Something a bit different in our Near Miss of the Day series today – a deliberate pass filmed from five different angles, shot with a 360-degree camera.
The footage was shot on the Bears Way Cycle Route in East Dunbartonshire by Dave Brennan, whom we’ve featured on road.cc before, and who co-founded Scottish cycle campaign group, Pedal on Parliament.
Referring to the incident, Dave said: “I didn’t use the cycle lane (icy and people walking in it due to ice on the pavements) and this angers some drivers. This one in particular who, in my opinion, did a punishment pass.
“Using my new Insta 360 R Twin camera, I can view the incident from many different angles. Here I test out five. Let me know which one you think demonstrates the punishment pass the clearest.”
> 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
79 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 543: Punishment pass shot with 360-degree camera”
Can I go with none of them?
Can I go with none of them?
To anyone who has had a close pass and submitted footage, it is obviously a close pass.
The thing is each of them has distortion and I’m not sure what the police reviewer will make of that. I fear they may reject it.
Going on his previous
Going on his previous experience, David’s more likely to receive a caution for sweraring than the driver be dealt with for dangerous driving.
I suspect the same. I’m
I suspect the same. I’m guessing that there is some clever post-processing going on to generate apparent normal footage from a 360 degree recording. Enough for a lazy arse copper or civilian assistant to dismiss it out of hand.
In particular I suspect the apparent inward movement of the cars rear quarter would be put down to a car stravelling in a straight line through a complex curved lens.
Every camera I’ve ever used
Every camera I’ve ever used has had some distortion. That depends on the field of view. On this camera I can reduce the field of view to reduce distortion, but I chose not to do that here, mainly because it makes the car look closer and I didn’t want to be accused of trying to make it artificially close!
I get that. Unfortunately it
I get that. Unfortunately it is not road.cc readers you need to persuade !
I’m trying to work on my narrative as I’m only getting 50% success this year and I’m trying not to give police reviewers an excuse.
At 1:25, the rear wheel of
At 1:25, the rear wheel of the car is ridiculously close to the bike.
Terrible driving.
Driver is guilty. The gimmick
Driver is guilty. The gimmick views are no help over ‘standard headcam’. Did you send it to The Filth?
Stabilised Rear View was the
Stabilised Rear View was the most terrifying for me.
Rider was too far out from
Rider was too far out from the gutter. If he was closer in the driver would hopefully have given him more room.
Camera – novelty only imho.
Rider was too far out from
Rider was too far out from the gutter. If he was closer in the driver would hopefully have given him more room
I’m assuming this was ironic. One useful point is that it’s not possible to tell from a forward headcam view the position of the front wheel in the lane. Thr police can’t grasp this, either.
Not ironic but truth. Watch
Not ironic but truth. Watch the video.
Yeah if you are too far out
Yeah if you are too far out you get so old fart try and run you off the road. Then again if you are not far enough out you get some twat squeeze by with oncoming traffic.
He was too far out from the
He was too far out from the gutter. The driver should at most have tooted
at him to move over rather than pass dangerously.
Of course. Might is right
Of course. Might is right after all.
edit : it is also lockdown so why is anyone in a hurry to get anywhere?
Alternmatively, as there was
Alternmatively, as there was plenty of time and space on the road, the driver could have gone further into the other lane. Then everyone is happy.
That would have been improper
That would have been improper use of the horn.
NZ Vegan Rider wrote:
Sorry, how is “tooting at him” any better? Any time anyone “toots” at me from their car, usually causes me to cack myself and possibly swerve.
The driver should have waited until it was safe to pass him. End of.
NZ Vegan Rider wrote:
What part of, “I didn’t use the cycle lane (icy and people walking in it due to ice on the pavements)” did you not understand? I could have sworn that explained why he wasn’t in the
gutterbike lane!What part of “Rider was too
What part of “Rider was too far out from the gutter.” did you not get?
Did you watch the video?
NZ Vegan Rider wrote:
Ah, the problem appears to be that this poster is a Kiwi, where the rules are that “All road users must keep as ‘near as practicable’ to the left side of the roadway.”
