In our Near Miss of the Day series today we have what must rank as one of the closest things we’ve ever featured in the series – with a van driver who is overtaking a lorry coming straight towards a cyclist with no attempt to slow down.
It happened in Heywood, Lancashire as road.cc reader Graham was going to work at 6am on Saturday morning.
He told us: “I got to within a couple of minutes from my workplace when this incident occurred.
“There was a lorry travelling at speed on the other side of the road and the car behind it decided to overtake and entered my lane travelling at high-speed head on with me.
“I had to stop my bike and hope the car didn’t hit me and as you can see from the footage if it had I wouldn’t be here to tell the tale. Sadly because of the weather conditions and lighting I have been unable to identify the driver’s number plate.
“I have contacted the police via online form and am waiting for them to contact me so they can view the footage.
“I attended the police station today to hand the footage in but they didn’t take it from me and said I had to wait to be contacted.
“I know there are cameras along this route which may have picked up this incident but by the time the police do something, if anything, the footage will be lost.
“I’ve had a few close passes and near misses but never anything like this before – I really did fear for my life,” he added.
> Near Miss of the Day turns 100 – Why do we do the feature and what have we learnt from it?
Over the years road.cc has reported on literally hundreds of close passes and near misses involving badly driven vehicles from every corner of the country – so many, in fact, that we’ve decided to turn the phenomenon into a regular feature on the site. One day hopefully we will run out of close passes and near misses to report on, but until that happy day arrives, Near Miss of the Day will keep rolling on.
If you’ve caught on camera a close encounter of the uncomfortable kind with another road user that you’d like to share with the wider cycling community please send it to us at info@road.cc or send us a message via the road.cc Facebook page.
If the video is on YouTube, please send us a link, if not we can add any footage you supply to our YouTube channel as an unlisted video (so it won’t show up on searches).
Please also let us know whether you contacted the police and if so what their reaction was, as well as the reaction of the vehicle operator if it was a bus, lorry or van with company markings etc.
> What to do if you capture a near miss or close pass (or worse) on camera while cycling
110 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 581: “I really did fear for my life” – Driver nearly hits cyclist head-on (includes swearing)”
Congratulations on not
Congratulations on not soiling yourself. I’m not sure I’d have managed. Please push extremely hard for the police to take this up
I am going to push this all
I am going to push this all the way.
My local newspaper is doing a story on this incident so hopefully that may create some attention and force the police into doing something
greystoke wrote:
To be honest, I’m surprised you didn’t shit yourself on the spot ?
I had this happen once, too,
I had this happen once, too, on a clear dry day, on a 55 MPH (posted) road. That’s the second closest I’ve ever come to being killed on my bicycle.
The tent I made in the middle of my saddle took hours to disappear.
I know GMP aren’t noted for
I know GMP aren’t noted for being proctive, but surely even they would act if this was reported?
If (god forbid) the driver
If (god forbid) the driver hit the cyclist, they’ll just plead SMIDSY due to the bad weather
It’s a wonder we don’t allow
It’s a wonder we don’t allow the registered blind to drive, given that not being able to see is so readily accepted as an excuse for running down vulnerable road users.
Sriracha wrote:
My friend tells me he had a captcha i am not a robot page that required identifying all the pictures with bicycles in them.
Needless to say it wasn’t to access a site selling premium cars.
This didn’t pass
This didn’t pass
581?
581?
That looks really horrible as with the curve of the road it can’t have been immediately apparent that an overtake was underway
That’s as bad as a close pass
That’s as bad as a close pass gets. Good job Graham was looking ahead and was able to get out of the way.
I would call 101 if there’s no contact from the police after 7 days, to enquire if a NIP has been issued. They might need a bit of gentle guidance to make sure this is on top of their road teams to-do list.
Reasonably confident this is
Reasonably confident this is a black Vauxhall Corsa 5dr. 2006-2014 variant. Worth backtracking the route to look for cctv cameras.
Incredibly dangerous to state the obvious…
cczmark wrote:
Dammit! You’ve triggered my car model ‘super recogniser’ trait – it’s not a Corsa…
It’s a Hyundai i40 Tourer circa 2014 (not the later facelift model)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hyundai_i40cw_1.7_CRDi_Style_%E2%80%93_Frontansicht,_26._Februar_2012,_Heiligenhaus.jpg
HoarseMann wrote:
Pretty sure you’re right it’s a Hyundai, hard to tell but looked a bit small to be a i40 tourer might have been an i30 too – bizarrely I used to own an i40 tourer on a 61 plate in exactly the same colour and style. I guess they wouldn’t be that popular these days.
