A cyclist in Surrey has filmed the moment a passenger got out of a car to confront her because she was riding in primary position – however, police have said they will not be investigating the incident.
The rider, named Katherine, filmed the incident on her way home from work in Esher on the evening of Thursday 4 November.
She told road.cc: “I reported the incident to the police, who recently contacted me to let me know they would not be investigating the incident further, meaning the men in the video will not receive any communication from the police, as confirmed by the officer I spoke to.
“While I find that extremely frustrating, considering the stress and anxiety the men put me through, I would at least like to share the video so other cyclists in the Surrey area may be a bit more wary should they come across these men,” she added.
There’s one specific aspect of the video that underlines how some road users single out cyclists for abuse – namely, that even if there had been no-one on a bike on the road in question, the vehicle and its occupants would not have got through the junction any quicker, due to the Audi in front of them.
Would the passenger have got out of the car to give the driver of that vehicle a piece of his mind? Somehow we doubt it, and Katherine agreed.
“Exactly, had they succeeded in overtaking me on that road, they would still have been stuck behind the other car,” she said.
“The police officer told me the car I reported is registered in Walton on Thames, so the odds of coming across them are reasonably high, considering I have a few colleagues travelling from that area to Esher.
“However, the officer insisted the ongoing risk to me is low so they would not be speaking to these men.
“So now, these men have gone on thinking what they did is acceptable and will probably do the same or worse to another cyclist. But ‘the police don’t operate under what if statements’, or so I was told.”
72 thoughts on “Video: Passenger gets out of car to confront cyclist for riding in primary position (includes swearing)”
Surrey police eh? You mean
Surrey police eh? You mean the same people who sit behind a computer screen all day writing “witty” Twitter put-downs to drivers? Sounds about right.
Katherine, you were completely in the right in your cycling and it’s very disappointing, but unsurprising, that Surrey police refused to do any work. I hope this intimidation and threatening behaviour doesn’t put you off.
Garage at Large wrote:
Are you the same person who left the comment below on this article https://road.cc/content/news/aggressive-driver-meltdown-after-close-pass-cyclists-286251 about a totally psychotic driver who was screaming and swearing like a banshee at cyclists and followed them into town to continue attacking them? Why, it’s almost as if you’re a stinking hypocrite!
So does anyone actually think
So does anyone actually think that if this was anywhere else but Surrey, he would have been blaming the cyclist for not being courteous enough to pull over and let the lord and masters past. But because he suddenly has a bee in his bonnet (but dare not talk to the sarge directly, only make accusatory statements from his own keyboard) he is suddenly deciding the whole of Surrey Police are lazy Police.
I mean apparently the cyclists in the other video LASHED OUT. (Anyone see any violence from them, no.)
Precisely, it’s so
Precisely, it’s so transparent that it’s actually insulting to the readers of this site that he even tries it. Fortunately even those of his own political persuasion can see through him.
You say “he” as if it’s
You say “he” as if it’s anything other than a Russian autobot that changes its name from time to time.
My talking Action Man had more changeable phrases…
“sit behind a computer screen blah-blah-blah-doughnuts”
“lazy policeman blah-blah-blah top lawyer Nick blah-blah-blah”
To set the record straight, I
To set the record straight, I have quite often commented on Road.cc’s near miss of the day that the driver is at fault and has performed a dangerous overtake. I’d have written the same about the incident wherever in the country this had taken place.
Where are your words of empathy for the victim? Perhaps you just think that women shouldn’t be out cycling like that – we already know Rendel’s thoughts on the matter.
Garage at Large wrote:
Go on, try and justify that remark. Be careful though, don’t forget you have already been banned for lying abuse in the past.
We know your thoughts because
We know your thoughts because you’ve already recorded them and written them down. Either own them or withdraw them.
Anyway, as per usual you’ve turned my supportive post to the victim of this incident into a discussion about you, so I won’t be replying any more.
Garage at Large wrote:
I’ve not only no idea what you’re talking about, but I’m pretty certain you don’t know either: “You know what I’m talking about but I won’t tell you and now I’m not answering” – primary school stuff.
