Excessive driver courtesy nearly causes accident

[Anthony Campbel]

Most accidents are caused by drivers' lack of consideration,
but the opposite can also occur. Yesterday I was riding at
about 20 mph when a car overtook me at about 30 mph. About
15 yards ahead there was an island (but not a zebra
crossing), where a woman with a pram and 2 children had just
arrived to cross the road. My view of her was obscured by
the overtaking car. The driver decided to stop to let her by
and braked quite sharply; she set off briskly without
waiting to see if there was anyone on the left of the car.
Fortunately I'd glimpsed the woman a split-second
previously, and realizing why the car was slowing I jammed
on my brakes and just managed to stop as well. I don't like
to think what would have happened if I'd been less alert or
if my brakes had been less effective.

In principle, this driver was doing a Good Thing, but in
practice he nearly caused an accident indirectly. I'm still
pondering what I would have done if I'd been the driver.
Instinctively I would have done the same as he, but I'd also
have realized that the cyclist might not have known what was
happening and might not be able to stop. Situations like
this are really a dilemma.

AC
--
Using Linux GNU/Debian - Windows-free zone
http://www.acampbell.org.uk (book reviews and articles)
Email: replace "www." with "ac@"

 

[Mark Tranchant]

Anthony Campbell wrote:

> Most accidents are caused by drivers' lack of
> consideration, but the opposite can also occur. Yesterday
> I was riding at about 20 mph when a car overtook me at
> about 30 mph. About 15 yards ahead there was an island
> (but not a zebra crossing), where a woman with a pram and
> 2 children had just arrived to cross the road. My view of
> her was obscured by the overtaking car.

Strictly, you should have slowed down if your view of a
zebra crossing was obscured.

> The driver decided to stop to let her by and braked quite
> sharply;

...as he is legally obliged to do - this isn't a case of
excessive courtesy...

> she set off briskly without waiting to see if there was
> anyone on the left of the car.

...as most people would...

> Fortunately I'd glimpsed the woman a split-second
> previously, and realizing why the car was slowing I jammed
> on my brakes and just managed to stop as well. I don't
> like to think what would have happened if I'd been less
> alert or if my brakes had been less effective.

> In principle, this driver was doing a Good Thing, but in
> practice he nearly caused an accident indirectly.

No, you nearly caused the accident directly.

> I'm still pondering what I would have done if I'd been the
> driver. Instinctively I would have done the same as he,
> but I'd also have realized that the cyclist might not have
> known what was happening and might not be able to stop.
> Situations like this are really a dilemma.

Yes. In his position, I would not have tried to overtake you
just before a zebra crossing. With only 15yds to go, the
pedestrian must have been visible and a potential hazard
before he started the overtaking manoeuvre?

I know this comes across as sounding holier-than-thou, but
I'm stating facts. I'm not suggesting I'd never get caught
out in a similar situation.

On the subject of excess courtesy, I hate it when motorists
forego their legal right-of-way to kindly let me through -
especially at roundabouts.

--
Mark.

 

[Anonymous]

"Anthony Campbell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Most accidents are caused by drivers' lack of
> consideration, but the opposite can also occur. Yesterday
> I was riding at about 20 mph when a car overtook me at
> about 30 mph. About 15 yards ahead there was an island
> (but not a zebra crossing), where a woman with a pram and
> 2 children had just arrived to cross the road. My view of
> her was obscured by the overtaking car. The driver decided
> to stop to let her by and braked quite sharply; she set
> off briskly without waiting to see if there was anyone on
> the left of the car. Fortunately I'd glimpsed the woman a
> split-second previously, and realizing why the car was
> slowing I jammed on my brakes and just managed to stop as
> well. I don't like to think what would have happened if
> I'd been less alert or if my brakes had been less
> effective.
>
> In principle, this driver was doing a Good Thing, but in
> practice he nearly caused an accident indirectly. I'm
> still pondering what I would have done if I'd been the
> driver. Instinctively I would have done the same as he,
> but I'd also have realized that the cyclist might not have
> known what was happening and might not be able to stop.
> Situations like this are really a dilemma.

The hint is in your words 'braked quite sharply' - if the
driver wanted to do this, he's made a poor decision.
Especially if he's just overtaken somebody - unless
necessary to avoid an accident, stopping in front of
somebody you just passed is extremely poor behaviour.

(actually sounds like the car driver shouldn't have
overtaken in the first place if your 15 yards is correct).

What would have happened depends on a couple more things -
how wide the road is and your relative positions. Options
include Hit the back of the car - I discovered a shoulder is
a good way to do this on vans, not had to find out for cars.
Overtake the car (preferred solution) such that you let the
pedestrian across but get to glare at the driver. Taking the
mirror with you could be seen as yobby, but maybe the lesser
of two evils.

