Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Near Miss of the Day 274: Turning driver almost hits cyclist riding in bus lane

Our regular series featuring close passes from around the country - today it's Glasgow...

The latest video in our Near Miss of the Day series shows a common hazard cyclists encounter when riding on the inside of a stationary queue of traffic – when one motorist invites another who is waiting to turn right to carry on, both unaware that there is a cyclist approaching.

It happened on Friday morning as road.cc reader Andy, commuted through the South Side of Glasgow. Luckily, Andy, who was riding in a bus lane, managed to swerve out of the motorist’s way.

“I think the driver was lucky I wasn't something bigger as he had no hope of seeing anything past the van in the other lane,” he said.

“Not bothered submitting to police, as I'm sure they'll do nothing apart from maybe phoning the driver,” Andy added.

> Near Miss of the Day turns 100 - Why do we do the feature and what have we learnt from it?

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.

> What to do if you capture a near miss or close pass (or worse) on camera while cycling

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
adownie | 4 years ago
1 like

Meanwhile, a week later, and 200m further on, a young woman is crushed to death in a left hook by a lorry. No idea who is to blame, but this isn’t just idle debate. We need better infrastructure and we need it now. 

Avatar
Argos74 | 4 years ago
3 likes

Case law - can't remember the name of the case, but if memory serves involved a filtering motorcyclist going past a gap, and a car driver turning through a gap in stationary traffic - was 70/30 against the car driver.

The reasoning being the car driver bore the majority of liability as turning into the path of a proceeding road user, but the motorcyclist would reasonably have been expected to observe the gap, and be aware of the possibility of a vehicle turning through the gap. Anyone remember the name of the case / confirm?

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Argos74 | 4 years ago
0 likes

Argos74 wrote:

Case law - can't remember the name of the case, but if memory serves involved a filtering motorcyclist going past a gap, and a car driver turning through a gap in stationary traffic - was 70/30 against the car driver.

The reasoning being the car driver bore the majority of liability as turning into the path of a proceeding road user, but the motorcyclist would reasonably have been expected to observe the gap, and be aware of the possibility of a vehicle turning through the gap. Anyone remember the name of the case / confirm?

Sorry, haven't heard about that case.

It sounds slightly different as it involves filtering which is "sharing" a lane with stationary traffic rather than being in your own (bus) lane. You're expected to take extra care when filtering, so a 70/30 split sounds fair enough to me.

Avatar
ktache | 4 years ago
2 likes

What shocks me the most is that there are cyclists posting here who would not use a wonderfully empty and wide bus lane just because there was some traffic in the rest of the road.

A badly laid out cycle lane (glorified paint) I might understand a bit, but a 4 metre wide bus lane?

And you do have to get a bit of a wriggle on in a bus lane, otherwise you often get agressive bus and taxi drivers up your arse and worse, ones who then badly overtake.

Sounds like a lovely island by the way, Argus.  But I'm guessing you might have to worry a little more about the UV, Australia's legendary killer creatures and it's dive bombing magpies.  Though, given the choice...

Avatar
jh27 replied to ktache | 4 years ago
0 likes

ktache wrote:

What shocks me the most is that there are cyclists posting here who would not use a wonderfully empty and wide bus lane just because there was some traffic in the rest of the road.

A badly laid out cycle lane (glorified paint) I might understand a bit, but a 4 metre wide bus lane?

 

I was thinking yesterday, what is the point of a typical cycle lane.  They are generally too narrow to allow a car driver to pass at a safe distance, without veering from their path.  So presumably cycle lanes exist to make filtering easier and safer - which is the same reason bus lanes exist - this is also part of the design of an ASL - ASLs should have a cycle lane that extends to the end of where the queue of traffic usually starts (the idea is that cyclists should be able to filter through traffic to enter the ASL).

Avatar
JWL | 4 years ago
0 likes

I can't see that as being the drivers fault. I ride in London daily - 16,000km a year. Those places where traffic splits when halted to allow cars to turn in are high risk areas - once you get to know your roads you watch for them carefully. You got to slow down, be cautious and be super observant. 

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to JWL | 4 years ago
1 like

JWL wrote:

I can't see that as being the drivers fault. I ride in London daily - 16,000km a year. Those places where traffic splits when halted to allow cars to turn in are high risk areas - once you get to know your roads you watch for them carefully. You got to slow down, be cautious and be super observant. 

I agree with being cautious around high risk areas, but I don't see that the cyclist caused any danger to other road users. As far as I can tell, the motorist didn't follow Highway Code Rules 180 and 183. Which rules do you think the cyclist wasn't following?

