Nearly bumped a cyclist. What could I have done differently?
Discussion
And I'd not been in the car two minutes.
I was gently pulling up to the stopline at a junction from a minor to a major road, visibility seriously curtailed on both sides by terraced houses (you can't see up the pavement for more than about five feet before you've all but stopped). I was already on the brakes when The Paper Boy Wonder comes flying across the junction (on the pavement, naturally) and >just< misses the nose of my car. By inches, if that.
Now, he's an idiot - there's no doubt about that. However, I also have no doubt that if I were to have clobbered him one, and it were to proceed before the beak or higher, I'd get it in the shorts.
I'm not really sure if there was an observational failing on my part, but if there was, I'd like to know about it so that I can sort it out.
I was gently pulling up to the stopline at a junction from a minor to a major road, visibility seriously curtailed on both sides by terraced houses (you can't see up the pavement for more than about five feet before you've all but stopped). I was already on the brakes when The Paper Boy Wonder comes flying across the junction (on the pavement, naturally) and >just< misses the nose of my car. By inches, if that.
Now, he's an idiot - there's no doubt about that. However, I also have no doubt that if I were to have clobbered him one, and it were to proceed before the beak or higher, I'd get it in the shorts.
I'm not really sure if there was an observational failing on my part, but if there was, I'd like to know about it so that I can sort it out.
If you were moving so slowly that your movement was irrelevant to his judgement then this isn't as close a miss as it seems is it? After all he missed the wall by inches and no doubt the granny on the pavement down the road by centimetres so you were effectively a stationary object for him?
For you to be in line with the pavement you must have been nearly at the stop line, so nearly stationary.
For you to be in line with the pavement you must have been nearly at the stop line, so nearly stationary.
CommanderJameson said:
And I'd not been in the car two minutes.
I was gently pulling up to the stopline at a junction from a minor to a major road, visibility seriously curtailed on both sides by terraced houses (you can't see up the pavement for more than about five feet before you've all but stopped). I was already on the brakes when The Paper Boy Wonder comes flying across the junction (on the pavement, naturally) and >just< misses the nose of my car. By inches, if that.
Now, he's an idiot - there's no doubt about that. However, I also have no doubt that if I were to have clobbered him one, and it were to proceed before the beak or higher, I'd get it in the shorts.
I'm not really sure if there was an observational failing on my part, but if there was, I'd like to know about it so that I can sort it out.
It sounds as if you did take all reasonable care. The only thing I can suggest is to be alert to the possibility of getting some kind of advance warning by using reflections - if any are available - otherwise approach the stop line extremely slowly, which maybe you were doing. Damned cyclists though!! I was gently pulling up to the stopline at a junction from a minor to a major road, visibility seriously curtailed on both sides by terraced houses (you can't see up the pavement for more than about five feet before you've all but stopped). I was already on the brakes when The Paper Boy Wonder comes flying across the junction (on the pavement, naturally) and >just< misses the nose of my car. By inches, if that.
Now, he's an idiot - there's no doubt about that. However, I also have no doubt that if I were to have clobbered him one, and it were to proceed before the beak or higher, I'd get it in the shorts.
I'm not really sure if there was an observational failing on my part, but if there was, I'd like to know about it so that I can sort it out.
Had there been an impact and a court appearance, I think you ought to have come out of it OK, but one can never be sure.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
I jest, I jest.
I'd probably call that a cyclist almost bumping you rather than the other way round.I hate when this happens, it's so stupid and idiotic by the cyclist. It's very dangerous.
The worst ones are the idiots who you see on the path, and then as you pull up to the junction to prevent them having to stop they hop off the pavement and go across the road in front of you. Idiots. Almost as bad as the cyclists who ride two abreast. And I say this as a keen cyclist myself.
Anyway, to answer you question, I don't think you could have done anything differently tbh. You can't compensate for every idiot you encounter whilst driving.
