Near Miss of the Day 719: Oncoming van driver ignores cyclist — company promises to talk with driver (video includes swearing)

At the start of the video the rider is just passing the silver estate car on the right; when she looks back, if you look carefully you can see over the top of the van there is a large vehicle of some type – a lorry, by the look of it – parked behind the silver estate car (ringed) so she had already begun passing the parked vehicles. In addition, surely the person who is on the correct side of the road has priority and the person who wishes to drive down the opposite side of the road must wait until it is clear and safe to do so, the same rules apply to overtaking parked vehicles as they do to overtaking moving ones, do they not?

EK Spinner wrote:

is i just me that is questioning the OPs assertion that they have priority. At the very start of the clip the van is on the opposite side of the road and has clearly started the manoevre to pass the line of parked vehicles (yes there is a gap in the line but not the biggest) and it is unclear from the video if the OP is at the start of the line or is already half way along it

Started to overtake the parked cars on their side of the road when it was clear there was oncoming traffic (the rider)

During manoeuvre ignored a gap in the parked cars to drive on through regardless, at speed, without allowing rider any space. Had this been an overtake (of the rider) there would definitely not have been 1.5m

HWC162

Before overtaking you should make sure

• the road is sufficiently clear ahead
• ....

HWC 163

Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should

• .......
• give way to oncoming vehicles before passing parked vehicles or other obstructions on your side of the road
• .......

HWC 167

DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users.

Regardless of whether the gap is the biggest it was sufficient to have drawn in even partially, and come to a stop allowing the rider safely past.

This driver made an active considered choice, against road conditions, considerations for others safety and HWC, to drive at speed towards the rider.

It was at best incompetence, however I can't help think that a good deal of malice involved here.

in short, "It's just a cyclist". 

While I agree with most of that, I'm not sure that 167 is particularly relevant. That's more about planning your pass so that you're not doing it where there are additional complicating factors such as junctions and the like. It can't really be about the presence of the things you're intending to pass themselves, because otherwise you've never be able to pass anything at all (except perhaps on very wide roads).

mdavidford wrote:

While I agree with most of that, I'm not sure that 167 is particularly relevant. That's more about planning your pass so that you're not doing it where there are additional complicating factors such as junctions and the like. It can't really be about the presence of the things you're intending to pass themselves, because otherwise you've never be able to pass anything at all (except perhaps on very wide roads).

I'd say that the headliner for 167 says it all. What is bulleted underneath are examples, and not exhaustive, although I agree with you about planning. 

The idea that "you'd never be able to pass anything" as an easy fallacy to fall into - If I had a penny for every time whilst training drivers I heard "but no one would get anywhere if everyone [insert your common sense good driving tactic here]" I could probably afford a packet of Tangfastics at a service station.

In this situation the driver willfully progressed into conflict with another road user, and therefore broke that rule

But the rule doesn't say 'where you will come into conflict with another road user'; it says 'where you might'.

The situation where you will come into conflict is covered by the other rule 162 you quoted (make sure the road is clear). It would be redundant for that to also be part of 167.

The very fact that there are parked cars here (or in other situations, a moving car that you wish to overtake) creates a situation where you might come into conflict (whether there's currently anyone visible or not). So if you included that in 167, you wouldn't be able to pass them.

Captain Badger wrote:

Regardless of whether the gap is the biggest it was sufficient to have drawn in even partially, and come to a stop allowing the rider safely past.

That I think is the salient point here.

Rule 163 mentions giving way BEFORE passing parked vehicleS. So it could be intepreted that a line of vehicles is a singular obstruction and you only 'should' (i.e. advisory only) give way before you begin the manouevre. Bear in mind it might not always be possible to see that the way is fully clear. Once you are established in the road, then it becomes a bit vague as to who has priority, as it would if you met another car coming towards you on a single track road.

I think the highway code could have included a rule such as this: On narrow roads where a 1.5m passing distance cannot be achieved with oncoming vulnerable road users, the larger vehicle should stop and permit the more vulnerable road user to negotiate their way past.

Where in the highway code does it say that starting a moanouvre gives you priority?

As far as I can see the cyclist is in their half of the road and the van is not in their half of the road. This is true whether you take the road as being from the nearside kerb to the parked cars or to the farside kerb.

The van shouldn't be speeding past a row of parked cars in case someone opens a car door or a child runs out from between them. If the van slows down and moves close to the parked cars it looks to me like there is enough room for the cyclist to pass safely.

Which bit have I misunderstood?

cheers for some of the more forensic analysis of the video.

BTW I wasn't suggesting that this was neccessarily good driving, I was questioning the assertion of priority on the basis of the very short video where the ends of the queue of parked cars and the timing of who was visible from where isn't as clear as it is on other similar videos. I would like to have seen an additional minute or so either end to get a more complete picture of the timings which can be important.

then again as we all know, having prioriy doesn't absolve anyone from their responibility toavoid a collision

Even had it been a reverse situation with van having priority and the cyclist doing the overtake of parked cars, surely basic human decency would involve the van driver slowing, even being prepared to stop?

