A motorist moving across a solid white line to overtake a cyclist but still making a close pass, then doing it again on another rider, features in today’s video in our Near Miss of the Day series.
It was filmed by road.cc reader BucksCycleCammer, who said: “This one is from 11th June in Lane End, Bucks. We have a close pass, crossing the solid white line, and into oncoming traffic, on a bend. And then it’s all repeated for the next cyclist up the road.
“Thames Valley Police provided an update via letter dated 25th June, as below. Initially I had focused on the ‘no further action’ and wondered what more is required, but on a second read they have actually written or spoken to the driver, which is the outcome I am most often notified of by TVP.”
In order to bring a prosecution for any offence in the Magistrates’ Court there has to be sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction, the evidential burden of proof being ‘beyond reasonable doubt ‘On this occasion the matter has been dealt with by way of an out of Court disposal with suitable advice given to the identified driver of the third party vehicle. Thames Valley Police will be taking no further action.
> 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
60 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 604: Driver makes two close passes in succession into oncoming traffic”
Seems a wierd statement from
Seems a wierd statement from TVP. Are they stating that they weren’t going to put the points on because the magistrate might not add them, or that they couldn’t charge? Of course wtsj has loads of examples but the Crossing the white line offence is proven beyond reasonable doubt as speed is shown to be almost the double the minimum allowed for a manouvre and the road wasn’t clear to make the pass even if they didn’t want to do the actual close pass side.
I think, actually, the whole
I think, actually, the whole mag’s court bit is a red herring and may just a standard paragraph they normally put on if they’re truly taking NFA under their ‘solvability matrix‘.
Perhaps they didn’t think it definitely crosses the ‘dangerous’ threshold, and there have been no priors against this vehicle/driver.
In a remarkable coincidence I
In a remarkable coincidence I was in a magistrates court last week giving evidence for a close pass. The driver was found not guilty, said it wasn’t him driving and the prosecutor couldn’t prove otherwise from my camera footage. I guess that’s TVP’s thinking here. The guy in court did get 6 points and a fine for no insurance though, so not all bad.
How did the fine for no
How did the fine for no insurance stick if he ‘wasn’t driving’?
Sriracha wrote:
It’s an offence (for the registered keeper) to keep a vehicle on the public highway without valid insurance.
Seems like there’s a gap
Seems like there’s a gap there somewhere then. If you fail to identify the driver, that’s 6 points. If you identify yourself, you can’t then claim in court that it wasn’t you. If you identify someone else, and they deny it or it wasn’t them, then either it’s a failure to identify, perverting the course of justice, or you’ve got the ‘reasonable diligence’ defence; presumably CPS would account for the defence and not charge to start with?
So to get to court with a CD/DD charge (rather than failure to identify, or worse), I assume someone must have responded to a NIP to admit they were driving? Seems a bit odd then that they can get around a conviction just by then denying it in the court…
I didn’t believe him, for
I didn’t believe him, for what it’s worth. He said he was sent two NIP forms, one for no insurance and one for careless driving. Apparently his wife helped with the forms because he can’t read very well and told him to put his details on both. This was all said under oath and couldn’t be disproved by the video (I didn’t see who was driving so couldn’t identify him that way) so they had to take his word for it. It does seem to be a bit of a loophole.
Well the careless driving
Well the careless driving would have been 3 points or so. Driving without insurance is between 6-9 and / or a ban. So 6 points for failure to disclose and just a fine allows him to stay on the road. I’m guessing the no insurance bit was the decider on saying he was driving or can’t remember.
He pleaded guilty to no
He pleaded guilty to no insurance
morgyporg wrote:
But only to ‘keeping with no insurance’ and not to ‘driving with no insurance’ presumably.
I don’t know, it wasn’t
I don’t know, it wasn’t specified at sentencing. Does it make a difference to the penalty?
morgyporg wrote:
Absolutely.
