Today’s video in our Near Miss of the Day series shows an astonishingly dangerous overtake of a group of cyclists who are turning right off an A-road in Hampshire when a van driver on the wrong side of the road goes past them – fortunately, with no vehicles waiting at the junction they are turning into, and no motorists coming from the opposite direction.
The footage was filmed on the A287 Farnham Road at the junction with Chalky Lane, which leads to the village of Dogmersfield near Fleet, last Thursday evening by road.cc reader Peter, who told us that “It’s the weirdest and most potentially dangerous one I have been involved in as a cyclist.
“The police have asked for the original video which I have given to them now. Heard nothing since Friday.”
Here’s an image from Google Street View from where the cyclist’s were waiting to turn right, and looking back down the road in the direction the van driver came from.
And one particularly chilling thing here, is if as a cyclist you have moved to the middle of a road with this kind of layout to turn off it, after checking there is no traffic approaching from the front, and none coming from the side road, can you say hand on heart that you would then always check over your shoulder for a driver making this kind of manoeuvre? If not, we doubt that belated toot on the horn would have helped.
The vehicle is in the livery of telecommunications contractor Kelly Group, and Peter has lodged a complaint with the company, who replied to him yesterday asking for more details, although he has heard nothing further since then.
“A group of cyclists with myself leading were trying to turn right off the A287 (heading towards Odiham) on to Chalky Lane when your van (HJ17 KAX) committed to a dangerous overtake,” Peter told the company.
“He was so committed to over taking us that he had to use the slip road to Chalky Lane to complete it. Luckily no cars were waiting at the end of Chalky Lane, coming in the other direction on A287 or hitting me (or the other cyclists) during the dangerous overtake.
“One of the most dangerous overtakes I have been involved in as a cyclist which could have led to me being injured or worse.”
Peter added: “What’s ironic is looking at Kelly Group’s Facebook page they talk about having an elite drivers’ scheme and taking safety seriously.”
> 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
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
70 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 611: A shockingly dangerous overtake by van driver on wrong side of the road as cyclists turn right”
Enough time to honk twice but
Enough time to honk twice but somehow not to operate the brakes, what a genius
The cyclist had already been
The cyclist had already been in the hatched area in the centre of the road for quite some time before the overtake.
Were there other cyclists behind, such that the van had started the overtake of the rear cyclist and then got caught with no means to get to the left of the front cyclist? Title of video is “overakes cyclists” so I assume so. Obviously braking is always an option, but one so few drivers are willing to consider.
I think where a group of cyclists are attempting a right turn, the best approach is to keep in close contact and for the rear cyclist to make the call on when it is safe to move over to the right “clear behind”, and the entire group to cross the lane together. So as to avoid a situation where a line of cyclists is spread across the lane funneling overtaking drivers to the wrong side of the road.
This is not to say the driver is not wrong, clearly they should have slowed/stopped waitied for the cyclists to turn and then continued on their way on the now empty road, there is no rush to overtake cyclists who are turning off the driver’s route.
wycombewheeler wrote:
The driver is clearly in the wrong with absolutley no excuses – you are meant to look ahead to see if it is clear and safe to overtake which with 1 or 100 cyclists it blatently was not – there is a clear sign indicating a junction as well.
No this is simply that type of driver who thinks cyclists are stationary objects and does not look further than the 1st obstacle in front of them.
Simply should not be allowed to drive on the roads without passing an extended re-test when his ban expires
I doubt he would be found
I doubt he would be found guilty of anything as there isn’t sufficient evidence in my view.
Seriously- you’re a parody,
Seriously- you’re a parody, right?
The van is not only overtaking at a junction, but DRIVES INTO THE JUNCTION to avoid a collision, then continues back into the main carrigeway even though he’s now unsighted.
If a car was coming out of that junction, there would have been a loss of life, no ifs or buts. Driver should be charged with dangerous driving as a minimum, and you say there’s not enough evidence for a charge?
Go have a lie down. And stay there.
Seriously- you’re a parody,
Double post
STiG911 wrote:
It was worth saying twice.
