I nearly wacked a cyclist in my car tonight

prj45
prj45 Posts: 2,208
edited December 2008 in Commuting chat
Travelling down a 60mph road near Denham, I was doing about 40 because it was dark and I'm like that, I don't like not being able to see far enough in front of me to be able to stop (although it's obvious many drivers do not bother to drive like this).

Out of the corner of my eye I caught a very dim red flash.

Then I was about 10 meters away from a cyclist on the left hand side of the road, no lights, no high vis, practically invisible. My missus said she didn't see anything at all until we went past him. The lane was quite tight and if I hadn't seen him in time or been driving like an idiot I'm pretty sure I would've struck him.

By this time he had scrambled onto the grass verge, and I beeped my horn in what is probably a vain attempt to communicate that not all drivers drive within the scope of their headlights on such roads.

I would have liked to have stopped for a word but it wasn't really the place.
Photos - Blog - Bike
«1

Comments

  • greg66_tri_v2.0
    greg66_tri_v2.0 Posts: 7,172
    Hunker down. This could get ugly.
    Swim. Bike. Run. Yeah. That's what I used to do.

    Bike 1
    Bike 2-A
  • lost_in_thought
    lost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    He was lucky... I don't think I have ever known of anyone else driving at 40 in a 60... ever.
    FCN 7/1
    Viner Maxima, Tifosi CK7, Giant Bowery, Old commuter.
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    edited December 2008
    Edit: PRJ45, I like you so please don't take this personally it just that I've both seen and been involved in one of these. I feel strongly about it and I hate it when people don't stop.

    I'll make this as brief and as straight to the point as I can.

    Firstly, the cyclist was stupid and if they are uninjured (we will never know) they were foolishly lucky but foolish all the same. There is no excuse for them.

    Secondly, you should have stopped. There is no excuse for that. If your car had broken down you would have had to stop on that road. If there was an accident ahead of you or if you had been in an accident, with damage to your car (no matter how slight), you would have stopped on that road. In all instances you'd have pulled over, stopped, turned the engine off and put your hazard lights on. You could have stopped for that cyclist to check (firstly) if they were all right (secondly to explain that they need to be more visible) .

    You don't know if your wing mirror clipped the cyclist (ever so slightly) or what forced him onto to grass verge. You don't know if they injured themselves doing so. You should have stopped. The most extreme of us (motorists and cyclist) might argue that not stopping borders 'hit and run'. - Though I'm not saying that was your intention, however, thinking about that is important.

    Thirdly, you can fail a driving test for driving too slow. Police can stop you for driving too slow. Driving 40 in a 60 is dangerous in and of itself.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • ansbaradigeidfran
    ansbaradigeidfran Posts: 526
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Thirdly, you can fail a driving test for driving too slow. Police can stop you for driving too slow. Driving 40 in a 60 is dangerous in and of itself.
    It can be, but it isn't always the case. Lots of rural roads are at the national speed limit, even if they aren't designed for 60mph traffic. On one such road near me, I'll rarely drive over 50, and that usually drops to 40 in the dark.
    Highway Code wrote:
    146
    Adapt your driving to the appropriate type and condition of road you are on. In particular
      * do not treat speed limits as a target. It is often not appropriate or safe to drive at the maximum speed limit * take the road and traffic conditions into account. Be prepared for unexpected or difficult situations, for example, the road being blocked beyond a blind bend. Be prepared to adjust your speed as a precaution ...

    But on a long, straight, well-lit A-road, yes, doing 20 below the speed limit without reason is dangerous.
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    ansbaradigeidfran wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Thirdly, you can fail a driving test for driving too slow. Police can stop you for driving too slow. Driving 40 in a 60 is dangerous in and of itself.
    It can be, but it isn't always the case. Lots of rural roads are at the national speed limit, even if they aren't designed for 60mph traffic. On one such road near me, I'll rarely drive over 50, and that usually drops to 40 in the dark.
    Highway Code wrote:
    146
    Adapt your driving to the appropriate type and condition of road you are on. In particular
      * do not treat speed limits as a target. It is often not appropriate or safe to drive at the maximum speed limit * take the road and traffic conditions into account. Be prepared for unexpected or difficult situations, for example, the road being blocked beyond a blind bend. Be prepared to adjust your speed as a precaution ...

