Near Miss of the Day 337: Driver pulls out in front of ‘invisible’ cyclist

Mungecrundle wrote:

Would be interesting to know what it was that finally alerted the driver to make an emergency stop? It is impossible to discount that the cyclist's light or hi viz clothing finally caught their attention, though I do suspect that it might have been the motorcycle being in a road position where a driver is more likely to be focusing attention. In any event, the cyclist here seemed to have the situation under control. Nice one.

Maybe the driver finished messaging ("Be home soon, love you!") and actually looked around... 

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

"It’s gloomy footage and the obvious question is did Astrit have lights?"

Is it, why, based on the video quality? It's clearly daylight, the street lights are not lit so there's no requirement to have lights, so you're wrong to ask that as an obvious question, the answer by the cyclist is totally irrelevant, the motorist is 100% in the wrong whether they had lights/hi-vis or not, what is the bloody matter with you!

You can't go by the street light being on or off for daylight. The law in ontario Canada is half hour before after sunrise or sunset. If the bike never had his lights on with is also the law for bikes then he be at fault a bike has to follow the same rules as a car in Ontario

Mybike wrote:

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

"It’s gloomy footage and the obvious question is did Astrit have lights?"

Is it, why, based on the video quality? It's clearly daylight, the street lights are not lit so there's no requirement to have lights, so you're wrong to ask that as an obvious question, the answer by the cyclist is totally irrelevant, the motorist is 100% in the wrong whether they had lights/hi-vis or not, what is the bloody matter with you!

You can't go by the street light being on or off for daylight. The law in ontario Canada is half hour before after sunrise or sunset. If the bike never had his lights on with is also the law for bikes then he be at fault a bike has to follow the same rules as a car in Ontario

I know it sounds crazy, but a bike in England doesn't have to follow the rules for a car in Ontario. I was shocked when I found out.

FrankH wrote:

Mybike wrote:

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

"It’s gloomy footage and the obvious question is did Astrit have lights?"

Is it, why, based on the video quality? It's clearly daylight, the street lights are not lit so there's no requirement to have lights, so you're wrong to ask that as an obvious question, the answer by the cyclist is totally irrelevant, the motorist is 100% in the wrong whether they had lights/hi-vis or not, what is the bloody matter with you!

You can't go by the street light being on or off for daylight. The law in ontario Canada is half hour before after sunrise or sunset. If the bike never had his lights on with is also the law for bikes then he be at fault a bike has to follow the same rules as a car in Ontario

I know it sounds crazy, but a bike in England doesn't have to follow the rules for a car in Ontario. I was shocked when I found out.

It doesn't?

**starts removing the "I'm sorry" stickers and unhitches the barrel of maple syrup**

Mybike wrote:

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

"It’s gloomy footage and the obvious question is did Astrit have lights?"

Is it, why, based on the video quality? It's clearly daylight, the street lights are not lit so there's no requirement to have lights, so you're wrong to ask that as an obvious question, the answer by the cyclist is totally irrelevant, the motorist is 100% in the wrong whether they had lights/hi-vis or not, what is the bloody matter with you!

You can't go by the street light being on or off for daylight. The law in ontario Canada is half hour before after sunrise or sunset. If the bike never had his lights on with is also the law for bikes then he be at fault a bike has to follow the same rules as a car in Ontario

I didn't realise East Finchley tube station was in Ontario.

Mybike wrote:

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

"It’s gloomy footage and the obvious question is did Astrit have lights?"

Is it, why, based on the video quality? It's clearly daylight, the street lights are not lit so there's no requirement to have lights, so you're wrong to ask that as an obvious question, the answer by the cyclist is totally irrelevant, the motorist is 100% in the wrong whether they had lights/hi-vis or not, what is the bloody matter with you!

You can't go by the street light being on or off for daylight. The law in ontario Canada is half hour before after sunrise or sunset. If the bike never had his lights on with is also the law for bikes then he be at fault a bike has to follow the same rules as a car in Ontario

well a backward victim blaming society such as Canada would blame the cyclist for someone pulling out on them in such conditions when there is absolutely no requirement to have lights to be able to see.

