Today’s video in our Near Miss of the Day feature pretty much speaks for itself.
It was submitted by road.cc reader James, who said: “From Aberdeenshire on my commute home tonight. It gets worse when he eventually passes … “
> 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
51 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 264: Close pass and a bit of afters”
Looked like he was trying to
Looked like he was trying to get you to fall off.
What could possibly have gone wrong ?
hirsute wrote:
So true. Never mind the pass, tailgating a cyclist is surely reckless driving – as you point out, one slip or fall and they are road-kill.
Sriracha wrote:
I was a bus passenger night before last. Two cyclists were riding side by side on a section of road where there’s double white lines – https://goo.gl/maps/ny2exC3FvZ22 – and they were definitely not travelling below 10 mph.
The driver of the double decker bus on which I was a passenger took exception to this, so followed them maybe three feet off their back wheels. I was sat there white knuckled, hoping neither of the cyclists made any sort of mistake, because there was no way at all that the driver could have stopped the bus or even reacted… Eventually, the driver got enough speed up to overtake them (closely!) shortly afterwards.
To my shame, I chickened out of mentioning any of this to the driver when I go off the bus…
brooksby wrote:
I was a bus passenger night before last. Two cyclists were riding side by side on a section of road where there’s double white lines – https://goo.gl/maps/ny2exC3FvZ22 – and they were definitely not travelling below 10 mph.
The driver of the double decker bus on which I was a passenger took exception to this, so followed them maybe three feet off their back wheels. I was sat there white knuckled, hoping neither of the cyclists made any sort of mistake, because there was no way at all that the driver could have stopped the bus or even reacted… Eventually, the driver got enough speed up to overtake them (closely!) shortly afterwards.
To my shame, I chickened out of mentioning any of this to the driver when I go off the bus…
— hirsuteDid you not get a chance to video it on your phone?
hirsute wrote:
Did you not get a chance to video it on your phone? — hirsute
I always forget that my phone can record video!
I don’t think I’ve *ever* recorded a video on it…
What a tw@t. Always the ones
What a tw@t. Always the ones with status cars and bigger egos, thinking they are living the dream by acquiring but they are bitter twisted and angry souls for going down that route.
richiewormiling wrote:
I wouldn’t have a Land Rover given to me. I’ve driven hundreds in my job, from bog standard defenders to 5 litre supercharged SVRs, they are quite possibly the most unreliable car on the road. A customer has just offloaded an almost new Discovery, the dealer had it more than he did, and after the last episode where the dealer had it for 13 weeks, it had to go. LR, Audi Q7, Merc ML etc etc etc are more often than not status symbols driven by egocentrics.
biker phil wrote:
I wouldn’t have a Land Rover given to me. I’ve driven hundreds in my job, from bog standard defenders to 5 litre supercharged SVRs, they are quite possibly the most unreliable car on the road. A customer has just offloaded an almost new Discovery, the dealer had it more than he did, and after the last episode where the dealer had it for 13 weeks, it had to go. LR, Audi Q7, Merc ML etc etc etc are more often than not status symbols driven by egocentrics.
[/quote]
fair point.
[/quote]I wouldn’t have a
[/quote]I wouldn’t have a Land Rover given to me. I’ve driven hundreds in my job, from bog standard defenders to 5 litre supercharged SVRs, they are quite possibly the most unreliable car on the road. A customer has just offloaded an almost new Discovery, the dealer had it more than he did, and after the last episode where the dealer had it for 13 weeks, it had to go. LR, Audi Q7, Merc ML etc etc etc are more often than not status symbols driven by egocentrics.
[/quote]
It’s a RANGE ROVER not a Land Rover. It’s written clearly on the car’s bonnet.
They’re driven by entirely different sorts.
Most Range Rover drivers, especially drivers of new Range Rovers, are arrogant, entitled, think they own the road types. There used to be a black Range Rover driver who lived near me and I had a least 3 unpleasant encounters with it and it’s driver.
I got close passed by it once in a narrow lane while cycling and also, while driving my small car, got forced into a wall, smashing my wing mirror as the Range Rover flew round a bend on my side of the road.
On another occasion I had to reverse half a mile down a lane because it wouldn’t stop at a passing place.
Landrovers, including Discoveries, are more often driven by farmer types and people with lots of dogs and generally appear more easy going.
