A filtering cyclist who was subject to a shockingly close pass from a council bin lorry driver – which narrowly missed the rider by inches after he was forced to swerve to avoid a collision – has warned motorists: “Don’t get angry because a cyclist is faster than you”.
The incident, described by the cyclist as a punishment pass which saw the driver “use his vehicle as a weapon”, took place at around 3.30pm on the Wimborne Road in Bournemouth, on Monday 30 September.
Shortly before the near miss, the cyclist, who posts videos of close passes and poor driving to their Dorset Safer Roads YouTube channel, had filtered past the council worker in the left lane before turning right at a roundabout – a manoeuvre the cyclist says enables them to “slot into a space I feel is safe”.
However, after exiting the roundabout (around 1.45 into the video), the cyclist is close passed by the refuse collector, who brushes past the bike’s panniers and misses the cyclist – who quickly swerved to avoid a collision – by what he describes as “six inches max”.
After reprimanding the driver with a swift “F***’s sake”, the council worker responds by telling the cyclist to “get out of the f***ing way”.
Following the confrontation, the futility of close passing a cyclist in a busy town centre – and especially carrying out a punishment pass for filtering – was laid bare as the lorry driver eventually passed the cyclist as he rode on a stretch of protected bike path… before finally watching as the cyclist filtered past minutes later, while the driver was stuck in a line of traffic.
> Near Miss of the Day 880: Bin lorry driver squeezes cyclist into kerb
“Every time I ride, I get somebody doing something illegal in front of me. I’m not a vigilante, I just report what my camera sees through the proper channels,” the cyclist told road.cc.
“Too often, a driver risks my life and others due to impatience. Occasionally I get somebody like this, who believes I have done something wrong, and tries to punish me in some way. That is what happened here.”
Describing the incident, he said: “I filtered past and slotted into the queue of traffic but because I entered the roundabout in the left lane the driver sought to punish me for it. As far as I’m concerned, this is using your vehicle as a weapon.
“This stretch of road is horrible, there is no correct lane to be in as a cyclist, if I go in the right lane cars undertake me – and get reported. At least in the left lane I get to slot into a space I feel is safe. Arguably I should have been further to the right, but it doesn’t excuse this though.
“The driver has been reported to Operation Snap and to their employer.”
> Changes to the Highway Code mean very little if they are not known or followed by motorists
The issue of filtering – which seems to have provoked the dangerous response of today’s lorry driver – was addressed in the 2022 updates to the Highway Code, which confirmed that cyclists can pass slower moving or stationary traffic either on the right or left.
However, it is also recommended that cyclists only pass on the left of large vehicles when they’re stationary or slow moving. Nevertheless, the Highway Code also advises motorists to be aware of cyclists filtering when in traffic and explains that cyclists can be difficult to see in such circumstances.
For the cyclist behind the Dorset Safer Roads account, the guidelines are even clearer: “Don’t get hissy at cyclists filtering past you, and don’t get angry because a cyclist is faster than you.”
> 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
45 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 917: “Don’t get angry because a cyclist is faster than you” – Bin lorry driver “using vehicle as a weapon” misses filtering cyclist by “six inches max””
If the Police issue a s.172
If the Police issue a s.172 notice to the operator, and the operator fails to comply with the name of the driver, pursue this with the Police. The operator is required comply with an HGV operator’s licence, they must know who is driving.
The cyclist may also wish to
The cyclist may also wish to consider making a report to the Traffic Commissioner.
The Council will still need to have an Operators Licence and will still have to answer to the TC.
It’s frightening that at no
It’s frightening that at no point did the driver think of the consequences of knocking the cyclist off his bike and him ending up under the wheels of the bin lorry.
Or maybe he did which is even worse.
And that should lose him his
And that should lose him his job because it should lose him his license. Utterly appalling driving.
Worth noting as not mentioned
Worth noting as not mentioned above, the bike rider could only undertake (perfectly legally) the refuse lorry driver because the latter was in the wrong lane, the road markings clearly show the right hand lane is right turn only and the left lane left turn/straight on. Coupled with the clearly deliberate and horrific punishment pass should easily be enough to land the lorry driver in court…so expect to hear soon that the police have sent him a warning letter and explained to the cyclist they couldn’t progress it further as he swore at someone who was trying to kill him.
Not forgetting the ‘yoo-hoo’
Not forgetting the ‘yoo-hoo’ near the end, the police will throw it out for goading.
