“Fuming” – that’s the reaction of a cyclist who had to swerve sharply to avoid being hit head-on by a lorry driver in Oxfordshire who was overtaking a tractor, but who did not face prosecution since Thames Valley Police believed there was “insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.”
Posting footage of the incident to Twitter the day after it happened in April, Ruddell Kingston, who tweets as @MuscleClinicUK, said: “The increase in fatalities on #oxfordshire roads has been widely reported in recent months. Which is what this kind of #dangerousdriving and total disregard for life shouldn’t go unpunished.”
We featured the video in our Near Miss of the Day series at the time, highlighting comments from people responding to the video online, including ones describing it as a “near death experience” and “an absolute shocker.”
The cyclist involved in the in incident on the B480 in Chalgrove, Russell Kingston, has now provided an update on what happened with the case – and it isn’t good news.
While Thames Valley Police originally issued a Notice of Intended Prosecution against the lorry driver, he was not prosecuted.
slowing him down, then said ‘the cyclist could have assisted by stopping and moving over’ – which I did to save my life! @ThamesVP had an opportunity to do the right thing and set an example here but took the easy way out! Not even an awareness course! #closepass
— Russell Kingston?? (@MuscleClinicUK) October 31, 2022
Kingston said that he had been told that the driver had said that “he didn’t see me when he started the overtake, blamed his auto gearbox for slowing him down, and then said ‘the cyclist could have assisted by stopping and moving over’ – which I did to save my life!”
He added that Thames Valley Police “had an opportunity to do the right thing and set an example here but took the easy way out. Not even an awareness course!”
Already done that. But was told that scheme dosent apply to this matter!.. Then they went on to say the 6mths needed to bring it to proceedings has now lapsed so they have ‘run out or time’ ??♂️
— Russell Kingston?? (@MuscleClinicUK) October 31, 2022
Replying to Kingston’s latest tweets today, South Yorkshire Police’s Sheffield North West Neighbourhood Policing Team said: “It sounds as though they have sent an NIP and interviewed the driver in some form so they’ve done the hard work. Victim’s right of review might be the way to go. Worth contacting the force and asking them to review that decision?”
However, Kingston replied: “Already done that. But was told that scheme doesn’t apply to this matter! Then they went on to say the 6 months needed to bring it to proceedings has now lapsed so they have ‘run out or time.’
Our original article, published in April, appears below.
This extremely close call – which forced the cyclist to take evasive action as a lorry driver barrelled towards him from the opposite direction while overtaking a tractor – has sparked an outcry online, as Twitter users describe the incident as a “near death experience” and “an absolute shocker”.
The increase in fatalities of cyclists on #oxfordshire roads has been widely reported in recent months. Which is why this kind of #dangerousdriving and total disregard for life shouldn’t go unpunished. FN67LHM B480 Chalgrove today! @TheOxfordMail @Cycliq @roadcc #closepass pic.twitter.com/BDRr4JAs58
— Russell Kingston?? (@MuscleClinicUK) April 5, 2022
The cyclist who posted the video, Russell Kingston, a soigneur for British Cycling, said the lorry driver’s shocking overtake showed “a total disregard for life”.
> MP urges the government to help make Oxford’s roads safer for cyclists
Referencing the recent deaths of Ellen Moilanen and Dr Ling Felce, who were both killed after being struck by lorries while riding their bikes in Oxfordshire this year, Kingston said that “this kind of dangerous driving… shouldn’t go unpunished”.
Kingston has reported the footage to the police, later tweeting that he was “still glad to be alive”.
Uploaded yesterday, the video has been viewed over 13,000 times on Twitter.
> 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
47 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 744 revisited: Cyclist “fuming” after lorry driver who nearly hit him head-on avoids prosecution”
Christ, that one was bad!
Christ, that one was bad!
Imagine what the front video
Imagine what the front video showed? I wonder if that is one the “new” lorry drivers rushed through to fill the gap?
Shame Farmer-in-tractor who would have seen cyclist throwing himself off the bike didn’t stop to check.
I would be ashamed if I was
I would be ashamed if I was the tractor driver let alone the truck driver!
I’m not sure it makes any
I’m not sure it makes any difference whether it’s a new lorry driver, or an experienced one……It’s atrocious driving full stop. I’m not an HGV driver, but I know how to pass a slower vehicle.
The normal bonnet watching it
The normal bonnet watching it is then
Should’ve been riding in
Should’ve been riding in prime position.
Cycloid wrote:
… and then, in all likelyhood – be dead.
I think that was the allusion
I think that was the allusion !
Looks like they were riding
Looks like they were riding primary, it’s not going to stop every bad driver though. I think I would have been diving for the verge if riding secondary anyway. Hopefully the police will do something about this.
Bloodynhell, that’s awful!
Bloodynhell, that’s awful!
I had that happen once, but
I had that happen once, but it was “just” a large pickup truck. Probably the second closest I’ve come to dying while cycling. I felt the wind from his side mirror on my cheek.
