This one came with a warning of “police indifference” from the road.cc reader who submitted today’s Near Miss of the Day clip, after no further action was taken to this alarming piece of driving because… there was no record of the report, and then it had been incorrectly dealt with by a trainee, meaning the 14-day window had passed.
Reader Steven was left to assume this driver’s last-minute swerving manoeuvre had been an attempt to intimidate him, having initally thought it might have been to avoid a pothole.
“The video was shot as I was cycling south into Brookmans Park in Hertfordshire at the end of March,” he explained. “On a reasonably quiet road the oncoming 4×4 suddenly swung across the road towards me before pulling back at the last moment. I turned in to avoid it and initially thought it had swerved to avoid a pothole but there was nothing there.
“I can only assume that the driver wanted to assert his dominance over cyclists by either trying to scare me or make me fall off. I did an online check and the Toyota isn’t taxed, nor did it have an MOT.
“What was disappointing though was the subsequent reaction from the police. I submitted an online report on the force website and got back an automated email saying someone would be in touch within 48 hours. Nothing happened so I used their query to find out what was happening.
“Again an automated response that a member of the appropriate team would be notified and they’d get back to me. Again nothing. I finally used the complaints page, which did elicit a response from a real person who initially said that there was no record of the report, and then that it had been incorrectly dealt with by a trainee.
“However, it was now more than 14 days since the incident so nothing more could be done. Twice now I’ve been knocked off my bike by a car pulling out at a junction and the attending police did nothing. Now they won’t even pretend to look at video footage.
“Last year in London I was kicked in the face by a delivery driver who was trying to smash my phone when I took a photo of him blocking the pavement on a blind bend. The attending police officer told me that it wasn’t illegal for delivery vehicles to park across the pavement and that I had aggravated the situation by taking a photograph. You can’t win.
“Don’t expect any help from the police if you don’t drive.”
> 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
44 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 862: Cyclist guesses motorist wanted to intimidate him with last-minute swerve”
Squeaky bum time.
Squeaky bum time.
All it takes is oil on the road and that would have been death.
No time limit on assault or
No time limit on assault or threatening behaviour as far as I know.
(Edit) Or was this a ‘proactive’ attempt to ensnare the driver??
Normally, not attributing to
Normally, not attributing to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence is a good maxim. But with all the corruption coming to light in the Met recently, there is a good chance that their neighbouring force the Hertfordshire Constabulary is pulling the same sort of tricks. I’d say it is 50-50 that their systems are just that crap, or that they are covering up for a copper who deep-sixed the initial complaint because the driver is a friend or family member of theirs.
I’m not sure I understand
I’m not sure I understand this quoted 14 day rule? Does it just apply to motoring offences caught by the public on camera? So if you can avoid being tracked within 14 days (dirty number plate) you get away scot free.
If it is just motoring offences it applies to, if the will was there this could surely be prosecuted under non motoring criminal law. I can think of a few offences that would apply. So I tend to agree with the suggested corruption possibility.
It applies to some motoring
It applies to some motoring offences where the person was not stopped by police at the time – they have to be given notice within 14 days of intended prosecution. Doesn’t apply if there was an “accident” (that’s the language of the legislation). It could perhaps be prosecuted by other means (e.g. assault) but sadly police have to prioritise and consider whether there’s a realistic prospect of conviction – it’s not necessarily just about ‘will’, but pragmatism and best use of limited resources.
Hmm I wonder if they fell off
Hmm I wonder if they fell off their bike or collided with the curb if it would count as an ‘accident?’
Thanks quiff, useful
Thanks quiff, useful clarification.
As before, and this is an
As before, and this is an accident – taking avoiding action is an accident.
No ved or mot. What’s the
No ved or mot. What’s the betting on insurance?
Is this Lancashire ?!
Surely the lack of ved and
Surely the lack of ved and MOT invalidate the insurance. MOT is the concerning one though, could be multitude of defects hiding.
