Today’s edition of Near Miss of the Day features the rare spectacle of not one, not two, but three motorists leaving ample space between their cars and the cyclist they were passing. Unfortunately for the terrified cyclist coming the other way, however, these wide passes resulted in two close calls and an almighty scare.
This double near miss took place yesterday morning on a straight, mile-long stretch of road in Cheshire known as the Tatton Mile, which road.cc reader Bob, who sent us the footage, describes as “a popular cycling route but also a bit of a rat run with a 60mph speed limit”.
> Near Miss of the Day 816: Driver surrenders licence after sideswiping cyclist at 50mph
“Three cars pass me giving a nice wide pass,” Bob tells us. “Unfortunately, the last two were very close to the cyclist going the other way”, prompting a shout of terror from the oncoming cyclist as the driver of the blue car attempts to squeeze between the two riders on the narrow road.
According to Bob, the car belonging to the driver who committed the first dodgy overtake is currently untaxed.
Both drivers will likely escape punishment for the tight squeeze, however, owing to the police’s rules regarding video submissions.
“Unfortunately, I switched off the camera so I could find [the footage] easily,” Bob says. “So I cannot send it through to the police as they want a minute after the incident.”
Who knows, maybe the other rider kept his camera on for slightly longer?
> 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
73 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 817: “Both drivers gave me a wide pass – shame about the cyclist coming the other way””
They want a minute after the
They want a minute after the incident? Stupid and inconsistent with other forces submission requirements.
Ride On wrote:
Indeed. Kent Police do not yet# have a camera upload application but will request the video, with no nonsense about the time. Obviously video with timestamp is appreciated but not required.
# camera upload application is in development according to the PCC.
Has anyone asked the police
Has anyone asked the police why they want a minute after the incident? How can that possibly be relevant to the commission of the crime? It’s already been committed so unless I’ve misunderstood the laws of physics and time, the minute after isn’t going to somehow make it that the crime didn’t happen.
I asked the Met a couple of
I asked the Met a couple of years back about the “after” requirement, they said we need to check the complainant hasn’t abused the other party in a way that could undermine the prosecution…when I asked how could anything that happened after the event possibly undermine a prosecution they said, “We are simply acting on the advice of our legal experts”, in other words we haven’t got a reason.
I know there are some legal
I know there are some legal people here; I’m curious – is it possible to do something later in time which bears on actions which occurred before? Unless it is suggested that those later actions are shown to be typical behaviour and likely to have also occurred previously?
For example, motorist commits a dangerous close pass, I catch up and berate them, banging my fist of their roof. Clearly that did not provoke the close pass, but might it suggest I was of a character to have done something similar earlier which “provoked” the motorist?
In which case I would expect
In which case I would expect the police to act on a complaint/seek evidence from the motorist of this earlier provocative aggression. I wouldn’t expect them to demand it of me, especially not in the absence of any such complaint. It is pure and simple putting up non-legal obstacles justified by pretend-legal ‘advice’.
Elsewhere, good article by Helen Pidd in today’s Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/aug/30/why-do-some-people-hate-cyclists-so-much
Thanks; that article says it
Thanks; that article says it all.
Sriracha wrote:
Depends… Do you have a TARDIS? 😉
Presumably to make sure that
Presumably to make sure that all is in order, such that Loophole Freeman and his unsavoury ilk can’t worm their clients out of a charge on a technicality.
PRSboy wrote:
Evidence that the incident was different to the minute before and after i.e. that it is seen in context. Obviously an opportunity to record how you feel about the incident too since the court will see the whole video. Symptoms of physical and mental state as you see fit…
I read the headline as 2
I read the headline as 2 drivers gave me space but the cyclist coming the other way missed me by cm !
Any excuse for the Old Bill
Any excuse for the Old Bill to do sod all as usual. All we can do is keep sending in this sort of stuff and maybe one day they will get the message and get off their arses and send some drivers NIP’s
This incident highlights one
This incident highlights one of my concerns about cyclists riding two abreast. An overtaking driver could put at risk a cyclist coincidentally passing on the other side of the road.
Or the driver could wait
Or the driver could wait until it’s safe to overtake.
Wait ?
Wait ?
But they would be doing the
But they would be doing the same thing with a solo cyclist, as shown just now. Although if it were two abreast coming down, a cyclist would have been KSI’d judging by the poor check of oncoming traffic by the lemming drivers.
Totally agree. In many
Totally agree. In many countries riding two abreast is simply illegal.
