When a Scottish cyclist suffered an “aggressive” close pass from a driver at a roundabout they were left questioning why the motorist did not “just wait five seconds” for a safe place to overtake? Having reported the video footage to the police — and been told the driver would only receive “corrective advice” as the manoeuvre was “perhaps unavoidable” — the cyclist has been left with even more questions over Police Scotland’s handling of cases such as his.
“Clearly you actually need to be physically injured for more serious action to be taken,” road.cc reader Jonathan told us. “I was very disappointed in Police Scotland’s response – although the police did say they would approach the driver with advice, they appeared, at least in part, to be excusing the driver before even speaking to them. It suggests a general view that, as cyclists, we should just put up with such aggressive behaviour.”
The incident happened in January, Jonathan explaining how it occurred as he was “turning right into my home street off of the main road — the A913 in Perthshire between Perth and St Andrews — which is a 30 mph area outside the local school”.
“I was overtaken very closely by a white BMW on the single carriageway entry to a roundabout with a traffic island at that entry point,” he said, suggesting that visibility should not have been a factor given it was a clear day and he had a flashing rear light and bright clothing.
“As can be seen in the video, the car [driver] approached me from behind on a straight road so had visibility of me for at least a quarter of a mile,” he continued.
“Rather than add five seconds to their journey, they elected to speed past me at the entry to the roundabout, initiating that manoeuvre at the point where the road markings began to be ‘hatched’ in anticipation of the traffic island at the entry to the roundabout and completing the manoeuvre by narrowly avoiding both me and the traffic island. I apologise in advance for the language on the video, but in my defence I got a major fright!”
Jonathan reported the footage to Police Scotland (something he jokes is “not a straightforward process” as there is not currently an online portal to submit footage directly) and was told the driver would be sought for “corrective advice, with discretion in mind, bearing in mind there was no collision and no injury on this occasion”.
Sharing more of the force’s comments about the incident, the cyclist explains he was also told: “The vehicle appeared to take an unconventional path toward the junction however it seemed that it moved to this position at a similar time that you moved across to display your intention to go right… however the road surroundings are tight and perhaps this was unavoidable.”
Jonathan told us he was left “very disappointed” by the response and comments above.
“To say that the path was ‘unconventional’ seemed to me something of an understatement,” he said. “It seemed to me to be wholly unacceptable and reckless putting me, as a vulnerable road user, in danger. The manoeuvre was clearly avoidable – just wait five seconds.
“And in any case, how is this example of an overtake in any way consistent with the Highway Code instruction to ‘leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph’ and to ‘wait behind the… cyclist… and not overtake if it is unsafe or not possible to meet these clearances’? It clearly ignores the instruction: ‘DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example… stay behind if you are following a cyclist approaching a roundabout or junction, and you intend to turn left’.
“I was very disappointed in Police Scotland’s response – although the police did say they would approach the driver with advice, they appeared, at least in part, to be excusing the driver before even speaking to them. It suggests a general view that, as cyclists, we should just put up with such aggressive behaviour. I will revert to the police with my further comments, but it is clear that they consider this minor. Hopefully this attitude will improve in the future.”
road.cc will also contact Police Scotland for comment on the case.
Last week, we reported that Police Scotland faced questions from Scottish cyclists over “measures being taken to protect vulnerable road users”, the force stating that it would increase patrols and take reports of close passes “seriously” following the death of a “very experienced” cyclist in a collision last month.
> 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
41 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 921: Cyclist suffers “aggressive” close pass by BMW driver, but left “very disappointed” by police response which suggests “you need to be physically injured for more serious action””
Institutionally anti-cyclist
Institutionally anti-cyclist
I’ve had too many “I didn’t
I’ve had too many “I didn’t hit ya, did I?” (So, therefore it’s OK)
Geoff H wrote:
Try that one punching three inches from a policeman’s ear.
Police Scotland seem very
Police Scotland seem very poor when it comes to enforcement against motoring offences. The road policing is also poor from what I see.
I was led to believe that the
I was led to believe that the police are meant to protect the public through…. err….. policing? This level of laziness on the part of the police is astonishing. Clearly, the officers involved are not fit for purpose and should be sacked before someone gets hurt, and instead the Force involved needs to work on improving it’s recruitment and vetting.