In answer to your dilemma, had you been the driver, you
would have seen the cyclist and pedestrian, and planned your
driving such that nobody had to brake sharply. Holding back
behind the cyclist and not letting the pedestrian across are
both valid options in this situation. Forcing the cyclist to
give way is not a valid option.

cheers, clive

 

[Anonymous]

"Mark Tranchant" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> Anthony Campbell wrote:
>
> > Most accidents are caused by drivers' lack of
> > consideration, but the opposite can also occur.
> > Yesterday I was riding at about 20 mph when a car
> > overtook me at about 30 mph. About 15 yards ahead there
> > was an island (but not a zebra crossing), where a woman
> > with a pram and 2 children had just arrived to cross the
> > road. My view of her was obscured by the overtaking car.
>
> Strictly, you should have slowed down if your view of a
> zebra crossing was obscured.
>
> > The driver decided to stop to let her by and braked
> > quite sharply;
>
> ...as he is legally obliged to do - this isn't a case of
> excessive courtesy...

<snip rest of post>

Would you change your opinion if you noticed he'd said 'not
a zebra crossing'?

cheers, clive

 

[Michael Macclan]

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 11:09:53 +0100, Mark Tranchant wrote:

> Anthony Campbell wrote:
>
>> Most accidents are caused by drivers' lack of
>> consideration, but the opposite can also occur. Yesterday
>> I was riding at about 20 mph when a car overtook me at
>> about 30 mph. About 15 yards ahead there was an island
>> (*but not a zebra crossing*), where a woman with a pram
>> and 2 children had just arrived to cross the road. My
>> view of her was obscured by the overtaking car.
>
> Strictly, you should have slowed down if your view of a
> zebra crossing was obscured.
>

Mark, there was no zebra crossing. See *.....*
--
Michael MacClancy Random putdown - "He had delusions of
adequacy." - Walter Kerr www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

 

[Mark Tranchant]

Clive George wrote:

> "Mark Tranchant" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news[email protected]...
>
>>Anthony Campbell wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Most accidents are caused by drivers' lack of
>>>consideration, but the opposite can also occur. Yesterday
>>>I was riding at about 20 mph when a car overtook me at
>>>about 30 mph. About 15 yards ahead there was an island
>>>(but not a zebra crossing), where a woman with a pram and
>>>2 children had just arrived to cross the road. My view of
>>>her was obscured by the overtaking car.
>>
>>Strictly, you should have slowed down if your view of a
>>zebra crossing was obscured.
>>
>>
>>>The driver decided to stop to let her by and braked quite
>>>sharply;
>>
>>...as he is legally obliged to do - this isn't a case of
>>excessive courtesy...
>
>
> <snip rest of post>
>
> Would you change your opinion if you noticed he'd said
> 'not a zebra crossing'?

Er... I might be persuaded to... (blushes).

Scan reading text blooks has blighted me for years.

--
Mark.

 

[Mark Tranchant]

Clive George wrote:

> "Mark Tranchant" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news[email protected]...
>
>>Anthony Campbell wrote:
>>
>>>Most accidents are caused by drivers' lack of
>>>consideration, but the opposite can also occur. Yesterday
>>>I was riding at about 20 mph when a car overtook me at
>>>about 30 mph. About 15 yards ahead there was an island
>>>(but not a zebra crossing) <snip>

>>Strictly, you should have slowed down if your view of a
>>zebra crossing was obscured.

> Would you change your opinion if you noticed he'd said
> 'not a zebra crossing'?

Ahem. Er...I might, yes. I may even cancel the original post
so I didn't look like a brainless prat. Let's hope no-one
quotes it including my name...er...d'oh.

--
Mark.

 

[Mark Tranchant]

Michael MacClancy wrote:

> On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 11:09:53 +0100, Mark Tranchant wrote:
>
>>Anthony Campbell wrote:
>>
>>>Most accidents are caused by drivers' lack of
>>>consideration, but the opposite can also occur. Yesterday
>>>I was riding at about 20 mph when a car overtook me at
>>>about 30 mph. About 15 yards ahead there was an island
>>>(*but not a zebra crossing*), where a woman with a pram
>>>and 2 children had just arrived to cross the road. My
>>>view of her was obscured by the overtaking car.
>>
>>Strictly, you should have slowed down if your view of a
>>zebra crossing was obscured.

> Mark, there was no zebra crossing. See *.....*

But...but...I would have been right if there *were* a zebra
crossing!!!

Idiotic post cancelled.

--
Mark.