Having looked at the location
Having looked at the location, I think the refuse lorry was in the correct lane for continuing on Wimborne Road (A341), with the left hand lane being for turning “left” onto Millhams Road or “straight” into the Tesco carpark. The right hand lane is marked “Thru Traff[ic]” and there are no further exits, so nowhere else that traffic in that lane would be going.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/RNHrgCaV62ySfJym8
Agree the driver was in the
Agree the driver was in the correct lane for the direction they travelled. Cyclist was not in the lane marked for the direction he travelled BUT of course that’s ok per Highway Code Rule 186 – “Cyclists… may stay in the left-hand lane when they intend to continue across or around the roundabout”. I’d guess driver was ‘punishing’ what he (wrongly) perceived as cyclist using wrong lane to gain advantage. I reckon at 1:49 the driver is actually saying “you’re going the wrong f****** way”, not “get out of the f****** way” – it’s more syllables than that.
Good spot, didn’t realise
Good spot, didn’t realise that, but as quiff points out below, it’s perfectly permissible for cyclists to stick to the left-hand lane all the way round to their exit as detailed in the Highway Code, so the cyclist was quite entitled to use that lane.
The undertake is a red
The undertake is a red herring IMO, he was significantly passed the blind spot before the driver tried to barge him out of the way. When his boss sees it I hope he takes the appropriate action and sacks him and I hope the police take his licence too!
I suspect your hopes will be
I suspect your hopes will be in vain. Our society does not rate being an arsehole at the controls of 20-tonne piece of machinery as all that serious, unless/until you actually kill or seriously injure someone. In fact, for many, it is a worse sin to “cheat” the traffic jams that they have to endure by cycling during a rush hour.
It’s clear that the bin lorry
It’s clear that the bin lorry driver was driving quite dangerously here.
But – and I’m writing this here because my post is not likely to be seen by any non-cyclist:
The cyclist did some things that are not clever. Some legal moves (but trusting too much in the reliability of others), some not so legal (riding on the wrong lanes, on hatched areas), and some a little awkward (choice of very busy roads – there must be better side-streets!).
And: From the cyclists perspective, “he had to pass the bin lorry many times, so the lorry could have stayed behind the cyclist”. From the lorry drivers perspective, “he had to pass the cyclist many times, so the cyclist could have stayed behind the lorry”…
It’s perfectly legal to ride
It’s perfectly legal to ride “on the wrong lanes” so long as you don’t ignore any accompanying signage, such as a compulsory turn sign. Hatched areas with broken white borders can also be used.
You’re excusing bad driving. Stop it.
???
???
What “not so legal” moves are
What “not so legal” moves are you referring to?
Note that for hatched areas, the rules state (quote in full from here):
The last line is an advisory – “should not … unless safe”. Not that this makes it right in any way but note a drive also drives over these also at the beginning.
Hatched areas – you get into
Hatched areas – you get into a debate about what is ‘necessary’ – does it include filtering for convenience? (I’ve definitely done it)
[EDIT – why does it always take me 4 attempts to remember the code to end a quote?!]
Agreed, but here it isn’t a
Agreed, but here it isn’t a chevron / solid white line situation (and hence citation – because it is commonly misunderstood). I don’t think I’d use this myself as an “overtaking lane” either but arguably if you do so it is safer and clearer to do so on the outside (drivers’ side) than filtering on the inside.
A highway engineer of my
A highway engineer of my aquaintence told me that if a sign tells you to use a lane to go in a certain direction you have to do it, if it’s painted on the roa surface it’s advisory.
anke2 wrote:
Well, you or I might not have overtaken a line of static traffic. But “choice of very busy roads – there must be better side-streets”? Possibly, but… in general the very busy roads are very busy because they are the main / fastest / most direct / only reasonable routes between places *!
For “better side-streets” – I don’t know this area but the video appears to start here, going east on the A341, close pass about here.
Over to you to map a convenient cycling route using the quiet side streets there. Obviously we don’t know the whole route the cyclist was travelling so the exercise isn’t entirely “reasonable” but going east-west this seems to be the road.
This is exactly “as I see it” motor-vehicle-centric perspective. Six of one and half-a-dozen of the other. Unfortunately there is an inherent asymmetry. Motorists are at zero risk from cyclists, and cyclists going past them closely doesn’t make drivers shout in fear. Having to slow or stop then start again may be irritating to drivers, but it costs a cyclist a lot of physical energy also. Motor vehicle infra (now “the roads and streets”) goes everywhere and is designed for convenient, safe driving rather than the same for cycling.