CaribbeanQueen wrote:
I wouldn’t have a Land Rover given to me. I’ve driven hundreds in my job, from bog standard defenders to 5 litre supercharged SVRs, they are quite possibly the most unreliable car on the road. A customer has just offloaded an almost new Discovery, the dealer had it more than he did, and after the last episode where the dealer had it for 13 weeks, it had to go. LR, Audi Q7, Merc ML etc etc etc are more often than not status symbols driven by egocentrics.
[/quote]
It’s a RANGE ROVER not a Land Rover. It’s written clearly on the car’s bonnet.
They’re driven by entirely different sorts.
Most Range Rover drivers, especially drivers of new Range Rovers, are arrogant, entitled, think they own the road types. There used to be a black Range Rover driver who lived near me and I had a least 3 unpleasant encounters with it and it’s driver.
I got close passed by it once in a narrow lane while cycling and also, while driving my small car, got forced into a wall, smashing my wing mirror as the Range Rover flew round a bend on my side of the road.
On another occasion I had to reverse half a mile down a lane because it wouldn’t stop at a passing place.
Landrovers, including Discoveries, are more often driven by farmer types and people with lots of dogs and generally appear more easy going.
[/quote]And who makes Range Rovers? Land Rover. Land Rover is the manufacturer, Range Rover is the model range. The company is called Jaguar Land Rover, not Jaguar Range Rover.
biker phil wrote:
It’s a RANGE ROVER not a Land Rover. It’s written clearly on the car’s bonnet.
They’re driven by entirely different sorts.
Most Range Rover drivers, especially drivers of new Range Rovers, are arrogant, entitled, think they own the road types. There used to be a black Range Rover driver who lived near me and I had a least 3 unpleasant encounters with it and it’s driver.
I got close passed by it once in a narrow lane while cycling and also, while driving my small car, got forced into a wall, smashing my wing mirror as the Range Rover flew round a bend on my side of the road.
On another occasion I had to reverse half a mile down a lane because it wouldn’t stop at a passing place.
Landrovers, including Discoveries, are more often driven by farmer types and people with lots of dogs and generally appear more easy going.
[/quote]And who makes Range Rovers? Land Rover. Land Rover is the manufacturer, Range Rover is the model range. The company is called Jaguar Land Rover, not Jaguar Range Rover.
[/quote]
Personally, I find people who genaralise are not a good source of reliable info irrespective of their vehicular choice.
CaribbeanQueen wrote:
I wouldn’t have a Land Rover given to me. I’ve driven hundreds in my job, from bog standard defenders to 5 litre supercharged SVRs, they are quite possibly the most unreliable car on the road. A customer has just offloaded an almost new Discovery, the dealer had it more than he did, and after the last episode where the dealer had it for 13 weeks, it had to go. LR, Audi Q7, Merc ML etc etc etc are more often than not status symbols driven by egocentrics.
[/quote]
It’s a RANGE ROVER not a Land Rover. It’s written clearly on the car’s bonnet.
They’re driven by entirely different sorts.
Most Range Rover drivers, especially drivers of new Range Rovers, are arrogant, entitled, think they own the road types. There used to be a black Range Rover driver who lived near me and I had a least 3 unpleasant encounters with it and it’s driver.
I got close passed by it once in a narrow lane while cycling and also, while driving my small car, got forced into a wall, smashing my wing mirror as the Range Rover flew round a bend on my side of the road.
On another occasion I had to reverse half a mile down a lane because it wouldn’t stop at a passing place.
Landrovers, including Discoveries, are more often driven by farmer types and people with lots of dogs and generally appear more easy going.
[/quote]
Land Rover Discoveries are Land Rovers, but so are Land Rover Range Rovers. It doesn’t stop being a Land Rover when when they add the Range Rover badge.
Not condoning the drivers
Not condoning the drivers behaviour at all, to perform a close pass out of sheer badness is not good, but we need to be fair as cyclists too. It was a narrow road, but at 46 seconds the cyclist passes a passing place. He should have pulled in and waved the driver through. When I am cycling on narrow lanes and a vehicle approaches from behind, I will always look for a spot where I can pull in and wave the driver through. In almost all cases I get a wave of thanks as the driver passes.
biker phil wrote:
That was my first impression but the road very soon opened up to 2 lanes, so I suspect the cyclist knowing the road felt that a short delay was not much of a hardship for the driver and preferred not to lose speed.
hirsute wrote:
As a rider in that situation, youve got to decide to stop, stop quick enough safely out of the way, which it looks like a gate access, so could be loose uneven surface,certainly flints to pickup, all whilst youve got 2 tons of vehicle breathing down your neck, who certainly wont have enough time to react if you make a mistake and fall off in front of them…Id keep going frankly in that circumstance especially if I could see and know the driver could also see the road was widening very soon and they arent really losing any time at all.
