Near Miss of the Day 713: Driver asked not to close pass... then does it again

Reisrob wrote:

in the second instance is cycling further to the right to try and push the car wider

So in your view they should have just cycled into the back of the parked vehicle instead?

Reisrob wrote:

This is a non event. THe cyclist seems to want to make something of nothing and in the second instance is cycling further to the right to try and push the car wider

Another day, another brand new poster with an "it's the cyclist's fault" stance, what a surprise. If you have a little think, the lane is at most 200cms wide (that model of Kia is 160cms wide). The car passes with about a third of its width in the lane, so that cuts the space to 150cms tops. If the cyclist is riding 50cms minimum from the kerb (as recommended in the Highway Code) and is 60 cms wide, that accounts for 110 cms, leaving a gap of 40cms, or less than a third of what the Highway Code says a car should leave to pass a cyclist. It's not the scariest or most aggressive pass, but it's still completely against the rules of the road.

Quote:

 in the second instance is cycling further to the right to try and push the car wider

I think you'll find he's moving out to avoid becoming part of the load of the massive transit van that's occupying his lane.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Another day, another brand new poster with an "it's the cyclist's fault" stance, what a surprise.

Noooope, not me. Driver had a full lane to overtake and didn't use it, no need to pass that close. May well have not known the lights were there since it was roadworks that could have been new, but if they did know they were present the whole first overtake was pointless knowing they'd more than likely have to stop shortly.

Reisrob wrote:

This is a non event. THe cyclist seems to want to make something of nothing and in the second instance is cycling further to the right to try and push the car wider

 

Nah, they're not pushing the driver out further - it's absolutely impossible for a person on a bike to push a car anywhere. Try it and see if you don't believe me. They're taking primary to reduce temptation of a dangerous o/t (that would be in contravention of the HWC). They're doing the driver a favour....

In addition they're ensuring that if the driver does act like a preck (bingo!) they have somewhere to go instead of being squashed against the parked vehicle.

The driver should (and easily could) have waited a few seconds before overtaking (a manoeuvre that has the sole aim of getting to the end of the next queue first), with no overall delay to their journey. 

Even if the journey was delayed by anything more than a couple of seconds, that cannot excuse risking other people for your own punctuality - no journey is that important. A safe and competent driver will ensure that they allocate suitable time for their journey - as it instructs in the Highway Code

 HWC 97

You SHOULD ensure that

• you have planned your route and allowed sufficient time for breaks and possible delays
• ....

I agree with this. The cyclist clearly moves across towards the centre of the road as he is being overtaken. If we can't admit our own faults we will never have harmony on our roads.

Rockhopper229 wrote:

I agree with this. The cyclist clearly moves across towards the centre of the road as he is being overtaken. If we can't admit our own faults we will never have harmony on our roads.

On the first pass the cyclist remains in more or less steady lateral position. Any movement there is due to the camera angle shofting as he looks right.

On the second pas, of course he moves right: he's passing a parked vehicle  That was not a suitable point for the driver to choose to overtake.

I'll happily criticise a cyclist if they've done something wrong.  It wasn't this though.

joe9090 wrote:

I feel there is a little bit of entitlement here from the cyclist

What's wrong with that? Surely they should be entitled to go about their business without being harassed and endangered by other road users?

joe9090 wrote:

I think for the 1st pass at least, the rider was taking the lane too much. He could have safely been further to the left. Maybe the pass would then have not felt so close.

If the driver had made use of the whole other lane then the pass would not have 'felt' so close (because it wouldn't have been so close). Whatever your opinion of the cyclist's positioning (which doesn't look much more than a 'strong secondary' to me), the responsibility is on the driver to respond to that and make a safe overtake, which they could easily have done.

joe9090 wrote:

Then he could have held behind the car and not have needed to be passed by the car a second time.

He could have chosen not to speak to the driver. But having done so, he didn't have much option but to then roll in front of the car and go through the lights-controlled section ahead of them.

joe9090 wrote:

I think for the 1st pass at least, the rider was taking the lane too much. He could have safely been further to the left. Maybe the pass would then have not felt so close.

Then he could have held behind the car and not have needed to be passed by the car a second time. Thats my experience. I feel there is a little bit of entitlement here from the cyclist and somewhat unecessarily so. 

The rider's head appears to be, at most, about 100cms out from the kerb. Assuming the rider is of average build, that means their left shoulder/handlebar will be about 60cms out from the kerb. The Highway Code recommends an absolute minimum of 50cms out from the kerb when riding; 10cms over that is hardly "entitled". The car driver had an entire lane to the right in which to make the pass and a safe clear sightline to allow them to do so, but they couldn't be bothered to move right over. Now that's "entitled", if you like.

