- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Near Miss of the Day 76: Cyclist is squeezed by close-passing bus driver (includes strong language)
The cyclist who was almost squeezed to the kerb by this passing bus believes it was a punishment pass because he failed to use a “pointless” 20-metre cycle lane.
The incident took place on Friday December 22 at around 2.30pm while the cyclist was riding past Victoria Circus in Southend on Sea.
Westcliff GoPro – who has already submitted a couple of other videos for this feature – said:
“As shown in the video, it was ridiculously close but the bus driver’s reaction shocked me more. When I gesticulated how close he was he said: ‘Don’t talk fucking bollocks’.
“I think the driver’s attitude was far from what you’d expect and, in my opinion, I think it was done deliberately because I didn’t take the pointless cycle lane.”
The incident has been reported to both Essex Police and First Group, but there hasn’t yet been a response from either.
Over the years road.cc has reported on literally hundreds of close passes and near misses involving badly driven vehicles from every corner of the country – so many, in fact, that we’ve decided to turn the phenomenon into a regular feature on the site. One day hopefully we will run out of close passes and near misses to report on, but until that happy day arrives, Near Miss of the Day will keep rolling on.
If you’ve caught on camera a close encounter of the uncomfortable kind with another road user that you’d like to share with the wider cycling community please send it to us at info [at] road.cc or send us a message via the road.cc Facebook page.
If the video is on YouTube, please send us a link, if not we can add any footage you supply to our YouTube channel as an unlisted video (so it won't show up on searches).
Please also let us know whether you contacted the police and if so what their reaction was, as well as the reaction of the vehicle operator if it was a bus, lorry or van with company markings etc.
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- Dnnnnnn 3 hours 15 min ago
Reminds me of Colin Angus of Aberdonian band The Shamen (famous for "Ebeneezer Goode", banned by the BBC for its “E's are good” chorus) on Standard...
- chrisonabike 4 hours 19 min ago
Moot anyway because although people have even bandied about numbers comparing "road taxes" (wot motorists pay over "just the bare cost of fuel and...
- Simon E 4 hours 43 min ago
TTs can be dangerous regardless of the location, as you know....
- biking59boomer 6 hours 52 min ago
What does it matter how much she cycles as long as she does what Labour promised they'd do?
- Robert Hardy 8 hours 33 min ago
Or the Cambridge case where the tanker driver admitted hanging his coat on the nearside camera monitor screen and still escaped a custodial...
- EddyBerckx 8 hours 36 min ago
Christ people are boring Looks fine to me. You have 20 trillion traditional looking bikes to choose from if you don't like this!
- OnYerBike 10 hours 33 min ago
Not sure it's entirely fair to infer how well this helmet would score based on other models from the same brand. Both the Imperial testing and VT's...
- Rendel Harris 11 hours 10 min ago
When for the same money (or half that on AliExpress) you can get a CooSpo CS500 with maps and GPS navigation I really can't see who's going to pay...
- Paul J 13 hours 3 sec ago
CO rebreathing, altitude camps, and altitude/hypobaric tents are all trying to exploit the same effect: The body producing more red-blood cells in...
- levestane 13 hours 58 min ago
DOT4 is pretty aggresive stuff (nothing melted), mineral oil is probably OK on EPS hemets. I'm surprised this is allowed on planes.
Add new comment
95 comments
road.cc: have you reached out to the bus firm in question for a comment on this incident? If not then may I ask why?
Anyone know him?
9F81872F-91AD-4928-BFA9-1CD34A0B91FD.png
No, but searching for his YouTube handle of "Westcliff GoPro" turns up what is probably his facebook and Google+ accounts (won't post here - you can do the same search).
The article says the guy has already reported it to the company, no?
So don't they already know who he is?
Has Westcliff got in touch?
B76AB0B3-AE1C-45CF-9F90-A74BAB234EA3.png
I tweeted First, this was the reply. “Thank you for bringing this to our attention, please could you give us a follow so we can dm you a contact form to get this logged with us; my apologies - CM”
Mr Fearnley has replied, here it is;
"Thank you for passing me the video of one of our buses in Essex. We require the very highest standards of driving and behaviour from our drivers at all times. Any shortcomings are taken seriously and, investigated and appropriate action taken. I can now assure you that his incident is now being so investigated. Thank you for taking the time to contact us."
Regards
GILES FEARNLEY
Were there overriding factors like in the Campbell case where the claim to privacy was rejected as there was a bit of a news story in it?
Anyway, it's Tuesday (unless you wish to tell me different) and I have work to do. A right is a right, end of. I'll let you get on as you've all obviously won (you haven't) and you can all feel proud of yourselves (god in heaven help us).
