There’s a phrase often used by traffic police in safety campaigns and on social media – the Fatal Four – highlighting the four most common factors behind deaths or serious injuries on the road. Drink and drug driving, speeding, and not wearing a seat belt are three, with the most recent addition to the list being using a handheld mobile phone while driving, which is what we have in today’s Near Miss of the Day video from North London as a texting driver pulls out on a cyclist, oblivious to his presence.
Dean, the road.cc reader who captured the footage, told us: “I was behind a car in the right-hand lane (right turn only by the way) on Southbury Road in Ponders End, preparing to turn right into the High Road.
“We both started moving off, and a driver in the left-hand lane (driving inside the cycle lane I might add) pulled into the right-hand lane (a right-turn ONLY lane) and cut me off, I shouted in surprise and swerved to avoid her hitting me.
“I later saw the same car at the traffic lights ahead and I realised as I was passing that she was on her phone texting. I told her that she almost hit me and how close she was to taking me out. She was unapologetic and hid her phone.
“I got home and after watching the footage back, realised she was also texting while she cut me up, and that’s why she didn’t even realise she almost hit me.
“If it was an honest mistake, I would have understood, we all make mistakes, but texting while driving is an intentional choice.”
> 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
78 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 586: Texting driver oblivious to cyclist she nearly hit”
Thank goodness the cyclist
Thank goodness the cyclist didn’t swear.
I think you mean “Thank f**k
I think you mean “Thank f**k the cyclist didn’t swear”
Well I wouldn’t want to
Well I wouldn’t want to offend the police!
Please please submit this to
Please please submit this to the Police. This is the sort of behaviour that results in injuries and fatalaties.
Presumably it’s been reported
Presumably it’s been reported? Although it isn’t actually a right-turn only at that point, but this in no way has any bearing on the manoevre.
But also the other idiot racing you to the red light <smh>
Points are no good – they’ll
Points are no good – they’ll continue to do it; it’s a way of life for a lot of people. The unapologetic reply says it all – they simply don’t care. That is why harsher penalties are needed; like a ban.
Not sure when Dean took the
Not sure when Dean took the video, but according to DVLA the MOT on that Peugeot expired on 11th April, and hasn’t been renewed yet.
I’m not sure but there might
I’m not sure but there might still an extended period for MOT’s etc because of Covid lockdowns though so probably wouldn’t be done for that.
Nope. MOT extensions applied
Nope. MOT extensions applied only for those expiring between during Mar-Jul last year. There was no further extension.
Unless they’ve updated it
Unless they’ve updated it since I last looked, the penalty for driving with no MOT is a slap on the wrist*. (Whether or not the car has a valid MOT, it’s the driver’s job to ensure it’s roadworthy at all times while driving.**) You need an MOT to pay the road tax for a year, but the MOT can expire the day after you pay, and enforcement by other checks is nonexistent.
*Just checked, they’ve updated it – it’s now ‘up to’ a £1k fine, but still no penalty points.
** An unroadworthy vehicle, whether it has a current MOT certificate or not, can attract fines and 3 points _per defect_. That’s what they really focus on.
Dave Dave wrote:
I assume issues which would fail an MOT count as unroadworty. If so, there is zero focus on them. Despite not travelling far I see flagrant, obvious, deliberate MOT failures several times on every outing. Darkened front windows, illegible or missing number plates (always the front one missing, it’s a “look” round here), excessive exhaust noise. None of it is accidental. The police must be focusing with their eyes shut.
The missing front numberplate
The missing front numberplate, I suspect you will find one that doesn’t do the job at all tucked in the window somewhere. But the ones with anti camera flash coatings, changed for vanity and lots of other thing against the law do make me wonder if MOT’s do pick these up or and report on them or whether the people change them to legal ones prior to the check.
Vanity plates and anti-flash
Vanity plates and anti-flash covers do get picked up on the MOT but it’s a 5 minute job to swap back to “show plates” after the MOT. Not that I ever used to do that m’lud. Neither did I use to just pop the cat on for the MOT. Or refit my neon indicator bulbs. Or the underbody LEDs. Or the excessively loud rear exhaust box.
According to the 2018
According to the 2018 versions, they do.