    But on a long, straight, well-lit A-road, yes, doing 20 below the speed limit without reason is dangerous.

    Good point.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • woodford2barbican
    woodford2barbican Posts: 1,505
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    ansbaradigeidfran wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Thirdly, you can fail a driving test for driving too slow. Police can stop you for driving too slow. Driving 40 in a 60 is dangerous in and of itself.
    It can be, but it isn't always the case. Lots of rural roads are at the national speed limit, even if they aren't designed for 60mph traffic. On one such road near me, I'll rarely drive over 50, and that usually drops to 40 in the dark.
    Highway Code wrote:
    146
    Adapt your driving to the appropriate type and condition of road you are on. In particular
      * do not treat speed limits as a target. It is often not appropriate or safe to drive at the maximum speed limit * take the road and traffic conditions into account. Be prepared for unexpected or difficult situations, for example, the road being blocked beyond a blind bend. Be prepared to adjust your speed as a precaution ...

    But on a long, straight, well-lit A-road, yes, doing 20 below the speed limit without reason is dangerous.

    Good point.

    No it is not a good point. Not driving to the condiotions is dangerous and what would cause you to fail a driving test.
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    woodford2barbican wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    ansbaradigeidfran wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Thirdly, you can fail a driving test for driving too slow. Police can stop you for driving too slow. Driving 40 in a 60 is dangerous in and of itself.
    It can be, but it isn't always the case. Lots of rural roads are at the national speed limit, even if they aren't designed for 60mph traffic. On one such road near me, I'll rarely drive over 50, and that usually drops to 40 in the dark.
    Highway Code wrote:
    146
    Adapt your driving to the appropriate type and condition of road you are on. In particular
      * do not treat speed limits as a target. It is often not appropriate or safe to drive at the maximum speed limit * take the road and traffic conditions into account. Be prepared for unexpected or difficult situations, for example, the road being blocked beyond a blind bend. Be prepared to adjust your speed as a precaution ...

    But on a long, straight, well-lit A-road, yes, doing 20 below the speed limit without reason is dangerous.

    Good point.

    No it is not a good point. Not driving to the condiotions is dangerous and what would cause you to fail a driving test.

    I'm lost. I agree with you woodford but isn't that the point ansbaradieaghogdo is making?
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • ansbaradigeidfran
    ansbaradigeidfran Posts: 526
    woodford2barbican wrote:
    No it is not a good point. Not driving to the condiotions is dangerous and what would cause you to fail a driving test.
    Quite right.
    ansbaradigeidfran wrote:
    But on a long, straight, well-lit A-road, yes, doing 20 below the speed limit without reason is dangerous.
    I think you may have missed that bit. I was trying to make the point that 40mph can be appropriate, but not always. :)
  • lost_in_thought
    lost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    Hmmmm, I feel I should add to my post above that I am talking about big A-roads, not little bendy roads/lanes...

    And someone driving at 40 in a 60 where it was safe (in my eyes) to do 60 would annoy me no end.
    FCN 7/1
    Viner Maxima, Tifosi CK7, Giant Bowery, Old commuter.
  • always_tyred
    always_tyred Posts: 4,965
    Oh no, its just like the "collided with pedestrian" thread - on the basis of limited information, imaginations have taken over and we find ourselves discussing a hit and run and lambasting the OP for this.

    Also there are lots of sanctimonious statements about "driving to the conditions". Dude was driving at 40mph and NEARLY hit a stealth cyclist, but somehow is subject of criticism.

    Is this the 5 minute argument, or the full half hour?
  • biondino
    biondino Posts: 5,990
    People do realise that the cyclist wasn't hit, right? As far as I can tell prj was driving to the conditions and *almost* hit a cyclist as he wasn't able to see him until he was practically on top of him. I'm not sure beeping is necessarily going to get the correct message across but as a warning to underlit cyclists it seems pretty stark.
    My Focus / My Bob Jackson
    Blog (incl. bikes)
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    Always Tyred wrote:
    Oh no, its just like the "collided with pedestrian" thread - on the basis of limited information, imaginations have taken over and we find ourselves discussing a hit and run and lambasting the OP for this.

    Also there are lots of sanctimonious statements about "driving to the conditions". Dude was driving at 40mph and NEARLY hit a stealth cyclist, but somehow is subject of criticism.

    Is this the 5 minute argument, or the full half hour?

