Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Near Miss of the Day 124: Close pass at speed (includes swearing)

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

Yet another needless close pass at speed features in today's entry in our Near Miss of the Day series.

What's striking in this one, is that the motorists who precede and come after the driver who makes the close pass give the cyclist plenty pf room.

From the rear-facing camera, it's clear that the driver had plenty of time to slow down so he or she wouldn't have to overtake the cyclist closely in order to avoid oncoming cars - but didn't.

The footage was shot by road.cc reader Jon. who told us it happened on his commute home as he crossed the M6 on Curdale Lane, near Preston.

"It was on my commute home and the light was starting to go hence I can't work out their registration," he continued.

"Sorry about the swearing, but he caught me by surprise,." Jon added.

> Near Miss of the Day turns 100 - Why do we do the feature and what have we learnt from it?

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.

> What to do if you capture a near miss or close pass (or worse) on camera while cycling

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

18 comments

Avatar
zero_trooper | 5 years ago
0 likes

2 'likes' fukawitribe and one of them was from me. Apathy....

CyclingUK or civil disobedience? Decisions, decisions....

Avatar
tom_w | 5 years ago
0 likes

I wonder if a 75cm long version of this would give drivers the visual cue needed to educate them on how much space to leave.  No reason it couldn't have the aforementioned tungsten tip too..! 

I don't much like the idea of attaching one of those to my bike, but if lots of people had them, and maybe if they were branded by the local police force to make it clear it has the backing of the police rather than just us cyclists being obstructive, then maybe drivers would start to get the idea?

//images.esellerpro.com/2295/I/282/21/2.jpg)

(Probably mount it on the other side of the bike in the UK...)

Avatar
Strivs | 5 years ago
11 likes

With a little enhancement you can make out most of it. 

As it happens OU07 YVP returns a red Honda Civic registered in 2007, so I reckon that's your plate...

Hope it leads to something constructive for you. 

Avatar
ChrisB200SX replied to Strivs | 5 years ago
0 likes

Strivs wrote:

With a little enhancement you can make out most of it. 

As it happens OU07 YVP returns a red Honda Civic registered in 2007, so I reckon that's your plate...

Hope it leads to something constructive for you. 

Beat me to it!  1

Avatar
turboprannet replied to Strivs | 5 years ago
3 likes

Strivs wrote:

With a little enhancement you can make out most of it. 

As it happens OU07 YVP returns a red Honda Civic registered in 2007, so I reckon that's your plate...

Hope it leads to something constructive for you. 

Strong work well done, I was way off.

Avatar
peted76 | 5 years ago
3 likes

road.cc are doing something about it.. this daily feature hosts a platform for it to be discussed and brought to our attention.  There'll be a lot of people reading and not commenting, it's just ne'er do wells like us who usually do the commenting.

I think that tungsten tips on the end of 1.5 meter long poles are the way forward, to give every car a scratch as it goes past too close. 

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet | 5 years ago
3 likes

Road.cc is about outrage, clicks and arguments (the mere mention of a helmet can provoke 200 posts).

Avatar
fukawitribe | 5 years ago
6 likes

How about road.cc have a look at doing something constructive with it rather than just generating click-bait for the converted ?

Avatar
zero_trooper replied to fukawitribe | 5 years ago
3 likes

fukawitribe wrote:

How about road.cc have a look at doing something constructive with it rather than just generating click-bait for the converted ?

 

Nailed it there. I said as much in the preceding NMotD. 

We should be helping and supporting victims to get police action and convictions (resolutions ). Or whatever the approriate outcome is. I've almost come round to mandatory insurance, at least then you have some cover to fallback on and hopefully legal advice.

The biggest issue seems to me that most cyclists don't really know what to do and accept whatever the police first tell them, which usually appears to be a fobbing off. We could do with a copy of the CPS prosecution policy on careless/dangerous driving. Also, the forces with close pass initiatives, do they have any different prosecution policy? 

Fifth Gear posted this link:http://go.redirectingat.com/?id=80023X1531141&xs=1&isjs=1&url=https%3A%2...

Now according to the officer from CPMG 'close pass' drivers (in WMP area) get to choose between attending a Driver Awareness Course or an Endorsable Fixed Penalty Notice. If they decline both what happens isn't clear. Presumably a file is prepared and CPS make a decision whether to prosecute or not. 

Avatar
burtthebike replied to zero_trooper | 5 years ago
3 likes

zero_trooper wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

How about road.cc have a look at doing something constructive with it rather than just generating click-bait for the converted ?

 

Nailed it there. I said as much in the preceding NMotD. 

We should be helping and supporting victims to get police action and convictions (resolutions ). Or whatever the approriate outcome is. I've almost come round to mandatory insurance, at least then you have some cover to fallback on and hopefully legal advice.

The biggest issue seems to me that most cyclists don't really know what to do and accept whatever the police first tell them, which usually appears to be a fobbing off. We could do with a copy of the CPS prosecution policy on careless/dangerous driving. Also, the forces with close pass initiatives, do they have any different prosecution policy? 

