Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Near Miss of the Day 23: Featuring a U-turning SMIDSY driver

Our regular feature highlighting close passes caught on camera from around the country – today it’s London's Quietway 1...

According to Transport for London, the city's Quietways, the first of which opened last year and runs from Waterloo to Greenwich, "follow backstreet routes, through parks, along waterways or tree-lined streets," and thereby "overcome barriers to cycling, targeting cyclists who want to use quieter, low-traffic routes, providing an environment for those cyclists who want to travel at a more gentle pace."

The on-the-ground experience of riders can be rather different, however, as Mark Treasure of the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain sets out in this blog post from last year while parts were still under construction, and in this post by The Ranty Highwayman a couple of months later.

The programme has also been criticised by London's former cycling commissioner, Andrew Gilligan.

> Gilligan: Quietways programme is a failure

We've seen a couple of videos of near misses on the route - a month or two back, one did the rounds on social media of a black-cab driver turning across a rider - and here's another one sent in by road.cc reader Henry Dalton shows.

It's a classic SMIDSY - "Sorry mate, I didn't see you" scenario as the driver pulls into a parking bay on the left then immediately swings right to perform a u-turn without having spotted Henry, who is almost knocked from his bike as he carries straight on towards a path that is bollarded off to bar access to motor vehicles.

Quite why the driver didn't see Henry is unclear - but it's possible from this, and other videos we've seen from this and other places where there is a through route for people on bikes that drivers can't use that leads to an assumption that in effect they are in a cul-de-sac and simply aren't aware that someone could be pedalling through.

Over the years road.cc has reported on literally hundreds of close passes and near misses involving badly driven vehicles from every corner of the country – so many, in fact, that we’ve decided to turn the phenomenon into a regular feature on the site. One day hopefully we will run out of close passes and near misses to report on, but until that happy day arrives, Near Miss of the Day will keep rolling on.

If you’ve caught on camera a close encounter of the uncomfortable kind with another road user that you’d like to share with the wider cycling community please send it to us at info [at] road.cc or send us a message via the road.cc Facebook page.

If the video is on YouTube, please send us a link, if not we can add any footage you supply to our YouTube channel as an unlisted video (so it won't show up on searches).

Please also let us know whether you contacted the police and if so what their reaction was, as well as the reaction of the vehicle operator if it was a bus, lorry or van with company markings etc.

 

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

71 comments

Avatar
pedalster | 4 years ago
0 likes

It was so bleeding obvious what the driver of the car was going to do, it was mentioned in one of the first telegrams sent by Marconi across the Atlantic.

Do some of the responders on here actually ride bicycles or are just trolls ?

 

 

Avatar
davel | 6 years ago
0 likes

Likewise, petal.

dinosaurJR had you pegged.

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to davel | 6 years ago
0 likes

davel wrote:

Likewise, petal. dinosaurJR had you pegged.

I hope he's OK after his public meltdown.

Avatar
Mungecrundle | 6 years ago
2 likes

Yes, it is very much a post match analysis by armchair pundits who were were not on the pitch and who have the benefit of hindsight and multiple replays.

The "ohh, you didn't want to do that" comments are annoying. But take the ego of personal critiscism out of the equation and the technicalities of who was right and who was wrong, and what is left is often a little nugget of roadcraft that is worth picking up.

Over the years I have benefitted from driver and rider training by some highly experienced instructors. The nuances of roadcraft, particularly the body language of other vehicles was something they all picked up on. Another common thread is that no matter how good you think you are you, if you learn nothing new from every single journey, then you have almost certainly missed something. For many, just using a vehicle to get from A to B without crashing is enough. For cyclists, we have more to loose if things go wrong, so I really do believe that we have a vested interest in aspiring to improve our situational awareness skills. Strip away all the hi viz, protective helmets, blinky lights. The most critical element to our personal safety that we actually have control over is simply (and rather tritely) not being in the wrong place at the wrong time and you can shift the odds in your favour.

Thanks to the OP for sharing the video and taking the flack that they may not have been expecting.

Avatar
davel replied to Mungecrundle | 6 years ago
0 likes
Mungecrundle wrote:

Yes, it is very much a post match analysis by armchair pundits who were were not on the pitch and who have the benefit of hindsight and multiple replays.

The "ohh, you didn't want to do that" comments are annoying. But take the ego of personal critiscism out of the equation and the technicalities of who was right and who was wrong, and what is left is often a little nugget of roadcraft that is worth picking up.

