Today’s video in our Near Miss of the Day series shows a white van driver making a close pass on a group of cyclists whom he believed – erroneously – were breaking the law in riding side by side, and who then stopped a little further up the road to get out of his van and give them a torrent of abuse.
The clip was submitted by road.cc reader David, who told us: “This happened on a Boldmere Bullets club ride on Saturday February 9th on Spencer’s Lane near Tile Hill, Coventry.
“A very unsafe overtake by an angry man fortunately well calmed down by one of our riders Andrew.”
Many motorists believe that cyclists who do not ride in single file. However, Rule 66 of the Highway Code says, among other things, that they “should not ride more than two abreast” and that they ” should ride single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends.”
It’s worth noting the language used, too. “Should” in the Highway Code means the rule is advisory; where not to comply would be breaking the law, the word “must” is used instead.
Rule 163 of the Highway Code, meanwhile, tells motorists to “Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so” and, among other things, that they “should give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car.”
In the video here, the driver of an oncoming car has to slow down to avoid a head-on collision with the van, the driver of which certainly hasn’t given the cyclists anything like the minimum 1.5 metres police forces – led by officers in the West Midlands, whose patch he is on – now stipulate cyclists must be given.
> 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">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
63 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 251: White van man makes close pass on cyclists then goes ballistic (includes swearing)”
Crikey, chapeau to Andrew,
Crikey, chapeau to Andrew, clearly a professional in dealing with this sort of thing !
Arjimlad wrote:
Can anyone explain the physchology behind how Andrew handled it? He was clearly intentional about being in Mr Angry’s space and had this personal contact on the shoulder/neck that I would have thought would inflame the situation. Its a technique worth mastering… unless its just that “Andrew is bigger and clearly not intimidated” in which case it might not work in all situations.
Look555 wrote:
I was thinking the same, looks like he deployed “the force”!
Look555 wrote:
Very similar to a technique know as cornering. Used mainly with kids with anger issues where you corral them and help them calm down and focus and figure out why they’re exploding. Andrew was amazing in the way he stepped in calmly and authoritively and stopped the whole thing escalating. Cudos for the whole bunch remaining calm as well.
“Anyway, Drive Safe” Nice
“Anyway, Drive Safe” Nice
And yet another example of the self important motorist who is so impatient that they could have killed someone, who then wastes their oh so valuable time to stop, argue the toss and prove themselves to be a bigger idiot than anyone thought possible.
Sincerely hoping that was
Sincerely hoping that was also passed to the Police.
The line in the HC about riding single file in bends is utterly against all logic on road safety, as it encourages people to squeeze through where there is not safe space. Quite simple, if there is not space to safely overtake 2 cyclists side by side, it’s unlikely there is space for a safe pass on 1. Better to continue 2 up to a safe space to allow a clean pass.
In this case they were absolutely right be be 2 up, as Mr Bellend in the van tried to overtake on a bend he clearly could not see around. The entire incident shows he is not mentally stable enough to be allowed in control of a motorised vehicle, and should be submitted for retraining.
Maybe something to do with
Maybe something to do with Andrew immediately taking a very dominant role, being physically imposing yet non threatening, staying calm, talking and interposing himself between angry van man and the focus of angry van man’s anger.
Might not have worked on another personality, but certainly effective in this situation.
Wow! Gammon personified.
Wow! Gammon personified.
Amazing job by the guy in red, defusing what could have turned very nasty.
I’m always amazed at the number of people who are in such a rush that they can’t wait for a few seconds to pass safely, but have plenty of time to stop and berate you for getting in their way.
Likewise, I hope that has been reported to the authorities and the driver is either prosecuted (he must be guilty of something) or sent on a driver improvement course.
Agree with Munge, think the
Agree with Munge, think the reaction of the bloke also showed it wasn’t Andy he thought he had the problem with, it was the person he attempted to kill!
