Trying to understand the close pass mentality

[Wanlock Dod]

I've picked a few choice phrases from an article about an unfortunate incident on the roads to try to understand the close pass mentality of drivers.

Dowling had been wearing a fluorescent yellow jacket and helmet and his bike had multiple front and rear lights.

…several motorists who had previously given evidence said they overtook safely and without incident.

…who had taken overtaken Dowling earlier the same morning, said he had only spotted the cyclist when he was ‘two to three metres away’ and had to manoeuvre around him at the last moment.

Asked whether he had been distracted…, O’Shea replied: “No, the fact was he was not very well lit up on a very dark road and wasn’t there to be seen.”

The first bit seems to be the cyclists situation, the second the average motorist, the third the close pass, and the last somewhat unfortunate.

[Vorpal]

At the very least O'shea was not concentrating on his surroundings very well. At the worst, he was talking on his phone or playing with sat nav and didn't want to admit it.

Even if he hadn't been lit up, a cyclist would have been visible from further away than stated. If O'Shea thought Dowling was only 'two or three metres' away when he spotted him, I don't think he is very good at judging distance, either. He could never have reacted in time over that distance, even with super powers. He probably should have had his eyesight tested, or been banned until he can demonstrate that he is fit to drive.

That said, with regards to the mentality, I think that a significant minority of drivers simply don't have any idea how scary and intimidating it is to have a car so close at speed. And furthermore, they generally figure if they haven't hit someone, there is no harm done.

[thirdcrank]

It's not easy to discuss a court case with such limited information about the evidence heard. It's reported that the hearing lasted a week: even with some waffle that's time for a lot of evidence.

I'm surprised, for example, that the question of the rider being visible was apparently answered by another driver who had overtaken the deceased earlier. Once upon a time, it was normal for the deceased's clothing, etc to be photographed as basic part of the investigation in order to have evidence on this very issue.

This report in a local rag begins in some detail, but stops after a police officer's account of driving to work and coming across the crash with both the deceased and defendant still there.

http://www.bracknellnews.co.uk/news/asc ... y_to_work/

[robing]

The close pass mentality are the same drivers so impatient that tailgate you on a dual carriageway when you are in the right hand lane to turn right, then pass up the inside only to have to stop at the upcoming roundabout.

When cycling these drivers will overtake when it's not safe to do so eg oncoming traffic, pinch point. They are just ignorant, dangerous and just spend more time at the next roundabout or lights.

[reohn2]

.........., with regards to the mentality, I think that a significant minority of drivers simply don't have any idea how scary and intimidating it is to have a car so close at speed. And furthermore, they generally figure if they haven't hit someone, there is no harm done.

That sums it up IMO only to add that not only do they have any idea how scary it is but care even less.I have on a number of occasions had drivers do it on purpose to frighten me/us when on the tandem.
There is definitely a significant anti cycling element of drivers on UK roads presently,who's aim at best is to frighten and at worst knock cyclists off,if not by colliding with cyclists directly then by causing them to fall by running them into the kerb or verge.I've had both situations happen on a number occasions but managed either to brake or servve to avoid a collision,thankfully I've never fell as a result.
The worst of it is that the police don't treat such encounters as serious but are of the opinion of no collision no problem.

I understand the mentality of these drivers perfectly.It's a case of mind over matter,they don't mind because cyclists don't matter

[Phil Fouracre]

The trouble is, it's not just cyclists who are put at risk by idiotic/moronic driving. I was working in one of our local villages, parked on the road, with the van side door open, large van, highly visible! Muggins was reaching into the van for some tools, when a car went racing past, close enough to move my jacket!! Bear in mind that this is a small village with windy roads, but, pretty much every car was travelling way too fast. I really wish that I had been fast enough to grab something suitable and heave it through the rear window I'm not normally too bothered by this sort of thing, but, this did scare me.

[Wanlock Dod]

Having thought about it I think what really bothers me is that there is (increasingly within our society) a bit of a be safe be seen attitude that says as a driver I do not need to look out for cyclists anymore because they will make their presence known to me. They don't feel there is any need to look, and admit to having only just seem, but are then able to recall some alarmingly specific details about the relevant visibility elements of an almost invisible cyclist, such as how clean their coat and lights were, whilst somehow overlooking the fact that when it really is dark you can see a veritable glow worm of a light from quite some way away (provided you are looking).

Be safe, be seen, kids...

[Cyril Haearn]

Clunk click every trip
Did I hear that somewhere?

[awavey]

the thing youve got to remember is for the vast majority of overtakes motorists are overtaking each other probably within 1-2ft of each other, on a motorway no-one really blinks an eye to passing a car, or a van,truck whatever at 70mph with actually very little distance seperation in lanes, or driving down a narrow countryside b road, just wide enough for two cars, but how close are the wing mirrors sometimes, very few cars slow down for those passes and yet there could be no more than a couple of inches sometimes

so they are almost pre-programmed to feel any pass that doesnt result in their wing mirror hitting anything is an adequate if not good pass, so they dont modify that behaviour around cyclists, because why would they ? its just another overtake/pass, very few of them will have any direct experience of what a close pass feels like on a bike, and how vulnerable it makes you feel so they dont understand it.

