Blue Mini HS03 FXF

[BentMikey]

Well said, Night Train. Good analysis, thank you.

 

[BSRU]

As a driver, here is my take on the video and what it appears to show me.

The Mini should not have over taken the OP at that point. The op was at a junction with a minor road and there were hatchings warning of a hazard, the approaching right turn lane.

Although the overtake would have been legal and on its own would not have been an issue it was unnecessary as the Mini was going to turn left immediately after the over take.

However, given the overtake of the OP the Mini was accelerating to overtake at a point where it should have been slowing for the junction.

The Mini was then too fast for the junction and was left undecided as to whether to emergency brake and turn after the parent cyclist had passed the junction or to accellerate and over take again before turning left.
The hesitation caused the proximity of the parent cyclist to have moved too close to the junction for either option to have been appropriate. The Mini should then have either stopped to let the parent cyclist clear the junction first or carry on ahead and miss the turn.


The Mini was at fault for initiating an over take that was unnecessary and also not making good observation of the road ahead to spot and allow for the parent cyclist who would have been visible. The actions of the Mini put the parent cyclist at risk due to a 'left hook' and overtaking at a junction.

It could also be considered a close pass as if there had been traffic looking to emerge from the junction the parent cyclist may have been looking to take primary position which would have lead to a collision with the overtaking Mini.

Were I to be driving the Mini, based on what I can see in the video, I would have been slowing early for both the hazard markings and the left turn and waited behind the OP and turned left without an overtake as it would have been the safest course of action.

+1

Also if the mini had been driving within the designated speed limit for that road there would have been no interaction with the parent cyclist.

 

[ufkacbln]

[QUOTE 1359660"]
If you are going to cut n paste hugh swaths of the HC, please make sure it is relevant (again).

Rule 166, I don't know why you have posted this rule. You can see from the vid that the junction is open and the road is straight.

Rule 167 'might' being the key word here. The driver did not come into conflict with the cyclist because the cyclist did not have to change speed or direction. Unless you can give me your own defintion of confict - just make sure it is relevant please.

Ta mulchy.
[/quote]

Rule 166 clearly states that the maneouvre should not have been carried out. The fact is was shows a stupid, incompetent and impatient driver.

Surely not difficult?

 

[BSRU]

Rule 166 clearly states that the maneouvre should not have been carried out. The fact is was shows a stupid, incompetent and impatient driver.

Surely not difficult?

Unfortunately and stupidly as it sounds, if the Highway Code states "should not" then it is not actually illegal to do it, it only has any bearing in apportioning blame after a collision.

 

[yello]

It wasn't ideal, but I wouldn't call that a left hook. Maybe I have become brutalised by London.

That was my take on it too.

Tbh, I was expecting to be outraged from the comments I read before viewing the video. I wasn't. In fact, I thought the driver gave the OP plenty of space on the overtake! Nice and safe from that perspective... though not the cleverest of places TO overtake truth told.

The left hook; I personally thought it arguably as much an overtake as a left hook. The road seems to bend to the left before the junction and I think that the car is past the cyclist before entering the junction... though it is close. The space the car gives the cyclist maybe exaggerates the left turn.

My initial concern from my single viewing of the video was the driver's speed. I don't know what the speed limit is along there but the driver seems to be nipping along a bit... perhaps too fast for the conditions even if within the limit. I personally would have thought that 2 cyclists and 2 junctions would have given the driver cause to back off.

I'd be interested to see what the police think.

 

[DrSquirrel]

All these arguments for this incident, saying its not a problem needs to consider this...


If you did this on a test - would you fail? Yes, straight away.


Would probably fail for all the flapping about before the junction incident anyway.

 

[Paul_L]

two quick points having read all the posts and seen the video a couple of times;

1 - Yes there are worse left hooks but anyone prepared to do what this idiot did will also do worse.

2 - If the driver hadn't have been so occupied with abusing the OP, he might have been paying attention to the 2nd cyclist.

At best, driving without due care and attention, at worst dangerous driving.

Any update from plod?

 

[Rebel Ian]

It's quite amusing reading posters getting into "official" definitions of a left hook, relative braking distances or bike versus car and hurling sections of the HC back and forth at each other.

I just looked at the video and thought that's not an overtaking manouevre I'd have gone for past either of the two cyclists. And I drive a BMW!

 

[downfader]

Rule 130, diagonal stripes bordered by a broken line you should not enter the area unless necessary.

I dont think theres any conflict with 130 on this one within the bounds of overtaking the first cyclist (BSRU) had the driver been driving further down the road and there had not been another cyclist present. IMO 130 being used could be a bit of a grey area as there are stronger rules broken as Cunobelin pointed out, rules that are more important to the situation presented.

Unfortunately and stupidly as it sounds, if the Highway Code states "should not" then it is not actually illegal to do it, it only has any bearing in apportioning blame after a collision.

The highway code isnt all law, as we all know. However the rules can and have been used to demonstrate poor driving. The Police and courts have used said rules to show how behaviour and personality can cause problems, as have road safety groups. Its a set of guides for best practice to avoid conflict and trouble and even injury.

 

[Mr Celine]

[QUOTE 1359682"]


Because they are signalling their intention to the lady on the bike.
[/quote]

The driver was not signalling an intention because the lady on the bike could not see the signal until after the maneouvre had started.

 

[yello]

If you did this on a test - would you fail? Yes, straight away.

You're posing and answering your own question there but, not being a driving instructor/test examiner, I personally wouldn't know. However I suspect it would be source for comment in any event!

 

[yello]

Any examiner worth his salt would say "stop the car and give me the keys"

Worth your salt! If you're a driver instructor or examiner then I'll happily accept your qualified opinion! As I said, personally I have no idea but it'd certainly be a discussion point (as it is here!).

 

[DrSquirrel]

Worth your salt! If you're a driver instructor or examiner then I'll happily accept your qualified opinion! As I said, personally I have no idea but it'd certainly be a discussion point (as it is here!).

It's fair to say that common sense prevails here, we don't need experts to tell us this would fail you - although if you're willing to try it on a test then go ahead.

 

[yello]

It's fair to say that common sense prevails here, we don't need experts to tell us this would fail you - although if you're willing to try it on a test then go ahead.

Common sense is not that common at all - as that driver illustrates! If an examiner/instructor wants to give us their professional opinion then I for one will more than happily accept that. Until then it remains conjecture.

I wouldn't drive like that, test or no, but that's not the issue here.

 

[DrSquirrel]

You wouldn't drive your test like that? Because you might fail?


Grasp them straws... tightly...