Sriracha wrote:
Not really. They’re two different standards. Many things checked on the MOT aren’t a matter of roadworthiness at all, and others can fail to meet the MOT standard, but still not be so bad as to be actually unsafe on the road (yet).
Just for example, a car could fail on brake effectiveness, because the brakes aren’t working as well as they should, and yet still have good enough brakes to be safe when driven carefully. It’s pretty rare for a car to fail MOT so catastrophically it has to be taken away on a low-loader.
(I think your responsibilities in regard to careless, reckless etc driving would be affected by car condition in a situation like that. So driving it somewhere to get it repaired requires driving it in accordance with the impaired braking. In that respect it’s like driving on a slippery road-surface.)
Dave Dave wrote:
Road Tax? What’s that then?
Kendalred wrote:
It’s what I pay for the roads on my estate…
VED sounds like some kind of nasty social disease.
Dave Dave wrote:
You pay a tax hypothecated to specifically cover the roads on your estate? Where do you live? It’s certainly not the UK….
Captain Badger wrote:
What was the recovery time like after you had your sense of humour surgically removed? Take you long to get back on the bike?
Dave Dave wrote:
You pay a tax hypothecated to specifically cover the roads on your estate? Where do you live? It’s certainly not the UK….
— Captain Badger What was the recovery time like after you had your sense of humour surgically removed? Take you long to get back on the bike?— Dave Dave
Dunno, still a bit sore. How about you?
Captain Badger wrote:
Dunno, still a bit sore. How about you?
— Dave DaveNever had one to start with. I thought dad jokes were funny before my first kid came along 🙂
Dave Dave wrote:
Now that you’ve had a kid, are they “daaaaaaaaaad” jokes?
Plus an unnecessary MGIF from
Plus an unnecessary MGIF from the silver Corsa into opposing traffic.
A couple of weeks ago when we
A couple of weeks ago when we had a discussion on whether someone should have indicated that they were changing lanes and peoples preference were “nah as still only a single lane” want to revise that on this showing as at least three cars pull out without indicating along here when there is no demarkation of the lanes.
Also the idiot in the Corsa
Also the idiot in the Corsa twice overtaking into oncoming traffic with no indication for absolutely no gain, and with a ‘Baby on Board’ thingy in the window designed to alert emergency services of a child in a crashed car which, if they carry on driving like that, could be anytime soon.
billymansell wrote:
That’s an urban myth. Not true at all.
Dave Dave wrote:
That’s an urban myth. Not true at all.— billymansell
You sure about that? Not what I was told by my emergency service Aunt a few years back. She told me she gets annoyed if she sees those signs with no child in the car as it means the emergency services will spend time looking for a missing child that might not be missing.
Dave Dave is right that it
Dave Dave is right that it isn’t specifically for Emergency Services but more of a warnign to other drivers to be more careful around the car due to the babies AND because the driver might also be more distracted. Abit like P plates are there for letting other drivers know the drivers abilities are raw and four circles let other people know that driver is a wanker.
However I also suspect that Emergency Services do also check for babies in an RTA if they do see the sign.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
I think they look anyway.
What, they’ll see the sign,
What, they’ll see the sign, but not the sodding great child seat? Come on.
The sign is there, the child
The sign is there, the child seat is empty. Does that mean the child was thrown clear / crushed under some debris / not even in the car?
I agree with you that it was never intended as an emergency servces notification but I suspect if they approach a multi car wreck and one has one of these signs, that ones occupants might be checked on first by most people.
sapperadam wrote:
That doesn’t make what Dave Dave says incorrect. Those f*cking things are just more waste plastic consumerist tat, with no discernable value.
I’m sure your Aunt, apart from understandably getting wound up by them, would have taken cues from a collision site (child seats in the wreck etc) to see whether they needed to particularly check for infants.
“pulled into the right-hand
“pulled into the right-hand lane (a right-turn ONLY lane)”
That would be very unusual. Arrows on roads are normally advisory. There’s nothing wrong with the driving (at that point) except that there was a cyclist already in that lane!
I agree that the “pulled into
I agree that the “pulled into the right-turn lane” is misleading as from that distance to the almost at the lights, it isn’t one marked as one. However she was using it as a MGIF of the rest of the traffic the same as the BMW X(1or3) that she decided to follow blindly. Still not as much as a MGIF arsehole as the Corsa.