I wouldnt consider that
I wouldnt consider that agressive. Poor driving but no worse than most these days.
its aggressive because its
its aggressive because its basically a left hook onto a roundabout. The driver is basically giving you the choice move out their way or be hit, because the driver choices are drive their expensive toy into to a bollard or hit the brakes, and we all know they arent going for either of those two options.
we presume their not unstable enough to actually want to drive into the cyclist,though road rage does funny things to people, but their quite happy to use a couple of ton of metal to still make the threat, get hit or move just to save 5 seconds, and that to me is aggressive.
We obviously have different
We obviously have different ideas of what aggresive driving is. In my book, aggressive driving is using the car as a weapon, leaning on the horn etc. This was just bad driving.
Lets save the term ‘aggressive’ for the headcases. I dont it helps our cause if we all become a bunch of snowflakes.
Whilst one definition of
Whilst one definition of aggressive is “prepared or ready to attack”, something that does apply to a significant minority of drivers in any case, another is “forceful and determined to succeed ahead of others”, which the vast majority of drivers are when faced with a cyclist. Pushing your way through a narrowing gap in a manner that could potentially put the cyclist, particularly if they were nervous or inexperienced, in serious physical danger is most definitely aggressive by the second definition and I think it’s rather ridiculous to say that somebody would be being a snowflake to describe it as such.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Exactly! You can play chess or poker in an “aggressive” manner. That doesn’t mean attempting to hit your opponent.
The legal system (and the
The legal system (and the police, and popular thinking) is concerned with motivations (“not aggressive though” / “didn’t mean it” / “genuinely didn’t see the cyclist”). Perhaps … a little bit too much in the case of road crime.
But if we’re letting in the subjective (as we do with drivers – see below) – then to the cyclist who finds a motor vehicle approaching them in a way that forces them to take avoiding action the motivation of its driver is … rather less important, no? Whether I’m run over by someone out of inattention, distraction, lack of driving skill, “a moment of madness” – surely “it seemed aggressive to me” is fair?
If you’re not personally fussed unless they actually injure or kill you, that’s up to you…
I think your feelings about
I think your feelings about this one (and disagreements here) illustrate that (from a few persons’ perspectives…) there’s a broader debate to be had about how we categorise – or maybe “relativise” – driving behaviours. And indeed diminish the consequences of them (and the activity as a whole).
Might be a bit snowflake-y / academic for some from the school of hard knocks of course. But AFAIK the (letter of …) the law does still recognise that driving is a voluntary activity, has certain dangers, and there are standards which drivers should adhere to.
Certainly we like our scales of justice – so this is not an offense (though bad manners / unpleasant), this is minor etc. But I think a review of road law * is long overdue. A bit like when we brought in “death by dangerous driving” because juries simply wouldn’t support murder or manslaughter charges against drivers.
From case reports it seems the notion of “intent” has crept back in. Or the idea that whatever the law / rules say it’s really hard to drive properly. Or simply that people observe that in reality we don’t drive by the rules and laws all the time – so you can’t help running into people.
“Yes – he ran over someone in broad daylight on a straight road and then drove away – but the sun was in his eyes so he couldn’t see them … he clearly didn’t mean to…” Incompetence as a defence.
Contrary to popular opinion offending drivers do not “get the book thrown at them”. In fact they’re unlucky if they appear in court since our road policing is so patchy. (Though I don’t believe could ever “make the roads safe”).
* Actually – it would be great if we could look at the bigger picture (maybe a different approach entirely to our thinking around transport and safety [1] [2]). That’s probably a fantasy though given we didn’t even manage that law review yet (announced 2014!). The question is: what are these laws supposed to be doing, and are they doing it? If so, are they doing it effectively? (Ideally – are there other ways of advancing the same cause?)
It’s not just Scotland.
It’s not just Scotland.
Here’s a very similar one from Gloucestershire, although to be fair to them they now admitted it was the wrong decision. (3 years later)
https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-674-driver-inconveniences-cyclist-288521
Surprised the polis didn’t do
Surprised the polis didn’t do Jonathan for his language.
