Near Miss of the Day 336: Driver overtakes as another reverses into cycle lane

Argus Tuft wrote:

Your UK licence is valid in Australia-hence my comment re standardization. Don't make the common mistake of confusing dictionary meaning with legal definition.

My license is valid in Europe as well, but I'd still have to drive on the right.

vonhelmet wrote:

Argus Tuft wrote:

Your UK licence is valid in Australia-hence my comment re standardization. Don't make the common mistake of confusing dictionary meaning with legal definition.

My license is valid in Europe as well, but I'd still have to drive on the right.

OK - time for you trot out your official UK definition of "overtaking",otherwise we'll be here forever.

Argus Tuft wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

Argus Tuft wrote:

Your UK licence is valid in Australia-hence my comment re standardization. Don't make the common mistake of confusing dictionary meaning with legal definition.

My license is valid in Europe as well, but I'd still have to drive on the right.

OK - time for you trot out your official UK definition of "overtaking",otherwise we'll be here forever.

I don't think its defined in the highway code, and you said earlier you don't want dictionary definitions... My point in arguing with nic earlier is that you can't say that he's not overtaking because he's in a different lane. By definition overtaking on a motorway, for example, entails being in a different lane.

Anyway, rule 167 of the highway code gives a list of times when you must not overtake, including "when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down" so that's basically the end of that.

vonhelmet wrote:

Argus Tuft wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

Argus Tuft wrote:

Your UK licence is valid in Australia-hence my comment re standardization. Don't make the common mistake of confusing dictionary meaning with legal definition.

My license is valid in Europe as well, but I'd still have to drive on the right.

OK - time for you trot out your official UK definition of "overtaking",otherwise we'll be here forever.

I don't think its defined in the highway code, and you said earlier you don't want dictionary definitions... My point in arguing with nic earlier is that you can't say that he's not overtaking because he's in a different lane. By definition overtaking on a motorway, for example, entails being in a different lane. Anyway, rule 167 of the highway code gives a list of times when you must not overtake, including "when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down" so that's basically the end of that.

I  hate myself for getting involved in forum semantics.Even if you win,you lose! 

Argus Tuft wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

Argus Tuft wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

Argus Tuft wrote:

Your UK licence is valid in Australia-hence my comment re standardization. Don't make the common mistake of confusing dictionary meaning with legal definition.

My license is valid in Europe as well, but I'd still have to drive on the right.

OK - time for you trot out your official UK definition of "overtaking",otherwise we'll be here forever.

I don't think its defined in the highway code, and you said earlier you don't want dictionary definitions... My point in arguing with nic earlier is that you can't say that he's not overtaking because he's in a different lane. By definition overtaking on a motorway, for example, entails being in a different lane. Anyway, rule 167 of the highway code gives a list of times when you must not overtake, including "when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down" so that's basically the end of that.

I  hate myself for getting involved in forum semantics.Even if you win,you lose! 

perhaps you should limit yourself to no more than 3 posts on the same thread, and pretend that it's just shit on the internet, not a court of law, where people might occasionally slip from the highest standards of language and use words like overtaking when they mean passing. Reading generously rather than trying to catch people out over trivia is quite a good way of reducing feelings of self-hatred.

ktache wrote:

Have I managed to see the same video as everyone else?

This is no crash video.

The cyclist has submitted a video of incompetent driving and drivers.

Both the reversing driver and the driver attempting the overtake put the cyclist in a dangerous position, the cyclist responded and used their skills to avoid an impact.

The cyclist was both right and not dead.  Or needing medical attention.

Then the motorist who was attempting to overtake the slowed their ever so important journey in an oppertunity to argue the toss after slight critisism, thought better of it, speeded off, probably in order to join the awating queue of traffic momentarily sooner.

They weren't overtaking the cyclist. They where in a different lane.

nicmason wrote:

ktache wrote:

Have I managed to see the same video as everyone else?