absolutely if its safe for you to allow another vehicle pass, though dont always expect to be thanked, do so, but dont be bullied out of the way either
biker phil wrote:
That’s what I thought at first, but the road widens up a few seconds later, with plenty of room to overtake (if the driver hadn’t been a twat) which the cyclist probably knew about, so there really wasn’t anything much to be gained in pullling over there.
biker phil wrote:
On a climb or slowish ride, I agree, but this is neither. The passing areas are small and would have required quite significant braking, all before the road opens up shortly anyway.
d10brp wrote:
Not condoning the drivers behaviour at all, to perform a close pass out of sheer badness is not good, but we need to be fair as cyclists too. It was a narrow road, but at 46 seconds the cyclist passes a passing place. He should have pulled in and waved the driver through. When I am cycling on narrow lanes and a vehicle approaches from behind, I will always look for a spot where I can pull in and wave the driver through. In almost all cases I get a wave of thanks as the driver passes.
— d10brp On a climb or slowish ride, I agree, but this is neither. The passing areas are small and would have required quite significant braking, all before the road opens up shortly anyway.— biker phil
He’s behind for an additional 15 seconds after the dodgy looking farm entrance where he expected to get past, making his journey around five seconds longer….
JohnnyRemo wrote:
Making his journey 5 seconds longer, if you don’t count:
* that the driver will have to reduce his speed if the cyclist slows to pull into a layby or mouth of a junction
* that there is nothing else on the driver’s journey that will delay him – the cyclist in the video has posted here that he all but caught up with the driver by the next junction.
I am glad he has been charged with dangerous driving, I just hope the CPS don’t chicken out and reduce it to careless driving or decide to NFA it.
Not condoning the drivers
+1 for this comment, almost always receive an ackowledgement especially from HGV drivers when I do this. No point in peeing them off purposley, there is only one loser…
biker phil wrote:
Well said Phil – the rider in this case had plenty of opportunity to pull over.
Greeneyelevin wrote:
Why should the rider pull over? – the road doesn’t go on for miles single file, very shortly after it opens up. Does one person have a right to get to their destination faster than another? Of course not, I am fully behind being courteous but where does the line get drawn? Get off the road whilst driving because someone in a car behind wants to go faster? Of course not, that’s not how life works, a little give and take is required. Being bullied off the road is just not on.
Htc wrote:
I have to agree. I genreally try and pull over to let other vehicles pass if I’m holding them up but in this case carrying on til the road widens was the right thing to do and what I would do. The only point at which the rider could have pulled over was by the gate but at the speed he was travelling at he passed it in a couple of seconds. To pull up suddenly with an impatient driver tailgating is a recipe for disaster.
I hope the footage has been forwarded to the police and that they act upon it.
Greeneyelevin wrote:
Errrrrrm, no not really!
I absolutely agree that there is a time and place for moving over or even stopping to allow traffic to get past. It is the right thing to do (Highway Code Rule 169 – although apparently it’s not a legal obligation for cyclists?) and when done properly usually gets a good response from drivers. In this case however the only potential place for moving over was the gateway (or small passing place) which was not really suitable and would’ve meant the cyclist would have to slow to a complete stop to be out of the way. Slowing early enough to stop safely would’ve only delayed the driver even more than the alternative which was what the cyclist in this video did. The road widened only a short time later giving the motorist room to make a safe pass, something he/she certainly didn’t do. Apparently the driver also felt the cyclist should’ve stopped sooner, but here is NO justfication for this driver behaving as they did. Very poor and I really hope this has been submitted to the Police.
biker phil wrote:
I try to make a call on what I think holds up motorists the least, just a minute earlier I had pulled in to a passing place for another vehicle on a slower stretch.
But on this road, doing 45kph, seeing another car not that much further ahead and knowing that in a few hundred meters the road opens up, I judged that I was going to hold the driver up less by continuing rather than slowing enough to pull in to the one passing place I could have.
I almost caught him up while he waited behind a car to pull out at the T junction ahead, so as is often the case I didn’t actually hold him up at all.
biker phil wrote:
I try to move over as well, but this LR driver was on the horn after just 15 seconds of being behind the cyclist who had no prior chance to pull over.
