“The car was heading directly towards me. Impact seemed inevitable. It was the most frightening moment I’ve ever had on my bike.”
That was the account of the road.cc reader involved in this near collision back in the summer, the rider left frustrated by Kent Police’s apparent lack of interest in dealing with his footage of the incident.
It happened in August on Chartham Downs Road, just south of Canterbury, as road.cc reader Mark was cycling westwards, approaching the crossroads of Roundhouse Lane and Iffin Lane.
“There is a Stop junction for vehicles from Roundhouse Lane joining Chartham Downs Road,” he recalled. “The driver failed to stop and instead continued on to Chartham Downs Road as I passed the junction. It was only the driver’s swerve in the last split second that avoided collision by a matter of millimetres.
“Unfortunately, there is no video of the view perpendicular to my direction of travel, but a fraction of a second before the vehicle comes into view of my rear camera, the car was heading directly towards me. Impact seemed inevitable. It was the most frightening moment I’ve ever had on my bike.
Mark suggested there were sevral notable aspects to the incident, firstly that he was wearing bright, hi-vis clothing and it was a clear day with very good visibility.
“It was a clear day, and I was wearing high-vis yellow shirt, socks, and gloves,” he explained. “My shorts had high-vis yellow bands. My bike was coordinated with high-vis yellow bottle cages and bottles. Even my frame has yellow markings. However, as has been discussed often on road.cc, efforts to ensure high visibility have no ability to guarantee that drivers actually register a cyclist’s presence or heed road signs.
“The car was a registered taxi and being driven by someone who drives for a profession. I reported the incident to Kent Police, who have chosen to take no action. They made that decision without requesting video of the incident (only written reports can be submitted initially). I know from previous communication with them that the deciding factor will have been that I ticked the ‘no collision occurred’ box on the written report. So, despite the driver’s contravention of rule 171 of the Highway Code (‘You MUST stop behind the line at a junction with a ‘Stop’ sign’), the avoidance of a collision meant that Kent Police had no interest in addressing the deficient driving.
“After reporting numerous close-passes in the last few years, all with no action taken, I have reached the dispiriting conclusion that there is simply no description of dangerous driving that I could compose to elicit action from them until the day I am knocked off my bike. If my description of this incident did not pique their curiosity enough to want to view the video, I cannot imagine what non-collision scenario would prompt them to do so. They have no absolutely no interest in tackling poor driving as a preventative measure.
I also reported the incident to Canterbury City Council’s taxi licensing enforcement team, who at least showed more concern about the incident than Kent Police did, though their action was limited to reporting to the driver that a complaint had been made.”
> 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@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
45 thoughts on “Near Miss of the day 942: “It was the most frightening moment I’ve ever had on my bike””
Institutionally anti-cyclist
Institutionally anti-cyclist
Another example of a force
Another example of a force that isn’t interested in protecting all road users from incompetent motorists. It seems that in Kent Police’s mindset that the most vulnerable road users are not worth bothering with, despite the hierarchy in the HC. Lazy policing, even when the evidence of a clear rule breach is handed to them on a plate!!
You would be better off
You would be better off reporting it to the council’s taxi registering department.
I reported a taxi that made a reckless overtake, crossing a solid white line, on a blind bend. The council officer on seeing the youtube video (not public, but viewable with a link), agreed the driving was appalling. Although I had a further interaction with this driver as I encountered him picking up a fare 5 mins later. I stopped and told him his driving was reckless and he could have caused a huge collision. His response of “you should not be cycling on a public road”, probably strengthened my case quite a bit.
He was hauled in for a disciplinary meeting for gross misconduct and received a final written warning.
https://upride.cc/incident
https://upride.cc/incident/pe23zzl_interstar_uwlcrossclosepass/
Depends where you are, of course. Kent is open about ‘we’re not going to look at the video until you can supply perfect evidence that you’ve been KSI’d’, Lancashire ignores everything, other bodies pretend they’re taking action but won’t tell you what it is, which means ‘nothing’. I’m awaiting the upride video of the latest attack by a taxi on me, but you usually won’t get the small print to tell you the licensing authority. Some website claim to be able to tell you that for a price, but I’m not paying when I know the police will ignore it completely, and the Lancashire licensing authorities know how the police behave, so all you get is ‘we have taken note of this’ but nothing else.
HoarseMann wrote:
They did, see the last paragraph, but got nothing beyond the driver being told that the complaint had been made. Which I suppose is at least an improvement on TfL, licensing authority for black cabs in London, which used to reply “go and tell the police if you think there is an offence” but now simply doesn’t respond to any complaints. Six weeks ago ago a friend and I had a very close punishment pass from a black cab driver because we took at least half a second to single out as he approached from behind (unfortunately we were coming to the end of a long ride and my camera was out of charge); after we politely (relatively, no swearing) asked him what he thought he was doing he followed us for over half a mile repeatedly screaming “Go fuck your mum you fucking cunt” out of the window, this while he had a fare in the cab which included a child of about five. I’ve sent the same email with a detailed description of the incident and behaviour to the TfL licensing department three times now, they haven’t even bothered to acknowledge receipt.