This is no crash video.

The cyclist has submitted a video of incompetent driving and drivers.

Both the reversing driver and the driver attempting the overtake put the cyclist in a dangerous position, the cyclist responded and used their skills to avoid an impact.

The cyclist was both right and not dead.  Or needing medical attention.

Then the motorist who was attempting to overtake the slowed their ever so important journey in an oppertunity to argue the toss after slight critisism, thought better of it, speeded off, probably in order to join the awating queue of traffic momentarily sooner.

They weren't overtaking the cyclist. They where in a different lane.

It's still overtaking even if you are in a different lane. It's not overtaking if you're on a different road, so I can see where the confusion has arisen - a lane can be a type of road, but not in this case. Hope this helps.

vonhelmet wrote:

nicmason wrote:

ktache wrote:

Have I managed to see the same video as everyone else?

This is no crash video.

The cyclist has submitted a video of incompetent driving and drivers.

Both the reversing driver and the driver attempting the overtake put the cyclist in a dangerous position, the cyclist responded and used their skills to avoid an impact.

The cyclist was both right and not dead.  Or needing medical attention.

Then the motorist who was attempting to overtake the slowed their ever so important journey in an oppertunity to argue the toss after slight critisism, thought better of it, speeded off, probably in order to join the awating queue of traffic momentarily sooner.

They weren't overtaking the cyclist. They where in a different lane.

It's still overtaking even if you are in a different lane. It's not overtaking if you're on a different road, so I can see where the confusion has arisen - a lane can be a type of road, but not in this case. Hope this helps.

In the general sense of the word,yes,but according to the South Australian drivers handbook,Overtaking means to move into the lane to the left or right to pass the vehicle ahead. Given the standardization of road rules,this would be an accepted definition in many areas.YMMV.

Hope this helps.

Argus Tuft wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

nicmason wrote:

ktache wrote:

Have I managed to see the same video as everyone else?

This is no crash video.

The cyclist has submitted a video of incompetent driving and drivers.

Both the reversing driver and the driver attempting the overtake put the cyclist in a dangerous position, the cyclist responded and used their skills to avoid an impact.

The cyclist was both right and not dead.  Or needing medical attention.

Then the motorist who was attempting to overtake the slowed their ever so important journey in an oppertunity to argue the toss after slight critisism, thought better of it, speeded off, probably in order to join the awating queue of traffic momentarily sooner.

They weren't overtaking the cyclist. They where in a different lane.

It's still overtaking even if you are in a different lane. It's not overtaking if you're on a different road, so I can see where the confusion has arisen - a lane can be a type of road, but not in this case. Hope this helps.

In the general sense of the word,yes,but according to the South Australian drivers handbook,Overtaking means to move into the lane to the left or right to pass the vehicle ahead. Given the standardization of road rules,this would be an accepted definition in many areas.YMMV.

Hope this helps.

 

South Australian drivers handbook? You realise we have our own Highway Code?

vonhelmet wrote:

nicmason wrote:

ktache wrote:

Have I managed to see the same video as everyone else?

This is no crash video.

The cyclist has submitted a video of incompetent driving and drivers.

Both the reversing driver and the driver attempting the overtake put the cyclist in a dangerous position, the cyclist responded and used their skills to avoid an impact.

The cyclist was both right and not dead.  Or needing medical attention.

Then the motorist who was attempting to overtake the slowed their ever so important journey in an oppertunity to argue the toss after slight critisism, thought better of it, speeded off, probably in order to join the awating queue of traffic momentarily sooner.

They weren't overtaking the cyclist. They where in a different lane.

It's still overtaking even if you are in a different lane. It's not overtaking if you're on a different road, so I can see where the confusion has arisen - a lane can be a type of road, but not in this case. Hope this helps.