Plus direction sign for the
Plus direction sign for the junction and a hatched area. Staggering incompetence given vehicles had already overtaken safely only seconds before.
makadu wrote:
This is not a question of who is wrong, the driver is clearly wrong, because at any point when they could see what was happening they could stop, but chose not to despite it becoming increasing obvious they were trying to pass a line of cyclists in the process of turning right, and that the first cyclist who had been indicating for sometime was already in the centre of the road with a reasonable expectation that no one would come from behind to pass on his right.
This is a point about how to ride safer knowing that drivers
are often really shitoften do not look past the cyclist in front of them to determine whether or not they can complete an overtake before they commence it. I’ve lost count of the number of times drivers pull alongside me as they were trying to overtake before realising I was keeping pace with the car in front, and then try to pull in, herding me towards the kerb.You don’t want to be in a position where the driver is overtaking the rider behind you and then faced with the options of going further right to pass you, or slowing (which they almost never choose) or deciding whether they can go from overtaking other riders outside and then pass you inside.
If the rearmost cyclist (who is appraently the only thing some drivers can see, not the red light 50m ahead, or the car in front of the cyclist at the same speed, or the cyclist halfway across the lane because they are turning right) indicates right, checks to see vehicles have slowed to allow the turn and then moves out, it is then safe for others in the group to do the same.
Unfortunately the type of driver you identify as not looking past the first obstacle in front of them is all too common.
Possibly a good example of
Possibly a good example of when to use the horn in a “I’m totally out of control and represent a significant threat to you” sort of meaning.
OMFG. I kept thinking where
OMFG. I kept thinking where’s the van then OMG!!!!
Contact the company directly.
If that went wrong people would have died, the driver needs to be off the road.
Just out of interest, how
Just out of interest, how many people were in the group? Without seeing the back of the group or their road positioning it’s hard to get the full picture.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Ooh, hello. Nige has picked up teh challenge to find a way that blames the rider. He’s just warming up. Let’s see what he comes out with next….
If you scroll down the
If you scroll down the comments, you’ll see user “wycombewheeler” elucidated more in response to “lukei1”. Until I see further details I’ll withhold further comment, as I don’t like speculating.
As someone who nearly came a cropper a couple of days ago (Sunday to be precise about an hour before the England game) to an idiot driving a taxi who pulled out a drive without looking properly and literally scuffed my little pinky on my left foot in my Shimano RP9s, I don’t like the passive-aggressive way you’re accusing me of being anti-cyclist.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
I was accusing you of no such thing. You’re perfectly capable of that on your own…..
Captain Badger wrote:
Still waiting for that invite to come on a ride with you. Whenever you’re ready… assuming you have a bike of course.
I might actually invest in a camera to be honest, that ride did really shock me with the taxi; country road where there’s a mirror on the opposite side of the road you’re meant to check before pulling out of the drive. I doubled back to have a word with him and he just drove off…
Nigel Garrage wrote:
It’s really horrible when it happens. I always run one these days, it’s an imposition, but weirdly helps me keep my cool when things do happen.
I’m not great at keeping my mouth shut (no, really everyone), but as a number of other posters have hinted you ain’t going to win against mouth-breathers, and they are tooled up by dint of being in their cars.
Ahh, but if he gets a camera,
Ahh, but if he gets a camera, then he will be a vigilante like Vine and Mikey and we know how much he loves those two.
“Just out of interest” …
“Just out of interest” … what the hell difference would it possibly make whether there was one cyclist here or 100? Or any number in between?
Maybe there was 20 cyclists
Maybe there was 20 cyclists and the van driver mistook the cyclists for cones and thought it was a diversion? Then I think driving like that is acceptable
Maybe some of them were
Maybe some of them were wearing black and their invisibility fields overlapped with the riders who weren’t.