TfL, licensing authority for
TfL, licensing authority for black cabs in London, which used to reply “go and tell the police if you think there is an offence” but now simply doesn’t respond to any complaints
This is the way everything to do with the police, traffic law etc. etc. goes now, with Lancashire showing the way
Had an incident with a bus in
Had an incident with a bus in West London th eother day, where a Police officer’s reply was go and tell the Bus Company, not their job!
rct wrote:
And if you complain to the bus company they will assure you that they take your report very seriously and will be taking all appropriate action but they can’t tell you what it is because of GDPR.
And if you complain to the
And if you complain to the bus company they will assure you that they take your report very seriously and will be taking all appropriate action but they can’t tell you what it is because of GDPR
True, except that Stagecoach Cumbria and Lancashire has never mentioned GDPR to me as the excuse for refusing to describe the outcome – they used to leave that dodge to The Filth, but it became obsolete when the police hit on the agreement with the PCC that all complaints about the police would be left for the police to reject, with the PCC simply providing an answerphone service with ‘that’s an operational decision of the police’ on continuous loop. Looks like West London police have been on the Lancashire Constabulary course
Yes, I reported it to the
Yes, I reported it to the council’s taxi licensing department. They showed more concern than Kent Police did, but I’m not aware of any action taken beyond informing the driver that a complaint had been made and passing on my video of the incident to the driver (the driver specifically asked if they could see the video – I like to think that this was in the spirit of wanting to learn from the experience).
Hopefully the driver will
Hopefully the driver will learn from the video and seeing the near miss from a cyclists point of view. Trivial and quickly forgettable for a driver. Potentially hospital and worse for a cyclist.
Perhaps he will always obey stop signs in future.
Hopefully the driver will
Hopefully the driver will learn from the video
He will! He has learned that you can get away with any offence against cyclists no matter how blatant and how good the photographic evidence (or get away with pretty much any traffic offence when the authorities live in fear of being accused of a War Against Motorists- as Lux Developments and Electrical, unconcerned by DVLA and Lancashire Constabulary being fully aware of the offence, has proved with BF64 TGE for over 4 years now)
I’m not victim blaming here,
I’m not victim blaming here, so please stick with me.
when a driver approaches a junction and especially a non busy one, they will keep moving out without stopping. A give way junction means ‘give way’ and not ‘stop’, after all. Their line of vision is looking for a large vehicle and therefore at 45 degree (if 90 is straight forward or completely turned to the right) Therefore the cyclist has to put themself in that field of vision. And that means primary position. I’m not sure if I’ve explained what I mean, it’s easier to demonstrate. When I was an instructor we used to teach this all the time; passing a junction in primary position and ensuring one is visible to all road users. This may not have applied in this case as we don’t know the details – was the driver on the phone, fiddling with the sat nav etc?
The point is that it is a
The point is that it is a Stop juncton, not give way. Also, if you watch the video carefully, I do indeed move to a position further away from the junction as I pass it.
1. Surprised that you got
1. Surprised that you got little from Kent Police. I got them, via CPS, to prosecute, with points, and fine for the criminal. Victim statement and video evidence.
2. Kent Police and Crime Commissioner has road traffic policing on his top 5 so is likely to be helpful.
3. Taxi regulation by the council has no enforcement but taxi companies don’t like being the bad guys as licensing must be renewed.
You did well. How long ago
You did well. How long ago was that? They were more responsive 5+ years ago, and there was a time when video could be uploaded directly when making the initial report.
In recent years, the only times they have taken action* for me have been (i) when a biro was thrown at me from the car during a close pass, which they processed as assault rather than a traffic crime, and (ii) verbal abuse after a close pass, which they processed as harassement. During both those incidents, the drivers used their vehicles to try to force me off the road and bring me to a stop, but it was the throwing of a lightweight object and words that Kent Police saw as the more actionable offences.
*Action meaning they followed up and asked for the video. In the pen-throwing incident, they decided that the registration plate was cloned and the vehicle “from out of the area” so they couldn’t do anything to pursue the matter. In the harrassment case they say they sent an advisory letter.
KentRider wrote:
That was at least 5 years ago according to a quick search.
The video upload was on a Kent police site with limited size, so a little effort to cut it down in length, so size.
Matthew Scott Kent PCC is still accessible on social media and their own website.
Supporting victims of crime still his stated objective.