WOW, that was scary!
WOW, that was scary!
Makes me wonder if the sacked JLR mechanic has already found another job?
Why should any road user have
Why should any road user have to share roadspace with someone who demonstrates such an apalling lack of responsibility towards / care for others? It would be a travesty if the driver of that lorry is allowed outside in anything more dangerous* than carpet slippers.
* I appreciate that carpet slippers can be lethal to the wearer.
Why should any road user have
Why should any road user have to share roadspace with someone who demonstrates such an apalling lack of responsibility towards / care for others?
Because the unholy alliance between the driver and the police in particular, and society in general think that the deaths of the odd cyclist are an acceptable price to pay for the ‘freedom of the driver’. Lancashire Constabulary hasn’t told me what happened to the driver of this ‘Traveller’s Choice’ coach 4148 VZ, which was Travelling at 30+ mph while I was doing 10, but it’s likely to be nothing or the joke ‘words of advice’. LC thinks they can get away with just refusing to reply, but you have to keep going and present big bunches of evidence that the b******s are doing nothing about offences against cyclists
Ooof, in a similar scenario
Ooof, in a similar scenario (build out from pavement) a cyclist was killed by an HGV driver in Southampton a few years back, eastern side of the Itchen Bridge. No action on that one from memory.
Fecking horrific.
Fecking horrific.
I hope that they catch the bastard, and throw his licence in the bin* **
* but you know that they won’t unless, the rider happens to be plod.
** with that kind of casual disregard for the life of a vunerable road user, the chances are the driver is the kind of c*nt that doesn’t care about mere triavialites such as licence, insurance, MOT or VED.
Just when you think you’ve
Just when you think you’ve seen it all…Surely, Surely, SURELY that’s a lost licence? Yes? No?
That’s one of the scariest
That’s one of the scariest close passes I’ve seen. I hope the cops take action.
These are the ones we all
These are the ones we all dread. The head on where you know you have to pull over or….die.
It’s happened to me too. I didn’t have a camera then. But would’ve pushed for the cnut to be in chains had I a camera.
Not sure why Russ didn’t catch the front shot? But I’m sure he wishes he had the full picture. I hope the police pursue the driver. This could’ve been a murder charge if Russ hadn’t been paying quick attention
All cyclists. If you road cycle. You must wear a camera front and back. Wouldn’t you want the chance for justice where you aren’t around to make it happen?
ROAD CYCLISTS…
THAT IS WHY YOU ALWAYS WEAR A CAMERA.
FRONT AND BACK!
Russ confirmed in his twitter
Russ confirmed in his twitter thread he doesn’t have a front camera, only the rear. And yes youd want justice, if the police take this forward and do anything with it.
But decent quality cameras front & rear arent cheap,they can be double sometimes triple the cost of the bike you’re riding.
Incidents like this don’t encourage riders to tool up with more cameras, it forces them off the roads completely.
From the article : “The
From the article : “The cyclist who posted the video, Russell Kingston, a soigneur for British Cycling, said the lorry driver’s shocking overtake showed “a total disregard for life”.”
I really hope this spurs British Cycling into action. I regret to say that while they and Cycling UK do lots of good work they have both appear to have been found wanting in relation to getting the police to deal with poor driving on our roads.
May be road.cc could ask for a comment.
Oh what a surprise, the a
Oh what a surprise, a significant number of the the comments on twitter are “the lorry driver was wrong but the cyclist should have been closer to the edge of the road and it would have been fine”
Only saw a handful
Only saw a handful
rather more on the lines of “Holy f***ing crapballs. That driver should never ever be allowed to operate heavy dangerous machinery in public spaces ever again.”
That seems to be a common
That seems to be a common attitude of many motorists: they could have easily squeezed past you in a single lane, if only you had had the consideration to *move into the gutter / *bunny hop onto the kerb / *etc…
Ask those people to stand
Ask those people to stand next to the platform edge when a non-stop train passes through.
TBH, if the cyclist had been further over and stayed on his “wheels”, there is a good chance that he could have been sucked under the back wheels due to the wind shears generated by highsided lorry doing those speeds.
Question.
Question.
An oncoming vehicle overtakes another vehicle as they approach and pass you on your bike. What’s the minimum safe distance between the cyclist and overaking vehicle?
Is it 1.5metres?
As long as they have pulled
As long as they have pulled back into their side and are fully over the centre line in good time, then the distance away does not matter.
Well the story the other day
Well the story the other day showed the court still thinks it should be enough distance that it doesn’t cause danger to the oncoming cyclists.
A similar question could also be applied to riding in murder strips / on dual carriageways with parked cars in one lane. Does the paint line remove the need for 1.5 metres minimum?
I think a head on overtake
I think a head on overtake requires more safe distance (1.5 metres) because the threat of catastrophe is increased. Plus there’s the opposing drag.
Added here as not for a new
Added here as not for a new thread and the cycling footage in the second segment is similar
The Devon And Cornwall Police have released a video of (well they call it dangerous but most seems to be prosecuted as careless) driving offences.
