Near Miss of the Day 714 (updated): Police stand by comments questioning cyclist's positioning despite Highway Code changes

The answer may vary.  Designers may be encouraging drivers/riders to take up clear road positions as they negotiate the roundabout.  On a 3-road junction, left or right is much more indicative of exit intention (notwithstanding the possibility of a complete circuit).

It is probable that the layout has considered the flow of traffic towards Warwick, and out of the housing estate, as causing queuing at the roundabout at peak times, so there is a question of junction fluidity, eased by streaming traffic into lanes onto the roundabout.  It's less a question of overtaking as separate streams of traffic, especially if traffic is then subsequently congested in one direction or the other.  The times of day don't appear to be peak traffic times.

In any case, for a roundabout of that girth, overtaking is mostly ill-advised.  I dare say that a motorist might safely be able to pass a cyclist whose body language clearly indicated they were keeping left.  But given the Highway Code advises against it, the onus should be on the motorist to demonstrate that they had taken all factors into account.  and if they had, there would probably be no reason to challenge them, because no incident would have occurred to require the question.  (and THAT is why it is "should" not "must").

Yes, that one is definitely one where there is a dual queue in rush hour (it is an access to Warwick, Warwick Parkway station to London, and the A46 which links to the M42, Leamington - Tachbrook Park and the National Grid place nearby, the M6 and Coventry). During flowing times most people expect to go through in single file except for white van man.

I've just worked out why that example you give has a 'merge' arrow in one direction but not the other... It's not a merge arrow!

Confusingly, this arrow has a number of meanings. One is that lanes are reducing (which is commonly called merging, but there is no merge-in-turn law in the uk). Another is to show which side of an obstruction to pass. In this case, it's indicating that you should keep left of the double white lines.

So there's no arrow on the other side, because there are no double white lines. But notice there is one inline with the dashed line warning of the traffic island obstruction.

Ah, good point, but you can see that the layout looks then remarkably like one where two cars are encouraged to go side by side straight on and then merge.

The general point is that you can't tell what to do if you are unfamiliar with the roundabout, (so err on the side of traditional routes!) but also where people do use them frequently, they may understand different things from their understanding of the markings. 

IanMSpencer wrote:

Ah, good point, but you can see that the layout looks then remarkably like one where two cars are encouraged to go side by side straight on and then merge.

The general point is that you can't tell what to do if you are unfamiliar with the roundabout, (so err on the side of traditional routes!) but also where people do use them frequently, they may understand different things from their understanding of the markings. 

The arrow that HoarseMann helpfully points to is diagram 1014, which you can read more about in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions, schedule 11 part 4 (Advisory Road Markings), item 14 [here]. You can find out more about how and where it should be used in the Traffic Signs Manual, Ch5 [here].  It is known as a deflection arrow, and that is its meaning.  It's not that the meaning is varied (and therefore confusing), but its application is varied.  Essentially, it means, "don't still be out here in a few metres or it'll hurt/cost you".

In the roundabout you linked to, in the NW direction, it is appears presumed that traffic will have settled itself out into single file by the time it needs to exit towards Hatton, such that the island on the exit will not be an issue.  While the carriageway is not divided by a continuous line, dualling is not a credible option.  In the opposite direction, on-roundabout traffic and traffic joining from Charingworth Dr will find themselves merging in practice, with potential informal dualling to forced single file and a continuous centre line.  There is also a deflection arrow on the SE approach to the roundabout.  As far as the roundabout is concerned, then, it is the pressure of tweo streams of traffic joining and having to merge almost immediately that invited the deflection arrow.

IanMSpencer wrote:

So if you have a situation with implicit lanes what are the rules?

If there are no lane markings, you go right back to the general principle of keeping to the leftmost side of the carriageway...

HoarseMann wrote:

IanMSpencer wrote:

So if you have a situation with implicit lanes what are the rules?

If there are no lane markings, you go right back to the general principle of keeping to the leftmost side of the carriageway...

pretty sure this means drive on the left side of the road (or go clockwise round roundabouts)

Not -  hug the gutter while moving

wycombewheeler wrote:

HoarseMann wrote:

IanMSpencer wrote:

So if you have a situation with implicit lanes what are the rules?

