Near Miss of the Day 535: A new twist on the classic left hook

That youtube video shows the stupidity of most cycle lanes in the UK. That road hasn't enough room for a cycle lane but the white paint makes the driver think 'lane, I'm in mine so can be as close as i like'

no. last time i had anything to do with the police here they were driving alongside me on canford magna hill when i was going 30 mph in a 40 zone, with one copper hanging out the passenger window pointing and telling me there was a cycle lane on the left. I told him it was a pavement and i was too fast, then left them in traffic seconds later. No way am i reporting to people who employ such lunatics.

Not very encouraging I agree but I doubt it will be the same policemen who deal with submissions. I still feel that if we don't report incidents things will not improve and I would still urge you to submit it despite the frustrations.

If you do get a result and if the driver tells friends then a few more drivers may treat us with a little more respect next time. A forlorn hope may be but one I cling on to.

Gary's bike channel wrote:

no. last time i had anything to do with the police here they were driving alongside me on canford magna hill when i was going 30 mph in a 40 zone, with one copper hanging out the passenger window pointing and telling me there was a cycle lane on the left. I told him it was a pavement and i was too fast, then left them in traffic seconds later. No way am i reporting to people who employ such lunatics.

Did you report that incident?  If not, you can hardly expect them to improve if nobody points out their mistakes.

They stopped !

hirsute wrote:

They stopped !

Yeah, but not because of the cyclist, because of the pedestrian.  If they've read the bit of the HC about not killing pedestrians as you turn off, why haven't the read the bit about not killing cyclists?

Stop being hysterical, you undermoine every legitimate case of harrasment when you use language like that 

spen wrote:

Stop being hysterical, you undermoine every legitimate case of harrasment when you use language like that 

Really? Why?

Burt's made a valid point - the motorist was happy to drive dangerously around the cyclist and yet driving dangerously around the pedestrian was seen as being beyond the pale.

Burt was drawing attention to this discrepancy? / discontinuity?

spen wrote:

Stop being hysterical, you undermoine every legitimate case of harrasment when you use language like that 

What language?

eburtthebike wrote:

spen wrote:

Stop being hysterical, you undermoine every legitimate case of harrasment when you use language like that 

What language?

Esperanto? 

spen wrote:

Stop being hysterical, ......

.....you undermoine every legitimate case of harrasment when you use language like that 

And even then, because the pedestrian was crossing into the wrong side of the road, that they were trying to turn into.

hirsute wrote:

They stopped !

That's not new

OK new for NMOTD !

If this is Gary of Gary's bike channel then his experience kept him safe, someone else it may have had a different ending.

The car driver just saw the cyclist as an irritant to their progress, with no legitimacy, just something in "their" way. The choice was to slow down (oh, the injustice!) and turn behind the cyclist, or overcome the obstacle. Instinctively they took the second option. The calculation was that the cyclist would be forced to brake, and that was a natural consequence for being in their way.

They had doubtless not seen the pedestrian when they committed to the manoeuvre. Had it been an adult pedestrian, who would have looked over their shoulder and made eye contact, my bet is the driver would have driven on in the expectation that the pedestrian could - and should - stop and yield. But it was an oblivious child.

In this case no one was injured. But these are the situations, multiplied time upon time, which eventually lead to injury and death. Prosecuting the fatal accidents is little condolence to the bereaved. Prosecuting the behaviours that pave the path is what's required.

I agree with you, though I must add a couple of things to your first point.

Most drivers have no concept of the speed that cyclists can move.  The last time some of them were on a bike was as a child and they moved little more than walking pace, which for a motorised vehicle capable of over 100 miles per hour is relatively stationary.

And when a motorist when passing a cyclist (overtaking is only the properly performed manouvre), in their mind the cyclist ceases to exist the moment the rider is behind the front bumper.

thats probably what looked so odd to a car driver i passed at 35 mph in a 40 zone.   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8GrOUobRv4

also what i find so irritating with the shared path symbols all over the place and drivers expectations we should use them. Most adult cyclists are holding around 20mph on the road, too fast for sharing with pedestrians. But councils, well they seem to enjoy putting us on the pavement, even though pedestrians complain about speeding cyclists on the pavement. 

Sriracha wrote:

 my bet is the driver would have driven on in the expectation that the pedestrian could - and should - stop and yield.

The pedestrian was already in the road when the vehicle began to turn, so the pedestrian had priority and the vehicle should wait until the pedestrian has crossed to the other side. Rule 206 "You should give way to pedestrians who are already crossing the road into which you are turning."

I think they were simply presenting a driver's incorrect understanding not the actual position.

Possiby one of the most ignored highway code rules in the book. brave pedestrian who doesnt make sure the road is quit clear before crossing a side road.

If I see a car indicating but some way from the junction have they "begun to turn" do i take a chance. No way.

I usually check for any indicating vehicles before crossing a side road and give them priority. I think of it as a reward for them using their indicators correctly.

It is bad in America for Pedestrians when they allow right turns at red traffic lights. 

yeah this is me. By far , this isnt the worst cycling experience ive had in BCP area. Still annoying though. I would suspect a lady driver heading down to pick her kids up as there's a school at the bottom of consitution hill where this was.  If it had been a kid on an mtb with non too great brake pads though i suppose we could be looking at a case of the bmth echo'' range rover driver has child cyclist drive into them at junction''.  

Gary's bike channel wrote:

I would suspect a lady driver heading down to pick her kids up as there's a school at the bottom of consitution hill where this was. 

Whoa! Considerably enormous assumption, isn't it? It couldn't be a man going to pick his kids up? Or a man driving along that road for some other reason?

it could be, but you dont see many red range rovers driven by men. Most are black.