This is not the case in the UK, and “too far out from the gutter” is not a thing here. Try checking out the local rules of the road before commenting: https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/cycletraining/article/ct20110110-cycletraining-Bitesize-Bikeability–Part-4–On-Road-Positioning-0
The cycle lane he mentioned
The cycle lane he mentioned is the snow covered area on the other side of the road I reckon.
I didn’t see him much more
I didn’t see him much more than a metre or metre and a half from the marked parking bay.
A bit faded, but not marked in any of those dark colours you tend to find so objectionable. White, reflective paint I think.
If you watch the video you’ll
If you watch the video you’ll see there are parked cars in bays on certain sections of this road. The safest way to cycle on this road is to ride in a straight line in a strong position. It is most definitely not to weave left when there are no parked cars, and weave right when there are parked cars. I hold my line and remain entirely predictable. That driver made a choice…
NZ Vegan Rider wrote:
Yeah, back in the gutter where he belongs…
Looks like staying out of the
Looks like staying out of the area demarked for parking.
To avoid moving into the parking bays, and then back out into the path of traffic for each parked car.
If there is a single car following it’s easy to move in and out to let them past, but if there are many cars moving in to let one pass establishes the entire stream of traffic behind them, leaving the cyclist to either stop, or squeeze dangerously between parked cars and moving traffic.
Of course this wouldn’t be a problem if the public highway had not been surrendered for the priviliged storage of private property.
Whoa I was going to write it
Whoa I was going to write it’s “Dumbartonshire”, but actually turns out (after Googling) that the Roadcc guy was correct! Who knew?
Ps view 2 is the “best”
Yeah, Dumbarton, in
Yeah, Dumbarton, in Dunbartonshire, for some reason I had this expalined to me as a kid (my Mum was from Clydebank) and I have never forgotten it
Yeah some of these different views make me feel a bit queasy, similar to the overhead shots we get at Rugby these days flying over the top of a scrum
Views 2&3 really show how
Views 2&3 really show how close that was (Dave actually touched the car with his hand) but even version 5 shows how close it is.
My handlebar and seapost mounted Cycliqs have wide angle lenses and tend to make close passes look like nothing much. Maybe I should’ve gone with a helmet cam.
The other problem with Cycliqs is that they’re too low down to catch most mobile phones. When my daughter was learning to drive I used to sit in the passenger seat when she drove to work every morning. Normally I’m busy watching where Im going when driving or cycling, as a passenger I suddenly started noticing how many drivers are on their phones in traffic. It’s horrific!
This was clearly s clo thusse
This was clearly s close pass and probably punishment. What’s interesting is that two of the camera angles don’t highlight how close this is, quite the opposite.
It was a needless close pass
It was a needless close pass as there was plenty of time to move in safely after the overtake and before the oncoming car.
Was this caused by the cyclist being so far out in the road. No. The cyclist is free to choose the most appropriate road position.
Is it inconsiderate of the cyclist to choose that road position? In my opinion no. There was a parked car coming up and its more dangerous to move in and then out, there was a pedestrian and we need to be at least 2m from the pedestrian, you can’t predict what part of the pavement they will choose so 2m from the kerb seems a sensible precaution and finally there looks to be a lot of debris close to the kerb and a puncture could be dangerous.
It was the motorist’s fault and to suggest otherwise is victim blaming.
As for the camera. Interesting.
I know this road very well. I
I know this road very well. I don’t doubt the driver was too close but from his videos the cyclist is out looking for trouble every day of the week. His videos have popped up in various articles where he has distracted drivers – who may well be in the wrong – are distracted by him shouting and balling into their cars causing them to crash. There is never an excuse bang on people’s cars or chasing them down at the next set of lights to shout at drivers – at that stage it is provocation.
I’m a cyclist and want to get places quickly but cyclists should lead by example in being courteous even if drivers can be terrible!
I wouldn’t be airing these.
EDIT to respond to skeptics:
To the cyclist, here is one of your videos, right? Two wrongs don’t make a right. All I would say is be careful out there – don’t be looking for trouble as it will come even without the shouting and banging on cars.
