*Warning: clip contains very strong language*
In today’s Near Miss of the Day, a cyclist who reacted angrily when he was almost hit by a driver pulling out from a side road was told police would not be prosecuting because of his conduct in the aftermath of the incident. Believe it or not, this isn’t the first time we’ve featured a story about camera submissions where swearing was cited as the reason for police refusing to take action.
road.cc reader Stephen says he cycles to work regularly in and around Peterborough, and has been on the receiving end of “many” near misses.
Stephen told us more about the incident and his dealings with Cambridgeshire Police, saying: “I apologised for the swearing but I was angry and shocked that the motorist would put my life at risk just to save a few seconds. I also don’t know how to ‘beep’ them out [of the footage]. This turned out to be my downfall…
“On submitting this to the police they stated that due to me swearing at the woman, after she nearly caused an accident, they will not prosecute her!
“I have never heard anything so ridiculous and in future must thank them for nearly killing me if there is to be a chance of action being taken against them.
“Sorry about the swearing but I was angry and frightened by [the driver].”
road.cc has contacted Cambridgeshire Constabulary for comment.
Back in May of last year, road.cc was told by Gwent Police that if a cyclist submits footage of bad driving under its Operation Snap initiative, the cyclist themself could face prosecution if they can be heard swearing in the footage.
Cyclist Nick Thompson, whose footage led to the original story on road.cc, was told by the Crown Prosecution Service that “there is no general rule against prosecuting cases where victims or witnesses can be shown to have used bad language.”
DCS Andy Cox, head of crime and intelligence in Lincolnshire and the national lead for fatal collision investigation reporting, told road.cc: “I believe we should review every matter in its individual sense; eg if there has been dangerous or reckless driving this should be reviewed in the context of the driving (eg in isolation to other matters).
“That said; any offensive or intimidatory behaviour should also be reviewed and where appropriate enforcement action progressed against any relevant party; even if that person has been impacted by sub standard driving.
“Offensive and intimidatory behaviour only enhances the danger on our roads and all parties should remain respectful towards each other as that is the best way to maintain safe and sensible travel.”
> 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
72 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 825: Police refuse to prosecute because cyclist swore after driver pulled out on him”
Do they accept submissions
Do they accept submissions with no sounds? Problem solved
Never been a better reason
Never been a better reason for learning an obscure language! I was going to suggest Latin but at least some of the judiciary may still have that.
Klingon, maybe? I bet they
Klingon, maybe? I bet they can swear well… 😉
anagallis_arvensis wrote:
There’s no requirement to supply sound with the video and my cams don’t tend to be able to pick up anything except road/pedalling noises.
I’d recommend removing the audio from police submissions if you think it could negatively affect you – there’s no need to self-incriminate. The driver is free to provide their own recordings if they want to prove that you were insulting.
Presumably they could also
Presumably they could also subpoena your original footage and use it against you?
Sriracha wrote:
Subpoena implies it got past the NFA black hole into the NIP stage, so that’s still a win.
Sriracha wrote:
I’m not sure how that would work (wouldn’t they need to produce some evidence of it first?) and if you claimed that the original had no usable sound, then they wouldn’t have any proof.
This close pass one from HP
This close pass one from HP went no further…
Turn the camera mic off….
Turn the camera mic off….
Subpoena ? Someone’s been
Subpoena ? Someone’s been watching too much American TV. That’s not something UK police do.
Also I don’t think it was the swearing alone. It’s the swearing plus banging on the car that starts to make it more of a public order offence. Insulting words in themselves are no longer sufficient for a s5 offence. See
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05760/
swearing in shock or anger isn’t likely to result in a prosecution without some more disorderly conduct to show it was abusive and was likely to cause someone alarm or distress.
Note there is a defence of “reasonable behaviour” but the post incident turns it from something relatively clear cut to a “what about the offence committed by the cyclist”. Police can’t take sides, and resources are limited with huge backlogs of cases awaiting trial.
It may not be easy but if possible restraining the anger and submitting the report later on is the better course.