It's not so much the who has "right of way" it's the mindset of callous disregard for the weaker party that needs to be addressed.

Mungecrundle wrote:

Even had it been a reverse situation with van having priority and the cyclist doing the overtake of parked cars, surely basic human decency would involve the van driver slowing, even being prepared to stop? It's not so much the who has "right of way" it's the mindset of callous disregard for the weaker party that needs to be addressed.

Indeed, right of way is not the appropriate term, it's "priority". Right of way refers to whether you are allowed on the road. This is possessed by horse riders, peds and cyclists. Cars drivers do not have right of way - they need to be licenced

Captain Badger wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

Even had it been a reverse situation with van having priority and the cyclist doing the overtake of parked cars, surely basic human decency would involve the van driver slowing, even being prepared to stop? It's not so much the who has "right of way" it's the mindset of callous disregard for the weaker party that needs to be addressed.

Indeed, right of way is not the appropriate term, it's "priority". Right of way refers to whether you are allowed on the road. This is possessed by horse riders, peds and cyclists. Cars drivers do not have right of way - they need to be licenced

Ok, I'll take that

I see this so often and its usually people in SUVs trying to bully their way through. Its a certain level of self centred arrogance that they think no one will get in their way.

I always promised myself, if I ever won the lottery, I would buy an old 1980s boxy Volvo and cover it in dash cams etc and drive it to the letter of the law. But when it comes to behaviour like the driver here I will not yield. If they hit me that is their fault. See how many arrogant Range Rover and X5 driving pricks I can take out when they encroach into my right of way. 

I did this years ago with a really old, beaten up Mark 2 Escort. 

My 'commute' involved a particular rounabaout just before the VAG head office in Blakelands and I would get cut up almost every day by VW and Audi drivers in brand spanking new cars. As my car was already a wreck I did 'accidentally' once hold my line coming out of the roundabout which resulted in a nice crease all the way down one side of an Audi. Driver was incandescent and I couldn't have cared less!

In situations like this I position myself so that they cannot pass without hitting me, until they slow down. Once they've slowed I move left if there is room. If there is no room I just stop in front of them. It then depends on their reaction. Sometimes it takes a while to resolve. I should mention at this point that I'm retired and patient. It's worked so far but I fear if this had been me I'd be dead.

I do the same, doesn't always work though. Had a woman in a mini take exception to this road positioning the other day and accelerated towards me at speed giving me the bird! I had to swerve out of the way. Stupidly pointless manouevre as literally 20 yards up the road was a queue of traffic waiting to turn right out of a T-junction. I turned around to have a word (I know, I shouldn't), she saw me in her mirror and instead of indicating to turn right, suddenly mounted the pavement kerbing all four wheels, drove up the pavement and then shot off left up the main road! Absolutely bonkers! Would have been a police submission, but I only had the rear camera on.

I tried it once, van wasnt going that fast, and the driver stopped and proceeded to lecture me that he'd just saved my life by not driving over me, I couldnt shake his utter self belief that I was in the wrong by being in his way, not he was wrong for driving on the wrong side of the road and it was not upto me to use the gutter to keep out his way.

One of those lessons I learnt its pointless to try and reason with them sometimes, they see cyclist so they see a gap.

But it's the ones on the single track road who just drive at you and expect you to dive for cover that annoy me, they never slow down or give any room, position yourself so they cant pass on those and you will become a KSI.

there is another news article today discussing daylight running lights on bikes and I've definitely found that running a front (FU) knog blinder seems to improve the give way rate of oncoming vehicles when I have priority...think it must work like the old Beano carton strip...the light gets a tiny person in the drivers brain to press the button that says "can't say didn't see them" better slow down

I think the reason a very bright flashing light works sometimes, is it makes speed and distance harder to judge for the driver. The majority of these drivers are not being malicious, they just think as long as they don't actually hit you, there's enough room. The nice ones will slow or stop if they can't quite be sure there's enough room to not collide!

In daylight on single track roads in a car, it can be very beneficial using full beam. Really helps to encourage bullies to slow down - I guess they make your vehicle look larger

wtjs wrote:

"Thanks for bringing this to our attention. We are really sorry about any distress caused and will be addressing this with the driver concerned to ensure this won't happen again in the future."

Is she barmy? What this 'letting off' means is the driver thinks he can do the same thing again any time- 'addressing' (yuk!) with the driver means having a good laugh, jokes about 'make sure you finish the little sod off properly next time!' and forgetting about it. Without force, employers of cyclist-hostile drivers do nothing

Yes, without some evidence of a disciplinary process their words mean nothing. 

Police report - it's the only way. 

Well it's too late now anyway, she had only 7days to submit else its NFAd automatically

And I'm not sure if NSRAPT would have done much more than a warning letter for it.

It's on the Twitter link under the top photo.