Penalties for keeping a vehicle without insurance include £100 FPN, clamped/impounded/destroyed vehicle, or court fine of up to £1000.
Driving without insurance is £300 FPN + 6 points, or if it goes to court, an unlimited fine and disqualification (plus potential seizure & destruction of vehicle).
Of course wtjs has loads of
Of course wtjs has loads of examples
Audi Q3, appropriate reg W28 SSS, Wednesday 30.6.21 08:57. There will be no response whatsoever to this online incident report, so this makes TVP look like a combination of Sherlock Holmes and Judge Dredd. I am nominating Lancashire Constabulary as the laziest, most useless and most cyclist-hostile police force in England.
I meant of crossing the
I meant of crossing the double white lines. That is the only offence easily chargeable by the TVP with no reasonable doubt. However you have helpfully posted an example elsewhere.
I meant crossing the double
I meant crossing the double white lines
Pfff! Lancashire wouldn’t care if it was triple unbroken white lines, they still would be ‘too busy’ to respond
The language of this response
The language of this response, “beyond a reasonable doubt,” “third-party vehicle,” etc. makes me think that they were going to have a difficult time proving who was actually driving.
Nope, can’t be it. Failure to
Nope, can’t be it. Failure to identify is an automatic 6 points for the registered keeper.
What if the registered keeper
What if the registered keeper doesn’t know? What if the registered keeper identifies, and that person denies it? Still have to prove who was actually driving.
The 6 points for failure to
The 6 points for failure to identify from the registered owner is a good start, however they should also confiscate the car as the person responsible for it doesn’t know what is happening with it so best take it away from them for public safety until they can be more careful.
SaintClarence27 wrote:
No. For failure to identify, the prosecution only has to show that you didn’t identify the driver – they don’t have to prove who was driving (it’s not relevant to the offence). However, if you weren’t given enough information to identify (date/time/location) or you can show you took reasonable steps to do so, then you have a defence and it’s for the prosecution to argue against that.
The latter is most common if it’s a shared family car, for instance, and multiple people could have been driving at the time – but they’d not know that until they actually sent the NIP & s172 in the first place. There’s no reason in advance to believe that someone’s going to have a ‘reasonable steps’ defence – and if they do, you just drop the charge if you’re not confident at that time, right?
I just think, in this case, it’s just an admin thing and they kept some standard ‘NFA’ paragraph from a template letter.
It was a poor overtake, but
It was a poor overtake, but there were mitigating factors in that they did slow and wait to pass – so did demonstrate some care, just badly misjudged the distance they gave the cyclist and how much clear road ahead needed to complete the overtake (twice!).
In this case, a talking to might actually change their behaviour, as it appears to be more incompetent than reckless. So I think the right response from TVP (also a lot better than doing nothing).
It’s quite a bit of work for the police to take a driver to court for a close pass. They have to build a case for careless driving and convince a magistrate that the evidence shows beyond reasonable doubt that the driver was careless (which in itself is a bit of a subjective bar to reach – certainly not as cut and dry as breaching a speed limit).
For this reason, they’re typically reluctant to progress prosecutions unless it’s a real ‘shocker’ (and even then, they’ll need some persuading!). I really wish it wasn’t like this and there was an easier way for the police to tackle this issue on our roads.
It was a poor overtake, but
It was a poor overtake, but there were mitigating factors in that they did slow and wait to pass – so did demonstrate some care, just badly misjudged the distance they gave the cyclist and how much clear road ahead needed to complete the overtake (twice!).
And the double white lines? I will give them the benefit of the doubt that the second cyclist was closer to 10mph then 20 but those are a major factor in them endandgering themselves, the cyclists and the oncoming drivers and are normally on the road to indicate dangerous areas to decide to overtake any vehicle.
