MGIF stands for 'must get in front', if you haven't already heard, and sums up perfectly this incident involving a driver lacking the patience to wait a few seconds for a safer place to overtake.

Instead, they push their way in front of the cyclist, narrowly avoiding a collision with the HGV in the process.

road.cc reader Graeme was riding along Clarkston Road in Glasgow when the incident happened: "The driver went to pass me but once she was alongside noticed a lorry coming in the other direction. Instead of falling back they moved in very close and then right across me.

"I did report it to the police. The officer took an action to go and speak to the driver. He emailed to say he had tried and failed to contact her and would try again. I’ve not heard from them again."

https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-735-291055

On 14/03/2022 02:58 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> MGIF stands for 'must get in front', if you haven't already heard, and sums up perfectly this incident involving a driver lacking the patience to wait a few seconds for a safer place to overtake.

> Instead, they push their way in front of the cyclist, narrowly avoiding a collision with the HGV in the process.

> road.cc reader Graeme was riding along Clarkston Road in Glasgow when the incident happened: "The driver went to pass me but once she was alongside noticed a lorry coming in the other direction. Instead of falling back they moved in very close and then right across me.

> "I did report it to the police. The officer took an action to go and speak to the driver. He emailed to say he had tried and failed to contact her and would try again. I’ve not heard from them again."

> https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-735-291055

Why didn't "Graeme" fall back, thereby obeying Rule 168 of the Highway
Code by allowing the overtaking vehicle to pass more quickly and then
move left?

Safety | 31 posts | 1 hour ago
0 likes

Regarding Police Scotland accepting video submission. In response to a written question the latest information I received from Scottish Government is that they are currently considering trialling a pilot scheme later this year. You couldn't make it up. It's like a skit from "Yes minister".

reply quote

Avatar
Safety | 31 posts | 1 hour ago
1 like

Response sounds like a well rehearsed fob off.

reply quote

Avatar
lesterama | 230 posts | 1 hour ago
0 likes

pathetic response from the police

On 14/03/2022 15:14, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> Safety | 31 posts | 1 hour ago
> 0 likes

> Regarding Police Scotland accepting video submission. In response to a written question the latest information I received from Scottish Government is that they are currently considering trialling a pilot scheme later this year. You couldn't make it up. It's like a skit from "Yes minister".

> Avatar
> Safety | 31 posts | 1 hour ago
> 1 like

> Response sounds like a well rehearsed fob off.

Can I use this for 'Cyclist Fobbed Off By Police No. 734'?

--
Spike

On 14/03/2022 15:07, JNugent wrote:
> On 14/03/2022 02:58 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

>> road.cc reader Graeme was riding along Clarkston Road in Glasgow when the incident happened: "The driver went to pass me but once she was alongside noticed a lorry coming in the other direction. Instead of falling back they moved in very close and then right across me.

>> "I did report it to the police. The officer took an action to go and speak to the driver. He emailed to say he had tried and failed to contact her and would try again. I’ve not heard from them again."

>> <https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-735-291055>

> Why didn't "Graeme" fall back, thereby obeying Rule 168 of the Highway
> Code by allowing the overtaking vehicle to pass more quickly and then
> move left?

Cyclists following the recommendations of the Highway Code?

How does that work, then?

--
Spike

On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 2:58:53 PM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
wtjs | 1654 posts | 3 min ago
0 likes

The officer took an action to go and speak to the driver. He emailed to say he had tried and failed to contact her and would try again. I’ve not heard from them again

It's just a standard dodge, but you haven't lost anything there since 'being spoken to' is no deterrent as drivers are very well aware that the police don't have the organisation or will to 'notice' if a driver has been 'spoken to' previously and are desperate to avoid any significant action.

On 14/03/2022 04:59 pm, Spike wrote:
> On 14/03/2022 15:07, JNugent wrote:
>> On 14/03/2022 02:58 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> road.cc reader Graeme was riding along Clarkston Road in Glasgow when the incident happened: "The driver went to pass me but once she was alongside noticed a lorry coming in the other direction. Instead of falling back they moved in very close and then right across me.
>
>>> "I did report it to the police. The officer took an action to go and speak to the driver. He emailed to say he had tried and failed to contact her and would try again. I’ve not heard from them again."
>
>>> <https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-735-291055>
>
>> Why didn't "Graeme" fall back, thereby obeying Rule 168 of the Highway
>> Code by allowing the overtaking vehicle to pass more quickly and then
>> move left?
>
> Cyclists following the recommendations of the Highway Code?
>
> How does that work, then?