Over the years I have benefitted from driver and rider training by some highly experienced instructors. The nuances of roadcraft, particularly the body language of other vehicles was something they all picked up on. Another common thread is that no matter how good you think you are you, if you learn nothing new from every single journey, then you have almost certainly missed something. For many, just using a vehicle to get from A to B without crashing is enough. For cyclists, we have more to loose if things go wrong, so I really do believe that we have a vested interest in aspiring to improve our situational awareness skills. Strip away all the hi viz, protective helmets, blinky lights. The most critical element to our personal safety that we actually have control over is simply (and rather tritely) not being in the wrong place at the wrong time and you can shift the odds in your favour.

Thanks to the OP for sharing the video and taking the flack that they may not have been expecting.

Spot on.

Run along, Don: the grown-ups who actually ride bikes are talking.

Avatar
davel | 6 years ago
1 like

It's not bad advice, but the criticism of cyclists for doing anything less than text-book in these situations is laughable (isn't aimed at srchar - I know he's a London commuter and not one of these usual 'first responders').

Whenever these videos are posted, there's a set of 'oooh, you don't wanna do that' commenters that point out any imperfections that they think they can spot in the riding. Do they ever commute on a bike? Filter in traffic? Because if they do, they sure as shit don't always do it perfectly or accurately measure every risk.

Meanwhile, while they're clogging up cyberspace with those inane observations designed purely to make themselves feel better, the person wanging a ton of metal threateningly across the road gets nothing more than an acceptance of twatty driving, a 'yeah, the driver could have done this, BUT enough of that - here' s a list of what the silly cyclist didn't do....'.

Also, I'm slightly skeptical regarding how much watching pitch and tilt of cars driven by relatively serious drivers doing 100mph+ on track days applies to watching wallies who are liable to do anything with zero notice at 20mph in barely legal contraptions on a commute in London. But as a general point I think it's fair.

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to davel | 6 years ago
1 like

davel wrote:

It's not bad advice, but the criticism of cyclists for doing anything less than text-book in these situations is laughable (isn't aimed at srchar - I know he's a London commuter and not one of these usual 'first responders'). Whenever these videos are posted, there's a set of 'oooh, you don't wanna do that' commenters that point out any imperfections that they think they can spot in the riding. Do they ever commute on a bike? Filter in traffic? Because if they do, they sure as shit don't always do it perfectly or accurately measure every risk. Meanwhile, while they're clogging up cyberspace with those inane observations designed purely to make themselves feel better, the person wanging a ton of metal threateningly across the road gets nothing more than an acceptance of twatty driving, a 'yeah, the driver could have done this, BUT enough of that - here' s a list of what the silly cyclist didn't do....'. Also, I'm slightly skeptical regarding how much watching pitch and tilt of cars driven by relatively serious drivers doing 100mph+ on track days applies to watching wallies who are liable to do anything with zero notice at 20mph in barely legal contraptions on a commute in London. But as a general point I think it's fair.

You don't half talk some crap, davel.

Avatar
davel | 6 years ago
1 like

I think we need our own Godwin, that kicks in when something along the lines of 'no use being right and dead' is posted.

Or then again, who do I think I am, trying to impose laws like some mid-war fascist dictator......

Avatar
Henry Dalton | 6 years ago
3 likes

Thanks for the comments guys. I will bear them in mind.

Hindsight is a great thing.

Fortunately neither I nor the cyclist behind me were hit.

Let's wait and see what the police do.

Avatar
ClubSmed | 6 years ago
0 likes

It's too short of a clip for me to be sure, but it does seem like the car may have it's hazzard lights on indicating that it is about to perform a manouvre that other road users need to be wary of?

Avatar
burtthebike replied to ClubSmed | 6 years ago
1 like

ClubSmed wrote:

It's too short of a clip for me to be sure, but it does seem like the car may have it's hazzard lights on indicating that it is about to perform a manouvre that other road users need to be wary of?

They weren't hazard lights, they were brake lights, and if they were hazards, they would have been being used illegally.  What idiot would use hazard lights to show that they were doing a u-turn?  Possibly the same kind of idiot who does a u-turn without looking I suppose.

"Never use them as an excuse for dangerous or illegal parking. You MUST NOT use hazard warning lights while driving or being towed unless you are on a motorway or unrestricted dual carriageway and you need to warn drivers behind you of a hazard or obstruction ahead."  Highway code.
 

Avatar
Jimmy Ray Will | 6 years ago
2 likes

To cement my position... I am not saying cyclists don't have a responsbility to look after themselves, and I am sure we all do. 

I also believe we have a responsbility to not succumb to the motor industry and blame ourselves whenever the standard of driving falls well below the necessary.

In this case, the driver was clearly wrong. they moved without signalling or looking. Two failures, right there. This is indisputable, tghe driver was at fault... not the cyclist. 