Thanks for your input and
Thanks for your input and your work in S Yorks.
Inspector Kevin Smith SYP
Forgive me if I got the terminology wrong, but my source is definitely not American TV.
[I]Incriminating dash cam footage is a two-way street
[/i]https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/dash-cams/article/dash-cams-and-the-law-what-you-need-to-know-aUty85w5AYQC#incriminating-dash-cam-footage-is-a-twoway-street
Moreover, I’m pretty sure that any dashcam footage you submit must not have been edited or enhanced in anyway – for example by deleting the sound, as was suggested earlier. Therefore if you did so, it seems pretty reasonable to expect to be asked for the original version. If it became obvious that you had deleted the sound because it improved your position, I think that would count against you.
And yes, I understand that there is more than just the verbals in question here, but I was replying to the suggestion made to delete the sound:
Recording without sound in the first place might well be OK, but submitting footage after deleting the sound because it doesn’t suit your case would not be.
Police can’t take sides, and
Police can’t take sides, and resources are limited with huge backlogs of cases awaiting trial. It may not be easy but if possible restraining the anger and submitting the report later on is the better course
Even the admirable Inspector K. can’t get everything right. The police, at least in Lancashire, take sides all the time – either employing dodges to get motorists off or, as in the case below where they have full video long before and after, when they can’t think of any get-out the b******s at OpSnap Lancs just don’t respond at all and do nothing. What was on the side of the Kirkby Lonsdale Coaches driver here, Inspector? Me being on the road causing understandable frustration? There’s no swearing or any other voice from me- I was too busy trying to avoid being shoved under the wheels of the bus or any following traffic ‘who had no time to react, and our thoughts and prayers go out to the family of the cyclist’. The ‘huge backlog of cases’ does not apply here because nobody is ever taken to court for offences against cyclists in Lancashire
F*****g institionally f*****g
F*****g institionally f*****g anti-cyclist
I still think the police
I still think the police should prosecute, however using gendered insults like “stupid cow” is a pretty bad look, and to me at least stinks of misogyny.
I suspect this kinda reflects
I suspect this kinda reflects our view of road crime as “not real crime” – certainly not if there’s no blood or bodies. It then becomes a “six of one…” judgement by the police, because potentially injuring or killing someone is seen as broadly equivalent to calling someone a bad name.
Or the police are just keen to avoid work that doesn’t feed in to whatever priority targets they have.
Boopop wrote:
He is insulting her because of what she did, not because of what she is. Had he called her a “stupid woman” that also would be gendered. It becomes misogyny if he is insulting her because she is a woman, rather than just because he thinks she is stupid.
If I hear someone insult a
If I hear someone insult a woman by calling them a “bitch” or a “cow” to me that comes across as implying they did the stupid thing because of their gender, as well as criticising the stupid thing.
If it had been a male driver,
If it had been a male driver, I suspect the cyclist would have reacted identically but with the likely epithet of stupid prick upon seeing the driver was a man; I very much doubt that gender was the issue here.
The stereotype of women
The stereotype of women having lesser driving ability than men is largely untrue, however in a stressful situation such as an accident, men tend to have a less panicked reaction than women, who tend to freeze, close eyes and scream..
Would it be better in this
Would it be better in this situation to use the totally non-gendered “stupid pig?” It is possible he was using “cow” as a broad reference to “cattle,” as many people do, and meant nothing sexist by it at all. Or maybe he’s accustomed to riding in farm country where stupid cows do sometimes wander into the road and get in the way.
cmedred wrote:
I like to try and think the best of people, but have you ever heard a guy insulted as a cow? I haven’t.
So if it were a bloke and it
So if it were a bloke and it was fucking dickhead would that be misandry ?
Oh dear.. calling a woman
Oh dear.. calling a woman driver a stupid cow may be rude and abusive but misogyny? Misogyny is hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women in general; just because a male cyclist verbally abuses a female driver for potentially putting his life at risk doesn’t constitute misogyny.
“You were assaulted, sir?
