Today’s instalment of our Near Miss of the Day series unfortunately comes from a National Cycle Network route.
The series highlights the poor standard of driving and dangerous behaviour cyclists face on Britain’s roads. Our latest update comes from road.cc reader Tom Swift (we presume no relation to Ben and Conor) who has sent us footage of his journey on the 30th November along NCN Route 23, near Winchester. Unfortunately, the footage contains two incidents that Hampshire Police, through their Operation SNAP portal, chose not to act upon.
“For both incidents I’ve had a response via email saying No Further Action will be taken as “no clear offence has been identified that will have a realistic prospect of conviction if challenged at court”” Tom writes.
“I find this quite disappointing. I thought the overtake in the first incident [from the second car in the video] was at least careless driving and could easily have resulted in a head-on collision.
“In the second incident I thought the offence of failure to obey a “Keep Left” sign was very clear. I’m less bothered about that one – the driver did at least overtake me with plenty of room, but I would have thought it deserved a warning letter.”
We’re inclined to agree.
> 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">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
44 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 941: “The overtake was careless driving and could easily have resulted in a head-on collision””
This is blatant sloping of
This is blatant sloping of shoulders by the police in my view, and a neglect of safety of vulnerable road users, using a mealy-mouthed excuse.
What is the chance of an Op SNAP Report being taken to Court, anyway?
(Do we have numbers – is it 10% or 5% or 1%.)
For cases such as this we need some sort of Appeal process.
Well is Op Snap even a thing
Well is Op Snap even a thing anymore? Seriously when was the last time you heard or were even aware your local police were engaged in prosecuting driving like this through dash cams.
stonojnr wrote:
These are from Gloucestershire :
I don’t think this one went to court but I was told the driver got points and a fine. It is similar in that an oncoming driver was inconvenienced which I suspect is the reason for the outcome.
Not similar but I was told this one went to court and got points and a fine.
Not a great hit rate I agree but it makes me feel better.
Here are my stats for 2024 :
31 reports 14 NFA 2 advisory letter 4 driver education courses 1 NIP 1 PTS and Fine 1 going to court
The NIP was interesteing as they couldn’t trace the driver. Here is the explanation :
2/ A Notice was then sent to the hirer.
3/ The hirer named another company, and a 3rd notice was sent.
4/ The company named the driver and a 4th notice was sent.
No reply was received from the named driver, nor could we trace a driving licence for that person.
Unfortunately, we just ran out of time to prosecute as each Notice gives 28 days to respond.
And 2025 :
69 reports 16 NFA 25 advisory letter 28 will take action
I now have to wait until a year has elapsed before I can get the outcomes for the 28 will take actions.
I see this a moving in the right direction but I would agree that there is a long way to go yet. One thing I’m pretty sure of is that you don’t report it will never get better.
Bungle_52 wrote:
Thanks for the write-up! We have learned two things:
– out of a lot of time spent reporting (and presumably only the worst / best evidenced) about 1/5 lead to any action worthy of the name (and only max 2 what in other fields people would recognise as punishment). War on the motorist… *
– … and you’ve discovered a way for drivers to avoid the attention of even the most motivated police force! Set up a handful of companies and provide your car to yourself via that route (don’t worry about the burdens of admin, Companies House is even more toothless than the police in road crime cases!)
* Clearly the police, like society in general, see these as about as consequential as such “crimes” as poorly adjusted saddle height or sub-optimal use of gears on a bike…
I now have to wait until a
I now have to wait until a year has elapsed before I can get the outcomes for the 28 will take actions
You know what I’m going to ask! How do you find the actual, rather than what they claim was intended, outcomes and how did the police inform you of this 1 year limit, on what legislation do they base the limit, when does that 1 year clock start and how do they enforce the delay?
wtjs wrote:
I’m glad you asked. When you report using OpSnap in Gloucestershire you are asked to keep the original files for 1 year so I waited a year after my first report and emailed asking if I could delete the files and if they would tell me the outcome. They seemed happy to tell me so I do the same for all the others I submit. I suspect I could ask sooner but I figure if I leave it a year then the outcome will be known and it will save wasting their time if it hasn’t been completed yet. I am always polite and thank them for their efforts and I have been reporting since August 2020 so I’ve built up a bit of a rapport I suppose.
For the one that’s going to court it’s just as well I asked as if I had just deleted the files there may be problems with the court case, so that’s a justification I suppose.
I strongly disagree with some of the disposals and in those cases I contact the famous Robert Vestey and ask him to check that the result was correct and he always gets back to me though I do have to be persistent sometimes. He always backs up his staff as any good manager would but I suspect that words are had behind the scenes sometimes.