Well he has lied in the
Well he has lied in the comment to me anyway. I mean remember when the cyclist was knocked off by someone who drove into the back of them. Instanty he was blaming the cyclist for swearing at them (“My take is”) in the attempts to score points against you. The cyclist then came on to make his point and confirm exactly what was said was exactly on the video “what the fuck”. Not Fucking Twat which is what Boo claimed he heard. Of course he might be psychic as everyone states that to him when they read his lastest diatribe.
As for his caring for female cyclists. Anyone want to guess what his comments about the female rider killed a few months ago might have been. I will give a clue, without any idea of the exact circumstances he was blaming her. He even changed his username to TT Danger at that time.
Eh? The two videos are
Eh? The two videos are nothing like each other.
In the one you’ve linked to, it appears that two cyclists were ignoring the Highway Code (You should… never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends), riding two-abreast on a busy road, while lashing out at anyone who tried to get past. The motorist was very brave to attempt – being outnumbered two-to-one – to get out and speak to the two cyclists.
In this video, by contrast, a lone cyclist was systematically bullied by two cowards behind her. I guess this kind of behaviour is accepted de facto in London, but elsewhere in the UK it is very much frowned upon.
So if you think the two videos are equivalent, I’d suggest you get yourself booked in at Specsavers.
Your attempts to defend your
Your attempts to defend your stupid comments get weaker by the day. It’s sad. You really do need to seek help.
Trendy Rendy.
Trendy Rendy.
Lost the argument, so resorts to ad homs.
Thanks, Rendy – you’ve certainly showed us all the extent of your reasoning powers.
.
.
I guess now you are simply a
I guess now you are simply a sock puppet account or a pathetic attempt at being a wum.
Lost the argument – I would ask you to justify that but previous posting are that you post and run away. Then come back a few days later to snipe from the sidelines in another thread.
Do you have anything at all to say on the actual point of the thread?
Sad isn’t it – one is
Sad isn’t it – one is reminded of the kids who hang around behind the school bully pretending they’re hard.
‘
‘
Garage at Large wrote:
Why does it become safe to close pass a cyclist if the road is busy? Riding in single file on narrow (i.e. roads without a centre line) is prudent. Riding single on a ‘busy’ road is just likely to encoruage a dangerous squeeze pass, such as this driver wanted to attempt. If the road really is busy there will be no gap in oncoming traffic, so we are no wlooking to line up safely two cars and a bike in the width of the road. Not forgetting the oncoming drivers will not accept the overtaking driver encroaching over the line. So now we are squeezing a cyclist and a car into a lane width, which we all know is not wide enough for safe passing on 95% of UK roads.
Don’t waste your time Rendel,
Don’t waste your time Rendel, he’s just being a complete jerk (yet again).
His useful contributions to this site can likely be counted on one hand (where the victim has unfortunately lost a digit or two). By contrast, his trolling bullshit is deeper and wider and more toxic than ‘the big stink’ at its worst. He’s more like a fatberg, an amalgamation of (arse)wipes wedged in a sewer.
I find it a bit saddening that someone feels they need to behave that way over and over again but that’s life.
Exactly what I was thinking.
Exactly what I was thinking. The same Surrey police who put this tweet out (23 June 2021) in response to a similar incident …
Dear Meg,
We’ve DM’d you.
Yours sincerely,
The Police x
— Roads Policing Unit (RPU) – Surrey Police – UK (@SurreyRoadCops)
Oh well, or perhaps it’s a different Surrey police force. The mind boggles.
Different Police officers and
Different Police officers and locations within Surrrey more like.
Err, same force.
Err, same force.
Surreyrider wrote:
Same force, different unit, doesn’t mean that these events get treated the same way.
And? The twitter guy works
And? The twitter guy works for one unit. The Police involveed here might work for another. Mark Hodgson (and Steve Hudson) did great work promoting submitting video evidence and talking on close passes and dangerous driving around vulnerable users. Unfortunately other people on trhe force are not as strident. Same here.
Thanks to the parked cars on
Thanks to the parked cars on the other side of the road she’d have had to cycle inches away from the kerb…in order for the car to close pass her by inches…FFS, why aren’t the Police having a word here?
Tbh, a bit like the some of
Tbh, a bit like the some of the Vine posts, if she had cycled more to the left, the driver would have had to close pass to get by. If they couldn’t get by in the two bits of non parking, they weren’t getting through elsewhere.