Good luck!
Seems that you wrote more
Seems that you wrote more than you read.
Rome73 wrote:
This is what the driver would have seen on approach to the junction, couldn’t be much clearer that it’s a stop and not a give way, could it?
I think you need to brush up
I think you need to brush up on your highway code…
Rule 170
Take extra care at junctions. You should
watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists and pedestrians…
I’m familiar with this
I’m familiar with this junction. It’s nasty even though it’s not a very busy road. It’s difficult to see what’s coming from either side when travelling in the direction that the car in this video is even when you’re at the stop line. You absolutely have to stop, and the stop sign is very obvious. I always inch out very carefully. Not clear whether the car in the video did stop, but they appear to have proceeded over the line without due caution regardless.
It would appear that this
It would appear that this driver didn’t originally intend to stop…
Quote:
Um – would that help? Wouldn’t it mostly just show us a lot of hedge?
Ha, yes, it twould have been
Ha, yes, it would have been mostly hedge till I reached the junction. What I meant was that there’s no footage of the view of the incident that developed to my left, with the bonnet of the car bearing down on me in the moment it became evident that the driver was not stopping (as may have been recorded with e.g. a helmet camera). Instead, the first one sees of the car in the video is as it emerges into the view of my rear-view camera. Still alarming enough, but not as unsettling as the view that I had of what appeared to be an imminent collision.
This is a good example of
This is a good example of very poor driving. As a cyclist, you have to expect drivers either not to see or not to care. But this driver takes poor driving to very low lows. Why the police won’t take action is a bit of a mystery.
The usual police test is
The usual police test is sufficient distress to modify your path, aka the handlebar shake.
Obviously the aero effect of large vehicles on a bicycle and rider would often be involuntarily movement to adjust to that impulse. Both of these on video or in a victim statement usually get attention, along with changes of cycle use, due to distress.
lonpfrb wrote:
What Nirvana do you inhabit in which a handlebar wobble and a statement of distress is sufficient to prompt the police to take action? This is very definitely not the case in London nor, judging by the many hundreds of submissions to NMOTD in which the police have refused to take action, most other regions of the UK.
What Nirvana do you inhabit
What Nirvana do you inhabit in which a handlebar wobble and a statement of distress is sufficient to prompt the police to take action?
It’s called Fantasy Land, where happenings are just imagined up, like: ‘Both of these on video or in a victim statement usually get attention, along with changes of cycle use, due to distress’
Based on stopping the video
Based on stopping the video at 28 -29 seconds, and the google maps screenshot from Rendel below, I would suggest that not only has this isiot not stopeed (at the stop line) he has also exited the junction on the wrong side of the road, hence further reducing his lines of visibility on approach to an already restricted view junction. Absolutly awful driving
I agree they’re an idiot and
I agree they’re an idiot and definitely haven’t stopped at the stop line, I thought the same as you regarding them being on the wrong side of the road but Mark does say “It was only the driver’s swerve in the last split second that avoided collision by a matter of millimetres”, so it may be that swerve that has taken them there. Does not, of course, make the driving any less atrocious in any way, and thank goodness Mark was riding on his own as if he’d had a mate drafting they wouldn’t have stood an earthly. Absolutely astonishing that the police don’t deem this even worthy of having a word with the driver.
Avoiding collision “by
Avoiding collision “by millimetres” cannot be consistent with a minimum safe passing separation of 1.5m* as provided in the Highway Code. Strong evidence of careless driving.
*1500mm, obviously.
lonpfrb wrote:
Well, yes, not sure why you’re telling me this? My comment makes it quite clear that I think the driving is atrocious (in fact I would say more like dangerous driving than careless driving, driving straight through the stop sign and missing by millimetres would appear to fit the criterion of “driving that falls well below the standard expected of a careful driver”).
The 1.5 metre passing separation (which, as we know, is only advisory anyway) has no relevance to this incident.
OK, so agreement with your
OK, so agreement with your point is unacceptable, got it…
Motorists get fined if they
Motorists get fined if they are caught travelling faster than the speed limit, even if there is no accident, so why don’t the police do the same for a near miss with a cyclist, even if there was no accident?
Motorists get fined if they
Motorists get fined if they are caught travelling faster than the speed limit, even if there is no accident, so why don’t the police do the same for a near miss with a cyclist, even if there was no accident?
Writing ‘accident’ instead of ‘collision’ is, of course, politically incorrect nowadays. The answer to your question is: the police from top to bottom are incurably hostile to cyclists and cycling despite many of them being, no doubt, ‘I’m a cyclist myself’s. Following these pages should convince all but the most hostile of the police stance.
Only if the evidence exists
Only if the evidence exists to the set standards that shows they were speeding, even then it seems debatable thesedays.