* That is why proper protected cycle infra is so “contentious” – because cyclists in particular need direct routes (because unlike motor vehicle drivers they physically drive their cycles – drivers just steer!) and many of those direct routes are currently exactly those taken by the busy roads! Of course it’s not the road is intrinsically busy, it’s more that lots of people choose to use a very space-inefficient mode of transport to go that way…
chrisonabike wrote:
This is exactly why I would avoid getting into a “fight for my rights” on the bicycle myself – and why I would advice any cyclist (in the absence of drivers) – to try to understand how drivers feel, what frutrates them (and makes them behave dangerously and erratic, no matter how egocentric their perspective), where they are likely to make a stupid move because they didn’t look properly – and how I can avoid situations that are dangerous to myself or other cyclists.
My approach to dealing with motor traffic is not dissimilar to handling a gorilla – don’t trust it, don’t insist on your rights, avoid upsetting it, foresee its outbursts. But be firm when you’re in a save position (i.e. off the bike). It’s a shame we need to treat motorized traffic in this defensive way, but unless very strict psychological testing is introduced for drivers, I wouldn’t change this approach.
anke2 wrote:
My approach to dealing with motor traffic is not dissimilar to handling a gorilla – don’t trust it, don’t insist on your rights, avoid upsetting it, foresee its outbursts. But be firm when you’re in a save position (i.e. off the bike). It’s a shame we need to treat motorized traffic in this defensive way, but unless very strict psychological testing is introduced for drivers, I wouldn’t change this approach.— anke2
I am mostly with you on this – don’t confront or show anything which could be construed as “aggression” or escalating things to someone who’s a) pretty invulnerable and b) armed with a lethal weapon.
However there is a problem with what you’re suggesting in terms of use. I may not confront drivers (note this attack wasn’t actually provoked by anything more than the cyclist doing something legal – which would have be ignored if done by another motor vehicle, but “cyclist!”…) but I would like to cycle locally and indeed do so. (I don’t own a car and it’s much more convenient than walking or taking the bus). I am very fortunate for the UK in that I’ve chosen to live somewhere where I can do a lot of my regular distance on completely motor traffic free paths (albeit shared with a few pedestrians). But I still need to cross roads and indeed cycle along roads.
If the roads were full of gorillas – even very well trained ones that people assured me were “careful and considerate” – I probably wouldn’t leave my flat! I certainly wouldn’t be travelling on the roads with the gorillas. That is the cycling problem.
Because the roads are full of gorillas (or rather – potential gorillas) no-one who is less “into cycling” is likely to cycle. And indeed it’s not very pleasant or convenient to walk around (as mentioned walking back from the shops with all my shopping rather than cycling would be a drama. Then you have to cross roads at right-angles rather than taking a “desire line”, you have to wait for a 30 seconds to minutes at pedestrian crossings etc.).
… so almost everyone makes the sensible choice (for themselves) – and adopts (potential) gorilla transport. And there’s little motivation to make things better (safer AND more convenient) for cyclists because “nobody cycles” – which prompts “and clearly nobody wants to cycle”.
anke2 wrote:
How is the cyclist in this instance “fighting for their rights”? They made a perfectly legal undertake on the bin lorry; it would have been legal in any case as filtering is permitted for cyclists but in this instance they were in a completely different lane to the bin lorry so and undertake would’ve been legal even if they were in a car. The cyclist then proceeded safely around the roundabout with the bin lorry following at a considerable distance, but for some reason (I suspect because he had been balked by the blue van that was going right round (at no point have the cyclist held the bin lorry up in any way) and wanted someone to blame) the bin lorry driver decided to take umbrage at the fact that the cyclist was in front of him and so made a ridiculous and dangerous close pass as a punishment even though there was a van stopped directly ahead. There is absolutely no way the cyclist could’ve anticipated such a psychopathic action. I’m afraid your posts on this matter are absolutely textbook victim blaming.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Fortunately, there is no victim here – just not very safe cycling and extremely unsafe driving.
There is a significant difference between advising against becoming a victim (before an accident) and victim blaming (after an accident). — Mixing them up would make any safety training impossible.
You do seem to be making a
You do seem to be making a link though – you seem to be saying “because cyclist did (something which wasn’t illegal and isn’t obviously unsafe) this explains / justifies / it is karma when a driver deliberately comes close to crashing into them somewhere else”. If the cyclist is “no victim”. (To be fair the police often – but not always – have this interpretation even though this does not accord with the law e.g. “no crime without blood / a body”).