    I think the above is an over-reaction.

    We're (I'm) not lambasting the OP. I just made comment about driving 40mph in a 60mph, which is always open to debate. It can be either dangerous or safe depending on the conditions and visibilty.

    I'm not accusing the OP of a hit and run. What I'm saying is that the most extreme may claim that the actions of not stopping borders 'hit and run'.

    Ok, he didn't hit the cyclist (that we know, its easy to clip someone with a wing mirror and not realise. But to be fair we don't know if the OP gave sufficient room). However, he saw the cyclist scamble onto the grassy verge.

    I feel he should have stopped to see if they were all right.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • Eau Rouge
    Eau Rouge Posts: 1,118
    My first reaction, does the car have headlights and were they on?
    The OP says he was doing 40 "because it was dark" and his lights don't illuminate enough of the road to be able to see enough to go any faster. Do your car headlights really not let you see that far ahead?
    Doing 20mph under the speed other motorists expect you to be doing is not a great idea.

    but

    you then say the lane was "quite tight" leading me to think this isn't some nice wide A-road, but something less than that, so it's quite probable that 40mph is a perfectly appropriate speed anyway.

    oh, and yes, thew cyclist in the dark is a very lucky idiot.
  • singlespeedexplosif
    singlespeedexplosif Posts: 1,564
    agreed with the last post - sounds like not just the cyclist who needs better lights..
  • biondino
    biondino Posts: 5,990
    Eau Rouge, the OP describes the road as a "quite tight lane", so the speed limit is 60mph because it's a single carriageway road in a non-built up area, NOT because it's (necessarily) appropriate to drive at 60mph. I would imagine other motorists - sensible ones - would certainly expect to be driving to the conditions on this narrow and unlit country lane.

    It's ridiculous to expect the OP to stop if the cyclist hasn't had an accident (and "scrambling" doesn't sound to me like the dude came off) - of course he's alrght, and hopefully aware that his invisibility put him at risk. If OP wants to stop and have a word with the cyclist about how difficult he was to see then that's fine.
    My Focus / My Bob Jackson
    Blog (incl. bikes)
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    biondino wrote:
    It's ridiculous to expect the OP to stop if the cyclist hasn't had an accident (and "scrambling" doesn't sound to me like the dude came off) - of course he's alrght, and hopefully aware that his invisibility put him at risk. If OP wants to stop and have a word with the cyclist about how difficult he was to see then that's fine.

    It is not ridiculous it is simply down to interpretation of the OP's first post.
    I would have liked to have stopped for a word but it wasn't really the place.

    When I cycle I very nearly never have to scramble for the curb or grassy verge. Only time I do that is if I come off my bike, been nugde or something is wrong.

    In my mind, if its enough for him to have wanted to stop then he should have stopped. You can't simply assume the cyclist is alright after that point. Really what is needed is for the OP to confim that (after the scramble) in his rear view mirror he saw the cyclist get back on the road and continued on his way.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • mr_hippo
    mr_hippo Posts: 1,051
    prj45 almost hit a cyclist in his car, what the cyclist was doing in prj45's car, we will never know! (With apologies to Groucho Marx - “One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas I'll never know.”)
  • biondino
    biondino Posts: 5,990
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    biondino wrote:
    It's ridiculous to expect the OP to stop if the cyclist hasn't had an accident (and "scrambling" doesn't sound to me like the dude came off) - of course he's alrght, and hopefully aware that his invisibility put him at risk. If OP wants to stop and have a word with the cyclist about how difficult he was to see then that's fine.

    It is not ridiculous it is simply down to interpretation of the OP's first post.
    I would have liked to have stopped for a word but it wasn't really the place.

    When I cycle I very nearly never have to scramble for the curb or grassy verge. Only time I do that is if I come off my bike, been nugde or something is wrong.

    In my mind, if its enough for him to have wanted to stop then he should have stopped. You can't simply assume the cyclist is alright after that point. Really what is needed is for the OP to confim that (after the scramble) in his rear view mirror he saw the cyclist get back on the road and continued on his way.

    If prj saw the cyclist scrambling then prj saw that the cyclist was uninjured. Are you really suggesting he goes back and gives the guy counselling? Or apologises for not being able to see him?

