A cyclist who submitted video of two close passes made on him by drivers despite a solid white line being painted on the road has expressed his frustration that no action was taken against the motorists other than to send them warning letters.
The footage was shot by road.cc reader BucksCycleCammer, who told us: “Heading down from Windsor to the Great Park, I was subject to several close passes within half a mile. These two were the worst, with the Volvo being no more than a foot away.
“This was reported to Thames Valley Police (TVP) on 16 August, to which they replied by letter dated 18 August. Top marks for speed of response; unfortunately, not so much for the response itself:
After careful consideration of the available evidence and surrounding circumstances, it has been decided that the most appropriate course of action is to officially warn the keepers of [the vehicles] regarding their close passes.
On studying the video evidence it is clear that the drivers did not allow sufficient distance when passing. The Highway Code states, you must give a cyclist as much room as another car when overtaking. It is recommended that you allow a minimum overtake distance of 1.5 metres.
If the drivers commits [sic] any further offences, of a similar nature, then consideration will be given to taking further Police action.
“Having seen this exact wording and punctuation before, it’s clear that this is a standard template letter. This in itself would be fine, but it’s becoming clear that TVP is also following a standard template response to close passes: of the 16 responses I’ve actually had to close pass reports this year (most reports have not received any response as yet), every single one has resulted in a warning or ‘advice’ – including a couple of uninsured and/or non-MOTd vehicles. In contrast, the single report to Devon & Cornwall resulted in notification that a NIP [Notice of Intended Prosecution] was being sent. I suppose that TVP is still slightly ahead of Surrey and Hants, however, who don’t provide any outcome at all.
“Given the distance involved in the second instance, I have asked TVP to confirm exactly how close a motor vehicle may pass a cyclist before they will consider taking further action, or whether actual contact is required in order to issue a NIP. On previous form, I’m not counting on a response.”
> 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
43 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 627: Close passes over solid white line”
2 by the VW driver in quick
2 by the VW driver in quick succession should have resulted in proper action.
I didn’t see a volvo.
Correct video is now up.
Correct video is now up.
Not much to say about this
Not much to say about this one. Looks NSL so hard to be defensive at that differential. Looks like you took the lane after the volvo which prompted a wider, slower pass albeit not legal.
It’s a 50. There was no real
It’s a 50. There was no real opportunity to take primary when the oncoming traffic appeared; due the approach speed of the vehicles behind me (apparent from my Varia which you can see me checking) I’d have risked them just barrelling straight into the back of me. So I moved when I could.
With drivers like that it is
With drivers like that it is no surprise that the live blog today has
“The results showed that 48 per cent of women surveyed own a bike, however 42 per cent do not feel confident riding on UK roads.”
I think I preferred the
I think I preferred the earlier video, these ones look far too close & speedy for much comfort
Yes. It’s ironic that in
Yes. It’s ironic that in order to get to the largely traffic-free Windsor Great Park you either have to drive, or put up with that sort of thing.
Due to a cut ‘n’ paste cock
Due to a cut ‘n’ paste cock-up on my end, the original video here is for NMOTD #604. Hopefully this can be updated with the correct video soonish.
Don’t even remember that one
Don’t even remember that one !
https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-604-two-close-passes-succession-284511
Sometimes poor driving can be
Sometimes poor driving can be put down to temporary incompetence combined with bad luck and a bit of latitude from the authorities is understandable. But when the driver of the grey VW repeats exactly the same fundamental error (overtaking across a solid white line into oncoming traffic at an unsighted bend whilst close passing a cyclist) twice in under a minute, then there really does need to be some remedial action in the form of retraining before that demonstrably habitual behaviour and obvious inability to recognise, let alone learn from one’s own mistakes, results in catastrophe.
Edit: Armchair expert analysis of original video attached to this article which then turned out to be the video for NMOTD #604.
One of the first things one’s
One of the first things one’s taught about gun safety in the army (so I’m told by those who’ve served) is that if your gun goes off accidentally but does no harm you will be sanctioned in just the same degree as if the bullet had hit someone. If a driver (or a cyclist) does something stupid and/or illegal that could have had serious consequences not sure I’d be happy to give them leeway on the grounds of “temporary incompetence.”
Well, not quite. An ND is a
Well, not quite. An ND is a serious offence, but not quite as serious as actually shooting someone. Analogous, for our purposes, to Dangerous Driving versus Causing Serious Injury or Death by Dangerous Driving.
Correct about firearm
Correct about military firearm incidents being sanctioned for possible outcome, not just actual outcome – I’m a former soldier. It’s always been irritating to me that drivers are sanctioned differently for driving offenses, depending on how bad the outcome is; I could have been killed by a driver that collided with my vehicle, after failing to give way at an intersection, but instead of being prosecuted for dangerous or culpable driving, he got a fine for the fail to give way offense only.