The cyclist could. and arguably should. have preempted the car drivers actions and taken more obvious preventative measures. 

For me, as stated, our focus should be calling out the driver for their piss poor driving, whilst maybe highlighting how the cyclist could have moved to the right and maybe moderated speed, just in case. 

I think the analogy of the pedestrian crossing mentioned is actually apt here. If you step out onto a pedestrian crossing whilst a car approaches you at 30mph, making no effort to slow... then you are an idiot. The driver is still wrong however.

However, in this instance, I believe the situation was more akin to a pelican crossing, with the green man on display. The approaching car is notably slowed, but not quite fully stopped. Do you wait to see if the car decides to accelerate through the light, or do you start walking?  

We can all fully mitigate against all situations all the time, however as already alluded to, the only natural conlusion to this approach will be not riding your bike... so we all evaluate risk to a level. 

What needs to happen, whilst we remain alert, is that bad driving is called out as such, not simply accepted, and mitigated against by those more vulnerable. 

 

 

Avatar
don simon fbpe | 6 years ago
0 likes

And old trick I was taught when riding a motorbike was to watch the car's wheels.

1. They stay on full lock.

2. They didn't stop moving/rolling.

3. It looks like the brake lights come off while the vehicle is still moving.

The car did nothing to indicate that it was parking, in my most humble of opinions.

I think you've now learnt that it doesn't matter how many times you have been able to do something, it is no indicator of the future.

I'm glad you didn't sustain any serious imjuries in this near miss.

Avatar
Vehlin replied to don simon fbpe | 6 years ago
1 like

don simon wrote:

And old trick I was taught when riding a motorbike was to watch the car's wheels.

1. They stay on full lock.

2. They didn't stop moving/rolling.

3. It looks like the brake lights come off while the vehicle is still moving.

The car did nothing to indicate that it was parking, in my most humble of opinions.

I think you've now learnt that it doesn't matter how many times you have been able to do something, it is no indicator of the future.

I'm glad you didn't sustain any serious imjuries in this near miss.

4. They're driving perpendiculart to the parking bays.

Avatar
Henry Dalton | 6 years ago
6 likes

Thanks for the comments guys. There are too many to respond to in detail.

Just a few points to make

1) I have ridden this route for a number of years at similar speed without incident

2) I originally thought that when the driver moved to the left he was intending to park.

3) There was another cyclist immediately behind me who shouted at the driver

      ( you may be able to hear him in the footage ) - so this was a near miss for 2 cyclists not just one.

4) This is now being investigated by the Met Police.

5) For those of you who live in London, statements about bad driving can be e-mailed to the

     Met Police ( a few lines saying what happened, when and where ) and you can attach

     a link to YouTube footage. Contact Liz Ross at Liz.Ross [at] met.pnn.police.uk to get a standard

     statement form.

 

Avatar
luiandlui replied to Henry Dalton | 6 years ago
1 like

Henry Dalton wrote:

Thanks for the comments guys. There are too many to respond to in detail.

Just a few points to make

1) I have ridden this route for a number of years at similar speed without incident

2) I originally thought that when the driver moved to the left he was intending to park.

3) There was another cyclist immediately behind me who shouted at the driver

      ( you may be able to hear him in the footage ) - so this was a near miss for 2 cyclists not just one.

4) This is now being investigated by the Met Police.

 

 

1) Not sure this is relevant unless a car happens to be turning in front of you in exactly the same circumstances.

2) Poor awareness on your part, its very clear from his positioning that he isn't parking.

3) The fact that two cyclists showed poor awareness doesn't make it any less poor.

4) The police will do absolutely nothing, as they should.

 

Avatar
davel replied to luiandlui | 6 years ago
5 likes
luiandlui wrote:

Henry Dalton wrote:

Thanks for the comments guys. There are too many to respond to in detail.

Just a few points to make

1) I have ridden this route for a number of years at similar speed without incident

2) I originally thought that when the driver moved to the left he was intending to park.

3) There was another cyclist immediately behind me who shouted at the driver

      ( you may be able to hear him in the footage ) - so this was a near miss for 2 cyclists not just one.

4) This is now being investigated by the Met Police.

 

 

1) Not sure this is relevant unless a car happens to be turning in front of you in exactly the same circumstances.

2) Poor awareness on your part, its very clear from his positioning that he isn't parking.

3) The fact that two cyclists showed poor awareness doesn't make it any less poor.

4) The police will do absolutely nothing, as they should.

 

Hello, Willo. It's been a while...

Avatar
Metaphor | 6 years ago
0 likes

Quietways are sacred.