For those looking to check the veracity of my claims after only one post, here is another video. See below.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6491475/Motorist-tells-cyclist-drive-safely-using-phone-crash-moments-later.html
I get it drivers are in general terrible, if not getting worse. They do put cyclists in danger and I don’t defend them. I also don’t defend cyclist that go out to make the problem worse. If talking on the phone is a distraction so is an angry cyclist (even though he has the right to be angry) shouting in the window – crash – case and point! Watch the YouTube link to see it for yourselves. Watch the whole channel and I’m sure there will be other examples of the same.
I’m a driver (as well as a cyclist) and will as a matter of courtesy to sit well behind cyclist and only less of it is safe by moving to the other side of the road.
‘ causing them to crash’.
‘ causing them to crash’.
You might want to supply some evidence for that claim.
Never heard of flight or fight ?
I’ve updated my post with
I’ve updated my post with evidence.
“lead by example by being
“lead by example by being courteous”??? – I don’t believe there are many (or any!) motorists who’d think to themselves, ” Gosh but that cyclist was courteous; I think I need to go home and review my life choices…”
I personally believe that most would think, “Now that’s the sort of behaviour I bl00dy deserve! Now get off the road!”
I think there is a difference
I think there is a difference between being courteous and allowing yourself to be bullied. If cars slow down and treat me with respect I bend over backwards to be courteous. If not ……..
Thanks for this insight on
Thanks for this insight on him.
This person has 1 post. How
This person has 1 post. How on earth are you assessing the veracity of their claim?
Links added in my edit, two
Links added in my edit, two avoidable incidents. Simply don’t shout, raise voice or talk to the driver and the crashes would of likely not happened. The crash is still the drivers fault but the cyclist had a role in it.
See replies by
See replies by AlsoSomniloquism and magnatom.
Your first post was playing the man instead of the ball. Quite why nzvegan took it all at face value who knows but then again they do think scotland is part of new zealand.
Quite what your agenda is here is unclear.
dwob wrote:
Avoidable incidents? do you mean teh crap overtake? or the distracted driver using their phone? These are indeed both avoidable.
I’m not sure if it was
I’m not sure if it was MagnaTom who had a video a few months ago of filtering on a downhill section and a car tries to block and then the owner gets out and punches him. I know they were a Scottish Cyclist. Anyway I’m sure someone came on here with the similar comments then about the cyclist is always looking for trouble and glad he got some. Taht was a first time poster I believe as well.
You are quite right dwob. I
You are quite right dwob. I did distract a driver from what he was doing. He did subsequently crash. All this is indeed quite correct. What you have failed to point out,is what I distracted him from…Using his phone whilst driving. I’m a very naughty boy, eh?
That was a very fine video.
That was a very fine video.
I remember seeing some of yours of 10 minutes of filtering.
Good Youtube videos.
Here is one of your videos,
I’ve updated my comments above to include two links.
I reckon probably 99% of the time you have no blame and good on you but don’t lose it or purposely go out your way to confront people. You have a role in two crashes from the links I’ve posted above. Yes the driver acted first but are you certain these crashes wouldn’t of happened without you? In these two cases the drivers crashed into a car (and probably didn’t do major injury to people) but what about the next time when a driver runs someone over at a crossing – ask yourself next time if you even want to be 1% responsible for that. Do you also want to be responsible for other cyclists, who might be less controlled, who may mimic your behaviour?
I see you have quite a following, use the platform to explicitly point out the error of drivers’ ways railrher than for fame or a few likes.
Ok, let me supply some
Ok, let me supply some context. First the full video of the Dail Mail incident (I don’t click into the Dail Mail). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb_NHo39b88
The video cleary demonstrates that the driver is using his mobile phone. I tell him he can’t drive safely using it. He tells me I’m cycling 3mph, and that he can drive safely. I catch up again, about to filter past as I do regularly here and the traffic moves. I say the very aggressive words, ‘3mph remember’, then a good 4 or 5 seconds later he accelerates through his own volition, and crashes into the back of the car in front.
So…let’s consider this, I’ve been cycling since 2005. I’ve been recording my rides and posting videos since 2007. This is the video you try to use to demonstrate that I am looking for trouble….
It’s obvious for one reason or another you just don’t like me. Fair enough. You don’t like the fact that I post videos online. Fair enough. Absolutely your right. But you are seriously trying to suggest that I look for trouble and this is your evidence? (You mention another video, which I’m happy for you to go and find, but I’m not searching for it based on your description!). Seriously?!
