A cyclist says he experienced “easily the worst close pass I’ve ever had” at the hands of a driver who “buzzed” him while attempting an overtake at a traffic island – and who, despite being slapped with some sort of punishment by the police, close passed the same cyclist just weeks later.
road.cc reader David admitted he was left shaken and “upset” following the near miss, which took place as he cycled his usual commute on a 50mph A road in Pembrokeshire, an area popular with local cyclists and home to Ironman events and the Long Course Weekend Wales.
“I’d just come past a traffic island that splits the bypass for people to cross when I was buzzed pretty closely by a driver,” he told road.cc.
“They made no attempt to slow down or give me any space, and I’d estimate they were doing more than 30mph. I swore because I was so stunned by the feeling of the speed and closeness to which they passed me.”
David continued: “It wasn’t until I went home after work and reviewed the footage that it hit me how close it was – and I’ll be honest, I was pretty upset.
“I had the misfortune to be hit by a driver last year who came out of a junction and ‘didn’t see me’. Fortunately, that was a slow hit that knocked me into a hedgerow, leaving me with some scratches, a bent derailleur and hoods.
“It took a while for me to feel confident cycling to work again, and this most recent pass has brought the fear back. This is easily the worst close pass I’ve ever had.”
David said he submitted footage of the close pass to Operation SNAP, but was forced to “chase it up” after he received no updates within the allotted 14-day timescale.
“They eventually emailed me back with the typical response that positive action would be taken, but they would be unable to provide further details of exactly what because of data protection,” he said.
When approached by road.cc, Dyfed Powys Police told us that the case was handled by GoSafe, the Welsh Road Casualty Reduction Partnership, who rather unhelpfully informed us that the close passing driver received either a warning advisory letter, a conditional offer of a diversionary course, a conditional offer of a fixed penalty, or a date in court.
“Following direction from the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) and our force legal departments, we cannot provide the exact outcome in order to comply with the Data Protection Act 1988 and General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR),” the force said.
“I’m assuming it was little more than a warning letter,” David concluded. “Because I was buzzed again a few days ago by the same car – not quite as aggressive but still mildly hair raising.”
> 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

























48 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 927: Cyclist experiences “easily worst close pass ever” after driver “buzzes” him at traffic island – only to repeat the feat weeks later”
JFC…that was insanely close
JFC…that was insanely close!
Sometimes the videos don’t
Sometimes the videos don’t really give a sense of how close a car is. This one is terrifying.
This refusal to give out
This refusal to give out information due to ‘GDPR’ is nonsense. The cyclist in this incident is the victim of a crime and as such, is afforded the legal right to information regarding the outcome of the case as described in the Government’s Victims’ Code:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/679a47586907bee181d31489/Victims_Code_A5_Leaflet_-_English_-_Web_Version.pdf
the victim of a crime … is
the victim of a crime … is afforded the legal right to information regarding the outcome of the case as described in the Government’s Victims’ Code
Nonsense this dodge may well be, but it is almost universally seized upon by dodgy UK police forces. This is why this reported statement by Dyfed – Powys claiming direction by the Information Commissioner is so important. The mysterious bit is how this all fits with the claimed ability to find the actual outcome of a personal case (I was the victim…) using the spreadsheets provided by Northamptonshire, the Met and West Yorkshire forces. I know that Lancashire and the IC both refused me information about the outcome of a close pass by a Travellers Choice coach which you have all seen too many times!
Whilst I like the
Whilst I like the Northamptonshire approach (it is an encouragement to submit) and all police forces must have similar spreadsheets, it does not reflect outcomes only intended action. The drivers in question may not even have responded to the NIP, they have 28 days, and they may well try one of the numerous dodges.
When TVP are on it you get a letter. The trouble is that they are under resourced and often run out of time or don’t investigate further which is very frustrating.
TVP seem to have adopted the
TVP seem to have adopted the same approach as the bad forces. They’ve gone from phoning me to tell me about action a couple of years ago, to their site saying they cannot update you on the case unless it goes to court.
