*Update (November 24): The driver has been suspended by his firm, pending further investigation*
*Update (December 4): The driver has left the firm following a disciplinary process*
Today’s breath-taking near miss sees the driver of a builder’s merchants lorry cutting the corner when turning into a side road and almost flattening a cyclist in the process. The manoeuvre itself is only half the story however.
The incident occurred on Thursday on Stoke Road in Sonning Common, at the junction with Gravel Hill.
Secret_squirrel writes: “I had some new kit arrive – ironically a fluoro gilet – and an hour to kill so I thought I would take it for a test ride. Turns out all the fluoro or lights in the world means nothing if the driver doesn’t look or has some very iffy looking wing mirrors.”
Secret_squirrel said that even after he stopped and shouted, the driver continued, forcing him to get out of the way.
“When I challenged him on his driving, he replied that his view had been blocked by the silver deflectors on his wing mirrors, and that he had to turn quickly as the oncoming traffic tended to be fast.
“After exchanging a few more words, he left without leaving any contact details.”
Secret_squirrel has submitted the footage to Thames Valley Police and also to the business in question. He was told that the firm would investigate which driver was involved and get back to him.
“The white 4×4 driver was really nice,” he added, “as was a lady from a nearby house who offered me a cup of tea.”
> 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
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
75 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 501 (UPDATED): HGV driver said he had to cut corner because of fast oncoming traffic”
I’m intrigued to hear how
I’m intrigued to hear how this is going to be blamed on the cyclist…
Me too. I’m sure it’s my
Me too. I’m sure it’s my fault some how
Oddly, I didn’t see any
Oddly, I didn’t see any oncoming traffic, let alone any fast ones.
Wow. That is spectacularly
Wow. That is spectacularly incompetent. Par for the course is for someone to pitch in with post hoc insight like, “It was obvious what was going to happen”, “The cyclist put himself in a dangerous position”, “He should have slowed down”, “He should have taken primary”. You’ve heard it all before. Personally, I can see nothing whatsoever in mitigation for the driver.
I’d be minded to claim against them for personal injury – that’s going to stay with him a very long time. This speaking as the innocent party in a hit and run – we’re not victims now, just witnesses, you will recall.
nniff wrote:
Section 170 – If the PRESENCE of the vehicle causes harm or injury to persons or property – details MUST be provided – check over the bike (& you) for harm, & discuss claim with BC/CUK?
You could have popped into
You could have popped into their site down the road and reported it directly to the site manager.
I’m sure they’ll be aware of the junction and maybe tell their drivers to try not to kill cyclists there because it’s bad for publicity?
I was in no condition or
I was in no condition or desire for a possible confrontation at the site – just wanted home & cup of tea ASAP.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
These guys
PEPPARD BUILDING SUPPLIES LIMITED
Licence details (OH2016512)
Directors
Arthur Nicholas John Butler
Richard Lance Butler
Licence type
Standard National
Licence status
Valid
Continuation date
31 Dec 2023
Traffic area
West of England
Contact details
Address
Peppard Building Supplies, Bishopsland Farm, Dunsden, Reading, RG4 9NR, GB
Operating centres
Operating centre
BISHOPSLAND FARM, DUNSDEN, READING, RG4 9NR, GB
Vehicles 8
Trailers 0
Transport Managers
Name
RICHARD LANCE BUTLER
Not on CLOCS Register?
Class 6 mirror looks a bit askew. Class 1 mirror patched up with an alloy plate bolted on to front face – DVSA might take an interest? Often a detail gets them interested & they start looking more closely
CUK had a case with the regulator in Kent, where a Company started using a farm site down a narrow lane with a width restriction – had no planning permission for change of use, and no one had raised access issue on O Licence application. The number of truck movements was restricted to 2 per day per truck, and they were given a directive to move to a more suitable location. Same with company whose manager was driving truck that killed at The Bank – using a farm as operating base, and licence prohibited use of specified lane to access the site
Stoke Row Road cuts the corner vs staying on B481, looks a bit narrow for regular through HGV traffic. Perhaps a case of ‘Except for Access’ condition
A V Lowe wrote:
It would cut the corner if the lorry had been approaching from the south and turning into Stoke Row Road, but in the case almost certainly longer as the lorry was coming from the north. either he was delivering onto stoek row road itself, or using this junction added 600m to the journey. Perhaps he missed the previous junction.