Avatar
don simon fbpe | 6 years ago
0 likes

Quote:

And really - have a look at your spellings in previous posts. Mistakes happen. You can make your point without strikethrough sarcasm, but if you're going to pull people up on English, try doing things like spelling parties, responsibility and manoeuvre correctly.

You actually went looking good on you as you picked up on I was being lighthearted as I a;lways am fortunately a bit of fat finger spelling was still understood and unambiguous I still haven't a fucking clue what this is supposed to be.

Quote:

Why are you also making it binary when even those (incl me) saying it's MORE the responsibility of the driver are mostly not saying the cyclist doesn't have ANY responsibility.

I'm sure that you'd fully agree that if the cyclist had dabbed the breaks, we wouldn't even have a video to be debating. That's how week this supposed close pass is.

 

 3

Avatar
Fifth Gear replied to don simon fbpe | 6 years ago
2 likes

don simon wrote:

Quote:

And really - have a look at your spellings in previous posts. Mistakes happen. You can make your point without strikethrough sarcasm, but if you're going to pull people up on English, try doing things like spelling parties, responsibility and manoeuvre correctly.

You actually went looking good on you as you picked up on I was being lighthearted as I a;lways am fortunately a bit of fat finger spelling was still understood and unambiguous I still haven't a fucking clue what this is supposed to be.

Quote:

Why are you also making it binary when even those (incl me) saying it's MORE the responsibility of the driver are mostly not saying the cyclist doesn't have ANY responsibility.

I'm sure that you'd fully agree that if the cyclist had dabbed the breaks, we wouldn't even have a video to be debating. That's how week this supposed close pass is.

 

 3

So you are saying if a driver goes through a red light and collides with someone on green then it is appropriate to blame the victim for not anticipating the manoeuvre. After all the victim could have dabbed the brakes and so avoided any debate.

Avatar
srchar replied to Fifth Gear | 6 years ago
0 likes

Fifth Gear wrote:

So you are saying if a driver goes through a red light and collides with someone on green then it is appropriate to blame the victim for not anticipating the manoeuvre. After all the victim could have dabbed the brakes and so avoided any debate.

No, he's saying that the car's body language was more suggestive of a U-turn than a parking manoeuvre.  There's no incident here AFAICS, so no blame to apportion.

If you want to be pedantic, a green light signals "go if the way is clear", not "go regardless of the circumstances".  Both on the bike and in a car, anticipating a RLJ from another bike or car has saved my skin on numerous occasions.  You can't play the blame game when you're dead.

Avatar
Fifth Gear replied to srchar | 6 years ago
2 likes

srchar wrote:

Fifth Gear wrote:

So you are saying if a driver goes through a red light and collides with someone on green then it is appropriate to blame the victim for not anticipating the manoeuvre. After all the victim could have dabbed the brakes and so avoided any debate.

No, he's saying that the car's body language was more suggestive of a U-turn than a parking manoeuvre.  There's no incident here AFAICS, so no blame to apportion.

If you want to be pedantic, a green light signals "go if the way is clear", not "go regardless of the circumstances".  Both on the bike and in a car, anticipating a RLJ from another bike or car has saved my skin on numerous occasions.  You can't play the blame game when you're dead.

You are wrong to say there is no incident. Careless driving is still an offence even if a collision did not occur. Inanimate objects like cars do not have body language. It's easy for you to interpret the intention of the driver with hindsight. We can all do that, but since we are not all mind readers the rest of us have the Highway Code and the law to inform us rather than your subjective opinion.

It's great that you are a mind reader and don't have to play the blame game. Good luck with that while it lasts.

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to Fifth Gear | 6 years ago
0 likes

Fifth Gear wrote:

srchar wrote:

Fifth Gear wrote:

So you are saying if a driver goes through a red light and collides with someone on green then it is appropriate to blame the victim for not anticipating the manoeuvre. After all the victim could have dabbed the brakes and so avoided any debate.

No, he's saying that the car's body language was more suggestive of a U-turn than a parking manoeuvre.  There's no incident here AFAICS, so no blame to apportion.

If you want to be pedantic, a green light signals "go if the way is clear", not "go regardless of the circumstances".  Both on the bike and in a car, anticipating a RLJ from another bike or car has saved my skin on numerous occasions.  You can't play the blame game when you're dead.

You are wrong to say there is no incident. Careless driving is still an offence even if a collision did not occur. Inanimate objects like cars do not have body language. It's easy for you to interpret the intention of the driver with hindsight. We can all do that, but since we are not all mind readers the rest of us have the Highway Code and the law to inform us rather than your subjective opinion.

It's great that you are a mind reader and don't have to play the blame game. Good luck with that while it lasts.