    I am sure you're arguing this because of good intentions but it just seems unnecessary and potentially dangerous - we're already in a narrow dark country lane, where are we going to stop? (also it could be dangerous as cyclist could take a swing at him)
    My Focus / My Bob Jackson
    Blog (incl. bikes)
  • saveswalking
    saveswalking Posts: 144
    Always Tyred wrote:
    Oh no, its just like the "collided with pedestrian" thread - on the basis of limited information, imaginations have taken over and we find ourselves discussing a hit and run and lambasting the OP for this.

    Also there are lots of sanctimonious statements about "driving to the conditions". Dude was driving at 40mph and NEARLY hit a stealth cyclist, but somehow is subject of criticism.

    Is this the 5 minute argument, or the full half hour?[/quote]

    I might be argueing in my lunch break :wink:

    sw
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    edited December 2008
    biondino wrote:
    If prj saw the cyclist scrambling then prj saw that the cyclist was uninjured. Are you really suggesting he goes back and gives the guy counselling? Or apologises for not being able to see him?

    I didn't mention anything about counselling in my previous post or at any point claim that he go over and apologise. I think the cyclist is largely to blame because they clearly weren't visible. What I said was he should have stopped to make sure that the cyclist was alright. We don't know (based on the details given) if the cyclist was uninjured before or after the "scrambling". I'm not filled with so much hubris to simply assume that the dude was not hurt, certainly not without more detail provided by the OP.

    He saw the cyclist scrambling off the road. The cyclist was scrambling off the road for a reason. We don't know why that was. We don't know what happened after that point. You cannot assume more than the details we were given.

    There is nothing wrong in stopping in light of the above.
    Biondino wrote:
    I am sure you're arguing this because of good intentions but it just seems unnecessary and potentially dangerous - we're already in a narrow dark country lane, where are we going to stop? (also it could be dangerous as cyclist could take a swing at him)

    I'm not arguing, its a discussion board, I am discussing something that interests me.

    Had he broken down on said road he would have to stop, hazard lights on and call the AA - a point I made in my first post. If there was a hazard in front of him he could have stopped. So its possible for him to stop. He could have stopped. He decided not to stop because he didn't feel it was appropriate.

    Maybe the OP saw the cyclist carry on cycling in his rear view mirror. That's fine. That hasn't been made clear. Based on the information I've read:

    The OP saw a nearly invisible cyclist in the corner of his eye. When the OP passed them they swerved off the road.

    I would have stopped to see if they were alright.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • always_tyred
    always_tyred Posts: 4,965
    I read the OP as suggesting that a cyclist without lights and in dark clothing was getting out of the way when cars were coming past. I had imagined that they knew full well that they were invisible and were diving for cover out of self preservation, irrespective of the OP's (careful) driving.
  • biondino
    biondino Posts: 5,990
    BTW, anyone else read this thread title in a bloods and crips kind of way?
    My Focus / My Bob Jackson
    Blog (incl. bikes)
  • cee
    cee Posts: 4,553
    and does anyone in here have any cake please?
    Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.

    H.G. Wells.
  • lost_in_thought
    lost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    Always Tyred wrote:
    I read the OP as suggesting that a cyclist without lights and in dark clothing was getting out of the way when cars were coming past.

    Yeah, me too. I misread the bit about the lane being quite tight the first time around - thinking it meant lane as in one of a dual-lane road, also I don't think of lanes as 60mph roads.

    Assuming it was a smaller road, then scuttling onto the grass verge is not an unusual manoeuvre, and certainly not a reason to stop.
    biondino wrote:
    BTW, anyone else read this thread title in a bloods and crips kind of way?

    No, but now I will :lol:
    FCN 7/1
    Viner Maxima, Tifosi CK7, Giant Bowery, Old commuter.
  • biondino
    biondino Posts: 5,990
    DDD, "arguing" doesn't mean shouty raised voice kinda thing, it means putting forward different points of view and discussing them. If you like I can ask Spen to explain exactly what I mean :)
    My Focus / My Bob Jackson
    Blog (incl. bikes)
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    biondino wrote:
    DDD, "arguing" doesn't mean shouty raised voice kinda thing, it means putting forward different points of view and discussing them. If you like I can ask Spen to
    explain exactly what I mean :)

    Just for the hell of it, go on then... It's about time Spen came along...