Devon and Cornwall near misses caught on camera – BBC News
That reomovals van driver
That removals van driver wasn’t stopping for anyone.
The third clip (the one used
The third clip (the one used for the thumbnail) has some comments on the twitter thread blaming the SAAB driver as well. “He should have moved across or slowed down as he pushed the blue car into traffic”. Erm, blue car emerges into oncoming traffic initially, then tried to bully other driver, and both correctly driven cars were approaching a speed change section so SAAB could have slowed but so did video car so it might appear it didn’t.
Seems remarkably similar to
Seems remarkably similar to this video on the BBC [0:27], except that there the person almost killed by the overtaking lorry driver was in a car, whereas here the person almost killed was only on a bike, so I guess its not as serious…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-northamptonshire-59419662
Exactly that Sriracha. If the
Exactly that Sriracha. If the overtake wasn’t safe to complete before an approaching bicycle, then surely it would have been even less safe with an oncoming car/van/truck moving at a higher speed. Or am I being thick as mince again?
That’s appalling. Hoe the
That’s appalling. Hoe the police have not taken action is also appalling.
It sounds like they took some
It sounds like they took some action, they interviewed the driver, you dont get driver feedback like this as the norm for close pass submissions, but they, or the CPS then chose to go no further with it for some reason, and I dont know how that works, does it turn into a warning, no further action, it seems a bit odd.
But I posted on the live blog yesterday I wondered if, and in line with the drivers comments they would claim to have started a “safe” overtake, because the video evidence is rear facing only, you cant disprove that, and the bit you are trying to prosecute on is only inferred.
Which a “top lawyer” could exploit the doubt a court might have about what exactly happened in the forward view, which might be enough to derail a successful prosecution. And perhaps unlike other forces TVP are less prepared to pursue cases they arent guaranteed of winning.
Shocking decision by TVP. I
Shocking decision by TVP. I’ve said before that I believe TVP have very little interest in prosecuting (persecuting) professional drivers. I had one close pass from a tanker driver. TVP confirmed that they had given him words of advice and then went on to say that he spoke very little English and did not believe that he “got it”. Surely the reason that you should be doing more than having a little chat!
Just to point out a bit of
Just to point out a bit of the obvious.. 1) that wagon simply can’t overtake speed up or brake like a car can. 2) by the time we get to the ‘murder pass’ the lorry has ‘just’ passed the tractor I don’t think he could have moved back into his lane any earlier.. If I put myself in the driving seat (so to speak) how would/could I or you have reacted.. I honestly don’t think there’s an good answer. The lorry driver put himself into a position where he couldn’t move over, slow down, speed up or stop, but it might have looked safe when he started or committed to the manoeuvre? It’s a horrible situation which resulted in him nearly killing someone.
Saying that, it is still ridiculous that there was no follow up punishment or warnings sent to the driver and demonstrates a laissez-faire attitude to vunerable road user victims and once again a biased attitude to motons.
“he didn’t see me when he
“he didn’t see me when he started the overtake”
Of which there is no explanation of why, leaving the reader to deduce he did not look or did not care.
“He didnt see me as
“He didnt see me as significant when he started the overtake”
Is the more likely view he had, he saw the cyclist, but weve all had this experience, simply gone theyll get out of the way as they’re just a cyclist, theres room…
Yes, given the ‘the cyclist
Yes, given the ‘the cyclist could have assisted by stopping and moving over’
I think you mean driver, diving out of the way to avoid being a KSI.
And just on time
And just on time
Both travelling in the same direction for this one.
Cyclist was invisible or something.
Must be lancs though !
Hi Viz doesn’t work in the
Hi Viz doesn’t work in the daytime.
The Hi Viz part of a Hi Viz jacket (for example) are the reflective tapes.
The jacket (for example) is merely bright coloured material of no additional reflective or luminous properties.
Take the tapes off a Hi Viz jacket and your just left with a bright jacket.
Try it.
Well, no. HiViz is generally
Well, no. HiViz is generally a combination of two elements; fluorescents which exploit the UV spectrum of daylight not present in artificial light, and retro-reflecitives which exploit the directional nature of artificial light absent from ambient daylight. Hence HiViz has advantages under both types of illumination.
Unless the ambient light is
Unless the ambient light is less than the reflected light from the tapes, you might as well not wear it during the day.
The material surrounding the tapes has no additional reflective properties than any other bright material.
I think you’re missing what
I think you’re missing what flourescent materials do. They absorb UV spectrum and re-radiate it in the visible spectrum. By converting incident UV light (invisible) into visible reflected light, in addition to the ordinarily reflected visible light, they do reflect more visible light than would a similar coloured non-flourescent material. So yes, it does have “additional reflective properties” compared to a non-flourescent material, which is why they appear unusually bright. This only happens under daylight as it has both UV and visible light.
As if any further evidence
As if any further evidence was required that the single greatest obstacle to safer roads for cyclists is the Police!