Near Miss of the Day 569: Punishment pass 4x4 driver decides to ‘teach me a lesson’ says cyclist

Yep, I wasnt wholly sold on it being labelled a punishment pass to begin with,on the basis we could all probably find examples of much worse.

But I'm not sure the driver isnt in that mindset that sees cycling on a dual carriageway is too risky, and so deliberately close passes to show the cyclist just how risky it is,which then makes it a punishment pass.

Even if it's not the kind where they try to shock you,it was a deliberate move on their part imo

BenzVelo wrote:

Any reasoning road.cc as to why you are stating this a 4x4 - when it isn't?

Looks like a Ford Edge to me, which is a 4x4.

Not necessarily - it depends on the spec. Lower-end models of the Edge are front wheel drive only.

BenzVelo wrote:

Any reasoning road.cc as to why you are stating this a 4x4 - when it isn't? It's not overly helpful to categorise unless it's relevant to the incident in some way. The concern here is that the driver appears to drive specifically and aggressively rather than the choice of the vehicle. Any contact from any vehicle being driven in this manner is going to cause serious hurt. A number of SUV's or 4x4's will have lower impacts/NCAP ratings on peds/cyclists than standard cars, so tarring all types of road-user with one brush should be left to the dumbstream.

I might agree with you, only I've never seen a 4x4/SUV type vehicle that justifies the increased risk that they bring to the road

Private vehicles are for transport of people and goods. I have yet to see an example this class of vehicle significantly better than Mondeo for transporting people or a Scenic for transporting goods - many actually fall short in this comparison.

Most journeys need nothing more than an I10 (if they even need a car at all).

Any higher spec in terms of size, weight or power is superfluous. As these aspects bring increased risk to the road for 3rd parties, increased pollution in use, reduced visibility for other road users, take up an unacceptable amount of space, and use twice as much resource in manufacture than a typical car, this class of vehicle is utterly unjustifiable.

The vast majority of these things will never see anything more off-road than the pavement outside a Kensington primary school. They're not called Wank Panzers for nothing.....

On the whole I am agreeing with you but I may have been too low key in highlighting my point. It may also be that we live in very different parts of the country so the "vast majority" of the ones you are seeing are inappropriate to the environment you are in.  The point I am trying to flag is that using generalisations should not be something cyclists should do when addressing other road users. We consistently call others out when doing so, but stating an experience/opinion as a fact does not allow for well thought exeptions. I indeed agree that most people driving suv's rarely utilise them for what they were created for and therby are a waste of resources. Used correctly they can be a veritable swiss army knife of the road and reduce multi-car ownership but it just so happens that a big chunk of them aren't. Very few suv's are 4WD but there are an acceptable proprortion that are will have been purchased by drivers who live in parts of the uk where this is a sound judgement. This specific suv in the clip is a Kuga and 2WD which was part of the point to be made about getting facts right. My chagrin with the 'tarring' is that there are SUV's with lower emmissions than a mondeo/scenic and carry equivalent space or produced by a manufacturer with preferable environmental & NCAP standards. Yes they might be few but therefore we should not be saying all or treating all as the same or the worst example. I find that a good proportion of SUV drivers buy them because they are anxious people and so they 'feel safer' in them but accordingly drive in an anxious manner which is awful because they are driving a potentially large vehicle indecisively. Others who are 'compensating for something' buy one because it's easier to bully others in one. And a few people buy one because it works so much better in so many ways than what else is available to them. 

Thanks for replying though - it would be nice if the road.cc writers were a little more engaging when being questioned by the readers about content they chuck out. 

Monito wrote:

So when are Police Scotland going to do something about allowing us to upload video evidence rather than expecting us to burn it onto a CD and physically deliver it to them?

The current status quo is pretty convoluted isn't it. Either

A)Call 101. Wait for return call. Arrange a time to meet constable. Wait for constable to get back to you with findings. 
B)Call in at station and try to get past the civilian gate person with Gandalf tendencies as your complaint isn't worthy of annoying a police constable. Then if successful go through the processes of above. 

A portal with a dedicated team would make life easier. Upload with statement and wait response. All done and dusted in minutes. 

I do know Cycling U.K. and other groups are pressuring PS and the govt to make such a portal a reality. Here's hoping. 

So when are Police Scotland going to do something about allowing us to upload video evidence rather than expecting us to burn it onto a CD and physically deliver it to them?

The answer is: as long as they can get away with. The idea is to make it as difficult as possible and reduce the number they have to file in the bin and do nothing about, which is essentially all of them if PS is anything like Lancashire. The important question is: how many cases of fully documented serious close passing have resulted in significant punishment in Scotland? Refusal to say what action they have taken means 'no action' and 'words of advice' don't count as they are worthless. Some people would accept the joke driving course, although I don't- especially as we can't trust the police to tell the truth about whether the driver actually attended one.

 Lancashire Constabulary have written to me and Ben Wallace, MP, over the past 2 years claiming to have 'plans in place' to allow uploading of large files to some portal they can read- LC declined to have anything to do with the commerce-backed 'National Portal' which many other forces joined. 

Any guesses as to what has actually happened with these 'plans in place' so far?

Is there anything especially brave about a safe pass?

Let's call it a 'pratpass', if we use 'pratpass' on a regular basis we'll have it in the Oxford by years end.

Sriracha wrote:

Is there anything especially brave about a safe pass?

I know what you mean, only one of the "reasons" for crap pass is " not wanting to keep people behind waiting". Really means "not confident in my risk assessment so will pile the risk onto the vulnerable cos I feel a bit uncomfortable driving slowly"

I prefer to call it "dangerous driving"

antigee wrote:

Language matters..."coward's pass" AKA punishment pass...let's call it what it is

You mean, "driving like a complete and utter twunt"?