“You were assaulted, sir? Life changing injuries, eh? But I note that you swore back at your attacker – sorry, but nothing we can do…”
I think it’s time that the
I think it’s time that the police explained how swearing at the criminal after the crime has been committed in any way affects the commission of the crime.
Look swearing just as an
Look swearing just as an initial shock reaction, youd probably get away with as long as it wasnt too offensive a verbal volley, but the type of persistent verbal abuse as shown in this video plus slapping on the side of the vehicle, thats very hard for the police to ignore and accept it’s not gone over the line of acceptable behaviour because the cyclist was just in shock, the driver could rightly counter claim the cyclist is committing an act of assault there, just for an apparent minor mistake they made, and the HC does remind road users to allow for others to make mistakes,and not to get road ragey about it.
Consequently no, especially where the appears to be no physical harm to each other or damage caused, the police arent going to follow up on cases like that.
My advice would be to learn to bite your tongue more and easier said than done but dont overreact to those situations.
Yes the car pulled out, it shouldn’t have done, yes its annoying, yes slamming the brakes on isnt what you need or want to do, but if you are riding frequently these kinds of situations are going to come up alot so you need to be prepared to deal with them.
Awavey wrote:
Good advice – let your camera/police do the talking for you. In my experience it takes some practice to not react angrily, but it’s worth learning.
There is actually some
There is actually some science behind swearing as a response to physical pain, which you can relate to every time you hit your thumb with a hammer. There was even an IgNobel awarded for the work*. Search hard enough and there is some scientific speculation that the same mechanisms are so at work with psychological pain.
*https://journals.lww.com/neuroreport/abstract/2009/08050/swearing_as_a_response_to_pain.4.aspx
No physical pain with the
No physical pain with the cyclist.. just angry yelling at poor driving; the old primal screaming therapy has been rejected as bad science as well.
Good advice – let your camera
<em>Good advice – let your camera/police do the talking for you. In my experience it takes some practice to not react angrily, but it’s worth learning</em>
Makes no difference. It’s just a police dodge- the decision was already made that they weren’t going to do anything, and they roll out this excuse as a routine when they think they can get away with it
History teaches us that
History teaches us that Police officers behave wisely once they’ve exhausted all other options. So, my advice as someone used to making charging decisions is to lodge a complaint and keep complaining ’till you’re satisfied. I can’t see the victim of a physical assault being told that their assailant isn’t going to be prosecuted ‘cos they swore at thier attacker.
Then youd know full well the
Then youd know full well the cyclist committed a section 4 public order act breach in the way they continued to react to the incident, possibly even escalating to common assault/road rage that any decent defence lawyer for the driver would present to a court.
And I say again the HC guidance says you have to allow other road users to make mistakes and not react with road rage.
People keep highlighting just the swearing, but the police line specifically says “conduct” thats the combination of the swearing, the slapping of the car, plus the threatening behaviour.
I think the problem was the
I think the problem was the intensely personal nature of the swearing and the anger evident in the slapping of the car, whilst understandable to a cyclist it would be hard to argue it was warranted to a bunch of “civilians”.
I think I’d be too ashamed of my own behaviour to send this one in, though I do appreciate it was probably a bad shock manifestation.
I’d put this down to experience.
Awavey wrote:
Exactly this. Even without the hindsight of knowing a dodgy pullout was coming due to it being a NMotD, that driver was showing every sign of not having seen (or not caring about) the cyclist. In that situation, the best move is to anticipate the problem and remove the risk.as far as possible. This is was not one that I would have been reporting. Yes, I would have expressed my frustration and displeasure but no I wouldn’t have sworn repeatedly or to the extent that this rider did nor would I have slapped the car with a lone female occupant. I save that level of reaction for those incidents where I really see my life flash before me and feared death not the relatively benign ones I could and should have anticipated and avoided. Reacting in that way is never going to do you any favours. Even with the sound muted it would be clear the reaction was more aggressive than any shock at events would explain.