Well, exactly.

But "Graeme" could have ameliorated whatever danger there was by
allowing the overtaking vehicle to get past more quickly and pull back
in that bit sooner.

Rule 168 (HC):

QUOTE:

Being overtaken.
If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and
speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct
drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while
someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a
two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you.
ENDQUOTE

It really couldn't be simpler or more straightforward:

(A) Slow down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never is it more
necessary than when failing to accommodate the overtake could cause a
collision.

(B) Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass.

Not "Only obstruct them if they're in a German car that you can't
afford" or anything similar.

On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 2:58:53 PM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> UPDATE: The driver has now been found and dealt with - well done police - if a little late.
> https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-735-291055

On Monday, 14 March 2022 at 15:07:51 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> On 14/03/2022 02:58 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > MGIF stands for 'must get in front', if you haven't already heard, and sums up perfectly this incident involving a driver lacking the patience to wait a few seconds for a safer place to overtake.
>
> > Instead, they push their way in front of the cyclist, narrowly avoiding a collision with the HGV in the process.
>
> > road.cc reader Graeme was riding along Clarkston Road in Glasgow when the incident happened: "The driver went to pass me but once she was alongside noticed a lorry coming in the other direction. Instead of falling back they moved in very close and then right across me.
>
> > "I did report it to the police. The officer took an action to go and speak to the driver. He emailed to say he had tried and failed to contact her and would try again. I’ve not heard from them again."
>
> > https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-735-291055
> Why didn't "Graeme" fall back, thereby obeying Rule 168 of the Highway
> Code by allowing the overtaking vehicle to pass more quickly and then
> move left?

Because there was no time or opportunity to do so. Interesting how you always blame the victim.

On 14/03/2022 06:09 pm, Mike Collins wrote:

> On Monday, 14 March 2022 at 15:07:51 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>> On 14/03/2022 02:58 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> MGIF stands for 'must get in front', if you haven't already heard, and sums up perfectly this incident involving a driver lacking the patience to wait a few seconds for a safer place to overtake.
>
>>> Instead, they push their way in front of the cyclist, narrowly avoiding a collision with the HGV in the process.
>
>>> road.cc reader Graeme was riding along Clarkston Road in Glasgow when the incident happened: "The driver went to pass me but once she was alongside noticed a lorry coming in the other direction. Instead of falling back they moved in very close and then right across me.
>
>>> "I did report it to the police. The officer took an action to go and speak to the driver. He emailed to say he had tried and failed to contact her and would try again. I’ve not heard from them again."
>
>>> https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-735-291055
>> Why didn't "Graeme" fall back, thereby obeying Rule 168 of the Highway
>> Code by allowing the overtaking vehicle to pass more quickly and then
>> move left?
>
> Because there was no time or opportunity to do so.

Rubbish. There is always time to brake during an overtaking manoeuvre.

> Interesting how you always blame the victim.

If someone was overtaking me - and if it looked as though there was
danger of a collision between the overtaking vehicle and on coming the
other way - I would drop back immediately, stopping if necessary.

That would achieve two things:

(a) it would reduce the possibility of the collision happening and

(b) it would reduce the possibility of my being involved if it did happen.

And all for the mere loss of a few seconds. A few seconds!

Read Highway Code Rule 168. It's clear enough.

But some road-users aren't interested in safety, especially, but not
exclusively, when it is the safety of others at risk.

There was no time or opportunity to do so. Interesting how you always blame the victim.

162
Before overtaking you should make sure

the road is sufficiently clear ahead
road users are not beginning to overtake you
there is a suitable gap in front of the road user you plan to overtake.