The worst ones are the idiots who you see on the path, and then as you pull up to the junction to prevent them having to stop they hop off the pavement and go across the road in front of you. Idiots. Almost as bad as the cyclists who ride two abreast. And I say this as a keen cyclist myself.
Anyway, to answer you question, I don't think you could have done anything differently tbh. You can't compensate for every idiot you encounter whilst driving.
Well, I nearly bumped a cyclist the other day, when it really would have been my fault. I felt terrible about it. Situation, night time, I was turning right across opposing traffic, after waiting for one car towards me to pass, I thought there was a good gap to the next car, and started to move. Only at a very late stage did I see a cyclist riding towards me; I made a sudden stop, and the cyclist continued on his way probably completely unaware that I nearly knocked him off. My only excuse is that - I am nearly sure - the cyclist did not have lights on. So the situation was that I failed to see an unlit cycle against the background of a car with headlights on. There was some ambient lighting (for those who know it I was turning right from the Outer Circle of Regent's Park into Baker Street). I thought I was driving with a normal good level of care and attention.
Moral of the story? Think Bike.
Moral of the story? Think Bike.
waremark said:
Well, I nearly bumped a cyclist the other day, when it really would have been my fault. I felt terrible about it. Situation, night time, I was turning right across opposing traffic, after waiting for one car towards me to pass, I thought there was a good gap to the next car, and started to move. Only at a very late stage did I see a cyclist riding towards me; I made a sudden stop, and the cyclist continued on his way probably completely unaware that I nearly knocked him off. My only excuse is that - I am nearly sure - the cyclist did not have lights on. So the situation was that I failed to see an unlit cycle against the background of a car with headlights on. There was some ambient lighting (for those who know it I was turning right from the Outer Circle of Regent's Park into Baker Street). I thought I was driving with a normal good level of care and attention.
Moral of the story? Think Bike.
Depending on the level of the ambient lighting, it might have been one of those situations where it would have been better for you if the oncomer had been driving on sidelights, rather than using headlights. You might then have more readily seen the cyclist.Moral of the story? Think Bike.
This sort of incident reinforces my feeling that it is wrong to say that if lights are being used at all, nothing less than dipped headlights should ever be used.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
7db said:
p1esk said:
This sort of incident reinforces my feeling that it is wrong to say that if lights are being used at all, nothing less than dipped headlights should ever be used.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
If the bike had dipped headlights, surely Mark would have seen him more readily.Best wishes all,
Dave.
I was suggesting that if oncoming cars in the vicinity had used sidelights only (assuming the level of ambient lighting was good enough) and not dipped headlights, the cyclist would have been more easily seen. I was wondering if the glare from the cars using dipped headlights masked the presence of the cyclist.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
No misunderstanding.
The cyclist should light himself up like a christmas tree (although arguably at this time of year, in that part of London, that would count as good camouflage).
The lighting situation is a multilateral arms race. It's never going to benefit one individual to lower his luminescence if he can legally raise it.
The cyclist should light himself up like a christmas tree (although arguably at this time of year, in that part of London, that would count as good camouflage).
The lighting situation is a multilateral arms race. It's never going to benefit one individual to lower his luminescence if he can legally raise it.
7db said:
No misunderstanding.
The cyclist should light himself up like a christmas tree (although arguably at this time of year, in that part of London, that would count as good camouflage).
The lighting situation is a multilateral arms race. It's never going to benefit one individual to lower his luminescence if he can legally raise it.
I agree it would be better if cyclists were to be well lit, but many of them are not; so then what is it best for the rest of us to do?The cyclist should light himself up like a christmas tree (although arguably at this time of year, in that part of London, that would count as good camouflage).
The lighting situation is a multilateral arms race. It's never going to benefit one individual to lower his luminescence if he can legally raise it.
What I'm suggesting is that Mark's situation was made more difficult for him by virtue of the fact that cars travelling towards him had dipped headlights on. This presumably suited them, but it made it more difficult for Mark to see the cyclist against the background of glare created by their headlights.