Any ordinary human being with eyesight good enough to actually see can see another road user without theat road user being lit up, if you can't then you should never be on the roads either on a bike or in a motorised vehicle. Show me some proof that having a light (which the cyclist had) and/or hi-vis (cyclist also wearing) makes any difference to safety?

As with your near neighbours, your countries and indeed citizens viewpoint on safety is massively flawed, that's why despite increased helmet wearing and compulsary wearing in some provinces cycling deaths/injuries have not reduced despite other interventions occuring at the same time! That's why cyclists will continue to be victim blamed and get killed/injure whilst being blamed by police for it when in actual fact the blame lies solely with those that crashed into them.

I presume you know that police/emergency vehicles get crashed into on a massively regular basis as do people on bikes despite hi-vis and flashy lights etc, why is that if they are so effective?

The _Kaner wrote:

Irrespective of not 'noticing the cyclist', he was cutting it close to taking out the motor scooter that passed as well.

True. Disco Dick doesn't come to a full stop until 7 seconds, and the motorbike is level with his front end just 2 seconds after that. Given their relative speeds, if he'd continued his move, he'd have had one injured cyclist and one possibly dead motorcyclist on his hands.

pockstone wrote:

The _Kaner wrote:

Irrespective of not 'noticing the cyclist', he was cutting it close to taking out the motor scooter that passed as well.

True. Disco Dick doesn't come to a full stop until 7 seconds, and the motorbike is level with his front end just 2 seconds after that. Given their relative speeds, if he'd continued his move, he'd have had one injured cyclist and one possibly dead motorcyclist on his hands.

 

And if your Uncle had tits he'd be your Auntie.

Argus Tuft wrote:

pockstone wrote:

The _Kaner wrote:

Irrespective of not 'noticing the cyclist', he was cutting it close to taking out the motor scooter that passed as well.

True. Disco Dick doesn't come to a full stop until 7 seconds, and the motorbike is level with his front end just 2 seconds after that. Given their relative speeds, if he'd continued his move, he'd have had one injured cyclist and one possibly dead motorcyclist on his hands.

 

And if your Uncle had tits he'd be your Auntie.

Possibly true, and if the driver (maybe somebody's uncle, maybe somebody's auntie) had taken the time to look they wouldn't have made both the cyclist and the motorcyclist take evasive action.

Just because nobody gets hit doesn't make shit driving OK.

pockstone wrote:

Argus Tuft wrote:

pockstone wrote:

The _Kaner wrote:

Irrespective of not 'noticing the cyclist', he was cutting it close to taking out the motor scooter that passed as well.

True. Disco Dick doesn't come to a full stop until 7 seconds, and the motorbike is level with his front end just 2 seconds after that. Given their relative speeds, if he'd continued his move, he'd have had one injured cyclist and one possibly dead motorcyclist on his hands.

 

And if your Uncle had tits he'd be your Auntie.

Possibly true, and if the driver (maybe somebody's uncle, maybe somebody's auntie) had taken the time to look they wouldn't have made both the cyclist and the motorcyclist take evasive action.

Just because nobody gets hit doesn't make shit driving OK.

Show me where I said it was OK. When you're trying to deal with a driving event leave "if" out of it.Assess the situation as it occurred. Anything else is speculation

Argus Tuft wrote:

pockstone wrote:

Argus Tuft wrote:

pockstone wrote:

The _Kaner wrote:

Irrespective of not 'noticing the cyclist', he was cutting it close to taking out the motor scooter that passed as well.

True. Disco Dick doesn't come to a full stop until 7 seconds, and the motorbike is level with his front end just 2 seconds after that. Given their relative speeds, if he'd continued his move, he'd have had one injured cyclist and one possibly dead motorcyclist on his hands.

 

And if your Uncle had tits he'd be your Auntie.

Possibly true, and if the driver (maybe somebody's uncle, maybe somebody's auntie) had taken the time to look they wouldn't have made both the cyclist and the motorcyclist take evasive action.

Just because nobody gets hit doesn't make shit driving OK.