Squirrels have a bad rep on
Squirrels have a bad rep on this site. Expect no sympathy!
Lorry driver is guilty. The
Lorry driver is guilty. The police will try to ignore it because you weren’t even run over. Don’t let them! Complain, and continue beyond the first stage where they don’t respond, beyond the second stage where they say they will ‘have a word with the driver’, beyond the third stage where the second officer says that the first officer was correct etc. etc. etc.
Amazing how quickly it was
Amazing how quickly it was that the mass pile up of vehicles occured.
“My mirrors don’t show what is round a corner behind a hedge – how could I know what was there ?”
hirsute wrote:
I know the junction, it’s terrible. I can see how this happened, but a quick move of the head to look past the mirror (and maybe not rushing to beat oncoming traffic) and it could/should have been completely avoided. Not looking for cyclists sometimes means not actually seeing them.
Or you could come to a stop
Or you could come to a stop before proceeding in a spot that allows you to turn as safely as possible.. You could even sound your horn.
Or you could actually turn
Or you could actually turn into the correct lane in the first place.
Doesn’t look possible for a
Doesn’t look possible for a large vehicle to make the turn without encroaching. Poster Chris mentioned buses in that corner earlier.
hirsute wrote:
Far from ideal for HGVs to make this turn at all. turning right here requires turning through 160 degrees. Far better for the wagon to have taken the previous right turn (Gallowstree road). With this junction being only 2km away from the vehicle owners premesis the drivers should be familiar with the junction and not use it.
One of the worst cases of
One of the worst cases of dangerous driving I have seen, well below the standard of a careful and competent driver and don’t let Thames Valley Police pretend otherwise. Be sure to update us with the result.
Why is this video up if it
Why is this video up if it has been submitted to the police?
Why is this video up if it
Why is this video up if it has been submitted to the police?
Because this police dodge that they ‘can’t accept it as evidence’ if it has been made public is complete tripe, like all the other dodges like ‘we must have 5 minutes before and after or th video in unacceptable’. They’re all just ways of avoiding work.
Even if you think it is tripe
Even if you think it is tripe why would you do it? It’s not like it is out of your control in the way +/-2 minutes is
It had occurred to me to wait
It had occurred to me to wait, but tbh my preference is that their site deals with it so fingers crossed they do. If the police pay them a visit that’s a bonus. Plus I found creating the video for Road.cc somewhat more therapeutic than filling in the TVP form.
Abiut the only thing I regret not doing is lifting the bike to catch the drivers face on camera. C’est la vie.
hirsute wrote:
Certainly with the Met (in my experience) having posted on social media at the same time as submitting to the police isn’t a problem. When they send an email saying they intend to send a Notice of Intended Prosecution to the driver they ask you to take it down from any social media, they don’t say if it’s been on social media we can’t proceed.
well certainly in the Mets
well certainly in the Mets case they often deal with cases where video footage evidence has been broadcast on national tv before theyve pursued a prosecution, so Im always slightly dubious that its a strict legal requirement
Certainly with the Met (in my
Certainly with the Met (in my experience) having posted on social media at the same time as submitting to the police isn’t a problem
Any police force that uses that as an excuse for doing nothing clearly has ‘doing nothing’ as its main aim in life. If they didn’t have that, they would just dream up some other excuse: many will recall the Essex Police designation of a serious close pass as insignificant because the cyclist hadn’t wobbled or braked. This would have been hilarious if the matter wasn’t so serious- what Essex Police want is cyclist blood on the road. What they mean by wobble is ‘can you prove he actually hit you’, and what they would say if you did wobble after being hit by the mirror, say, is ‘there is insufficient evidence that the vehicle directly caused the wobble’. When it comes to stupid assertions and statements, the police are hard to beat. I have an extensive list from Lancashire- pity we don’t have a Stupid Police Statement of the Day.
hirsute wrote:
Why shouldn’t it?
