The Alliance of British Drivers has described a court’s decision to convict a motorist for careless driving as “idiotic” and “pathetic sucking up the cycling lobby”.
The pro-motoring pressure group was responding to footage of a close pass posted on Twitter by the Sheffield North West Neighbourhood Policing Team – and featured earlier this week on our Near Miss of the Day series – which resulted in the driver receiving a £417 fine and their licence endorsed with five penalty points.
If the motorist is caught driving in a careless or anti-social manner in the twelve months following the incident, their vehicle will also be seized by police.
> “If anyone thinks this is an acceptable manner of driving, let this be your warning,” say police
The footage posted online shows the moment the approaching driver passes a group of cyclists too closely, at what the officers described as “excessive speed”. The police also added that “if anyone thinks this is an acceptable manner of driving, let this be your warning”.
COURT RESULT: CARELESS DRIVING. The driver of this vehicle decided to pass a group of cyclists at excessive speed and far too closely. Fined £417 in total, licence endorsed with 5 points. If anyone thinks this is an acceptable manner of driving, let this be your warning. pic.twitter.com/zInKYa84cc
— Sheffield North West NPT (@SheffNW_NPT) April 21, 2022
However, the clip was greeted with complaints from motorists who criticised the behaviour of the cyclists, with some arguing that they should have stopped to let the driver pass as they approached the poorly parked car on the left-hand side of the road.
The Alliance of British Drivers, a pro-motoring lobby group known for its anti-cycling stance, launched a prolonged online attack on the court’s decision, retweeting the footage with the caption “If your [sic] weren’t already convinced that the police are out to get you…”
The Alliance of British Drivers @theABD is – unsurprisingly – defending illegal driving, and arguing with Sheffield’s police @SheffNW_NPT, describing the police’s actions as “pathetic”, “intimidation”, “idiotic” and “fool(ish)” pic.twitter.com/5PmPdMhHN2
— ABDBlocked (People blocked by the ABD) (@ABDBlocked) April 22, 2022
The alliance’s account described the fine and penalty points issued to the driver as an “idiotic decision that undermines the credibility of the courts and the police.
“We all know there are fanatics who want drivers to stop and bow down before every cyclist. If the police foolishly choose to side with them it will damage the relationship with the public,” the account argued.
Idiotic decision that undermines the credibility of the courts and the police.
We all know there are fanatics who want drivers to stop and bow down before every cyclist. If the police foolishly choose to side with them it will damage the relationship with the public.— ??? (@TheABD) April 22, 2022
The alliance claimed that the prosecution was “just pathetic sucking up to the cycling lobby”, and described the police’s publicising of the incident as “vile threats” which “make it abundantly clear whose side you are on”.
“This is not policing, this is intimidation,” the account wrote.
The group also criticised the use of the term “victims” to describe those on the receiving end of close passes, labelling it a “joke”.
The Sheffield North West officers, on the other hand, were keen to dismiss what they described as anti-cycling “whataboutery”, pointing out that if the offending motorist “had simply driven to the conditions at a less dangerous speed and stayed on his own side of the road he wouldn’t have been prosecuted.”
After another Twitter user claimed that it was “strange that we never hear about how many cyclists you prosecute”, the officers replied: “Exactly how many car drivers were killed by cyclists last year David? There’s your reason. We prosecute those whose behaviour is most dangerous.”
Last week, the Alliance of British Drivers’ director Duncan White claimed in an interview with GB News that the recent revisions to the Highway Code “created a false sense of winners and losers” and “entirely failed in creating a sense of shared responsibility for the safety of all road users”.
White also said that the changes, introduced in January to protect vulnerable road users, have resulted in “very provocative behaviour” and even “deliberate” acts of obstruction by cyclists.
The alliance’s Twitter account is known for its provocative and often volatile pro-car outbursts. This morning, the account tweeted that Rod King, the director of road safety campaign 20’s Plenty For Us, “needs to be deported to a third world country before he turns Britain into one”.

























66 thoughts on ““This is not policing, this is intimidation”: Alliance of British Drivers takes on Sheffield police over close pass conviction”
Intimidation?
Intimidation?
The Howard Cox circle jerk
The Howard Cox circle jerk furiously w@nking each other dry again.
