Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Near Miss of the Day 77: Driver makes very close pass through roadworks then confronts cyclist

Our regular feature highlighting close passes caught on camera from around the country – today it’s London

Our Near Miss of the Day feature is back after taking a bit of a break over the Christmas and New Year period, and be warned, our first one of 2018 has some very colourful language.

It shows a pick-up truck driver who decided, rather than wait a couple of seconds for a cyclist to get through a short section of roadworks, to overtake him at exactly that point. 

The cyclist, not unreasonably, responded by hitting the side of the vehicle, which shows how close it was, and raised his middle finger. The motorist then hit the brakes and then, at the next junction, got out of his pick-up truck and a rather heated discussion ensued.

It was uploaded to YouTube by CBL, who said: "If I can hit your vehicle with a closed fist, without even stretching, then you're too close, there is no argument.

"After the video ended, I chatted to other man who stopped and thanked him for the 'back up'. "

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.

 

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

65 comments

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to Crashboy | 6 years ago
2 likes

Crashboy wrote:

Looks a bit like six of one /half dozen of the other. 

I agree that cyclist should have checked more thoroughly, (From the camera you can see the cyclist didn't do a very thorough check behind - certainly didn't turn his head to see over his shoulder fully )then stuck an arm out to say " I'm coming into the middle there is an obstruction ahead" type of thing and then moved nearer the middle of the lane;  The 4x4 should have seen the narrowing, slowed up more and hung back too.  He clearly either misjudged it or was cocky enough to think he could squeeze through.

Also, the "brake test" by the 4x4 was maybe an instinctive reaction to the noise of the cyclist hitting his vehicle, rather than a deliberate thing.    Both parties obviously shocked / upset by the incident and unfortunate knee jerk reactions ensue from both...and we've all been there!

 

 

 

 

 

 

He was probably wearing headphones too that would prevent him from hearing too. 

FFS!

Avatar
Barraob1 replied to PRSboy | 6 years ago
2 likes
PRSboy wrote:

Not sure it was background music... the rider listening to a bit of Santana I think.

Not sure I would be brave enough to confront a driver like that in this day and age.

That cyclist seemed a good bit taller than the pick up driver, his bollocks got an awful lot smaller when he realized he couldn't intimidate the cyclist

Avatar
ChrisB200SX replied to alansmurphy | 6 years ago
3 likes

alansmurphy wrote:

Van overtakes at 19 seconds, 4x4 has safe distance between him and van. 

 

At 19 seconds the cyclist is still in the left lane, at 22 seconds he's touching the paint, at 23 seconds half the 4x4 is past him and you can see it's moved as far right as possible.

 

When we talk Charlie Alliston did we say reaction time is 3.5 seconds?

 

Cyclist has moved into the 4x4.

 

At 28 seconds he puts his bike back down the inside of the truck and is gesticulating at 29 seconds...

I suggest watching the video again. When the bus lane ends, do you see lines continuing, or is it in fact a single lane that the cyclist is in when the 4x4 follows dangerously closely and then overtakes dangerously closely?

The driver clearly reacts to the finger and not to the punch of his vehicle, this is then a deliberate attempt to put the cyclist in danger, even if what the driver previously did previously wasn't.

Avatar
Sub5orange replied to kemakris | 6 years ago
3 likes

That situation was made much worse by the cyclist's aggressive behaviour. If a motorist used that sort of language, we'd all throw the book at him. 

 

To be fair , keeping your good manners after a ton of metal comes too close to you is not an easy feat.  Plus the guy got out of the car probably raising adrenaline levels even more. Cars need to pass really really close nowadays to generate emotions in me, however I had a one incident last year of a woman on a narrow lane  coming my way whilst looking at their mobile whilst driving .swearing and shouting on that occasion probably saved my life, as only when she heard me, she looked up and corrected the  trajectory of her car, which until than was on collision course with nowhere for me to go to avoid it.  I kept swearing even after she hold up her hand in apology after she drove past me. But after every incident i have, i tell myself, i must watch my language.... lol 

Avatar
gmac101 | 6 years ago
3 likes

As somebody said earlier there should have been a “don’t overtake cyclists” sign as the road narrowed. The planning for cyclists (and often for pedestrians) during road works is often piss poor and incidents like this are the result. Does anybody know if there is any duty on those conducting road works to plan effectively for all road users to reduce risk?

Avatar
Wolfcastle50 replied to Vili Er | 6 years ago
0 likes
alan loves froome wrote:

A couple of Tarquins going at each other. Entertaining.