I logged a horrific close pass a month ago, the footage includes a horrible close pass on me and the oncoming driver having to swerve into the verge and still radio silence.
Sadly they seem to have gone from good to shite.
Excellent. Thank you. This is
Excellent. Thank you. This is very useful as convincing evidence that the police can tell you the outcome of a well-specified offence, including the registration. It may be that the issue is that they don’t have to tell you the outcome in response to a FoI request. Lancashire Constabulary claimed, in my long-running and about-to-be revived quest for the outcome of this frightener, that it was illegal for them to tell me the outcome or to even admit that they held information about the outcome. The police are inveterate and not-very-good liars!
I noticed this ‘intended action’ dodge the other day when the West Yorkshire spreadsheet was mentioned. Is that Milton Keynes offence video online? Do you have photos?
I hadn’t (up until now) put
I hadn’t (up until now) put it online because it’s very poor quality. I find that TVP respond to close passes into oncoming traffic. As you can tell this one clearly starts before the oncoming traffic has passed me.
https://youtu.be/XnKqrLpcW1M
Also for your interest I have posted a couple of incidents (from the same ride) which Northants put down as “points” on their spreadsheet.
https://youtu.be/UVUcH4-uDdM
https://youtu.be/MlSusziN8yo
Even if the cyclist is ‘only’
Even if the cyclist is ‘only’ a witness, if I saw a knife or gun wielding maniac on the street do we really believe that the police would refuse to engage with me and refuse to tell me the outcome of their investigation. I really don’t see why this would be any different.
We all know why it is
We all know why it is different: the victim/witness was riding a bicycle
Exactly. Also, Bridge Street
Exactly. Also, Bridge Street is the worst:
https://upride.cc/incident/close-pass-here-is-a-regular-occurrence/
Here’s one from the high St
Here’s one from the high St that was taken to court.
https://youtu.be/uHVqs7mKLbI?si=PlQanFaXlGKQxYnf
Always an Audi! Glad TVP took
Always an Audi! Glad TVP took action.
If only the town council had not thrown out the plans for more cycle routes, there might have been a decent cycle track at the point where that close pass occurred…
I am not filled with
I am not filled with confidence by the thought that reporting a driver might make them more likely to close pass me again in future, not less.
I am not filled with
I am not filled with confidence by the thought that reporting a driver might make them more likely to close pass me again in future, not less
That’s exactly the fear the police wish to encourage, to deter reporting
I’ve never seen any evidence
I’ve never seen any evidence that it has any impact on drivers behaviours.
Certainly none on the road fear the possibility of getting one, and those that do commit an offence, based on my experiences arguing with them, adamantly believe they’ve done nothing anyway, so would just file a letter in the bin and carry on driving the same way.
Anyone care to lay odds on
Anyone care to lay odds on whether the driver:
Nope not even that. Police
Nope not even that. Police just couldnt be arsed to even come up with an excuse.
“Following direction from the
“Following direction from the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) and our force legal departments, we cannot provide the exact outcome in order to comply with the Data Protection Act 1988 and General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR),”
Is this true? Has anyone actively challenged this? If it is BS, then someone should challenge it and get a definitive answer.
When I used to ride over the Downs in Bristol on my way home from work, I was once passed extremely closely which fired up my adrenaline response, leading to fist-shaking and swearing. The driver must have been watching in his rear view mirror, or perhaps his children in the back mentioned it, because the next day, he was waiting for me by the side of the road: to apologise, which I accepted. Next day he close passed me again.
Not a lawyer but do a lot of
Not a lawyer but do a lot of GDPR work as part of my job and I call BS.
Telling you the result of a an enforcement action is not a protected disclosure under GDPR. There is no need for them to tell you anything about the driver themselves – only that they recieved some kind of punishment – and merely having a car numberplate also tells you nothing about the driver.
Its a scam to reduce the effort that have to make and hide the fact they’ve done SFA.
eburtthebike wrote:
It’s not true in Gloucestershire who, despite all their faults, always tell me the outcome of my reports if I ask for it. At the end of the day it’s in their interests to tell you the outcome because once you’ve had a few NFAs, often with an explanation why, you know what to report and what not to report increasing the efficiency of the operation.
eburtthebike wrote:
A few years ago I wrote to the Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Police to challenge this. They actually wrote back and agreed with me that it would not be covered by GDPR, however the result is that they still don’t give the outcome (just ‘positive action’), but now no longer blame it on GDPR.
