Near Miss of the Day 644: Skip lorry driver almost hits two cyclists

1 It was not a sharp bend. The cyclists could see quite some way ahead and could have stopped for an obstruction. The problem is this was not an obstruction but an oncoming driver on the wrong side of the road who failed to stop or slow down.

2 I fail to see what a pedestrian would be doing on the wrong side of the road here but that would not have been any problem whatsoever.

3 I am not sure of the maximum dimensions of lorries but they don't come much bigger than this. Obviously if there had been no space and the driver failed to stop the cyclists would have been killed, through no fault of their own.

4 The cyclists entered the bend at a speed where they could have stopped for an obstruction, just not one driven straight at them.

You don't seem to be able to see around the bend on the video.

Is it very different in real life?

I've personally encountered pedestrians all over the road and vehicles much wider than that one.

You should always be able to stop in the distance you can see.

If they could have stopped then they should have stopped.

If they couldn't have stopped then they were riding too fast for the conditions.

The cyclist could see at least 6 seconds ahead so could have stopped for an obstruction. The problem was the obstruction continued moving towards them. I don't know how many more times this has to be explained.

mdavidford wrote:

Quote:

the cyclists are riding at a decent clip and by the time the situation has been assessed and a decision made over what action to take, it may be too late, not to mention too dangerous, to try to brake in time for the skip lorry driver to clear those parked cars.

Wouldn't that fall under limiting your speed to where 'you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear', though?

I mean, they'd have been in the same position if there hadn't been any gap in the parked cars for the truck to pull in to in the first place.

It's surely possible that they were travelling at a speed where they could safely stop before colliding with any oncoming traffic, but not safely stop sufficiently in front of the parked cars to let oncoming traffic through first. Essentially the same situation as when two drivers meet on a singletrack lane and one of them has to reverse to a passing place.

OnYerBike wrote:

It's surely possible that they were travelling at a speed where they could safely stop before colliding with any oncoming traffic, but not safely stop sufficiently in front of the parked cars to let oncoming traffic through first. Essentially the same situation as when two drivers meet on a singletrack lane and one of them has to reverse to a passing place.

If they could see that there are parked cars, but not see beyond them, then they can only see the road to be clear as far as the start of the parked cars - they should be proceeding on the assumption that there's a possibility that something, obscured from their view, may be trying to pass those parked cars.

Of course the primary problem here is not the truck driver or the cyclists, but the people who have chosen to use the public road as car storage.

mdavidford wrote:

Of course the primary problem here is not the truck driver or the cyclists, but the people who have chosen to use the public road as car storage.

Spot on. Just rewatched and all the houses that I can see have drives and or garages. The point about "maintenance" elsewhere (e.g. trimming hedges) also chimes with me.  Some otherwise perfectly adequate cycle paths shared active travel * paths near me have lost half their width because of this. I know councils are under the cosh. Mine (Edinburgh) is actually pretty good in remembering that in winter it gets frosty and sometimes snows but the "green things growing in spring and summer" one - not so much.

* Sustrans are big in these parts - although likely they've only become big because they universally downplay "cycling" - and seem allergic to delimiting "cyclist" and "pedestrian" space - because us "active travellers" love to mingle...

This is false equivalence.  It is not about give and take on both sides, it's more about give when you're on the other side of the road.

They could both have done better, but only the HGV driver was wrong.

False equivalence.

The cyclists present no danger to the truck driver so there is no need for them to slow down or stop, they probably did slow down in the face of the danger anyway though. The truck being driven in that manner presents quite a danger to the cyclists and that is why the driver should slow down considerably and possibly stop.

biker phil wrote:

Having watched this a few times, from the perspective of both parties, I have to say that it is a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other. Yes, the skip truck could have been more cautious, or could have braked sharply and pulled in the gap. But the cyclists could have braked more easily than the truck, it is all about give and take on both sides. 

The driver not only could have braked and utilised the gap but is required to do so because the cyclists have priority. The driver could have slowed far more easily than the cyclists as he was going uphill.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

GMBasix wrote:

What the cyclist did wrong: {everything}

What the driver did wrong: {nothing}

You missed your cue - "You all seem very sensitive - the driver politely left the cyclists more than one standard UK bike lane's worth of space and courteously reduced his speed below 30!"