You don’t think this video is in the public’s interest that may help save lifes?
Essex Police will review your
‘Essex Police will review your submission in line with current prosecution policies and the decision on how the matter is dealt with is final. Although Essex Police Staff are not able to discuss the outcome from your submission you can view its progress on the SERP website.
Unfortunately if the evidence submitted has been posted on any social media sites or you tube then we regret that we will be unable to process your submission as the it will have been compromised.’
I know some say it is all bollocks but why make it more difficult?
hirsute wrote:
The problem with that policy is that it might not be the crime victim that has posted it onto social media. The obvious way to play the system would be to run a dashcam and if you perform a dangerous maneouvre, just upload your own footage onto YouTube and ensure that the police do nothing.
I wonder if the same policy applies to robbing banks? Free money and a bank-robbing channel might even be popular.
My understanding is that this
My understanding is that this all boils down to the potential for media exposure to influence a fair trial (as jurors may be influenced by what they see/hear on the media rather than relying solely on the evidence presented in court).
Assuming this is the case (and I might be wrong, so feel free to correct me), then it does certainly seem ridiculous that any police force could conclude that a video being present on youtube means it would be impossible to find jurors who had not been influenced (cf. being reported on national news TV), let alone that they won’t even bother investigating further or issuing a NIP.
The thing is that close
The thing is that close passes are extremely unlikely to go in front of a juror as the video evidence is usually clear cut (despite all the differing views that we often have with NMOTD). Even if it does go to a trial, it’s easy enough to ask potential jurors if they have prior knowledge of it.
When I chatted with an Avon & Somerset officer after a minor collision, I asked him about whether I should post it here as a NMOTD and he was fine with it and didn’t anticipate any problem (I subsequently posted it).
That was shockingly bad
That was shockingly bad driving, good job you managed to get him to stop.
ok now i dont feel so guilty
ok now i dont feel so guilty about buying a 9th camera. That could have been fatal.
Ah, the top of Gravel Hill. I
Ah, the top of Gravel Hill. I’ve had to wait for the bus opposite there a couple of times, it’s almost a 180degree turn. You’re guaranteed to see a few near misses if you hang around there for a few minutes.
If you can’t see round the corner, wait until there is plenty of time and proceed slowly with caution. Shouldn’t be difficult for a professional driver who has passed HGV tests!
FYI: It’s Stoke Row Road. Exactly as posh as it sounds.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
That massive fence is not helping visibility either. I wonder what favours were called in for that to get planning permission.
HoarseMann wrote:
With it not being right next to the road, if it’s not more than 2m high (which appears to be the case) then no permission is required.
alexls wrote:
I would consider that next to the road. Look at the difference in visibility between 2011 and 2019…
alexls wrote:
If it faces the highway, which it does, anything higher than 1m needs planning permission, and I can’t see Highways recommending that be granted, given the obvious obtruction to visibility. Not too late for someone to make a complaint to Planning Enforcement.
amazon22 wrote:
I beleive that if it is more than a metre from the highway, it can be 2m high without planning permission – within a metre, it requires planning permission if it is over 1m. So if that bit of grass were a pavement (i.e. part of the highway), then it would need planning permission for a fence over 1m.
The chances of Oxfordshire
The chances of Oxfordshire County Council, as the transport authority, objecting to anything as part of a planning consent, are miniscule. They just don’t. That leaves the planning authority – in this case South Oxfordshire District Council – unable to object to a planning request on transport grounds, even if the district councillors on the committee (who are likely to include people who cycle) know how dangerous the new build will be. In my neck of the woods we have had new drives from new houses put on blind bends because of the uselessness of the county.
HoarseMann wrote:
The assumption that better visibility will reduce danger is not correct. There is a lovely story about a helpful houseowner trimming his hedge to help drivers who had to stop and look before they could pull out at a junction. Result? The drivers glanced as they approached, barely slowed down and there were repeated collisions. This was also borne out at a roundabout where there had been multiple collisions, so the council installed baffle plates to restrict vision; collisions dropped dramatically.