Nevermind, it’s all Trump’s fault anyway.
Cyclists shouldn’t have to
Cyclists shouldn’t have to put up with this behaviour from motorists or the police. Appalling.
An earlier story from
An earlier story from Scotland
https://road.cc/content/news/police-respond-increasingly-fearful-cyclists-312435
Well that’s a good start then.
One of them may well be that
One of them may well be that there may be a perception that the police won’t take those reports seriously. We absolutely do, we absolutely will
Hmmmm. CS Ratcliff need to
Hmmmm. CS Ratcliff need to get the word out to her subordinates and divisions then. Cause most of them haven’t an inkling.
The comment from the Police
The comment from the Police shows that they don’t understand road design or the highway code. The Highway Code is absolutely clear. You should not be overtaking approaching a junction especially if you intend to turn left and you shouldn’t be overtaking on the approach to a pinch point or a pedestrian crossing facility (I think there’s a dropped kerb) . The road surroundings have been designed so drivers don’t overtake at that point not to make it a bit awkward to get passed cyclists safely.
IanMK wrote:
That’s what concerns me the most. I’m not necessarily against the police deciding in some circumstances that instead of a formal penalty they’ll have a word to educate the driver on the subject of their wrong-doing. But that latter option firmly relies on the police themselves understanding of why this kind of meneouvre is not just wrong, but is dangerous and readily avoidable combined with a willingness to communicate that meaningfully. As in not being sympathetic to their ‘lack of choice’.
It also begs the question – how does the officer involved drive? Do they make similar ‘unavoidable’ choices?
There’s a few of them still
There’s a few of them still about. I’ve been fortunate enough to have one WPC who absolutely savaged a driver for a close pass as the Fiscal wouldn’t progress it. I heard from a retired officer who I worked with that she didn’t mince words and could be pretty scathing. As for road craft of officers it’s pretty hit and miss.
Polis Scotland quite frankly
Polis Scotland quite frankly are a disgrace. It seems that they treat cyclists with the same disdain that the Met have treated females.
Worse – people at the Met at
Worse – people at the Met at least show some emotional response (whether angry denial that they or the officers they know have any issues, misogyny, hate, letchery …)
Polis Scotland appear not even to notice cyclists – apart from the odd press release. Whatever they’re moaning about it’s not a matter for the police.
The UK police need to sit
The UK police need to sit down with their counterparts in the DVLA and DVSA to sort out the discrepancy in their understanding of the Highway Code and the safety of vulnerable road users.
What is the point in having set standards of driving, which if not met lead to people failing their test, only for the police to subsequently say that “qualified” drivers don’t have to meet them or risk losing their licences?
The UK police need to sit
The UK police need to sit down with their counterparts in the DVLA and DVSA to sort out the discrepancy in their understanding of the Highway Code
The DVSA seems to be pretty good and efficient, but DVLA is run by a bunch of duffers so is unlikely to rectify any police biases and misdeeds. Rather, they are likely to reinforce and validate each other’s inactions. Both the police and DVLA refuse to take action over VED evasion even when informed and it lasts for several years. DVLA is especially culpable, because numerous vehicles without VED/ SORN are still listed on the DVLA database as passing MOT- such as A8 YXU
Or NA11 VWH
Or NA11 VWH
Or HY66 ZZB
Or HY66 ZZB
This is the case which, when reported in March 2022, elicited the Lancashire Constabulary response: nothing to do with us, try the DVLA. I then discovered that DVLA is most definitely not interested- they don’t provide a facility for uploading photos of untaxed vehicles on the road and demand a postcode for the unwanted untaxed vehicle report which is then ejected immediately into the bin
wtjs wrote:
A MOT is required to get car tax, but car tax is not required to get a MOT. The failure is not in allowing them to get a MOT, it’s in failing to act on the lack of VED. I do sometimes see cars that have been clamped by the DVLA, and very satisfying it is too.