Presumably at least the first
Presumably at least the first of these (direction from the ICO) is FOI-able, and might help us understand the underlying data protection analysis and rationale. Maybe when I have a spare minute…
Although actually I’ve just read the ICO’s decision on a complaint wtjs made, and I’m not sure that’s progressed my understanding of data protection – they concluded that the police even confirming or denying whether they held information about action taken would be a data breach!
This is the new standard of
This is the new standard of bs the police have been told to hide behind on most things now data protection is their new “mum” to hide behind. Call them out on it and watch them get pissy about it. In my experience most police don’t have the brain power to understand fine print for buying a car so you really expect them to understand what they’re enforcing?
These are the very locations
These are the very locations I purposely move into the primary position in the road. If there are pinch points where dickhead drivers will try and squeeze through I will shut that space off.
True. And if (when) they get
True. And if (when) they get angry because “you’re blocking the road”, asking them to explain just how much room they intended to give you through there is always fun. Because they honestly don’t even think that far ahead.
brooksby wrote:
Totally agree. The problem I find is finding the best time to move out into primary. I don’t want to be holding up drivers unnecessarily so I would like to cycle around 50cm from the kerb. The problem then is when you want to move out there is usually a string of drivers behind making it difficult. I therefore stay in primary most of the time which means drivers have to pass on the other side of the road which many seem loath to do for some reason.
As for drivers getting annoyed, I just let them. It’s their blood pressure not mine and as for explaining, I’ve given up engaging with drivers, I just report, although occasionally I have pointed at the camera which usually shuts them up.
I would be hesitant to take
I would be hesitant to take primary on a 50mph limit A road.
That needs a mandatory mobility track or a 30mph limit.
I canyt see how sharing the
I canyt see how sharing the action taken has anything to do with data protection or GDPR if no personal details are provided for the offender.
Most likely the poliuce force did nothing and just dont want it known.
I’d love it if Cycling UK
I’d love it if Cycling UK challenged that dodgy excuse in the courts sometime.
lesterama wrote:
Completely agree but they seem more interested in deploying scarce resources for rebranding. Sorry to keep bringing this up but it’s really annoyed me.
Bungle_52 wrote:
Presumably members voted on it?
chrisonabike wrote:
Completely agree but they seem more interested in deploying scarce resources for rebranding. Sorry to keep bringing this up but it’s really annoyed me.
— Bungle_52 Presumably members voted on it?— lesterama
No… At least not directly (I guess it was agreed by the Board, who are elected).
Looking through my emails and the online archive of Cycle magazine, the Dec 24/Jan 25 issue mentioned that they “are working on an improved brand” and will “invite input from members”, which was the first time I heard anything about it. It was mentioned again briefly in an email newsletter in March 2025, which said that the “refreshed branding” is “launching soon” but no actual opportunity to vote or have any input.
As far as I can tell/remember, that was all the communication members received prior to the re-brand being officially rolled out. Whilst it’s possible I missed something, it certainly wasn’t afforded much prominence in their communications, and was not an item on the AGM ballot.
I’m not a great believer in
I’m not a great believer in these things and always read of the costs with an involuntary “how much? To change the logo colour?!” And I think this one is a bit ugly…
… but like everyone else while they may be a charity * ultimately they’re competing for people’s attention. And – like almost everyone – they seem to think that stuff around “branding” (even if that’s really about “look we changed something!” to get attention that way) is very important. *shrug*
FWIW they say (emphasis mine, from here) sounds like they want to reach beyond the current audience:
The updated identity, which incorporates a new logo mark and colour palette, was shaped through extensive collaboration with Cycling UK’s members, supporters, trustees and staff. The charity tested the refreshed brand via member focus-groups and online surveys with non-members. This ensured that the new brand reflects both the charity’s 147-year heritage and its ambitions to grow its profile through its charity work.— Cycling UK
* In this case for … cyclists less focussed on formal competition, having evolved from CTC. They are positioning themselves as a more “supporting more general cycling” group with some campaigning activities – which is partly why I signed up. For better or worse I don’t think they’re quite the “cyclists union” that some folks seem to expect them to be. For “issues on the ground” best to reach out to your local cycling group first etc…
OnYerBike wrote:
I got a ‘sneak peek’ and opportunity to feed back on it, but maybe I’m just special (I didn’t actually feed back, though, so maybe they won’t ask me again next time…). I guess by that point, though, most of the development (and therefore spend) had already happened.