But it is legal in the UK and
But it is legal in the UK and is advised in many situations. (And for good reason). I hope your car doesn’t have two front seats as that makes it very hard to overtake it
Well I drive too and my car
Well I drive too and my car indeed has two front seats. But the roads were designed primarily for the 2.5m wide trucks that transport food, tools and our bicycles and bicycle components on their last leg of their journey from Asia.
I have to say that use bicycle almost exclusively for commuting, so an angry driver making close passes on me because he was previously pissed off with two guys chatting and cycling instead of having a run together, slowing down traffic doesn’t make me very happy, because the possibility of being dead is not very nice. Not healthy altitute of these drivers but it actually happens.
But those two people on bikes
But those two people on bikes side by side might well actually be making it easier for the driver to overtake by making the time spent in the other lane shorter. Presumably all these drivers who are so annoyed by people on bikes holding them up also try to kill other motorists who actually cause the vast majority of delays to drivers
cyclisto wrote:
Sorta… recent roads were designed for motor vehicles, but older roads have had to be redesigned for them and the space they now occupy frequently wasn’t designed for motor vehicles at all (obligatory link to excellent book).
I’m not sure you’ve really linked the former (driver behaviour) to the (supposed) preceeding incident (bloody cyclists) – it sounds like reaching for a theoretical justification. While it’s not at all provable I’ve had grief from drivers I’m pretty sure were unlikely to have been previously pissed off by cyclists, because they were too young!
Possibly a confusion of “being aware of current mores” with “not challenging them”? We are where we are – but we got here from somewhere else and we don’t have to stay here.
Victim blaming is
Victim blaming is particularly silly when you are one of the victims!
Maybe they can’t run.
Maybe they can’t run.
If they ran then they might be taking up road space and causing more driver anger.
And of course all car journeys are essential and with a clear purpose.
In many countries the law is
In many countries the law is different from the UK. What issues do you think are here and how would this being illegal solve them? Before posting I’d suggest a look at the highway code and explanation around it as to why this *is* legal in the UK.
If there was a cycleway 2.5m
If there was a cycleway 2.5m wide, they could happily ride 2 abreast with no need for people in cars to work themselves into a lather about it !
macbaby wrote:
Exactly right. Driving just the other day I git behind a group of cyclists riding two abreast & couldn’t get past them because of cyclists coming the other way. I obviously know why they weren’t using it but there was a cycle path they could ride on as well. There should be pressure placed on local authorities to keep them clean.
Given oncoming vehicles it’s
Given oncoming vehicles it’s irrelevant whether there was one or 10 cyclists in front of you.
Cyclelane, murder strip or
Cyclelane, murder strip or Shared Path? And what speeds where the cyclists doing in each direction? Afterall with two of those, speeds would probably need to be reduced down to 15mph or below.
Did you want ALL the cyclists to use it or just the ones on “your” side of the road?
I agree. Dirty cyclists are
I agree. Dirty cyclists are horrible. Councils should be providing showers
It is up to the driver to
It is up to the driver to ensure that it is safe to overtake another road user before committing to the pass. And as said before. It is safer to pass cyclists doubled up on a standard A road.
The best infrastructure doesn
The best infrastructure doesn’t make the more vulnerable road user rely on the more dangerous one for their safety. Example: separate cycle paths, not shared with pedestrians. In general – see how the Dutch do it!
However in the UK we frequently have to rely on the motorist. The rules (and guidance eg. much of the highway code) are written to codify this. I highly recommend a read.
The whole “but cyclists are putting others at risk” idea here is silly in this sense: the duty of care (eg. safe overtake) is on the motorist. Might you spot an impatient driver approaching you from behind, cyclists up ahead and work out that if you dive off the road that might – might – make life safer for them? Possibly – but that’s nowhere in the rules or guidance.
What are your *other* concerns about cyclists riding two abreast? Might as well air them all.
Yes, 100% correct. The one
Yes, 100% correct. The one putting the oncoming cyclist at risk would indeed be the overtaking driver. I couldn’t have put it better myself.
If it was me I would send it
If it was me I would send it in anyway. The police may reject it or they may not but lack of a minute afterwards cannot possibly affect the fact that one vehicle. is untaxed.
Same here. Submit and if they
Same here. Submit and if they decide it doesn’t have enough footage, well another minute of you panting up the hill is all they were going to get.
Does the 1.5m guideline apply
Does the 1.5m guideline apply (in HC or Law) to people on bikes going in the opposite direction?
I don’t know.
Crossing over into the other
Crossing over into the other lane of traffic without ensuring it is clear and nearly causing a head on crash is careless driving which is what they charge close passers with anyway.
AFAIK the 1.5 metre guideline
AFAIK the 1.5 metre guideline only appears in the section on “Overtaking” and I don’t think passing someone going in the opposite direction qualifies.