He also didn’t seem to notice that they would have only been two yards further ahead at the spot they decided they were so much in a rush in, they had to get out and confront the cyclist and waste THEIR precious time.
I would imagine a tweet to
I would imagine a tweet to Surrey RPU might get a different response (or a more fairminded reason why they can’t take action in this instance). Even words of advice at this stage would be better than nothing.
Hmm. I wonder what the views
Hmm. I wonder what the views of Surrey Police are on violence against women, I think the gender of the cyclist is probably relevant here.
Surrey Police response is not one which will build the confidence of women in going out alone.
No action on aggressive and
No action on aggressive and physical intimidation of a lone female by 2 males.
Shame on you Surrey Police
Interesting that some forces like to threaten prosecution to lone riders who swear when they come close to death, but this action, which constitutes verbal abuse, nothing
And maybe now Road CC will
And maybe now Road CC will stop their stupid love-in with Surrey Police and realise that they’re as bad as the rest at taking action when given evidence by cyclists.
You’re quite right, this isn
You’re quite right, this isn’t a Road Traffic matter, it’s a public order offence. Lone female threatened by 2 males at night time and the police do nothing!
This is a crime and should been recorded as such and investigated.
The fact that the officer didn’t think that it was unlikely to happen again has nothing to do with it. It’s how the victim feels about the situation.
zero_trooper wrote:
This is indicative about how trivially many (not all) police officers see the intimidation of women. This closes off the public space to access by women. it’s facking negligence.
Hello, Lone female here. It
Hello, Lone female here. It was recorded to the best of my knowledge, just not to be continued as an investigation. The officer repeated multiple times that they have been told by their higher-ups not to investigate on “what-ifs”. So basically, until these men actually injure a cyclist, they won’t do anything. Which is why I wanted to share the video; if you’re in the area, be extra careful of this car and these muppets.
I genuinely wonder if certain
I genuinely wonder if certain Police forces make a balanced judgement based on financial budget between actively pursuing road safety or training liaison Officers to break bad news to relatives waiting for someone to come home.
At the very least those guys need some words of advice and put on notice about their future behaviour.
kbm1990 wrote:
That’s terrible. It wasn’t a what if, it actually happened. It was intimidation and harassment, pure and simple. I’m really sorry you had to experience that
A very threatening situation
A very threatening situation for the woman, and I’m surprised that the police have taken no action; maybe if she’d been driving a car they would have?
AAAAAAAAAGH; return of the giant full screen advertisments!
This case does take the shine
This case does take the shine off Surrey Police’s reputation, and is rather disappointing. The lack of action would be entirely normal for Lancashire, except that they would not have responded at all and thereby would not have declared they wouldn’t be taking any action. It is now well over 3 months since the nutter driver of BMW PK14 HLW close passed me then threatened to ‘fucking flatten’ me and to knock me off my bike- all on immaculate video. It would have continued on the usual path of no response at all if I hadn’t continually harassed them after reporting the aggression online and by phone. It’s 2 1/2 months since the first officer asked me to set up an appointment for providing a statement. Then it went completely silent despite my repeated reminders. Then that officer became suddenly ‘not on operational duties’ and the case ended up with another PC who interviewed aforementioned nutter but then claimed to have been transferred to another area, unspecified. I offered to cycle out to ‘another area’, within reason, but there has been no response beyond a non-specific request to ‘discuss the case’ at some unspecified date in the future- the enire incident is on video so there’s nothing much to discuss. This has clearly been a ‘go very slow’ and is now probably moving to a ‘there’s nothing we can do’ dodge. They don’t like stating that in an email and prefer a meeting which can’t be recorded and which they can later say was ‘misunderstood’. I have written saying that ‘we’re not going to do anything’ can be more efficiently written down if that is LC’s intent. We shall see
I admire your perseverence.
I admire your perseverence. Good luck.
Worth a read and also the
Worth a read and also the blog articles which contain the detail:
https://road.cc/content/news/50682-persistence-pays-cycling-lawyer-motorist-who-threatened-kill-him-convicted
I think you’ve fallen for
I think you must have previously fallen for Road CC’s unwarranted fawning over Surrey when in fact this inaction is no surprise whatsoever to cyclists living here.
Katherine, you were
Katherine, you were completely in the right in your cycling and it’s very disappointing that the police took no action. I hope this intimidation and threatening behaviour doesn’t put you off.