 

[Mark McN]

Reply to Clive George
> Overtake the car (preferred solution) such that you let
> the pedestrian across but get to glare at the driver.
>

A year or two ago I was on a roundabout following a car,
which stopped suddenly as it was leaving the roundabout to
let a pedestrian cross at a traffic island. I couldn't be
sure of stopping safely (therefore I was travelling too
fast, I suppose), so I overtook the car, nodded to the ped
(who I knew slightly), wagged a finger at the driver as I
went past, and carried on. Fifty yards later the car
overtook me and gave me the horn - another of those "I don't
understand why you did what you've just done, so you must be
wrong" moments.

--
Mark, UK. We hope to hear him swear, we love to hear him
squeak, We like to see him biting fingers in his horny beak.

 

[Elyob]

"Mark McN" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> Fifty yards later the car overtook me and gave me
> the horn

Ooh err missus, nice model was it

 

[Davek]

Mark McN:
> Fifty yards later the car overtook me and gave me the horn

Attractive driver? Or do you want to rephrase that? ;-)

d.

 

[Tony Raven]

Anthony Campbell wrote:
> Most accidents are caused by drivers' lack of
> consideration, but the opposite can also occur. Yesterday
> I was riding at about 20 mph when a car overtook me at
> about 30 mph. About 15 yards ahead there was an island
> (but not a zebra crossing), where a woman with a pram and
> 2 children had just arrived to cross the road. My view of
> her was obscured by the overtaking car. The driver decided
> to stop to let her by and braked quite sharply; she set
> off briskly without waiting to see if there was anyone on
> the left of the car. Fortunately I'd glimpsed the woman a
> split-second previously, and realizing why the car was
> slowing I jammed on my brakes and just managed to stop as
> well. I don't like to think what would have happened if
> I'd been less alert or if my brakes had been less
> effective.
>

That all happened in 1.5 seconds!?

Tony

(15yds = 1 sec @ 30mph, 1.5s @ 20mph)

 

[Mark McN]

Reply to davek
> the car overtook me and gave
> > me the horn
>
> Attractive driver? Or do you want to rephrase that? ;-)
>

If you think I'm going to rise to that -
[No!!!...must...resist...]

--
Mark, UK. We hope to hear him swear, we love to hear him
squeak, We like to see him biting fingers in his horny beak.

 

[James Hodson]

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 11:13:34 +0100, "Clive George"

>The hint is in your words 'braked quite sharply' - if the
>driver wanted to do this, he's made a poor decision.
>Especially if he's just overtaken somebody - unless
>necessary to avoid an accident, stopping in front of
>somebody you just passed is extremely poor behaviour.

It seems to me that the driver, having overtaken Anthony,
had immediately forgotten (aka couldn't give a stuff)
about him. Driver's fault, from what I read. Also, peds
shouldn't walk into the road just because someone else
gave them permission. (The same applies to other road
users, of course.)

James

 

[Anthony Campbel]

On 2004-06-04, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> Anthony Campbell wrote:
>> Most accidents are caused by drivers' lack of
>> consideration, but the opposite can also occur. Yesterday
>> I was riding at about 20 mph when a car overtook me at
>> about 30 mph. About 15 yards ahead there was an island
>> (but not a zebra crossing), where a woman with a pram and
>> 2 children had just arrived to cross the road. My view of
>> her was obscured by the overtaking car. The driver
>> decided to stop to let her by and braked quite sharply;
>> she set off briskly without waiting to see if there was
>> anyone on the left of the car. Fortunately I'd glimpsed
>> the woman a split-second previously, and realizing why
>> the car was slowing I jammed on my brakes and just
>> managed to stop as well. I don't like to think what would
>> have happened if I'd been less alert or if my brakes had
>> been less effective.
>>
>
> That all happened in 1.5 seconds!?
>
> Tony
>
> (15yds = 1 sec @ 30mph, 1.5s @ 20mph)
>
>

Thanks to everyone for comments. The option to collide with
the car, which has been suggested, wasn't available because
it was on my right. One thing I'm not sure about is whether
the pedestrian was waiting for some time on the island or
had just arrived there, having advanced rapidly from the far
side of the road. In the latter case the driver probably had
little choice, since if he's anything like me he's
frequently found women advancing aggressively across the
road pushing a pram in front of them on the assumption that
this gives them automatic priority. I suspect that this may
have been the case but I can't be sure because, as I said
previously, my vision was largely blocked by the car.

I'm still not sure that there is an easy answer to this one,
unless it is that pedestrians should take more care when
waved on by courteous drivers if they can't see the near
side of the road. But they seldom do, of course.