[Username]

or been banned until he can demonstrate that he is fit to drive.

That said, with regards to the mentality, I think that a significant minority of drivers simply don't have any idea how scary and intimidating it is to have a car so close at speed. And furthermore, they generally figure if they haven't hit someone, there is no harm done.

Why not indefinitely? He must have already proved his fitness to drive because he has a license. So without medical issues, this leaves the fact he was being ****ing negligent or worse, reckless. Negligence has no place at the controls of machinery, or anywhere else for that matter.

With regards to the second bit, the possibility of a permanent ban would set an example to others. I remember reading about how medieval sadists would brutally torture someone, but would do it in front of another potential victim. The other person or persons would give a confession, or give in to demands etc that much more easily. The point being that if a punishment is harsh enough, it will be an effective deterrent. Nowadays people get off lightly, and well you only have to read some web forums to see what people get away with.

[Vorpal]

or been banned until he can demonstrate that he is fit to drive.

That said, with regards to the mentality, I think that a significant minority of drivers simply don't have any idea how scary and intimidating it is to have a car so close at speed. And furthermore, they generally figure if they haven't hit someone, there is no harm done.

Why not indefinitely? He must have already proved his fitness to drive because he has a license. So without medical issues, this leaves the fact he was being ****ing negligent or worse, reckless. Negligence has no place at the controls of machinery, or anywhere else for that matter.

With regards to the second bit, the possibility of a permanent ban would set an example to others. I remember reading about how medieval sadists would brutally torture someone, but would do it in front of another potential victim. The other person or persons would give a confession, or give in to demands etc that much more easily. The point being that if a punishment is harsh enough, it will be an effective deterrent. Nowadays people get off lightly, and well you only have to read some web forums to see what people get away with.

He was let off, and we don't know why. As TC points out above, we don't know what was presented in the week of evidence. We have bbeen given none of that. I was basing my statement solely on the driver's statement.

Someone who proved his fitness to drive 30 years ago (or whenever it was), isn't known to be fit to drive now.

Yes, people get off lightly. But if the driver really did nothing wrong, do you still want him prosecuted?

[Pete Owens]

I don't think this incident is about close passing, but a failure of the driver to look where they were going.

With a close pass a driver sees the cyclist, but decides deliberately to overtake in a dangerous manner. In this case the driver simply didn't notice that there was a cyclist in their path.

[Username]

or been banned until he can demonstrate that he is fit to drive.

That said, with regards to the mentality, I think that a significant minority of drivers simply don't have any idea how scary and intimidating it is to have a car so close at speed. And furthermore, they generally figure if they haven't hit someone, there is no harm done.

Why not indefinitely? He must have already proved his fitness to drive because he has a license. So without medical issues, this leaves the fact he was being ****ing negligent or worse, reckless. Negligence has no place at the controls of machinery, or anywhere else for that matter.

With regards to the second bit, the possibility of a permanent ban would set an example to others. I remember reading about how medieval sadists would brutally torture someone, but would do it in front of another potential victim. The other person or persons would give a confession, or give in to demands etc that much more easily. The point being that if a punishment is harsh enough, it will be an effective deterrent. Nowadays people get off lightly, and well you only have to read some web forums to see what people get away with.

He was let off, and we don't know why. As TC points out above, we don't know what was presented in the week of evidence. We have bbeen given none of that. I was basing my statement solely on the driver's statement.

Someone who proved his fitness to drive 30 years ago (or whenever it was), isn't known to be fit to drive now.

Yes, people get off lightly. But if the driver really did nothing wrong, do you still want him prosecuted?

Depends on what it is he didnt do wrong.

I don't think this incident is about close passing, but a failure of the driver to look where they were going.

With a close pass a driver sees the cyclist, but decides deliberately to overtake in a dangerous manner. In this case the driver simply didn't notice that there was a cyclist in their path.

if he "didnt notice" then that deserves prosecution.

[gaz]

if he "didnt notice" then that deserves prosecution.

The CPS agreed that the evidence warranted a prosecution, he was prosecuted for causing death by careless driving.

The court heard the evidence and determined that he was not guilty of the offence.

[Pete Owens]

I don't think this incident is about close passing, but a failure of the driver to look where they were going.

With a close pass a driver sees the cyclist, but decides deliberately to overtake in a dangerous manner. In this case the driver simply didn't notice that there was a cyclist in their path.

if he "didnt notice" then that deserves prosecution.

Absolutely.

My argument isn't that this is OK behaviour - it is just that it is a completely different issue to close passing.