Given the time between the front rider taking the absolutely correct road position for a right turn and when the van hove into view off the right side of the carriageway at some speed the van driver either lost all braking, wasn’t paying attention, or comitted to a ludicrous overtake at a junction and simply didn’t want to back down from a potentially fatal error of judgement.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Quite, particularly as the fatality was unlikely to be their own…
If there were a lot of
If there were a lot of cyclists behind, it’s possible the van simply got forced to the right as they pulled out and then got stuck as they accelerated in a group without a way to revert left before the junction – the way he used his horn hardly sounded aggressive, but as I wrote I wouldn’t want to speculate further unless there’s footage really.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
That is definitely a possibility (except for the use of the word “forced”, which would suggest they had no options in the approach they took). However this in no way absolves the driver of their culpability in this circumstance.
The scenario you paint suggests that this driver didn’t consider slowing down, but assumed that they could commence and complete an overtake on a country road without changing their speed. The direct result was what we saw, and it was good luck that no one (and we mean the riders here) was hurt or killed.
Me, approaching a group of cyclists I would slow to keep pace with them (leaving plenty of stopping distance) until such a time that I judge it to be safe to overtake. Simples and, ahem, safes!
All a bit irrelevant as no
Not quite relevant as no one should be overtaking at a junction and the hatched area is a big clue too.
Anyone with a modicum of hazard awareness could see that even if the cyclists were not already placed to make a right, there is a reasonable likelihood they would and hence slow for the hazards in front of them.
Another part of Nigels train
Another part of Nigels train of thought is that cyclists seem to act like lemmings….. one out all out.
Even in large group rides I have never once seen a cyclists at the back of a group ride just blindly stream out onto a road from a junction unless the rider in front of them has shouted clear or similar. Even then, most riders would still double check before proceeding.
And in a group ride going through a set of junctions like that the vast majority of cases would regroup after everyone had crossed the main road.
Even if that were the case,
Even if that were the case, basic roadcraft is not to overtake at or approaching junctions.
H.C: Rule 167
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example;
Approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road.
etc
Indeed Mungecrundle.
Indeed Mungecrundle.
I mean its not like some motorists when they are turning left out of a junction would simply look to the right, not expecting some idiot to be overtaking at a junction would they.
Imagine how badly that would have turned out if there was a vehicle pulling out of the junction when they saw that the road was clear and the cyclist was starting to cross the lane to their right…..
But good old Nige will try somehow to find some way to blame the cyclists and exhonorate the driver.
Mungecrundle wrote:
What we need is a set of signs that is recognisable to folk having read some kind of road rule document. That way we could have some kind of sign that warns of existence of junctions, allowing drivers to make an informed decision on what to do safely.
We could have, I dunno, all warning signs to be the same shape and colour scheme, an all prohibitions to be a different shape, so everyone could easily understand what they had to do.
What, you mean I’d have to
What, you mean I’d have to read something ? Don’t be ridiculous !
hirsute wrote:
Yeah s’pose so. Stupid idea, soz
And maybe some training and
And maybe some training and testing…
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Back in your box Troll. You are back to your default opinion “the cyclist must somehow be to blame for the drivers stupidity”.
The driver was “forced to the right”? I assume the driver was also “forced” not to use their eyes to look at the road in front of them? And “forced” to use their horn instead of their brake pedal?
I mean it’s not like the lead cyclist was out on the main road for 30 seconds before the van made its appearance. its not like the cyclist moved into the hatched area at least 5 seconds before the van appeared. Oh wait that’s exactly what happened.
In NO way is this any fault of the cyclist.
TriTaxMan wrote:
Someone say box trolls?
Captain Badger wrote:
Nige is the goofy one on the right.
TriTaxMan wrote:
Without seeing what happened behind, there is simply no logical way you can say who is at fault. While it’s probable the van driver was entirely in the wrong, you cannot conclusively draw that inference with zero evidence, and it’s still my belief that it would be kicked out of court if it ever came up.
I don’t care how upset or angry you feel about that, facts trump emotion.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
No the driver is clearly in the wrong here
1) the lead cyclists was indicating for some time and already across the klane well before the van arrives. EITHER all the cylists were qually far across and the driver overtook an entire line of cyclists clearly about to turn right OR the lead cyclist was clearly visible past the rear cyclists if only the van driver had properly assessed his overtake before starting. NOTE that you should not overtake at a junction anyway.
