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".
> Cyclists in Scotland finally set to be able to submit dangerous driving footage to online police portal… by autumn 2025 – two years after road safety tool scrapped amid claims police inaction was making Scotland's roads "less safe"
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'.
> Near Miss of the Day 920: "This was a typical 'Oh look a cyclist, I must pass them' without any thought for the situation"
"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 [at] 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
Add new comment
41 comments
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 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 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.
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 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 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?)
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.
Police Scotland seem very poor when it comes to enforcement against motoring offences. The road policing is also poor from what I see.
I've had too many "I didn't hit ya, did I?" (So, therefore it's OK)
Try that one punching three inches from a policeman's ear.
Institutionally anti-cyclist
Pages