

I still don't see why you think the rider has to reach the sign before he gets priority, all three drivers proceeded over giveway lines in the face of oncoming traffic. In the first frame they were all behind the line, the first driver is maybe OK, but the followers ain't.

The rider should still have stopped in the face of this abimal driving though

The priority sign shows the start of where it is narrow and also indicates a hazard ahead for which one should reduce speed.
It will always be judgement as to whether the give way traffic can slip through in time and defensive riding/driving would take account of that. Priority is not the same as right.

Not even sure it was a cyclist makes any odds. Monday in a car, in a 30, in ra residential road. Oncoming driver accelerates towards me to get past parked car on his side forcing me to slow significantly.
Moronic when it is lockdown - what is the hurry ?

hirsute wrote:

Moronic when it is lockdown - what is the hurry ?

Maybe they'd really taken the messaging to minimise time out of the home to heart?

The "give priority to oncoming" sign categorically does not mean "you must wait until you can't see any oncoming traffic on the road ahead" - it means if you can see oncoming traffic, then you should give it priority. 

The "priority over oncoming" traffic sign categorically does not mean "you have the right proceed in all circumstances and everyone else should get out your way and if they don't then they're in the wrong".  

The first driver was clearly able to proceed without obstructing the cyclist.  He did so.  Anyone who has a problem with that is insane. 

The second car & van should perhaps have waited - but I would question , with the vehicle(s) proceeding in front of them, they could actually see the cyclist until they were already going through.  Again, the sign does not prohibit you from following another vehicle through.  Mr BMW could and indeed should have moved in to give more space and all would have been fine (as the van did) - but given that he wasn't doing so, belting straight on anyway is a bit mad.  If the roles were reversed, and the car was belting through on the basis of having priority, despite a cyclist oncoming (perhaps following a large vehicle) and not moving over there would rightful apoplexies going on - I don't see that this is much different.

The Beamer should have moved over a bit, so he was being a bit of a knob.  But the situation was clearly & easily avoidable, and the cyclist deliberately chose not to avoid it.