The sad thing is this was the urest definition of punishment pass – he kind of demonstrated he knew he should be giving room stating how could he when they’re riding two abrest. Then his logic button obviously failed. If i see someone using the the wrong door for entering a building my first thought isn’t to endanger them!
It is still amazing how many
It is still amazing how many drivers think it’s their given right not to have to wait for oncoming cars to pass cyclists single or two abreast, and seemingly oblivious or simply reckless as to how dangerous their red mist close pass is. Well handled incident, though with calming-the-angry-vanman-skills probably not within the reach of most.
Doesn’t look like the driver
Doesn’t look like the driver learnt the error of his ways.
In hindsight, it’s probably better to just sail on past a dangerous idiot like this than to listen to their bile. Hearing their erroneous hate-speech and not educating them will most-likely leave them thinking they are right (positive reinforcement). Obviously being in front of them isn’t where you ideally want to be, but there are plenty of others out there like this and you have no control over when they will be behind you, if you’re scared of what might come up behind you then you’ll never ride on the road.
Maybe this dangerous idiot driver deserves a good hiding for an unprovoked attack on the vulnerable, but letting him get away without having conceded why he is wrong really isn’t helpful for anyone. Patting him on the back and sending him on his way is capitulating to his point of view.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Even when you point out the error of their ways they’re unlikely to concede and say that they are wrong. However, I don’t believe they shouldn’t be challenged as it may at least make them think.
I often go for the “even if you think I am wrong you could be the better person by being a bit more patient rather than fly past in 2 tons of metal with the potential to leave my children fatherless…”
alansmurphy wrote:
In the UK, the anger of the driver in directly proportional to the square of ‘how wrong’ he is.
There’s no special
There’s no special psychological tactics employed by Andrew here. The gammon simply shit himself when he got out of the van thinking he was going to bully someone and was confronted by a man he quickly realised would park him up if he tried it. It’s amazing how often some arsehole in a van or 4×4 starts shouting the odds and leaning on his hooter when he passes our club fast lads on a ride, yet strangely manages to go completely blind and deaf if he’s unfortunate enough to be confronted by us 500 yards up the road at a set of red lights…
Wow. Andrew is a legend. Give
Wow. Andrew is a legend. Give the man a medal.
Or maybe Andy is a ninja and
Or maybe Andy is a ninja and was going to drop him like this…
anyways, good job diffusing the situation
HoarseMann wrote:
Pedant mode ON; it’s defusing, not diffusing; two very different things.
burtthebike wrote:
Pedant mode ON; it’s defusing, not diffusing; two very different things.— HoarseMann
Cheeky! Perhaps defuse would be a more common term but I think diffuse as in to disperse/weaken is still grammatically ok? Oh well, you knew what I meant!
As per point 2? https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/diffuse
(yep, it’s ok – phew!) https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/diffuse-or-defuse/
HoarseMann wrote:
Not quite. You can defuse a situation, but you can’t diffuse it. This was a situation, and it was defused, it was not diffused. You could at a stretch say that the gammon’s anger had been diffused, but that isn’t the same.
burtthebike wrote:
Well, I’m going with the Oxford dictionary on this one, that both are correct. Everyone’s a winner! 😉
A situation is a set of circumstances; ergo, elements which may be dispersed/weakened i.e. diffused.
HoarseMann wrote:
No they’re not.
I’m sitting looking at the entry for ‘diffuse (v.)’ right now on the OED. Nowhere is the verb used in the sense of ‘diffuse a situation’.