More light is not always better - certainly not better for everybody.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
DB - great comment, it would certainly have helped if the cyclist had dipped headlights!!
Other D - you are probably right that I would have had more chance of seeing this guy if the cars around were on sidelights only, but you are fighting a losing battle. Powered vehicle drivers now all use dipped headlights, but as drivers we still have to look out for unlit objects on the road.
I have been back to Regents Park in the dark, and watched the bikes. The ones with flashing front lights show up very well even thought the lights are small. Ones without lights really don't show up well at all. Personally, I own an embarassing fluorescent yellow jacket with reflective stripes which I wear when dog-walking at dusk or at night - the reflective stripes are amazingly effective.
But even though the guy had no lights, let alone a reflective jacket, it would have been mostly my fault if I had hit him.
Other D - you are probably right that I would have had more chance of seeing this guy if the cars around were on sidelights only, but you are fighting a losing battle. Powered vehicle drivers now all use dipped headlights, but as drivers we still have to look out for unlit objects on the road.
I have been back to Regents Park in the dark, and watched the bikes. The ones with flashing front lights show up very well even thought the lights are small. Ones without lights really don't show up well at all. Personally, I own an embarassing fluorescent yellow jacket with reflective stripes which I wear when dog-walking at dusk or at night - the reflective stripes are amazingly effective.
But even though the guy had no lights, let alone a reflective jacket, it would have been mostly my fault if I had hit him.
CommanderJameson said:
And I'd not been in the car two minutes.
I was gently pulling up to the stopline at a junction from a minor to a major road, visibility seriously curtailed on both sides by terraced houses (you can't see up the pavement for more than about five feet before you've all but stopped). I was already on the brakes when The Paper Boy Wonder comes flying across the junction (on the pavement, naturally) and >just< misses the nose of my car. By inches, if that.
Now, he's an idiot - there's no doubt about that. However, I also have no doubt that if I were to have clobbered him one, and it were to proceed before the beak or higher, I'd get it in the shorts.
I'm not really sure if there was an observational failing on my part, but if there was, I'd like to know about it so that I can sort it out.
I should think this has happened to all of us at some time in our driving careers, my friend. A very similar thing happened to me only a couple of months ago at a mini-roundabout: I checked nearside mirror on approach and there was nothing there. Exiting the junction I checked it again and there was some stupid kid on a pushbike trying to undertake me. No impact fortunately, but like you I had taken all reasonable precautions to ensure that my actions were safe. Can only assume he was in the blind spot when the mirror was initially checked. There is simply nothing you can do about it, so don't feel guilty - it's just one of those things.I was gently pulling up to the stopline at a junction from a minor to a major road, visibility seriously curtailed on both sides by terraced houses (you can't see up the pavement for more than about five feet before you've all but stopped). I was already on the brakes when The Paper Boy Wonder comes flying across the junction (on the pavement, naturally) and >just< misses the nose of my car. By inches, if that.
Now, he's an idiot - there's no doubt about that. However, I also have no doubt that if I were to have clobbered him one, and it were to proceed before the beak or higher, I'd get it in the shorts.
I'm not really sure if there was an observational failing on my part, but if there was, I'd like to know about it so that I can sort it out.
waremark said:
DB - great comment, it would certainly have helped if the cyclist had dipped headlights!!
Other D - you are probably right that I would have had more chance of seeing this guy if the cars around were on sidelights only, but you are fighting a losing battle.
My speciality, y'know.Other D - you are probably right that I would have had more chance of seeing this guy if the cars around were on sidelights only, but you are fighting a losing battle.
....and I might not end up losing all of them.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
had a really close call with a cyclist the other day. he had earphones in and was paying no antention whatsoever. pulled out of a junction in town right in front of me first of all. I was going slowly so that wasnt too much of a close call, then as theres a stretch of clear road I moved out gave lots of space and started to accelarete past him. Then al of a sudden as i drew alongside him he decides to ride over to the other side of the road! had to almost completly stop on the oposite side of the road! he didnt notice until i beeped at him and then he nearly fell off as he was looking at my car wilst mounting the pavement. i just gave him the finger and the car following some distance behind allso shouted "pull your headphones out" and then some other choice words. most of them are ok but theres always the odd one that thinks their the only person on the road.