If there are no lane markings, you go right back to the general principle of keeping to the leftmost side of the carriageway...

pretty sure this means drive on the left side of the road (or go clockwise round roundabouts)

Not -  hug the gutter while moving

No need to hug the gutter if the carriageway is wide enough to accomodate two vehicles. There are people who wrongly drive in the middle of the lane, no matter it's width though. This is a road where that can happen, the correct road position is towards the left of the carriageway, as these vehicles demonstrate...

That is not invariably the correct position. If the road bends, then it is better to move to the outside of the bend to extend visibility. Motorcycles are encouraged to do this more dramatically but advanced driving promotes this. Indeed, I have a police trainer video where he advocates staying right on a dual carriageway with a bend to see better, where no following traffic is hindered.

As a cyclist on a country lane I would also recommend taking an outside line to see and be seen, keeping left on a hedged bend can hide you from oncoming traffic.

IanMSpencer wrote:

That is not invariably the correct position. If the road bends, then it is better to move to the outside of the bend to extend visibility. Motorcycles are encouraged to do this more dramatically but advanced driving promotes this. Indeed, I have a police trainer video where he advocates staying right on a dual carriageway with a bend to see better, where no following traffic is hindered. As a cyclist on a country lane I would also recommend taking an outside line to see and be seen, keeping left on a hedged bend can hide you from oncoming traffic.

That is an advanced driving technique, which I use having done the IAM training and test. But it's not the default position and not what you would use if there was close following or overtaking traffic (or on a roundabout). You would choose to reduce speed instead.

HoarseMann wrote:

IanMSpencer wrote:

So if you have a situation with implicit lanes what are the rules?

If there are no lane markings, you go right back to the general principle of keeping to the leftmost side of the carriageway...

the full text is as follows

Rule 160

Once moving you should

• keep to the left, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise. The exceptions are when you want to overtake, turn right or pass parked vehicles or pedestrians in the road
• keep well to the left on right-hand bends. This will improve your view of the road and help avoid the risk of colliding with traffic approaching from the opposite direction
• drive or ride with both hands on the wheel or handlebars where possible. This will help you to remain in full control of the vehicle at all times. You may use driver assistance systems while you are driving. Make sure you use any system according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
• be aware of other road users, especially cycles and motorcycles who may be filtering through the traffic. These are more difficult to see than larger vehicles and their riders are particularly vulnerable. Give them plenty of room, especially if you are driving a long vehicle or towing a trailer. You should give way to cyclists when you are changing direction or lane – do not cut across them.
• select a lower gear before you reach a long downhill slope. This will help to control your speed
• when towing, remember the extra length will affect overtaking and manoeuvring. The extra weight will also affect the braking and acceleration.

So we can see keep to the left, does not mean keeping as far left as possible, it means don't drive on the right, we can tell thi because the following clause specifies "far to the left" in certain situations

did you also mis the instructions to a) give cycles and motorcycles plenty of room and b) do not cut across them ?

Poor effort 2/10

Not taking sides, just observing that road designers may play a part in encouraging drivers to interact in different ways. A lot of us learn how junctions work.

As another example of this, purely car based, Solihull bypass has this traffic light layout and lane markings: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4168445,-1.7617472,3a,75y,332.04h,69.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjiY7kpS3vm4B58GUuFk_QA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Both lanes are signed as straight on, but after the junction there are three lanes, each a single direction only, so there is immediately only a single straight on lane - or alteratively, the right lane could have been marked with a double right turn arrow to indicate that it was for people turning first and second right, not for people turning first right, second right and straight on (second right is towards JLR and very heavily used). People locally will use the left lane only for straight on, and then some people will also use the left lane to turn right at the second junction because of the regular problem of getting trapped behind a car turning right at the first. However, a stranger has no indication that going straight on in the right lane is going to end in a conflict with the cars in the left lane, especially as the lane alignment does not line up to make it clear that the left lane goes into the centre lane.

So my underlying point is that you have road markings that give conflicting advice to motorists in different contexts, and it is not surprising that motorists then make poor choices... but of course, many are deliberately impatient.

I'm not sure that the problem you describe is a function of the road markings. It sounds like it's more a function of people intentionally choosing an inappropriate lane for where they want to go because they're too impatient to wait until right-turning traffic at the first junction clears.

May be.

It is a junction that operates under stress throughout the day, and it is interesting to see how traffic flow evolves to adapt to different challenges - given that drivers aren't in communication, it is interesting how behaviour on roads evolves.

wycombewheeler wrote:

So we can see keep to the left, does not mean keeping as far left as possible, it means don't drive on the right

And also, don't hog the middle lane on the motorway, etc.

Brightspark wrote:

If you were driving that car what would be your plan at that point?

Slow down and wait behind until the roundabout had been negotiated.

As an aside - not sure where you got that the police would have had five minutes of footage either side of the incident - there doesn't appear to be anything in the article to suggest that was the case.

When I have submitted video to the dear old boys in blue they have required that amount of time before and after the reported incident.

I also said that we only have the 12 seconds. I would like to see what happened before he overtook the other cyclist and what happened after the car had passed. Why was the camera bike going wide? Was he avoiding a hazard in the road?

Hmmm. You and I may have held back because of our experience as cyclists and especially if the cyclist is not holding a steady line.

But as the driver entered the roundabout he had the two cyclists in the left hand lane, a clear lane ahead and a good 1.5meters clearance and time (just) and speed to pass. That is until the camera bike closes the gap.

Or have I read that wrong?

Brightspark wrote:

When I have submitted video to the dear old boys in blue they have required that amount of time before and after the reported incident.

That's not a universal rule - either your local force has particularly excessive requirements, or whoever was dealing with your submission was just trying to make it more trouble than it was worth (cue wjts).

Brightspark wrote:

Hmmm. You and I may have held back because of our experience as cyclists and especially if the cyclist is not holding a steady line.

No - I would have done that because I was taught not to attempt an overtake while negotiating a junction, and it just seems like basic common sense to me.

Brightspark wrote:

But rule 186 doesn't say you can't over take a cyclist on a roundabout.

It does say "Give them plenty of room and do not overtake them within their lane."  So a DO NOT there. 

But when the driver committed to the overtake the rider was not in the same lane.

Except there was only one lane on the roundabout, where the overtake was actually going to happen.

Spectacular number of things wrong here, way too many to address at this time in the morning with work looming. I'll just pick my favourite:

Quote:

The driver checks his speed, expresses his frustration with a wave of the hand, then continues his overtake and, in accordance with the HC rule 112, uses his horn to alert the cyclist  to his presence. He saves the situation by using the hatched area which you could argue that the cyclist forced him into.

The driver is breaking HC 186 by attempting to overtake the cyclist on a roundabout.

HC 112 says the horn may only be used to alert other road users to your presence. The timing of the horn use and its nature clearly indicates that the driver is using it to express his annoyance and frustration (as you note he is making gestures indicating that he is not driving in a calm and rational manner) and to tell the cyclist to get out of his way, not to "alert the cyclist to his presence."

The driver is not "forced" into any situation by the cyclist. He creates the situation himself. Throughout the interaction he could have stayed behind the cyclist as HC 186 mandates, it would have cost him three seconds and there would have been no conflict at all. Even as he reaches the hatched area he could have hung back by half a second and avoided making an illegally close pass. He does not "save the situation", he makes the situation he created worse and more dangerous through his impatience.

A couple of good points there.

But rule 186 doesn't say you can't over take a cyclist on a roundabout.

It does say "Give them plenty of room and do not overtake them within their lane."  So a DO NOT there. 

But when the driver committed to the overtake the rider was not in the same lane.

It does say "You should give priority to cyclists on the roundabout." 

This is a SHOULD so not mandatory.

It also says "allow them to move across your path as they travel around the roundabout". But I am not sure that the intention of that statement fits what we see here as he is not going around the roundabout. ie not turning right.

Rule 112. The horn was three short beeps, not the long angry beep. So I disagree with you there, if you don't mind. The handflick is sense of frustration. I had this today, a large lorry approached me very rapidly from behind flashing his lights and continued to flash his lights while 2' from the rear of my car. He then waved his hand in the same gesture before flashing his lights and giving a long angry blast on his horn. All because I wouldn't go faster that the 40mph speed limit. But still that wave of the hand and long blast of the horn.

I also said that you could argue that... I didn't say that he was forced.

Have you considered that the motorist was following the cyclist at the begining of the clip where he had overtaken the slower rider, I think that the driver had waited and had planned his overtake. But then he had to take avoiding action when the cyclist pulled across. 

So, I will give you frustrated because he had been held up again.

I will revise that part my comment then. The driver was now fixated solely on passing the cyclist and instead of holding back again continued to commit to the overtake using the hatched area.

Good call.

Brightspark wrote:

But when the driver committed to the overtake the rider was not in the same lane.

Yes they were, when the driver went for the pass they were both heading into the exit with the driver almost directly behind the cyclist.

Brightspark wrote:

It does say "You should give priority to cyclists on the roundabout." 

This is a SHOULD so not mandatory.

So it's OK to ignore the Highway Code except for the mandatory sections?

Brightspark wrote:

It also says "allow them to move across your path as they travel around the roundabout". But I am not sure that the intention of that statement fits what we see here as he is not going around the roundabout. ie not turning right.

It doesn't say "as they travel round X% of the roundabout," the cyclist begins travelling round the roundabout when they enter it.

Brightspark wrote:

Rule 112. The horn was three short beeps, not the long angry beep.

If all the driver wanted to do was alert the cyclist to their presence (something that would not be in the least necessary anyway if the driver had courteously hung back) a single short beep would have been sufficient. A triple jab on the horn like that is quite clearly aggressive and intended to tell the cyclist to move aside. 

Brightspark wrote:

I also said that you could argue that... I didn't say that he was forced.

By saying "you could argue that" you clearly feel it is a tenable argument that the driver was forced onto the hatchings. He wasn't, he put himself in that position when he could have hung back for two seconds before overtaking safely and legally. There's nothing equivocal or arguable about that; even if you want to argue that the cyclist was totally in the wrong, the motorist had multiple opportunities not to engage at all at no cost to themselves but chose to act aggressively instead.

Brightspark wrote:

OK I have read the 122 comments and it seems pretty divided along the usual lines. That is pushy motorist banging his horn or idiot cyclist asserting his right and blocking the road.

.....

You're only going to get shot down if you talk 5hite

The driver was not "forced" to over take at that point - just see HWC rules 162-169 to find good examples of reasons why not.

Also in addition to Rendell's points:

Rule 147

Be considerate. Be careful of and considerate towards all types of road users, especially those requiring extra care (see Rule 204).

• .....
• try to be understanding if other road users cause problems; they may be inexperienced or not know the area well.
• be patient; remember that anyone can make a mistake.
• do not allow yourself to become agitated or involved if someone is behaving badly on the road. This will only make the situation worse. Pull over, calm down and, when you feel relaxed, continue your journey.
• slow down and hold back if a road user pulls out into your path at a junction. Allow them to get clear. Do not over-react by driving too close behind to intimidate them.
• ......

I shall take your opening statement in jest.

I think that we have an oppourtunity for some learning points here. This is a near miss and we can use this to see what went wrong and try to avoid making the same mistakes either as a cyclist or motorist.

I made the above comments for the purpose of that and to create a sensible debate not as taking sides or to encourage name calling.

I think that I have answered and corrected the overtake rules in the above post.

Rule 147, agree totally taking your highlighted points in turn. Yes he was agitated. Do you think that he was that wound up that he had to stop? I don't think that he was driving that close. He pulled back at the apex of the roundabout and went for a second overtake on the exit when the rider moved across again.

As I said above you or I would hold back, but I would hold back until I work out when the looney on the bike is going to ride a straight line.

