Double Near Miss of the Day 587: Two drivers pull out on cyclist – from opposite sides of junction (includes swearing)

With our Near Miss of the Day series now heading towards 600 videos showing motorists putting cyclists in danger, we thought we’d seen it all.

Not so, as it turns out, with this latest clip showing two drivers – one in a car, one in a van – both pulling out on a cyclist, from opposite directions, as he approaches a crossroads.

There’s a fair bit to unpack from the footage, not least how to assess where the danger is coming from.

The rider has to swerve away from the road as the motorist in the red car pulls out from the right – and then has to swerve back in as the van comes straight across at the junction.

Both motorists have come across the broken lines at the junction telling them that they should give way to traffic on the main road – our suspicion is that the driver of the third vehicle here, another white van, has flashed their lights to tell them to go, and that none of them has spotted the cyclist approaching.

The clip was sent in by road.cc user Sevenfold, who said it happened in the rain yesterday close to the village of Shenstone, which lies just south of Lichfield in Staffordshire.

“Unfortunately, the registrations are not clear enough to report,� he told us.

And perhaps keeping with the zeitgeist – see this story from earlier in the week – he added: “If you can hear any swearing, I apologise in advance.�

https://road.cc/content/news/near-mi...cyclist-283655

On 27/05/2021 11:40 am, wrote:
With our Near Miss of the Day series now heading towards 600 videos showing motorists putting cyclists in danger, we thought we’d seen it all.

Not so, as it turns out, with this latest clip showing two drivers – one in a car, one in a van – both pulling out on a cyclist, from opposite directions, as he approaches a crossroads.

There’s a fair bit to unpack from the footage, not least how to assess where the danger is coming from.

The rider has to swerve away from the road as the motorist in the red car pulls out from the right – and then has to swerve back in as the van comes straight across at the junction.

Both motorists have come across the broken lines at the junction telling them that they should give way to traffic on the main road – our suspicion is that the driver of the third vehicle here, another white van, has flashed their lights to tell them to go, and that none of them has spotted the cyclist approaching.

The clip was sent in by road.cc user Sevenfold, who said it happened in the rain yesterday close to the village of Shenstone, which lies just south of Lichfield in Staffordshire.

“Unfortunately, the registrations are not clear enough to report,� he told us.

And perhaps keeping with the zeitgeist – see this story from earlier in the week – he added: “If you can hear any swearing, I apologise in advance.�

https://road.cc/content/news/near-mi...cyclist-283655

The cyclist "had" to do those things, did he?

He couldn't possibly have braked to a halt, like a rational being would?

On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 11:40:39 AM UTC+1, wrote:
With our Near Miss of the Day series now heading towards 600 videos showing motorists putting cyclists in danger, we thought we’d seen it all.
EK Spinner | 402 posts | 7 hours ago
4 likes


This is what happens when people try to be 'polite' (or lazy) the priority order for this junction is fairly simple in the HC

1. the rider going straight through (no give ways)
2. the Van driver turning right (no give ways)
3. the van going straight on (over the giveways)
4. the car turning right

The only spanner in the works may be the timing of the arrival of the rider which may allow the big van to turn right first

But because the van driver decides to be polite (or is too lazy to turn correctly or the car has started to sweep the middle of the junction and make it too tight)

It's so simple if idiots would just follow the rules (guidelines) set out for using the roads, maybe we should have them all written down in a wee book and test them before they are allowed to drive


https://road.cc/content/news/near-mi...cyclist-283655

On 27/05/2021 02:57 pm, wrote:
On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 11:40:39 AM UTC+1, wrote:
With our Near Miss of the Day series now heading towards 600 videos showing motorists putting cyclists in danger, we thought we’d seen it all.
EK Spinner | 402 posts | 7 hours ago
4 likes


This is what happens when people try to be 'polite' (or lazy) the priority order for this junction is fairly simple in the HC

1. the rider going straight through (no give ways)
2. the Van driver turning right (no give ways)
3. the van going straight on (over the giveways)
4. the car turning right

The only spanner in the works may be the timing of the arrival of the rider which may allow the big van to turn right first

But because the van driver decides to be polite (or is too lazy to turn correctly or the car has started to sweep the middle of the junction and make it too tight)

It's so simple if idiots would just follow the rules (guidelines) set out for using the roads, maybe we should have them all written down in a wee book and test them before they are allowed to drive


https://road.cc/content/news/near-mi...cyclist-283655

It doesn't make any difference whether you are walking or riding in / on
any sort of vehicle.