Who are you then? Mike Tyson?

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
6 likes

The cyclist has priority
The motorist ignores the fact that the road user ahead cannot simply dissappear.
The motorist endangers/assaults the vulnerable road user with his killing machine.
The motorist unlawfully obstructs another road user and deliberately attempts to cause them harm/crash.

All this BS about him being in a different lane when it's obvious he will be merging into the single lane of the roadworks means cunty McCuntface has to ensure he doesn't do something that endangers another. There are many references to this in the HC.
The police will claim the cyclist is breaching the peace/public order offence and do fuck all.

Avatar
drosco | 6 years ago
3 likes

OK road.cc you win, hello Bike Radar.

I completely fail to see the point of this feature beyond generating clicks. Same goes for the endless helmet articles, followed by the predictable 100+ comments for and against.

I've commuted 5000 miles a year for 5 years. In this time, I've had no accidents. Pretty much every journey I could find a couple of passes that could have been wider, a car rounding a round-a-bout with no signal, a cyclist jumping a light. It's just the reality of using a road, I don't need to film it and post it on the internet. On the rare day I drove last year, I was rear ended at a junction by someone not paying attention. Some people aren't great drivers, we all know that. Posting endless videos of 'wronged' cyclists just puts cyclists in a bad light and reinforces the 'them and us'. It also gives a false impression of the dangers of cycling.

Incidentally, while I'm about it, staff having pally conversations with manufacturers in comments sections doesn't do anything for the appearance of objectivity. Any chance a Mason won't be the greatest bike you've ever ridden this year?

 

 

Avatar
brooksby replied to gmac101 | 6 years ago
2 likes

gmac101 wrote:

As somebody said earlier there should have been a “don’t overtake cyclists” sign as the road narrowed. The planning for cyclists (and often for pedestrians) during road works is often piss poor and incidents like this are the result. Does anybody know if there is any duty on those conducting road works to plan effectively for all road users to reduce risk?

I've read about those signs, but never seen one 'in the wild', as it were.  They actually sound like a very good idea.

Avatar
brooksby replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
5 likes

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

The motorist ignores the fact that the road user ahead cannot simply disappear.

Oh, well, then it's clearly the cyclist's fault, isn't it.  Mr Pick Up Truck had presumed that Mr Cyclist had bought a bike with the teleport option.  It's not his fault if Mr Cyclist was a cheapskate  yes

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet | 6 years ago
0 likes

About time this video series got a new name, some a bit more dynamic

Near Misses 2k18 or something?

Avatar
dassie replied to don simon fbpe | 6 years ago
1 like

don simon wrote:

dassie wrote:

I would have noticed the narrowing ahead, looked behind, indicated, and then taken the lane.  However the driver should have waited for the cyclist! 

This.

I would have noticed the narrowing ahead, looked behind, indicated, and then taken the lane.  However the driver should have waited for the cyclist! 

I try and adopt an assertive but defensive approach, because a proportion of motorists will always drive without the required respect for more vulnerable road users.  It leaves less to chance.

Avatar
atgni | 6 years ago
2 likes

The brake check and sweve is illegal.
See 'Driving without reasonable consideration'. Specific example of braking without good cause.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-offences-guidance-cha...

Avatar
gmac101 replied to brooksby | 6 years ago
0 likes

brooksby wrote:

gmac101 wrote:

As somebody said earlier there should have been a “don’t overtake cyclists” sign as the road narrowed. The planning for cyclists (and often for pedestrians) during road works is often piss poor and incidents like this are the result. Does anybody know if there is any duty on those conducting road works to plan effectively for all road users to reduce risk?

I've read about those signs, but never seen one 'in the wild', as it were.  They actually sound like a very good idea.

I have seen them a couple of times (in outer sw London) - The first time I'd already decided to move to primary in the restricted lane.  It was reassuring to see somebody had thought about the cyclists predicament in this situation

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to brooksby | 6 years ago
5 likes
brooksby wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

The motorist ignores the fact that the road user ahead cannot simply disappear.

Oh, well, then it's clearly the cyclist's fault, isn't it.  Mr Pick Up Truck had presumed that Mr Cyclist had bought a bike with the teleport option.  It's not his fault if Mr Cyclist was a cheapskate  yes

Had similar before xmas, the estate road was narrowed some years ago and parked cars adorn every yard pretty much on one side. I'm doing about 27mph down the slope and just off from centre line due to the parked vehicles that are there all the time. Still there's space to get past as the road is generally quiet. Mr twat features on his horn and when I catch up at the shop car park not 400m further on ask what is problem is. "You're in the middle of the road", are you fucking blind, there's parked cars halfway in the lane U can't just dissappear. Don't honk your horn and try to intimidate people because you think you can bully people out the way. Pony tailed twat nearly pissed his pants when he saw me pulling up to him.
I might buy a 40 tonne HGV and use it to show other motorists and the police how it feels to have someone try to wipe you out.
For the most part plod are only really interested in close passes when it's one of their own.