Going back to the overtaking rules 162 t0 169. Do these appply to the cyclist?

I do not believe that the rider was aware of the car until the horn was sounded. Which was right next to him so no wonder he had a fright.

Debate away.

Brightspark wrote:

I made the above comments for the purpose of that and to create a sensible debate not as taking sides or to encourage name calling.

Also Brightspark:

Brightspark wrote:

As I said above you or I would hold back, but I would hold back until I work out when the looney on the bike is going to ride a straight line.

Way to avoid the old name calling there and to show your lack of bias.

Brightspark wrote:

I do not believe that the rider was aware of the car until the horn was sounded.

If this was the case (for which you have no evidence except what you want to believe in order to excuse the car driver) there was no need to make the cyclist aware of his presence, the proper thing to do would be to hang back until clear of the roundabout and make the pass on the road ahead. Getting a metre off the backside of a vulnerable road user then sounding your horn three times is not good practice and is reflective of an aggressive driver who ought to think about the fact that he can't wait two seconds to make a pass but has to harrass and bully other road users instead, break several traffic regulations, and put people in danger for an "advantage" that he could make up in literally a second once off the roundabout.

Rendel Harris wrote:

......

If this was the case (for which you have no evidence except what you want to believe in order to excuse the car driver) there was no need to make the cyclist aware of his presence, the proper thing to do would be to hang back until clear of the roundabout and make the pass on the road ahead. Getting a metre off the backside of a vulnerable road user then sounding your horn three times is not good practice and is reflective of an aggressive driver who ought to think about the fact that he can't wait two seconds to make a pass but has to harrass and bully other road users instead, break several traffic regulations, and put people in danger for an "advantage" that he could make up in literally a second once off the roundabout.

Well said. 

You don't have to alert people of your presence if you aren't in a position to endanger them. 

Brightspark wrote:

I shall take your opening statement in jest.

Please do. 

Although, have you heard the saying "many a true word...", ...well, y'know.

Brightspark wrote:

I think that we have an oppourtunity for some learning points here. This is a near miss and we can use this to see what went wrong and try to avoid making the same mistakes either as a cyclist or motorist.

Learning points for the rider would be of the form "how to avoid someone else intimidating you, or risking your life, through their aggressive, incompetent driving". It's so open-ended as to be meaningless, and taken to its logical conclusion ends in "don't ride a bike"

Learning points for the driver (who surprise surprise isn't here to "learn") would be to refer to the highway code when considering making a manoeuvre. Of course, this is not desirable when actually behind the wheel, so requires a good grasp before getting in thecar, but it can be summed up as;

"Don't bully, harras, intimidate scare injure or kill other people. This can easily be achieved by not driving like a preck"

Brightspark wrote:

I made the above comments for the purpose of that and to create a sensible debate not as taking sides or to encourage name calling.

I'm sorry, but on the evidence of the video your comments were not sensible, and merely seemed to be an attempt to absolve the driver of their responsibilities, whilst mining and speculating for infractions of the rider to justify his appalling driving. Driving of this kind can never be justified.

Brightspark wrote:

I think that I have answered and corrected the overtake rules in the above post.

Rule 147, agree totally taking your highlighted points in turn. Yes he was agitated. Do you think that he was that wound up that he had to stop?

Yes - his agitation caused him to risk another person's life, whilst deliberately harassing and intimidating them.

Do you think he was in a fit state to drive?

Brightspark wrote:

I don't think that he was driving that close. He pulled back at the apex of the roundabout and went for a second overtake on the exit when the rider moved across again.

As I said above you or I would hold back, but I would hold back until I work out when the looney on the bike is going to ride a straight line.

I refer you not only to HWC 163, but in addition to 213 and 214.

Loony on a bike? You've let your bias slip. The guy was riding in an utterly predictable manner - as you have stated any sensible driver would have waited until it was clear so they could obey rules 162-169

Brightspark wrote:

Going back to the overtaking rules 162 t0 169. Do these appply to the cyclist?

In this context no - the rider wasn't overtaking, and was compliant with 168

Brightspark wrote:

I do not believe that the rider was aware of the car until the horn was sounded. Which was right next to him so no wonder he had a fright.