Hmm, if shouting abuse is
Hmm, if shouting abuse is such a serious matter, I’m sure the police will be keen to take action against the group of chavs who shouted explitives at me today from a battered vauxhall astra. Completely unprovoked; just riding along on a shared path, on the opposite side of the road, minding my own business.
No, of course they won’t.
Not one I would have bothered
Not one I would have bothered submitting – you could see they were going to pull out all day long, typical cyclists don’t count move, but on the grand scale of things I would have settled for a bit of a rant and moved on with my life.
Definitely one for defensive cycling live another day, however much the driver was in the wrong.
Meanwhile, I really can’t face editing my video submission of my so close the rider behind thought I had been hit close pass which apparently wasn’t enough evidence for the review team at Leicester (though they had sent an NIP to the driver).
I really think we need a concerted effort to get the police to come up with a credible set of criteria across the country for what meets the bar for an offence – because clearly most NMOTDs meet the theoretical test of driving offences, yet such a small proportion get through to action. I’m happy to help the police by only submitting the most serious offences (and I would not count this one as meeting the bar given the general standard of driving that we get, regardless of whether we are cycling, driving or walking) , but when that critieria is met, we should expect the police to make a reasonable effort to progress the report, and give reasonable feedback – it is important to know justice is being done and the trend towards silence is concerning.
Ages ago, I proposed we should have a national agency, civilian staffed but under the watchful eye of the police, to deal with these reports. I would think it would be self-funding.
Someone did this to me today.
Someone did this to me today. I didn’t have quite the same reaction. It’s extremely irritating and it shouldn’t happen but I must say I am not planning to report mine. They waited until the last moment but often you just know what is coming.
Why are you not going to
Why are you not going to report it? The next time the cyclist may not be as experienced as you and the consequences may be very different. The police may do nothing if you do report it but they will definitely do nothing if you don’t.
I think Rendel’s essentially
I think Rendel’s essentially re-iterated my point above in his solicitor conversation with a slightly different slant – the conflict was predictable and although the motorist was in the wrong, it was entirely foreseeable and it suggests seeking conflict rather than avoiding it. In the end the onus is on all road users to avoid incidents, so I am leaning towards it almost being a pre-meditated conflict “That person is going to pull out on me, how dare they?”
Depending on circumstance, I am not above taking a position to make a point but as soon as I’ve done that, I recognise that I have not taken the path of least risk and am unlikely to gain sympathy if it all goes wrong, and usually I’ve got an idea of what I would say, which if course never comes out as you hope!
You can hear the conversation – “You could see the car, why didn’t you avoid it?” “Because I was in the right.” “And how is the fractured skull?”
While I take your point I
While I take your point I wasn’t referring to this incident I was referring to ooblyboo’s experience where they say the driver pulled out at the last minute. A slightly different scenario with no swearing. It happened to me when I restarted commuting after a few years off. I made eye contact and thought it was safe to proceed but the car pulled out and I went over the bonnet. It was a few years ago and I managed to roll as I landed but still had bruised ribs and discomfort for quite a few days. The driver was apologetic and it wasn’t taken further but I reckon he wouldn’t do it again. That was around 20 years ago and driving has got worse since. I have seen it happen and, like most on here, I like to think I would avoid a good few incidents including the one here and probably ooblyboo’s. That’s not the point though. If we are going to get people cycling it’s no good expecting them to be experienced from the start and things like this will put off many. That’s why I think we need to report. At best it’s inconsiderate, it verges on bullying and it has the potential to be dangerous.
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Oh, I don’t think we are
Oh, I don’t think we are disagreeing, though actually I think most beginning cyclists would be defensive rather than riding at pace but getting into more scrapes because of positioning. I think generally the feeling is that beginners get into more trouble because they are timid.
Going back to the original video, I might backtrack a bit because I got the impression due to angles that the car had already crept but looking again it is pretty much a SMIDSY and the braking time is not great – I think the path on exit says they are oblivious to the cyclist. However, the hazard was visible from the start and in a car I would still be half expecting them to force their way out – it is not a cyclist only problem.