It’s not an i30, the giveaway
It’s not an i30, the giveaway is the very unique shape of the front fog/driving lamps, which as far as I can see, only appear on the i40. The angle makes it look shorter than it actually is.
My goodness. That is awful. I
My goodness. That is awful. I’m so glad you’re OK. Just a suggestion — have you tried contacting the haulage firm for the truck? They might have dashcam footage from the truck.
Although it looks like a nondescript white truck to me, maybe you got a better view of it… although I don’t think I would be able to remember anything more than the sound of my own screaming. That was really awful.
Pretty sure I’d have his
Pretty sure I’d have his mirror as a souvenir if that’d been me
Nah, I think his mirror would
Nah, I think his mirror would have you as a souvenir.
They are pretty breakable,
They are pretty breakable, but you’re right
That’s got to be one of the
That’s got to be one of the worst ever I’ve seen or been involved in. I would pressure the police to go looking for the footage. I was involved in an incident 3 years ago and the police went and found footage from nearby company CCTV.
That buffoon shouldn’t be allowed on the road!
I feared for my own life just
I feared for my own life just watching that!
yes, thats one of those just
yes, thats one of those just from the description you know is going to be bad to watch, and you are braced for it, but still thats jaw dropping heart in mouth moment,I know from experience using the Cycliq camera how close that must have been to contact.
and the driver doesnt even hesitate or seem to be in two minds when they must obviously see whats ahead of them.
that ought to be a driving ban if they ever catch up with them
I attended the police station
I attended the police station today to hand the footage in but they didn’t take it from me and said I had to wait to be contacted.
This is from Page 1, Standard Police Dodges. You wait and wait, and then they say they’re very busy and in any case it’s now too late to do anything. The problem is the absence of blood on the road so the case fails the first test, and they have probably already consigned it to ‘NFA’. I hope I’m wrong, and I hope Graham tells us what happened. I am judging it from the standpoint of a victim of Lancashire Constabulary, but there is some logic to that. GMP was recently put into ‘special measures’ because of a longstanding dodge aimed at not recording many thousands of offences. I don’t know how many, if any, of those were road traffic offences but I do know that Lancashire ignores many of the latter.
I am trying to nail them for that in the hope of having LC put into special measures also- Fat Chance!, you say, but somebody has to try. I have the proof, but the odds are stacked against me. I’m not expecting much help from the PCC, except that the Tory has taken the post from Labour (normally would be a source of regret, but the outgoing PCC was useless) and may want to stuff his predecessor.
I wonder if Mr grunshaw will
I wonder if Mr grunshaw will return to delivering milk?
I am still waiting for
I am still waiting for contact from the police. I was told he couldnt access my reference number when I tried to give him the footage and I should ring 101(the police!!!).
I have tried several times already and have been on hold so will keep trying.
My worry is if there is any foootage from nearby cameras(which im sure there will be) it may be to late.
I know im lucky to be alive but someone else may not be so lucky
I have tried several times
I have tried several times already and have been on hold so will keep trying
This is more standard dodging. Remember, their main primary aim is either ‘insufficient evidence’ or ‘too late to do anything now’ or both. Get it reported online, even if you can’t compress your video to send it in immediately. You will then, if it’s like Lancashire, get the reference number and a written record. I don’t say that solves the problem, because Lancashire simply ignores all the online reports anyway, but at least you have the record. They’re aiming to put you off by making it as difficult as possible- if you give in they’ll keep waiting until you or another cyclist is terminated – with the additional bonus that the camera has been destroyed and there is even better ‘insufficient evidence’.
It is not ideal but if you
It is not ideal but if you know cameras (either council or private etc) are along the route you can request the footage under data protection law, often if you explain the circumstances they can be helpful. Sadly it is individuals who need to do the work with limited police resources.
nikkispoke wrote:
I am on my way up there this morning to try see if I can get any camera/video evidence to get this dangerous drivers number plate
If you have the time, chances
If you have the time, chances are the same driver in the same car will be on the same commute at the same time of the day/week.
greystoke wrote:
I know you shouldn’t have to, but would it be possible to approach any of the local businesses or council yourself? There was a really nasty case a while back in London where the victim (he was hit and seriously injured) was forced to do just that – the rozzers just ignored it until he went and did their job for them.