Avatar
Panslanepaul replied to hawkinspeter | 4 years ago
0 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

JWL wrote:

I can't see that as being the drivers fault. I ride in London daily - 16,000km a year. Those places where traffic splits when halted to allow cars to turn in are high risk areas - once you get to know your roads you watch for them carefully. You got to slow down, be cautious and be super observant. 

I agree with being cautious around high risk areas, but I don't see that the cyclist caused any danger to other road users. As far as I can tell, the motorist didn't follow Highway Code Rules 180 and 183. Which rules do you think the cyclist wasn't following?

180 is marginal and 183 doesn't apply as the bus lane didn't cross the junction.

How about rules 65, 68(!), 162, and 163? Trouble is we all know the Highway Code contains what amounts to conflicting information in places (e.g. rules around pedestrian crossings). So bandying them around doesn't really help.

Anyhoo, plod says he (the cyclist) did nothing wrong but you can bet he won't be doing 24mph there again anytime soon.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Panslanepaul | 4 years ago
1 like

Panslanepaul wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

JWL wrote:

I can't see that as being the drivers fault. I ride in London daily - 16,000km a year. Those places where traffic splits when halted to allow cars to turn in are high risk areas - once you get to know your roads you watch for them carefully. You got to slow down, be cautious and be super observant. 

I agree with being cautious around high risk areas, but I don't see that the cyclist caused any danger to other road users. As far as I can tell, the motorist didn't follow Highway Code Rules 180 and 183. Which rules do you think the cyclist wasn't following?

180 is marginal and 183 doesn't apply as the bus lane didn't cross the junction.

How about rules 65, 68(!), 162, and 163? Trouble is we all know the Highway Code contains what amounts to conflicting information in places (e.g. rules around pedestrian crossings). So bandying them around doesn't really help.

Anyhoo, plod says he (the cyclist) did nothing wrong but you can bet he won't be doing 24mph there again anytime soon.

Huh? I'm having trouble seeing how the cyclist wasn't following those rules. Rule 65 is about cycling in a bus lane, Rule 68 doesn't seem applicable unless the cyclist was on drugs. Rule 162 is about starting to overtake, and Rule 163 concerns overtaking too.

Did you just make up random rule numbers in the hope that no-one would look them up?

You can argue about the cyclist travelling too quickly for your liking, but at the end of the day, there's always a trade-off between speed and safety. He could stop in the distance that he could see to be clear and so I think he wasn't going too quickly for the conditions.

It was the car turning right without sufficient visibilty to do so safely that created the dangerous situation and put the cyclist at risk of a collision.

The cyclist has stated that he'll probably not go so fast there in future which I  think is a wise choice. I personally don't go as quick as I can down either side of stationary traffic as you never know when a motorist will make a badly judged maneouvre. (Also, take-aways and schools at certain times can be very dangerous for unpredictable motorists).

Avatar
Panslanepaul replied to hawkinspeter | 4 years ago
1 like

hawkinspeter wrote:

Panslanepaul wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

JWL wrote:

I can't see that as being the drivers fault. I ride in London daily - 16,000km a year. Those places where traffic splits when halted to allow cars to turn in are high risk areas - once you get to know your roads you watch for them carefully. You got to slow down, be cautious and be super observant. 

I agree with being cautious around high risk areas, but I don't see that the cyclist caused any danger to other road users. As far as I can tell, the motorist didn't follow Highway Code Rules 180 and 183. Which rules do you think the cyclist wasn't following?

180 is marginal and 183 doesn't apply as the bus lane didn't cross the junction.

How about rules 65, 68(!), 162, and 163? Trouble is we all know the Highway Code contains what amounts to conflicting information in places (e.g. rules around pedestrian crossings). So bandying them around doesn't really help.

Anyhoo, plod says he (the cyclist) did nothing wrong but you can bet he won't be doing 24mph there again anytime soon.

Huh? I'm having trouble seeing how the cyclist wasn't following those rules. Rule 65 is about cycling in a bus lane, Rule 68 doesn't seem applicable unless the cyclist was on drugs. Rule 162 is about starting to overtake, and Rule 163 concerns overtaking too.

Did you just make up random rule numbers in the hope that no-one would look them up?

You can argue about the cyclist travelling too quickly for your liking, but at the end of the day, there's always a trade-off between speed and safety. He could stop in the distance that he could see to be clear and so I think he wasn't going too quickly for the conditions.