However, the law simply states that you must not drive “without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place”. The Highway Code has various rules advising care and consideration around other road users, especially vulnerable road users. Passing too closely in the opposite direction can therefore very easily fall under careless driving.
Not sure what you are asking
Not sure what you are asking here. If you overtake and come into conflict with another road user then that is a form of careless or with out due care driving.
If you going in opposite directions, it’s not an overtake, so 1.5m does not come into it. Although as Inspector Kevin demonstrated if you are going in the opposite direction, it is a good idea not to encroach over the central line in an attempt to intimidate cyclists.
mattw wrote:
It will apply. If you’ve opted to overtake a vehicle without regard for oncoming vehicles you can face a charge of careless driving especially if they are forced to brake or swerve. If they are cyclists the police may opt for a close pass wording. If you are in your own lane then no issue. If a narrower carriageway then good road craft advises to drop your speed.
For all the trolls here, I am
For all the trolls here, I am in no way condoning the motorists here, but I think this shows why I would always ride with a hi-vis and front light – because some motorists only see what they expect to see.
I always ride with lights
I always ride with lights (and mostly hi-vis, although I’m sceptical hi-vis has any benefit at all). But even then, it’s no guarantee…
https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-663-van-driver-almost-hits-group-cyclists-287967
It’s no guarantee, but I don
It’s no guarantee, but I don’t understand why any cyclist would not want to make themselves as visible as possible
I just don’t get this. People
I just don’t get this. People on bicycles are taller than most cars and just as visible (unless it is dark and they have no lights on). People in cars might not be looking for people on bicycles, but being bright yellow won’t help there.
There was also that case where it was argued that high vis made the person on a bike less visible against the setting sun.
So, don’t wear a hi-vis
So, don’t wear a hi-vis because for 2% of the time it makes you less visible – jeez you can’t make up this shit.
Not quite the point I was
Not quite the point I was trying to make. Whatever you wear people in cars will sometimes not see you (because they aren’t looking, and they will use any excuse possible if something dreadful happens). If high vis was the answer then there wouldn’t be such an issue with cars hitting people on bikes.
Yeah right, so the defendant
Yeah right, so the defendant in court says “It was because he was wearing a hi-vis that I didn’t see him, your honour” and the judge says, “Yes, that sounds totally reasonable”.
I’m off now, had enough of this nonsense
you might scoff, but that
you might scoff, but that exact excuse has been used in court at least once already, and successfully I believe too, as in the judge/jury went along with it.
ultimately people wont see you if they stop looking for you.
Awavey wrote:
That this comment has 4 upvotes shows that being a cyclist is no guarantee that you’re not a dumbass. Here we have a claim unsupported by any reference whatsoever, where the poster by his own admission doesn’t even know whether his claimed court case was by jury or not. And the “exact excuse” – really!
Yet some people think it’s a great comment. No wonder guys like Trump get voted in when people will believe any shit as long as it lines up with what they want to believe.
https://road.cc/content/news
https://road.cc/content/news/hi-vis-jacket-blended-trees-277019
Asked by Jim Davis, prosecuting, how she had failed to see him “right in front of your bonnet,” Powell replied: “The lighting coming through the trees and foliage on the side had created a flickering effect and I believe the high visibility jacket blended in with that.”
I take it you are not from the UK as judge/jury has a rather obvious meaning and usage.
JimM777 wrote:
TFTFY, and yes really, and as I dont claim to have an encyclopedia of UK court cases to hand to search through to provide an exact case reference to where it has been used, I cant give you the exact details.
but I remember its been mentioned in Road.cc coverage of cases several times where a defendant has claimed they hit the cyclist because the hi-viz they were wearing camouflaged them, however ludicrous you may think it, its certainly been an excuse thats been used in court, which was not rejected.
I remember hi viz yellow
I remember hi viz yellow blending with the yellow of oil seed rape as to a reason for not seeing a very visible cyclist at some point too.
Wasn’ there one up north
Wasn’ there one up north where a car turning right “didn’t see a cyclist” because of bushes on the side of the road. Pretty sure he was wearing visible clothing, although again, actual cause was driver wanted to maintain speed into new road so totally cut the corner and hit the cyclist.
As others have already
As others have already corrected you on several counts (which having followed this previously I agree with), I’ll just say I sympathise. I’ve been there. Sometimes the partial information on the internet and your intuitions can send you to the wrong conclusion.
Well let’s get some facts
Well let’s get some facts straight here. See https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/paul-james-councillor-court-ceredigion-19076246
Fact: in the case referred to the driver who knocked the guy off the bike was found guilty, so that her defence that the hi-vis was effectively not visible was rejected.