Even if you allow for
Even if you allow for ‘reasonably doubt’ on the speed, and you can’t be bothered measuring the passing distance, crossing the solid white lane is an offence unless it’s safe to do so (oncoming traffic on a bend?) and it’s necessary to overtake a cyclist (or a couple of others) doing less than 10mph. The white Audi didn’t have a problem waiting behind, and didn’t lose any time in doing so, so it hardly seems necessary to have overtaken.
On the subject of mag’s court, I’d be interested to know how many NIPs actually end up there. How many just accept points/fine (or even a course) instead?
But having said that, I agree with your second para. In all but the most egregious cases, I’m happy with a police warning/advice. The more drivers that are made aware that poor driving may be recorded and reported (whether by cyclists, motorists, or even just CCTV) the better.
I had a similar pass the
I had a similar pass the other week, I got slightly more room and the oncoming traffic didn’t, but I didn’t report it because I knew it would only get a letter at best.
And I could ride that same section of road daily and it would be like shooting fish in a barrel in terms of repeat examples you could send to the police, except youd feel like you were the fish.
But letters are good! Letters
But letters are good! Letters advertise the fact that cameras exist. And repeat offenders stand more chance of getting more than a letter.
I agree that it was two
I agree that it was two really dodgy overtakes, and I hope that they get more than a letter. As you said you can overtake on solid white lines only when the vehicle in front is doing less that 10mph and it is safe to do so. In neither case was it safe to do so.
I had a similar incident a couple of months ago but the overtaking vehicle was a tipper lorry, overtaking on solid white lines into the face of oncoming traffic. Northumbria police advised it would be dealt with under their fixed penalty process.
Just submitted another Video last night with a driver pulling out of a junction and I used some choice language during my emergency stop. Wonder if I will get a warning for my language…….
But letters are good!
But letters are good!
Letters are worthless junk, but not as worthless as the ‘words of advice’ the driver in the actual item gratefully received. Nobody knows what was actually said and nobody will consider this offence when he commits the next offence.
stonojnr wrote:
Have you thought of suggesting that the police run an undercover operation on that road? One cop dressed in civies riding a bike and a few more waiting to have words with the transgressors; seems to have worked elsewhere.
eburtthebike wrote:
Good Lord, burt! You mean – “entrapment of the hard working motorist”? Sounds like a war, to me… 😉
Of course, but they say they
Of course, but they say they cover alot of areas and don’t commit to specific locations.
stonojnr wrote:
This is the point. We all know sections of road like this. If we know it, the police know it. One police officer cycling up and down for a couple of hours would catch dozens of drivers crossing a solid white line. But they don’t. This suggests it’s nothing to do with getting a conviction through the magistrates court, it’s entirely because they have no interest in prosecuting these cases.
Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:
On the subject of mag’s court, I’d be interested to know how many NIPs actually end up there. How many just accept points/fine (or even a course) instead?— Bucks Cycle Cammer
I think a careless driving charge has to go to court, even if they plead guilty.This is because it’s not a fixed penalty, so it has to take up court time and be heard by a magistrate, as they have to determine the level of the fine/number of points.That’s why the police are keener to send a warning letter or offer a course.I’m not defending the driver who overtook you, it was quite bad. I just know the trouble I had getting a case to court that the police judged to be lower end dangerous, upper end careless.EDIT – that appears to be absolute rollocks. Since 2013, they can deal with careless driving via a FPN. It’s a £100 and 3 points. Maybe as my incident was at the upper end, that’s why it went to court? I know they pleaded guilty.
So why can’t the police be a bit more liberal with issuing FPN’s?
https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/legal/fixed-penalty
HoarseMann wrote:
Nope. Careless driving can be dealt with via FPN or triable summarily (mag’s court).
Dangerous driving cannot be dealt with via FPN and is triable either-way (mag’s court or crown court). Perhaps this is why they include that paragraph, because their matrix says they don’t take further action unless it meets the dangerous threshold at which point a FPN isn’t an option.