Anyway, glad to say another motorist reported today after their driving illuminated a vehicle activated sign first at 44, then 47 and finally 50mph in a 30mph limit, all caught on video.
Little by little, quietly doing what we can to make roads safer for all whilst Cox and his band of dangerous idiots continue to shout and scream about their faux victimhood.
Just for future reference.
Just for future reference. Since this last update to the highway code – do we as cyclists still have to follow the same rules as cars on the road? Like the one where cars have to give way to oncoming traffic if there is an obstruction they need to pass? Or does the pecking order come into play and cars give way to bikes no matter what and bikes give way to pedestrians no matter what?
What is it about this
What is it about this incident that has made you ask that question? The cyclists were fully in the lane in which they had right of way, while the offending driver was on the wrong side of the road.
Just for future reference.
Just for future reference. What about this article made you as a cyclist post your very first comment to this website?
Brauchsel wrote:
I suspect that it may not have been his first post; just his first post using that name.
Welcome to Road.cc: we’ll try
Welcome to Road.cc: we’ll try and be friendly before you go back to Pistonheads 😉
This particular incident, well, your comment isn’t really relevant, is it? The cyclists are in their lane… it’s that speeding oncoming car which has left its lane, isn’t it?
When I checked the piston
When I checked the piston heads thread yesterday, good majority were against the driver.
hirsute wrote:
Really? Good to know 🙂
Loads of new comments.
Loads of new comments.
This sums up the majority:
”
Anyone acting as an apologist for this sort of substandard driving needs to take a long, hard look at themselves, their attitude, and the manner of their own driving, with a view to booking themselves in for some remedial training.”
Weirdly the answers to my
Weirdly the answers to my questions smell quite badly of yellowbullet.
Err, why are you replying to
Err, why are you replying to me? I have not made a reply to your comment.
I have no idea what your sentence means or what you are trying to achieve on a cycling site (although you are doing a good job of appearing to be a troll).
Now its hit the mainstream
Now its hit the mainstream press coverage, over 2800 comments already in the Telegraph, 3200 comments in the Daily Mail a mere 356 in the Daily Express, now I havent read them all… but the ones I did see werent much on the cyclist side of things and theres more chance of meeting a reader of these newspapers on the road than there is a member of pistonheads forum.
“We as cyclists”
“We as cyclists”
Just for future reference,
Just for future reference, the Highway Code hasn’t changed in terms of it being illegal to drive in the oncoming traffic lane when there’s oncoming traffic.
What i wanted to know is if
What i wanted to know is if there is the same obstruction on both sides of the road does the pecking order come into play? Some of the answers to my question seem like they are just coming into puberty.
Sorry, want to try
Sorry, want to try reformatting that into a sentence that makes sense? If you’re saying some of the “respondents” it would make a little more sense…
there wasn’t an obstruction on the drivers side, and the “obstruction” (car dumped on oublic property) wasn’t sufficient to cause the cyclists to move out of their lane. So why do you think the “pecking order” has any relevance? All the driver had to do was NOT drive like a prick. Hardly difficult.
V8Reverb wrote:
No you didn’t, you were trolling with an implication that the cyclists should have stopped. Don’t try some nonsense revisionism just because you’ve been unanimously told to jog on back to Petrolheads.
V8Reverb wrote:
Taking that enquiry at face value, in most cases it wouldn’t be necessary for the person cycling to leave their own lane to pass the obstruction, whereas it would be for the person driving. So, other things being equal, the person driving should wait until the other lane is clear (i.e. the person cycling has passed) before moving into it. This was true before the changes to the Highway Code, and is no different now.
V8Reverb wrote:
OK, so again this would be a question about a different situation – in this situation there was no obstruction to the cyclists which caused them to leave the lane in which they have right of way.
In the very different situation you are describing in which both the car and cyclists need to leave their lane then first priority would go to whoever gets there first. However, it is the responsibility of any road user at anytime to avoid a collision, this is just common sense. And yes, then the hierarchy of vulnerable road users puts more onus on the car driver to avoid that collision, as it is him/her that is far more likely to cause injury or death by trying to bludgeon their way through. Again, this is just common sense. It baffles me that you would be genuinely confused about any part of it.
