Sometimes in our Near Miss of the Day series, we have a video that strictly speaking shouldn’t qualify for it, because rather than being a close pass, the driver has actually made contact with the cyclist, and that’s what we have today with this clip from West Yorkshire.
The footage was sent in by road.cc reader Andy, who said: “The incident happened on Côte de Otley Chevin (East Chevin Road) on 8 September.
“The Black Ford Focus which turned out to not be registered, taxed, MOTd or insured hit my right elbow with it’s door mirror at speed.
“Luckily, the only damage was a rip in my new jersey and a slight graze,” 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">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
45 thoughts on “(Not so) Near Miss of the Day 469: Uninsured driver hits cyclist with wing mirror”
How are cars even on the road
How are cars even on the road with no VED, insurance and MOT? It’s all on databases and there’s ANPR cameras everywhere. How hard can it be to get these vehicles lifted and crushed, along with all those with obscured dark plates?
Sriracha wrote:
This a good example why illegal vehicles need removing from the road. They are often driven dangerously. Sadly, the police are so stretched that they don’t see this as a priority.
Years ago my car was rear-ended by a vehicle that had been registered as scrapped with the DVLA – obviously no MOT, insurance etc. They tried to do a runner and overtook me, but their front wheel was mashed so pulled over when I gave chase and they knew they weren’t getting away.
Despite getting all the details of the driver at the scene, the police were not interested in prosecuting any driving offences.
Sriracha wrote:
There are 38 million cars in the UK. 13% are not insured, which is one in eight. So, on average, for every group of cars that goes through a green traffic light, one of them is unsured, plus the ninth that squeezes through on red. 1.6% are untaxed, which is 634,000 of them. ANPR does untaxed vehicles, both moving and parked, but uninsured is more difficult to enforce because of policies that allow people to drive any vehicle etc. If your untaxed moving car is seen by one of the DVLA vehicles you’ll get a notice through the post. If it’s parked, it will be clamped and towed 24 hours later if you haven’t paid up.
nniff wrote:
Not so. In the terms and conditions of every insurance policy I’ve had that allowed me to drive other vehicles (maybe I’m the only person that reads this) it has said that the vehicle has to already have an underlying insurance policy. My insurance generally didn’t cover me to drive an uninsured car.
What I can’t understand is that you have to have insurance to tax a vehicle – and yet there’s a big disparity in the untaxed vs uninsured cars. Does that suggest people get insurance to tax a vehicle then cancel that insurance (maybe within the 14 day cool off period)?
Yes, this is my understanding
Yes, this is my understanding too – otherwise, there is a loophole that allows me to drive a Ferrari on only my I10 insurance….
Uninsured, untaxed, no MOT
Uninsured, untaxed, no MOT and criminal activity (especially theft, burglarly and drugs) tend to go together. Getting rid of the tax disk made it harder for the police to spot untaxed vehicles during routine patrols.
Routine patrols – can I move
Routine patrols – can I move where you live ?!
I’d hope there is an app for that – point camera at plate, it comes back and says if ok.
Indeed. I wlso found it a
Indeed. I also found it a handy reminder for when I needed to renew….
It’s not a loophole. My
It’s not a loophole. My insurance states
The Policyholder may also drive in the UK, any private motor car not owned by or registered to, and not hired, rented or leased to the Policyholder, their employer or business partner. This cover only applies if the Policyholder is still the owner or main driver of the insured vehicle as identified by the registration mark above
BUT we will cover your legal liability for the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to property (or both) caused by you driving any other private motor car (this does not include any commercial vehicle, motorcycle or any other motor vehicle) that you don’t own, is not registered to you and is not hired to you under a hire purchase or rental or lease agreement…
…We will not insure loss of or damage to the private motor car you are driving under this section.
So I could drive the Ferrari but if I wrote it off, I would be a very poor man for the rest of my life.
If I bought a Ferrari I’d be
If I bought a Ferrari I’d be a poor man for the rest of my life. So no change there…..
There still needs to be an
There still needs to be an insurance policy covering the specific vehicle – legal requirement. And that’s why the loophole isn’t one. Your insurance may cover you to drive it, but somewhere there needs to be a policy that covers things like the unattended vehicle catching fire or rolling away etc.
I have had this confirmed by watching too much Channel 5 and ITV4.
It is estimated that there
It is estimated that there are over 1 million uninsured vehicles on UK roads
If an ANPR equipped police
If an ANPR equipped police car happens to ‘see’ a car without VED etc, then I’m sure police will investigate if they’re available and not on their way to something higher priority. But tracking an untaxed etc car through stationary ANPR cameras while no doubt possible is probably too laborious and uncertain to be justified for these sorts of crime. Some untaxed etc cars will also be on cloned plates so that they wouldn’t register on ANPR in the first place.
I must keep this video to
I must keep this video to show when somebody goes on about how cyclists should have registration plates
That’s seriously scary.
That’s seriously scary. Surely the cops will have to take action. If the vehicle isn’t insured, MOTd and hasn’t had VED paid, then that’s worth at least 9 penalty points. Then there’s the matter of crossing double white lines, plus driving so close that the cyclist was actually hit, which at the very least should qualify for driving without due care and attention. In theory, the driver should be banned for 12 months. That’s assuming the driver actually has a licence in the first place.
Can we get an update on what
Can we get an update on what the outcome of any police enquiries were? My concern is the bit where it says the vehicle wasn’t registered. This to my understanding means that it is using fake number plates, so is untraceable.