This was horrible, glad you weren’t hurt physically but anyone can be sympathetic to how shaken up you must be.
Surely this is NM 581?
Surely this is NM 581?
swldxer wrote:
Spookily enough, it is almost identical to the real NM381
https://road.cc/content/news/271559-near-miss-day-381-overtaking-van-driver-almost-hits-cyclist-head
NMOTD you mean.
NMOTD you mean.
Shit the bed!
Shit the bed!
That near miss reminded me of
That near miss reminded me of a Final Destination film or something, except in the film there’d have been a 20 ton juggernaut travelling behind the cyclist when he pulled over and stopped!
It was a very bad pass, but from the point of view of the police, what are they supposed to do about it? There’s no identifying features in the video for the car and not enough evidence.
What are the Police supposed
What are the Police supposed to do? Are you really asking that question? Seriously, are you really asking that question?
Mungecrundle wrote:
Well of course they can’t be expected to do anything. All that tea doesn’t drink itself you know…..
Nigel Garrage wrote:
[b]Hoarseman [/b]makes a good case for it being a Hyundai i40 Tourer. Not a very common car – how many can there have been coming down that road at the time, in a dark colour? Get a few other videos and dashcams footage in the vicinity, job done.
Of course, you’d have to want to…
In Kent there are so many
In Kent there are so many CCTV cameras that Police can and do search for vehicles when provided with a time, road, and vehicle description. Of course they will not do anything without multiple independent sources of evidence. So stopping witnesses at the scene is still required to make progress. Not easy when you have just been almost killed.
Unfortunately, I think Nigel
Unfortunately, I think Nigel is right that the police will not do much without a registration plate.
I was shocked watching a ‘road wars’ type TV program that the police at the scene of a collision, were waiting to hear from the hospital whether the seriously injured victim had survived – as they would only fully investigate the collision if there had been a death!
Even with bang-to-rights evidence handed to them on a plate, it’s far from certain any justice would be served.
But I would still try seeing what businesses might have CCTV covering the area and ask them to have a look for this vehicle around this time – even if they won’t give you the footage, you could ask them to preserve anything found so the police could review it.
HoarseMann wrote:
I think there is a difference between;
and the answers (as follows) are very different;
Captain Badger wrote:
The police don’t have infinite resources at their disposal. They should investigate where there is a reasonable chance of a conviction and crime prevention. In this case (in my opinion) as there is a vanishing small chance of any conviction taking place, it would be a complete dereliction of duty and waste of public funds for the police to take any action whatsoever.
Suppose the poster found CCTV of the Hyundai in question with a legible numberplate, I still think it would be very difficult to link the two as the time on the OP video doesn’t link up with the actual time of day he was travelling (I’m assuming the clock hadn’t been adjusted for summer time?), and there’s just no evidence that the two cars are one and the same. The only hope would be if CCTV actually captured the incident itself in good enough quality to get the numberplate.
As I’ve said I think it was an appalling overtake that put someone’s life in danger. But that doesn’t detract from logic and sound-reasoning.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
I would disagree with your logic Nigel, in fact if there was CCTV evidence from nearby businesses, regardless of any time discrepancies, it would be quite easy to link the CCTV with the video.
The simplest method is to look at the video and see if there were corresponding vehicles i.e. White Lorry, Dark Hyundai i40 estate, Dark Ford Focus Estate, White Mercedes Sprinter Van and another White Van (clip cuts off too soon to identify make and model). That particular arrangement of vehicles is a very specific grouping, which is easily identifiable, even if not in exactly the same order on the road.
And if you have the number plates of the other vehicles (especially the lorry and the Ford Focus) you then have witnesses to corroborate the video footage.
I’d be willing to bet that the
herocockwomble in the Hyundai was playing hop scotch with the cars/vans before doing that maneuverNigel Garrage wrote:
Your original question was “what are they supposed to do about it?”, which sounded rhetorical to me. You mentioned nothing about resources.
Now you seem to have provided your own answer “nothing at all cos resources”. A lazy copper’s dream….
Of course, the correct answer is to “investigate to establish facts, and consider possible action”
A quick ring around local CCTV operators would be possible from behind a desk, even with a cup of tea in hand…..