“Depending on circumstance, I
“Depending on circumstance, I am not above taking a position to make a point”
When taking primary position before a blind bend it’s indeed to make a point:
to prevent dangerous overtaking, *because* you can see it coming so obviously.
When we ride assertively it’s to make exactly this point: “Do take me seriously, because I’ve every right to be here (and indeed more so than you, because I’m in front of you)! And you have no right whatsoever to endanger me for a tiny litle bit of convenience!”
Removing audio from a video
Removing audio from a video is easy; most of them will have a timeline that you drag the video in to, and this will split in to a video line and an audio line.
Just click “mute” on the audio line, or right click on the video line and click mute.
Davinci (free, and bloody excellent) also has a seperate mute button.
If you are going to mute a video, do it before you add any titles, transitions or cuts as this will ensure the *whole* video is muted
### better video editors than me exist … just trying to be helpful ####
Or maybe edit the audio to
Or maybe edit the audio to something like: “Oh, I say, I do think that was a little too close. Next time would it be possible to leave a little more space. Not wishing to cause offense of course but my bicycle might have caused a scratch to your vehicle.”
The is a simple solution to
There is a simple solution to sweary cyclists when their lives are threatened with a 2 ton lump of metal. Police should stop f@@@ng being total c”ts to cyclists by ignoring or dismissing evidence of dangerous M**F***g behaviour and start prosecuting the w’krs so they learn to f**ng drive safely or lose their licences permanently. Then perhaps we might be more civil and turn the other cheek to be slapped with vehicle.
There are a lot of reasons
There are a lot of reasons cyclists shouldn’t swear at motorists (for one, it’s highly unlikely to do any good; for another, it doesn’t help our public image, which, rightly or wrongly, isn’t a good one), but let’s be very clear: it is completely and utterly irrelevant here.
Criminal/public safety law is not about private disputes between two individuals. It is about protecting society from behavior that threatens the public welfare. Yes, there is often an individual victim who was immediately harmed or threatened with harm, but that is just a detail; conceptually and legally speaking, the real victim is society as a whole, which is threatened with continuing future harm if the offender is not dealt with effectively. Indeed, that is why cases are prosecuted by the state, as the representive of the whole society, rather than by individual victims representing themselves. The (putatively) bad behavior of the individual victim after the fact doesn’t change the threat that the offender represents to the society, and so it should have absolutely nothing to do with the way the offender is handled by the state as the representative of the society.
Let’s say that again for those in back not paying attention: The (putatively) bad behavior of the individual victim after the fact doesn’t change the threat that the offender represents to the society, and so it should have absolutely nothing to do with the way the offender is handled by the state as the representative of the society.
If a cyclist were to bring a civil case and the state were to invoke some sort of clean hands or morality doctrine to deny him relief based on his unforgivable use of dirty words, that’s another matter. But, when it comes to matters of public safety, the police are completely fucking this up.
A very well presented and
A very well presented and convincing argument.
Hold on, you swore at the end. I am now forced to ignore the facts and have decided this is simply the rantings of a lunatic and not to be taken at all seriously.
Completely nonsensical
Completely nonsensical policing; choosing to not prosecute a driving offender because a cyclist committed a separate offence afterwards is a laughable conflation; both circumstances should be dealt with on their individual merits.
Just like to thank road.cc
Just like to thank road.cc for asking the police for a comment. I look forward to reading the response.
I pass this on for interest,
I pass this on for interest, not to start an argument: I showed this to a visiting lawyer friend last night, she said that if she were defending she would put to the court that the cyclist’s extreme reaction (her words) demonstrated that he was in an aggressive frame of mind already and looking for trouble and that he could have braked earlier, basically that the cyclist had deliberately turned a minor error into a major incident.
I’m not saying that this is the case, just it’s interesting to know the way a legal professional would see it; possibly this influenced the police decision when weighing up the reasonable chance of conviction odds.
So the defence admits the
So the defence admits the motorist breached a give way and forced the cyclist to take avoiding action. A clear admission of careless driving!