The rider was going at a fair old lick & would’ve had to haul on his anchors pretty hard to get out of the way. Having a car tailgating like this makes me hesitate to slow down or pull over as the driver may not react to me slowing down in time to avoid hitting my back wheel.
There was room for a safe pass only a few more seconds later as the road entered a built-up area. This is an impatient & dangerous driver.
There are three points on my commute home along the lanes where I always pull over to let cars pass from behind me – if they were this close up my ass I would not feel safe slowing down.
biker phil wrote:
As do I.
But. (And it’s a big but.) I don’t know the rider’s camera … but if that were my camera view, that’s a bloody big vehicle, far too close, and dangerously impatient (if not downright aggressive).
I’m quite happy with the cyclist’s choice – it would be mine. I’d NOT want to have two-ton aggressive f***-wit run up my back as a I slow for the passing place.
Should have dubbed Jaws music
Should have dubbed Jaws music over that.
I’d have slowed down and let
I’d have slowed down and let thim past at the passing place or the road which is just after it. The heavy braking, nah, start to slow without grabbing the brakes suddenly and it seems like you are being decent and letting him past when in reality you are probably delaying him more 😉
Yes the road opens up, but he knew he has another road user behind him. It’s never going to go well, your adrenaline starts flowing and his impatience is increasing.
I never know, I might meet this driver one day. We all see it from our side, but we need to see both sides of the argument. Yes it’s a ‘big car’, so what. It’s not the car it’s the person inside it. I’ve had atrocious passes from people in Aygo’s and Porsches. I wave if I get a good overtake performed, positive reinforcement folks. Not the us and them mentality…
As the driver passes, they
As the driver passes, they are clearly being a pain, but at the same time there are some bits in this video where the cyclist is clearly in the middle of the road.
I know a lot of these videos do show drivers in the wrong – I have seen plenty of times where the cyclist is not being ideal.
iam [at] sebastiangreen.co.uk
Middle of the road or not, the road simply isn’t wide enough to pass safely. Look at the positioning of the vehicle when it is moving over to the off side to try and squeeze through, the gap on the near side is nowhere near enough for a cyclist to be positioned safely during a pass. In this situation keeping left would’ve only encouraged the driver to force their way past. Maybe riding right down the centre pushed the drivers buttons a bit, and perhaps if the rider had stated left of centre it could have seemd less ‘confrontational’ but the outcome would still be the same. What we can’t really tell from the video is the state off the surface. It’s possible the cyclist couldn’t stay left all the way along. Rural road with pot holes, mud, gravel and all the usual hazards that the 4×4’s have no concers over.
iam [at] sebastiangreen.co.uk
What’s wrong with the cyclist being in the middle of the road? There’s no room for a driver to overtake no matter where the cyclist is as evidenced by the dangerous overtake that the driver performed.
HawkinsPeter wrote:
Agreed – particularly given that this road is of poor quality with potholes and what looks like gravel/mud in sections. Why is cycling in the safest position seen as wrong? If you were in a car and kept getting punctures or nearly crashing when you drove right up tight to the edge of the road don’t you think you’d learn pretty quickly that it’s not the best thing to do?
Cycling where the passenger would be travelling in a car is usually a much better road position. Inside of where a cars offside wheels would be but not riding on the crown of the lane.
iam [at] sebastiangreen.co.uk
The road isn’t wide enough for the landrover to safely overtake, therefore the cyclist had adopted primary position.
I’ve made the mistake of allowing space in this situation and had cars fly past inches from my elbow.
In any case the driver was only delayed for a few seconds before the road widens.
iam [at] sebastiangreen.co.uk
Just guessing – the iam in your monicker refers to the Institute of Advanced Motorists? If so, you may wish to consult the IAM’s own advice and guidance for cyclists? https://road.cc/content/news/30663-institute-advanced-motorists-launches-membership-scheme-cyclists
Wow, it looks like we have
Wow, it looks like we have the average members of a jury all come out to play!
The driver appears to become irate at the passing points and becomes very aggressive. It’s akin to being behind someone in a supermarket queue when you have 10 items and they have a trolley full and waving around knifes and bleach to show your annoyance.
I do feel for the motorist, he/she was potentially travelling at 20mph behind the cyclist for nearly 30 seconds before accelerating into a residential area and using 2 tonnes of metal as a weapon!
alansmurphy wrote:
ah, the old ‘get out of my way you’re slowing me down’ followed up by slowing down again to antagonise the cyclist. Mind-boggling.