Even with bang-to-rights
Even with bang-to-rights evidence handed to them on a plate, it’s far from certain any justice would be served
True- many forces, from what we learn on here, just can’t be bothered with offences against, or reported by, cyclists. I personally know this is true with Lancashire- you can’t get a simpler and more ‘bang to rights’ case than people charging through red lights at 50+ mph 1-2 seconds after they turned red. Lancashire still manages to ignore them. New Lancashire PCC Snowden is mentioned below: Fear not! although he was not responsible for this Heywood, Lancashire, case he will soon be confronted with one of his first tests over the doubtless pathetic LC response to all these ignored dead-easy bang-to-rights cases, when that pathetic response eventually arrives- it’s already 4 months since the complaint.
I have little doubt Snowden will fail this test just like his hopeless predecessor did- the excuse will be something like ‘we can’t interfere with operational decisions by the police’- operational decisions are what we complain about, not philosophical discussions about the morality of offences and so on!
best edited pics I can come
best edited pics I can come up with so far tried every software going but pixel resolution just not high enough
Honestly, it may be good
Honestly, it may be good enough to use as supporting evidence if the vehicle is found through other means. You can’t tell what it is, but you can tell what it isn’t.
pic 2
pic 2
This NMOTD needs an 18
This NMOTD needs an 18 certificate.
Have you got back on the bike ?
hirsute wrote:
I had to ride home on the pavement all the way but I do not drive so this is my only way of getting to work, I have not been back on that road again yet though
its one of flaws of the
its one of flaws of the Cycliq IMO,in lowlight conditions, vehicles moving above 30mph,obviously the rain doesnt help either, but the sensor really struggles to pick out readable plates in footage, you can see even with the truck though its not much further away its not readable at all, you can kind of make out like an S or 5 and 7 on the car.
I humbly suggest that the
I humbly suggest that the rear facing Cycliq 6 is able to take the rear plate of a head on passing vehicle though spray may be an issue. 1080p video does provide good resolution for VRN identification. Also a rear mud guard is needed to prevent rear wheel spray / mud coverage.
potentially yes, but I think
potentially yes, but I think it would still suffer the same problem with the light conditions and the speed the car is travelling for the sensor to be able to cope, its one of the things I wish camera reviews focussed on more because there maybe settings you could change, the frame rate, stabilisation,lighting, even camera position that would make it work better.
Im not knocking Cycliq specifically, my original GoPro was alot worse in those types of conditions,and struggled just on cloudy days.
but we dont buy these cameras to make exciting footage for youtube videos, we buy these cameras to offer a sense of protection that if someone does drive like a lunatic and put you in danger, youve got submissable evidence and a number plate.
Awavey, one place I find that
Awavey, one place I find that always gives in depth reviews on tech is a guy called DC Rainmaker (www.dcrainmaker.com). He breaks down most things like battery life, image stabilisation, frame rates, image quality etc. He reviews most items of tech from watches, gps head units, cameras all cycling/triathlon related.
No amount of image
No amount of image stabilisation will fix subject movement, nor even constant camera movement – and here you have both in spades. What is needed is a fast shutter speed so that, whatever the frame rate, each frame is only open long enough to freeze the movement. And that is the one metric never given.
You said that last week and
You said that last week and the response is they all have a picture resolution and fps setting. If you use vlc player, E will step through frame by frame.
The drift 4k+ will do 1080p at 120 fps and 4k at 25 fps
hirsute wrote:
So, still no shutter speed then?
I think you derive it
I think you derive it according to here – roughly double
https://vimeo.com/blog/post/frame-rate-vs-shutter-speed-setting-the-record-str/
The general rule of thumb for
The general rule of thumb for video cameras such as GoPro, TomTom and Garmin etc the shutter speed is approximately half that of the frame rate i.e. 60fps = 1/120th of a second. so that in essence the shutter is open for 50% of the time and closed for 50% of the time. So the only way to increase shutter speed is to increase the FPS.
You cannot significantly change that ratio in video mode otherwise the video would appear jumpy.
And there’s the issue – by
And there’s the issue – by holding the shutter open longer within each frame you just end up will a nice fluid blur, instead of a series of sharp frames. (Although, at even 60fps, it won’t seem jumpy regardless of shutter speed – I suspect they favour slower shutter speeds to reduce noise, given the constraints of a tiny pixel size, low light and small lens aperture).
High frame rates come at the cost of battery and memory consumption. The needs of cyclists diverge from YouTube posters – we want sharp frames, even if the frame rate is not especially high and the noise levels are sub-par.