2) By entering the junction to avoid a collision was would have been obvious with any degree of foresight the very real possibility of impacting anyone coming out of the side road.
3) the the driver reenters the carriageway with very little view at an angle with the potential to cause a head on collission with a driver coming the other way.
The van driver overtakes fully 6 seconds after the camera cyclist has reached the hatched area, clearly turning right, time enough to stop.
It could also have been that
It could also have been that
1) the cyclists were to the left of the lane, with the lead rider obscured and didn’t look or indicate before pulling out right leading to the driver having nowhere to go
2) the cyclists leaving a gap between themselves with the driver being safe to proceed, but then speeding up and leaving the driver stranded on the outside – that’s something that’s happened to me before with roles reversed as a cyclist when I’ve been passing traffic to the right
3) Cyclists exiting the previous junction without looking forcing the van driver out to the right again stuck with nowhere to go.
So without evidence it’s impossible to say van driver was definitely in the wrong, but I will reiterate that driver is likely at fault.
Maybe, if the Police
Maybe, if the Police investigate, they could maybe interview the driver, possibly take witness statements from some of the other cyclists and perhaps not take your advice to give up before starting due to “lack of evidence” based on a report posted to an internet forum with video from a front facing camera which clearly records a serious road traffic offence.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
1 – no not possible the road is a sweeping right hand bend so there is no way that the lead rider could be obsucred from the driver approaching behind them
2- not relevant – check rule 167 of the highway code – the driver should not have committed to an overtake on the approach to the junction especially with other road users in play.
3 – you are telling me that there were enough cyclists to cover at least 150 yards between the two junctions? so unless there were around 50 cyclists single file in the group you are just making excuses for the driver.
And looking at google maps street view even with the shocking image quality…. you can look back from the junction at Chalky Lane and see the junction that the cyclists joined the A287.
So the facts are there is a clear line of sight for at least 150m between the two junctions. Two vehicles slowed down, and safely overtook the cyclists before the junction…. you can tell they had slowed down due to the fact that the engine noise of the van is such that it is accelerating hard, which means the group of cyclists is relatively small if it is still accelerating hard when it got to the lead cyclist.
By far the most likely scenario is… the van approached the group of cyclists at speed, failing to slow down even though there are multiple junctions in a short space of time. The lead cyclist checked over their shoulder after the 2nd vehicle passed and started to move into the hatched area but at the same time the van approaching at speed decided rather than slow down that the MGIF the group of cyclists….. and when they realised that the group was turning right and that they had committed to a dangerous overtake used their horn to warn the lead cyclist.
But the single fact remains the driver is 100% to blame. There is no likely just 100% blame.
I say that as a driver not as a cyclist. I lived near a similar junction on a sweeping bend and there was at least 1 accident a year caused by an impatient driver committing an overtake on the approach to that junction. One of which put a friend in hospital for a month when they were stopped waiting to turning right and a driver failed to see my friends indicator on their car, plowed into the back of the car and sent it into the path of an oncoming van.
Common sense dictates that on an approach to a junction you should be prepared to slow down for turning traffic.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
1) cyclists on the left of the lane cannot obscure the view a driver has of a rider on the right hand side of the lane. Cyclist is in the hatched area for 6s before the van comes past.
2) are you really suggesting the cyclists acceleration was relevant to a van doing 50-60mph, (or more)? negligable difference in passing speed whether the cyclists were doing 12 or 18mph
3) cyclist exits the previous junction at 9s, passed by van at 29s, passed by car at 31s, starts moving across lane at 33s, reaches hatching at 35s passed by van at 41s. What is the van driving doing between 35s and 41s that he doesn’t see the cyclist turning right, or doesn’t consider slowing down?
Highway code rule 167
Do not overtake
approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
..
when a road user is indicating right, even if you believe the signal should have been cancelled. Do not take a risk; wait for the signal to be cancelled
Nigel Garrage wrote:
There is not ‘zero evidence’. If you scroll to the top of the page, there’s a videothat you can watch to see what happened. It doesn’t contain all aspects of the case, but it does not contain no apsects, either.