Hirsute wrote:
If they haven’t got VED or MOT then they can’t have insurance, surely? (pretty sure it isn’t a historic vehicle…)
brooksby wrote:
If they haven’t got VED or MOT then they can’t have insurance, surely? (pretty sure it isn’t a historic vehicle…)— Hirsute
Insurance will be void without a valid MOT. Don’ think this applies to not having paid VED
wycombewheeler wrote:
It depends on the company/policy, some have a clause stating that the policy becomes invalid if the VED lapses, some don’t. I believe (but I can’t swear to it) they are still obligated to pay out third-party claims in such a situation but will then take action against the driver to recover their losses.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Generally not actually true as this is basically banned under UK law.
(Usually) The insurer can only ‘refuse’ if the lack of an MOT was relevent (i.e. mechanical failure that MOT would have detected) and they would still be liable to third parties (though could persue their client for any payout) rather than the MIB (if only because it limits later messes if validity of insurance is taken to court – you don’t end up with the MIB having to recover from insurer if a court determines the insurance was valid).
It does likely drastically reduce the vehicles value and would end any claim for a rental vehicle (no loss of amenity because the vehicle wasn’t (legally) drivable in the first place) and of course this is regardless of fault; I.e. if someone smashes into and writes off your parked car you (should) get a smaller payout without an MOT.
Is this Lancashire ?!
Is this Lancashire ?!
I thought I’d missed a trick there, but the videos I’m getting have the plates obscured. How did you ascertain this?
Edit: Sorry- missed the statement within the incident description! Does have the flavour of a No MOT vehicle reported to Lancashire Constabulary and ignored, though. BMW AF11 XVU‘s MOT expired 2.6.22- first identified and reported on 18.7.22. This is it on 4.4.23 not very far from where I first saw it. In Lancashire, offenders don’t have to worry about being caught by ANPR cameras, because police officers haven’t been able to understand the operating manual, in the same way that they weren’t able to find a body in the river because it was hidden at the bank by reeds.
I have mentioned before, in
I have mentioned before, in respect of LC, if you contact them via email with the subject line containing “COMPLAINT”, they seem to fall over themselves in getting back to you and letting you know what they are doing AND following up, to ask if the matter has been resolved to your satisfaction.
It may not work in every case but I’m sure there must be stats for complaints that LC would rather see be lower than higher. Worth a punt?
I’m Pavlov’s dog – no mot or
I’m Pavlov’s dog – no mot or ved I just think lancs !
So, a trainee failed to
So, a trainee failed to correctly deal with a report that there is no record of?
..said Sargent Heisenberg…
*Sergeant
*Sergeant
(No, I’m not fun at parties)
Or even Serjeant, depending
Or even Serjeant, depending on Regiment (The Rifles as I recall).
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
That’s fine, I goofed, and stand corrected.
To be fair, the spell checker was uncertain about that one ?
You would have hoped there
You would have hoped there would be some oversight of what trainees were up to. Man out loose threatening road users! Oh, he’s in a car, let’s file it under lost cats
Steven Lynch wrote:
That does presume that the non-trainees operate to a higher standard – unfortunately poor standards do seem to be perpetuated down subsequent cohorts. Isn’t that how Institutional issues accumulate?
That does presume that the
That does presume that the non-trainees operate to a higher standard – unfortunately poor standards do seem to be perpetuated down subsequent cohorts
Total Idleness Policing is irrevocably established in Lancashire, so the long-termers have taught it to the ‘trainees’. BX14 VFM has been driving around Garstang with no VED for 3 years 3 months, and I’ve spotted it numerous times. I reported it a couple of years ago to DVLA- no action of course. I also reported it to LancsFilth in January, and I saw it again a couple of days ago- this is the January picture because it’s right outside Garstang Police station!
Surely that’s a stolen
Surely that’s a stolen vehicle? Smashed rear passenger window where they’ve gained access. Tailgate is hanging down and nearside wing has a large dent.