Avatar
LastBoyScout replied to ConcordeCX | 6 years ago
2 likes

ConcordeCX wrote:

a lot of the long-term roadworks, such as those that were by London Bridge station, have road signs telling drivers not to overtake cyclists. This should become a standard for all roadworks that remove a lane.

They had those signs on some roadworks near me last year, where they'd closed the cycle lane. How many drivers do you think actually paid any attention to them? Yep, ZERO.

Avatar
alansmurphy replied to ChrisB200SX | 6 years ago
3 likes

ChrisB200SX wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

Van overtakes at 19 seconds, 4x4 has safe distance between him and van. 

 

At 19 seconds the cyclist is still in the left lane, at 22 seconds he's touching the paint, at 23 seconds half the 4x4 is past him and you can see it's moved as far right as possible.

 

When we talk Charlie Alliston did we say reaction time is 3.5 seconds?

 

Cyclist has moved into the 4x4.

 

At 28 seconds he puts his bike back down the inside of the truck and is gesticulating at 29 seconds...

I suggest watching the video again. When the bus lane ends, do you see lines continuing, or is it in fact a single lane that the cyclist is in when the 4x4 follows dangerously closely and then overtakes dangerously closely?

The driver clearly reacts to the finger and not to the punch of his vehicle, this is then a deliberate attempt to put the cyclist in danger, even if what the driver previously did previously wasn't.

 

At what point are you talking here, up until 22 seconds the cyclist is in the left hand lane which is narrowing due to roadworks and the 4x4 is coming past at 23 seconds - the driver doesn't overtake dangerously closely, he is in his lane which the cyclist recklessly moves into.

 

If you were driving in the middle lane on the motorway you wouldn't pull into the overtaking outside lane at a seconds notice with half a glance...

Avatar
alansmurphy replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
4 likes

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

 

The cyclist has priority

The motorist ignores the fact that the road user ahead cannot simply dissappear.

The motorist endangers/assaults the vulnerable road user with his killing machine. The motorist unlawfully obstructs another road user and deliberately attempts to cause them harm/crash.

All this BS about him being in a different lane when it's obvious he will be merging into the single lane of the roadworks means cunty McCuntface has to ensure he doesn't do something that endangers another. There are many references to this in the HC.

The police will claim the cyclist is breaching the peace/public order offence and do fuck all.

 

Couldn't disagree more.

 

If the 4x4 was in the inside lane doing 20mph and the cyclist was in the outside doing 25mph and the 4x4 put his indicator on and moved out within a second - would you blame the cyclist?

 

Avatar
Vehlin | 6 years ago
1 like

There are no innocent people in this video.

The cyclist changed lanes into the path of an oncoming vehicle and then started swearing at the driver for nearly hitting him. The cyclist should have either merged immediately after the van where it appears there was space, or he should have stopped in his lane and waited until it was safe to change lanes.

The driver then decided to teach the cyclist a lesson by brake checking and swerving towards him. This is totally unacceptable behaviour and he deserves to have the book thrown at him for this. People that can't keep their cool on the road shouldn't be on it. 

Avatar
ConcordeCX replied to LastBoyScout | 6 years ago
0 likes

LastBoyScout wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

a lot of the long-term roadworks, such as those that were by London Bridge station, have road signs telling drivers not to overtake cyclists. This should become a standard for all roadworks that remove a lane.

They had those signs on some roadworks near me last year, where they'd closed the cycle lane. How many drivers do you think actually paid any attention to them? Yep, ZERO.

i’ve found them to be quite effective. Most of my Cycling is in London, where I suspect drivers are more used to this sort of thing than elsewhere in the UK.

in this type of situation I always take the lane anyway, so the only way past me is over me. The signs help to justify (to the drivers) why I’m there if they think the cyclist’s first duty is to get the fuck out of their way.

Avatar
Scottish Scrutineer replied to alansmurphy | 6 years ago
2 likes

alansmurphy wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

 

The cyclist has priority

The motorist ignores the fact that the road user ahead cannot simply dissappear.