There is .. ‘to send forth, disperse, and related senses’. There is ‘To send forth (a material thing or physical phenomenon, as light, sound, etc.) in many or all directions from a particular point of origin; to spread widely over a surface, or through a place or area; to disperse, scatter.‘. There is ‘ Of a material or immaterial thing: to spread widely over an area; to be disseminated; to disperse‘. There is ‘To shower (a material or immaterial thing) over a person or thing; to release in, or as though in, a shower of drops; to pour down‘. There is ‘To focus on or direct towards many points or purposes; esp. to weaken (the mental faculties) by a lack of focus or concentration‘. There is ‘To cause (two or more substances, esp. fluids) to intermingle by diffusion; to disperse (a substance) by diffusion‘. There is ‘Of a substance, esp. a fluid: to intermingle with or interpenetrate another substance by diffusion; to pass by diffusion‘. There is ‘To stretch out (oneself or one’s limbs), esp. in a relaxed manner‘. And there is ‘To make confused or unclear‘.
Nowhere is there ‘to diffuse a situation’ or anything remotely like it.
On
On
No they’re not.
I’m sitting looking at the entry for ‘diffuse (v.)’ right now on the OED. Nowhere is the verb used in the sense of ‘diffuse a situation’.
There is .. ‘to send forth, disperse, and related senses’. There is ‘To send forth (a material thing or physical phenomenon, as light, sound, etc.) in many or all directions from a particular point of origin; to spread widely over a surface, or through a place or area; to disperse, scatter.‘. There is ‘ Of a material or immaterial thing: to spread widely over an area; to be disseminated; to disperse‘. There is ‘To shower (a material or immaterial thing) over a person or thing; to release in, or as though in, a shower of drops; to pour down‘. There is ‘To focus on or direct towards many points or purposes; esp. to weaken (the mental faculties) by a lack of focus or concentration‘. There is ‘To cause (two or more substances, esp. fluids) to intermingle by diffusion; to disperse (a substance) by diffusion‘. There is ‘Of a substance, esp. a fluid: to intermingle with or interpenetrate another substance by diffusion; to pass by diffusion‘. There is ‘To stretch out (oneself or one’s limbs), esp. in a relaxed manner‘. And there is ‘To make confused or unclear‘.
Nowhere is there ‘to diffuse a situation’ or anything remotely like it.— HoarseMann
you got it right there…
Of a material or immaterial thing: to spread widely over an area; to be disseminated; to disperse’.
The circumstances that comprise a situation are immaterial things that can be dispersed.
To defuse a situation would be to mitigate the danger, i.e. it would have been hugs and handshakes all round, apologies from the driver and a friendly wave next time they see him.
To diffuse the situation would be to move apart the circumstances that comprise it, bringing an end to the situation, but not necessarily mitigating the danger i.e. van driver is still a radgie danger on the road.
Anyways, that’s my take on it… You can disagree, but I would emplore you to be less diffuse with your pedantry. The important thing is these guys were ok and hopefully there will be some comeback on the driver from the relevant authorities.
HoarseMann wrote:
Of a material or immaterial thing: to spread widely over an area; to be disseminated; to disperse’.
The circumstances that comprise a situation are immaterial things that can be dispersed.— HoarseMann
LOL!
Whatever you say, mate…
Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:
You’re welcome (so tempted to type ‘your welcome’ but this has got to stop!!).
I’m always up for a chuckle, glad it’s made you laugh! If only we could harness the passion seen here for the strict use of the English language and use it to tackle the dangers faced by cyclists on Britains roads.
But as much as I like a good debate, next time I will use DEFUSE! I hope that defuses this situation… 😉
(Actually, is ‘your welcome’ so wrong, I mean a welcome is a thing right? And if I’m giving it to you then it becomes your property, hence ‘your welcome’….???!!!)
HoarseMann wrote:
I’m hoping that “emplore” was a deliberate mis-spelling to see if the pedants’ union is properly checking all posts for grammar and spelling. English spelling that is, not the nonsense that passes for language in America.
burtthebike wrote:
I’m so naughty… must… stop… it…
Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:
Thank you again. It would seem that the only reason some people use “diffuse” instead of “defuse” is because they have heard “defuse” said and not realised that it is an almost homonym for “diffuse”. A bit like people who use “must of” instead of “must have” etc.