163
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should

not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake
use your mirrors, signal when it is safe to do so, take a quick sideways glance if necessary into the blind spot area and then start to move out
not assume that you can simply follow a vehicle ahead which is overtaking; there may only be enough room for one vehicle
move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in
take extra care at night and in poor visibility when it is harder to judge speed and distance
give way to oncoming vehicles before passing parked vehicles or other obstructions on your side of the road
only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so
stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left. Cyclists may pass slower moving or stationary traffic on their right or left and should proceed with caution as the driver may not be able to see you. Be careful about doing so, particularly on the approach to junctions, and especially when deciding whether it is safe to pass lorries or other large vehicles.
give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders and horse drawn vehicles at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 215). As a guide:

On 14/03/2022 18:09, Mike Collins wrote:
> On Monday, 14 March 2022 at 15:07:51 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>> On 14/03/2022 02:58 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

>>> road.cc reader Graeme was riding along Clarkston Road in Glasgow when the incident happened: "The driver went to pass me but once she was alongside noticed a lorry coming in the other direction. Instead of falling back they moved in very close and then right across me.

>>> "I did report it to the police. The officer took an action to go and speak to the driver. He emailed to say he had tried and failed to contact her and would try again. I’ve not heard from them again."

>>> https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-735-291055

>> Why didn't "Graeme" fall back, thereby obeying Rule 168 of the Highway
>> Code by allowing the overtaking vehicle to pass more quickly and then
>> move left?

> Because there was no time or opportunity to do so. Interesting how you always blame the victim.

'BRAKES' is the word you're struggling with.

--
Spike

On 15/03/2022 03:35 pm, Spike wrote:
> On 14/03/2022 18:09, Mike Collins wrote:
>> On Monday, 14 March 2022 at 15:07:51 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 14/03/2022 02:58 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>> road.cc reader Graeme was riding along Clarkston Road in Glasgow when the incident happened: "The driver went to pass me but once she was alongside noticed a lorry coming in the other direction. Instead of falling back they moved in very close and then right across me.
>
>>>> "I did report it to the police. The officer took an action to go and speak to the driver. He emailed to say he had tried and failed to contact her and would try again. I’ve not heard from them again."
>
>>>> https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-735-291055
>
>>> Why didn't "Graeme" fall back, thereby obeying Rule 168 of the Highway
>>> Code by allowing the overtaking vehicle to pass more quickly and then
>>> move left?
>
>> Because there was no time or opportunity to do so. Interesting how you always blame the victim.
>
> 'BRAKES' is the word you're struggling with.

Don't use obscene language like that to a fairy-cyclist!

On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:53:55 AM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> There was no time or opportunity to do so. Interesting how you always blame the victim.
> 162

> Before overtaking you should make sure
>
> the road is sufficiently clear ahead

Simple enough - who do drivers find that rule so hard to follow?

On 15/03/2022 04:59 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:53:55 AM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

>> There was no time or opportunity to do so. Interesting how you always blame the victim.
>> 162

>> Before overtaking you should make sure

>> the road is sufficiently clear ahead

> Simple enough - who do drivers find that rule so hard to follow?

Why do you keep talking to yourself?

On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 4:59:05 PM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:53:55 AM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > There was no time or opportunity to do so. Interesting how you always blame the victim.
> > 162
>
>
> > Before overtaking you should make sure
> >
> > the road is sufficiently clear ahead
> Simple enough - who do drivers find that rule so hard to follow?

One must assume that they are either too stupid, or they can't follow simple rules in the HC,

On 15/03/2022 05:07 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 4:59:05 PM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:53:55 AM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

Now you're talking to yourself talking to yourself!

>>> There was no time or opportunity to do so. Interesting how you always blame the victim.

>>> 162
>>> Before overtaking you should make sure
>>> the road is sufficiently clear ahead

>> Simple enough - who do drivers find that rule so hard to follow?
>
> One must assume that they are either too stupid, or they can't follow simple rules in the HC...

....such as Rule 168: "*never* obstruct a driver who wishes to pass".

But fairy-cyclists break that one all the time, don't they?

