*Warning: Video contains strong language*
Today’s entry for the Near Miss of the Day series features a driver who somehow managed to get away with just a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) after close passing a driver an astonishing three times in just under two minutes, however let hubris get the better of him and decided to go to court challenging the NIP.
Spoiler alert: It didn’t go well for him.
Tony was heading to work on a cold January morning, and was going over the railway bridge on Ripple Road in Barking, London, where he was first close passed by a bus driver and then the driver of a silver Mercedes estate. Recording the footage on his front and back camera, he called out the licence plates of both the vehicles and carried on.
As traffic queued up, he caught back up to the Mercedes and eventually passed it. However, turning into the next road, the driver then decided to close pass him once again.
“He was easily within 0.5 metres or so of me. I call out some choice words in shock at their continued poor driving,” he told road.cc.
Tony added: “This seemed to anger the driver who then slows down considerably, unsure of what they are doing I again pass the driver, with the driver calling me a c***. I respond in kind and carry on.
“As we get to a section where its a single lane with footpath both sides the driver once again forces an overtake, from the rear camera I’d estimate they were within 0.2m of me.”
He reported the footage to the Met Police, who issued the driver with an NIP. Then several months later, Tony get a notification saying that it’s going to court as the driver has challenged the NIP.
You might be able to guess how it’s going to end. The case was heard in court earlier this week, and the driver was found guilty, fined £793 and given 5 penalty points.
“An expensive lesson,” Tony commented.
> 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")
26 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 878: Abusive driver who close passed driver three times in two minutes learns “an expensive lesson” with a £793 fine and five penalty points”
Excellent! Hit the muppet in
Excellent! Hit the muppet in the wallet. Superb. I would love to seen this fool’s face when this outcome got served to him.
No acknowledgement or
No acknowledgement or understanding that he’d done anything wrong. Kept asking why he was the only one there, where was the bus driver.
No acknowledgement or
No acknowledgement or understanding that he’d done anything wrong. Kept asking why he was the only one there, where was the bus driver.
I hope so but the cynic in me
I hope so but the cynic in me says he has escaped with a fine that wont really hurt, andwalks away without any remorse :-/
HLaB wrote:
No definitive guarantee but the car is eighteen years old so probably not hugely wealthy, and the points will hopefully prey on his mind as he goes about his business. A good (and correct) outcome really, especially considering the Met habitually NFA such passes; if the driver had had the sense to drop it after the first or even second passes one suspects he might have got away with them.
I’m sure, once either the
I’m sure, once either the tories (party of the driver) or labour (anti-party of anyone against drivers) get in at the next election, such blatant attacks on innocent, law-abiding drivers will become a thing of the past, and websites that publish such blatantly biased material will be shut down. The war on the motorist has gone on too long, and it’s time that they were freed from these bonds of clearly discriminatory laws and are allowed to drive as they see fit, and if cyclists or pedestrians get in their way, tough.
Might be an element of exaggeration there, but perhaps not. When a woman can hold up a sign explaining the right of a juror to acquit on their conscience, a right that has existed for hundreds of years and is engraved on a plaque at the Old Bailey, and is arrested for contempt of court, we should be afraid. Very afraid.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/27/trudi-warner-english-courts-juries
eburtthebike wrote:
This is a Trumpistan (accountability free) attempt to corrupt the public understanding that motor vehicle use has licence requirements and obligations including the Hierarchy of Responsibility.
There is no war on the motorist just obligations that have always been. It is to the motorists advantage to clarify that for the avoidance of doubt and cost.
eburtthebike wrote:
This is a Trumpistan (accountability free) attempt to corrupt the public understanding that motor vehicle use has licence requirements and obligations including the Hierarchy of Responsibility.
There is no war on the motorist just obligations that have always been. It is to the motorists advantage to clarify that for the avoidance of doubt and cost.
eburtthebike wrote:
This is Trumpistan (accountability free) trope for the licenced motor vehicle users responsibility and obligations.
Just because bad people want to act without accountability does not mean we must accept that.
Clarification is to the motorists advantage for the avoidance of doubt and cost.
I can dream about an
I can dream about an appropriate punishment for claiming there is a ‘war on the motorist’.
Clearly any driver who thinks this has to also achnowledge that they as the motorist is winning.
Therefore clearly they should be sent out to *insert war zone of choice; currently Ukraine* to assist allied forces in achieving the same level of victory for say 6 months…
“Special Operation on the
“Special Operation on the Motorist”?
This really easily solved by
This really easily solved by making it a 20mph zone and banning overtaking cyclists in 20mph zones without fully crossing into the opposing lane
mikewood wrote:
Well the highway code does
Well the highway code does cover your last point. With rules 162 and 163.
I think both parties should
I think both parties should be attributed merit points for pitch perfect use of the ‘c’ word!
Watching that, I can totally appreciate why Mercsman was peaved… doesn’t give him the right to drive like a… well like a c-nut though.
The police need to stamp down on these petty episodes of drivers thinking they are the judge, jury and executioner of other peoples driving / cycling standards. Glad there was a fine in this case, and not a threat of legal action over the cyclists use of language.
Whenever I see 5 penalty
Whenever I see 5 penalty points given out I always just assume that 6 would be the number that resulted in them being banned. Perhaps I am just being cynical….
mctrials23 wrote:
https://www.gov.uk/penalty-points-endorsements/endorsement-codes-and-penalty-points
There is not a single offence that could give 5 points but couldn’t give 6, so that sems likely
£793: he didn’t even wave a
£793: he didn’t even wave a golf club.
Bit confused about the intro
Bit confused about the intro re: “a driver who somehow managed to get away with just a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP)”. Ok, it doesn’t necessarily mean you will actually be prosecuted (or convicted), but getting a NIP is at the top end of the scale isn’t it, as opposed to a warning letter or absolutely nothing?
After two poor passes, I think I would have stayed behind TBH. Not that that excuses the driver.
but getting a NIP is at the
but getting a NIP is at the top end of the scale isn’t it, as opposed to a warning letter or absolutely nothing?
My opinion is that it’s frequently just another police dodge, from the great selection they have put together- especially where offences against cyclists are concerned- to appear to be doing something when you have no intention of taking it further. Most people think a NIP is action, when it may well translate into nothing at all. That’s one of the reasons why some police forces are fighting so hard against the FOIA and in favour of their refusal to tell victims what they actually did.
Frequently, perhaps. But in
Frequently, perhaps. But in this case not. Just thought it was an odd sentence, as I doubt a driver who receives a NIP is thinking “phew, I got away with just a NIP”.
Quote:
I’m pretty sure I’d have stayed behind after one. Especially as he caught the Mercedes just after the lights went green and the driver would see it as a challenge. Why put yourself in danger?
The undertake by Tony when
The undertake by Tony when the Merc started to move just begged for the second close pass; there’s no chance I’d ride like that with my bike commute.
grOg wrote:
It’s a perfectly legitimate and legal manoeuvre to undertake a slow moving vehicle in such circumstances. “Begging for it” – the language of the victim blamer throughout the ages.
Poor cycling, and poor
Poor cycling, and poor driving.
Yes the close passes were not good, but it seems that Tony deliberately undertook, overtook, and veered un front of the car to hold it up. And then seems to wonder why the driver was unhappy
People like Tony need to sort it out if they want the roads to get better. He didn’t really need to get ahead of the Merc at all costs. Best thing to do would be to get behind the bus and draft it to go faster.
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
I agree although only one of them was sat in complete safety while risking the life of another human being.
Did that once as a teenager, the bus braked . . . . . and I didn’t!