With respect to the truck as far as I can see the cyclist does nothing – that you or others have identified – to impede them, threaten them or which is illegal near them. But the truck does do something which is dangerous and arguably “dangerous driving” in context (although the UK courts would *never* count that – at best it would probably be a lower charge). In my view in logic and in law the cyclist is a victim.
My personal take – I might not have chosen to overtake the queueing cars as shown. Would I have filtered up the inside – arguably more dangerous but – maybe – less triggering to drivers? Maybe; but I’ve never cycled there and rarely cycle in that much traffic so I can’t say I definitely wouldn’t.
Would a driver be justified in driving where the cyclist was overtaking? I think the answer is clearer – no, that wouldn’t have been safe (though again arguably legal) because they would have been a threat to / impeding oncoming traffic – because a car is more than a metre wider than a cyclist.
But again … the cyclist didn’t overtake the truck like that. They passed the truck, staying in the lane which was clearly marked for that direction. That is fine – the Highway Code says:
In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right.
Although it does also say:
Does what the cyclist does at the start count as that?
chrisonabike wrote:
I have never made this link – it’s others who claimed I did!
I was just pointing out that the cyclist was doing several things that don’t seem very safe. (Filtering on hatched areas where drivers won’t expect a cyclist – making them likely to move right erraticaly without looking well. Filtering between cars at the entrance of the roundabout, a situation where drivers sometimes like to “jump” into gaps opening up, witout looking well enough. Undertaking the lorry – possibly in its dead angle and not in a good place if the lorry returns to the left lane, where it should be for driving straight on. Filtering in places where passengers might open doors to jump out. Riding through dense, chaotic traffic that could perhaps be avoided.)
You’re quite right – the
You’re quite right – the cyclist was doing things that don’t seem at all safe to most people. The first one – they were riding a bike in traffic. Most people just don’t – they drive.
What seems “safe” is in the eye of the beholder. Riding in “primary” is often safest but non-cyclists would immediately decry that as not safe. Overtaking a car on the right seems more dangerous to many people but it may well be safer – you will be in the driver’s mirror. (Again probably not me in this case – but perhaps if you get to know the road?)
However I have had a couple of friends raise exactly this point on having seen other cyclists do this. I think this is because in fact people expect “slower” bikes to be on the left – and certainly not overtake cars!
Filtering on the left may be safe when there are no side-roads, and/or traffic is stationary and there are no gaps. OTOH if traffic isn’t moving then pedestrians could be trying to “filter” to cross the road between the vehicles so caution is advised!
As others have said – despite the popular view of “undertaking” what is shown here with the lorry is in fact legal (in two senses) and is normal – you’ll see lines of people driving doing so every day. But you are right to note that many people do in fact hold a different interpretation of the rules to that set out in the highway code.
You are also right about the dense chaotic traffic. As far as we know this cyclist didn’t have to ride there – they could have walked or driven, or never made this journey. On the other hand in exactly the same sense few of the other people had to drive there either. Perhaps if we fixed it so there were safe, convenient alternatives, not all of them would have?
anke2 wrote:
So somebody who’s been put in fear of their life by the deliberately aggressive and threatening action of another isn’t a victim? Right ho. There is absolutely nothing unsafe about the cyclist’s riding.
anke2 wrote:
I think you forgot to say, “It doesn’t matter if you’re right, if you’re dead” 😉
anke2 wrote:
‘staying behind the lorry’ basically ignores the reason why the ability to filter is important for a cyclist.
If the traffic moves faster than the cyclist in between the hold ups (hence the constant overtaking) then the cyclist not filtering means they will simply fall further and further back in the queue and their journey will take longer and longer … negating all the benefits of travelling by bicycle not by car.
The fact that drivers don’t understand that is a big part of the reason that they get irritate by it happening.
Not to mention the fact that
Not to mention the fact that it wouldn’t be safe for the cyclist to ride alongside the bin lorry or indeed any traffic following it, so in order to stay behind the lorry safely they would have to put themselves in primary position, thereby increasing the length of the traffic jam by a good half a car length or more, depending on how far back they wanted to stay for safety reasons. Perhaps there should be a government campaign pointing out that filtering cyclists are doing drivers a double favour, first of all many of them might be in a car otherwise and so increasing the length of traffic jam/delay, and secondly by not staying behind traffic in front and insisting on their legal right to primary position they are also keeping the length of the jam down. Maybe then drivers wouldn’t get in such a paddy about it. Won’t hold my breath though…
That entire train of logic
That entire train of logic applies here:
https://youtu.be/S7enDsD5bpc
Saw that one, good job
Saw that one, good job staying calm and explaining stuff rather than shouting the odds.