It was the car turning right without sufficient visibilty to do so safely that created the dangerous situation and put the cyclist at risk of a collision.

The cyclist has stated that he'll probably not go so fast there in future which I  think is a wise choice. I personally don't go as quick as I can down either side of stationary traffic as you never know when a motorist will make a badly judged maneouvre. (Also, take-aways and schools at certain times can be very dangerous for unpredictable motorists).

 

Did I make them up? No, perhaps you should re-read them: 

Extract from Rule 65 "Be very careful when overtaking a bus or leaving a bus lane as you will be entering a busier traffic flow." This guy left a bus lane when he entered the junction.

Extract from Rule 68 You must not "ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner" arguably careless but maybe not, hence the bracketted exclamation mark.

As for rules 162 and 163, as you correctly say they concern overtaking, which is what this guy was doing.

Hope this clarifies things.  I see you later agree that a 70/30 split of liability when filtering is ok. So perhaps we agree after all.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Panslanepaul | 4 years ago
2 likes

Panslanepaul wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Huh? I'm having trouble seeing how the cyclist wasn't following those rules. Rule 65 is about cycling in a bus lane, Rule 68 doesn't seem applicable unless the cyclist was on drugs. Rule 162 is about starting to overtake, and Rule 163 concerns overtaking too.

Did you just make up random rule numbers in the hope that no-one would look them up?

You can argue about the cyclist travelling too quickly for your liking, but at the end of the day, there's always a trade-off between speed and safety. He could stop in the distance that he could see to be clear and so I think he wasn't going too quickly for the conditions.

It was the car turning right without sufficient visibilty to do so safely that created the dangerous situation and put the cyclist at risk of a collision.

The cyclist has stated that he'll probably not go so fast there in future which I  think is a wise choice. I personally don't go as quick as I can down either side of stationary traffic as you never know when a motorist will make a badly judged maneouvre. (Also, take-aways and schools at certain times can be very dangerous for unpredictable motorists).

Did I make them up? No, perhaps you should re-read them: 

Extract from Rule 65 "Be very careful when overtaking a bus or leaving a bus lane as you will be entering a busier traffic flow." This guy left a bus lane when he entered the junction.

Extract from Rule 68 You must not "ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner" arguably careless but maybe not, hence the bracketted exclamation mark.

As for rules 162 and 163, as you correctly say they concern overtaking, which is what this guy was doing.

Hope this clarifies things.  I see you later agree that a 70/30 split of liability when filtering is ok. So perhaps we agree after all.

Rule 65 doesn't seem applicable as when he left the bus lane, the lane ahead of him was clear i.e. no traffic flow. A right-turning vehicle is not considered part of the traffic flow.

I don't think Rule 68 applies as he wasn't careless - he had an empty lane ahead of him.

Rule 162 isn't applicable as the road ahead of him was clear and I don't consider that he was overtaking. I do concede that it could be argued that he was overtaking (undertaking) the stationary lane on his right, but I don't believe that is the scenario that the rule is intended to apply to.

Rule 163 actually exonerates the cyclist with "stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left", though again, I believe that section is more relevant to cars than bicycles (despite all vehicles having to follow the same rules).

If the cyclist were filtering, then I'd fully expect them to go slower and concede priority to other vehicles were applicable. Using a bus lane does not affect your priority to continue along a clear section of road, so in this instant, I believe it's 100% the fault of the driver.

Luckily as no collision happened, this is more of a learning exercise. Hopefully the driver will take more care in future and the cyclist can also be wary of similar situations.

Avatar
jh27 replied to hawkinspeter | 4 years ago
2 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

If the cyclist were filtering, then I'd fully expect them to go slower and concede priority to other vehicles were applicable. Using a bus lane does not affect your priority to continue along a clear section of road, so in this instant, I believe it's 100% the fault of the driver.

Luckily as no collision happened, this is more of a learning exercise. Hopefully the driver will take more care in future and the cyclist can also be wary of similar situations.

 

The only thing I would add to this is that the driver needs to learn from this too - and as this video has been submitted to the police, I believe they have some duty to ensure that this happens.  If the motorist cannot see whether it is safe to proceed, and waiting will not change this situation, then the only option is to edge out carefully untill they can see better - anything else is careless driving at the very least (except perhaps reversing back and making a turn at a safer location).

Avatar
JWL | 4 years ago
0 likes

I can't see that as being the drivers fault. I ride in London daily - 16,000km a year. Those places where traffic splits when halted to allow cars to turn in are high risk areas - once you get to know your roads you watch for them carefully. You got to slow down, be cautious and be super observant. 