On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 5:07:44 PM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 4:59:05 PM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:53:55 AM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > There was no time or opportunity to do so. Interesting how you always blame the victim.
> > > 162
> >
> >
> > > Before overtaking you should make sure
> > >
> > > the road is sufficiently clear ahead
> > Simple enough - who do drivers find that rule so hard to follow?
> One must assume that they are either too stupid, or they can't follow simple rules in the HC,

They even have simple pictures, but still get it wrong.

https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/uploads/3/2/9/2/3292309/rule-163-give-vulnerable-road-users-at-least-as-much-space-as-you-would-a-car_orig.jpg

On Tuesday, 15 March 2022 at 17:20:43 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> On 15/03/2022 05:07 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 4:59:05 PM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:53:55 AM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> Now you're talking to yourself talking to yourself!
> >>> There was no time or opportunity to do so. Interesting how you always blame the victim.
>
> >>> 162
> >>> Before overtaking you should make sure
> >>> the road is sufficiently clear ahead
>
> >> Simple enough - who do drivers find that rule so hard to follow?
> >
> > One must assume that they are either too stupid, or they can't follow simple rules in the HC...
>
> ...such as Rule 168: "*never* obstruct a driver who wishes to pass".
>
> But fairy-cyclists break that one all the time, don't they?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLzGj10fg2g
So many drivers ignoring Rule 168.

On 15/03/2022 06:43 pm, Mike Collins wrote:

> On Tuesday, 15 March 2022 at 17:20:43 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>> On 15/03/2022 05:07 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 4:59:05 PM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:53:55 AM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Now you're talking to yourself talking to yourself!

>>>>> There was no time or opportunity to do so. Interesting how you always blame the victim.
>
>>>>> 162
>>>>> Before overtaking you should make sure
>>>>> the road is sufficiently clear ahead
>
>>>> Simple enough - who do drivers find that rule so hard to follow?
>
>>> One must assume that they are either too stupid, or they can't follow simple rules in the HC...
>
>> ...such as Rule 168: "*never* obstruct a driver who wishes to pass".
>
>> But fairy-cyclists break that one all the time, don't they?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLzGj10fg2g
> So many drivers ignoring Rule 168.

You're wriggling.

Again.

On Tuesday, 15 March 2022 at 23:34:57 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> On 15/03/2022 06:43 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 15 March 2022 at 17:20:43 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 15/03/2022 05:07 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 4:59:05 PM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:53:55 AM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> Now you're talking to yourself talking to yourself!
>
> >>>>> There was no time or opportunity to do so. Interesting how you always blame the victim.
> >
> >>>>> 162
> >>>>> Before overtaking you should make sure
> >>>>> the road is sufficiently clear ahead
> >
> >>>> Simple enough - who do drivers find that rule so hard to follow?
> >
> >>> One must assume that they are either too stupid, or they can't follow simple rules in the HC...
> >
> >> ...such as Rule 168: "*never* obstruct a driver who wishes to pass".
> >
> >> But fairy-cyclists break that one all the time, don't they?
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLzGj10fg2g
> > So many drivers ignoring Rule 168.
> You're wriggling.
>
> Again.

Not at all. Motorists like to cite this rule when there is a cyclist front of them but never obey the rule when there is a cyclist behind them. Many studies have shown pedal cycles move faster than cars in urban environments yet motorists do not move over to let the faster traffic pass even though they are using the roads free of charge and cyclists have to pay.

On 15/03/2022 17:02, JNugent wrote:
> On 15/03/2022 04:59 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:53:55 AM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> Why do you keep talking to yourself?

Perhaps he's killfiled himself?

--
Spike

On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 9:22:34 AM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:

> Not at all. Motorists like to cite this rule when there is a cyclist front of them but never obey the rule when there is a cyclist behind them. Many studies have shown pedal cycles move faster than cars in urban environments

Also buses as we have recently discovered.

On 16/03/2022 11:39, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 9:22:34 AM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:

>> Not at all. Motorists like to cite this rule when there is a cyclist front of them but never obey the rule when there is a cyclist behind them. Many studies have shown pedal cycles move faster than cars in urban environments

> Also buses as we have recently discovered.

Perhaps we ought to introduce cycle-calming methods.

--
Spike

On 16/03/2022 09:39 am, Spike wrote:

> On 15/03/2022 17:02, JNugent wrote:

>> On 15/03/2022 04:59 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 10:53:55 AM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Why do you keep talking to yourself?
>
> Perhaps he's killfiled himself?

:-)

I dare say stranger things have happened.

In fact, I know they have.