TBH I tend to avoid confrontation as I find people’s learning ability goes down pretty much to zero as soon as they feel they’re in “conflict” even if that’s through their own choice to pick a fight.
Plus there are a few people who are laughing psychos – don’t even seem to be angry but instead find the business of putting others’ health and indeed lives at risk fun. Fortunately I think I’ve only encountered one or two on the roads but the experiences were memorable…
Quality bit of interaction,
Quality bit of interaction, love it!
anke2 wrote:
You do realise that the use of but negates your initial sentence and now makes you a cager apologist.
I find side roads are used as
I find side roads are used as rat runs by impatient drivers. I’m not sure they’re any safer than main roads, unless of course they’ve been converted into LTNs.
bensynnock wrote:
IME side roads (AKA residential streets) can be less safe for cycling or walking/crossing. Shrewsbury has numerous examples and there are so many drivers using them to jump a queue on the ring road, for example, and pavement parking is a serious problem. I’d dearly wish for see 20 mph limits – with enforcement – on side roads and town streets etc like in Wales.
Recognising and creating
Recognising and creating locations where people feel safe to cycle in traffic is a key part to transforming our transport systems – and indeed public spaces. (Nicer places).
We do understand and appreciate this (EDIT: the benefits of less / slower motor traffic or in fact restrictions on same) – at some times – even in the UK. (“Leafy cul-de-sacs”, more expensive private residential estates and a few pedestrianised main “streets” or which host eg. markets but are “roads” at other times). But in practice the UK is still going in the opposite direction – maximum permeability for motor traffic. (Just following “upgrade the foot and cart tracks for cycling, then for a handful of motor vehicles, then more…) So everywhere can be a “cut through”.
I can only recommend the many blogs on eg. Dutch design and development. Simple overall ideas but there are a lot of differences, some of them quite subtle – to “what happens off the main roads where we might build cycle infra “. (Robert Weetman has a detailed series on this eg here https://robertweetman.wordpress.com/2019/03/19/i-want-my-street-to-be-like-this/).
The bin lorry driver was not
The bin lorry driver was not demonstrating very good road-craft.
The overtake was within zig-zag zone of pelican crossing just after exiting the roundabout and leading into to a busy shopping area.
Reading comments and having
Reading the comments and having commented here, I wonder about the point of the “Near Miss of the Day” series. Is it about:
a) Repeatedly voicing disgust about poor, dangerous, aggressive, horrendous driving? Repeating the obvious (a cyclist was, innocently, put in grave danger of life) – something we can see in the videos without even commenting?
b) Taking the opportunity to learn from these videos? To learn avoiding dangerous situations? To learn foreseeing – possible lethal – ignorance by drivers? To analyse what a cyclist could do better to protect herself/himself in the future?
I’d certainly prefer b)…
It is, obviously, for gobs
It is, obviously, for gobs like you – to gob-off willy-nilly.
Does your post help the world go around more smoothly?
Or do you prefer the graunching noise of unpleasantness and un-neighbourly discord?
???
???
c) Taking the opportunity to
c) Taking the opportunity to note how the different infra designs and road networks around the UK put road users into conflict, sometimes make “doing the wrong thing” easier or even the easiest thing, often do little to mitigate likely consequences etc. Hopefully asking for better (with a bit of background knowledge) when consultations come around.
d) For anyone who hasn’t realised already (possible, even on a cycling forum) to realise just how much our culture – and we ourselves – comes down on the side of motorised road users and certain kinds of behaviour (even where this is at best “contrary to guidelines” and often illegal). And how poor the “more suitable” provision is for active travel.
e) all of the above?
Perhaps there has been a learning opportunity this time though? e.g. filtering is legal, you can sometimes legally go faster in an inside lane than an outside one and you can enter hatched areas (which don’t have solid white lines) – but the latter is discouraged (“if necessary”)?
Yes this site isn’t one which is likely to confront many of its users with radically contrary opinions (that’s what the comment are for)! But then … that’s rather rare. So what is presented is unlikely to be 50:50 people in cars and people on bikes behaving badly. And IIRC there have been some examples where people have rightly criticised the cyclist as much if not more than the driver.
chrisonabike wrote:
This, although a) is ultimately pointless but also very satisfying.
The video isn’t working for
The video isn’t working for me: “This video is private”.
It was made private someone
It was made private someone yesterday dunno why.