Drift say they have
Drift say they have
PHOTOBURST MODE
(Cyan LED) The camera will capture a burst of still images for an allotted duration and at a specified rate, when the button is pressed. For best results, use a memory card with the highest possible data rate.
Not entirely sure this will help as you need some premonition.
Then there is TIMELAPSE MODE
(Purple LED) Press the button to capture a series of still images at a specified rate. The Status LED and LCD screen will flash red each time an image is captured. To stop recording, press the button once more.
This sounds more promising but you would need 2 cameras in order to make a police submission !
The shutter on these small
The shutter on these small cameras tend to be a ‘rolling shutter’ where horizontal lines of pixels are exposed sequentially, which can give that jellyvision effect when there’s vibration and fast motion.
Pixel sensitivity and dynamic range are the key metrics. The shutter speed is varied by the camera dependent on lighting conditions in order to control the exposure. But still, they don’t tell you what imaging sensor they are using.
The main problem in this case was water on the lens. I might try fashioning a rain cover for my Fly12 to see if this helps in heavy rain.
That monster dangerous scrote
That monster dangerous scrote needs stopping whatever it takes.
Maniacs like them need caging and bsnning before they kill.
I wonder if DVLA, aswel as any owners of cctv in the area covering the road, would assist in identifying the car as seems the make, colour and possibly the model, is known >certainly needs persuing and treated as a serious crime of endangerment and threatening life☡
An extraordinary piece of sh
An extraordinary piece of sh*te and thank the cyclist for being ok. Just to play devils advocate here, could it have been possible that a) the driver was inexperienced or elderly, and b) the driver really did not see the cyclist?either way it is without doubt the driver to he 99% at fault and
Why not 100%?
Why not 100%?
Blackthorne wrote:
Perhaps.
Inexperienced… shame they weren’t carrying P plates! Inexperience to me denotes getting yourself into a situation that could have been avoided with the benefit of aquired knowledge. I’d find it hard to accept that o/taking in the wet and in the face of oncoming falls into this category.
Elderly… As elderly drivers are no more dangerous as a group than any other drivers (and safer than some other age groups) it’s about as relevant as saying male or female. My experience of elderly drivers is that they are usually more cautious, slower, and less likely to perform dangerous o/taking maneuvers than younger drivers. Noting the use of the concept of “liklihood” in teh above, I just don’t think that age as a general consideration is a relevant factor here.
Did not see…. That’s probably worse than did see and did it anyway. The conditions themselves said “don’t o/take”. My opinion, and it is personal opinion , is that o/taking a road user that is making reasonable progress (albeit slower than you would like) is a bum move in any situation. In the wet and in the face of oncoming, it’s facking murderous and calls for revocation pending extra training.
This particular driver is a complete w&nker and needs their licence taking off them.
My guess would be “didn’t see
My guess would be “didn’t see”. There would have been loads of spray from the wagon to add to the sketchy conditions, the cyclist’s light would have been just another artefact of light spangling the windscreen.
So in those conditions you don’t overtake! You have to realise that visibility is poor and you simply can’t see. That’s what annoys me so much when motorists get off on the SMIDSY excuse – the jury just agrees, “well, if the cyclists couldn’t be seen (i.e. it’s the cyclist’s fault now), then what’s a motorist to do?”
Sriracha wrote:
Quite, it’s not that they “thought” there was a clear road, they deliberately accelerated hard into a situation that they were blind to.
40 MPH road and I expect the
40 MPH road and I expect the truck is easily doing that.
It is a person who has woken up and is still tired but is in a rush to get in for the 6am shift and woe betide anyone getting in their way.
The driver is 100% at fault –
The driver is 100% at fault – if you cannot be sure that it is safe to overtake and complete the overtake safely then you simply do not do it…. end of story.
Inexperienced or elderly – that is simply an excuse used by people to defend sh!tty driving
they really did not see the cyclist – I call BS on that they saw the cyclist and chose to overtake.
Watch the video closely, as they start the overtake, they are giving the lorry a wide berth (almost touching the pavement on the side of the road where the bike is). They spot the cyclist before their bonnet is fully past the back of the lorry, and rather than brake and abandon the maneuver….. they plow on regardless.
No way on this earth is this anything other than an example of a driver who should be removed from the road at the earliest opportunity
Blackthorne wrote:
No. The motorist was 100% at fault. They were not driving to the conditions of the road. They barrelled out regardless due to their impatience to overtake the HGV.