I have to be content with advisory letters for close passes but I usually get action if I’ve been inconvenienced or, more usually, an oncoming driver has been inconvenienced.
My latest issue is with being driven at on my side of the road and having to swerve out of the way. It seems if I carry on cycling I am undermining my case by riding towards the vehicle so I now brake sharply in front of the driver and this seems to yield results most of the time.
My experience in Gloucestershire is the complete opposite to some other forces in that they are very good at giving me feedback but many outcomes would have been dealt with more seriously by other forces.
Hope this helps.
What is the chance of an Op
What is the chance of an Op SNAP Report being taken to Court, anyway?
0% in Lancashire. Both of these drivers are guilty of a red light offence, although I haven’t bothered with the first one as it would give the sniggering coppers the opportunity to cut the red Kia Niro from the video and say ‘this is the sort of case he sends us- couldn’t stand up in court’. Both cases will receive no response, and the utterly useless (and, rightfully, doomed} PCC would state ‘this is an operational decision of the police and nothing to do with me)
I thought the keep left sign
I thought the keep left sign was a legally enforceable mandatory instruction in the UK, with the only exceptions being emergency services on blue lights and a motorist acting under the direction of a police officer. Clearly neither of those applied here, so the simple act of passing to the right of a keep left sign is careless or dangerous driving punishable by fines or points. I don’t understand the taking of no action.
The first clip is, for me, less clear. The pass was poor, too close to both the cyclist and the oncoming driver but I am not sure it met the threshold for driving without due care as there is no obvious signs of alarm or distress by either party. Sad to say, but given the generally p155 poor driving standards exhibited on UK roads every day by millions of poor downtrodden motorists, I am not sure that would ever secure a prosecution in court.
I’ve reported several of
I’ve reported several of these (ignoring the keep left sign) – action taken in precisely 0% of reports despite clear video evidence. So, it’s basically de facto legal now round here apparently.
The first pass looked relatively close, but if I reported every one of those I experienced it’d take hours of effort every day. It’s just a sad indictment of current driving standards & road safety culture that stuff like that is now considered “normal” & you effectively need to get hit by the vehicle, or demonstrably have to take evasive action for a close pass to count.
you effectively need to get
you effectively need to get hit by the vehicle, or demonstrably have to take evasive action for a close pass to count
We are told that Kent Police refuse to even look at the video unless the cyclist is hit, and even state this openly. I would love the adherents of the ‘must take evasive action/ be inconvenienced’ faction to try and justify the position after looking at these:
https://upride.cc/incident/sr17lhv_hilux_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/pe69ooc_clio_closepassspeed/
https://upride.cc/incident/ca70mkc_citroenvan_closepass/
Even then the driver can kill
Even then the driver can kill you and still walk away not guilty of anything
Thats the thing i look at the
Thats the thing i look at the first one and think,ok but thats an everyday pass that ive just accepted is the norm now.
The second one, had one of those in November, but my camera couldn’t pick up the plate though as it was so far away & dark too. But I thought that should be slam dunk careless driving if you could identify them. Mine even had oncoming cars with drivers probably thinking WTAF !!
With the first one I can see
With the first one I can see why it might not be prosecuted as a cycling close pass, at a rough estimate it looks to be about a metre so inside the guidance but we’ve all seen a lot worse, I wouldn’t have submitted that…but it should be prosecuted as careless driving minimum for how close the driver was to the oncoming vehicle: at least half the vehicle is in the opposite lane as the two cars pass. That could so easily have been a head-on crash with disastrous consequences for the occupants of both vehicles and the cyclist.
For the other one, it is indeed totally illegal to disregard a keep left marker like that and for such behaviour not to get an FPN can only mean either the police don’t know the law or have decided that it’s OK to break the law if you don’t harm anyone when doing so.
I wonder what the outcome
I wonder what the outcome would be if the oncoming traffic submitted their dashcam video.
Probably fine the cyclist for
Probably fine the cyclist for being in the way!!!
This! Obviously I didn’t like
This! Obviously I didn’t like it from the cyclist’s perspective, but we’re slightly inured to those being NFA. However, I’m amazed that even a cycle-hater didn’t consider this was dangerous for the oncoming traffic.
I agree it was poor and
I agree it was poor and dangerous but my suspicion is the oncoming driver provided them a get out of gaol free card by not visibly swerving, braking or flashing their lights. If they don’t show signs of being peturbed by the pass then the police will feel it is less likely to get a conviction if they take it to court. Sad but the way it is.