    But I take your point about arguing. For the most part I'm not truly trying to 'prove by reasoning'. I'm just putting forward my perspective until the OP casts more light on the encounter. It may well be the case that he didn't need to stop. By the sounds of the road I wouldn't and haven't driven at 60.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • always_tyred
    always_tyred Posts: 4,965
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    Assuming it was a smaller road, then scuttling onto the grass verge is not an unusual manoeuvre, and certainly not a reason to stop.
    Yes, I'm often caught short on the way home from the pub myself.
  • bornagainbiker
    bornagainbiker Posts: 127
    Whatever happened to 'Driving at a speed which is SAFE for the given conditions'

    I mean would you still drive at 60 in a rainstorm even if you knew the road like the back of your hand.

    Not every driver has the best of eyesight (look up night myopia)

    I am amazed at those of you having a go at someone for doing 40 in a 60 if that was the safest speed he felt he could do on that road who the hell are you to criticise him.
  • STEFANOS4784
    STEFANOS4784 Posts: 4,109
    bornagainbiker wrote:
    Whatever happened to 'Driving at a speed which is SAFE for the given conditions'


    Pah, crazy talk :roll: :arrow:
    winter beast: http://i497.photobucket.com/albums/rr34 ... uff016.jpg
    Summer beast; http://i497.photobucket.com/albums/rr34 ... uff015.jpg
  • prj45
    prj45 Posts: 2,208
    edited December 2008
    Woa woa woa WOA WOA WOAH!!!

    I'm back, been reading this all day itching to post, but if I post at work they'll spot the http POST and block the site.
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Secondly, you should have stopped

    Yes you're [edit: probably] right. However there was absolutely no way I contacted him (or her), I'd already slowed to a crawl and they got up on the verge in front of me, not as I passed.

    I might have freaked them out though, I figure they heard me braking (no ABS kicking in so it wasn't that sharp) and decided to get off the road sharpish. Had I stopped though they would've got an absolute bollocking no matter what state they were in.
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    And someone driving at 40 in a 60 where it was safe (in my eyes) to do 60 would annoy me no end.

    Me too, and I agree it's not good to drive slowly when you could be going faster. Had I been going much faster though I would have struck him, or had to swerve into L2, and possibly stuck somebody else.
    biondino wrote:
    I'm not sure beeping is necessarily going to get the correct message across but as a warning to underlit cyclists it seems pretty stark.

    No, neither am I, but I did it as I went past, not as I approached, a few toots.
    Eau Rouge wrote:
    My first reaction, does the car have headlights and were they on?
    The OP says he was doing 40 "because it was dark" and his lights don't illuminate enough of the road to be able to see enough to go any faster. Do your car headlights really not let you see that far ahead?

    It was utterly black, trees on the side, no lights to speak of. And yes, I think on dipped headlights it would've been hard to go faster without not being able to stop if I came across an unlit object in the road, as demonstrated. If I was doing 60 I would've struck him for sure. I couldn't use full beams, cars on the other side of the road.
    singlespeedexplosif wrote:
    agreed with the last post - sounds like not just the cyclist who needs better lights..

    I've got a modern Audi, three years old.
    biondino wrote:
    Eau Rouge, the OP describes the road as a "quite tight lane", so the speed limit is 60mph because it's a single carriageway road in a non-built up area, NOT because it's (necessarily) appropriate to drive at 60mph. I would imagine other motorists - sensible ones - would certainly expect to be driving to the conditions on this narrow and unlit country lane.

    It was actually a dual carriageway, with seperated center, so max speed would've been doing 70 (not 60, my mistake), although not legally in my book as it's illegal to drive too fast for the conditions, and 70 would've been too fast (at 70 I would've stuck an unlit object before I even saw it I imagine).

    The "lane" I'm referring to is the marked Lane one of a dual, not a country lane. The lane was narrow though; to stay in the lane of the right hand side I was quite close to the left hand side.

    At 50 I might've got away with it, but 40 gave me some margin to stop and not have to swerve. He came out of the dark quickly enought for me not to have time to check my mirror, so didn't want to swerve into L2 anyway without looking.
    biondino wrote:
    Are you really suggesting he goes back and gives the guy counselling? Or apologises for not being able to see him?

    It wouldn't have been counselling I'd have given, it would have been the sharp end of my tounge.

    It was a dual but still risky to stop IMO.
    Photos - Blog - Bike

Categories