- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Near Miss of the Day 251: White van man makes close pass on cyclists then goes ballistic (includes swearing)
Today's video in our Near Miss of the Day series shows a white van driver making a close pass on a group of cyclists whom he believed - erroneously - were breaking the law in riding side by side, and who then stopped a little further up the road to get out of his van and give them a torrent of abuse.
The clip was submitted by road.cc reader David, who told us: "This happened on a Boldmere Bullets club ride on Saturday February 9th on Spencer’s Lane near Tile Hill, Coventry.
"A very unsafe overtake by an angry man fortunately well calmed down by one of our riders Andrew."
Many motorists believe that cyclists who do not ride in single file. However, Rule 66 of the Highway Code says, among other things, that they "should not ride more than two abreast" and that they " should ride single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends."
It's worth noting the language used, too. "Should" in the Highway Code means the rule is advisory; where not to comply would be breaking the law, the word "must" is used instead.
Rule 163 of the Highway Code, meanwhile, tells motorists to "Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so" and, among other things, that they "should give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car."
In the video here, the driver of an oncoming car has to slow down to avoid a head-on collision with the van, the driver of which certainly hasn't given the cyclists anything like the minimum 1.5 metres police forces - led by officers in the West Midlands, whose patch he is on - now stipulate cyclists must be given.
> 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 [at] 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
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- belugabob 36 min 41 sec ago
For me, this is the pertinent bit......
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 41 min ago
Worth looking into but I fear (not certain by any means) one might have trouble getting the MIB to pay out on that one as it's a clear case of...
- wtjs 8 hours 14 min ago
The chain is already past 0.75% I'm assuming you mean 0.75% per link, which corresponds to 0.75/100 x 25.4/2 mm= 0.1mm = Rohloff level B wear?
- David9694 8 hours 26 min ago
Meanwhile, at the editorial office of any news outlet......
- S.E. 8 hours 28 min ago
No way I'd buy that, even if I had a few million in the bank!...
- S.E. 8 hours 45 min ago
Apparently not all chain manufacturers follow the same rules, eg in the 5-8 speed range you could find widths from 7.1 to 7.8 mm. Then 9 sp might...
- David9694 9 hours 41 sec ago
Drink-driving arrest after Herefordshire pub crash...
- josephebeaver 12 hours 28 min ago
I'd previously chosen to interperet the way Mercian worked as "just how they do things" as a small artisan business, but after reading this I can't...
- mctrials23 13 hours 43 min ago
Flippin heck. Thats an effort from Bottas there.
Add new comment
63 comments
Had a similar thing happen to me just 6 months ago and get this - when the plonker stopped his Volvo in the middle of a bridge over the M6 blocking traffic and then got out to unleash a virtual storm of foul language at me... he was a vicar... wearing a dog collar.... and he even had the gall to thump me on the shoulder that had only recently recovered from a brokan arm and it was only mentioning calling the police that made him get back in his tin box and go on his way that he had been in such a rush to travel... blah blah... no road tax... ought to ride in the gutter.... roads are meant for cars not bicycles... etc etc etc... I still laugh at it because it was absolutely hilarious that his parting words were that the police could shove off because he only obayed the rules in one book and it wasn't the highway code and it was the rules of his magic deity in the sky.
Please tell me you have footage of this. Please.
Typical, I can stop and shout you for 2 minutes but I can't be held up by 20seconds
Or maybe Andy is a ninja and was going to drop him like this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bota920fuNQ
anyways, good job diffusing the situation
Pedant mode ON; it's defusing, not diffusing; two very different things.
Cheeky! Perhaps defuse would be a more common term but I think diffuse as in to disperse/weaken is still grammatically ok? Oh well, you knew what I meant!
As per point 2? https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/diffuse
(yep, it’s ok - phew!) https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/diffuse-or-defuse/
Not quite. You can defuse a situation, but you can't diffuse it. This was a situation, and it was defused, it was not diffused. You could at a stretch say that the gammon's anger had been diffused, but that isn't the same.