Fact: Her defence was not the “exact same” as the hypothetical case I gave.
Having got the facts out of the way, let’s think of the real reason why some cyclists are so against the idea of wearing hi-vis gear. It’s almost a certainty that the cyclists who are dead set against it are people who are wannabe racers who want to be seen to be looking at much like a pro racer as possible. They let their primitive emotional instinct to present a certain appearance to others override sensible alternatives – the similar situation can be seen in those people who drive massive 4x4s around city streets.
Considering you wrote:
Considering you wrote:
Yeah right, so the defendant in court says “It was because he was wearing a hi-vis that I didn’t see him, your honour”
That’s what happened in the case, so what exactly are you arguing about ?
Last night a driver failed to see our fully marked car stopped with its blue and red flashing lights active. We were protecting a broken down vehicle in lane 1 on the A3 near Milford. The driver collided into our patrol car.
As for deadset I think you’ll find on here that people are deadset against PPE as the first thing to turn to and not as the last thing.
Her words might not have been
Her words might not have been exactly that (and as awavey mentioned, but her defence brought forward an expert witness that stated the cyclists attire would not have made him more visible as stated below.
“However, that evidence was contradicted by another expert, accident reconstruction consultant Victoria Eyers. She told the jury that in her opinion Mr James’ position on the side of the road in the shadow of trees and foliage would have made him hard to spot given the brightness of the sun which was shining directly towards the oncoming drivers – even allowing for his hi-vis top.”
So they claimed he was invisible even with his Hi-viz top which is the point initially made to you and you called posters “dumbass” for. You should know by now that to drivers, we are Schrodingers cyclists. Not seen and coming out of nowhere no matter what they are wearing when drivers collide with them, but very noticeable to every driver if travelling through a red or on the pavement, again no matter what they are wearing.
High Viz is useless when the
High Viz is useless when the driver acts like a sheep and simply follows the vehicle in front in the mistaken belief that if they can overtake then I must be able to overtake too. The only view they had to the front at the point they committed to the manoeuvre was of the rear of the car in front.
I wear bright yellow, red or orange cycling apparel in daylight (and in one case all 3 colour together as fashion isn’t my thing!) but car drivers have still managed to say “SMIDSY” because apparently I blended in to the background. At night it’s two front and two or more rear lights plus a super reflective jacket if conditions are less than ideal and an illuminated ankle band if the road is busy. Again, I have been SMIDSYed. The common factor wasn’t any lack of visibility on my part, it was a lack of looking on the car driver’s part.
The legal requirement of a driver is that they make safe and effective observations. That means they need to look and look properly not just make a cursory glance or assume that because the car in front is pulling out you can too. In 37 years of driving, I have found that is key to avoiding accidents.
https://cyclingfallacies.com
https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/19/people-should-wear-hi-viz-when-cycling
JimM777 wrote:
Erm… <puts hand up> I don’t wear any hi viz or retrofluoro clothing.
I wear a rain jacket if its raining, thicker clothing if its cold, and I never wear lycra, and nobody in their right mind would ever mistake me for a pro racer.
The “sensible alternative” to which you refer is wearing normal clothing, not “pro racer” chic and not “working by the side of a railway” fluoro safety wear.
My bike has a rear reflector, pedal reflectors, and if its raining or dark then I have a front light and a rear light. That should be sufficient for any motorist with working eyeballs and a brain to see me (plus me being a six feet tall and slightly overweight human being on twelve kilos of metal with wheels!).
If hi viz is all that, how come cars come in all different colours and there isn’t (that much) carnage on the roads?
Dumbass 😉
Time for this again I think..
Time for this again I think…
JimM777 wrote:
Or maybe, it’s because Hi-Vis is generally hot, uncomfortable, restrictive, and hasn’t been definitively shown to make any real difference. I wear kit that’s comfortable and helps regulate my temperature so that I don’t need to shower when I arrive at work – if I were to drape a bright-yellow plastic bag over myself, I arrive at work a disgusting sweaty mess.
Besides, if a driver is unable to see my light-coloured jersey and pulsing lights (solid at night), what exactly is Hi-Vis going to do?
To square the circle, the
To square the circle, the issue isn’t Hi-Viz, it is wearing clothing that does not blend in with the road, so brighter colours rather than muted greys and browns.
I don’t wear hi-viz, though my rain gear is typically bright yellow, but not reflective, but I do wear DHB orange and club colours are red white and blue in bold panels.
I do wear lycra, but then I’m not committing but riding long distances to no purpose other than to annoy Nigel.