Could additional evidence offer any justification for the van driver’s actions, or transfer any of the blame to any other road user? I’m open to serious suggestions, because I can’t think of any.
Sorry – zero evidence of what
Sorry – zero evidence of what was happening behind
Understood. Question stands.
Understood. Question stands.
I provided some examples in
I provided some examples in my previous answer to wycombewheeler
Yeah. Ships that pass in the
Yeah. Ships that pass in the night.
I was going to respond, but it was TLDR and wycombewheeler has responded to your theories.
The cyclist was going 13.3mph over 161m. Plenty of time to pass safely or not at all.
Of course, if you’ve got any other ideas, go for it.
So Nige….. Would you be
So Nige….. Would you be saying the same thing if the cyclists were replaced with other motor vehicles?
If the van driver came across a queue, lets say 2 for aguments sake, of slower moving vehicles on the approach to the same junction. They were slowing down because the car at the front was indicating to turn right and lets say for arguments sake the van drivers view of the front car was obscured because the car was in front of an articulated lorry, and only at the last moment on the approach to the junction did the car move onto the hatched area.
By which point the driver had committed to an overtake, and then the car began their maneuver to then have the van blast their horn at them because they were coming through.
Would you be saying that you needed more evidence before you could justify saying the van driver was definitely at fault? So please give me your expert in depth analysis of this scenario and tell me how this would be kicked out of court if this ever came up in a case
Or to make all the facts the same as it must have been in your little mind it is a queue of slower moving motor vehicles which spanned the 150 yards between the two junctions, the van driver was forced to the right to overtake all of the vehicles in the queue only to find as they got near to the junction a car decided to turn right.
Please explain how this would be anyones fault other than the van drivers….. but I will give you a hand using your own words :-
1) the lead car was to the left of the lane, with the lead car being obscured and didn’t look or indicate before pulling out right leading to the driver having nowhere to go
2) the queue of vehicles left a gap between themselves with the driver being safe to proceed, but then speeding up and leaving the driver stranded on the outside
3) Vehicles exited the previous junction without looking forcing the van driver out to the right again stuck with nowhere to go.
So all I have done is changed cyclists to car/vehicle and maybe now you will see how ridiculous your train of thought is
TriTaxMan wrote:
It’s funny you should mention this, because I had a similar problem as a cyclist overtaking cars a few days ago – I was overtaking a line of cars doing about 20-25mph while they were doing around 10 mph, and it turned out there was a car turning right that caused the slowdown for the cars. As I was on a bike I was able to look round prior to reaching the indicating car, make eye contact, use a hand signal and get a nod of approval to move back left in time to slot back in before getting stuck in no-man’s land.
Everything worked perfectly because road users acted with politeness and courtesy. If the car driver wouldn’t have given me space, I might have had a similar issue to the van driver in the near miss video.
So, far from being ridiculous, my train of thought is not only valid in theory, but is a concrete example in reality too.
Anyway, as per usual other commenters can’t seem to help themselves but to be abusive (not you – you’ve been very polite and thoughtful, but those especially from low quality towns just north of Preston), so I think it’s best to wrap up. Perhaps Road.cc could follow up the case and see if there is any action taken by the police and – if so – if it results in a conviction.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Unfortunately relying on “Everything worked perfectly because road users acted with politeness and courtesy” to mitigate risk is completely unacceptable, as it is something you are entirely out of control of – witness your other experience with the idiot that you related to earlier
Add into the mix that you as a rider o/taking a bunch of cars is at your risk only, no one else’s, and your speed was such that other options were available to you (I would doubt that you committed to a course of action that relied on the above for you to avoid a pasting)
The driver approached a group of riders at speed near a junction, and failed to slow down. Regardless of what the riders were doing (and there is no evidence of anything wrong on teh film) they were was utterly reckless and negligent whilst driving a 3.5t vehicle.
There really was absolutely no conceivable circumstances that what we saw could be anyone else’s fault – the driver was the one that had control of the entire dynamic of their situation.
A similar issue to the van
A similar issue to the van driver:- I’m now imagining him frantically ringing his bell to tell the driver in front he was about to blast past uncontrollably and dangerously to the occupants in that car or any that might have been coming out of the junction.