Hi, Katherine here. Thank you
Hi, Katherine here. Thank you for your kind words! I am now making sure to leave work when it’s still “light” outside, if only to improve video quality.
It is very disappointing about the police; their attitudes towards the more vulnerable road users leaves a lot to be desired.
there is nothing more
there is nothing more annoying and intimidating than a vehicle hooting from behind. the police should definitely have ‘investigated’ this. A female cyclist being harassed and confronted by a male passenger because she is cycling – and the police let it pass!
Like most readers I have experienced similar incidents quite a few times. I have also had vans and SUV drivers ‘barge’ me deliberately with their vehicles to then stop at the queue ahead. It’s so frustrating.
Wow,
Wow,
1) no space here were the driver could have overtaken safely ‘if onl;y’ the cyclist had moved left.
2) driver not delayed at all as both car and cyclist caught up with the same car in front at the junction.
3) Of course no one notices the elephant in the room, that the real reason the driver cannot pass the cyclist is all the private property stored in public space., those invisible parked cars, except not invisible because the driver manages not to hit them.
Shocking behaviour on the
Shocking behaviour on the part of Surrey Police.
I was punishment-passed (horn blowing too) by a bus driver yesterday, but my local police force have been very quick at requesting the CCTV footage from the bus company. This might be because when I caught up with the bus at its next stop the driver admitted to my face (and on the bus CCTV) that he did it to teach me a lesson “because I wasn’t in the bike lane”.
He had two whole lanes to use and no other traffic, and still decided to play Judge Judy and Executioner. Situation was helped by a couple stopping next to me to give the driver a load of grief about his standard of driving.
Fursty Ferret wrote:
I must have missed the episdode when judge judy sentanced someone to death.
wycombewheeler wrote:
For those not in the UK it
For those not in the UK it might be worth explaining that we reserve the right to threaten and abuse the vulnerable in public at nighttime without legal consequence, which if not actually completely legal, is something that the police condone.
BadgerBeaver wrote:
Only when it’s drivers doing the threatening.
BadgerBeaver wrote:
Unless you threaten a police officer…
Yes. Not requiring this
Yes. Not requiring this driver to undertake at least a training course based on that behaviour is absolutely ridiculous.
They’ll do this again, and again, and again because they clearly have no idea about road access rights.
This needs referring to
This needs referring to Surrey Police’s Roads Policing Unit – surely they would do something about it?
The wierd thing is that, as pointed out by others, it is parked cars that prevent the driver from passing…
Jem PT wrote:
Still cars, though, so they’re fine with that…
Hi, woman from the video here
Hi, woman from the video here. This was reported to the police the same night it happened. The police reached out to me on Thursday to say they wouldn’t be investigating. What struck me though, was that the officer first decided to try “the audio in the video is not working” as an excuse why they wouldn’t take it further? But then, he described the man as “a very angry man”. How can you tell he’s an angry man if you can’t hear the audio? You can draw your own conclusions, but to me it sounds like they don’t want to do their job.
kbm1990 wrote:
That looked like a really unpleasant incident – and for zero benefit to themselves. As for the police not doing their job – there are some inmates of this forum who appear to have second careers gathering a great deal of evidence of just that failing, chasing it up with higher authorities, getting referred back to the police, taking it to the PCC… etc. I see wjts has been by to remind us. I don’t know where people get the energy but I’m grateful some do keep prodding the authorities to do what they’re paid for.
the officer first decided to
the officer first decided to try “the audio in the video is not working” as an excuse …to me it sounds like they don’t want to do their job
They don’t- especially when cyclists are involved. The ‘it’s not working’ dodge is routine in Lancashire. They have file size requirements which make it essential to use the HEVC codec, and will then make absolutely no effort to make it work- even when the details are explained to them time and time again, and it is pointed out to them that the video will undoubtedly play on the flashy Samsung force phones. When they don’t want to do anything, which is pretty much always, they will say anything no matter how stupid.
An equally accurate headline
An equally accurate headline would be:
Video: Passenger gets out of car to confront cyclist for riding on the road (includes swearing)
Benthic wrote:
Or even “for existing“
I like that we’re all being
I like that we’re all being empathetic and increasingly so because of the aggression towards a female, but it really shouldn’t matter.