I think even CyclingMikey has
I think even CyclingMikey has stopped reporting the keep left sign drivers, as the police don’t seem to do anything.
as the police don’t seem to
as the police don’t seem to do anything
No! No! No! The police don’t seem to do nothing- they actually do do nothing, about anything to do with, or reported by, cyclists
It is still wrong that they
It is still wrong that they aren’t punished but even I admit there is a difference between Gandalf corner low speed wrong side and a wrong side at 30-40 mph.
LeadenSkies wrote:
What difference? Given how busy Gandalf corner is, with many pedestrians, cyclists and then lots of drivers breaking the law, the potential for injury/death collisions appears to be quite high.
Poor by Hampshire Police who
Poor by Hampshire Police who clearly couldn’t be bothered.
I wouldn’t of submitted these
I wouldn’t of submitted these 2 .
1st a bit close.
2nd he broke the rules but dose it matter?
I don’t want any little infractions reporting if I do things wrong.
I live in Lanc’s and they use to be useless if you reported anything, but this year I have reported 2 with the new system and both are being done in some way.
I live in Lanc’s and they use
I live in Lanc’s and they use to be useless if you reported anything, but this year I have reported 2 with the new system and both are being done in some way
They’re probably lying. See what happens if you try to find out what the true action (as opposed to ‘we’re taking action, but we won’t tell you what’) was! You could start by showing us the text of the email which claims they’re ‘taking action’. It used to be: (they don’t send them any more, because they know I keep everything and they don’t like leaving written evidence- if they told you by phone, they’re definitely lying)
Your footage has been viewed by members of the OpSnapLancs team and we are in agreement with you that the standard of driving shown by the other driver fell below the minimum standard that should be shown on the roads today.
We will write to the registered keeper of the vehicle involved, requiring them to identify the driver.
Once the driver has been identified then we will assess the most appropriate outcome, which could be;
1. An advice letter
2. A Driver Educational Course.
3. A conditional offer of points and a fine.
4. A summons to court.
Note the evasive wording which means the ‘action’ could be no action at all. Also note the ‘other driver’ reference. This letter came in response to:
https://upride.cc/incident/4148vz_travellerschoicecoach_closepass/
In the end they did nothing.
jthef wrote:
Yes, it dose matter. A pedestrian on the right hand side of the crossing will be looking to their right to check for oncoming traffic, not left at the driver on the wrong side of the road. As with everything else in human behaviour, continually repeated actions become the norm, and sooner or later, there will be a pedestrian there, and the driver will kill or injure them because they’ve done it a hundred times before and no-one died.
jthef wrote:
Yes it dose. Look at the driveway on the right, the driver on the road would be completely unsighted by the preceding foliage as they approached and if anybody exits that driveway the driver on the road is not going to have time to stop. It’s not a small infraction, the signage, and the law, are there for a good reason.
I know there is a clip
I know there is a clip somewhere of a driver going the wrong way round a pedestrian island and hitting a person, but can’t find it now.
Recorded by driver behind.
I can’t remember if they died but it was a serious hit.
So yes. It does matter.
Normalising it, and other forms of bad driving, is a slippery slope.
Normalising it, and other
Normalising it, and other forms of bad driving, is a slippery slope
In the Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, they land on a planet or some off-planet platform where they encounter the slipperiest surface in the Universe. Lancashire Constabulary HQ must be covered with it throughout.
https://upride.cc/incident/tgz9367_grandlandx_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/hd59opm_mercedese350_uwlcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/nv07kws_clio_dwlcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/sa17eld_travellerschoice_redlightpass/
https://upride.cc/incident/yf70xwu_aadrivingschool_uwlcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/kn21axh_lancspolice_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/dp14fym_insignia_closepassdwlcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/hk64pzt_audiq5_dwlcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/kn13aus_knausmotorhome_doubleredlightpass/ etc.
This is PO64 AUR on a recent appearance on 14th August. No VED for 10 years, no MOT either but could be exempt. No front plate, so I couldn’t identify it for several years, and the rear plate is hidden under the chassis where special lighting conditions are required to read it. Driver and passenger not wearing fitted seatbelts, and covered in very distinctive tattoos- Rishi Sunak can consider himself unlucky for being fined by Lancs. Police for not wearing a rear seatbelt during an election video
That’s the trouble these days
That’s the trouble these days, a common remark to an incident is often “does it matter, nobody died”. We shouldn’t be allowing people to pick and choose which laws matter and which ones don’t. That’s why bad driving has become normalised over recent years. Double yellow lines, cycle boxes, (painted) cycle lanes, red lights, and speed limits are all good examples of things that no longer matter in the mind of bad drivers…
As I’ve mentioned on here
As I’ve mentioned on here before, the very first thing I was told in firearms training was “If your gun goes off ‘by accident’ you’re going to be treated as if the bullet hit somebody no matter where it goes.” It seems absolutely obvious that the same attitude should apply to road traffic offences.