Guarantee you send in cycle cam footage of a car clearly speeding in a limit, like i even had the speed indicator device on the side of the road showing the frowny face, the police will say its not evidence and won’t prosecute for it.
Has to be a calibrated speed
Has to be a calibrated speed measuring device to meet the Crown Prosecution Service standard, so just a waste of police time otherwise on speed enforcement.
Happy, Sad, Angry face is not SME.
For a specific speeding
For a specific speeding offence yes, however Suffolks angry face speed indicators, when fitted with ANPR cameras send out over 20,000 warning letters to motorists every year about speeding
Its the exact same speed indicator device, calibrated to some satisfactory level of accuracy, (they usually sync with my gps) just a different method of number plate recognition, one method submits a warning letter, the other gets told theres no evidence of speeding.
But it got me thinking also why are the police happy to send these non prosecuting warning letters about speeding like this, but not close passes ?
This ultimately boils down to
This ultimately boils down to the discrepancy in driving standards required to pass a practical driving test versus what the police will prosecute for.
If something is a minor fault on a test, presumably the driver should get at least a warning if not points and a fine.
For anything that is a non-contact/non-KSI dangerous fault that would fail a test the driver should be fined, have their licence paused and hauled up before a judge (and victims of other drivers) to explain their actions before being laughed out of court.
Any KSI, immediate jail.
Driving is a priviledge, not a right.
You have got to be kidding.
You have got to be kidding. Absolutely slam dunk clear and obvious evidence of criminal driving putting a vulnerable road user at risk of their life, but no action taken?
Did Mark get in touch with the PCC? Has he made a complaint?
It’s pointless waiting until someone is killed, the idea is to stop people being killed, by getting the dangerous drivers off the road before they kill people.
Kent police, your whole raison d’etre is to protect the public, and scraping up dead bodies after, when you could have prevented that death, really, really, isn’t effective. It’s not difficult: take complaints seriously, look at them objectively, take action where necessary. In this case, it’s necessary, and if you don’t understand that, you’re failing in your primary duty of care to the public.
I dont know if the statement
I dont know if the statement provided to the police mentioned the video existed, or that it only showed the rear view not the bits of the incident being reported itself, but if Kent police initial assessment is only based on a statement which is basically I just saw a driver do this, and it will boil down eventually to one persons word against another in a prosection case, and remember the guy is a taxi driver, so will go all in defending it as it affects their livelihood, theyre not going to just meekly accept points/training course.
then you can see why the police have not done anything with it, especially in the current climate where it feels stuff like this has been deprioritised by a number of police forces, and they only react to crashes/collisions, the they almost got me but didnt stuff just gets swept away.
now we can argue thats totally the wrong attitude or approach to have for road safety, but that appears increasingly to be the world we are riding in thesedays.
Yes, Kent Police’s traffic
Yes, Kent Police’s traffic incident reporting platform has a section devoted specifically to the availability of video evidence, which I filled out in great detail, so they know what video was available to them should they request it. It included the vehicle’s registration plate (I turned round and went back to the car to make sure I captured it on both video and audio, and likewise the taxi license number once I noticed that).
Unfortunately, they simply decided that there was no need to request the video.
The failure to request the
The failure to request the video is very difficult to understand. I’m not sure there is enough evidence in the video we have been shown for the police to act but there is no way they would know that without seeing it. Would it be possible for you to copy your description of the video evidence on here so we can have a look at it.
Finally thanks for reporting this and I hope it doesn’t put you off reporting in the future. I know how frustrating it can be.
Think its just the latest
Think its just the latest common practice for OpSnap, presumably they think viewing the video wastes too much time or resource, so if they can filter it via the statement instead first it keeps the stats up.
Might mean we need to adapt to writing statements to not rely on anyone seeing the footage at the same time, to get to the lets see the video stage then
presumably they think viewing
presumably they think viewing the video wastes too much time or resource, so if they can filter it via the statement instead first it keeps the stats up
Under the assumption that OpSnap is a genuine attempt to deal with the very large number of road traffic offences committed every day, an obviously incorrect assumption, your postulate is clearly wrong. By far the most efficient way of dealing with the massive numbers of high quality videos of undoubted offences is a quick look at the headline (phone use; RLJ; close-pass; illegal white line crossing etc.) and a glance at the video – rather than a time consuming reading of convoluted descriptive writing. If they actually wanted to do the right thing, looking at the video is the best way to do it. The problem is: the right thing is not what they want to do. They want a quick way to get the cases into the bin. One of the possibilities, adopted by Kent, is to reject on the basis of imprecise language so that they always have the excuse that they didn’t see the video. Lancashire’s solution is even more efficient, but requires the assistance of the regulatory authorities, and is to just bin most of them immediately.