It is difficult to tell with these videos. Sometimes it is worse than it looks on the video. 

When I started using a camera I cycled 75cm from the kerb, as reccomended by the close pass mat used by the police, so the police couldn't use that as an excuse for doing nothing. That was before getting NFA for anything where I didn't have to swerve or brake to avoid a collision, no matter how close the pass was, with the police using the excuse that there is no offence of a close pass. I now cycle at least 1m from the kerb so I have plenty of room to move into as the close pass happens. If the police can't (or won't) protect me I'll protect myself as best I can.

eburtthebike wrote:

either they paid someone to take the test for them, or the test isn't a sufficiently rigorous examination of their abilities.

Or they saw the test as a sort of performance - a rite of passage that they had to go through to obtain the licence they were entitled to, rather than having anything to do with an expected standard they should maintain to continue to be accorded the privelege to drive - which has long since become a distant glimmer in the memory.

Best explanation yet for how society views this. I did my GCSEs (O levels for the older)...

mdavidford wrote:

Or they saw the test as a sort of performance - a rite of passage that they had to go through to obtain the licence they were entitled to, rather than having anything to do with an expected standard they should maintain to continue to be accorded the privelege to drive - which has long since become a distant glimmer in the memory.

*old post but* this is 100000% how I (and a lot of educators) feel that tests are viewed in general - as a performative act designed not to embed actual learning, but to create a simulation of learning for observers to view and vet. Actual learning, as any good teacher will tell you, comes from continuous formative checks and application in practise - i.e, enforcing traffic laws, retesting, having actual driver awareness courses.

eburtthebike wrote:

There is a minority of drivers who are unable to drive safely, despite having passed a test, so either they paid someone to take the test for them, or the test isn't a sufficiently rigorous examination of their abilities.  I've had a few instances very similar to this one, so these people exist in some numbers.

What's the solution?  A better test, administered every five years?

A test is just a proxy for being able to control the vehicle and drive safely in traffic. I'd say that identifying the problematic drivers and either warning/educating/banning them is the answer and that boils down to spending money on traffic policing. More tests may help, but policing is the answer.

Another issue with tests is that drivers may behave differently during the test (on their best behaviour).

hawkinspeter wrote:

e with tests is that drivers may behave differently during the test (on their best behaviour).

and there is no limit to how many tests a person can take, or how long they can wait between tests, leading to situations like this

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-9126383/Britains-luckle...

157 fails and then a pass. Described as luckless, this isn't bad luck this is an incompetent driver, who eventually got lucky and went through the test without anything remotely taxing to deal with. This person is now allowed to drive unsuprvised on our roads. I'd say the luckless ones are the people they come across.

Maybe there should be a limit of no more than 2 tests in a 12 month period

wycombewheeler wrote:

and there is no limit to how many tests a person can take, or how long they can wait between tests, leading to situations like this

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-9126383/Britains-luckle...

157 fails and then a pass. Described as luckless, this isn't bad luck this is an incompetent driver, who eventually got lucky and went through the test without anything remotely taxing to deal with. This person is now allowed to drive unsuprvised on our roads. I'd say the luckless ones are the people they come across.

Maybe there should be a limit of no more than 2 tests in a 12 month period

That was failing the theory test which I'd have more sympathy with - some people have real difficulties with exam pressure and nerves.

Hopefully, having to put that much effort into learning to drive has given them a sense of humility and they'd be driving extra carefully until they gain more confidence and experience.

I'm more wary of the people that don't put much effort and attention into their driving and just blithely follow the vehicle in front. Also, I'd rather cycle around a nervous driver that is going slow and infuriating other drivers than an overconfident one.

eburtthebike wrote:

There is a minority of drivers who are unable to drive safely, despite having passed a test, so either they paid someone to take the test for them, or the test isn't a sufficiently rigorous examination of their abilities.  I've had a few instances very similar to this one, so these people exist in some numbers.

What's the solution?  A better test, administered every five years?

Unfortunately there is no answer because some people would adapt their driving to pass a test.  In the same way that, for example a driver who perpetually speeds when they are in the car on their own, would adapt their driving if for example they had their parents/grandparents in the car.

Drivers learn how to pass the driving test, then a small number of them throw that learning out the window as soon as they have their licence.

eburtthebike wrote:

There is a minority of drivers who are unable to drive safely, despite having passed a test, so either they paid someone to take the test for them, or the test isn't a sufficiently rigorous examination of their abilities.  I've had a few instances very similar to this one, so these people exist in some numbers.

What's the solution?  A better test, administered every five years?