[quote=Live It]I hate Almost as bad as the cyclists who ride two abreast. And I say this as a keen cyclist myself.
Sorry to hijack thread but what's wrong with riding two abreast? I say this as a keen cyclist and a keen motorist? It's perfectly legal (most of the times - there are specific exceptions). I often do this although I will pull out of other road users way if I feel it would be inconsiderate to remain there. I think it's a case of being considerate to other road users and consider how you would like to be treated if the situation were reversed.
Sorry to hijack thread but what's wrong with riding two abreast? I say this as a keen cyclist and a keen motorist? It's perfectly legal (most of the times - there are specific exceptions). I often do this although I will pull out of other road users way if I feel it would be inconsiderate to remain there. I think it's a case of being considerate to other road users and consider how you would like to be treated if the situation were reversed.
Tomatogti said:
Live It said:
I hate Almost as bad as the cyclists who ride two abreast. And I say this as a keen cyclist myself.
Sorry to hijack thread but what's wrong with riding two abreast? I say this as a keen cyclist and a keen motorist? It's perfectly legal (most of the times - there are specific exceptions). I often do this although I will pull out of other road users way if I feel it would be inconsiderate to remain there. I think it's a case of being considerate to other road users and consider how you would like to be treated if the situation were reversed.
I wouldn't consider it a good move in most situations.Sorry to hijack thread but what's wrong with riding two abreast? I say this as a keen cyclist and a keen motorist? It's perfectly legal (most of the times - there are specific exceptions). I often do this although I will pull out of other road users way if I feel it would be inconsiderate to remain there. I think it's a case of being considerate to other road users and consider how you would like to be treated if the situation were reversed.
Most of the time there is a largeish speed differential between you and cars, its ok unless the road is narrow (I'd define narrow as being you'll force anything that wants to pass you into conflict with oncoming traffic), or busy.
And as for groups of the
kersEdited by Nigel Worc's on Wednesday 31st March 22:34
Nigel Worc's said:
Tomatogti said:
Live It said:
I hate Almost as bad as the cyclists who ride two abreast. And I say this as a keen cyclist myself.
Sorry to hijack thread but what's wrong with riding two abreast? I say this as a keen cyclist and a keen motorist? It's perfectly legal (most of the times - there are specific exceptions). I often do this although I will pull out of other road users way if I feel it would be inconsiderate to remain there. I think it's a case of being considerate to other road users and consider how you would like to be treated if the situation were reversed.
I wouldn't consider it a good move in most situations.Sorry to hijack thread but what's wrong with riding two abreast? I say this as a keen cyclist and a keen motorist? It's perfectly legal (most of the times - there are specific exceptions). I often do this although I will pull out of other road users way if I feel it would be inconsiderate to remain there. I think it's a case of being considerate to other road users and consider how you would like to be treated if the situation were reversed.
Most of the time there is a largeish speed differential between you and cars, its ok unless the road is narrow (I'd define narrow as being you'll force anything that wants to pass you into conflict with oncoming traffic), or busy.
And as for groups of the
kersEdited by Nigel Worc's on Wednesday 31st March 22:34
CommanderJameson said:
And I'd not been in the car two minutes.
I was gently pulling up to the stopline at a junction from a minor to a major road, visibility seriously curtailed on both sides by terraced houses (you can't see up the pavement for more than about five feet before you've all but stopped).
I was gently pulling up to the stopline at a junction from a minor to a major road, visibility seriously curtailed on both sides by terraced houses (you can't see up the pavement for more than about five feet before you've all but stopped).
- BEEEP* That's what your horn is for. With restricted visability it's a legitimate way of alerting other road users to you presence. Expect some will disagree though.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff