A cyclist in Essex questioned the county’s police force’s decision to take no further action against a driver for a “pretty scary” close pass, the rider believing a “potentially lethal driver hasn’t been challenged”.
road.cc reader Julian is keen to point out he’s generally “really positive” about the work of Essex Police and the Extra Eyes reporting portal, which allows third-party footage of roads incidents to be submitted for an officer to assess, but “just thinks in this case they called it wrong”.
“Essentially, I’m passing a parked car, keeping clear of the door zone whilst being conscious there’s another parked car which is why I didn’t tuck back in,” he recalled. “The vehicle passed within a few centimetres of me — pretty scary!”
Essex Police opted against taking any action against the driver in the clip, the force suggesting the prosecution would not have been secure due to the fact Julian could have moved to his left after passing the first parked vehicle. However, as he explained to us, this could have left him “boxed in”.
As per Rule 67 of the Highway Code:
Take care when passing parked vehicles, leaving enough room (a door’s width or 1 metre) to avoid being hit if a car door is opened, and watch out for pedestrians stepping into your path.
Julian was keen to tell us that while this report’s outcome was disappointing, “I would like it acknowledged that I’m really positive towards Essex Police and the Extra Eyes portal, which I have used in the past and have always been really happy with the positive action.
“I just think in this case they called it wrong and a potentially lethal driver hasn’t been challenged, not even an advice letter, for their (in my opinion) dangerous driving.”
road.cc contacted Essex Police and we were told: “We understand it is disappointing when it is decided no further action will be taken. There are a number reasons why a particular case might not be progressed, described here: saferessexroads.org/extra-eyes/results/.
“In most cases where no further action (NFA) is taken, this is due to the strength of the evidence not meeting current guidance from the Crown Prosecutions Service and Forensic Science Service, which is needed to give a good chance of successful prosecution if challenged in court.
“These standards are designed to ensure limited resources and limited court spaces are used on the cases most likely to result in a conviction. While we can’t process every example of careless driving, the continued support of the public is very much appreciated as without this support, a great many drivers committing clear offences would not be held to account.”
> 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 918: No further action taken for “pretty scary” close pass on cyclist”
Quote:
A lot of motorists do seem to expect cyclists to move out to overtake Parked Car 1, then move back in for a few seconds, then move out to pass Parked Car 2, etc etc.
Which is weird, because I’ve never seen a motorist drive like that…
brooksby wrote:
Depends on the size of the gap between parked cars, but I would pull in to the left if I thought it was a safe place for a following driver to overtake. The point is that it’s my decision to make and this particular driver either doesn’t know how to drive safely or doesn’t care. It’s a disgrace that the police aren’t even sending the driver a letter.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I agree, I would move over if I judge that there is a long enough gap between the parked cars for the car behind to overtake me at a legal speed and for me to be able to pull back out again without having to slow or stop. I think in the instance above it’s certainly highly debatable that those conditions applied and the cyclist was justifiably concerned about being boxed in. In any case, as you very rightly say, it’s the cyclist’s decision; too many drivers – and police assessors – seem to hold the belief that “if safe to do so” means “If the driver thinks it’s safe for you to do so”, it doesn’t, it’s our lives at stake and so we decide when it’s safe.
What they expect is for you
What they expect is for you to move in after the first overtake so that all the cars can go past and you should wait for your betters to go about their journeys unhindered by you scum cyclists.
Any sensible cyclist doesn’t pull in after every overtake because then you have to pull out again when cars are sure as hell just going to overtake all the cars in one go and would 100% blame you for “pulling out in front of them” if you did pull in/out.
I agree with the cops on this
I agree with the cops on this one. He had plenty of opportunities to move over without interrpution. I would assume (maybe incorrectly), that the rider was aware of the car up his jacksie and rather than de-escalate, chose to escalate by not moving over and being considerate, which is a common flaw in most. Honestly, it is not worth it. The law or darwin will catch-up with the jerk in the car sooner or later.
Meanwhile the driver will
Meanwhile the driver will carry on scaring vulnerable road users until they take someone out (or longer perhaps). That’ll teach the rider not to move over quick enough!
DON’T FEED THE TROLL
DON’T FEED THE TROLL
(every time someone replies to them, they nip off and have a crafty wank)
Ooof! someone with a
Ooof! someone with a different opinion to you and your drone cohorts is instantly a troll eh?. We all know this site is an echo-chamber for drones. Don’t worry, once you grow up, you’ll understand. I promise
The most incessant droning
The most incessant droning round here tends to come from those whinging about it being ‘an echo chamber’.
Well, that and wjts going on about Lancs Police, but that’s really more of a howling into the void.
wjts going on about Lancs
wjts going on about Lancs Police, but that’s really more of a howling into the void
No, it’s collecting data. When you have a force as idle, inept and bent as Lancashire you must have the data. The collective weight of the UK police has established that close-passing is a matter of opinion and ‘inconvenience’, but going through red traffic lights, driving around without MOT for months and years, and use of hand held mobile phones while driving are indisputable offences. Lancashire ignores these, partly because ignoring them keeps them out of force statistics- fixing these figures was one of the main reasons Greater Manchester Police went into special measures
Echo Chamber and the Drones.
Echo Chamber and the Drones. Didn’t they have a hit with The Killing Moon in 1984?
Hang on. Echo chamber. That
Hang on. Echo chamber. That sounds awfully familiar. Do we have a PBU?
alexuk wrote:
Is Darwin a particularly well known vigilante? 😉
brooksby wrote:
Darwin (character)
I have been doored, but being
I have been doored, but being slow as always, no big troubles happened. Unless drain grates exist, I hug the curbe and always try not to keep drivers behind me in an empty road. They can be either, sleepy, stupid or angry and neither is good.
Darwin is hard, but speaks the truth.
You do you but I’d recommend
You do you but I’d recommend modifying that if sporadic parked cars mean you’ll end up weaving in and out of traffic and potentially getting hidden by a parked van.
Also taking the primary at junctions is a good idea: if you have to cross paths with traffic your best bet is being as visible as you can.
Is this how you get all your
Is this how you get all your extra miles in, constantly moving over and pandering to the impatient motorist behind you?
This is what I do. I also bow
This is what I do. I also bow and lay my coat over any puddles should one be in their path.
Pulling over to the left
Pulling over to the left between parked cars merely creates the problem of having to pull back out for the next parked car, which is generally more dangerous for the cyclist. Let’s be clear – the driver is at fault here.
“agree with the cops on this
“agree with the cops on this one. He had plenty of opportunities to move over without interrpution.”
It was FOUR seconds between the parked cars.
There was absolutely no need to pull in and no justification for that overtake no matter how you try to rationalise it.
You forgot to add that the
You forgot to add that the cyclist should have dismounted between the two parked cars and grovelled on the ground in abject submission.
WTF was the point of that
WTF was the point of that overtake? They were barely
91.44m100 yards from wider roads. Not a lot of traffic about (that makes people suddenly get more keen about getting ahead).Pure MGIF with zero further thought.
Driver probably works for
Driver probably works for Essex police.
Never attribute to corruption
Never attribute to corruption that which can be adequately explained by motonormativity.
There is no conscious thought
There is no conscious thought to it. I reckon I get about 20 – 30 completely pointless overtakes every ride out of a few hundred. Empty roads but still overtake on a blind corner. Overtake coming up to a line of traffic. Overtake coming up to traffic lights. Overtake when its not safe but will be a few seconds later.
Obstacle in front of driver. Must get past it.
Yes as we all know the first
Yes as we all know the first priority and instinct of a cyclist must be to keep out of the way of the road users.
Personally I have no trouble reading the inner thoughts and desires of every road tax paying citizen, and am able to weave in and out of parked cars and moving traffic seamlessly without disrupting the important business of my four wheeled lordships.
The very fact the cyclist was not able to do as I do is a sign of profound malevolence in their core being.
Not that it changes that
Not that it changes that Essex police were wrong on this. But the “gap” is a marked parking bay.
So pretend there are no cars parked there, where would you be positioned and cycling/driving, same spot on the road right ?
Because it’s a parking bay.
a lot of discussion a=on
a lot of discussion a=on whether the rider should have pulled in or not, surely the point is that they didn’t, the driver should be driving based on what is actually in front of them, not what they or anyone else thinks should be in front of them. The rider didn’t pull over, the driver chose to close pass them – careless driving
EK Spinner wrote:
I’m not sure there has really been a lot of discussion. One troll said the rider should have and then a number of sensible posters made the mistake of feeding said troll by pointing out he was wrong.
It is a classic impatient
It is a classic impatient pass, it is never good to be on the receiving end of one of these as I always feel the driver has already decided to deliberately take a risk.
It might be flattering to think the driver has decided I am a competent cyclist and that I am not going to deviate from my line, or that there is the potential for me to move away from them if I want to, and that they are confident that they have the car control to drive past me in close proximity.
However I probably do not share their confidence in their driving since I have only just seen what they are doing, and I know how that a pothole is likely to make me want to deviate providing there is room.
Perhaps slightly unrelated to
Perhaps slightly unrelated to this, but regarding video submissions to the plod – I have used the ‘Operation Snap’ portal for our local Old Bill (Cumbria), and the automated response is always along the line that they will not inform me of the result of my submission (unless they want me to attend court). Is this everyone else’s experience of Snap?
I note the police in this instance have informed the cyclist, even though it’s a depressingly familiar ‘can’t be arsed with it’. Is there a bit of a postcode lottery as to being informed about the outcomes of video submissions?
I have the same question.
I have the same question.
I have shared with both Hertfordshire and Essex police. Hertfordshire will let me know whether it is positive (letter, court, points) or negative but not what the action was (e.g. they chose to just issue a letter). Essex police take the submission and never contact me again (I won’t find out whether it was positive or negative action).
How do we find out the results ?
Simple you put your ref in
Simple you put your ref in here
https://saferessexroads.org/extra-eyes/results/
Although not worth the bother as Essex don’t do anything for close passes as they cant be bothered but still cling to Vision Zero.