jthef wrote:
That’s the reason so many examples of downright dangerous driving are not prosecuted. Too many drivers on juries think exactly like this – “If I convict this driver then I could be next”. Unfortunately this leads to more and more outrageously poor driving going unpunished massive race to the bottom. Passing to the wrong side of a keep left sign is incredibly dangerous. Just think for a second, which way do you look when stepping out from a pedestrian island protected by keep left signs? Now tell me, do you think that driver had taken enough quality observations to know there definitely wasn’t a pedestrian using that island to cross? That should have been prosecuted every single time.
Latest news in the war on
Latest news in the war on motorists! The police have surrendered.
eburtthebike wrote:
More like some of them have been collaborating!
.. a more positive outcome
.. a more positive outcome north of the border, the driver of this vehicle was confirmed to have received 3 penalty points and £100 fine for the close-pass offense, and (curiously) didn’t dispute it.
the driver of this vehicle
the driver of this vehicle was confirmed to have received 3 penalty points and £100 fine for the close-pass offence
The offence clearly didn’t go to court- it’s only a little more than 2 months ago- so how did the police inform you of this ‘confirmed’ penalty?
If, as it appears, the driver
If, as it appears, the driver accepted the FPN this could easily be completed and confirmed within 2 months. I agree that actually being told the outcome is a result though!
wtjs wrote:
same responding officer for a recent evidence submission. in the case of the blue vehicle they had traced the owner address in advance and on understanding the severity, visited that day and issued the FPN directly.
i wouldn’t normally expect to hear an outcome but if i recognise the PCs on related business, i’ll ask.
in the case of the blue
in the case of the blue vehicle they had traced the owner address in advance and on understanding the severity, visited that day and issued the FPN directly
Thanks. I can use this as ‘evidence’, because Lancashire Constabulary claim that it’s an offence to tell the victim what happened to the offender- unless it went to court, which it never does. Clearly very different to England. You only hear about the CPS here when they’re used as an excuse by the police for abandoning the case, as they did with these two offences by the same driver in the same place 2 days apart. In Lancashire, nothing would happen about any of your cases except a quick trip to the bin. Well done!
https://upride.cc/incident/j111kdw_bmwgrancoupe_uwlcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/j111kdw_bmwgrancoupe_closepassuwlcross/
to be clear for cases where
to be clear for cases where an FPN is issued or the driver of the vehicle receives advice/correction from the responding officers, i am not made privy to anything which could or would identify the driver or owner.
2 – 3 years ago my efforts generally had less complete outcomes, but i would say in the last 18 months or so things have come along to the point where some sort of action is always taken – even if that is only them visiting the offender and saying “you were seen doing X, don’t do it again”.
i want people to become better drivers, and this is currently the only route to achieve that.
the infamous grouse wrote:
A number of forces won’t even tell you the outcome though, having taken the view that “the outcome”, together with other data, could potentially identify someone. Which seems to miss the point that most of us don’t have access to the police database to check the name of the registered keeper, who in turn may or may not have been the driver.
wtjs wrote:
up here, that driver would probably get advised to do better, which is better than nothing. few people enjoy having a visit from the police to discuss their driving.
25cm? comparable to the blue vehicle i showed, and i’d hope for a similar outcome. especially with the #129 violation.
received a letter from COPFS
received a letter from COPFS today, this one is going to court. though only one vehicle is visible in the oncoming lane, another preceded it – both were required to take evasive action.
this spurred me to get a garmin radar.
I have submitted many videos
I have submitted many videos to opsnap hampshire, not a single one has resulted in any feedback from the police. The ones I submitted were the most dangerous of close passes from literally hundreds I get every year. All vehicles would have been within less than an arms reach, i.e. If I had my arm out to indicate a turn, my arm would have been broken. The police are c@@ts who will only consider videos when someone is splattered on the road, and only because they are too fucking lazy to work out that the driver is clearly at fault.
The police are c@@ts who will
The police are c@@ts who will only consider videos when someone is splattered on the road, and only because they are too fucking lazy to work out that the driver is clearly at fault
All of this is true – definitely in Lancashire, and also in Hampshire as we’re told here. However, you’ve missed out the second part of the dodge: in the case where a cyclist is splattered on the road, there are plenty of reasons why a camera would be terminally broken, and plenty of opportunities to render it broken if it isn’t already, in order to further the cause of the incident being the cyclist’s fault