The car was moving, the wheels rolling and turning right, the brake lights went on and then off. It's not hard to work out what the car was doing. Or perhaps it is, which would explain a lot. What it wasn't is parked.

The driver was at fault and the cyclist had his own fair share of fault, and luckily no one was hurt.

Are you seriously arguing about the "body language" of a car?  1

Avatar
srchar replied to Fifth Gear | 6 years ago
1 like

Fifth Gear wrote:

Inanimate objects like cars do not have body language.

Of course they do. The direction the wheels are pointing in, the suspension loading and roll in turns, the attitude of the car under braking or acceleration - these are the car's body language.  I appreciate it is not a widely-used term outside of motorsport, but that's how you anticipate the movement of a car on the track without indicators or brake lights.

You should learn to read cars in this way, it will keep you safer on the roads.

Avatar
Fifth Gear replied to srchar | 6 years ago
2 likes

srchar wrote:

Fifth Gear wrote:

Inanimate objects like cars do not have body language.

Of course they do. The direction the wheels are pointing in, the suspension loading and roll in turns, the attitude of the car under braking or acceleration - these are the car's body language.  I appreciate it is not a widely-used term outside of motorsport, but that's how you anticipate the movement of a car on the track without indicators or brake lights.

You should learn to read cars in this way, it will keep you safer on the roads.

 

Thanks for your advice but I definitely don't need it from you. Where did you get your crystal ball?

Avatar
Mungecrundle replied to Fifth Gear | 6 years ago
1 like
Fifth Gear wrote:

srchar wrote:

Fifth Gear wrote:

Inanimate objects like cars do not have body language.

Of course they do. The direction the wheels are pointing in, the suspension loading and roll in turns, the attitude of the car under braking or acceleration - these are the car's body language.  I appreciate it is not a widely-used term outside of motorsport, but that's how you anticipate the movement of a car on the track without indicators or brake lights.

You should learn to read cars in this way, it will keep you safer on the roads.

 

Thanks for your advice but I definitely don't need it from you. Where did you get your crystal ball?

Don't take this as a personal insult. In the whole history of this miserable little clickbait series this is without doubt the best piece of advice on situational awareness.

Avatar
srchar replied to Fifth Gear | 6 years ago
0 likes

Fifth Gear wrote:

Thanks for your advice but I definitely don't need it from you. Where did you get your crystal ball?

I ride 40km daily in heavy London traffic; circuit racing is a hobby of mine. I know that it is possible to read a car to anticipate what its driver will do next. Likewise for cyclists. If you can't do that and don't want to learn, it's your loss.

Avatar
oldstrath replied to srchar | 6 years ago
2 likes

srchar wrote:

Fifth Gear wrote:

Inanimate objects like cars do not have body language.

Of course they do. The direction the wheels are pointing in, the suspension loading and roll in turns, the attitude of the car under braking or acceleration - these are the car's body language.  I appreciate it is not a widely-used term outside of motorsport, but that's how you anticipate the movement of a car on the track without indicators or brake lights.

You should learn to read cars in this way, it will keep you safer on the roads.

All good advice, none  of which would be needed if the loon in the car weren't too blind or thick to see what was behind him and too idle to use the indicator switch. The other lesson I take from this is to equip my bike with the brightest strobe I can buy, an airzound, and a couple of throwing axes.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to oldstrath | 6 years ago
0 likes

[/quote]

All good advice, none  of which would be needed if the loon in the car weren't too blind or thick to see what was behind him and too idle to use the indicator switch. The other lesson I take from this is to equip my bike with the brightest strobe I can buy, an airzound, and a couple of throwing axes.

[/quote]

Throwing axes?  I was thinking more along the lines of a couple of RPGs.

Avatar
davel | 6 years ago
1 like

I'm not sure about the articles.

On the one hand, I agree with much of the criticism along the lines of them being clickbait /pointless.

On the other, I'm behind *any* campaigning that draws attention to shit driving.

Given that the alternative seems to be a lack of campaigning/raising awareness - or worse: shrugging your shoulders and saying 'I get worse than that on a daily basis', and possibly *tolerating* shit driving as the norm, I see it as part of the overall noise being made in an attempt to make us safer on the roads. I'm a bit concerned that if we/cyclists stop making these different noises, nobody else will make them for 'us'. That's why I think the posts on here jumping on the cyclist behaviour first are arse-about-tit: there are loads more sites where you can go and bitch about cyclist behaviour. It's a bit depressing when it happens on a cycling site in response to a video where the driver's behaviour is worse.

So I might not agree with the type of 'campaign', but I'm right behind the principle.

Pages

Latest Comments