I kind of like the new look (albeit I didn’t really have much against the old one) – it does look a little more ‘contemporary’ – whether that translates into attracting more members, well I guess that remains to be seen.
bikeman01 wrote:
It doesn’t, WMP often inform me of the result.
“The above vehicle has been issued a fixed penalty for driving without due consideration”
“I have made enquiries into the identity of the driver in order to report them for driving without due care and attention”
“the driver of the **** **** will receive points and a fine for the close pass”
Although more often I get this.
“An offence has been identified and enquiries are being made with the registered keeper in order to identify the driver with a view to prosecution”
I had a similar situation to the cyclist in the article where I reported a driver for close passing me for which they got a fixed penalty notice then two months to the day they gave me what I can only assume was a revenge close pass. WMP told me this after the second time.
“I have reviewed the footage that you kindly sent in and have seen the driver of the ** ******** make a close pass to you. For this reason, the driver has been reported for the offence of Driving without reasonable consideration, for this the driver has been sent a notice of intended prosecution, and will have to attend court in relation to this matter”
I see them now and again on my commute and they now give me lots of room so it sunk in eventually!
the driver has been reported
the driver has been reported for the offence of Driving without reasonable consideration, for this the driver has been sent a notice of intended prosecution, and will have to attend court in relation to this matter
Unfortunately, there are numerous police dodges between statements like that, and the final outcome which may well be no punishment at all
Fair point, I am taking their
Fair point, I am taking their word for it and given your history I understand your pessimism. In their defence they have told me a couple of times when they ran out of time to prosecute, they used one of my reports in a vidoe about drivers they have prosecuted and I’ve been to court for a close pass that wasn’t as bad as most I report.
You might be interested in a forum post I made earlier today about WMP Operation snap being featured by the Birmingham Mail.
It doesn’t, WMP often inform
It doesn’t, WMP often inform me of the result
Well, they may do…sort of
For those who keep suggesting that this police GDPR dodge hasn’t been challenged:
https://ico.org.uk/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2023/05/ic-225713-w2y2/
It’s about this offence:
https://upride.cc/incident/4148vz_travellerschoicecoach_closepass/
The police should have
The police should have actioned the coach driver’s close pass on two points.
The close pass itself, along with the fact that it was on zig zags.
mitsky wrote:
I may be wrong but I think it is only illegal to overtake another “motor vehicle” on zig zag lines, ie it does not apply to pedal cycles. Here is a link with the details described in a manner only decipherable by trained lawyers. As is true in a lot of cases the highway code does not reflect the law.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/14/made
You are correct. Section 15
You are correct. Section 15 is the relevant part.
I apologise for reiterating
I apologise for reiterating this so often, but Lancashire Constabulary DID take action on the Travellers Choice coach driver ultra-close pass on the pedestrian crossing – it’s just that what the police imagine to be ultra-cunning language includes no action at all in their definition of ‘action’. That’s why they have gone to such extraordinary lengths to keep the true action secret
“Following direction from the
[deleted]
The best outcome I had for a
The best outcome I had for a close pass at a pedestrian refuge island was the driver deflating their tyre on the curb of the island.
The sound of it is still satisfying to this day:
https://youtu.be/BhLJEgq8WW4
mitsky wrote:
Really? Brilliant!
Just watched it, and saw I’d
Just watched it, and saw I’d already given it a Like at some point. Still satisfying.
I can do one better
I can do one better 😉
(Yes seriously; had a driver blow both front and rear driver side tyres on an island)