One lucky cyclist.

[Cyclone 10]

Is it even possible to overtake a cyclist, without the possibility of them moving in such a way (e.g. sharply braking and or a sharp turn in to the road) that would cause a collision?

 

If you are entirely on the other side of the road, like you would be for overtaking a car, then you'd done it correctly. If they manage to get in front of you in that situation, then there is unlikely to be any doubt about fault.

 

Unless of course they signal to turn right and you try to overtake them anyway (as has happened to me).

 

---------- Post added 02-03-2016 at 09:46 ----------

 

 

Indeed, had there not been the centre bollards there and he'd have done the same manoeuvre, there still would have been a near miss. Or do you think I should drive on the opposite side of the road towards oncoming traffic to pass a cyclist?

 

YES.... Good God man, read the highway code.

 

Overtake a cycle LIKE YOU WOULD A CAR.

 

---------- Post added 02-03-2016 at 09:48 ----------

 

At the moment the cyclist swerved in front of the car the car was NOT overtaking it was behind it. neither was it commencing to overtake.

IF the cyclist had continued on his way there was sufficient room for the car to pass him, as I said, giving him a wide berth NOT in an inappropriate place, there was plenty of room in the other lane to pass safely.

 

If what you are saying is true then there should be no reason for the car to react at all.

It should not ever be intending to occupy that space. That wobble space that the cyclist might need (called the dynamic envelope in that how to drive video I posted).

 

Clearly it WAS intending to occupy that space, and THAT is why the car driver was in the wrong.

 

---------- Post added 02-03-2016 at 09:49 ----------

 

Being under the speed limit does not somehow mean you were not going too fast.

 

You were approaching the cyclist rapidly, at a point where the road narrowed, and intending to pass the cycle without correctly moving out.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Cyclone

[davyboy 19]

Is that what you do?...Regardless if there's no oncoming traffic, that's dangerous!

 

There was NO oncoming traffic in opposite lane.It would enable you/me to overtake the cyclist giving plenty of room between you /me and the bike.

How can that be dangerous?

 

---------- Post added 02-03-2016 at 10:03 ----------

 

If you are entirely on the other side of the road, like you would be for overtaking a car, then you'd done it correctly. If they manage to get in front of you in that situation, then there is unlikely to be any doubt about fault.

 

Unless of course they signal to turn right and you try to overtake them anyway (as has happened to me).

 

---------- Post added 02-03-2016 at 09:46 ----------

 

 

YES.... Good God man, read the highway code.

 

Overtake a cycle LIKE YOU WOULD A CAR.

 

---------- Post added 02-03-2016 at 09:48 ----------

 

 

 

 

If what you are saying is true then there should be no reason for the car to react at all.

It should not ever be intending to occupy that space. That wobble space that the cyclist might need (called the dynamic envelope in that how to drive video I posted).

 

Clearly it WAS intending to occupy that space, and THAT is why the car driver was in the wrong.

 

It is not clearly intending to occupy that space as I keep pointing out there was plenty of space on the opposite lane to safely overtake

 

---------- Post added 02-03-2016 at 09:49 ----------

 

Being under the speed limit does not somehow mean you were not going too fast.

 

You were approaching the cyclist rapidly, at a point where the road narrowed, and intending to pass the cycle without correctly moving out.

The road was not narrowed the cyclist had passed the the island giving the car sufficient room to overtake by crossing into the other lane

[Cyclone 10]

The road was not narrowed the cyclist had passed the the island giving the car sufficient room to overtake by crossing into the other lane

 

I disagree. The car was only just passing the central island and had to swerve onto the hatched area quite sharply to avoid the cyclist.

 

If he'd been intending to use the other carriageway then he'd have waited and not swerved out sharply.

[PeteMorris 10]

Now you're just being daft, show me where this has been recommended.

 

Well...You might be of the opinion that it's perfectly safe to 'assume' that he's seen you and isn't going to pull out...But I'm always wary.

 

 

I really don't believe that driving in a manner that the highway code suggests will help keep other road users safer is being holier than thou. If I was a truck driver who was happy to drive in a way that would put cars drivers at risk, how would your feel?

 

Neither do I believe driving in a manner the highway code suggests is wrong. Are you saying I was utterly and completely wrong given this incident?

 

I'm suggesting the highway code is a good reference for driving, and being a cyclist, or indeed a pedestrian. But do you have it permanently embedded in your brain? Would you have referred to it in this instance? I don't believe I did much wrong. Speed definitely wasn't an issue (I was driving so I know, despite the 'appearance of the video). I checked this morning as I passed the spot, and the two rubber hoses are perhaps 8ft beyond the bollard island. Which means the cyclist was well past that point. Which is the reason I had room to move into the hatched area to avoid him recklessly pulling broadside across the road.