V8Reverb wrote:
There is no such thing as pecking order. But assuming there were obstructions on both sides of the road and one vehicle was able to pass the obstruction on their side of the road without leaving their lane they would be the one with priority to proceed.
As was explained the other day, when someone asked if the roles were reversed would the driver have to stop? Quite simply yes. Because if the roles were reversed the driver would have to cross onto the oncoming lane to pass the parked car therefore they would have to wait until the other lane was clear before they could proceed.
If neither vehicle can pass the obstacles without encroaching into the other lane then they need to decide between them as neither has priority.
No doubt you will try and be one of the virtuous motorists who says that they would always stop if their was an obstruction in their lane and there was another motor vehicle coming the opposite way, even in the lanes were wide enough that you could pass the obstruction without encroaching on the other lane….. to which I will pre-emptively call bullsh!t.
Just for future reference how
Just for future reference: as a cyclist how do you feel about V8 engines?
Pretty sure he means the
Pretty sure he means the reverb from a carbon frame of Version 8 of the manufacturers bike he has.
Wait – you can get an upgrade
Wait – you can get an upgrade on Bosch Performance line / Shimano Steps?
I am in the unusual position
I am in the unusual position of being obliged to support the police against this bunch of driving deadbeats, the Association of British Pillocks. Admittedly, I’m supporting the Good Police (Sheffield NW NPT with lots of actual prosecutions of close passing motorists to its credit) and not the Bad Cops-The Preston Connection (Lancashire Constabulary with NO prosecutions of close passing motorists ever, which has now abandoned its OpSnapLancs with no responses since early April to offences like the one below). This is Honda Civic OW53 RFZ
“this is intimidation” . . .
“this is intimidation” . . . . That’s exactly what I first thought when I saw this video. Maybe if The Alliance of British Drivers members spent a few days on a bike they’d see what real intimidation is?
Does the ABD understand just
Does the ABD understand just how utterly stupid a twitter exchange like this makes them look? Not terribly professional (or even grown up), is it…?
Does the ABD understand just
Does the ABD understand just how utterly stupid a twitter exchange like this makes them look?
No, because they’re extremely thick, and therefore avid readers of the hyper-junk press
Is this the association that
Is this the association that constantly tells us it doesn’t have any vendetta against cyclists and is very reasonable but the Cycling Associations don’t sit down and “talk” how roads can be shared? Also didn’t the “leader” moan about “lycra loons” posting his home address online when he did just that on his own website?
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Yeah, but you’ll note that they never actually define what they mean by “share the road”…. I don’t imagine it’s the same definition that we would use.
You would have through the
You would have through the Alliance of Bad Drivers (ABD) would recognise bad driving when shown to them.
Benthic wrote:
Please don’t confuse ABD with a competent road safety organisation such as Institute of Advanced Motoring or Brake. Simple test: what are the requirements for membership…
lonpfrb wrote:
— lonpfrb Please don’t confuse ABD with a competent road safety organisation such as Institute of Advanced Motoring or Brake. Simple test: what are the requirements for membership…— BenthicBrake? a competent road safety organisation? That organisation that promotes helmets as “the answer” to cyclists being killed by drivers? That one? Honestly?
eburtthebike wrote:
Fair point, relatively competent and well intentioned then, which distinguishes them from ABD.
Clearly there is no silver bullet though driving with due care and attention would be a good start.
If only that was a statutory and contractual requirement (insurance) of every driver that was enforced..
There is no silver bullet to
There is no silver bullet to keeping humans from injuring each other and themselves, apart from not having humans in the first place. However the well known hierarchy of controls points the way: 1) remove the hazard, 2) replace the hazard, 3) isolate people from the hazard etc. So no cars – no threat from them and no car crashes. For example a bike path totally removed from vehicles with no possibility of a car ploughing into it. Ban lorries from urban areas and make the cars go much slower – harm reduction by replacing the hazard. Segregated infra alongside roads / proper junction design – isolate people from the hazard.
What we see in this case is that what appears to be 3) (because there are separate lanes for different directions) is in fact the lower level 4) Administrative controls at best. So we’re relying on people to follow some rules. That’s one step above 5) PPE – high-vis and helmets. Not much benefit to be had there.
Note that in best practice physically separating vehicles (including motor vehicles from each other) in terms of both mass and direction is advised. So don’t mix lots of cars and cycles but also no overtaking where that would put you at risk of a head-on collision. That should be ensured by a physical barrier, not just paint.