Well, I’m going with the Oxford dictionary on this one, that both are correct. Everyone’s a winner!
A situation is a set of circumstances; ergo, elements which may be dispersed/weakened i.e. diffused.
No they're not.
I'm sitting looking at the entry for 'diffuse (v.)' right now on the OED. Nowhere is the verb used in the sense of 'diffuse a situation'.
There is .. 'to send forth, disperse, and related senses'. There is 'To send forth (a material thing or physical phenomenon, as light, sound, etc.) in many or all directions from a particular point of origin; to spread widely over a surface, or through a place or area; to disperse, scatter.'. There is ' Of a material or immaterial thing: to spread widely over an area; to be disseminated; to disperse'. There is 'To shower (a material or immaterial thing) over a person or thing; to release in, or as though in, a shower of drops; to pour down'. There is 'To focus on or direct towards many points or purposes; esp. to weaken (the mental faculties) by a lack of focus or concentration'. There is 'To cause (two or more substances, esp. fluids) to intermingle by diffusion; to disperse (a substance) by diffusion'. There is 'Of a substance, esp. a fluid: to intermingle with or interpenetrate another substance by diffusion; to pass by diffusion'. There is 'To stretch out (oneself or one's limbs), esp. in a relaxed manner'. And there is 'To make confused or unclear'.
Nowhere is there 'to diffuse a situation' or anything remotely like it.
On
you got it right there...
Of a material or immaterial thing: to spread widely over an area; to be disseminated; to disperse'.
The circumstances that comprise a situation are immaterial things that can be dispersed.
To defuse a situation would be to mitigate the danger, i.e. it would have been hugs and handshakes all round, apologies from the driver and a friendly wave next time they see him.
To diffuse the situation would be to move apart the circumstances that comprise it, bringing an end to the situation, but not necessarily mitigating the danger i.e. van driver is still a radgie danger on the road.
Anyways, that’s my take on it... You can disagree, but I would emplore you to be less diffuse with your pedantry. The important thing is these guys were ok and hopefully there will be some comeback on the driver from the relevant authorities.
LOL!
Whatever you say, mate…
You’re welcome (so tempted to type ‘your welcome’ but this has got to stop!!).
I’m always up for a chuckle, glad it’s made you laugh! If only we could harness the passion seen here for the strict use of the English language and use it to tackle the dangers faced by cyclists on Britains roads.
But as much as I like a good debate, next time I will use DEFUSE! I hope that defuses this situation...
(Actually, is ‘your welcome’ so wrong, I mean a welcome is a thing right? And if I’m giving it to you then it becomes your property, hence ‘your welcome’....???!!!)
I'm hoping that "emplore" was a deliberate mis-spelling to see if the pedants' union is properly checking all posts for grammar and spelling. English spelling that is, not the nonsense that passes for language in America.
I’m so naughty... must... stop... it...
Thank you again. It would seem that the only reason some people use "diffuse" instead of "defuse" is because they have heard "defuse" said and not realised that it is an almost homonym for "diffuse". A bit like people who use "must of" instead of "must have" etc.
Repeated use of something that is wrong doesn't make it right, and trying to argue that it is right is just digging the hole deeper.
Just like people who write 'I should of known', and who will argue until they're blue in the face that they're right. Or the people who think that 'this is between you and I' is correct and who will also argue that they're right.
Oh, and whilst I'm on a rant, why do so many people think that 'beg the question' is a 'posh' synonym for 'raise the question'?
Wow. Andrew is a legend. Give the man a medal.
There's no special psychological tactics employed by Andrew here. The gammon simply shit himself when he got out of the van thinking he was going to bully someone and was confronted by a man he quickly realised would park him up if he tried it. It's amazing how often some arsehole in a van or 4x4 starts shouting the odds and leaning on his hooter when he passes our club fast lads on a ride, yet strangely manages to go completely blind and deaf if he's unfortunate enough to be confronted by us 500 yards up the road at a set of red lights...