Fifth Gear posted this link:http://go.redirectingat.com/?id=80023X1531141&xs=1&isjs=1&url=https%3A%2...

Now according to the officer from CPMG 'close pass' drivers (in WMP area) get to choose between attending a Driver Awareness Course or an Endorsable Fixed Penalty Notice. If they decline both what happens isn't clear. Presumably a file is prepared and CPS make a decision whether to prosecute or not. 

All valid points, but road.cc isn't a campaigning organisation; try Cycling UK, which very actively pursues road justice for cyclists, including setting up the Cyclists' Defence Fund.

Avatar
zero_trooper replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
0 likes
burtthebike wrote:

zero_trooper wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

How about road.cc have a look at doing something constructive with it rather than just generating click-bait for the converted ?

 

Nailed it there. I said as much in the preceding NMotD. 

We should be helping and supporting victims to get police action and convictions (resolutions ). Or whatever the approriate outcome is. I've almost come round to mandatory insurance, at least then you have some cover to fallback on and hopefully legal advice.

The biggest issue seems to me that most cyclists don't really know what to do and accept whatever the police first tell them, which usually appears to be a fobbing off. We could do with a copy of the CPS prosecution policy on careless/dangerous driving. Also, the forces with close pass initiatives, do they have any different prosecution policy? 

Fifth Gear posted this link:http://go.redirectingat.com/?id=80023X1531141&xs=1&isjs=1&url=https%3A%2...

Now according to the officer from CPMG 'close pass' drivers (in WMP area) get to choose between attending a Driver Awareness Course or an Endorsable Fixed Penalty Notice. If they decline both what happens isn't clear. Presumably a file is prepared and CPS make a decision whether to prosecute or not. 

All valid points, but road.cc isn't a campaigning organisation; try Cycling UK, which very actively pursues road justice for cyclists, including setting up the Cyclists' Defence Fund.

I suspect that most readers of road c.c. are not members of Cycling UK. Do they support 'close pass' victims, or is it only in more serious cases e.g. injury RTCs?

I receive bulletins from them, but I'm not a member. However, I've been tempted by their joining promotions (the Lezyne lights), there's the insurance cover and discounts. I'll look in to it thanks.

Avatar
fukawitribe replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
3 likes

burtthebike wrote:

All valid points, but road.cc isn't a campaigning organisation; try Cycling UK, which very actively pursues road justice for cyclists, including setting up the Cyclists' Defence Fund.

I agree Burt, but road.cc seems to be becoming a place where people know they can contribute their experiences to and it's happy to continue to push this to an audience that is already rightly outraged that shit like this still happens every day - it might wish to help funnel that video evidence and reader resource rather than just watching folk rattling the pitchforks. My hope was perhaps they might wish to collaborate with one or more of the national bodies and their readers...  I was also perhaps a bit harsh on them - it's also pretty shit that after over a hundred and twenty articles i've only really seen any comments which are meaningfully constructive in the last couple. That's not to say that it doesn't happen or that action isn't being taken outside of here, but it's impossiible to tell from the (lack of) feedback. 

Avatar
burtthebike replied to zero_trooper | 5 years ago
0 likes

double post

Avatar
Fifth Gear replied to zero_trooper | 5 years ago
4 likes

zero_trooper wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

How about road.cc have a look at doing something constructive with it rather than just generating click-bait for the converted ?

 

Nailed it there. I said as much in the preceding NMotD. 

We should be helping and supporting victims to get police action and convictions (resolutions ). Or whatever the approriate outcome is. I've almost come round to mandatory insurance, at least then you have some cover to fallback on and hopefully legal advice.

The biggest issue seems to me that most cyclists don't really know what to do and accept whatever the police first tell them, which usually appears to be a fobbing off. We could do with a copy of the CPS prosecution policy on careless/dangerous driving. Also, the forces with close pass initiatives, do they have any different prosecution policy? 

 

CPS guidelines on careless driving state driving inappropriately close to another vehicle qualifies for prosecution:

"Driving without due care and attention

The offence of driving without due care and attention (careless driving) under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is committed when the defendant's driving falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver - section 3ZA(2) of the RTA 1988.

The maximum penalty is a level 5 fine. The court must also either endorse the driver's licence with between 3 and 9 penalty points (unless there are "special reasons" not to do so), or impose disqualification for a fixed period and/or until a driving test has been passed.

In determining what is to be expected of a competent and careful driver, the prosecutor must take into account not only the circumstances of which the driver could be expected to be aware, but also any circumstances shown to have been within the driver's knowledge.

The test of whether the standard of driving has fallen below the required standard is objective. It applies both when the manner of driving in question is deliberate and when it occurs as a result of incompetence, inadvertence or inexperience.

Occasionally, a collision may occur but there is no evidence of any mechanical defect, illness of the driver, or other explanation to account for why the collision happened. In these cases, a charge of careless driving may be appropriate, but prosecutors should exercise caution.