It would be useful to see a
It would be useful to see a little before this; was there something in the road that the car was pulling out to overtake? Or was the driver purposefully getting close to the cyclists to be a c**t?
Noting the size of the fine
Noting the size of the fine and quantity of points, I’m guessing the police and magistrates figured out which of the options seemed more likely.
I think someone with more
I think someone with more local knowledge said the driver came from a narrower section and held their original line (as the generous version).
Wouldn’t that mean that the
Wouldn’t that mean that the obstruction was in their lane, and that they should give way to oncoming traffic?
By luck, this came up in my
By luck, this came up in my notifications.
View from the driver’s direction showing the normal way people drive.
https://twitter.com/geckobike/status/1518200656267468801
Even if they were pulling out
Even if they were pulling out to overtake, shouldn’t they have at least waited til the other lane was clear of cyclists?
ABD. We are all humans. We
ABD. We all breathe the same air…. We use rules to look out for one another. And this driver broke those rules. Did not stay in lane. And so it could’ve been a case of murder.
And you choose to criticise the police decision.
Please reconsider your position. Your comments are reckless and have consequences for your fellow human beings who do not have the benefit of a metal safety net.
Fignon's ghost wrote:
… some of us through our noses.
You literally have to be
You literally have to be crackpot crazy to believe that someone on a 10kg bike travelling at 15mph can ever “intimidate” someone travelling at 60mph in a 2 tonne steel cage on wheels.
It’s the old “but the
It’s the old “but the minority will hold us hostage” idea again. OK cyclists aren’t running over drivers (but don’t forget the pedestrian carnage), but they’re causing drivers to have accidents.
open_roads wrote:
I think they were referring to the police intimidating them by prosecuting a dangerous driver.
The very threat of them being
The very threat of them being fairly policed is enough for many drivers to start shouting about bias and the war on motorists. As the Sheffield North West officers point out, they are the ones posing the threat to other people, not cyclists and therefore they are the ones needing policing, not cyclists.
The fact that they can’t see what is wrong with driving like that and their attempts to defend it, should disqualify them from driving. The language used is so extreme and ridiculous and shows that they have no concept of proportionality or fairness; any threat to their ability to drive as fast and dangerously as they like is an affront to their god-given rights, and cannot be tolerated.
The adb don’t do dialogue and
The adb don’t do dialogue and have a thin grasp of stats.
https://twitter.com/ABDBlocked/status/1517806945939468289
In other news – figures
In other news – figures suggest more fish dying in the sea than on land. Association of British D(r)ivers encouraging them to safety on the beaches.
In other news – figures
In other news – figures suggest more fish dying in the sea than on land. Association of British D(r)ivers encouraging them to safety on the beaches
You are guilty of making a point which can only be appreciated by hominins several species advanced from the dead-end regressive lineage which has resulted in ABD members and Councillor Vincent Stops. This is gross Species-ism, and contrary to LGBT……etc…S rights!
chrisonatrike wrote:
Were the fish that died wearing a helmet and hi-viz? No? Conclusive proof that helmets and hi-viz are effective; I think. Or at least they should be mandated in case they might work.
Quite right – some had the
Quite right – some had the helmets, some had the hi-viz but neither had both.
chrisonatrike wrote:
The blue fish looks remarkably like Cllr Stops
Stops has been schooled over
Stops has been schooled over and over again on how ridiculous and misleading that statistic is, but he continues to repeat it. It’s a deeply bizarre stance for someone who claims “twenty years experience working on streets policy, mostly bus, cycle and walk” and is chair of Hackney LBC’s planning committee.
Piere
Piere
As a enthusiastic cyclist I find a disparity in punishment meterd out to drivers. In this case,the penalty appears to me excessive for such a close pass as this, compared to a driver who entered a dedicated and segregated cycle path that I was riding on and hit me to the ground,writing off the bike,got £100 fine and 3 points on his licence. Different force but there should be more consistent penalties.
Sounds more like a fpn or
Sounds more like a fpn or guilty plea whereas this went to court with a non guilty plea.
It really does seem over the
It really does seem over the top, plenty of room for the cyclists to pass the parked car and the oncoming car to proceed …. but the oncoming car should have been pulled over and made to feel inadequate for the crossing of the centre line as there was no obstruction to go around from that direction, instead of a fine and points.