And I would argue there was everything wrong with the manouvre from two ticks of the indicator (two more then the Fiesta and BMW did when they pulled out) to not looking to see if it was clear.
“And I would argue there was
“And I would argue there was everything wrong with the manouvre from two ticks of the indicator (two more then the Fiesta and BMW did when they pulled out) to not looking to see if it was clear. “
Yes, sorry, that was what I meant. Everything involved in not seeing the cyclist. If the lane had actually been clear (and they’d checked) then it wouldn’t be a terrible piece of driving.
Can we make it a condition of
Can we make it a condition of publising these articles that the submitters state if they reported to the police or not? Seems pretty clear cut, especially in Met territory
I’d actually go further than
I’d actually go further than that – only items that are reported to the police should be allowed as submission, and the page should be updated in time with the outcome of the case.
The second point is hard to
The second point is hard to do with some forces unwillingness to follow up with the
witnessesvictims.AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
I think Nige has an arguable point here. It could be said that NMOTD should be egregious enough that the action is clearly in defiance of the RTA, or is risking someone’s safety. In either case it warrants a report to the rozzers. If the rozzers refuse to do their job that could be published too*.
*Edit: Yes I know, it frequently is.
But I don’t know if the
But I don’t know if the rozzers have refused to actually take action or just refused to let me know about it when they have. And as mentioned, lots of other forces have applied the same “no need to know” bit to save time for their staff.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
So publicise that where it is the case – then, at the end of the year, there could be a league table published with basic stats on police responses, and that could then be used as the basis of a campaign for better accountability.
I can’t remember who mentioned it, but I don’t see the need for the police to even be responsible for this exercise – it could easily be done centrally through a portal where rules are applied evenly and fairly.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
True. I was ranting on this esteemed organ a while back, when Herts sent out that they won’t inform me what they choose to do but it could include [one of these 4 options]
I ended up in an email to and fro with the rozzer, cos I said that that the way it was written could also include “do nothing”, and could he confirm that at least some action would be taken. He just returned the oiginal email. Frustrating…
As it happened, later on I contacted the dept by phone for another report. The constable I spoke to then was able to confirm what action they would take. Policy was to only email out a blanket response, but they were happy to talk about it if I called in. I suppose this was a screening for numbers tactic – filter out those that don’t give too much of a stuff – and not anything to do with GDPR etc.
For WMP, we don’t even if the
For WMP, we don’t even if the email acceptance. They use the Nextbase provided portal which lots of forces now use. I get a number generated from there to say an upload has been done and then nothing. When I started to chase up (Subject Access Request of FOI – anyone know?) and after being sent on a round way even back to nextbase, I finally got contact from Stuart (Manager of the Traffic Team) who just reiterated they don’t tell anyone as they don’t have the resources to follow up on everything and I should just keep submitting.
I have since seen that they do recieve the lions share of the videos from Next Base with 8k from 20k submitted from 6 or more forces, and I expect alot are from Car Dashcams as well. However I would still like to know if the minimum 1 hour of copying from camera, clipping to 2 mins either side, converting to a smaller sized format and uploading to them is a waste of mine or there time or whether it is actually having an affect.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Yes, if they are relying on members on the public to support them in their role, ensuring the public has confidence that its assistance is being acted on is a necessary overhead in the process, otherwise no confidence = no support. How they effectively maintain that confidence is up to them, but maintained it must be.
Lancashire Police will not
Lancashire Police will not use the Nextbase system. It means they have to get off their fat arses, put their bacon butty down, and do some policing.