If the evidence is capable of proving how an incident occurred (e.g. a collision), the case can be put on the basis that there is a very strong inference that the defendant was driving below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver.

In the absence of any explanation by the defendant as to the cause of the collision, a court may infer that the offence was committed, but where the defendant does provide an explanation for the collision, however unlikely, you will have to consider whether to proceed.

The civil law doctrine of res ipsa loquitur [the thing speaks for itself] has no direct application to the criminal law. (But see Wilkinson's at para 5.52):

"the fact that res ipsa loquitor has no application to criminal law does not mean that the prosecution have to negative every possible explanation of a defendant before he can be convicted of careless driving where the facts at the scene of an accident are such that, in the absence of any explanation by the defendant, a court can have no alternative but to convict"

See also R v Warwickshire Police Ex p. Manjit Singh Mundi [2001] EWHC Admin 448 (the court held that crossing a central white line without explanation was, in itself, evidence of careless driving).

In some cases, particularly where there has been a collision, the evidence will show that more than one driver was at fault. It will be necessary to establish that there is evidence from an independent source against any driver who is to be charged, but the possibility of charging more than one driver remains if both have failed to comply with the statutory standard.

There are decided cases that provide some guidance as to the driving that courts will regard as careless or inconsiderate and the following examples are typical of what we are likely to regard as careless driving:

overtaking on the inside;
*driving inappropriately close to another vehicle;*
inadvertently driving through a red light;
emerging from a side road into the path of another vehicle;
tuning a car radio, when the driver was avoidably distracted by this action;
using a hand-held mobile phone or other hand-held electronic equipment when the driver was avoidably distracted by that use (note that this is an offence itself under Regulation 110 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2003). If this is the only relevant aspect of the case it is more appropriate to use the specific offence;
selecting and lighting a cigarette or similar when the driver was avoidably distracted by that use.

These examples are merely indicative of what can amount to careless driving. In addition, prosecutors should note that some of these examples also fall within the examples of dangerous driving.

Charging Practice

Prosecutors must note that the same factors must be taken into consideration as those outlined for the charging practice in respect of dangerous driving offences under section 2 of the RTA 1988. The manner of the driving must be seen in the context of the surrounding circumstances in which they took place (for example; amount of traffic, visibility, weather conditions, excess speed etc). The circumstances in every case will be unique and must be considered in each case before reaching a decision as to the appropriate charge.

It is necessary to put the facts into context, decide the degree to which the standard of driving fell below that required, and consider whether the particular facts of the case warrant a charge under section 3 of the RTA 1988 (careless driving) or under section 2 of the RTA 1988 (dangerous driving). See the section on Commission of a number of offences for additional guidance.

Prosecutors should also consider whether a driver has failed to observe a provision of the Highway Code. This does not itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings, but a failure, particularly a serious one, may constitute evidence of careless or even dangerous driving; see section 38(7) of the RTA 1988.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-offences-guidance-cha...

Avatar
burtthebike replied to Fifth Gear | 5 years ago
2 likes

Fifth Gear wrote:

CPS guidelines on careless driving state driving inappropriately close to another vehicle qualifies for prosecution:

"Driving without due care and attention

Many thanks for that, and if it was applied properly, then the number of drivers on the road would fall by about 50% overnight, with the remaininder driving very carefully indeed.  The question is why it isn't being applied.

 

Avatar
zero_trooper replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
1 like

burtthebike wrote:

Fifth Gear wrote:

CPS guidelines on careless driving state driving inappropriately close to another vehicle qualifies for prosecution:

"Driving without due care and attention

Many thanks for that, and if it was applied properly, then the number of drivers on the road would fall by about 50% overnight, with the remaininder driving very carefully indeed.  The question is why it isn't being applied.

 

 

Why indeed?!?

Also, great post Fifth Gear  1

Avatar
burtthebike | 5 years ago
12 likes

Well, I swore too, but thanks for the warning.

A completely unnecessary, dangerous, threatening pass, and as demonstrated by the previous and following drivers, easily avoidable.

Some people question the need for continuing this series, but I think it does us all a great service in demonstrating that the problem is widespread, endemic and ignored by the justice system and the media.  If there had been a collision in this case, I have no doubt that the driver would have been exonerated by a jury of their peers.

What is the answer?  How do we get justice on the roads and deter such obviously dangerous behavaviour?  Not through the judicial system, which fails us pretty much at every turn, with some notable exceptions.   I watched the movie "The Great Debators" a couple of days ago (great movie by the way) and when they were debating whether civil disobediance in response to racial prejudice was justified, the speaker pointed out that in Texas, they lynched niggers (excuse the language but that is a direct quote) so there were only two options; civil disobediance or retaliatory violence.  It seems to me that we are in a similar situation.

Avatar
Metaphor replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
4 likes

I like the way Burt The Bike thinks.

Latest Comments