Not really. And that's a problem with cycle lanes. It's a lane, the clue is in the name.
Imo what would I have done . See the obstacle , touch the brakes , check my right,go behind the blue Volvo, go back into the cycle lane. No rabble rousing video necessary.

nicmason wrote:

Not really. And that's a problem with cycle lanes. It's a lane, the clue is in the name.

How does that work on a dual carriageway where there are lanes?

I wouldn't have trusted either driver, so I would have made the decision to get ahead or drop behind.

hirsute wrote:

nicmason wrote:

Not really. And that's a problem with cycle lanes. It's a lane, the clue is in the name.

How does that work on a dual carriageway where there are lanes?

 

I wouldn't have trusted either driver, so I would have made the decision to get ahead or drop behind.

Nailed it! Move to the next level.

hirsute wrote:

nicmason wrote:

Not really. And that's a problem with cycle lanes. It's a lane, the clue is in the name.

How does that work on a dual carriageway where there are lanes?

 

I wouldn't have trusted either driver, so I would have made the decision to get ahead or drop behind.

That's right. Control the situation . Don't act on the assumption someone else who may not even know you are there will do what you expect.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Drivers pulling out of driveways rarely even bother to even check for pedestrians on the pavement they are driving over. I don't know what the law says, but really such drivers should have the lowest possible priority, with the obligation to give way to everything else, up to and including a pigeon strolling along the pavement. Crap cycle lane made everything worse, but that's pretty much a given. Still annoyed at the homemade sign I saw someone had put up on a road with lots of driveways, instructing parents to keep a hold of their children on 'our' pavement because of the cars pulling out. So yeah, the overtaking driver could have been more alert and considerate, but primarily I blame the existence of such driveways in the first place. Just 'cos you have a big house with a car parking place shouldn't give you the right to constantly inconvenience/endanger those actually using thoroughfares for their intended purpose. If you can't pull out of your driveway without causing problems for others, you shouldn't be allowed to have one.

If I understand it correctly, having a dropped kerb grants you right of access (because, as we all know, its otherwise illegal to drive across the footway).*

It doesn't grant you any sort of priority, so you give way to anything/anyone else on the footway, before then giving way to anything else using the roadway.

Pedestrians? Give way. Cyclists (if its shared use)? Give way. Elderly folks and women with pushchairs? Give way. 

I don't know where it stands on errant pigeons.

*Interesting fact: no dropped kerb, no right of access. All those householders who pay to convert their front gardens into car storage but who don't get the council to put in a dropped kerb? No right of access... They're breaking the law every time they drive into or out of their garden.

brooksby wrote:

*Interesting fact: no dropped kerb, no right of access. All those householders who pay to convert their front gardens into car storage but who don't get the council to put in a dropped kerb? No right of access... They're breaking the law every time they drive into or out of their garden.

 

Not only the law, it's very visible in most cases that they are also breaking the paving stones!

vonhelmet wrote:

Driver on the road was passing on zigzags, before you even get to the reversing driver.

but overtaking a cyclist on the zig zags is not illegal.

Im all for cyclists’ safety being a higher priority and some of the videos posted on this site demonstrate truly shocking, appallingly selfish and dangerous driving. This one is not quite there in my mind.

Yes, the Volvo should leave more room when overtaking. Yes the driver should anticipate a little further ahead regarding road hazards and spot the car reversing out of the drive. Yes the reversing driver should reverse into the drive if they can to make getting back out onto the road easier and safer. Yes, that driver should consider use of a banksman if anyone else in the house was available.

But, the cyclist needs to be more aware of the hazards ahead too and adjust their riding appropriately. As cyclists we all want to maintain momentum, but sometimes that is not appropriate we need to adjust to the conditions and dynamically changing situation that is appearing ahead.

if you are looking far enough down the road using your hazard perception then earlier, safer road positioning could be achieved. In this instance, the cyclist is almost moving at the rate of the passing traffic. Why not move out with an appropriate hand signal into primary position before the overtaking car passes? Do it with confidence and purpose and the blue Volvo would have to slow and maintain his position behind the cyclist until they passed the hazard.