Or hitting stationary Police
Or hitting stationary Police cars, or motorway maintanance vehicles. I do ride with daytime lights and colourful clothing and bright yellow rucksack with hiviz strips, and still get close passed and “not seen” by drivers. But as I mentioned directly, the blue car made his manouvre because the car in front did so must be clear. They wouldn’t have seen the cyclist with lights or bright clothing (or other vehicle) as he followed blindly.
Although as silver car would
Although as silver car would have been blocking view of blue car as that driver is a lemming driver, I don’t think being more visible would have helped.
What do all these images have
What do all these images have in common?
That 95% of drivers do not give a flying fig on what colours, Hi Viz or reflective material/clothing I am wearing.
They are still either going to ignore me on the road, actively harass me on the road – drive at me/into me, treat me with total disdain, lack of respect (for other more vulnerable road user(s))…or in most cases hurl abuse at me for no other reason tham that I am in ‘their domain”. Doesn’t matter if I ride in a group or solo, 10km, 50km, 100km…even whilst doing it for charity – with family members…and other groups on the same road…didn’t(??).
Let’s not forget about the
Let’s not forget about the way those flouresent yellow illuminated retroreflective bollards are never, ever hit by those keenly attentive motorists…
https://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/tag/bollards/
Bingo! And just as we enter
Bingo! And just as we enter the season of “need more situational awareness” too!
All very good comments, here
All very good comments, here’s an alternative viewpoint http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/readthis.html.
Anyway, I will continue to use bright lights and hi-vis, daytime and otherwise, so that if I am unfortunate enough to be hit, and fortunate enough to survive, I will be content that I haven’t given the powerful car insurance company even a sliver of opportunity to claim that I was partly at fault because I wasn’t visible enough, and thereby reduce compensation.
JimM777 wrote:
I clicked around on that website and wasn’t very impressed by it. I was surprised to see that it’s relatively current (copyright 2021), though it looks like it’s from the 1990s, so I suspect an aging author. However, dated design shouldn’t detract from what’s written, but I found that the writer has an insufferable over-riding political viewpoint on cyclists, whilst specifically saying that he doesn’t.
His points on cyclist visibility by motorists makes the mistake of assigning driver fallibility to human nature and insisting that it cannot be changed, but then bangs on about how cyclists need to change their behaviour. He seems to be very self-satisfied with his views and doesn’t offer any evidence to support his opinion that a hi-viz vest makes a cyclist visible whereas daytime lights don’t.
I’m not aware of any court cases where lack of hi-viz was used to reduce compensation, so I hope your fears are unfounded, but by all means wear hi-viz if you find it comfortable and convenient.
I normally wear hi-vis ( with
I normally wear hi-vis ( with the exception of short trips to the shops, coming back from school etc in bright daylight).
I’m under no illusions that this makes me visible to motorists. Louder for them at the back… HI-VIS DOES NOT MAKE YOU VISIBLE TO DICKHEAD MOTORISTS THAT DON’T LOOK. Motorists that look do not need hi-vis to see you, just like they can see a grey car on an over-cast day that doesn’t have daylight running lights. It’s a myth to beat up cyclists and nothing more.
However, I second the insurance point, don’t give them an inch to reduce a payout.
And I find it genuinely amusing to see the change in behaviour from some prick when he gave ‘network rail bloke’ some room and then realised he’s just been overtaken by a girl and goes puce.
JustTryingToGetFromAtoB wrote
I appreciate the sentiment, but I’m not convinced that payouts are reduced for that reason. It also snaps my cranks that cyclists should chase around trying to meet the arbitrary standards of motor insurance bean-counters. One day it’ll be hi-viz, the next day running lights, then a flag on a pole and follow that up with some kind of audible announcement (BEEP BEEP BEEEEP WARNING THIS CYCLIST IS CONTINUING STRAIGHT ON BEEP BEEP BEEEP).
I feel like there have been
I feel like there have been examples but I couldn’t put my hand on any right now. It may have been early settlement negotiation tactics… not that that is any better.
I agree with you but don’t really want to have the fight with an arsehole insurance company (I work in the industry)
The performance art does make my partner feel better (they don’t cycle often) and it does make for a splendid moral high ground when I get combatanyive with a dickhead that didn’t look.
I had a quick look and it
I had a quick look and it seems driver centric. It’s the usual problem of pushing the responsibility on the vulnerable user and not improving driving standards.
Why aren’t drivers taught to look properly and retested on this ?
I do use 4 rear lights in autumn/winter as I have to get home via a 60 road, no street lights and I don’t trust drivers to look enough or drive at a suitable speed.