BTW, a course is an alternative to the FPN, offered if there are no previous courses in the last 3 years. So you can’t have one for dangerous driving.
HoarseMann wrote:
That is the question. Along with: why can’t they be consistent; both with themselves, and nationally?
I think the FPN can only be
I think the FPN can only be issued if the issuing officer saw it. I can’t find anything regulatory, but it seems to be the case accoridng to the NPCC:
https://www.npcc.police.uk/Publication/NPCC%20FOI/Operations/069%2015%20NPCC%20Response%20att%2002%20of%2002.pdf
(original emphasis)
GMBasix wrote:
This is demonstrably not the case (it is 8 years old, after all) unless “saw it” includes “on a video”. There are many examples of FPNs and courses being issued on video evidence, including one of my own (course accepted for a RLJ) 3 weeks ago.
Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:
That’s an interesting link from GMBasix. The wording ‘and no public complaint’ would suggest that if you submit video evidence as a member of the public (i.e. make a public complaint) then a FPN would not be a viable route. It seems to be backed up a few lines down by talking about ‘the officer at the scene’ (but could that scene be a video screen?!).
However, CyclingMikey seems to get FPN’s issued for mobile phone use. On the other hand, police trained community speed watch volunteers using a calibrated speed gun can’t get FPN’s sent out (lack of video?).
It seems a bit open to interpretation and as GMBasix says, might just be guidance anyway.
they’re typically reluctant
they’re typically reluctant to progress prosecutions unless it’s a real ‘shocker’
How much more shocking do you want? No prosecution of this by my Champion Crappy Constabulary nominee: Lancashire
Yep, I’d class that a shocker
Yep, I’d class that a shocker. It’s rare in the UK to get a road that’s wide enough for a safe pass with oncoming traffic. There are a few – like those horrendous three lane single carriageways from the early ’80’s, which have now been converted to two lane in most places – but this isn’t one of those.
I’ve done a bit more digging around this FPN malarkey; it does appear to be a difference in the interpretation of the guidance between forces (and even among officers). Interesting article in WhatCar? about it…
https://www.whatcar.com/news/motorists-submit-35-dash-cam-videos-to-uk-police-every-day/n22319
I was not given a FPN as an option with the incident I submitted, only no action / awareness course / summons.
Hopefully there won’t be another incident that I feel the need to submit, but if there is, I may push Thames Valley to take the FPN route and see what they say.
Interesting stats on page 2
Interesting stats on page 2 of that article
My force for example is a 1 in 4 of action taken with 6000 dash and bike cam submissions. And remember the West Midlands Police are the leaders in road safety (?)
Looking at our near neighbours West Mercia, the stats aren’t on page 2 but on page one they reckon they have “intervened” on 91% of submissions.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Yep, that small table with the percentage of action taken is hugely telling. Across a handful of forces the rate varies from 81% to 18%, even with a similar volume of submissions.
I can’t believe that video submissions in Wales are much more worthy of action than those submitted in Dorset. It must be down to an inconsistency in the standards applied between the forces.
I have to agree with you that
I have to agree with you that there is an inconsitency with the standards applied between forces and quite possibly between individual officers.
It is the same in every walk of life and every situation, some people will do the absolute minimum that their job requires while others will do everything they can to make sure the correct result is reached.
I concur.
I concur.
Last year (to about May) I received e-mails – usually from the same person – to update me with the disposal. I had the opportunity to query at least two of them, both with favourable results; both times were to point out that they had initially looked at the wrong thing.
These days, it seems to be a letter (surely a waste of money when they have my e-mail and phone number) – when they respond at all.
However, there is one individual at TVP who, instead of writing, actually calls me to let me know the disposal and seems genuinely interested in my opinion.
But according to that data
But according to that data more than half the submissions Norfolk/Suffolk result in fixed penalty notices, 2 years ago I might have felt that was about right, that doesnt feel right at all at the moment.