Given the distance involved
Given the distance involved in the second instance, I have asked TVP to confirm exactly how close a motor vehicle may pass a cyclist before they will consider taking further action, or whether actual contact is required in order to issue a NIP
There is no such distance. If they didn’t hit you it wasn’t close enough. If they did hit you, it doesn’t count unless they knocked you off, and if they knocked you off there’s insufficient evidence.
Just bought a camera and made
Just bought a camera and made my first submission to TVP. I look forward to recieving the standard letter. This is apparently more than I’ll get from Northants as they have made it clear they won’t be contacting me again as I’m just a witness.
All those passes could have
All those passes could have been slowed right down by riding centrally. Once you’ve slowed one car, then you have a rolling road block.
On a 30 but on 50 that is a
On a 30 but on 50 that is a bigger risk which only requires one misjudgement. How many overtakes before you meet your objective?
I do it on 60mph roads too.
I do it on 60mph roads too. Wait for a gap in the traffic, position yourself just left of central of lane and hold it. There could be dozens of close passes on a few mile stretch. Every driver just follows the next. Calm the speed down, much safer
As far as I could see, the
As far as I could see, the cyclist in this vid did just that – as soon as there was a safe gap in the traffic. But while they were waiting for that gap, a number of drivers close passed them.
So how many overtakes until
So how many overtakes until the gap in the traffic? And if you are near centre, then when they use the other lane, they will be even nearer.
Not really seeing how this improves things on nsl or near nsl.
At the very start of the
At the very start of the video, the rider was too close to the kerb, a few cars passed him, ( follow the leader mode) getting closer as they tried to stay on the left side of the white line, with oncoming vehicles. He eventually moves more central once in the no overtaking section of road. By then though, he had the close pass.
Did you notice that once he took primary position, the drivers moved further around him.
There seems to be some mental process with drivers, that if they can squeeze by a rider whilst maintaining position to the left of the white line, they will try. Once you remove the squeeze by option, they seem to accept crossing the white line is OK and tend to do it, and mostly move completely into the other lane to overtake- as per highway code ‘ideal’ overtake method
If Bikeability, Cyclecraft
If Bikeability, Cyclecraft and others experts recommend ‘riding primary’, why is there no mention of it in the Highway Code. I say this, because I feel it would be very useful to be able to quote the advice (in something they know) and have some legal backing. Some drivers see it as some sort of political pro-cyclist statement, or possibly an overtaking “challenge”
Forgive the cynicism, but if
Forgive the cynicism, but if you want to be able to quote advice from a source that drivers know, then the Highway Code is not a great candidate.
Less cynically, the proposed changes to the Highway Code include advice to cyclists to ride primary in some situations (on quiet roads, in slow moving traffic, and when approaching junctions or road narrowings), and advice to drivers that cyclists may do so. So fingers crossed you will soon be able to refer them to that.
It will be part of the
It will be part of the revised highway code
Having ridden motorcycles, you position yourself to the right of the lane, to ensure good visibility and to put off vehicles from making stupid overtakes- this is when riding at the same speed as the flowing traffic.
Not every driver is a pyscho out to intentionally hurt you. Most drivers are in ‘follow my leader’ inattentive mode. When cycling, creating a rolling road block, they are broken out of the ‘follow’ mode. Each driver then has to plan to overtake you. The other benefit is you now have wide safety area to your left for when someone does decide to drive too close.
I will employ this tactic for any road and only cede position when I decide its safe. Ive been doing this for a few years now and my incidents of close passes has significantly reduced.
Oh, I fully agree with what
Oh, I fully agree with what you’re saying and it’s clearly working if the ‘close pass’ incidents have decreased.
I just wish drivers were more aware of the reasons for riding centrally, and it was explained in the highway code.
Hopefully the new revisions will help make things better.
Hopefully the new revisions
Hopefully the new revisions will help make things better
No they won’t, whatever they are (which probably won’t be much specific), because the police will continue to thwart the apparent intentions by refusing to enforce them. Still no response whatsoever from the much-despised (by me, anyway) b******s at Lancashire Constabulary to this of 6 weeks ago: over double white lines at speed while frighteningly close
Allen Key wrote:
Some police forces recommend it on narrow roads if that counts.
If a driver with temperament
If a driver with temperament issues perceives a cyclist deliberately holding up traffic by riding centrally, that’s when punishment passes can occur when they eventually get a chance to overtake; I keep to the left as much as is safe to avoid dooring by someone getting out of a parked vehicle and most drivers pass safely, with only the occasional cyclist hater deliberately doing a close pass, clearly designed to send a message to me that cyclists don’t belong on ‘their’ road.