This is a classic of irrational and dangerous behaviour by a driver.
1) In such a hurry, he can't wait until it's safe to overtake.
2) Puts the riders in physical danger.
3) Is angry with the riders because of the dangerous overtaking manouevre he has just carried out - partly due to ignorance of the rules of the road, and partly due to general idiocy.
4) Is suddenly no longer in a hurry, indeed has enough time on his hands to stop and start an argument.
Everybody who has ever ridden a bike in Britain has had to put up with this at one time or another. This should be an national TV advert, with careful explanations and sub-titles, so that even the most bigoted motorist can understand the issues.
I think you're really on to something there. It certainly is something most weekend group riders will have experienced when they've done absolutely nothing wrong.
Doesn't look like the driver learnt the error of his ways.
In hindsight, it's probably better to just sail on past a dangerous idiot like this than to listen to their bile. Hearing their erroneous hate-speech and not educating them will most-likely leave them thinking they are right (positive reinforcement). Obviously being in front of them isn't where you ideally want to be, but there are plenty of others out there like this and you have no control over when they will be behind you, if you're scared of what might come up behind you then you'll never ride on the road.
Maybe this dangerous idiot driver deserves a good hiding for an unprovoked attack on the vulnerable, but letting him get away without having conceded why he is wrong really isn't helpful for anyone. Patting him on the back and sending him on his way is capitulating to his point of view.
Even when you point out the error of their ways they're unlikely to concede and say that they are wrong. However, I don't believe they shouldn't be challenged as it may at least make them think.
I often go for the "even if you think I am wrong you could be the better person by being a bit more patient rather than fly past in 2 tons of metal with the potential to leave my children fatherless..."
In the UK, the anger of the driver in directly proportional to the square of 'how wrong' he is.
It is still amazing how many drivers think it's their given right not to have to wait for oncoming cars to pass cyclists single or two abreast, and seemingly oblivious or simply reckless as to how dangerous their red mist close pass is. Well handled incident, though with calming-the-angry-vanman-skills probably not within the reach of most.
Agree with Munge, think the reaction of the bloke also showed it wasn't Andy he thought he had the problem with, it was the person he attempted to kill!
The sad thing is this was the urest definition of punishment pass - he kind of demonstrated he knew he should be giving room stating how could he when they're riding two abrest. Then his logic button obviously failed. If i see someone using the the wrong door for entering a building my first thought isn't to endanger them!
Wow! Gammon personified.
Amazing job by the guy in red, defusing what could have turned very nasty.
I'm always amazed at the number of people who are in such a rush that they can't wait for a few seconds to pass safely, but have plenty of time to stop and berate you for getting in their way.
Likewise, I hope that has been reported to the authorities and the driver is either prosecuted (he must be guilty of something) or sent on a driver improvement course.
Maybe something to do with Andrew immediately taking a very dominant role, being physically imposing yet non threatening, staying calm, talking and interposing himself between angry van man and the focus of angry van man's anger.
Might not have worked on another personality, but certainly effective in this situation.
Sincerely hoping that was also passed to the Police.
The line in the HC about riding single file in bends is utterly against all logic on road safety, as it encourages people to squeeze through where there is not safe space. Quite simple, if there is not space to safely overtake 2 cyclists side by side, it's unlikely there is space for a safe pass on 1. Better to continue 2 up to a safe space to allow a clean pass.
In this case they were absolutely right be be 2 up, as Mr Bellend in the van tried to overtake on a bend he clearly could not see around. The entire incident shows he is not mentally stable enough to be allowed in control of a motorised vehicle, and should be submitted for retraining.
"Anyway, Drive Safe" Nice
And yet another example of the self important motorist who is so impatient that they could have killed someone, who then wastes their oh so valuable time to stop, argue the toss and prove themselves to be a bigger idiot than anyone thought possible.
Crikey, chapeau to Andrew, clearly a professional in dealing with this sort of thing !
Pages