Yes, that’s quite obviously
Yes, that’s quite obviously the point I was making. DVLA knows the vehicles getting MOT, and it knows which of them have no VED/ SORN. They still do nothing about it: see WU59 UMH. No VED for 7 years 2 months – reported several times to police and DVLA. Frequently parked outside the pub for many hours at a time, 150 yards from the police station
wtjs wrote:
And there was me worrying my car sat on our drive for a week this month with no VED and me not having SORNed it (before it was picked up to be scrapped).
Well it wasn’t obvious to me,
Well it wasn’t obvious to me, or I wouldn’t have commented. I thought you were suggesting it shouldn’t be possible to get MOT without VED.
Sure, DVLA can tell from an office in Swansea which cars don’t have VED and are not SORNed. But that knowledge is of limited utility because, to take effective action, they still need to physically locate and clamp them all, all over the country.
Sadly it’s not realistic to do that based on individual reports that a vehicle is regularly parked at [x], so they do area enforcement. I did once report a car that had been apparently abandoned on our street as soon as its VED expired. I imagine all that happened is the DVLA sent a reminder / penalty notice, because the owner came to collect it / put it on the back of a tow truck pretty soon after.
Just wondering – all these cars that are parked without tax with impunity 150 yds from the police station. Is it possible that they’re not thumbing their nose at the rozzers, but are actually unmarked cars and therefore tax-exempt?
Is it possible that they’re
Is it possible that they’re not thumbing their nose at the rozzers, but are actually unmarked cars and therefore tax-exempt?
No, because police cars are MOT ‘exempt’ not VED exempt. I convinced myself that this was the Lancashire Chief Constable in C11 BWN, partly because of this MOT problem- the stopping of MOT coincided with her arrival in Lancashire. However, a rethink was caused by the new MOT last December. My best guess now is that it was an MOT evader after all, but that leaves the question of how VED has been obtained throughout- could just indicate DVLA inefficiency?
I’m not sure that’s right. I
I’m not sure that’s right. I haven’t dug into this exhaustively, but this suggests that police vehicles are VED exempt: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/22/schedule/2
this suggests that police
this suggests that police vehicles are VED exempt:
This doesn’t
I don’t follow, why? Because
I don’t follow, why? Because that reg is listed on the DVLA as ‘taxed’? Yes, perhaps it’s taxed. Or perhaps the public-facing DVLA site doesn’t have a separate category for ‘exempt’. I don’t know. I’m just saying that the legislation and other government sources say that emergency vehicles, including police, are exempt from VED. I concede unlikely to be relevant to the pick up truck pictured below though!
I don’t follow, why?
I don’t follow, why?
You appear to be suffering from a logic warp- I show several vehicles with long term absence of VED (but valid MOT) as shown by DVLA, who ignore these VED-dodgers for years. You suggest that they’re really unmarked police vehicles. I show that police vehicles are shown as taxed by DVLA, which is what I’m interested in- I don’t care if there’s some accounting arrangement between DVLA and the operators of emergency vehicles so that the latter don’t actually have to hand over the cash. Are you now suggesting that unmarked police vehicles are specially listed by DVLA as untaxed to enhance their ‘I’m a crim like you’ ultra-deep cover credentials?
wtjs wrote:
Fair point, I forgot where this started. My suggestion that untaxed cars you see are unmarked police cars was tongue in cheek; clearly they’re not. Perhaps I should have terminated it with “?!” instead of “?” to make that clearer.
However, you did seem to be unaware that police cars are VED exempt (like you were unaware that a taxi you complained about was probably MOT exempt).
Is it possible that they’re
Is it possible that they’re not thumbing their nose at the rozzers, but are actually unmarked cars and therefore tax-exempt?
Police unmarked vehicle in Deep Cover outside the Eagle and Child
Even in our ‘cycling perfect’
Even in our ‘cycling perfect’ country (The Netherlands) overtakes like those are totally common. I wouldn’t bat an eye, honestly.
Though, maybe the fact that, generally speaking, drivers are more considerate towards cyclists, matters in how (un)safe it feels. Usually they do take care not to hit you.
“perhaps unavoidable”, as
“perhaps unavoidable”, as gently easing off on the accelerator pedal for 2 seconds would obviously be out of the question.
bikes wrote:
We probably don’t have all the relevant information, perhaps there was a bomb in the car set to go off if the speed dropped below 50mph?