The HGV would have been throwing up a serious amount of surface water to make an overtake dangerous. Especially as it was being driven at its limit meaning that the motorist would have possibly been in excess of 60 to make the pass.
The weather is crap. Wet and heavily overcast resulting in poor visibility. Remember. You only overtake when safe to do so and you can see ahead. Imagine if it had have been a vehicle not using headlights rather than a cyclist.
The HGV driver had not dropped his speed to a level that would allow for a safe overtake. And anyway. In those conditions regardless of the tech in the car I would have dropped my speed to 45/50 simply because of the surface water, possible oil/diesel and muck on the road and visibility. I would also have kept my distance with the vehicle ahead. All that stuff I was taught 35years ago when learning to drive.
Hoping that the cyclist gets some traction in regards to action from the authorities if not in a prosecution possibly a greater police presence along the road or change in speed limit especially as it has been mentioned that there has been other incidents.
I understand peoples comments
I understand peoples comments about the police not being able to do much but they could have at least contacted me to tell me there is not enough evidence to pursue this any further. I do not even know if they have looked at the footage.
I have had many near passes and close shaves on this road another example happened just 3 days earlier to this incident on the same road going in opposite direction at nearly the same spot
https://youtu.be/sfoZCMGODyw (includes swearing – sorry)
This incident was different though if I had been hit I would be dead simple as that and to me this goes beyond a simple near miss but endangering my life and last night having to look at updating my will hit home just how lucky I am.
I am going up there today to try get more evidence from any cctv or cameras near by and will update you all on my progress, if any
greystoke wrote:
Good luck, I hope you find someone willing to help. That toe rag needs to be removed from the road before they kill someone.
Hope you turn something up.
Hope you turn something up. Thank you for putting effort into this. It would benefit everyone for something to be done about this driver and sends a signal to other potential miscreants that there’s a fair chance of getting caught.
That one is almost as
That one is almost as horrific as the head on with the lunatic in the car. Hope you followed it up with the transport company of the lorry involved.
Not knowing that road. how brave you are or the general disposition of drivers along that stretch but you could easily justify a stronger position in the carriageway, if nothing else to ride outside the line of potholes rather than so close to the kerb, where you have no safety margin. Or doing so could get you killed!
Shit driving needs to be tackled for the benefit of all road users not just cyclists and others classed as “vulnerable”, hope you keep persisting with your local road safety unit.
Mungecrundle wrote:
I have contacted the company in question but have not had a response as of yet.
Luckily the cycliq camera takes much better footage in good conditions
Different police force, but
Different police force, but sobering reading – even a retired police inspector for North Wales Police struggles to get his former mates to take any interest in a deliberate and pre-meditated attack with a car:
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/former-police-officer-says-driver-threatened-to-knock-him-off-and-kill-him-before-crashing-into-him-and-fleeing-the-scene
They take these things “very seriously”, of course.
Sriracha wrote:
I’d be interested to see the results of a survey on this one.
How many of ‘us’ have ever had an oncoming vehicle actually stop and let you through, even if the line of parked cars was on their side of the road and technically (legally!) you have priority?
brooksby wrote:
Usually folk force their way through, even against kids. There is one that sticks in my mind one though when a car backed down and moved in – I gave him a thank-you wave. I have a suspicion that he spotted my camera flashing red, so it was clear that he was being filmed – I have no way of knowing whether that is the case, or whether he genuinely reassessed and pulled in. Also I suppose that a fairly big bloke in primary might have figured heavily part of this reassessment – especially when as he initially went to go through I held ground and stood up on the pegs, which may be considered a sign that I wasn’t going anywhere. (with a nod to conversation with Grouse above it was a narrow street at lowish speed with plenty of separation to see how things developed)
To be fair, if there is an
To be fair, if there is an adjacent lay-by on my side I’d be taking advantage of the opportunity it presents to ease the situation; whether I was driving or cycling I’d pull in to let the oncoming car by. Mutual cooperation is required in some settings, a few friendly hand signals, and all is well – although I appreciate that many times the oncoming driver enforces the “cooperation”, especially if you are on a bike.