Where do you go when someone
Where do you go when someone does a close pass, when a kerb is so close to the left and a pothole in front of you?
In the police response above,
In the police response above, the phrasing used is, “The Highway Code states, you must give a cyclist as much room as another car when overtaking”. Rule 163, I believe, but I thought it actually says “should give” not MUST – so it’s advisory only?
Also, if I’m a total idiot and I like to overtake cars (in MY car) giving them, say, 2 foot of space… it means I can do the same with cyclists, because that’s how much room “I” personally give another car, 2 feet. It doesn’t mention the 1.5m bit in the highway code as far as I know (please correct me if I’m wrong)
Yes, it’s advisory, and the
Yes, it’s advisory, and the wording on its own it’s ambiguous, as you say. However, the illustration which accompanies this rule in the Highway Code shows what is intended (though it’s a personal bugbear that they didn’t take a pic with the car fully over the white line). The upcoming changes to the Highway Code are proposing new language which stipulates passing distances to avoid confusion.
Point taken My bad, I was
Point taken 🙂 My bad, I was viewing the online version but NoScript was active – whoops, image appeared underneath
quiff wrote:
interesting that when a saftey campaign was run, drivers complained a car passing in this manner was not safe and ASA banned the adverts
although I see they later withdrew this decision
https://www.cyclinguk.org/news/advertising-watchdog%E2%80%99s-helmet-ruling-threatens-promotion-of-normal-cycling
It’s really badly worded.
It’s really badly worded. The HC states you should give at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car. The police guidance says that this should be at least 1.5m; this recommendation is not currently in the HC. However, the update due later this year will specify distance(s).
Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:
Ridiculous wording, isn’t it – clearly the intention was to say “overtake a cyclist as if they were as wide as a car” but as AK notes, it’s actually saying if you overtake cars stupidly closely you can do the same with a cyclist.
Rendel Harris wrote:
no it isn’t “as much room” is not “as close to”
wycombewheeler wrote:
“Give a cyclist as much room as you would when passing a car” can clearly be logically interpreted (even if that wasn’t the intended meaning) as “You can pass a cyclist as close as you would a car.”
Allen Key wrote:
as much room does not mean as close to. In fact the entire clause pertaining to cyclists reads
“163
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should
…
give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car”
So are you saying you would really pass within 2 feet of a horse? Because whatever your views on whether give as much room means give as much room or pass as close to, clearly cyclists and horses should be treated identically.
I doubt many would even pass cars at 2 feet despite what they say. 2 feet would be small for the gap between cars in a car park. Don’t think I’ve ever seen cars overtake cars with such a small gap. maybe people might drive past parked cars at that distance at low speeds.
wycombewheeler wrote:
You can see this in action at any motorway roadworks with narrow lanes and the wariness of (most) drivers overtaking with a couple of feet to spare.
So, I went back to TVP to ask
So, I went back to TVP to ask exactly how close a motor vehicle may get to a cyclist before they consider it worthy of further action. Here’s the reply:
A formal warning is always offered, in the first instance, to an erring driver and as stated in my previous letter to you if the driver thereafter commits any further offences, of a similar nature, then consideration will be given to taking further Police action, be that education or prosecution.
Please be aware that in order to bring a prosecution for any offence in the Magistrates’ Court there has to be sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction, the evidential burden of proof being “beyond reasonable doubt”.
In this instance, it was decided that the most appropriate course of action is to officially warn the keepers of the vehicles.
And after repeating my
And after repeating my question (How close is too close?):
In my letter advising you of the warning issued to the erring driver I stated thus:
“The Highway Code states, you must give a cyclist as much room as another car when overtaking. It is recommended that you allow a minimum overtake distance of 1.5 metres.”
Notwithstanding the above I have explained that a formal warning is deemed appropriate in the first instance as both the evidential threshold / public interest considerations would have to be met in any decision to prosecute.
I will no longer engage in any further communications about this as the decision to warn has been made.
So basically, “I can’t be bothered with this – go away”
Snap – standard copy and
Snap – standard copy and paste wording from TVP, I get them all the time, I’ll keep uploading and reporting. I’ve got it down to 7 minutes to make a report online.
I sometimes receive phone calls from the police, like Bucks Cycle Cammer, I pressed them, what happens if they do the same thing again, now that their details are on the system, they wouldn’t elbaborate what would happen.
The close pass drivers are
The close pass drivers are doing so because they are overtaking into the path of oncoming vehicles; a dangerous driving offence, which the drivers should be prosecuted for by police, not just sending a warning for the close pass, which is a secondary matter considering the poor driving shown with this video.