This would be my preffered inital punishment method for all road users for poor use of the roads before further harsher action.
Re the current 1.5m space to pass encouragement, personally , I would prefer vehicles to pass promptly and with a minimum of .5m rather than pissing about for ages in the wrong gear !
from cyclist/motorcyclist (advanced) car /van driver/pedestrian
chris1968 wrote:
Driving at high speed towards a cyclist, crossing the centreline and thereby missing them by about 50 cm and you think a fine and points is over the top? Imagine if that had been a beginner or nervous rider who had flinched, or the rider had hit a pothole that had sent her further towards the centre line, we would then be talking about a head-on crash with closing speeds of around 70 mph, and therefore a dead cyclist. Given that it seems quite likely that the car driver was being deliberately aggressive towards the cyclists – there’s no reason for him to be there at all – five points is the absolute minimum he should have received.
Rendel Harris wrote:
“It’s not my fault if a cyclist falls over in front of me” – Dr Helen Measures
That would be “killer driver”
That would be “killer driver” Helen Measures…
I’ve been on the other side
I’ve been on the other side of this so can understand the nature of the punishment, and also why the driver might want to challenge in court.
I suspect that the initial NIP letter issue to the driver included a video still, not dissimilar to the image at the top of this article.
Based on that image, the driver will be given a choice of driver awareness course (if available), fixed penalty, or enter a not guilty plea and go to court.
What the driver does not have access to is the whole video, so they will need to make a judgement call based on the image and their own recollection of the incident. Mindful of confirmation bias, that recollection is bound to be rose tinted; its easy to see why the driver fancied his chances in court.
The problem with going to court is that if found guilty you will be sentenced as per set guidelines rather than a simple fixed penalty.
Driving without due care and attention has three levels of seriousness. These levels take into account things like harm caused, or the potential to cause harm, amongst other factors.
One thing that automatically elevates an offence to band 2 sentencing is if the offence involved or was around vulnerable road users – such as the cyclist in this case. The minimum punishment for a band 2 offence is 5 penalty points and a significant fine (I thought it was actually £500 but hey ho).
So yeah, to an extent this may seem harsh, but the driver chose to have their day in court and was punished in line with sentencing guidelines for the offence the court judged them to have committed.
The answer is simple… don’t drive like an aggressive idiot. And if you do and you are caught, do your research before taking on the state!
Jimmy, I completely agree
Jimmy, I completely agree with your post – I am a cyclist and also a police officer and you are quite correct about the various punishments etc.
a year ago I was hit from behind by a driver of a certain age with defective eyesight- he got the higher level fine and a disqualification ( serious injury to me). The only bit I’d add to that is that the driver will have been interviewed by the police and had the evidence put to them including the cctv ( unless they told the police to get lost and they prosecuted him without interview).
The clip isn’t the same as seeing / hearing the witness accounts, but from the video it certainly does appear to me that the driver failed to slow down, and deliberately moved the car near the cyclists and across the centre line as a punishment for the perception of a right of way. Whilst the driver could rightly say that an approaching motor vehicle would have to give way as the obstruction is in the opposite lane, the cyclists are entitled to overtake the stationary car providing they simply use their own lane – which they do.
hope that made sense.
chris1968 wrote:
????
What are you talking about? Pulled over by who?
[quote=chris1968]
“Re the current 1.5m space to pass encouragement, personally , I would prefer vehicles to pass promptly and with a minimum of .5m rather than pissing about for ages in the wrong gear !”
Chris, apologies if I’ve read this wrong, but you appear to be saying you’d prefer a close pass with all the risks that entails, rather than have a car behind you in a low gear? Having a car sit behind you whilst a reasonable driver waits for a safe place to pass is preferable to me than a driver taking a chance of hitting me with a quick overtake.
I read that as the driver
I read that as the driver hestitating too long and being too close for too long thereby increasing the overall risk.
Or is could just be the uncomfortable feeling that you have a not very good driver around you and worry they might feel forced into a reckless overtake by drivers behind them.
That’s why I sort of queried
That’s why I sort of queried it. I took the opposite view so thought I’d ask.
Lesson number one- you don’t know how good or bad a driver is until they are safely past you!