Repeated use of something that is wrong doesn’t make it right, and trying to argue that it is right is just digging the hole deeper.
burtthebike wrote:
Just like people who write ‘I should of known’, and who will argue until they’re blue in the face that they’re right. Or the people who think that ‘this is between you and I’ is correct and who will also argue that they’re right.
Oh, and whilst I’m on a rant, why do so many people think that ‘beg the question’ is a ‘posh’ synonym for ‘raise the question’?
Typical, I can stop and shout
Typical, I can stop and shout you for 2 minutes but I can’t be held up by 20seconds :-/
Had a similar thing happen to
Had a similar thing happen to me just 6 months ago and get this – when the plonker stopped his Volvo in the middle of a bridge over the M6 blocking traffic and then got out to unleash a virtual storm of foul language at me… he was a vicar… wearing a dog collar…. and he even had the gall to thump me on the shoulder that had only recently recovered from a brokan arm and it was only mentioning calling the police that made him get back in his tin box and go on his way that he had been in such a rush to travel… blah blah… no road tax… ought to ride in the gutter…. roads are meant for cars not bicycles… etc etc etc… I still laugh at it because it was absolutely hilarious that his parting words were that the police could shove off because he only obayed the rules in one book and it wasn’t the highway code and it was the rules of his magic deity in the sky.
leqin wrote:
Please tell me you have footage of this. Please.
This is a classic of
This is a classic of irrational and dangerous behaviour by a driver.
1) In such a hurry, he can’t wait until it’s safe to overtake.
2) Puts the riders in physical danger.
3) Is angry with the riders because of the dangerous overtaking manouevre he has just carried out – partly due to ignorance of the rules of the road, and partly due to general idiocy.
4) Is suddenly no longer in a hurry, indeed has enough time on his hands to stop and start an argument.
Everybody who has ever ridden a bike in Britain has had to put up with this at one time or another. This should be an national TV advert, with careful explanations and sub-titles, so that even the most bigoted motorist can understand the issues.
HarrogateSpa wrote:
I think you’re really on to something there. It certainly is something most weekend group riders will have experienced when they’ve done absolutely nothing wrong.
Err…..Send to the police
Err…..Send to the police maybe
Has this been done?
What a disappointing ending.
What a disappointing ending. I was convinced that, having subdued the driver using Vulcan mind tricks, Andrew was going to silently garrote him with a cheesewire. Oh well, maybe next time.
Classic entitlement complex.
Classic entitlement complex. Whenever I remonstrate with a driver, the response is almost always ‘you were in my way’ or ‘you were holding me up’.
The right-wing media’s witch hunt against cyclists and cycling has resulted in a significant percentage of the population believing in their hearts that when in a motor vehicle (or to a lesser extent, when on a motorcycle), they have ‘priority’ or ‘precedence’ over cyclists.
Most drivers see cyclists not only as ‘an obstacle’ to their ‘right’ to drive as fast as they want, but also in many ways as recalcitrant children whom they not only have a right to punish, but a duty to do so.
When that sense of entitlement results in injuury to or death of a cyclist, the same mentality carries over to the magistrate’s court or to the Crown Court, and the driver or motorcyclist can be almost certain of walking away without a single day spent in a cell.
This is both an indictment of the principle of ‘a free press’, as well as prima facie proof that the justice system (whether it be at the hands of an unqualified magistrate or a jury of prejudiced thickos) is not fit for purpose.
Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:
Thank you. The situation summed up in a few pithy sentences, but what can be done? It would appear that the entire msm is happy to attack cyclists to pander to their readers/viewers, and are happy to present cycling as incredibly dangerous and lacking in any virtues, a complete misrepresentation of the situation. As you point out, the institutional bias against cycling is widespread throughout society, at every level e.g. the recent conference about alternatives to the private car I recently attended in Bristol which totally ignored cycling and walking. And they got quite upset when I pointed out their error.
burtthebike wrote:
Far too much of it does, not the entirety.
fukawitribe wrote:
Far too much of it does, not the entirety.— burtthebike
I’m intrigued, what msm currently presents cycling in a fair, balanced manner? There are plenty of niche media which do, but msm?
burtthebike wrote:
In the UK, off top of my head would be The Guardian – hey, even the Beeb has it’s moments but I know how you feel about them 🙂
Edit : don’t get me wrong, there isn’t a red top that i’ve wipe my arse with, can’t think of a single one with balance on any subject.
fukawitribe wrote:
I’m always intrigued by the number of people who think that the Guardian is left-wing, progressive or – as here – pro-cycling. It’s corporate media, just the same as the Daily Mail. The only thing that separates them is that the Gaurdian hates white, heterosexual Jewish men, and the Daily Mail loves Israel because its destruction is supposed to usher in the ‘end of days’.
Anyway, this might clear up your confusion…
https://medium.com/@lastwheel/why-does-the-guardian-hate-cycling-6125b1373a17
Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:
I didn’t say it was pro-cycling.
fukawitribe wrote:
Okay dokey. Since your comment seemed (please do correct me if I’m wrong) to be in response to:
‘I’m intrigued, what msm currently presents cycling in a fair, balanced manner?’
.. then my comment stands. No, it doesn’t ‘present cycling in a fair, balanced manner’.
It’s like every other part of the corporate media. Any ‘positive’ look at cycling always has to be countered with the seemingly mandatory caveat along the lines of ‘Now .. don’t get me wrong. Many cyclists seem to have scant regard for the rules of the road…’
Maybe not those exact words. But something similar will be there in most cases. It’s the ‘I’m not racist, BUT………’ phenomenon.
And the reason for this is that just like the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Telegraph, the Standard… they depend on advertising to keep themselves in a job. And a lot of that advertising comes from the car industry and the Road Haulage Association.
Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:
Your comment was ‘as here – pro-cycling’, that is not the same as ‘what msm currently presents cycling in a fair, balanced manner?’
Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:
In the UK, off top of my head would be The Guardian – hey, even the Beeb has it’s moments but I know how you feel about them 🙂
[/quote]
I’m always intrigued by the number of people who think that the Guardian is left-wing, progressive or – as here – pro-cycling. It’s corporate media, just the same as the Daily Mail. The only thing that separates them is that the Gaurdian hates white, heterosexual Jewish men, and the Daily Mail loves Israel because its destruction is supposed to usher in the ‘end of days’.
Anyway, this might clear up your confusion…
https://medium.com/@lastwheel/why-does-the-guardian-hate-cycling-6125b1373a17
[/quote]
Well, the Guardian is conclusively proved not to represent cycling fairly, in a balanced manner, so that leaves the BBC, which is in my experience, so totally biased that it could well be up there with the DM. Not so overtly biased perhaps, but it has had thousands of articles about obesity, pollution, health, global warming, congestion, pollution, but it never mentions that cycling is the most effective way of treating all those problems. There are two ways to lie; commission and omission. The BBC lies by omission. And don’t start me on their 30 year helmet campaign.
burtthebike wrote:
The BBC is the British state broadcaster.
Did you really expect it to peddle any line but that of the neoliberal British establishment?
burtthebike wrote:
Legally? Nothing. We have now passed the stage where peaceful protest, or ‘asking nicely’ will work. Unfortunately, violence is now the only answer.
I’m willing to go to prison, but I’m fucked if I’m doing it alone.
Hi all
Hi all
I have submitted it via the Nextbase dashcam portal so will see what WM Police decide to do. Andrew was brilliant in the way he handled the driver & managed a potentially dangerous situation.
The first thing you should do
The first thing you should do in a situation like that is get off your bike. You’re far less likely to be attacked if you show you’re ready and able to cope with it.
spen wrote:
The second thing you should do is to remove your D-lock from your belt.
