Near Miss of the Day 650: Peugeot van driver nearly hits cyclist head-on on road in Surrey Hills

"maybe"???

Jem PT wrote:

Staple Lane is a narrow road, so that pass is about the norm for the road - but maybe the driver should have slowed down a bit?

On a narrow road, with poor visibility,  drivers should be going a lot slower, and be able to stop on their side of the road in the space they can see; this driver wouldn't be able to do that. 

Velophaart_95 wrote:

Jem PT wrote:

and be able to stop on their side of the road in the space they  see 

I'd recommend half the distance, somebody travelling in the opposite direction will need some of the space

I must have been reading the car crashes into building thread, as I came across the Winchester area where they blamed the lack of grass cutting this year on the wrong sort of weather !

Usual contracted out issues - pay for 3 cuts a year and there will be a schedule of rates for another cut at a high price whereas in house would be a low marginal cost. But no one runs an in house team anymore.

I have used the opposte argument in the past, the T junction to turn into our housing area has hedges either side otherwise 30 yds of mown grass either side, some residents wanted them taken down to increase visibility, I argued that keeping them at around 5ft high means that any prudent driver will slow down when approaching the junction especiallly when turning in) as they cannot see what else is there. From my non scientific observations I am correct, most driver enter the junction slowly, though many still struggle with road positioning. However there are still nutters, but I feel less than would be the case with an open field of view

EK Spinner wrote:

I have used the opposte argument in the past, the T junction to turn into our housing area has hedges either side otherwise 30 yds of mown grass either side, some residents wanted them taken down to increase visibility, I argued that keeping them at around 5ft high means that any prudent driver will slow down when approaching the junction especiallly when turning in) as they cannot see what else is there. From my non scientific observations I am correct, most driver enter the junction slowly, though many still struggle with road positioning. However there are still nutters, but I feel less than would be the case with an open field of view

You are correct, and improving visibility at junctions so that drivers go faster increases risk, especially for vulnerable road users.

eburtthebike wrote:

EK Spinner wrote:

I have used the opposte argument in the past, the T junction to turn into our housing area has hedges either side otherwise 30 yds of mown grass either side, some residents wanted them taken down to increase visibility, I argued that keeping them at around 5ft high means that any prudent driver will slow down when approaching the junction especiallly when turning in) as they cannot see what else is there. From my non scientific observations I am correct, most driver enter the junction slowly, though many still struggle with road positioning. However there are still nutters, but I feel less than would be the case with an open field of view

You are correct, and improving visibility at junctions so that drivers go faster increases risk, especially for vulnerable road users.

I'm wary of this line of reasoning. At a side road it sounds OK but this seems to be one of those ideas which is horribly infectious to designers. They seem to seize upon it as a general principle ("if people can't see they go slow... which is safe!") and apply it wildly. Example from Edinburgh on a "five-way junction" on an off-road path: clearly the intent is "everyone should slow down". (For unknown reasons "priority" is actually assigned to the E-W direction crossing the "main" routes). This ignores the fact that actually cyclists and pedestrians can look out for themselves quite effectively around non-motorised traffic if you give them good sight lines. I think a principle of "not having to rely on someone else behaving perfectly for your safety" is a pretty good one. Also cyclists will naturally adjust their speed to flow through gaps which is much more efficient than bringing them to a stop. (To anyone shouting "no they don't! Imagine the berks haring along on tri-bars!" I would point out that all road layouts only protect up to a certain level of asshole and that joyriders are generally rare).

It's actually quite unpleasant to cross the "main" route here simply because the sight lines are so bad.  So devil in the detail!

0-0 wrote:

This type of incident will always occur, until the local clowncil start to cut down unnecessary roadside bushes, trees and undergrowth. Road safety will always be a lower priority, compared to them buying new furniture for their offices and all the other shit they waste their budgets on.

The available road width is what it is. Some roads are that wide without hedgerows. There's always some 'reason' why the road wasn't perfect. The van driver knew what the circumstances were and chose to drive like that. 
he had space to his left and could have moved left; he could have slowed down. 

Please report that to the police

I agree with you, but they won't care. The driver doesn't care whether he hits/kills (the latter is quite likely at that speed) the cyclist or not, and would just claim he didn't stand a chance because the cyclist suddenly hurled himself across the road in front of the van travelling at 30 mph, and there's a fairly good chance the police would just write it off as 'insufficient evidence'. 

"In my defence, your honour, the sun was in my eyes and I was driving carelessly."