When there's trouble ahead, whether it's already there is is just
unfolding before you, DO NOT move towards it on a collision vector and
at a collision speed. And do not try to stand on whatever dignity you
might erroneously feel is your entitlement. You are not entitled to run
into anything or anybody if you can avoid it, irrespective of whatever
crap you prefer to feed yourself on the subject of "right of way".

"STOP" is the best policy. Prevention is far better than cure.

Only idiots "think" otherwise.

But hey...

On Thursday, May 27, 2021 at 2:57:58 PM UTC+1, wrote:
GMBasix replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 170 posts | 4 hours ago
0 likes


AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

People take arrivals at junctions as an order but yes, does straight over the main road take precedence over turning right onto it? I can see arguments for both.

Strictly speaking, the instruction to any person - where it exists - is to give way. There is no instruction to take precedence. There is an inferred priority, not an implied priority. So somebody going straight ahead on the major road (into which people may turn from roads marked with give way signs/markings) has priority. Anybody on the major road who is turning would give way to an oncoming road user whose path they may cross.

After that, those on the roads marked with give way must give way to those already established on the major road. In its simplest form, if somebody is turning right and happens to do so before the opposing vehicle crosses their give way, the latter should give way. Prove that, though! The rule, for practical purposes, is that the right-turning vehicle needs to give way to the straight on vehicle.

https://road.cc/content/news/near-mi...cyclist-283655

On 27/05/2021 12:49, JNugent wrote:

The cyclist "had" to do those things, did he?

Well, it was obvious he "had" to take avoiding action.

He couldn't possibly have braked to a halt, like a rational being would?

He acted like any rational person and slowed down until it was obvious
that a gap was opening up behind both vehicles.

On 28/05/2021 05:58 pm, TMS320 wrote:

On 27/05/2021 12:49, JNugent wrote:

The cyclist "had" to do those things, did he?

Well, it was obvious he "had" to take avoiding action.

The best avoiding action is *always* to *cease* *moving* *towards*
*trouble* and / or a potential collision.

He couldn't possibly have braked to a halt, like a rational being would?

He acted like any rational person and slowed down until it was obvious
that a gap was opening up behind both vehicles.

If he did that, he therefore *chose* to put himself at unnecessary risk
by doing so.

Just as I would be dping in the rather unlikely scenario that I were to
continue approaching the rear of a stationary vehicle on the motorway at
70mph even after I've already seen that he is stationary.

A cyclist's attitude translated to that sort of scenario would amount to
"He's GOT to get out of my way; it's my right of way; I'm *entitled* to
do what I'm doing".

Spot the flaw in it.

On 28/05/2021 19:04, JNugent wrote:
On 28/05/2021 05:58 pm, TMS320 wrote:
On 27/05/2021 12:49, JNugent wrote:

The cyclist "had" to do those things, did he?

Well, it was obvious he "had" to take avoiding action.

The best avoiding action is *always* to *cease* *moving* *towards*
*trouble* and / or a potential collision.

The best avoiding action is to go where there is most space.

He couldn't possibly have braked to a halt, like a rational
being would?

He acted like any rational person and slowed down until it was
obvious that a gap was opening up behind both vehicles.

If he did that, he therefore *chose* to put himself at unnecessary
risk by doing so.

Oh, just in case both drivers suddenly go into reverse?

You must have a poor sense of spatial awareness and difficulty with
anticipating trajectories. That would put you in company with many drivers.

Just as I would be dping in the rather unlikely scenario that I were
to continue approaching the rear of a stationary vehicle on the
motorway at 70mph even after I've already seen that he is
stationary.

A cyclist's attitude translated to that sort of scenario would
amount to "He's GOT to get out of my way; it's my right of way; I'm
*entitled* to do what I'm doing".

Spot the flaw in it.

The flaw is that your scenario is nothing like the one above.