The motorist endangers/assaults the vulnerable road user with his killing machine. The motorist unlawfully obstructs another road user and deliberately attempts to cause them harm/crash.

All this BS about him being in a different lane when it's obvious he will be merging into the single lane of the roadworks means cunty McCuntface has to ensure he doesn't do something that endangers another. There are many references to this in the HC.

The police will claim the cyclist is breaching the peace/public order offence and do fuck all.

 

Couldn't disagree more.

 

If the 4x4 was in the inside lane doing 20mph and the cyclist was in the outside doing 25mph and the 4x4 put his indicator on and moved out within a second - would you blame the cyclist?

 

 

All that "having priority" belief is going to do, is mean that sooner rather than later, you'll end up being seriously injured or worse. As cyclists, we need to be aware that we are more vulnerable than the unthinking driver in his car/4x4/pick-up/bus/truck/tram/train (delete as appropriate, but a collision with any has the potential to hurt us more than them), and ride accordingly i.e. defensively.

"Priority" will only get you into the hospital bed or funeral directors parlour sooner.

 

Avatar
Hirsute replied to brooksby | 6 years ago
1 like
brooksby wrote:

I've read about those signs, but never seen one 'in the wild', as it were.  They actually sound like a very good idea.

Here you go
https://goo.gl/maps/J9hfmgmaEX22

Avatar
alansmurphy | 6 years ago
0 likes

I'm also shocked by the close pass the cyclist makes on the cyclist at the start of the video, he should have given him the bird and dropped the c bomb!

Avatar
ClubSmed replied to alansmurphy | 6 years ago
0 likes

alansmurphy wrote:

ChrisB200SX wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

Van overtakes at 19 seconds, 4x4 has safe distance between him and van. 

 

At 19 seconds the cyclist is still in the left lane, at 22 seconds he's touching the paint, at 23 seconds half the 4x4 is past him and you can see it's moved as far right as possible.

 

When we talk Charlie Alliston did we say reaction time is 3.5 seconds?

 

Cyclist has moved into the 4x4.

 

At 28 seconds he puts his bike back down the inside of the truck and is gesticulating at 29 seconds...

I suggest watching the video again. When the bus lane ends, do you see lines continuing, or is it in fact a single lane that the cyclist is in when the 4x4 follows dangerously closely and then overtakes dangerously closely?

The driver clearly reacts to the finger and not to the punch of his vehicle, this is then a deliberate attempt to put the cyclist in danger, even if what the driver previously did previously wasn't.

 

At what point are you talking here, up until 22 seconds the cyclist is in the left hand lane which is narrowing due to roadworks and the 4x4 is coming past at 23 seconds - the driver doesn't overtake dangerously closely, he is in his lane which the cyclist recklessly moves into.

 

If you were driving in the middle lane on the motorway you wouldn't pull into the overtaking outside lane at a seconds notice with half a glance...

The thing is that we do not know what the cyclist saw when he looked back as the camera does not show the full view. When the cyclist looks back at 18 seconds I assume he has a better view behind him than is shown from the camera (due to camera angle and cyclist being able to move eyes as well as head to get full view.

It is just as possible that the area was clear when he looked back so he merged into the other lane where there was plenty of room but the 4x4 was speeding so it resulted in a close pass.

Avatar
Ush replied to ClubSmed | 6 years ago
1 like

ClubSmed wrote:

The thing is that we do not know what the cyclist saw when he looked back as the camera does not show the full view.

That Sir is exactly the difference between you and alansmurphy.  Alan does know.  He is wearing a special MIPS retro-vision helmet which allows him to see exactly what the cyclist posting this video saw with his eyes.

In addition to that any fool can tell that cyclist is obviously a reckless and dangerous person who swans up to pinch points and flings his bicycle out in front of the poor motorist.  

Furthermore I would like to draw all contributors' attention to the fact that the cyclist is obviously one of the aggressive ones (probably he impersonates Alan by donning a choirboy outfit every time he goes out just looking for trouble) who gives US all a bad name.  You can tell this motorist was very busy by the fact that he was willing to stop like that in order to get where he was going faster.  What will they all think of us?

In conclusion and summary I would like to draw the court's attention to the fact that he did not fill out the proper paperwork for a gentle request to the hard-working, tax-paying, ordinary driver to follow the rules of the road and to please try and not hit anyone else.

I shall be introducing a bill soon (maybe a petition would be of interest to "us" all). It will be called Alan's Law and will, I feel, do much in these troubled times to improve that lot of cyclists, mostly by getting them to castigate each other.

Thank you for your attention.