The question now is could the cyclist have reacted sooner? Well, I’d like to think I could have braked in time, but if distracted by something just momentarily, such as a navigation prompt on my cycling computer or a tailgating driver, maybe not.
As for the cyclists outburst, maybe they were not in an aggressive frame of mind, but feeling very vulnerable having suffered a culmination of close calls prior to this incident. Primarily due to the general poor standard of driving on our roads (and the failure of our justice system to tackle it) and this event trigged a surge of adrenaline!
Theyd present it as the
Theyd present it as the driver made an honest mistake,for which theyd humbly apologised to the court, and would have to the cyclist at the scene if they hadnt felt so threatened by their behaviour, lone women driving also still feel quite vulnerable when men start physically hitting their cars and shouting abuse at them.
And they might if they were particularly laying it on, also point out the cyclist should be riding at a speed they can safely stop within in an emergency anyway
Awavey wrote:
It’s more that cyclists/drivers should be travelling so that they can stop within the distance they can see to be clear. Having a vehicle suddenly pull out, creating a hazard isn’t something that drivers/cyclists have to plan for (that would mean slowing at every single junction and driveway when travelling straight ahead) although I do try to anticipate that when cycling.
Like when you approach the
Like when you approach the back of a traffic queue, seeing that you have thirty or forty feet clear, and then some person in a Golf (for some reason it’s usually a golf in my experience…) overtakes you a slots into that gap, leaving you five to ten feet instead…
I was acquainted with the
I was acquainted with the late Kevin Ash who was the motorcycle correspondent for the Torygraph. He said that’s exactly what he did riding his motorbike, assume that at every junction the driver will ignore you – it just hurts too much when drivers crash into you not to.
As I said earlier, the mistake is to think these are anti-cycling moves, the driver most likely would have pulled out on a car, expecting it to have time to avoid them. Plenty of people have the reverse priority – I’m at a give way, polite drivers should let me out (even if I haven’t been waiting and they are stuck in a slow queue) therefore I don’t need to give way because they are wrong for not letting me in.
Had a discussion with the
Had a discussion with the other half the other week that basically went exactly like this… when I mentioned that when a car overtakes a cyclist in urban traffic, it reduces the cyclists visibility of what is directly infront and to the right of them. She was adamant that the cyclist in all cases should immediately adjust speed / position to ensure sufficient visibility is maintained.
When I highlighted that doing so meant that urban travel would be impossible she shrugged her shoulders and said so be it.
When I then asked if the same was expected in urban travel by motorists when travelling on dual lane roads, and cars overtake in the right lane… she said absolutely not.
And, she couldn’t see anything wrong with the dual standards she was advocating.
Gotta love it
That’s totally the wrong way
That’s totally the wrong way round as usually cyclists have much better visibility than drivers (higher up and not constrained by roof and pillars).
Yep, it’s a sad state of
Yep, it’s a sad state of affairs when drivers fear getting fined for parking infringements more than driving carelessly around cyclists.
Minor traffic offences like this should not need a full court case debate. It should be easier to hand out a penalty for this sort of infraction.
So the visiting lawers 1st
So the visiting lawers 1st response is to blame the victim, do they do this in every case or just cyclists?
A defending lawyer will blame
A defending lawyer will blame anyone and everyone but thier client.
Gus T wrote:
No, it wasn’t her “first response”, I asked her what she would do if she was defending the driver. I also asked her what she would do if she was prosecuting and she said it’s an academic question as on the evidence from this video the CPS would never take this one to court as it would be viewed as a minor driver error that didn’t seriously threaten anything but an inconvenience to the cyclist.
Don’t shoot me down for this (well you can if you like, free country), I’m just passing on the opinion of a professional lawyer for interest.
So – lets just change the the
So – lets just change the the offense
Well melud the woman’s reaction to her boyfriend hitting her clearly shows that she was in a aggressive frame of mind at the time and hence generated the assault that caused the bruises and fractures
shouldn;t work – but I can believe it would
miekwidnes wrote:
No, let’s not. Let’s look at the case rationally and logically instead of drawing a false equivalence with a completely different and far more serious offence for emotional value.