The problem here was the driver’s failure to observe, nothing to do with the visibility.
You are assuming the fence
You are assuming the fence was put up with planning permission.. my educated guess would be it just got put up, going on my long experience with the sense of entitlement most people have.
As I recall – I may be mis
As I recall – I may be mis-remembering. The fence was put up after the garden it surrounds was sold off as a building plot. I may be wrong – half a dozen new houses have been built in and around that patch.
How on earth can a flat
How on earth can a flat fronted truck have “wing” mirrors? They are DOOR mirrors as that truck has no “wings”.
Yawn………
Yawn………
A cyclist is almost crushed
A cyclist is almost crushed and this is what you comment on?
Trolls gonna troll.
But really, try harder.
Mods please remove this bot
Mods please remove this bot account.
So you agree that the truck
So you agree that the truck driver’s excuse was nonsense.
swldxer wrote:
I’ve never seen someone so committed to dying on one particular hill that nobody is fighting over.
Nice pedantry there.. side
Nice pedantry there.. side view mirrors are still commonly called wing mirrors, regardless of how they are actually mounted to the vehicle.. I call them side mirrors but then I’m not Bri’ish.
I have had reason to buy new
I have had reason to buy new “door mirrors” for my cars on a few occasions (mostly local drunks deciding that pulling off a few is an appropriate way to liven up their stagger home in the early hours) … and the manufacturers parts catalogues often list them as wing mirrors.
I am a Computer Science teacher and therefore prone to being over-pedantic, but seriously … just give this one up.
I always fold back the
I always fold back the mirrors of vehicles parked up on footpaths.
I have had reason to buy new
[quote=Jetmans Dad]
I have had reason to buy new “door mirrors” for my cars on a few occasions (mostly local drunks deciding that pulling off a few is an appropriate way to liven up their stagger home in the early hours) … and the manufacturers parts catalogues often list them as wing mirrors.
I am a Computer Science teacher and therefore prone to being over-pedantic, but seriously … just give this one up.
[quote]
Oh don’t spoil their fun. This is the only thing that they comment about on the forum. To take that away from them means they have nothing to contribute. I for one will miss the strident declareation of “It’s a DOOR MIRROR”
It’s clear this callous
It’s clear this callous dangerous entiled juggernaut driver believes he is on a mission, come what may at whatever the cost.
Despite being caught for dangerous life threatening driving, the maniac blames things other than himself and too much of a coward to own up and needs stopping before he kills or injures.
Cops may attempt to fob you off and mislead you by fabricating stories, as I experienced. So record every interaction with them and persue them if it comes to it.
I’ve read down the comments
I’ve read down the comments and it doesn’t seem that anyone else has picked up on it so far, but Dickhead Drivers retort was that ‘oncoming traffic tends to be very fast’ despite there being – insofar as I can see – no oncoming traffic whatsoever.
So – just a lazy dangerous bastard, then.
STiG911 wrote:
the oncoming traffic comes up a steep hill and you can’t see the junction at the top from the bottom as I recall.
However, that means the traffic should not be going so fast and the driver should not expect it to be fast. It’s a Whataboutery “excuse” for his poor driving… Mental gymnastics to justify doing something blatantly wrong and dangerous.
Both roads sseem to have
Both roads sseem to have 30mph limits, so is the oncoming traffic really ‘very fast’? Or is it just him driving to/from work?
I love my bike wrote:
Probably indiciative that the driver routinely ignores the 30mph speed limit on B481 Gravel Hill and so expects others to do likewise.
Came up to a minor road –
Came up to a minor road – normal layout today. Stopped at the give way and driver turning right declined the turn. I then turned right and glanced behind to see the driver cutting the corner from a stationary position by some margin.
I can only conclude some drivers are unable to use a steering wheel correctly.
On Thursday, on my way home
On Thursday, on my way home from work at a similar junction, I indicated right approaching the stop line. Having seen this and my lane position, a motorist came at speed and drove inside me, in my lane (cutting the corner, driving on the wrong side of the road). All because he didn’t want to slow down to take the corner around me.