Avatar
Ush replied to drosco | 6 years ago
2 likes

drosco wrote:

endless helmet articles

You just cannot help yourself mentioning noddy hats can you?

drosco wrote:

Incidentally, while I'm about it, staff having pally conversations with manufacturers in comments sections doesn't do anything for the appearance of objectivity. Any chance a Mason won't be the greatest bike you've ever ridden this year?

Ah, suck it.  Road.cc do great technical reviews.  It is good that there are explicit conversations with builders/distributors.

Avatar
brooksby replied to Hirsute | 6 years ago
0 likes

hirsute wrote:
brooksby wrote:

I've read about those signs, but never seen one 'in the wild', as it were.  They actually sound like a very good idea.

Here you go https://goo.gl/maps/J9hfmgmaEX22

Yep, definitely a good idea.  I'll keep an eye out for them outside that there London 

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to alansmurphy | 6 years ago
1 like

alansmurphy wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

 

The cyclist has priority

The motorist ignores the fact that the road user ahead cannot simply dissappear.

The motorist endangers/assaults the vulnerable road user with his killing machine. The motorist unlawfully obstructs another road user and deliberately attempts to cause them harm/crash.

All this BS about him being in a different lane when it's obvious he will be merging into the single lane of the roadworks means cunty McCuntface has to ensure he doesn't do something that endangers another. There are many references to this in the HC.

The police will claim the cyclist is breaching the peace/public order offence and do fuck all.

Couldn't disagree more.

If the 4x4 was in the inside lane doing 20mph and the cyclist was in the outside doing 25mph and the 4x4 put his indicator on and moved out within a second - would you blame the cyclist?

Except the person on the bike would still be hurt/killed and the motorist totally unharmed/unthreatened physically or mentally if there is contact, it's lawfully encumbant on the motorist to not assault/threaten someone else.

Please give a single example of what you've described as actualy happening in any point in history that actually threatened harm to a motorist by a person on a bike, you can't because it never ever happened.

Disagree all you like, the motorist was in the wrong 100%. put two motors in the same situation and the 4x4 driver would still be in the wrong, it's still encumbent on them not to cause a collision/threaten harm, they had ample opportunity to avoid this but chose not to. Again this is in the HC and used by the police to prosecute.

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to brooksby | 6 years ago
1 like

brooksby wrote:

hirsute wrote:
brooksby wrote:

I've read about those signs, but never seen one 'in the wild', as it were.  They actually sound like a very good idea.

Here you go https://goo.gl/maps/J9hfmgmaEX22

Yep, definitely a good idea.  I'll keep an eye out for them outside that there London 

I've seen them up north. I can't remember if it was Leeds/Manchester/Newcastle/Edinburgh/Glasgow or somewhere else, but I've seen them. A bloody brilliant idea.

Avatar
alansmurphy replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
1 like
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

 

The cyclist has priority

The motorist ignores the fact that the road user ahead cannot simply dissappear.

The motorist endangers/assaults the vulnerable road user with his killing machine. The motorist unlawfully obstructs another road user and deliberately attempts to cause them harm/crash.

All this BS about him being in a different lane when it's obvious he will be merging into the single lane of the roadworks means cunty McCuntface has to ensure he doesn't do something that endangers another. There are many references to this in the HC.

The police will claim the cyclist is breaching the peace/public order offence and do fuck all.

Couldn't disagree more.

If the 4x4 was in the inside lane doing 20mph and the cyclist was in the outside doing 25mph and the 4x4 put his indicator on and moved out within a second - would you blame the cyclist?

Except the person on the bike would still be hurt/killed and the motorist totally unharmed/unthreatened physically or mentally if there is contact, it's lawfully encumbant on the motorist to not assault/threaten someone else.

Please give a single example of what you've described as actualy happening in any point in history that actually threatened harm to a motorist by a person on a bike, you can't because it never ever happened.

Disagree all you like, the motorist was in the wrong 100%. put two motors in the same situation and the 4x4 driver would still be in the wrong, it's still encumbent on them not to cause a collision/threaten harm, they had ample opportunity to avoid this but chose not to. Again this is in the HC and used by the police to prosecute.

Disagree again, the law isn't based on the threat/vulnerability. If you put two 4x4s on the road you'd anticipate the one ahead would not indicate and move within a second whilst not checking their mirrors.

The point I was trying to make is that if helmet cam bike was in the outside lane and the 4x4 on the inside and the 4x4 had acted as the bike did it would be another close pass video where the driver would be blamed.

Suggesting they had ample time, they had a second. One second.

Pages

Latest Comments