Anthony

--
Using Linux GNU/Debian - Windows-free zone
http://www.acampbell.org.uk (book reviews and articles)
Email: replace "www." with "ac@"

 

[Tony Raven]

Anthony Campbell wrote:
>
> I'm still not sure that there is an easy answer to this
> one, unless it is that pedestrians should take more care
> when waved on by courteous drivers if they can't see the
> near side of the road. But they seldom do, of course.
>

Highway Code Rules 19 and 20:

19. Zebra crossings. Give traffic plenty of time to see you
and to stop before you start to cross. Vehicles will
need more time when the road is slippery. Remember that
traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved
onto the crossing. Wait until traffic has stopped from
both directions or the road is clear before crossing.
*Keep looking both ways, and listening, in case a driver
or rider has not seen you and attempts to overtake a
vehicle that has stopped*

20. Where there is an island in the middle of a zebra
crossing, wait on the island and follow Rule 19 before
you cross the second half of the road - it is a
separate crossing.

Tony

 

[Michael Macclan]

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 19:20:42 +0100, Tony Raven wrote:

> Anthony Campbell wrote:
>>
>> I'm still not sure that there is an easy answer to this
>> one, unless it is that pedestrians should take more care
>> when waved on by courteous drivers if they can't see the
>> near side of the road. But they seldom do, of course.
>>
>
> Highway Code Rules 19 and 20:
>
> 19. Zebra crossings. Give traffic plenty of time to see
> you and to stop before you start to cross. Vehicles
> will need more time when the road is slippery.
> Remember that traffic does not have to stop until
> someone has moved onto the crossing. Wait until
> traffic has stopped from both directions or the road
> is clear before crossing. *Keep looking both ways, and
> listening, in case a driver or rider has not seen you
> and attempts to overtake a vehicle that has stopped*
>
> 20. Where there is an island in the middle of a zebra
> crossing, wait on the island and follow Rule 19 before
> you cross the second half of the road - it is a
> separate crossing.
>
> Tony

The only thing he said about zebra crossings is that there
weren't any.
--
Michael MacClancy Random putdown - "I feel so miserable
without you, it's almost like having you here." -Stephen
Bishop www.macclancy.demon.co.uk www.macclancy.co.uk

 

[Iain Cullen]

Anthony Campbell wrote:

snipped
> In principle, this driver was doing a Good Thing, but in
> practice he nearly caused an accident indirectly. I'm
> still pondering what I would have done if I'd been the
> driver. Instinctively I would have done the same as he,
> but I'd also have realized that the cyclist might not have
> known what was happening and might not be able to stop.
> Situations like this are really a dilemma.
>
> AC

Unless the traffic was so heavy that a safe gap for the ped
to finish crossing was unlikely to appear the driver should
not have braked.The roads work best where everybody follows
clear rules and can understand what everyone else is likely
to do. The same reason cyclists should cycle as vehicles. If
the driver was going brake and allow the ped to cross he
should have ensured it was safe to do so. Of course had you
hit the ped then you would have been at fault to some degree
for an unsafe overtake as you should (as you did) look for
the reason why the car slowed and take (as you did) the
appropriate action. Iain

 

[Tony Raven]

Michael MacClancy wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 19:20:42 +0100, Tony Raven wrote:
>
>> Anthony Campbell wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm still not sure that there is an easy answer to this
>>> one, unless it is that pedestrians should take more care
>>> when waved on by courteous drivers if they can't see the
>>> near side of the road. But they seldom do, of course.
>>>
>>
>> Highway Code Rules 19 and 20:
>>
>> 19. Zebra crossings. Give traffic plenty of time to see
>> you and to stop before you start to cross. Vehicles
>> will need more time when the road is slippery.
>> Remember that traffic does not have to stop until
>> someone has moved onto the crossing. Wait until
>> traffic has stopped from both directions or the road
>> is clear before crossing. *Keep looking both ways,
>> and listening, in case a driver or rider has not seen
>> you and attempts to overtake a vehicle that has
>> stopped*
>>
>> 20. Where there is an island in the middle of a zebra
>> crossing, wait on the island and follow Rule 19
>> before you cross the second half of the road - it is
>> a separate crossing.
>>
>> Tony
>
> The only thing he said about zebra crossings is that there
> weren't any.

I know but one can assume that the same or greater care
should be taken when crossing a normal road

Tony

 

[Davidr]

> Anthony Campbell wrote:

> > Most accidents are caused by drivers' lack of
> > consideration, but the opposite can also occur.
> > Yesterday I was riding at about 20 mph when a car
> > overtook me at about 30 mph. About 15 yards ahead there
> > was an island (but not a zebra crossing), where a woman
> > with a pram and 2 children had just arrived to cross the
> > road. My view of her was obscured by the overtaking car.

> > The driver decided to stop to let her by and braked
> > quite sharply;

Seems a bit odd.

You were overtaken close to a traffic island. You must have
noticed you were approaching it. OK, the driver was wrong to
forgot about you once ahead, but you had made preparations
to be overtaken in a narrow gap hadn't you?