Avatar
WeLoveHills | 4 years ago
3 likes

This isn't helpful. The cyclist in that situation simply cannot expect a driver to see him/her. You need to know when to exercise extreme caution, especially when in traffic like that. There's absolutely no need at all to be cycling at that speed when overtaking a long line of cars on the inside and  there's absloutely nothing to report to the police except one's own lack of judgement and road awareness. This is a good example of a video that actually confirms the GCN point of view about the 'near miss of the day' feature.

Avatar
peted76 | 4 years ago
2 likes

Blimey two pages for this vid! Slow news week.

Not that my penneth be worth much, but I reckon this is a bit of a non story.. rider was doing 24mph on the inside lane (too fast) can see the car the car wing at what appears to be two and a half car lengths (e.g 40feet). 

From the driver's viewpoint, they was turning slowly and could not see the cyclist until about 25feet. I'm sure someone could do some maths here, but to me the driver had about 1.5seconds to react, which they did by stopping. 

All I take from this video is that city cycling is dangerous, but we knew that already right, cause there's just 'more' in a city.

Now where's that squirrel, I think he's nabbed my almonds.

 

Avatar
jacko645 | 4 years ago
2 likes

I met the police this morning and showed them the video. They agreed I'd done nothing wrong but weren't sure it constituted careless driving so will just phone the driver to make them aware that they need to be more careful in future and emphasize that it was not my fault. Pretty much what I expected really.

Avatar
Panslanepaul | 4 years ago
3 likes

Is it at all relevant that the bus lane isn't marked across the junction? The cyclist wasn't in a bus lane when the incident occurred. Near miss, certainly. Driver totally at fault, not so sure. After all the driver made a major contribution by driving at a speed that allowed him/her to stop. Is riding into a blind spot at that speed "wanton", who knows.

Avatar
Mungecrundle | 4 years ago
6 likes

Apportioning blame is the responsibility of coroners and inquests. Avoiding collisions in the first place is the job of all road users.

Your video high-lights a common scenario and that junctions are dangerous places where extra care is required. I hope a lot of people get to see it on youtube etc.

Avatar
jacko645 | 4 years ago
2 likes

I get what people are saying about coming down the inside of traffic too fast, and honestly I probably will take it a bit slower down this section in future, but the important difference here is that this is a bus lane, explicitly so that you can go faster than the traffic in the outside lane. I can assure you buses and taxis will be going much faster than I was down here. As someone else pointed out, the bus lane markings disappear through the junction so perhaps better markings to make it obvious it's still two lanes would have helped avoid this.
Yes the driver stopped in time to not hit me, but would they have stopped in time to not hit a taxi/minibus/actual bus? I'm not sure they would. That's my issue with them.

Avatar
ConcordeCX replied to jacko645 | 4 years ago
1 like

jacko645 wrote:

I get what people are saying about coming down the inside of traffic too fast, and honestly I probably will take it a bit slower down this section in future, but the important difference here is that this is a bus lane, explicitly so that you can go faster than the traffic in the outside lane. I can assure you buses and taxis will be going much faster than I was down here. As someone else pointed out, the bus lane markings disappear through the junction so perhaps better markings to make it obvious it's still two lanes would have helped avoid this. Yes the driver stopped in time to not hit me, but would they have stopped in time to not hit a taxi/minibus/actual bus? I'm not sure they would. That's my issue with them.

i was knocked off my bike in similar circumstances a few years ago. The driver was at fault, was prosecuted, and I was given the choice of having him fined+points, or sent to a Maoist re-education centre. I chose the latter since I figured it might do someone else a favour.

I’m a bit more careful now in these situations , which is not surprising, but it does surprise me how often they arise and how often it’s because the driver in my carriageway has waved them through. I now never wave anyone through, whether i’m driving or cycling as the other person seems to take it as absolving them from checking  - eg pedestrian walks across without looking, driver turns right without checking. Similarly, if someone waves me through I don’t take their word that it’s clear.

 

Avatar
lesterama | 4 years ago
1 like

I am surprised at some of the comments here. For me, the fault is fully with the driver. After 40 years' cycling in cities, I advocate extra caution and a slower speed at junctions like these - to preserve life and limb, rather than for compliance with the Highway Code.

Avatar
srchar replied to lesterama | 4 years ago
1 like

lesterama wrote:

I am surprised at some of the comments here. For me, the fault is fully with the driver.

What is the driver's fault? Nothing happened!