Have finally watched the
Have finally watched the video.
#justacyclistinnit
(and that’s *at best*, and assuming that the driver had even seen Mr Sweary)
Watching again. What I think
Watching again. What I think are “facts” – doesn’t seem to be a particularly high speed by the cyclist here. Cyclist and white car appear to have good mutual visibility. At the start the cyclist is fairly far to the left (seems to be a head cam), the dark car overtakes them but appears to be slowing (brake lights?) even at that point seeing the queue ahead.
Speculation: it wasn’t SMIDSY as much as the driver saw the black car pass the cyclist quickly and thought they had time to nose out behind them. They then failed to make further observation and spot the cyclist hadn’t slowed and / or mentally calculated “it’s a cyclist – I’ve got time”.
I don’t think that positioning would have made much difference. I do think if you were paying close attention (which isn’t always the case, let’s be honest) you could have suspected what might happen and slowed slightly further before. It looks like this chap kept on trucking, thinking to filter down the side of the queue. However it was a late move by the car – about a second and a half before he was on it? I have experienced several of “failures to stop” from side roads and know that you’ve got respond quickly.
I hope I’d have chalked this up to experience. This could be interpreted as someone with trigger control issues although I do appreciate this might have been the nth time in a short ride he’d experienced poor driving. If someone does something stupid in front of me I tend to keep my Klingon battle greetings to myself (I love videos where crap driving is greeted with a confident “oh, saucy!” or “Hello sailor!”) although I’ve certainly had words with drivers behind / alongside me. Removing the sound wouldn’t have helped his cause that much – although his choice of words would be a gift to a lawyer – since a) he twice rides up alongside and clearly stops to remonstrate (once filtering past another car to do so) and b) EDIT you can see him bang on the car.
For people whose job it is to
For people whose job it is to deal with angry, irrational people, police really are weirdly sensitive to bad language.
Dogless wrote:
they are also strangely sensative to being sterotpyed, considering how they profile their ‘customers’
having looked at the video I
having looked at the video I can only file this as rude, rather than dangerous. The sort of thing that often happens to me when i am driving, which I have to remind myself when I’m cycling.
It’s not ant cyclist, it’s often just impatient, or poor driving.
The fact the cyclist passes behind the emerging car suggest that was plenty of time to react, and no real prospect of riding into the side of the car.
Did the driver fail to give way? yes
Do we see drivers edging out into traffic many times every day? yes
thereofre was this worse than ‘typical’ driving. I.e. noticeably worse than the average driver? no
I wouldn’t even submit.
I had one today but from a
I had one today but from a right hand side junction, and you get that weird bit where they actually feel like they are about to T-bone you as they make the turn to drive alongside you for a bit as they veer closer to the kerb, till they floor the accelerator, I just sigh and carry on. Id spend all my time just submitting videos if I bothered reporting half the stuff I get on the roads sometimes.
Agree to some extent. The
Agree to some extent. The initiative was completely lost by the swearing.
It was inconsiderate driving, but the very fact he didn’t hit the car and suffered no injury means that it is a drop in the ocean of poor driving.
This was no worse than the horrendous driving I witnessed this weekend. A driver attempted to overtake at faster than the speed limit going into a narrowing at a bridge. I heard it coming and predicted that a car was coming and took the necessary action to avoid an RTA but it was utterly mindless driving. Which is also predictable that I was enveloped by a waft of weed coming from the car.
FWIW, this is the traffic
FWIW, this is the traffic regulation relating to Give Way lines:
“no vehicle shall proceed past such one of those lines as is nearer the major road into that road in a manner or at a time likely to endanger the driver of or any passenger in a vehicle on the major road or to cause the driver of such a vehicle to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident.”
So if the cyclist has to brake or swerve to avoid an accident, then the driver is guilty?
I can understand the police taking the position that the swearing makes a prosecution more difficult. If there are limited resources then it’s probably reasonable not to prosecute, I hope they’ve at least sent the driver a letter though.