Plus youd think with that kind of prosecution rate people would be driving with much more care on the roads, and that couldnt be any further from the reality if you tried.
Says lancs police don’t
Says lancs police don’t accept footage – wtjs was right all along !!
Says lancs police don’t
Says lancs police don’t accept footage – wtjs was right all along !!
I was, and am, right all along, but it’s nothing to do with this duff article- which is what you’d expect from a rag called ‘What Car’ with careless journalists on loan from the hyper-junk press. You can, of course, get video footage into Lancashire Constabulary- it’s just that they ignore it and any other evidence with the combined aims of protecting their Supreme status in the Champion Crappy Constabulary competition, avoiding work and stuffing cyclists. The notion that you can’t submit arose from LC refusing to join the ‘portal’ for video set up by some company. This used to be a major disadvantage, but they have now increased their limit to 60 MB per file and I have increased my CPU firepower for compression, so it’s not a limiting feature now- if they want to return to the Good Old Days they’ll have to limit it to about 10 MB per file.
HoarseMann wrote:
I think you’re right about it being local interpretation. Here in my area (covered by South Wales Police) they used to make a point of notifying you after a OpSnap/GoSafe submission that they wouldn’t or couldn’t provide any sort of update on the case, unless I was called to court. I can’t remember exactly but it was some nonesense about witnesses and GDPR.
Recently however they have changed to provide a more detailed response, stating whether they intend to take further action or not…
“The digital recording submitted by you has been reviewed and we are satisfied that one of the following actions is necessary to proceed with this matter:
Warning
Conditional offer of a diversionary course
Conditional offer of fixed penalty
Proceed to court (if you are required to attend court you will be notified nearer to the time, by our witness care team)”
You can see in the above extract from the reponse email to one of my recent submissions that they have included the option of an FPN. I still won’t ever know which option they took, unless it goes to court with me as a witness/victim, but at least I know that as a minimum the driver received a warning letter. The driver will now realise that their future actions ‘may’ result in Police action, so they might adjust their driving accordingly. We can but hope…
A move in the right direction
A move in the right direction, due in no small part to your submissions to the force I’m sure. As far as I’m concerned any action on the list will improve driver behaviour in the long run which is what we are after. Out of interest have you posted the videos on this site? It would be interesting to see what sort of incidents the police decide to proceed with in some way or other and also to compare different forces. As far as I can tell this is the only site which is acting as a repository for this comparison to be made.
This also varies between
This also varies between forces. In the two incidents I’ve had dealt with by Thames Valley, they had no problem telling me the exact course of action taken.
In the more serious one, I had a fairly lengthy chat with the officer about the possible options and he was very good at listening to me and coming to a compromise. Although he did remind me that ultimately it’s the police who decide what action to take!
Hopefully there won’t be
Hopefully there won’t be another incident that I feel the need to submit, but if there is, I may push Thames Valley to take the FPN route and see what they say.
You would have no option ‘to see what they say’ in Lancashire, because there would be no response whatsoever. You could then email, but they wouldn’t reply to that either. There are essentially 2 outcomes to an online incident report here, but you aren’t told anything about them: report ejected straight to bin and no action; or, if they’re bored, they might have a laugh at how close the vehicle came to the Road Rat and then no action- see VW Transporter PJ13 FNP below. However, sometimes they make a mistake and bin the Grade A evidence of crossing traffic lights 2 seconds after they turn red. They then ignore the complaint for over 5 months, but eventually the policy is going to find them out.
Hopefully an official letter
Hopefully an official letter would be enough to convince most reasonable people to be warned about and modify their behaviour.
However, I’d postulate that the problem with many close passes, the ones which are not outright aggression or wilful stupidity is simply that the driver involved just doesn’t have the necessary skills of observation, forward planning and vehicle control to be able to consistently deal with overtaking slower traffic in a safe manner. Unfortunately no amount of letters from the Police are going to fix this basic failing. There really should be an option of attending further training or something similar to a speed awareness course. Personally I’d rather have better trained drivers on the road than more drivers with points on their licences.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Indeed. That option is available on the spot when the police conduct their own operations, of course. Otherwise, the problem is that, until the NIP and s172 are issued, you don’t know who to actually send on the course.