Avatar
alansmurphy replied to srchar | 4 years ago
3 likes

srchar wrote:

lesterama wrote:

I am surprised at some of the comments here. For me, the fault is fully with the driver.

What is the driver's fault? Nothing happened!

 

I suppose we could argue that drink driving, driving at 80mph etc. is fine if nobody gets hurt... Nothing happened!

Avatar
ConcordeCX replied to alansmurphy | 4 years ago
2 likes

alansmurphy wrote:

srchar wrote:

lesterama wrote:

I am surprised at some of the comments here. For me, the fault is fully with the driver.

What is the driver's fault? Nothing happened!

 

I suppose we could argue that drink driving, driving at 80mph etc. is fine if nobody gets hurt... Nothing happened!

i was very close-passed at speed by a motorbiker last week. When I caught up with him at the next lights (!) I expressed my disappointment, and his sole line of defence, repeated aggressively many times, was “Did I hit you? Did I hit you?”. 

 

Avatar
srchar replied to ConcordeCX | 4 years ago
1 like

ConcordeCX wrote:

i was very close-passed at speed by a motorbiker last week. When I caught up with him at the next lights (!) I expressed my disappointment, and his sole line of defence, repeated aggressively many times, was “Did I hit you? Did I hit you?”. 

And what's that got to do with this?  Being close-passed is nothing like the scenario presented in the video.

Avatar
quiff replied to srchar | 4 years ago
4 likes

srchar wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

i was very close-passed at speed by a motorbiker last week. When I caught up with him at the next lights (!) I expressed my disappointment, and his sole line of defence, repeated aggressively many times, was “Did I hit you? Did I hit you?”. 

And what's that got to do with this?  Being close-passed is nothing like the scenario presented in the video.

I tend to agree, but both are near misses and I was trying to work out why I get furious with (and report) close passes, but wouldn't consider reporting this one even though the outcome is the same (i.e. no injury). I guess it's because had this been me, after the initial shock, I think I would have been a bit annoyed at myself for not anticipating it and riding more defensively. That's not a criticism of the rider, I've had similar near misses and have learnt the lesson, and I'm not suggesting you can anticipate every incident that might happen. That's also not to say the driver couldn't and shouldn't also have approached the turn more cautiously, but ultimately they did manage to stop and avoid a collision, so the police response (no offence, but have a friendly word) seems proportionate. Hopefully the driver too will have had a "that was close" moment and learnt to be more careful in future, even before police intervention. With a close pass though (1) you are totally at the mercy of whoever's coming up behind - there's very little you can do to mitigate the risk; and (2) the passing driver will usually have had plenty of time to see you, and has still decided, intentionally or carelessly, to pass too close.  

Avatar
srchar replied to quiff | 4 years ago
3 likes

quiff wrote:

With a close pass though (1) you are totally at the mercy of whoever's coming up behind - there's very little you can do to mitigate the risk; and (2) the passing driver will usually have had plenty of time to see you, and has still decided, intentionally or carelessly, to pass too close.  

This was exactly what I was getting at and perhaps should have explained; even when the road layout and traffic conditions mean that I move into primary position to prevent an unsafe pass, I still get close-passed, and it is almost by definition a deliberate decision made by the driver behind that their perceived* time is more important than my safety.

* - because you almost always catch them at the next traffic lights/junction/bus stop/tailback.

Avatar
ConcordeCX replied to srchar | 4 years ago
2 likes

srchar wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

i was very close-passed at speed by a motorbiker last week. When I caught up with him at the next lights (!) I expressed my disappointment, and his sole line of defence, repeated aggressively many times, was “Did I hit you? Did I hit you?”. 

And what's that got to do with this?  Being close-passed is nothing like the scenario presented in the video.

they're both trying to justify / excuse themselves by claiming that because they didn't hit anybody they did nothing wrong.

It's what I believe is called 'no harm, no foul', which may be all very well in American football, but doesn't really work in the rest of existence. 

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to srchar | 4 years ago
3 likes

srchar wrote:

lesterama wrote:

I am surprised at some of the comments here. For me, the fault is fully with the driver.

What is the driver's fault? Nothing happened!

I don't think you've quite grasped the concept of 'near miss'.

I'd explain it to you, but I don't have enough crayons to hand.

Avatar
srchar replied to hawkinspeter | 4 years ago
0 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

I don't think you've quite grasped the concept of 'near miss'.

I'd explain it to you, but I don't have enough crayons to hand.

Maybe you could explain it using a tedious picture of a squirrel?

Pages

Latest Comments