 

 

 

Going back to my question, how would you overtake a slow moving vehicle if you believe that it is too dangerous to move into the opposite lane to overtake?

 

No, it was your suggestion that this should be adopted when passing a cyclist...Actually it may have been someone else, but it's been suggested!

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Well...You might be of the opinion that it's perfectly safe to 'assume' that he's seen you and isn't going to pull out...But I'm always wary.

 

Neither do I believe driving in a manner the highway code suggests is wrong. Are you saying I was utterly and completely wrong given this incident?

 

I'm suggesting the highway code is a good reference for driving, and being a cyclist, or indeed a pedestrian. But do you have it permanently embedded in your brain? Would you have referred to it in this instance? I don't believe I did much wrong. Speed definitely wasn't an issue (I was driving so I know, despite the 'appearance of the video). I checked this morning as I passed the spot, and the two rubber hoses are perhaps 8ft beyond the bollard island. Which means the cyclist was well past that point. Which is the reason I had room to move into the hatched area to avoid him recklessly pulling broadside across the road.

 

 

No, it was your suggestion that this should be adopted when passing a cyclist...Actually it may have been someone else, but it's been suggested!

 

It's the highway code that suggests that you give the same space to overtake a cyclist as you would a car. This is suggested so that if a cyclist does wobble it doesn't cost them their life.

 

So if it safe to overtake a slow moving vehicle by going into the opposite lane, what is the issue about doing the same with a cyclist?

[PeteMorris 10]

It's the highway code that suggests that you give the same space to overtake a cyclist as you would a car. This is suggested so that if a cyclist does wobble it doesn't cost them their life.

 

So if it safe to overtake a slow moving vehicle by going into the opposite lane, what is the issue about doing the same with a cyclist?

 

The highway code also says this, in regard to cyclist.

 

Rule 67

You should

 

look all around before moving away from the kerb, turning or manoeuvring, to make sure it is safe to do so. Give a clear signal to show other road users what you intend to do (see ‘Signals to other road users’)

look well ahead for obstructions in the road, such as drains, pot-holes and parked vehicles so that you do not have to swerve suddenly to avoid them. Leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles and watch out for doors being opened or pedestrians stepping into your path

be aware of traffic coming up behind you

take extra care near road humps, narrowings and other traffic calming features

 

Were any of the bold statements adhered to by the cyclist?

[Eater Sundae 12]

Ummm...How do you deduce I was driving far too fast?...At no point was I exceeding the 30mph speed limit. Indeed at the point of the 'incident' I was probably doing something like 25mph..Which is the reason I was able to avoid not hitting him broadside!

 

Indeed, had there not been the centre bollards there and he'd have done the same manoeuvre, there still would have been a near miss. Or do you think I should drive on the opposite side of the road towards oncoming traffic to pass a cyclist?

 

Re bib. It depends on the width of the road as to whether or not you should be on the other side of the road. If you need to be, you would then need to wait until there was a break in oncoming traffic before you even start to overtake. Until you commit to overtaking, you should wait a safe distance behind the vehicle in front (in this case a cycle, but it applies to any other road user), and be travelling at the same speed. If you continue to catch up the road user in front before you pull out to overtake, then yes, you are travelling too fast. Which comes first, accelerate to overtake or pull out to overtake? If you are already travelling at an overtaking speed, or are accelerating to overtake while still behind the other person, and in doing so move to too close behind them to be able to stop safely, and then something untoward happens, what then?

 

What you are not supposed to do is to squeeze through close to the cyclist. You are supposed to give the cyclist some wobble room. If you had, then it wouldn't have mattered if he had wobbled or stopped or moved to the side by a foot or so, or any combination of the above.

 

Once you decide to overtake, then you pull out such that you give the vehicle a wide enough berth (the photo in the highway code gives an idea of an appropriate distance), before you accelerate and encroach on the safe gap between the back of their vehicle and the front of yours. During the manoeuvre you should at all times maintain a clear gap between you and the person you are overtaking-

While behind him, keep a safe stopping distance

While at the side of him, leave him enough "wobble" room

When in front of him, ensure a clear, safe stopping distance in front of him before you pull in.

 

In the situation in this thread, the cyclist should not have moved over without knowing it was safe to do so. However, these things happen, sometimes where the cyclist has no choice. That is why motorists are required to give cyclists a wide berth

 

IMO, the biggest concern in this thread is that you do not appear to be taking these events as an opportunity to reconsider your own actions. Is there nothing for you to learn? (...and I don't mean "don't post your dashcam footage in future").

[Cyclone 10]

Well...You might be of the opinion that it's perfectly safe to 'assume' that he's seen you and isn't going to pull out...But I'm always wary.