Been done, read the thread before commenting. DPA gives access and rights on cctv and Europe gives details on human rights (which kindly introduced the Campbell case) to highlight that Joe Public does indeed have the right. It's not a discussion on whether you'd succeed or not, it's the right!! And we all have the right. Including the discussion on whether it's embarrassing or extremely offensive. It's still a fucking right!
Why did you spend so much time running around in a circle?
Why do you still mention the DPA, when its almost entirely irrelevant to the topic?
I mentioned the HRA, the point is it's not something you can rely on in pracitce, as it requires a judge to balance different rights and apart from a couple of celebs I know of no cases where its achieved the results you imply. But go ahead and try and rely on it if you wish, I suspect you will be disappointed. The point is its not an unqualified right, it's explicitly balanced against other factors, and in practice that balance is very skewed towards those other factors. Hence you are simply mistaken in declaring that it's a 'fucking right'.
Do you seriously believe in entirely theoretical rights, while ignoring what actually happens in practice? That seems naive to me. I mean, on that basis you must think any number of despotic regimes throuhout history were idyllic democracies.
Oh FFS!
But that's American and just a guide. And easily argued against.
The origin of the test might be American but it's completely applicable to British cases, hence its direct quotation.
Regardless of what test you choose the fact remains that the onus is on you to prove that the activity photographed is private.
Unless you can do so, either through the quoted test or by some other means, you have absolutely no legal right to demand the removal of published photographs.
Your consent is not required to take or publish photographs of normal activity in a public place.
So I have no right to demand the removal of photos that have been published, except in those cases where I can demonstrate that I pass the test of having a right.
My conclusion is that I have the right to remove any photo that is published.
This is fucking hilarious!
Your conclusion is wrong.
You can only demand that a photograph is removed in a very specific set of circumstances.
The onus is on you to prove that those circumstances apply.
In all other circumstances you have no right to demand the removal of a photograph taken in a public place.
So I can demand that photos are removed then? After being told that I don't have the right, it turns out that I do have the right. Try reading the law and interpreting it correctly instead of trying to twist it to fit your position.
You're starting to contradict yourself.
Show me the law that supports the position that I have no rights. And no taking the opinion of a learned friend whose popping over to the States or Aus to pick up quotes to try and support their argument. black and white (I know) UK law.
You can demand all you want.
Unless you can prove the activity photographed was private your demands will be ignored.
Your original position was
That is wrong.
You can only demand a photo is removed if you are identifiable and you can prove the activity photographed is private.
The UK is a common law country so not all law is written legislation.
The link I provided includes all the relevant legal precedents which establish the current legal position.
So show me the supporting fucking evidence instead of standing there saying that I'm wrong. Please? I beg you. Please show me that I'm wrong..
You haven't shown anything except that a private citizen has the right to challenge the publication of an image.
I've shown you the evidence.
The UK is a common law country, the evidence is therefore the previous legal precedents, all of which are detailed in the link I provided.
You can challenge the publication of an image but the legal default is to allow publication unless you can prove the photographed activity is private.
That is completely different to your original claim.
No it's not.
I have the right to demand the removal of any published image of me.
You're wrong.
But now you are retreating to a statement that is true but pointless. You have the right to demand any number of things, including free chocolate forever, but so what? What's your point?
Your original position was that you could demand the removal of any identifiable image and that if you demanded its removal it should be removed.
That is very different from your new position that you can demand the removal of any photograph.
As FKoT has pointed out we can all demand anything we want. Nobody has to honour our demands.
You'll have to explain the difference between can and could to me, as I'm totally lost. FKoT is right, we can indeed demand anything we want. Now bugger off and find the supporting law that will let you do this.
I thought the law was all about making things equal for all.
I've already provided the supporting law.
The UK is a common law country.
Your original position was that you could make a demand and there had to be a response to your demand.
Your new position is just that you can make the demand.
Those two positions are very different.
My position is the same, I have the right to demand that any image of me can be withdrawn from publication and that demand must be responded to.
Do I have this right? Yes or no?
Boring and tiresome now. How about you go away and start another thread? We can all then get back to the original subject posted...
Just for clarification this is your original position:
You have no legal right to a response unless you can prove breach of privacy.
The burden of proof lies with you.
Give it up! No gives a flying fuck anymore!
Whereas everybody is completely enraptured by yet another close pass video...
Perhaps If you Rich_cb and don simon hadn't hijacked this thread for a bit of pointless willy waving, those of us who have done something about the original vdeo would get a word in!!
Pages