Show me where I said it was OK. When you're trying to deal with a driving event leave "if" out of it.Assess the situation as it occurred. Anything else is speculation

OK , Facts. Driver pulls out of junction without proper observation. Has to make enough of an emergency stop to dip the front end. Ends up making two road users take evasive action. (The scooter seemed to be riding pretty wide) Shit driving. I'm sure we can agree on that.

One problem with such driving, and close overtakes particularly, is that it doesn't take into account a lot of 'ifs' like potholes and grates that may cause a cyclist to lose control, or wet and slick surfaces that may make it harder to stop than expected. You're right that the 'if s' are irrelevant after the fact, but a good driver should have them in mind before the fact.

hirsute wrote:

Obviously the view of him was obstructed by the street bollard - ride further out !

I'm hoping that was ironic.  The driver joining the road has an absolute duty to make sure that there is no traffic on the main road; there is also the little clue of the cycle lane right in front of them.  The cyclist had lights and hi-viz, but was still invisible.  Either their eyesight is not good enough to be allowed to drive, or they aren't competent to drive.

burtthebike wrote:

I'm hoping that was ironic.

Well the first bit I thought was obviously ironic given the bollard is below window height.  Drivers come up with all sorts of bollocks though

I would have riden a bit further out to give a bit more escape room in case of someone failing to give way. This has saved me a few times (twice by a few cm).

hirsute wrote:

Obviously the view of him was obstructed by the street bollard - ride further out !

Except the driver has a clear view to his right, and isn't level with the bollard until 4 seconds into the video. (By which time he has already overshot the junction.)  Even then his eyeline appears to be above the bollard.

Drivers who approach junctions too fast like this regularly scare the shit out of me, and this driver proves that I'm scared with good reason.

I've had exactly the same happen to me, I suspect deliberately, only going downhill at some speed.

There should be a maximum approach speed to give way and stop lines.

pockstone wrote:

Drivers who approach junctions too fast like this regularly scare the shit out of me, and this driver proves that I'm scared with good reason.

Someone at work said they found their children's driving to be scary based on their approach speed to junctions, but apparently it is how they are taught these days (anyone able to confirm or deny this ?).

This is why I'm nearly always central at these sorts of junctions.

hirsute wrote:

pockstone wrote:

Drivers who approach junctions too fast like this regularly scare the shit out of me, and this driver proves that I'm scared with good reason.

Someone at work said they found their children's driving to be scary based on their approach speed to junctions, but apparently it is how they are taught these days (anyone able to confirm or deny this ?).

This is why I'm nearly always central at these sorts of junctions.

There's not a lot of the finer skills taught.Stop behind the line,of course. Harsh braking resulting from too fast an approach would be a minor error. Wheel lockup,a fail. Very basic stuff.

Argus Tuft wrote:

hirsute wrote:

pockstone wrote:

Drivers who approach junctions too fast like this regularly scare the shit out of me, and this driver proves that I'm scared with good reason.

Someone at work said they found their children's driving to be scary based on their approach speed to junctions, but apparently it is how they are taught these days (anyone able to confirm or deny this ?).

This is why I'm nearly always central at these sorts of junctions.

There's not a lot of the finer skills taught.Stop behind the line,of course. Harsh braking resulting from too fast an approach would be a minor error. Wheel lockup,a fail. Very basic stuff.

Thanks, I have to say I have noticed a lot more faster approaches to junctions than there used to, so it kinda made sense. Then again, it could simply be confirmation bias.

hirsute wrote:

pockstone wrote:

Drivers who approach junctions too fast like this regularly scare the shit out of me, and this driver proves that I'm scared with good reason.

Someone at work said they found their children's driving to be scary based on their approach speed to junctions, but apparently it is how they are taught these days (anyone able to confirm or deny this ?).

This is why I'm nearly always central at these sorts of junction .

Judging by a lot of driving I see, they don't get taught very much at all.

Sorry I missed your (subtle) irony earlier, and yes, it doesnt hurt to ride wide to be seen, especially with badly placed street furniture like the railings in the video.