Although of course what he actually explained was normal filtering done by 75% of commuting cyclists on a normal day, and then tried to equate it to 3 tonne materials travelling at 40mph dangerously.
Of course you could ask several questions on that experience like road situational awareness. For example, lots of traffic suddenly at 10 mph because a car turning right – surely they would have stopped if all in a single file. Or the car was far enough across to be seen by the cyclist before pulling the manouvre. Also if the car was delayed on turning right, then the oncoming traffic would have been in the cyclists face.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Presumably you slowed down prior to moving back left as the line of cars was travelling slower than you. So blasting bast the right turning vehicle without slowing down was not unde consideration at all.
Worst case you would have stopped stationary behind the right turning car, and struggled to get back to the left, through the now flowing traffic.
I love the fact that the
I love the fact that the cyclists invisibility field also managhed to obscure the Right Turn Ahead / Reduce Speed now sign as well. So well informed of the road conditions and still tried to blast past the cyclists.
Love these jokes you keep
Love these jokes you keep coming up with
Sod Kelly Group. Send it to
Sod Kelly Group. Send it to the rozzers
I’ve encountered Kelly Group
I’ve encountered Kelly Group vans driving dangerously in South London too. I’d assumed they were local. It made me laugh to read that they have an elite drivers’ scheme – not sure it’s working.
markieteeee wrote:
Perhaps an elite team responding to the “war on motorists”
Staggeringly incompetent and
Staggeringly incompetent and dangerous, and I hope the police throw the book at them and the driver is banned forever, as anyone that bad should never be allowed to drive again. If another vehicle had been coming out of that junction as that idiot drove through it, there would have been at least a couple of deaths. Impossible to guess what was going through the driver’s mind when they do something so blatantly dangerous.
I sincerely hope the company have instantly suspended the driver pending further enquiries, and that they will be summarily dismissed at the disciplinary hearing, and that the company will co-operate fully with the police investigation.
Saw the white van at 28
Saw the white van at 28 seconds and thought ‘what’s the fuss’. Then the action started…
Shit – Kelly Communications
Shit – Kelly Communications has turned up on the driveway – just checking the car and garage now for damage !
In the pictures of HP
In the pictures of HP
Driver is guilty as sin. The
Driver is guilty as sin. The police response will show how little they care about cyclists’ lives, or how much (Ho! Ho!). The company will do nothing beyond claiming to have interviewed the driver.
I can’t understand why people
I can’t understand why people respond to the moron. It just clutters up the pages with drivel quoted and double-quoted.
wtjs wrote:
I wish I could give more than one like to that comment
absolutely agree. i enjoy
absolutely agree. i enjoy reading the comments but when i see him involved i drift off elsewhere.
The time saving strategy is:
The time saving strategy is: if the comment is by, or in reply to, someone in your Black Book- reject immediately and ignore
Driving like that should
Driving like that should result in an instant ban. It really beggars belief, but I’ve seen something similar before….
Too many impatient, idiotic drivers on the road – many who seem to have got their driving licence from a cereal packet.
That last minute shoulder
That last minute shoulder check before you commit to the turn is not called ‘the lifesaver’ for nothing.
Not surprised it was a Kelly Comms van, I’ve never had a good pass from one of them.
Any updates from Peter?
Any updates from Peter? It would be really nice to know that the police are taking this seriously and that the company have taken robust action; or not.
Any updates from Peter? It
Any updates from Peter? It would be really nice to know that the police are taking this seriously and that the company have taken robust action; or not
The companies take their lead from the local police- if they know the police will dodge taking any action by demanding more minutes of video than they think are available, or demanding the confirmatory video from the offending vehicle which they are certain will not now exist, then the company knows it doesn’t need to bother. For instance, I know that the company operating 32 tonne 4 axle tipper lorry MV18 UJT wouldn’t care about it thundering through a red light at 50+ mph because they know that Lancashire Constabulary doesn’t care.
That should be a clear
That should be a clear dangerous driving charge. At least 6 months disqualificaiton.