Which is why you should comply with HWC112, to state the fecking obvious. The only possible reason for the driver to "make the rider aware of his presence" was cos he deliberately put himself in such a fecking stupid position that he was risking someone else's life.

Except "warning of presence" wasn't it, was it? as we have already mentioned the driver was agitated and incapable of making rational decisions on matters of other's safety - the horn use was aggressive and intended to scare and intimidate.

Brightspark wrote:

Debate away.

There's no debate - the rider was moving across a junction, and causing no risk to anyone - least of all the driver.

The driver was agitated, out of control, and aggressive - as evinced by the shocking list of transgrssions and bullying behaviour - a point that you have already stated you agree with.

Speculating about what happened before, appealing to authority, or slurring the victim, makes absolutely no difference to the fact that the driver was a tool, and no competent driver would have behaved this way.

Brightspark wrote:

First lets consider the road layout. It has two lanes on the entry to the RAB with no lane markings. there is an exit before the one taken we don't know if there is another exit on the right.

When you go through frame by frame, the last two frames indicate some kerbing and infrastructure that suggest a 3 o’clock exit.

Brightspark wrote:

So what was the traffic planner thinking? That the left entry lane was for turning left and the second lane for straight on and right?

You might well ask! A two-lane approach and no apparent guidance on which lanes to use.  The norm is that the left lane is for left, the right for right, and either for straight on.  The car driver should have been prepared for this.  The lack of formal lanes on the roundabout should give cause for a road user to anticipate movement of road users in front within the [whole] lane – which is one very good reason why overtaking on a roundabout is contraindicated in the Highway Code.

Brightspark wrote:

That is why the Highway Code for many years suggested that you cycle around the edge (if you really must cycle) or get off and walk around.

But it doesn’t now (nor pre-Feb). It offered those as possible approaches, and advised you about some of the risks.

Brightspark wrote:

Before the clip starts the motorist had 3 hazards ahead. 2 cyclists and a roundabout. 

Now, this isn’t your fault:  the process of teaching risk awareness to drivers is faulty in many ways, including: it conflates risks and hazards; and it associates other road users as “hazards”.  Cyclists are not hazards, they are other road users.  Now, clinically, you could understand why a cyclist presents a risk or becomes a hazard. But drivers do not assess the road ahead clinically. And labelling something as a “hazard” equates them as a hindrance and inconvenience to be got past.  It negates their legitimacy.  And that is where this driver goes wrong.

Brightspark wrote:

 If you were driving that car what would be your plan at that point? Any normal person would think that with the two cyclists over to the left that you could get through the RAB passing them both so as to make progress. 

Well, you’re answering your own question posed to others.  But my plan would be to assess the safe route through and ask myself at all points, “is it safe to proceed?”.
I don’t know about a “normal” person; but a careful and safe driver would anticipate the possibility of a cyclist changing his position on the roundabout, because that is what all road users do, and it’s what the Highway Code advises you to consider.  Along with not overtaking cyclists on a roundabout.

Brightspark wrote:

he driver checks his speed, expresses his frustration with a wave of the hand, then continues his overtake and, in accordance with the HC rule 112, uses his horn to alert the cyclist  to his presence. He saves the situation by using the hatched area which you could argue that the cyclist forced him into.

Right, lots to unpack there.

• The driver “checks his speed”… this has the tones of a thoughtful, well-planned approach to a situation; in reality, the driver has to brake in order to avoid a collision of his own creation. It is reactive, ill-prepared and reflects a careless approach to the junction.
• “…expresses frustration with a wave of the hand, then [frustration over?]” he has given away his whole attitude to other road users.  The honking is not careful; he did not “need to warn other road users of [his] presence”; it is a continuation of his frustration.  It is unnecessary, because the cyclist doesn’t actually even need to know he is there if the driver sticks to the script (clearly, he does need to know the car is there, because the driver is an idiot). But this use is in the aggressive category.
• He didn’t “save” the situation.  He mitigated – but not completely – some of the consequences on the other road user of pushing through regardless.  Other ways he could have done that would have been:
• to slow right down on approaching the roundabout, mindful that cyclists who were not signalling were likely to be choosing the same exit as he was, or even carrying on to the 3 o’clock exit if not signalling for any reason.  This is explained in the Highway Code
• having overcooked it, slow down and back off the rear end of the cyclist, follow him round into the exit and choose a safe place to overtake thereafter.
• You could argue that the cyclist forced him into the hatched area; and you’d be wrong.  The driver chose to push forwards when it was not appropriate.  It was a folly of his own creation.