Thanks for that link.
Thanks for that link.
Interesting that they do not include a Warning Letter in the possible outcomes.
There is a whole section on why they don’t prosecute close passes on that page as well.
Investigators’ decisions depend entirely on the video evidence supplied. Cameras of the type mounted on handlebars or cycle helmets typically have wide angle lenses that do not replicate exactly what the human eye sees. This can distort the view and does not always provide the context – what happened before or after the incident. This can make it difficult to estimate how closely a vehicle has passed a cyclist. Additionally, there are often no fixed reference points against which the exact distance between vehicles can be measured. It is impossible to capture the true experience and discomfort felt by a cyclist on a video and it is a subjective event – i.e. different people will interpret it in different ways. We acknowledge that this does not make the incident any less threatening to the rider but there must be sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a successful prosecution in a Magistrates’ Court. We will only take enforcement action where the evidential tests are met.
The assistance of a forensic collision investigator might be called upon to investigate fatal or very serious injury collisions by supplementing and taking measurements from video evidence. However this would not be considered a proportionate use of resources for near-miss cases.
No mention of having to be inconvenienced in the excuses for not taking action as in the case of Gloucestershire. There really is a great deal of inconsistency between forces.
The results for the last 12 months show 740 NIPs and only 54 advice letters for close passes for the previous 12 months. They don’t include NFAs in that graph but that’s a lot of NIPs considering they think it’s so hard to prove.
Thank you Hirsute, this is a
Thank you Hirsute, this is a great link and I haven’t seen it before.
Just been through my Essex cases, 15 over the last two years. Only 4 were “No further action” and 11 were “Course or conditional offer”. The 11 positive actions included close passes, red light jumping and failure to give way. 2 of the 4 without action were where driver failed to give way and 2 were close passes.
I’m happy with this outcome and will continue to report the dangerous driving.
I don’t suppose you have a similar link for Hertforshire police as well ?
Gloucestershire started using
Gloucestershire started using OpSnap Dec 22. I used to get a confirmation email for each report but then nothing. I waited a year after each submission (they requested you keep the original files for a year) and then I started asking for the outcome, so far I have always been told. Recently I am not getting the automatic cofirmation email but they have got back to me with the outcome of each report, either NFA or “We will take action” but the action is unpecified.
Guidance suggests that the
Guidance suggests that the right course of action when overtaking parked vehicles is not too weave in and out, but to maintain a line in the road. You might think that the cyclist had time to pull back in and then out again, but it doesn’t actually matter.
Whether a cyclist is in the correct position should make no difference to the decision made by a driver to overtake or to wait.
bensynnock wrote:
100 times this.
How you drive should be entirely dependent on what other vehicles around you are doing. Not what they should be doing, or (as is usually the case with cyclists) what you THINK they should be doing.
It does not matter a jot whether the rider here is genuinely [b]too[/b] far out in the road, the driver is still expected to overtake in a way that is safe and in accordance with the highway code. Close passing by taking the line you would have taken if they were closer to the kerb and then complaining they were not closer to the kerb should not be an acceptable response.
Especially not from the police.
Slopey shouldered, weasily
Slopey shouldered, weasily worded policeman looking the wrong way.
Here’s what happens if you
Here’s what happens if you stay out
https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-786-293709
and here’s what happens if you pull in
https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-603-overtaking-driver-squeezes-cyclist-284461
NFA in both cases in Gloucestershire.
Unless you are sure there is no car following the one behind you or you have plenty of time and you are prepared to have to stop behind the next parked car then you have to stay out. The police are wrong in this case. Even in Gloucestershire this would now be an advisory letter, close pass where the cyclist wasn’t inconvenienced.
https://road.cc/content/news/close-pass-isnt-offence-says-police-officer-310433
This is what Cyclecraft has
This is what Cyclecraft has to say about overtaking parked cars – don’t move left if there’s a short gap, you should only move left if there’s a gap of 30m or more between parked cars.
It is a shame that a rear
It is a shame that a rear view isn’t available of this as I am certain, given the lack of space available on the right side of the cyclist, that the driver partially mounted the pavement.
In which case the police should definitely have done something.
(Yes, I agree the police should have done something usefull just for the close pass.
I just think if there was clear evidence of a pavement mount, they might have chosen to do more.)
This is my clip and I’m
This is my clip and I’m appreciative of the overwelming positive comments. It’s always a judgement call on whether to pull in or not, but as many of you have said, you may disagree with my judgement but that doesn’t give a driver carte blanche to pass in such a dangerous way. This is my regular commute and I keep the same line each morning! I have broadly found my experience with Essex Police positive but in this case they’ve got it catastrophically wrong (in my opinion).
Keep safe all.
so it’s fine to risk someone
so it’s fine to risk someone’s life if you deem they are not giving you enough space to overtake safely? If I win the lottery I’m going to buy myself a challenger tank and carry out punishment passes on drivers who dont give me enough space to overtake them safely