But that is not what this was about – the car driver then doubled back to attack the cyclist, and yet the police were not interested.
brooksby wrote:
Brooksby…. not very often is my experience. Most recent example I have took place here (Ovingham Bridge)
https://www.google.com/maps/@54.9662906,-1.8659678,3a,75y,324.85h,73.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOog56Hd15vraEPY6SHuugA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I was already on the bridge nearly half way across when a car decided that they had right of way and came onto the bridge. He then shouted at me to use the “f@%king path” (the one that quite clearly states no cycling). But the best part is, he was crossing the bridge towards a level crossing which was stopping cars (and the nature of that crossing means that the barriers are down for extended periods because there is a station right next to it).
Basically they were in a hurry and willing to get aggressive over it to rush to join the back of a queue of traffic.
never IME, Ive had learner
never IME, Ive had learner drivers under tuition/test do it to me and even the police once, its a perennial problem as the street I live on has parked cars one side (most of the time, its slowly spreading to both) with gaps spaced out so vehicles could stop, and Ill ride down my side of the road usually in prime to stop overtakes from behind, but everybody just drives straight at me, some even deliberately accelerate to try to scare me out of their way.
I once had a fascinating conversation with a builder, who I stopped, who reckoned he’d saved my life for not driving into me, and I should be thanking him for that and that I should have been riding on my side of the road, I think he meant not in prime bearing in mind at this point he was driving fully on the right hand side of the road, and my side of the road to him was basically the gap between the pavement and the yellow lines. I made sure I delayed him long enough to explain to him I wouldnt ride like that and to highlight his lack of patience had cost him far more time than if he’d just waited not even 10 seconds to let me pass through. (it was also the conversation that made me realise its pointless talking to most drivers in these situations because they dont understand a damn thing)
brooksby wrote:
I had an elderly woman recently who refused to pull in and we both came to a dead stop wheel to bumper. One thing lead to another and her angry male passenger jumped out of the car to try to force the point.
Let’s just say I doubt he will do something quite so stupid again.
I had one a long time back,
I had one a long time back, car driver overtaking another car, at night, fast, no room, had to bail into the bushes and pull the bike with me.
My fully legal but weak early 90s light obviously not enough. It was terrifying.
Good luck with your efforts.
F@&k me, that has to be one
F@&k me, that has to be one of the scariest near misses I have ever seen. The fact that the police will not take it upon themselves to do anything is beyond belief. It is a shame that the wagon in the clip doesn’t have any livery on it as I think that dash cams are becoming far more common in lorries and they may have been able to help.
I wish you all the best in contacting the local businesses along that road to see if they have any useable CCTV footage. But as Sriracha suggests it might be worthwhile scoping out the road around the commuting time to see if they make another appearance.
I really hope you get some evidence to back up your case, and if so that driver needs banned without a shadow of a doubt. It is only a mix of your experience as a cyclist and pure luck that the police did not have a potentially fatal RTC to attend that morning.
i might have been tempted to
i might have been tempted to suffer their wing mirror hitting my handlebars, after adopting a strong posture. easy to say afterwards, of course.
With a 1.5T coming at you at
With a 1.5T coming at you at over 70 kph ? I doubt that is even possible and the expected outcome is fatal.
reasonable rebuttal.
reasonable rebuttal.
folding door mirror housings are a thing, of course. big chunky metal bar-ends are a thing too.
the infamous grouse wrote:
that’s all fine and well, but you know that strong posture you indcate that you would take….. that necessitates holding on to the handlebars which are going to be struck. And your best likley outcome is that you end up with bruised fingers as your hand is struck by the wing mirror.
Alternative outcome is that you end up with broken bones in your hand caused by the impact, and the force of the twisting motion on your handlebars results in signficant soft tissue injuries to your shoulder (possible dislocation or broken collar bone) and you get spat onto the pavement by the force of the impact
the infamous grouse wrote:
No you wouldn’t…
Captain Badger wrote:
unless you know me personally, and i know that you don’t, you can’t make that claim. back to myspace with you. 🙂
the infamous grouse wrote:
Myspace? dunno, never heard of it.
Sorry I assumed that a rational individual wouldn’t consider a deliberate head-on collision (however glancing) with a vehicle travelling at 50+(?) whilst they were riding a bike.
My assumptions were off, and the above does not describe you. My apologies….
Captain Badger wrote:
very gracious. in all fairness, i’m not generally representative
the infamous grouse wrote:
It is of course said that you are infamous….
Captain Badger wrote:
obligatory frankie howard. as most cyclists feel about car drivers.
Captain Badger wrote:
…and a grouse. They do have form for standing their ground (or equivocating until too late) in the face of certain destruction by a car. So I’m calling this one for the grouse!