I reported the incident to
I reported the incident to the police who, after viewing the video, believed there was enough to support a dangerous driving charge and went around to the drivers house to give him the good news the same evening.
Thumbs up for Aberdeenshire plod.
roots211 wrote:
Great news! Kudos for Aberdeenshire police!
I do feel sorry for the driver. After all they spent all that money on leasing a truly massive car (2.2meters wide, mirrors width!) and then, just driving along, they get held up by a cyclist! On a country road!
I’m quite sure, that the cyclist did not realise that the driver was spending all that money each month specifically for people to give the driver the respect that spending £XXX a month rightly deserves, that fact probably didn’t even cross that silly cyclists mind, if it had they would have pulled over at the first available spot and waved the driver through, probably while thinking how much they’d like to swap places in life..
peted76 wrote:
You forgot to mention “whilst tugging their forlock”!
Roots, I’m hoping this one
Glad you got a result roots.
I can’t believe people are
I can’t believe people are actually proposing that the rider should have pulled over.
The driver was delayed for a matter of literally seconds in this instance.
In my opinion, anyone who is on the recieving end of a “Get out of my way!” beep should be given legal immunity to deliver a punch on the nose, or at the very least blow a hand-held airhorn straight in the ear.
PRSboy wrote:
I trust those people proposing that the rider should have pulled over are the same people who would politely pull onto the hard shoulder if they were driving along on the motorway and someone came up behind them at speed (rather than, you know, simply expecting that driver to just overtake them as and when it was safe to do so…).
If the guy was a 10mph
If the guy was a 10mph cyclist I’d agree it would have been easy for him to wait in the lay by, but he wasn’t really slowing the motorist down, he was going around 20mph so why should he lose all his energy just so this impatient twat can get to his destination 10 seconds quicker?
pmr wrote:
Nearer 30 ;-).
pmr wrote:
Indeed. There is a rule in the Highway Code about pulling in if you’re a slow moving vehicle (rule 169) but the definition of slow moving elsewhere in the HC and in law for a bicycle is under 10mph (rule 129 defines it in relation to overtaking through solid whites).
Also, rule 169 relates to holding up long queues, not singular twats.
aegisdesign wrote:
If the guy was a 10mph cyclist I’d agree it would have been easy for him to wait in the lay by, but he wasn’t really slowing the motorist down, he was going around 20mph so why should he lose all his energy just so this impatient twat can get to his destination 10 seconds quicker?
— aegisdesign Indeed. There is a rule in the Highway Code about pulling in if you’re a slow moving vehicle (rule 169) but the definition of slow moving elsewhere in the HC and in law for a bicycle is under 10mph (rule 129 defines it in relation to overtaking through solid whites). Also, rule 169 relates to holding up long queues, not singular twats.— pmr
As it’s a single track road, rule 155 applies. Interesting that you just have to slow down to pass a horse or bike. Might have been ok in the old days before cars became as wide as a bus…
A fine example of arrogant and dangerous driving.
in my years of riding I have
in my years of riding I have not come across many bad drivers but the only thing I have learnt is that anyone driving a rangerover has had their spacial awareness removed as they have no idea where other road users are, for evidence I defy anyone to produce a photo of a range rover parking in any carpark that isnt taking at least one and half spaces.
Well done to the police on
Well done to the police on this occasion.
I think what you have to
I think what you have to remember in these situations is that the driver probably shouldn’t even be in that place at that time if they had obeyed the speed limits on their entire journey – if they start running a Strava like app (Carva?) and can show that they’ve broken no limits before they got to where you are then maybe you could feel some sympathy for them but my guess is that would be the case for a tiny minority of drivers.
There are no excuses for this
There are no excuses for this drivers dangerous behaviour. If they choose to take a wide vehicle down a single track road they should expect that they might encounter an obstruction to their pace. If that was a tractor with bale spikes would they have travelled so close to it? Would they have menaced the tractor driver to let them pass rather than wait for a safe place to overtake? No..because it’s a cyclist, who are there only to wind up “legitimate” road users, it’s ok to force them off the road. This driver was delayed 30 seconds at most. Wow. If it wasnt for cyclists the roads would be clear, and drivers would be free to use all of their excessive power and speed to race the roads just like Clarkson. Because the roads are never congested due to vehicles. No amount of road building will fix congestion. Glad to hear the police are treating this as it should be, dangerous driving. What if that cyclist was a child? The driver had no idea and didn’t care. How many parents have to live with the fact their child was mown down by a driver in a ‘tragic accident’ that wasn’t?