It is pleasing that the
It is pleasing that the police have reiterated what I’ve been writing about many of the incidents that are reported on road.cc: “to bring a prosecution for any offence in the Magistrates’ Court there has to be sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction”.
It’s no good to just assume malice like commentators here often do, one has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. In this case I’d have thought the bar had been met in terms of crossing the white solid line, however.
Malice is not a prerequisite
Malice is not a prerequisite for a charge of “Careless, or inconsiderate, driving” or even for “Dangerous driving”. It is enough that the standard falls below that expected.
Sorry I disagree, it is is
Sorry I disagree, it is is just police being lazy or double standards in a lot of cases.
The video evidence and corroborating statement from the cyclist should be adequate evidence to have a reasonable chance of conviction. Because the bar is a straightforward one “the standard of driving falls below that expected of a competent and careful driver”.
You do not need to provide evidence that the driving had malice simply that it was below the standard of a competent driver. And to quote the CPS some examples of careless driving “misusing lanes to gain advantage over other drivers” and “driving too close to another vehicle” both of those are pretty much the exact definition of a close pass.
Then they try and use the “you never caught the driver’s face on camera/you couldn’t identify the driver” so there is no reasonable chance of prosecution…… I’m sure if you were caught speeding by a static camera that only photographed your rear number plate there is still a reasonable chance of prosecution either of the driver or for failure to nominate.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
It is true in isolation, but many forces seem to be prepared to push the matter, rather than giving up because it’s a bit tricky. Any case is likely to fail if you don’t bother making it in the first place. I’m not sure that aligning oneself with a force that is frequently described as uninspiring in its protection of cyclists is the best way to make one’s argument.
As you say, in this case, it seemed a worthwhile candidate for prosecution for crossing the line.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Whether they do that or not is irrelevant. The law is that drivers should not cross the soid white line to overtake a slower moving vehicle unless that vehicle is travelling at less than 10mph. There is no requirement for malicious intent.
Speed cameras are used on the basis that the law is clear … go faster than the limit and you are liable for a fine and 3 points (except in the case of significant mitigating factors). Again no requirement for any kind of malicious intent.
Personally, I would tend to always go with Hanlon’s Razor … Don’t ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity (or incompetence in this case).
Problem is, my own experience demonstrates that multiple drivers will almost inevitably overtake me on the half mile stretch of double solid white lines on my commute … unless one of the vehicles close by is a police car, in which case no one does. Perhaps not malice, but definitely a case of knowing the law and choosing to ignore it as long as they think they will get away with it.
definitely a case of knowing
definitely a case of knowing the law and choosing to ignore it as long as they think they will get away with it
You will get away with almost all road traffic offences in North Lancashire- could be different in South Lancashire, I suppose. F2 YNY did indeed crash through that red light- no ‘words of advice’, no warning letter, no FPN, no joke driving course- nothing
I imagine that the motorist
I imagine that the motorist just thought “cyclist = slow” and went to pass, presuming that they even gave the matter any thought.
I’d wager that they either didn’t know about the 10mph limit for such overtaking or that they did know but didn’t imagine that a cyclist could ever travel that fast (because, again, “cyclist = slow”).
Crossing the white line? That
Crossing the white line? That’s nowt!
Lancashire Constabulary officers would be in fits of mirth about that: ‘Call that crossing the unbroken white line?!’ This is crossing the unbroken white line and breaking the speed limit by at least 10 mph, and we don’t even bother looking at cases like that.
VW Polo NL62 ZST 30.6.21 09:52
I’m strengthening my nomination of Lancashire as The Crappest Constabulary in England in several categories