The vehicle branding looks very similar to this local business:
https://www.manmadedrivesandpatiosltd.co.uk/patios.php
Impressive, Poirot!
Impressive, Poirot!
Companies House has a
Well this sort of thing is really not acceptable and I quite enjoy a bit of google fu.
hmm, the business address
hmm, the business address from their website is a bit of a run-down looking house and a mailbox provider.
Companies House has a business of that name with a director registered to an address at this caravan park:
https://goo.gl/maps/5UBBeU1MmhV4bK9A6
This all has a bit of a
This all has a bit of a travellers vibe about it. I can appreciate why the police might be keen to look the other way. Massive amount of effort to try and prosecute for what in real terms is a minor offence.
Took 50 officers the last
Took 50 officers the last time they visited the property this business is associated with:
https://www.thecomet.net/news/22212702.arrests-codicote-travellers-site/
It’s also been extended without planning permission:
“Wexford Park, is the only authorised gypsy/traveller site in North Hertfordshire with six permitted pitches. However, both Wexford Park and No 1 Pulmore Water have been extended westwards.”
I also get the feeling the police have intentionally looked the other way on this one.
I’m impressed by your powers
I’m impressed by your powers of detection. You obviously don’t work for the police ;-<
Unfortunately the image isn’t any clearer on the original video.
Yep, I don’t work for the
Yep, I don’t work for the police! Whether this was a stolen vehicle or associated with the company, it all seems a bit dodgy and you’re better off chalking it up as a lucky escape.
At least we now know what to look out for and the area to be vigilant around when out cycling. Oh, and you know who not to call if you need your drive tarmacked!
If that happened to me and I
If that happened to me and I got that response from the police, my MP and police commissioner would be getting a letter and I would be raising a formal complaint via IOPC.
FYI, I did contact my local
FYI, I did contact my local MP as it happened very close to where he lives. However, it is Grant Shapps, he of the “let’s get cyclists to have number plates”. To his credit he has got one of his assistants to contact Herts Police.
Leaving aside the complete
Leaving aside the complete shitshow that was the Police reation to this, what the hell is ‘police officer told me that it wasn’t illegal for delivery vehicles to park across the pavement’? This was in London, where it’s illegal to park on the pavement AT ALL.
Fuckwits.
STiG911 wrote:
That, and since when was taking a photo of a van a justification for assault?
What an absolute cnut.
What an absolute cnut.
If you’ve cycled a fair amount of time. You’ll have come across one or two of these cnuts.
Making the wrong decision or losing control at the wrong moment could cost the cyclist their life.
The arsehole in the motor doesn’t get that point. It’s just a bit of fun.
If only we could drop a couple of tacks or metal stars at the right moment. Problem solved.
Personally. I’m for repealing the gun laws. Pure self defence versus a 3 ton missile disguised as a truck. I’d empty the clip.
An ode to tramadol nights.
Send a message, Michael. One in each tit.
Fignon’s ghost wrote:
Caltrops (but maybe with hollow spines, same principle as the police stingers, so tyres slowly go flat).
Good idea. Stash them in
Good idea. Stash them in your bar bag/cup holder. Got to time it right.
Shut up and take my money
Shut up and take my money
On his phone?
On his phone?
Someone please explain to me
Someone please explain to me why because 14 days have passed a crime is no longer a crime?
Because drivers commit so
Because drivers commit so many infractions, how can you expect them to remember what they did wrong?
I think it’s mainly to do with the NIP being timely so it is fair and reasonable to know who was driving. Leaving it longer raises the question of whether it is reasonable to know who was driving. (Not saying it is right, just saying what the logic is).
As soon as the event becomes a serious one, such as bodily harm or criminal damage, the 14 day limit doesn’t apply. You can see the logic – it becomes a memorable event (in the context of my flippant first comment, which isn’t now so flippant).
As far as Police Scotland are
As far as Police Scotland are concerned, the driver only has to say that they can’t remember the incident and its all forgotten about.
Even when there is high-quality video evidence and witnesses.