I see lots of "test makes no difference - most of the berks driving have passed it so more tests aren't the answer".  Sort of.  We definitely need more feedback for drivers than "once every 5 years".  So yes - more policing, more effective policing. (And a role for "having a word with" for poor driving which doesn't necessarily fall under the "strictly currently illegal".)

I think changing some common beliefs about driving is important too.  As noted currently it's that passing your test is a rite of passage and then you just get on with things.  Almost like "I'm 18 and I can buy booze now".  As repeated everywhere that's just not how licencing most other dangerous activities works.  Having regular checks sets a different expectation.  Even in the UK the rules of the road are not immutable.  There are things that we might want to check that people are getting right.

I've no idea what the practicalities and costs would look like. I don't think it's either or e.g. having 1000 extra police on the roads vs. retesting every 5 (more often?) years. Who pays?  As long as we can sort our act out with public transport and active transport options I think drivers should pay.  Your choice to drive, your convenience and it's to your benefit that other drivers drive better.

I'd pay for a retest every 10 years or 5 after passing the initial one. Particularly if you ended up with a graduated result that would limit you to low powered cars if your driving was only just good enough and a superlicence that allowed you to get lower insurance premiums

mikewood wrote:

a superlicence that allowed you to get lower insurance premiums

The membership of the Institute of Advanced Motoring requires passing an advanced driving test on Roadcraft and does provide insurance savings.

Other organisations such as ROSPA and Brake are available in the pursuit of better road safety.

Obviously I would not include ABD in that...

Do we necessarilty need more police on the roads, they have a whole army of volunteers submitting footage to them. I can't understand why they are not willing to make use of this resource. I accept that prosecutions may be difficult but police advice/warnings to drivers, with records kept, would lead to safer driving while they lobby to change the law so they can prosecute some of the more egregious examples of poor driving we see on NMOTD.

Why should safe drivers have to take a retest because some people feel they are too important to have to drive safely. It's just like stopping everyone cycing through town centres because of the actions of a few.

Bungle_52 wrote:

Do we necessarilty need more police on the roads, they have a whole army of volunteers submitting footage to them. I can't understand why they are not willing to make use of this resource. I accept that prosecutions may be difficult but police advice/warnings to drivers, with records kept, would lead to safer driving while they lobby to change the law so they can prosecute some of the more egregious examples of poor driving we see on NMOTD.

Why should safe drivers have to take a retest because some people feel they are too important to have to drive safely. It's just like stopping everyone cycing through town centres because of the actions of a few.

More police on the roads increases the perception of law enforcement, so I think it'd be good to get more police and randomly have them monitoring busy roads at certain times.

Public submitted cam footage is clearly the cheapest way to get lots of eyes on the roads, so I think all forces need to put some resources into dealing with it. It's also a very flexible job as it doesn't need an immediate response (as opposed to a lot of other police work) and with the right setup, wouldn't even need to be performed at a police station. It's also a suitable job for people with disabilities/injuries to perform so might be a good choice if an officer becomes unable to walk the beat.

Maybe retests should be reserved for drivers that pick up any points - whilst you still have points on your license, you pay for a yearly retest until you've proven that you're a safe driver. There's little point in testing safe drivers except to pick up things like poor eyesight that the driver might not be aware of.

An interesting alternative is to have black boxes in cars that monitor aspects of driving such as left-right weaving, excessive acceleration/braking and smoothness of control - that may pick up early signs of aging or even some diseases as well as indicating drivers that have poor skills.

There are plenty of 'bad drivers' trundling around at safe speeds and thus not collecting lots of points in the process, yet still putting vulnerable road users at risk through their ignorance/ineptitude. It's not just the more 'senior' ones that passed their test decades ago either. I think a refresher test every 10 years as an absolute maximum (5 would be better) would be a good opportunity to flag up learned bad behaviour and hopefully educate those that haven't picked up a copy of the Highway Code for many years.

I also really like your idea of extra testing for anyone with points! It would be a really strong deterrent to collecting them in the first place.

Yep - we could definitely use existing technology fully to assist here as well as hanging on for better car-driving software.

There are legitimate concerns about "surveillance" although in the UK that bird has long flown [1] [2]. I guess you could say that this is also "single purpose" rather than extra police who can be re-tasked to other duties as needed. However it still sounds like the cheapest way to address issues on roads.

I agree about the cam footage.  It can be done - as shown by some forces, some of the time. (And is also most often provided by drivers, I believe - those entitled vigilante trolls!) Unfortunately it's not "free" - it definitely needs some manpower and that clearly is a deterrent for some forces. Could some of the admin be done by non-police-officers to reduce cost / "free up cops to focus on 'real crime'"?

I still think general retests have a purpose but more frequent testing for those with points sounds like a clever addition. To be paid for by those drivers the same as "driver education" courses.