When a car sold the keeper
When a car sold the keeper (seller) sends the V5 to the DVLA with the new keepers (buyers) Name and address, but it’s easy to give the seller fake details and the vehicle then effectively becomes unregistered. Or it could be on fake or cloned plates.
I’m interested to know if the
I’m interested to know if the police provided any response as well. Having reported a few times to the West Yorkshire portal, they state that they will not provide any response whatsoever beyond the automated confirmation of upload, unless they require your assistance in court. Utterly, utterly unacceptable btw
If the car hits the rider
If the car hits the rider then surely they are definitely a victim and not merely a witness?
Correct ktache, technically
Correct ktache, technically this is Fail To Stop accident, as ‘owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road’ a collision occurred as a result of which damage occurred – the tear to the rider’s jersey.
If it was reported to the police (legally the car driver’s responsibility, but, well you know) then it should have been recorded as an RTC and investigated.
CyclingMikey gets conviction
CyclingMikey gets conviction information from the Metropolitan police.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF45F148D5B8AE101
I am curious if these and
I am curious if these and other such videos have been submitted to the Police? Having just bought cameras for my bike the police submission page says not to upload to social media as CPS say it mat affect any proceedings.
It’s a DOOR mirror.
It’s a DOOR mirror.
Not you again…
Not you again…
No it isn’t: https://www
No it isn’t: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/wing-mirror
Are they attached to the door
Are they attached to the door or the front wing? If it’s the former, then it is obviously a door mirror. Wing mirrors went out decades ago.
It’s a side[-view] mirror.
It’s a side[-view] mirror.
Can we all move along now please?
You forgot to add FACT
You forgot to add FACT
Are you a bot similar to the cycling bot on twitter ?
End of.
End of.
swldxer wrote:
So a vulnerable road user gets skelped by an uninsured unregistered vehicle and all you can bring to the conversation is this!
Nope. Language doesn’t work
Nope. Language doesn’t work like that – if it did then we’d have to rename dual carriageways because they aren’t used by carriages any more.
It’s a wing mirror, because everyone calls it a wing mirror and knows exactly what is being talked about when someone says “wing mirror”, whereas if you go around talking about “door mirrors” you will cause confusion and bewidlerment with the majority of people.
Clearly a chronic criminal,
Clearly a chronic criminal, but since the plate isn’t readable, how was it established that it wasn’t registered, insured, MoT’d or VED paid?
In the video on Youtube it
In the video on Youtube it isn’t readable but that could be down to compression values etc that is used to save space. Original recording might be clearer.
Technically it may be called
Technically it may be called a ‘wing mirror’ but mirrors haven’t been prevalent on car wings since the 70’s!
Where is your wing mirror? I’m sure someone somewhere is thinking about starting a petition.
peted76 wrote:
Plenty of Japanese cars have had mirrors on what we in NZ call front mudguards into the ’90s.
“wing” – flying car?!
If it’s a Lamborghini
If it’s a Lamborghini Countach or Mercedes 300 SLR with gull wing doors is the mirror then both types?
Failing to stop?
Failing to stop?
If drivers were obliged to
If drivers were obliged to have registration plates, training, insurance, be licenced and pay road tax this guy would be traceable and this would never happen… Wait a minute.
That is shocking the driver
That is shocking the driver needs tracked down and prosecuted.
There is however a bit of an issue with this feature. It should be filled purely with the incidents that the police have chosen not to prosecute. When I was told a Fixed Penalty Notice was being issued to a driver in relation to an incident I was told not to post the video on Social Media or otherwise make it public as it would adversely affect chances of a prosecution should the driver dispute the charge and request their date in court.
So if the driver gets issued with a NIP, and disputes it, this video could be tainted as evidence…. just saying. And remember lawyers will use any excuse to get evidence thrown out.
The police post out videos
The police post out videos all the time in an effort to track people down. Surely if what you state is the case then anyone arrested afterwards would not be able to be charged, face trial and sentenced if found guilty.
I suspect it is mostly because they don’t want the bad publicity if they don’t do anything or 200 people posting a link to the Super.
TriTaxMan wrote:
The issue is not the evidence being tainted, but a jury becoming biased prior to the case being held. This is the reason comments are not allowed on some news articles.
In reality, there are many cases where video evidence has been publically released and discussed in the media prior to a trial without it being a problem.
One of the key tests the police use is ‘is it in the public interest to prosecute’.
I think that telling the police the footage I submitted had been published in the cycling media gave some weight to that argument.
This is the one who hit me
This is the one who hit me with his nearside front door mirror (there seems to be an outbreak of pedantry about) while doing 50 mph and crossing the unbroken white line. Complete lack of response from Lancashire Constabulary, but I was a novice at this business back then- now I would just fire in a complaint to LC (worthless, of course, because they always find that they were correct, but they still have to go through the paperwork and effort) and wtite to my MP. I have done that with the recent LC policy of refusing to allocate incident numbers and refusing to respond to any letters about incidents. especially those involving motorists crashing red lights
Well done, and thank you.
Well done, and thank you. Make them work hard enough to cover up their laziness and incompetence and eventually it will be easier for them to do the job properly.
Unfortunately you are wasting
Unfortunately you are wasting your time with Lancashire Constabulary, they simply don’t care or don’t have the resources, or both.
Well done for making them do something though.
Keep up the good work and
Keep up the good work and thank you for your efforts. If only Roadd c c would do something for us.