One thing that struck me was it seemed like the fella really toned it down when realising it was a female and one that wouldn’t be bullied. He opens with “what’s your f cking problem” which is not particualry subtle code for wanting a fight. Brilliant how the aggressor assumes the victim is the one with the problem. It would be interesting to know how this would have faired with a male respondent…
alansmurphy wrote:
You’re right of course, the principle is identical. Thugs are thugs regardless of who their victim is.
The bloke was Unnecessarily
The bloke was Unnecessarily irritated but heard worse and more aggressive when people are just out and about. I would not expect the police to investigate something like that If I were spoken to in that manner in a shop. We do love to be a victim.
Dhill wrote:
Driver is repeatedly using his horn to intimidate someone; potential to make you ‘jump’, swerve, lose focus, crash. This was all because the driver thought he had a right to be in front when actually he’d save zero time as per the other car at the junction.
To then take the act to leave your vehicle to physically intimidate someone and question them when they are in the right… acceptable?
I dare say if someone behaved towards you like this in your work environment or queing for a loaf of bread then you’d have something to say about it!
I’d get out the or should any
I’d get out the or should any I get out the way of cars when safe to do so, so as to de escalate or not let an incident evolve. If in a shop and someone was behaving in an aggressive way over a loaf of bread, I’d let them have the bread.
Dhill wrote:
That of course may be a course of action in dangerous situation.
However the main thrust of responses is that nobody, male or female should have to put up with intimidation of any sort, and bullies, thugs and dangerous drivers need not and should not be tolerated by the authorities or society at large.
The legislation is there to prevent this kind of thing, however it is only preventative if used. Expecting people to grow a thick skin is not an acceptable response to intimidation
Captain Badger wrote:
I’d get out the or should any I get out the way of cars when safe to do so, so as to de escalate or not let an incident evolve. If in a shop and someone was behaving in an aggressive way over a loaf of bread, I’d let them have the bread.
— Captain Badger That of course may be a course of action in dangerous situation. However the main thrust of responses is that nobody, male or female should have to put up with intimidation of any sort, and bullies, thugs and dangerous drivers need not and should not be tolerated by the authorities or society at large. The legislation is there to prevent this kind of thing, however it is only preventative if used. Expecting people to grow a thick skin is not an acceptable response to intimidation— Dhill Couldn’t agree more with you.
Dhill wrote:
Really? You agree absolutely on my last line?
That is not how you come across.
Is that after they have
Is that after they have followed behind you with their trolley trying to force you out of their way?
hirsute wrote:
Not really the point I was making. Just don’t know why we don’t look to as I stated de escalate a situation, not letting it get the point of aggression. Seems to many cyclist want to be victims. Oh and as I know you like to take offence of find one to take. That is not aimed at this poor unfortunate.
Your analogy only covered the
Your analogy only covered the final part of the incident and ignored the build up to it. Rather important don’t you think to take account of the build up ?
Bit of passive aggressive wording in your fourth sentence.
Dhill wrote:
Thing with analogies is they may run off in the wrong direction. In general in life if someone’s a nutter / clearly desparate to get something I’d try not to get in their way / go with the flow and hopefully they’ll get out of my life more quickly. However on the roads I *am* going with the flow already. And as pointed out “getting out of their way” may actually increase the risk to you. If you slow down to stop they may run into you, if you pull over they may then speed through a gap which doesn’t exist and hit you. They’ve already proved that they have poor control (of themselves).
People arguing in a supermarket isn’t really comparable to someone in a car being aggressive. If you’re on a bike / on foot then someone in a car has potentially lethal force. You present zero risk to them. So maybe more of a “if someone threatened me with a knife / gun / hammer in the supermarket…” But that doesn’t work either as that would merit rapid police investigation whereas threats – and more – by people using vehicles aren’t treated with so much concern e.g. as demonstrated here.
You forgot to say that you’ll
You forgot to say that you’ll prostrate yourself on the roadway while removing your cap.
She seemed to handle the
She seemed to handle the situation extremely well considering.
I’m afraid to say that I wouldn’t have been so polite or well mannered.
That kind of intimidation is like a red rag to a bull with me, I’d go ballistic and worry about the consequences later. It might not seem the right response, but I detest bullies. More often than not they need a taste of their own medicine.