As this was not done the situation developed quite quickly into a ‘pinch’ for the cyclist with small quickly diminishing. Sure the Volvo should have stayed behind, but it didn’t. So why not adjust your speed to fall in behind the Volvo once it had started it’s inappropriate overtake? 

Yes, the driver is still a cock, but the road is full of cocks, some of them on pushbikes. It’s the real world and our cycling utopia is still a very long way from becoming reality, so we all know that a large number of drivers are going to be cocks and we are the vulnerable ones. Ride appropriately and think self preservation. Tell him he’s a cock at the traffic lights rather than trying to have the ‘I’m right’ conversation as the road space diminishes in front of you.

PP

Pilot Pete wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

Driver on the road was passing on zigzags, before you even get to the reversing driver.

but overtaking a cyclist on the zig zags is not illegal.

Im all for cyclists’ safety being a higher priority and some of the videos posted on this site demonstrate truly shocking, appallingly selfish and dangerous driving. This one is not quite there in my mind.

Yes, the Volvo should leave more room when overtaking. Yes the driver should anticipate a little further ahead regarding road hazards and spot the car reversing out of the drive. Yes the reversing driver should reverse into the drive if they can to make getting back out onto the road easier and safer. Yes, that driver should consider use of a banksman if anyone else in the house was available.

But, the cyclist needs to be more aware of the hazards ahead too and adjust their riding appropriately. As cyclists we all want to maintain momentum, but sometimes that is not appropriate we need to adjust to the conditions and dynamically changing situation that is appearing ahead.

if you are looking far enough down the road using your hazard perception then earlier, safer road positioning could be achieved. In this instance, the cyclist is almost moving at the rate of the passing traffic. Why not move out with an appropriate hand signal into primary position before the overtaking car passes? Do it with confidence and purpose and the blue Volvo would have to slow and maintain his position behind the cyclist until they passed the hazard.

As this was not done the situation developed quite quickly into a ‘pinch’ for the cyclist with small quickly diminishing. Sure the Volvo should have stayed behind, but it didn’t. So why not adjust your speed to fall in behind the Volvo once it had started it’s inappropriate overtake? 

Yes, the driver is still a cock, but the road is full of cocks, some of them on pushbikes. It’s the real world and our cycling utopia is still a very long way from becoming reality, so we all know that a large number of drivers are going to be cocks and we are the vulnerable ones. Ride appropriately and think self preservation. Tell him he’s a cock at the traffic lights rather than trying to have the ‘I’m right’ conversation as the road space diminishes in front of you.

PP

You comment has no point other than you trying to tell me how much more technically proficient you are than the cyclist in the video, or to patronisingly give unasked-for advice to others. I don't care about your elite skills, sorry. I want safer roads, better behaviour by those who can endanger others, and hence more active travel and fewer cars. Your roadcraft skills are of no relevance to that.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

You comment has no point other than you trying to tell me how much more technically proficient you are than the cyclist in the video, or to patronisingly give unasked-for advice to others. I don't care about your elite skills, sorry. I want safer roads, better behaviour by those who can endanger others, and hence more active travel and fewer cars. Your roadcraft skills are of no relevance to that.

but whether we like it or not, passing a cyclist on zig zags is not a direct traffic offence (I still think it should fall under driving without due care & attention but Ive yet to find a police force willing to pursue that) so whether you are an elite roadcraft skiller or a total novice makes no difference to that,and at the very least knowing that point should mean you arent relying on traffic to be complying with it,and maybe that alters the approach we should take around crossings.

I dont know about the rest of it,thats one of those ones where lots of things suddenly line up and you cant second guess at what point in real time youd have realised the full picture & my view is probably heavily influenced because I dont think Id have made it through that gap, so Id have chosen to brake and conceed to the volvo.

whether you think thats the right thing or not, I have enough near misses to deal with where I dont get that choice to do something differently, Im not interested in adding to the burden of those with the ones I can.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Pilot Pete wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

Driver on the road was passing on zigzags, before you even get to the reversing driver.

but overtaking a cyclist on the zig zags is not illegal.

