Near Miss of the Day 611: A shockingly dangerous overtake by van driver on wrong side of the road as cyclists turn right

Mungecrundle wrote:

Even if that were the case, basic roadcraft is not to overtake at or approaching junctions. H.C: Rule 167 DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example; Approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road. etc

What we need is a set of signs that is recognisable to folk having read some kind of road rule document. That way we could have some kind of sign that warns of existence of junctions, allowing drivers to make an informed decision on what to do safely.

We could have, I dunno, all warning signs to be the same shape and colour scheme, an all prohibitions to be a different shape, so everyone could easily understand what they had to do.

What, you mean I'd have to read something ? Don't be ridiculous !

hirsute wrote:

What, you mean I'd have to read something ? Don't be ridiculous !

Yeah s'pose so. Stupid idea, soz

And maybe some training and testing...

Nigel Garrage wrote:

If there were a lot of cyclists behind, it's possible the van simply got forced to the right as they pulled out and then got stuck as they accelerated in a group without a way to revert left before the junction - the way he used his horn hardly sounded aggressive, but as I wrote I wouldn't want to speculate further unless there's footage really.

Back in your box Troll.  You are back to your default opinion "the cyclist must somehow be to blame for the drivers stupidity".

The driver was "forced to the right"?  I assume the driver was also "forced" not to use their eyes to look at the road in front of them?  And "forced" to use their horn instead of their brake pedal?

I mean it's not like the lead cyclist was out on the main road for 30 seconds before the van made its appearance.  its not like the cyclist moved into the hatched area at least 5 seconds before the van appeared.  Oh wait that's exactly what happened.

In NO way is this any fault of the cyclist.

TriTaxMan wrote:

 

Back in your box Troll.  .

Someone say box trolls?

Captain Badger wrote:

TriTaxMan wrote:

 

Back in your box Troll.  .

Someone say box trolls?

Nige is the goofy one on the right.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

TriTaxMan wrote:

Gonna post some random abuseBack in your box Troll.  You are back to your default opinion "the cyclist must somehow be to blame for the drivers stupidity".

The driver was "forced to the right"?  I assume the driver was also "forced" not to use their eyes to look at the road in front of them?  And "forced" to use their horn instead of their brake pedal?

I mean it's not like the lead cyclist was out on the main road for 30 seconds before the van made its appearance.  its not like the cyclist moved into the hatched area at least 5 seconds before the van appeared.  Oh wait that's exactly what happened.

In NO way is this any fault of the cyclist.

Without seeing what happened behind, there is simply no logical way you can say who is at fault. While it's probable the van driver was entirely in the wrong, you cannot conclusively draw that inference with zero evidence, and it's still my belief that it would be kicked out of court if it ever came up.

I don't care how upset or angry you feel about that, facts trump emotion.

No the driver is clearly in the wrong here

1) the lead cyclists was indicating for some time and already across the klane well before the van arrives. EITHER all the cylists were qually far across and the driver overtook an entire line of cyclists clearly about to turn right OR the lead cyclist was clearly visible past the rear cyclists if only the van driver had properly assessed his overtake before starting. NOTE that you should not overtake at a junction anyway.

2) By entering the junction to avoid a collision was would have been obvious with any degree of foresight the very real possibility of impacting anyone coming out of the side road.

3) the the driver reenters the carriageway with very little view at an angle with the potential to cause a head on collission with a driver coming the other way.

The van driver overtakes fully 6 seconds after the camera cyclist has reached the hatched area, clearly turning right, time enough to stop.

Maybe, if the Police investigate, they could maybe interview the driver, possibly take witness statements from some of the other cyclists and perhaps not take your advice to give up before starting due to "lack of evidence" based on a report posted to an internet forum with video from a front facing camera which clearly records a serious road traffic offence.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

It could also have been that

1) the cyclists were to the left of the lane, with the lead rider obscured and didn't look or indicate before pulling out right leading to the driver having nowhere to go

2) the cyclists leaving a gap between themselves with the driver being safe to proceed, but then speeding up and leaving the driver stranded on the outside - that's something that's happened to me before with roles reversed as a cyclist when I've been passing traffic to the right

3) Cyclists exiting the previous junction without looking forcing the van driver out to the right again stuck with nowhere to go.

So without evidence it's impossible to say van driver was definitely in the wrong, but I will reiterate that driver is likely at fault.

1) cyclists on the left of the lane cannot obscure the view a driver has of a rider on the right hand side of the lane. Cyclist is in the hatched area for 6s before the van comes past.