Further to that, you bring all this up with regards to this article and this particular video? So, if I am looking for trouble, please state clearly how I am doing this here? The only thing I can think of, is you might be angry that I’m not using the cycle lane. Let’s say I was lying about the ice (I’m not. It was worse in the morning, it was clearer during this incident, but there were sections full of ice, so best avoided)…even then I have every right to ride on the road, and expect those around me to drive safely. So, what is your actual gripe with this actual incident? If you don’t have one, might I suggest, for your own well being, go and find something more productive to do.
i like you magnatom. the
i like you magnatom. the video when it was full of cars in traffic and you shouted out ”YOOHOO!” at a mini. i found that funny. Is that that same road?
Oh, and P.S. I see you found
Oh, and P.S. I see you found the other video. Well done. This is the one where I point out how daft a driver was to try and squeeze me out. I then start cycling away, he pulls up next to me to shout at me, he stops looking where he was going, he crashes into the car in front of him. My fault? Aye, right.
dwob wrote:
2 wrongs..
1st: a distracted mobile using driver makes a crap dangerous overtake, and then proceeds to crash into another car
2nd wrong: rider shouts “stop risking my life” owtte….
Are these really comparable?…..
Yelling and indicating to a
Yelling and indicating to a driver to pullover is defined as road rage in Australia.. the driver might get away with the close pass, but a cyclist hurling abuse like this video, could earn a prosecution for road rage.
grOg wrote:
I’ll be sure not to cycle in Australia…….
So let me get this right from
So let me get this right from your two pieces of “Evidence” linked.
Cyclists berates drivers for driving illegally and/or dangerously whilst everyone is stopped still. When traffic moves, he carries on travelling normally. Drivers then decide to berate cyclist whilst stop start traffic is moving and then crashes or driver decides to accelerate too fast for the conditions and traffic and crashes. But this is all the cyclists fault? Yes the drivers made at least two wrongs in both of those videos.
dwob wrote:
I don’t think you targetting this guy is good. You seem happyto let bad driving become normalised. I am convinced there is a section of the driving population that actually think so long as they don’t make contact with a cyclist or their bike, then it is an acceptable pass. And not all drivers manage to think about these things…
I used to go ballistic when I was close passed, ranting and raving, screaming my head off, obscentities, the lot.
I have toned it down now, I will shout and wave, to demonstrate that I am not happy with being close passed. I try not to swear, but can’t always control myself.
In my experience every car that is following and sees my reaction gives me an incredible amount of room. Even if they only do it one time for me, it might just register the next time they come up behind a bike.
Nothing wrong with venting
Nothing wrong with venting frustration but chasing after people to abuse them and like one other video recently, don’t follow a driver into a carpark or their workplace.. this could result in a criminal prosecution against the cyclist.
It’s a bit like dog training,
It’s a bit like dog training, really – you only have to miss half a beat and Fido doesn’t understand why he’s been told off/given a biscuit. The test in normal times I apply is “would engaging make this a better driver for the next cyclist they encounter?”
You have a lot of experience
You have a lot of experience of Scottish law in Australia?
dwob wrote:
Speaking as a driver I ask you how a cyclist can “make the problem worse”
It’s my option to overtake, and I will only do soif there is clear gain to be made, AND more importantly if safe for me and the person I’m overtaking. There is not one thing that a rider can do to endanger me. Neither is there anything they can do to make me take action that I don’t wish to.
Ultimately, when driving I am responsible for the harm my vehicle can do when it is under my control. Because I understand, accept, and drive as this is the case, I have yet to come into conflict with riders.
Personally, I would be more than happy to drive around this individual as I know I can do so safely without conflict.
Thanks for the video showing
Thanks for the video showing the cyclist providing evidence of bad driving by a motorist who wasn’t paying attention and crashed into the back of another car
That’s always the drivers fault
This is not making the point you think it is
Agreed
Agreed
Lots of bad driving
Lots of cyclists looking to maximise problems
As the comment says… Look for trouble and it’ll find you
Be careful out there
Lots of cyclists – pray, how
Lots of cyclists – pray, how did you reach that conclusion?