Im all for cyclists’ safety being a higher priority and some of the videos posted on this site demonstrate truly shocking, appallingly selfish and dangerous driving. This one is not quite there in my mind.

Yes, the Volvo should leave more room when overtaking. Yes the driver should anticipate a little further ahead regarding road hazards and spot the car reversing out of the drive. Yes the reversing driver should reverse into the drive if they can to make getting back out onto the road easier and safer. Yes, that driver should consider use of a banksman if anyone else in the house was available.

But, the cyclist needs to be more aware of the hazards ahead too and adjust their riding appropriately. As cyclists we all want to maintain momentum, but sometimes that is not appropriate we need to adjust to the conditions and dynamically changing situation that is appearing ahead.

if you are looking far enough down the road using your hazard perception then earlier, safer road positioning could be achieved. In this instance, the cyclist is almost moving at the rate of the passing traffic. Why not move out with an appropriate hand signal into primary position before the overtaking car passes? Do it with confidence and purpose and the blue Volvo would have to slow and maintain his position behind the cyclist until they passed the hazard.

As this was not done the situation developed quite quickly into a ‘pinch’ for the cyclist with small quickly diminishing. Sure the Volvo should have stayed behind, but it didn’t. So why not adjust your speed to fall in behind the Volvo once it had started it’s inappropriate overtake? 

Yes, the driver is still a cock, but the road is full of cocks, some of them on pushbikes. It’s the real world and our cycling utopia is still a very long way from becoming reality, so we all know that a large number of drivers are going to be cocks and we are the vulnerable ones. Ride appropriately and think self preservation. Tell him he’s a cock at the traffic lights rather than trying to have the ‘I’m right’ conversation as the road space diminishes in front of you.

PP

You comment has no point other than you trying to tell me how much more technically proficient you are than the cyclist in the video, or to patronisingly give unasked-for advice to others. I don't care about your elite skills, sorry. I want safer roads, better behaviour by those who can endanger others, and hence more active travel and fewer cars. Your roadcraft skills are of no relevance to that.

Woah there fluffy, have a chill pill. As others have pointed out, it is nothing to do with ‘more technically proficient skills’, it is to do with reading the road ahead. We all see drivers who seem incapable of doing this (which is a requirement in the driving test) and this is an example of exactly that by both the drivers involved.

This lead to poor decision making by both the drivers. 

However, the cyclist could also improve his road skills by better anticipation. As is commonly banded around, no point being in the right if you end up in the ambulance on your way to A&E. I reckon if you showed a judge the footage and asked for an expert opinion about blame etc he would come to a similar conclusion.

So try not to get overheated about the cyclist always being in the right (he was) but try and use this video to learn something about real world conditions and suitable actions if you want to survive on the roads...

PP

ktache wrote:

When reversing out of driveways it's OK to drive over ank kill old people

https://thelincolnite.co.uk/2019/03/woman-cleared-of-killing-pensioner-w...

but not always,

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-32504804

but of course, that one was foolish, had proper remorse and actually plead guilty.

And your point is ?

Is that the cycling equivalent of Jeremy Clarkson talking about cyclists.

nicmason wrote:

ktache wrote:

When reversing out of driveways it's OK to drive over ank kill old people

https://thelincolnite.co.uk/2019/03/woman-cleared-of-killing-pensioner-w...

but not always,

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-32504804

but of course, that one was foolish, had proper remorse and actually plead guilty.

 

And your point is ?

Is that the cycling equivalent of Jeremy Clarkson talking about cyclists.

My point is that when drivers are reversing out of driveways they might want to pay a bit of attention.  They are driving over pavements and into carriageways.