Lancashire Police will not
Lancashire Police will not use the Nextbase system
This will not do! biker phil must be banned from the site forthwith for roundly criticising Lancashire Constabulary when it’s my job, undermining my credibility. I should be the one to point out that ignoring use of a handheld mobile phone while driving, which serious offence being proved on meticulous and conclusive video, is all in a routine day’s non-work for Lancashire’s Finest. Unlike Alice in Wonderland, who was able to believe several impossible things in one day, LC officers disbelieve innumerable completely proven serious road traffic offences every day and rejoice in filing them straight in the bin. The thing they find easiest to ignore, because they don’t believe the offence exists, is extremely close passing of cyclists. Even if the vehicle hits the cyclist with the mirror, they ignore it… but that’s nowt for the lads. They ignore red light crashing offences proven in the most indisputable way and the initial response of the comedy LC complaint system is that they don’t know who, from the Neighbourhood Policing Team, decided on No Further Action because ‘the log wasn’t signed’. This dodge is designed to prevent complaints, which have to be directed at a particular officer, but I decided that I would become (no, not more powerful than you could possibly imagine) not inconsiderably annoyed and determined to follow a complaint about this Passing Traffic Lights at Red is Not an Offence in Lancashire (NaOiL) policy to the Bitter End. I thwarted the ‘we don’t know who did it’ by sending it to the PCC who immediately ejected it back to the police, because it’s really all the same thing. Tomorrow, it’s 4 calendar months since the formal beginning of the complaint, and they’re still trying the foot-dragging dodge. Too busy for serious road traffic offences are they? we’ll see how much time this dodge saves them!
Nigel Garrage wrote:
So the police are the sole arbiters of whether a case is serious or not? This year I’ve had an NIP sent to a driver for entering an ASZ but “no further action” against a driver who deliberately swerved at me as a punishment thinking (wrongly, he hadn’t noticed the cyclist pre-release lights) that I had jumped a red – from the same force. Wheter or not police take action seems frequently to be entirely arbitrary.
I think it is pot luck. Sent
I think it is pot luck. Sent 3 off which were the same and the one that was rejected was the one with the L driver coming the otherway as I was close passed. I thought the presence of the L driver would sway any doubts.
Rendel Harris wrote:
TBF thats not what Nige said.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Yes, I think to all intents and purposes they are. That in itself isn’t the problem, as really someone has to be.
The problem is actually whether those entrusted with that task are competent, and have the resources to do it. This issue is the same for any role where decisions are made, and the only way to change it is by campaigning for change.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
West Midlands Police won’t give updates unless it goes as far as court.
Most forces DON’T update the
Most forces DON’T update the submitter of the complaint with the outcome of the case.
Are you sure you’re a cyclist? You seem woefully misinformed about most subjects pertaining to cycling…
No offence to the the guy,
No offence to the the guy, but Bollocks to ‘Honest mistake’ That’s the kind of apologist crap that makes light of incident to the drivers benefit which could have very easily gone the other way.
If a driver isn’t looking properly before, during and after a manoeuvre they shouldn’t be on the road in the first place, nevermind that the stupid twat is on their phone into the bargain.
Report. With full prejudice.
Think you have misread.
Think you have misread. Dean was making it clear they didnt believe it was an honest mistake.
Please report this to the
Please report this to the police. Get drivers like this off the road before they kill someone.
Taking focus off the fiesta
Taking focus off the fiesta for a second, what on earth was the corsa driver doing overtaking there? Near miss with the white car coming the other way. All to get to the traffic lights before a cyclist. Nice way to drive considering there’s a “baby on board”.
Who knows. I had one today,
Who knows. I had one today, accelerated past me to get to the pinch point, then brakes hard due to traffic queuing the other side of the pinch point all whilst on a mobile. Doubt my camera will show enough detail through the windows.
Nice way to drive considering
Nice way to drive considering there’s a “baby on board”
My experience is that stupid signs like that are a fairly good indicator of someone who drives with a complete disregard for other people’s offspring.
I had one a few years ago. I
I had one a few years ago. I was cycling to work when I was passed by a woman who was texting. She saw me looking at her and wound her window down. “What the fuck are you looking at?” was shouted at me. I explained that I had captured her on video texting whilst driving. She shouted that she wasn’t driving fast, and it was A VERY IMPORTANT TEXT as her daughter was having a jab at school and she wanted to reassure her. She then told me to fuck off and drove off, still texting. I reported her to Lancashire Police who said they were too busy to do anything, even though I gave them HD footage of the incident with sound, and they also said that she wasn’t going fast so wouldn’t hurt anyone if she had a collision, and the police officer had much more important things to do than chase a naughty motorist breaking the law, whist admitting it and continuing to do so whilst driving. She pretty much said I was wasting her time being there.
Is it any wonder that I think Lancashire Police are a bunch of lazy bell ends?
Must be hard for you biker
Must be hard for you biker phil when you’re a brain surgeon, international spy and leader of the free world . Probably working a 23 hour day delivering excellent service to everyone.