Or they’re just massively
Or they’re just massively poor drivers and think it’s okay to cut corners, whether somebody is there or not. It’s almost ‘entitlement’…..
Don’t forget the cross look
Don’t forget the cross look you always get for “being in their way”, even though they are the ones who are not following the road markings/layout correctly…
**Update Monday 23rd **
**Update Monday 23rd **
Firm got in contact to say the driver had been suspended pending the outcome of their investigation.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
That’s good to hear.
I wonder though, if their statement is code for: “our driver will have to stay at home until all this fuss on social media has died down, then it’s back to normal”.
It’s a shame there isn’t a camera on that location, to catch them out again.
0-0 wrote:
The thought had occured. Anyone have any tips on how to chase up the Police?
Anyone have any tips on how
Anyone have any tips on how to chase up the Police?
I’m afraid it’s an uphill battle against the wind, with them taking every opportunity for delay, really stupid statements etc. I come from a hard school- Lancashire must be one of the worst- if they’re not, we’re all in trouble. You have to make a complaint against the officer, but Lancashire often won’t respond at all. Then you have to write to ‘Force Control Room’, or whatever they call it, with your online incident report reference, and just keep wading through the treacle of police obstruction. Even then, they have the secret weapon: carrying the obstruction to the courts. Below is the offence dated 30.9.19- now after repeated delays, due for court in June 2021 except that they have pre-booked a further delay with a “this may change”. The problem is that The Enemy has most of the weapons, but guerilla action must continue!
Dial 101 and ask for an
Dial 101 and ask for an update giving the reference number. I would imagine Thames Valley Police would have sent a NIP to the company which requires an answer within 4 weeks.
Dial 101 and ask for an
Dial 101 and ask for an update giving the reference number
Handy advice! I’ll give it a try
Depends how TVP update their
Depends how TVP update their incident logs. Firstly if the video has been uploaded directly to the force ‘dashcam/video footage’ site they may not actually generate an incident log. From comments on previous NMotDs there seems to be quite a variety. Including the frankly terrible ‘we’re not going to tell you anything’ response.
When I was in the police, initially (and I’m talking ‘incidents’ in general) the ‘result’ was usually very brief eg ‘statement recorded from complainant, further enquiries by PC 1234’. Later in my career, logs were left open (or more accurately ‘snoozed’) for a more detailed result eg ‘statement recorded … driver JONES interviewed and reported for summons, vehicle details as follows …’
The best thing to have is either the incident/log number or the collar number of the officer investigating.
I’m awaiting Scorati’s
I’m awaiting Scorati’s response…
“It wasn’t great driving but if you’d opted for a fluro coat instead of a fluro gilet then the driver may have seen your arms. Your choice, but if you value temperature over your life then these kind of things will happen”
Judging by his latest one it
Judging by his latest one it will be more like
“Fancy forcing the lorry to stop. It has to push out more pollution now to start up again. And look at the polution caused by all the cars being held up as well. Inconsiderate cyclist. He could have just been run over and then submitted the footage afterwards. At least that slight extra pollution wouldn’t have occurred then”.
Possibly shows the benefit of
Possibly shows the benefit of not putting all your eggs in one (police) basket. For whatever reason the company are at least doing something. Hopefully the company will give you a further update.
Until we start to get some of
Until we start to get some of these morons prosecuted we will still be here in five years time commenting on near miss 5000+ It amazes me how bad motorists continue to get away with this sort of behaviour. Not only should they recieve a ban based on how severe the offence (life in some cases) they should be made to take their test again, that would certainly get a good proportion of them off the road.
Last update – TVP were in
Last update – TVP were in touch just before Xmas asking me what would be an appropriate charge – turns out he had 2 incidents in quick succession. They haven’t reported back on any final resolution.
TVP were in touch just before
TVP were in touch just before Xmas asking me what would be an appropriate charge – turns out he had 2 incidents in quick succession.
Let us know if they take any real action, which means prosecution.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
rather worrying, I thought they were supposed to have a better understanding of the law than the standard person, if they can’t see an offence here they should seek guidance from a more experienced oficer.