Brightspark wrote:

Note that there is no offence there because there is a broken white line.

The lack of a line is not evidence of a lack of an offence

Brightspark wrote:

Lets look at the other cyclist.

You can do, but he is riding a separate vehicle, and the encounter with the car driver is at a different stage of the roundabout at a different speed.  The fact that the driver does not endanger one cyclist does not indicate that he did not cause the conflict with the camera cyclist.  So we do not bneed to consider him further.  He chose one route through the roundabout; the camera cyclist chose another and stayed within his lane throughout, with a reasonable expectation of care from other road users.

Brightspark wrote:

We start the clip with him having just over taken the slower rider.

We start the clip with the camera cyclist in front. That is all we can say, so the subsequent speculation need trouble us no more.

Brightspark wrote:

Then there is road posiitioning. We start with the overtake and the rider is in primary, then goes to secondary position, then changes his mind to go back to primary before going even further to the right. 

I’ll refer to comments I made previously. I’m not impressed with the cyclist’s position: he could have done better to protect himself. But that is a matter of deterring bad drivers. It’s not that he committed specific errors.

“We start with the overtake”, well, no you started with the overtake; but we’ve established that that thought is a frolic of your own. You break down his line through the roundabout as “changing his mind”; we could equally suggest that he simply took a relatively straight line through the roundabout.  It’s not ideal.  But since the driver had no reasonable expectation of overtaking (since the Highway Code tells him not to), he should not have been in a position where that was a problem.

Brightspark wrote:

It seems to me that the camera bike had not planned ahead. Our camera rider had plenty of time to plan his move. He had a slower rider ahead and a car behind. He had three options as far as I can see.

If you choose to line up the options that a road user had, then start with the one who had the greater duty of care.

The driver had plenty of time to plan his move.  Without even having to look behind, he could clearly see he had two slower moving vehicles ahead and nothing immediately behind that posed a danger if he slowed down.  He had one careful option:

• adjust his speed down to allow the cyclists to negotiate the roundabout and exit safely, then overtake once it was safe to do so.

This involves the driver accepting that this would have delayed him less than 12 seconds on his journey – the length of the clip (less than that, because they were all still moving, so it is not ‘down’ time, just time at which they’re moving more slowly)

Brightspark wrote:

3. ... (I know that there is no white paint, but it is implied)

No!  Either there is paint or there isn’t. If there isn’t, there is no separate lane.  You might infer one, but is not implied.  There is informal dualling where traffic forms two lines, but it does not confer any entitlement to pass.  The cyclists, therefore, did as you suggest and kept to his lane.

Brightspark wrote:

Some people have commented that the driver would not overtake like that if the camera bike was a car. I'll turn that question around, what if the camera bike was a car would that driving be acceptable?

Yes. If it is necessary to use the lane you are in, then do so.

Brightspark wrote:

But when the driver committed to the overtake the rider was not in the same lane.

I really hate this use of “committed”.  It suggests that the driver has some sort of entitlement by being in a state beyond his ability to fix.  It seems to come from stages of flight, like “V1” at take-off, where an aircraft is at a speed where an aborted take-off is not viable.  If a pilot finds himself in that position and continuing with take-off is also non-viable, something has already gone wrong.  The pilot has checklists and “sterile cockpit” to ensure that he is in control of that situation in most circumstances (and maintenance is subject to several checks and measures, always monitored and improving) to prevent circumstances arising beyond the pilot’s control.  When it does go wrong, it is usually because somebody has not acted early enough on information available to them.