No cyclist has to look for trouble, trouble is constantly present.
What is this witch craft? How
What is this witch craft? How the hell does a camera do that?
alansmurphy wrote:
Using multiple wide-angle lenses and clever software to stitch ’em together
I saw a nutter from our IT
I saw a nutter from our IT department using one, I just can’t get my head round (though the camera probably can) filming something forwards and it capturing me from all angles – and yep the lens would have to be wide angled!
I’ve got an Insta360 for
I’ve got an Insta360 for mountain biking. The stabilisation of the image is amazing, and you don’t have to worry about framing the shot. You can mark a moving target later in the edit, and track it. So no more long views of my front wheel or empty sky. So it is shoot and point, rather than point and shoot.
I agree it could be challenging to use in a prosecution where distance needs to be worked out. The raw footage is two files, one each from front and back. By themselves these views are extremely distorted, only in the processing does it come back together. If you have other reference point on the road surface though that wouldn’t matter.
alansmurphy wrote:
GoPro used to sell a rig with 6 cameras, one pointing in each direction. Think this is the same sort of idea, but wide angle lenses so you don’t need quite so many.
Tom_77 wrote:
That doesn’t look like something i’d enjoy recharging after use…
The motorist was being
The motorist was being naughty and knows it. They were trying not to encroach into the hatching and squeezing past and they assumed that the cyclist would go left a bit. So we have a driver taking what they think is a small risk and when it is actually really dangerous.
In general I do wonder how many motorists know that they are supposed to give a cyclist 1.5 m gap I know it has been in the Highway Code for some time. It is more than they might leave when passing a car where it is likely to be as little as a metre on a narrowish 2 lane road. I will ask everybody when they last read the Highway Code unless something happened to them? I am not condoning anything just saying that all should make it a policy to read the new version of the code whenever it is revised but I suspect few do.
I’m not sure that 1.5m is in
I’m not sure that 1.5m is in the highway code or even a legal requirement. I believe it is in some European countries and it is certainly reccommended by many police forces in this country. I think the only way for the police to take action is through careless or dangerous driving. I would be delighted to be proved wrong and if you know different could you point me to the source of the information.
Bungle_52 wrote:
No, it’s not yet. It’s part of the consultation for the new edition of the HC, where Rule 163 will be updated to give a *guideline* of 1.5m min if doing under 30mph, or 2.0m min if doing over 30mph or for a large vehicle at all times.
It still won’t be a ‘legal requirement’ (i.e. an offence in itself) but would presumably support a charge of another offence (driving without due care/consideration etc.)
JLasTSR wrote:
Actually, HWC makes no mention of measured distance currently, but says drivers should give the same room as they would a car (HWC 163). If, as some people seem to maintain, this language is deemed ambiguous, there is even a helpful photograph to illustrate and remove all doubt.
Although it seems to me that
Although it seems to me that the driver in that picture must have started their overtake pretty much as they exited the roundabout, which doesn’t seem particularly good practice.
mdavidford wrote:
No, it is absolutely clear to me that drivers are only allowed to overtake just after exiting a roundabout whilst bearing blank plates, and at no other time.
Of course, if the other
Of course, if the other person hadn’t been wearing a day-glo sash, they wouldn’t have counted as a vulnerable road user, so they could be passed whenever and however you want.
mdavidford wrote:
If they hadn’t been wearing the Sam Browne there is absolutely no way they would have been visible….
See I got it wrong as well
See I got it wrong as well and I had genuinely looked for it failed to find anything except references to it going into the highway code. Made an assumption and made an ass out of me!
one minute four, that shot is
one minute four, that shot is the best. I wouldnt use that PAVEMENT either.
I would say View 2 & 3 are
I would say View 2 & 3 are clearest, followed by 5 then 4.
I really didn’t think it looked that bad from View 1; then I saw it from View 2 and was horrified and had to go back and check View 1 was actually showing the same incident!
Same. Looked like nothing on
Same. Looked like nothing on the first angle.
Ditto, I didn’t realise how
Ditto, I didn’t realise how close it was until I saw the other views.
Dave was very considerate,
Very considerate, noticing the driver looked cold and advising him to use a pullover..