By getting out of the vehicle, the driver has indicated his willingness to use force. The offence of common assault is complete at that point. You do not have to wait for him to hit you, before invoking your right to self defence.
Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:
I’d assumed you carried around a paving slab on your rack…?
brooksby wrote:
*snort*
You dull cunt.
spen wrote:
Depends on the aggressor I suppose. I some times think if you stay onboard you are seen as more vulnerable and less of a fair fight, reckon the police would see it this way too, you jumping off suggests you’re ready for a bit of queensberry rules.
I did once have an altercation with a driver who folded himself out of a drug dealers Merc, he was about 8 feet… wide and probably a bit taller. Actually started rutting the ground with his foot. In full knowledge he’d kill me i didn’t dismount. He also told me to take my shades off as (kind of him) he doesn’t hit a blok in glasses, I asked him why I’d take them off then 🙂
alansmurphy wrote:
I believe that any driver who doesn’t see a problem with pitting 1.5 tonnes of steel, glass and plastic against 100 kg of skin and bone, really doesn’t give a flying fuck about any notions of ‘fairness’.
spen wrote:
This was my first thought too, but I guess staying on the bike subtly showed the villain that Andrew wasn’t looking for a fight, one of many clever things he did to keep the situation from escalating. Also, the fact that it was a group ride may have made the villain realise he was even more of a twat for stopping in the middle of the road. He may have got the better of one cyclist, but the rest of them would have made sure any violence he resorted to would come back on him.
I often ride solo, but I won’t let a close pass go without shouting at the car, and waving at the other side of the road. I haven’t recently had any car stop and have a go at me, but I would still do it. I have noticed that other cars passing me after a close pass when I have shouted and gesticulated have given me an exaggerated amount more room. Well, except one instance, when scumbag #2 got silly close.
Some of my ride buddies think I am mad, I should just let it go and stay calm. But that’s giving in to the lazy drivers and the psycho drivers. I don’t understand those that can just shrug their shoulders and say this is what happens.
If you were out for a walk down a coutry road and a car passed you at 30 mph within 1 metre, you would go mental.
Daveyraveygravey wrote:
You think?
I confess to being utterly bewildered that so many cyclists just stand there and let drivers hit them.
Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:
You think?
I confess to being utterly bewildered that so many cyclists just stand there and let drivers hit them.
— DaveyraveygraveyI thought it would be that one.
Although I did get a Brucie Bonus with the next video that popped up after
Watching the video again,
Watching the video again, with the sound on, it sort of illustrates a certain mindset that the van driver appears to think its so completely unreasonable to expect him to have to completely cross the white line in order to overtake them…
I have to say I am impressed
I have to say I am impressed with the rider in red. I want you on my rides.
Here in Wiltshire we have no
Here in Wiltshire we have no police, car drive at well over 30 and cross small roundabouts at speed, most defective lights front & rear they also park any where/how they like, close that was far wider than what I get and I’m on my ownsome.
The Guardian has some left
The Guardian has some left-wing comment in it, but it isn’t ‘left wing’, it’s centrist/liberal. Liberals, almost by definition, tend to feel obliged to give space to other voices, hence it has leftists along with Tories on the staff.
It’s distinctly pro-cycling compared to the rest of the media, though that’s not saying much (the BBC is mostly anti-).
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Jeremy Clarkson is ‘distinctly pro-cycling’ compared to much of the UK media.
That doesn’t make him ‘pro-cycling’.
I am wondering if the bloke
I am wondering if the bloke in red is a Bobby, or Police trained. I have seen that before, keeping close and holding onto the side of the neck. If the would be assailant makes a move, the other person is ready for it. I was shown a similar move by an ex traffic officer for a situation where someone is very close to you and acting in a threatening manner. Place your foot behind theirs and if they make a move, lift your foot up to their heel as you gently push them away. They go down like a sack of shit, and have no idea how you put them there. Btw I have not tried it for real yet!