2) are you really suggesting the cyclists acceleration was relevant to a van doing 50-60mph, (or more)? negligable difference in passing speed whether the cyclists were doing 12 or 18mph

3) cyclist exits the previous junction at 9s, passed by van at 29s, passed by car at 31s, starts moving across lane at 33s, reaches hatching at 35s passed by van at 41s. What is the van driving doing between 35s and 41s that he doesn't see the cyclist turning right, or doesn't consider slowing down? 

Highway code rule 167 

Do not overtake

approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
..
when a road user is indicating right, even if you believe the signal should have been cancelled. Do not take a risk; wait for the signal to be cancelled

Nigel Garrage wrote:

It could also have been that

1) the cyclists were to the left of the lane, with the lead rider obscured and didn't look or indicate before pulling out right leading to the driver having nowhere to go

2) the cyclists leaving a gap between themselves with the driver being safe to proceed, but then speeding up and leaving the driver stranded on the outside - that's something that's happened to me before with roles reversed as a cyclist when I've been passing traffic to the right

3) Cyclists exiting the previous junction without looking forcing the van driver out to the right again stuck with nowhere to go.

So without evidence it's impossible to say van driver was definitely in the wrong, but I will reiterate that driver is likely at fault.

1 - no not possible the road is a sweeping right hand bend so there is no way that the lead rider could be obsucred from the driver approaching behind them

2- not relevant - check rule 167 of the highway code - the driver should not have committed to an overtake on the approach to the junction especially with other road users in play.

3 - you are telling me that there were enough cyclists to cover at least 150 yards between the two junctions? so unless there were around 50 cyclists single file in the group you are just making excuses for the driver.

And looking at google maps street view even with the shocking image quality.... you can look back from the junction at Chalky Lane and see the junction that the cyclists joined the A287.

So the facts are there is a clear line of sight for at least 150m between the two junctions.  Two vehicles slowed down, and safely overtook the cyclists before the junction.... you can tell they had slowed down due to the fact that the engine noise of the van is such that it is accelerating hard, which means the group of cyclists is relatively small if it is still accelerating hard when it got to the lead cyclist.

By far the most likely scenario is... the van approached the group of cyclists at speed, failing to slow down even though there are multiple junctions in a short space of time.  The lead cyclist checked over their shoulder after the 2nd vehicle passed and started to move into the hatched area but at the same time the van approaching at speed decided rather than slow down that the MGIF the group of cyclists..... and when they realised that the group was turning right and that they had committed to a dangerous overtake used their horn to warn the lead cyclist.

But the single fact remains the driver is 100% to blame.  There is no likely just 100% blame.

I say that as a driver not as a cyclist.  I lived near a similar junction on a sweeping bend and there was at least 1 accident a year caused by an impatient driver committing an overtake on the approach to that junction.  One of which put a friend in hospital for a month when they were stopped waiting to turning right and a driver failed to see my friends indicator on their car, plowed into the back of the car and sent it into the path of an oncoming van. 

Common sense dictates that on an approach to a junction you should be prepared to slow down for turning traffic.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Without seeing what happened behind, there is simply no logical way you can say who is at fault. While it's probable the van driver was entirely in the wrong, you cannot conclusively draw that inference with zero evidence, and it's still my belief that it would be kicked out of court if it ever came up.

I don't care how upset or angry you feel about that, facts trump emotion.

There is not 'zero evidence'.  If you scroll to the top of the page, there's a videothat you can watch to see what happened.  It doesn't contain all aspects of the case, but it does not contain no apsects, either.

Could additional evidence offer any justification for the van driver's actions, or transfer any of the blame to any other road user?  I'm open to serious suggestions, because I can't think of any.

Understood.  Question stands.

Yeah.  Ships that pass in the night.

I was going to respond, but it was TLDR and wycombewheeler has responded to your theories.

The cyclist was going 13.3mph over 161m.  Plenty of time to pass safely or not at all.

Of course, if you've got any other ideas, go for it.

So Nige..... Would you be saying the same thing if the cyclists were replaced with other motor vehicles?

If the van driver came across a queue, lets say 2 for aguments sake, of slower moving vehicles on the approach to the same junction.  They were slowing down because the car at the front was indicating to turn right and lets say for arguments sake the van drivers view of the front car was obscured because the car was in front of an articulated lorry, and only at the last moment on the approach to the junction did the car move onto the hatched area.

By which point the driver had committed to an overtake, and then the car began their maneuver to then have the van blast their horn at them because they were coming through.