Erm, I realise from your comments on this and other videos that you still haven't got your eyesight sorted, but looking again at all the video and you will see they are actually middle of their lane when the lorry comes into view. Rear cyclist was probably out a bit further. Unless you wanted them both to be cycling almost on the white central white line they were not "stuck right on the hedge". 

You and boo need to get your complaints against cyclists positioning in sync. In a previous NMOTD, he was catigating the cyclist for going around a left bend in the "middle of the road". 
 

well we must be watching a different video. and me and boo (whoever that is) arent of one mind.

also why no braking. its a huge oncoming hazard.

Erm, the speed of the cycles slowed. Going downhill and not pedalling and Speed slows. That must have been a very very strong headwind or the laws of Physics do not apply in that very very localised area. 

And boo is the other liar who looks at videos or states things on this forum that is contradictory to actual events. 

"If the cyclists had been a car, both vehicles would have had to come to a complete stop, then one of them would reverse to make space to pass.
The lorry driver would have thought nothing of doing this."

Pound to a pinch of snuff, it wouldn't have been the skip driver reversing.

While yes, it is an offence to use the size of your vehicle to intimidate, there was always a rule (not sure if it was just a courtesy that we all had before the 2000's kicked in) that you gave way to the larger vehicle as they had a harder job getting out the way.

I know I was certainly taught that way back in the '80s; but then I learnt to drive on rural single track roads where a tractor/ hay waggon / combine harvester was potentially behind every bend.

Yes, the skip driver should have pulled in, but in reality, I very much doubt that they would have pulled in for anything other than a blue-lighting emergency services vehicle.

Oh do go boil your head, Nigel 

Have to agree. Yes there was a potential gap but cyclists could also have stopped as lorry was already commited. I can see the Simon has already anticpated these reponses but wouldn't the same qualifications have applied to the driver as well, not easy to see the cyclists coming, reaction times etc.

committed to the first gap, not commited to the second, no problem at al in stopping between the two parked cars. Even just coming to a complete stop would be fine. let the cyclists squeeze past a staionary lorry if they want, they risk and control is all theirs.

Pyro Tim wrote:

To be fair the skip lorry was already there, and the cyclist videoing this should have stopped to wait, as he would have had to do in a car.

The only reason the skip lorry was there was because it was being driven too fast on the wrong side of the road.  A more moderate pace which allowed for the obstacles on its side of the road would have allowed the driver to pull in.  Instead the driver just went thundering through and didn't even moderate their speed to take account of the events unfolding in front of them.  The cyclists, on the other hand, were proceeding at a reasonable pace for the conditions on their side of the road - right up until the driver decided to ignore good practice. A near miss like that on the building site would be unacceptable and have consequences, but as a knut of the road it's a differnt story

It's true the driver was commited but that is not the only consideration. With the bend and parked cars, they should have slowed down a bit to mitigate anyone coming the otherway given they were on the wrong side of the road.

But those few seconds are precious.

I don't like the term "committed" on the roads.  It makes it sound like they're pilots at V1 on a runway.  If you've "committed" yourself to be in a risky position, you should have ruled out all other options.  V1, by definition, means you should not stop a take-off.  There are few circumstances in a road vehicle where "stop" should ever be ruled out.  It certainly should not have been here.  That goes for both parties, but the onus was on the HGV driver.

I used committed as that was the phrase used by Alsosomniloquism

When I arrive near my house, the road bends to the right and there are parked cars to overtake. The number of folk who fail to slow is about 98% - they just carry on at speed - what I call 'committed'.

My favourite was when I couldn't get past the parked cars as I could see someone coming towards me and I pulled in then a young lad decided he would overtake (on an estate road it comes to dead end !). I did mouth some choice words at him as he slowly reversed back past me when he found the other driver coming towards him !

Indeed. There was plainly ample time for the cyclists to slow down in the distance they could see to be clear, or for the truck to stop.  Nothing to see here...