Clearly not, otherwise you wouldn't have been intending to pass so closely.

I don't believe I did much wrong.

Overtaking incorrectly, in the wrong place.

Speed definitely wasn't an issue (I was driving so I know, despite the 'appearance of the video). I checked this morning as I passed the spot, and the two rubber hoses are perhaps 8ft beyond the bollard island. Which means the cyclist was well past that point. Which is the reason I had room to move into the hatched area to avoid him recklessly pulling broadside across the road.

You want to make out that he isn't allowed to use the entire carriageway, when in fact he is. You should not be overtaking or intending to overtake without giving far more clearance than you demonstrated.

 

---------- Post added 02-03-2016 at 10:35 ----------

 

The highway code also says this, in regard to cyclist.

 

 

 

Were any of the bold statements adhered to by the cyclist?

 

That rule is for people setting off. He wasn't setting off.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

The highway code also says this, in regard to cyclist.

 

 

 

Were any of the bold statements adhered to by the cyclist?

 

I've said many many many times on this thread that I believe the cyclists actions were wrong, if he chose to do what he did. It was my initial reaction that he was distracted by the cyclist falling off, and moved across to turn around and help him without thinking. I could be wrong though.

 

It needs noting that he also could have wobbled as he looked over his shoulder, or for even for some other reason.

 

This is the important point, you cannot predict what other road users are going to do, so all I'm suggesting is that you should drive in a manner the reduces risk of harm if someone else does something stupid or unpredictable.

 

Should it cost a cyclist his life if his chain snaps, for example?

Edited March 2, 2016 by JFKvsNixon

[sutty27 10]

I wasn't there so I can only play devil's advocate, and obviously the cyclist should have indicated.

 

Was it a safe place for a car to overtake right after a traffic island and hatched area? From the perspective of the camera the car can only safely overtake if it enters the hatched area. Also when overtaking the cyclist the car has to assume that the cyclist may wobble, due to a pothole in the road for example, and give plenty of room.

 

I would say not, it looks to me like the motorist was in the wrong, they approached too fast and didn't anticipate the actions of the cyclist that did look over their shoulder.

 

---------- Post added 02-03-2016 at 10:44 ----------

 

No..the cyclist slowed down (unbeknownst to me..No brake lights) at the speed he was going, he should have cleared the traffic bollards long before I got there! How was I to know he was going to brake, and then turn directly into the middle of the road?

 

You should anticipate the actions of any road user you are going to overtake, you should only enter the hatched marking if it is safe to do so and is necessary, in that instance I would say it wasn't safe or necessary.

 

---------- Post added 02-03-2016 at 10:51 ----------

 

Hahaha...I wonder how I knew it would all of a sudden be my fault?...It's rubbish...you weren't there so you can't know what I was doing or thinking. Do you see me weaving all over the road? Was I speeding (FYI less than 30 mph)? The comment about no brake lights wasn't meant as a criticism, it just merely emphasised the fact that I had no idea he would slow to a stop. Had he continued (as I said) and not slowed, there was plenty of room and he would have long since cleared the island before I got along side him.

 

It was very easy to anticipate the possible actions of the cyclist, you should remember that they don't have mirrors so they are unaware of what is happening behind them, when overtaking a cyclist do it with a lot of caution.

[Eater Sundae 12]

So if a vehicle is emerging (or waiting to emerge) from a side road on your left, you'd also move to the opposite side of the road, just in case he's not noticed you, or if his foot slips off the clutch?

 

It's all very well being pious and holier than though about criticising my driving. As if I'm a dangerous lunatic on the road, when I'm not.

 

In fact, if you'd ever been in a car with me, you would know, I'm pretty much never in a hurry to get anywhere. I don't speed. Even on motorways, I never exceed the speed limit. I never exceed the speed limit in built up areas. I'm pretty much as laid back as it gets behind the wheel.

 

No I won't be giving up driving anytime soon!

 

---------- Post added 02-03-2016 at 09:36 ----------

 

 

Yes, I agree, it does 'look' like it's faster than it is...Dunno, maybe it's something to do with the wide angle lens?

 

As I have said, I was doing no more than 25mph at the point of the incident, which as I've repeatedly said, is why I was able to brake and take evasive action.

 

But the fact that you posted the video, and you thought it worth discussing, was because it was a close shave. Don't you think that you should say to yourself "Wow, that was close. I don't want that to ever happen again, as maybe the outcome will be a lot worse. Maybe in future I will hang further back until we are past the pinch point and until I am ready to pull out and overtake".

[Cyclone 10]

I bet the cyclist will take more care in the future. They came close to a potentially serious injury, not just a few scratches on the bonnet.