Would you be saying that you needed more evidence before you could justify saying the van driver was definitely at fault?  So please give me your expert in depth analysis of this scenario and tell me how this would be kicked out of court if this ever came up in a case

Or to make all the facts the same as it must have been in your little mind it is a queue of slower moving motor vehicles which spanned the 150 yards between the two junctions, the van driver was forced to the right to overtake all of the vehicles in the queue only to find as they got near to the junction a car decided to turn right. 

Please explain how this would be anyones fault other than the van drivers..... but I will give you a hand using your own words :-

1) the lead car was to the left of the lane, with the lead car being obscured and didn't look or indicate before pulling out right leading to the driver having nowhere to go

2) the queue of vehicles left a gap between themselves with the driver being safe to proceed, but then speeding up and leaving the driver stranded on the outside

3) Vehicles exited the previous junction without looking forcing the van driver out to the right again stuck with nowhere to go.

So all I have done is changed cyclists to car/vehicle and maybe now you will see how ridiculous your train of thought is

Nigel Garrage wrote:

.....

Everything worked perfectly because road users acted with politeness and courtesy. If the car driver wouldn't have given me space, I might have had a similar issue to the van driver in the near miss video.

 

....

Unfortunately relying on "Everything worked perfectly because road users acted with politeness and courtesy" to mitigate risk is completely unacceptable, as it is something you are entirely out of control of - witness your other experience with the idiot that you related to earlier

Add into the mix that you as a rider o/taking a bunch of cars is at your risk only, no one else's, and your speed was such that other options were available to you (I would doubt that you committed to a course of action that relied on the above for you to avoid a pasting)

The driver approached a group of riders at speed near a junction, and failed to slow down. Regardless of what the riders were doing (and there is no evidence of anything wrong on teh film) they were was utterly reckless and negligent whilst driving a 3.5t vehicle.

There really was absolutely no conceivable circumstances that what we saw could be anyone else's fault - the driver was the one that had control of the entire dynamic of their situation.

A similar issue to the van driver:- I'm now imagining him frantically ringing his bell to tell the driver in front he was about to blast past uncontrollably and dangerously to the occupants in that car or any that might have been coming out of the junction.

Although of course what he actually explained was normal filtering done by 75% of commuting cyclists on a normal day, and then tried to equate it to 3 tonne materials travelling at 40mph dangerously.

Of course you could ask several questions on that experience like road situational awareness. For example, lots of traffic suddenly at 10 mph because a car turning right - surely they would have stopped if all in a single file. Or the car was far enough across to be seen by the cyclist before pulling the manouvre. Also if the car was delayed on turning right, then the oncoming traffic would have been in the cyclists face. 

Nigel Garrage wrote:

It's funny you should mention this, because I had a similar problem as a cyclist overtaking cars a few days ago - I was overtaking a line of cars doing about 20-25mph while they were doing around 10 mph, and it turned out there was a car turning right that caused the slowdown for the cars. As I was on a bike I was able to look round prior to reaching the indicating car, make eye contact, use a hand signal and get a nod of approval to move back left in time to slot back in before getting stuck in no-man's land.

Everything worked perfectly because road users acted with politeness and courtesy. If the car driver wouldn't have given me space, I might have had a similar issue to the van driver in the near miss video.

Presumably you slowed down prior to moving back left as the line of cars was travelling slower than you. So blasting bast the right turning vehicle without slowing down was not unde consideration at all.

Worst case you would have stopped stationary behind the right turning car, and struggled to get back to the left, through the now flowing traffic.

I love the fact that the cyclists invisibility field also managhed to obscure the Right Turn Ahead / Reduce Speed now sign as well. So well informed of the road conditions and still tried to blast past the cyclists.  

Love these jokes you keep coming up with

The cyclist had already been in the hatched area in the centre of the road for quite some time before the overtake.

Were there other cyclists behind, such that the van had started the overtake of the rear cyclist and then got caught with no means to get to the left of the front cyclist? Title of video is "overakes cyclists" so I assume so. Obviously braking is always an option, but one so few drivers are willing to consider.

I think where a group of cyclists are attempting a right turn, the best approach is to keep in close contact and for the rear cyclist to make the call on when it is safe to move over to the right "clear behind", and the entire group to cross the lane together. So as to avoid a situation where a line of cyclists is spread across the lane funneling overtaking drivers to the wrong side of the road.