Sriracha wrote:
It is said that you are infamous….
— Captain Badger …and a grouse. They do have form for standing their ground (or equivocating until too late) in the face of certain destruction by a car. So I’m calling this one for the grouse!— the infamous grouse
In any case, the driver would obviously have backed off in this scenario, because grouse are out of season.
See NMOTD 520. No where near
See NMOTD 520. No where near as fast. Read the comments.
Bungle_52 wrote:
i remember that one.
i’ve had my offside bar-end clipped by oncoming vehicles on singletrack roads while slowing/waiting in a passing place — where there is more than sufficient clearance for a driver to safely pass. in all cases the driver left the scene rapidly. the inward angle of the bar-end offers some protection for the hand and i’ve been fortunate that there has never been a more considerable overlap. reporting it is always a waste of time as @polscotrpu aren’t interested unless you died as a result, and even then they’ll prosecute you for coming back to life without the appropriate approvals.
it was my final motivation for purchasing a helmet camera, which feels like less of a valuable purchase now as i havent had that particular experience since.
You may remember James
You may remember James Cracknell was hit on the head by a truck wing mirror (admittedly bigger) and he very nearly died and was wearing a helmet. I dont like to think what would be left of your hand/shoulder/arm after a collision. Remember water is like concrete at speed. Hard plastic is going to sting!
Nikonitis wrote:
Ah, but was it a wing mirror?? Correct usage or else swldxxer will come for you!
Watching the video closely
Watching the video closely you can see the car start to overtake the lorry. When they start the maneuver they appear to be almost touching the pavement on the side of the road where Greystoke was cycling.
You can then see the point where they realise that there is a bike, and that is at a point where they could have braked and safely dropped back in behind the lorry, I reckon that they spotted the bike before the front of their car had a foot (maybe two) of overlap with the lorry.
But what they chose to do was continue on with their maneuver and get as close to the lorry as they could and force greystoke to take evasive action to avoid the collision.
someone somewhere must sell
someone somewhere must sell some sort of hydrophobic treatment for sports camera optics. ?
Not sure if it would work,
Not sure if it would work, but as a swimmer you can buy specific anti-fog spray for your goggles, or alternatively use a little bit of washing up liquid on the lens, rub it in and then rinse it off and dry. That works to prevent fogging in goggles.
Im assuming that would work well on certain cameras (certainly my virb XE) which has a flat plastic lens cover over the actual lens
Rain-X?
Rain-X (but only for glass lens)?
Or https://clicklikethis.com/prevent-water-drops-on-gopro/
The same polish that works on
The same polish that works on glasses should be fine for a camera, however the build up of water is related to the lens shape and surrounding camera bodywork. Slightly convex is best to ensure that the water will flow off thanks to the polish. Typically the lens is protected by a surrounding cylinder that prevents the water flow. Some drilling required!
Of course it never rains so why would product developers test for that…
Andrew Snowden has been
Andrew Snowden has been elected as Lancashire’s first Conservative police and crime commissioner, according to the BBC. Mr Snowden said he wanted “more bobbies on the beat” and to “get stuck in to clamping down on anti-social behaviour”.
So I suggest that you put him to the test on anti-social behaviour, which this bad driving clearly is:
Tweets from Cllr Andrew Snowden (@A_J_Snowden)
lonpfrb wrote:
I understand peoples comments about the police not being able to do much but they could have at least contacted me to tell me there is not enough evidence to pursue this any further. I do not even know if they have looked at the footage.
— lonpfrb Andrew Snowden has been elected as Lancashire’s first Conservative police and crime commissioner, according to the BBC. Mr Snowden said he wanted “more bobbies on the beat” and to “get stuck in to clamping down on anti-social behaviour”.
So I suggest that you put him to the test on anti-social behaviour, which this bad driving clearly is: Tweets from Cllr Andrew Snowden (@A_J_Snowden) — greystoke
He would, of course, shrug his shoulders and point him to Andy Burnham who, as GM Mayor, assumes the responsibilities for the GM PCC.
“It happened in Heywood,
“It happened in Heywood, Lancashire as road.cc reader Graham was going to work at 6am on Saturday morning.”
It might be Lancashire for
It might be Lancashire for the address (county area) but Heywood comes under Greater Manchester Police Force which as GMBasix points out, comes under GM PCC who is appointed by Andy.