Being “committed” to a bad act should never happen, and when it does, it is almost always – as in this case – because the driver failed to anticipate the risk early enough.  And it was the driver’s duty in this case, because he was overtaking other road users.

Brightspark wrote:

But as the driver entered the roundabout he had the two cyclists in the left hand lane, a clear lane ahead and a good 1.5meters clearance and time (just) and speed to pass. That is until the camera bike closes the gap.

Or have I read that wrong?

Yes, you have.  As the driver entered the roundabout, he was straddling both approach lanes, alongside the rear cyclist in the left lane – those two enter the roundabout just about simultaneously, and the passing distance appears to be OK.  That cyclist was in the left lane, and the pass is not an issue, since it is effected before the cyclist was established on the roundabout.  The camera cyclist was ahead of the car and on the roundabout before the driver had any chance of passing.  As the driver proceeds into the roundabout, he closes his distance on the front cyclist and clearly presumes to pass him.

Having ‘speed to pass’ him… what even is that?!  That’s not a good quality.  If you have the speed but not the space, nor the foresight to anticipate the cyclist moving within the lane of the roundabout, what you have there is driving too fast for the circumstances and failure to anticipate.

Brightspark wrote:

It does say "You should give priority to cyclists on the roundabout." 

This is a SHOULD so not mandatory.

It also says "allow them to move across your path as they travel around the roundabout". But I am not sure that the intention of that statement fits what we see here as he is not going around the roundabout. ie not turning right.

“should” does not mean it isn’t mandatory. It means it is not a specific offence.  Driving carefully IS mandatory, so if an action is less than required by the duty of care, it is indirectly mandated against.  Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that advice will not count against you.

Brightspark wrote:

 I think that we have an oppourtunity for some learning points here.

Yes. The driver was in breach of his duty of care.

The cyclist might have done more to deter bad driving: taken a more dominant position early on, but that deals with people who do not take a careful approach.  His line through the roundabout is slightly late in positioning against a close pass (which the driver forces through anyway).  But these are things he could have done to fix other people’s mess.  The onus is on the driver.

Brightspark wrote:

Do you think that he was that wound up that he had to stop? I don't think that he was driving that close. He pulled back at the apex of the roundabout and went for a second overtake on the exit when the rider moved across again.

Yes. He was very close – if the cyclist had slid on an oil patch, for example, could he have avoided him?  The fact that he went for an overtake for a second time when it was not safe says all we need to know about the self-control this driver has.

Brightspark wrote:

So, I will give you frustrated because he had been held up again.

I will revise that part my comment then. The driver was now fixated solely on passing the cyclist and instead of holding back again continued to commit to the overtake using the hatched area.

Good call.

No, he was frustrated because he lacked control of his emotions.

Being ‘held up’ is a routine consequence of using the roads that other people use, and we should not allow ourselves to get worked up.  It’s also a passive statement that makes it appear that a delay is the other person’s fault.  The driver needs to get over himself and allow other people the time they need to negotiate roads safely.

He was fixated.  Not sure if you’re saying the “good call” was Rendel’s or the driver’s.  It wasn’t the driver’s.

Brightspark wrote:

Going back to the overtaking rules 162 t0 169. Do these appply to the cyclist?

Yes they do; but that is not relevant here, since there is no evidence of any cyclist overtaking anybody else.

Brightspark wrote:

I do not believe that the rider was aware of the car until the horn was sounded. Which was right next to him so no wonder he had a fright.

That is a matter of belief, not fact.  To be honest, I might know a car is in close proximity but be confident in my ability to hold my line. But if the driver then honks, it tells me their attitude is not focussed on my safety, so I might be alarmed by it.

If the driver felt he needed to make the cyclist aware of his presence (and he didn’t, since any resulting conflict was purely of the driver’s making), he should have done it from a safe distance, not chewing the cyclist’s rear mudguard, or passing carelessly in the process.

Brightspark wrote:

Debate away.

As others have said, nobody is debating you; they’re pointing out errors.

GMBasix wrote:

.....

Nice