This is not to say the driver is not wrong, clearly they should have slowed/stopped waitied for the cyclists to turn and then continued on their way on the now empty road, there is no rush to overtake cyclists who are turning off the driver's route.

wycombewheeler wrote:

The cyclist had already been in the hatched area in the centre of the road for quite some time before the overtake.

Were there other cyclists behind, such that the van had started the overtake of the rear cyclist and then got caught with no means to get to the left of the front cyclist? Title of video is "overakes cyclists" so I assume so. Obviously braking is always an option, but one so few drivers are willing to consider.

I think where a group of cyclists are attempting a right turn, the best approach is to keep in close contact and for the rear cyclist to make the call on when it is safe to move over to the right "clear behind", and the entire group to cross the lane together. So as to avoid a situation where a line of cyclists is spread across the lane funneling overtaking drivers to the wrong side of the road.

This is not to say the driver is not wrong, clearly they should have slowed/stopped waitied for the cyclists to turn and then continued on their way on the now empty road, there is no rush to overtake cyclists who are turning off the driver's route.

 

The driver is clearly in the wrong with absolutley no excuses - you are meant to look ahead to see if it is clear and safe to overtake which with 1 or 100 cyclists it blatently was not - there is a clear sign indicating a junction as well.

No this is simply that type of driver who thinks cyclists are stationary objects and does not look further than the 1st obstacle in front of them.

Simply should not be allowed to drive on the roads without passing an extended re-test when his ban expires

Seriously- you're a parody, right?

The van is not only overtaking at a junction, but DRIVES INTO THE JUNCTION to avoid a collision, then continues back into the main carrigeway even though he's now unsighted.

If a car was coming out of that junction, there would have been a loss of life, no ifs or buts. Driver should be charged with dangerous driving as a minimum, and you say there's not enough evidence for a charge?

Go have a lie down. And stay there.

Double post

STiG911 wrote:

Double post

It was worth saying twice.

Plus direction sign for the junction and a hatched area. Staggering incompetence given vehicles had already overtaken safely only seconds before.

makadu wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

The cyclist had already been in the hatched area in the centre of the road for quite some time before the overtake.

Were there other cyclists behind, such that the van had started the overtake of the rear cyclist and then got caught with no means to get to the left of the front cyclist? Title of video is "overakes cyclists" so I assume so. Obviously braking is always an option, but one so few drivers are willing to consider.

I think where a group of cyclists are attempting a right turn, the best approach is to keep in close contact and for the rear cyclist to make the call on when it is safe to move over to the right "clear behind", and the entire group to cross the lane together. So as to avoid a situation where a line of cyclists is spread across the lane funneling overtaking drivers to the wrong side of the road.

This is not to say the driver is not wrong, clearly they should have slowed/stopped waitied for the cyclists to turn and then continued on their way on the now empty road, there is no rush to overtake cyclists who are turning off the driver's route.

 

The driver is clearly in the wrong with absolutley no excuses - you are meant to look ahead to see if it is clear and safe to overtake which with 1 or 100 cyclists it blatently was not - there is a clear sign indicating a junction as well.

No this is simply that type of driver who thinks cyclists are stationary objects and does not look further than the 1st obstacle in front of them.

Simply should not be allowed to drive on the roads without passing an extended re-test when his ban expires

This is not a question of who is wrong, the driver is clearly wrong, because at any point when they could see what was happening they could stop, but chose not to despite it becoming increasing obvious they were trying to pass a line of cyclists in the process of turning right, and that the first cyclist who had been indicating for sometime was already in the centre of the road with a reasonable expectation that no one would come from behind to pass on his right.

This is a point about how to ride safer knowing that drivers are often really shit often do not look past the cyclist in front of them to determine whether or not they can complete an overtake before they commence it. I've lost count of the number of times drivers pull alongside me as they were trying to overtake before realising I was keeping pace with the car in front, and then try to pull in, herding me towards the kerb.

You don't want to be in a position where the driver is overtaking the rider behind you and then faced with the options of going further right to pass you, or slowing (which they almost never choose) or deciding whether they can go from overtaking other riders outside and then pass you inside.

If the rearmost cyclist (who is appraently the only thing some drivers can see, not the red light 50m ahead, or the car in front of the cyclist at the same speed, or the cyclist halfway across the lane because they are turning right) indicates right, checks to see vehicles have slowed to allow the turn and then moves out, it is then safe for others in the group to do the same.

Unfortunately the type of driver you identify as not looking past the first obstacle in front of them is all too common.

Possibly a good example of when to use the horn in a "I'm totally out of control and represent a significant threat to you" sort of meaning.