On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:02:49 +0100, Paul Smith <
[email protected]> wrote:
>>White van behind lorry sees it as an opportunity to overtake lorry and does so.
>His manoeuver was incredibly dangerous, and all too common. But there's little or nothing in basic
>driver training or the Highway Code to warn him of the special risk. Relevant HC rules appear to be
>189 and 207, neither of which refer to overtaking in the face of an oncoming cyclist.
A cycle is a vehicle. Rules 138, 139, 140 and 143 cover this situation in full.
I ride very much in accordance with Cyclecraft, which means that the outer edge of my handlebars is
more or less in the middle of the carriageway. This did not stop the driver who caused me to bail
out in precisely similar circumstances. Had I braked and not bailed out, he would have hit me. He
did not stop having run me off the road.
In my view it is not a matter of drivers misjudging the amount of space required by a cyclist, but
of subconsciously discounting the cyclist as a non-threat, thereby causing them to start the
dangerous manoeuvre in the first place. Once committed they freeze into inaction when presented with
a factor they had failed to note. I guess this is why in car v. pedestrian crashes, the pedestrian
is more likely to take evasive action than the car driver - even when the pedestrian is a child.
In this particular case the underlying cause is almost certainly that the van driver was
following too close to the lorry, so didn't have a clear view ahead (rule 140). This is basic
technique, covered by any competent driving instructor. Following too close is a big problem on
the UK's roads at present, leading to the majority of holdups on motorways (as analysed by both
the Police and TRL).
>It would be a really good idea to campaign to get this specifically into the next edition of the
>Highway Code.
Pointless. First up, most drivers don't read the highway code after they've passed the (pathetically
inadequate) test. Second, even those who do read it often ignore it or assume it doesn't apply to
them (see rule 103 for a perfect example). You only need to watch how few drivers obey Rule 139 to
realise that campaigning to add this to the HC is a complete waste of time.
The driver in question was already violating several sections of the HC, and of course the
underlying motivation for overtaking in the first place was almost certainly determination to
break rule 103.
The solution is to make sure that abuse of the privilege of the driving licence results in its being
withdrawn for a period, and not regained until society is satisfied that the offending behaviour has
been addressed. That means short bans for stupid behaviour, and training and retests for all banned
drivers. In the case of Carl Baxter this training could arguably take the form of being sat on a
bike while a fat slob in a Range Rover reverses over you, but in most cases a decent course in
hazard perception and defensive driving should be sufficient.
>Overtaking takes some considerable time, at least 6 or 7 seconds in typical circumstances,
>and cyclists may have time to slow down, pull left or even dismount before the oncoming
>vehicle arrives.
The cyclist may well not know of the overtaking manoeuvre until the oncoming vehicle moves out, by
which time the manoeuvre is well underway and much of the acceleration done; closing speed can
easily be in excess of 70mph, which gives precious little time - and in any case if they haven't
stopped for a moving cyclist, why should they stop for a stationary one?
The correct action for the cyclist is to cover the brakes, look for a bail out route and shout as
loudly as you possibly can. Once you've decided on your route DO NOT look at the oncoming vehicle,
look at the place you want to go - be it up the kerb or alongside the vehicle. They will either be
staring at you, in which case they will steer towards you, or they will not have seen. So don't
count on any correct evasive action from the oncoming driver.
Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.