It’s £200 fine and 6 points.
It’s £200 fine and 6 points.
Are you claiming it is a trivial offence and not worth police time ?
Surely this would save police
Surely this would save police time. Dealing with this motorist sends a signal to others which will hopefully discourage this behaviour leading to less collisions and less work in future. All the work has been done for them all they have to do is prosecute.
Police on the M6 have set up a special unit driving an HGV to catch drivers doing just this. Surely using members of the public to assist saves police time and money.
And they can do the driver for swearing! Win win.
nicmason wrote:
“Is it any wonder that I
“Is it any wonder that I think Lancashire Police are a bunch of lazy bell ends”
I can only imagine he’s comparing with his own incredibly high standards of service.
nicmason wrote:
It seems that you are trying to making a comparison between a bunch of people who don’t seem to want to do their job, and spend as much effort trying to avoid it as it would take to actually do it, and someone that you don’t actually even know what they do, let alone the standard they achieve. In any case what standard Phil does his job is not the point here. We were talking about the rozzers.
So, at the risk of repeating myself….
nicmason wrote:
If someone comes to you with 90% of the work done for free, and you just brush them off and don’t bother finishing the job, then I would not describe that as incredibly high standards.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Everything’s relative HP. That tea doesn’t drink itself you know….
nicmason wrote:
So lets get this straight, biker phil has provided the footage which clearly shows that the driver is texting and driving, including a perfectly clear clip of the face of the driver which would rule out the “I wasn’t driving” defense. Basically what is needed is someone to process the paperwork and send out the NIP.
Some police forces simply will try everything in their power not to take any action on helmet camera video evidence. I have had a pretty similar situation, driver pulled out onto a roundabout in front of me whilst texting. I had a nice crystal clear clip of the driver and you could see they were texting at the time they pulled out onto the roundabout causing me to have to slam on the brakes to avoid them.
And a simple online check proved that the car did not have an MOT and had not paid VED, information which I handed by printout to the police station along with a copy of the video….. and they basically said….. you need an independent source of evidence to get a prosecution. We will file this in the circular file.
Whereas other forces will take the video evidence and process it and let you know that action is being taken.
no problem with someone
no problem with someone feeling an issue has not been handled properly and escalating their complaint. I’m not a big fan of the lazy twat chat thats always on here about the police.
nicmason wrote:
Do you not think that might be because the ones that didn’t handle the issue properly are, er. … the police?. Hardly worth criticising the Accrington and District Colliery Brass Band Society is it?
Captain Badger wrote:
You never know – they might be in the same lodge…
brooksby wrote:
Although clearly not in the same lodge as anyone in Thatcher’s govt…….
Maybe you get the police you
Maybe you get the police you talk about. You keep calling them “a bunch of lazy bell ends” you get the lazy bellend police service.
nicmason wrote:
That’s right it’s the public’s fault for calling out crap service….
Mind you you might be on to something. Maybe Lancs has been trawling Biker Phils SM accounts when they should have been prosecuting offences, thereby providing themselves with an excuse as to why they didn’t prosecute the offences.
” would have prosecuted, but Biker Phil has said we’re lazy bellends. So we’ll respond by continuing to be lazy bell ends. That’ll show em! Facking public, who do they think we are, facking public servants??”*
*Please note the above is an imaginary soliliquy ofr the purposes of satire, not a representation of any statement by Lancs Police, and is not to be seen as an excuse for Lancs Police** to continue to allow crimes to go unpunished.
**Herts Police, you’re doing ok, please keep it up!
nicmason wrote:
what’s your badge number nic? Enquiring minds want to know.
In my opinion the cyclist is the one in the right-only lane that chose to go straight ahead. Oh, other than the black Range Rover two cars ahead, but that’s not the issue is it.
The texting driver did what is usually acceptable inside a junction as vehicles turn right which is that she can move to the next lane. Had the cyclist not broken the rules of the road (didn’t turn right, did he?) then there wouldn’t have been an issue.
The only right hand land was
The only right hand land was the one at the end where they are stopped at lights.
Nice victim blaming though.
On a side note, it would be
On a side note, it would be useful to know what camera is used in these features. Some provide much better detail than others (as here), and real world use is the best review. Maybe you could even tag the articles with the camera gear?