There are certain times when you’re simply faced with rotten luck. As a cyclist on British roads, that can mean a host of different things, but coming across a driver who’s willing to close pass you to make up a couple of seconds (which is more often than not, arguable) is definitely one of those. But what do you do when you’re on the receiving end of not one, but two back-to-back close passes within the space of minutes?
The cyclist, who has wished to stay anonymous but you might know them by their road.cc username, ooblyboo, was riding in Cheriton near Folkestone, Kent on Saturday 15 February when a lorry driver and a pick-up driver pulled two close passes.
“The first was a Romanian lorry driver who close passed and honked me, presumably because he thought I should be in the left only lane heading into the Eurotunnel,” he told us. “I have been hit by a car from behind before so jumped out of my skin and veered left.”
“The second was a couple of minutes later in Cheriton when a pick-up driver decided he didn’t want to wait for me to get through the traffic island before passing. Doubtless, at least one person will note in the comments that I should have been primary, which I probably should have.”
They added: “In any case, I very much doubt the police will bother even looking at a close pass involving Romanian plates, so I have not submitted either clip.”
We have come across similar instances of “cheat code”, where the driver gets away scot-free because the vehicle is registered in a foreign country.
In 2023, we featured a close pass in our Near Miss of the Day series, in which an HGV driver decided to pass so fast and so close to the cyclist that she was forced off the road, however since the lorry was registered in the Netherlands, the police “couldn’t do anything”.
In the same year, cyclist and road.cc reader Rendel Harris also submitted a near miss footage of a 4×4 driver dangerously overtaking on the wrong side, forcing him to dive to one side and stop against the parked cars to the Met. However, four months later, the Met police informed Harris: “Our enquiries have resulted in a driver residing abroad, therefore we have had no option but to close this case.”
> 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
37 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 922: Double trouble as cyclist gets close passed TWICE within the space of a few minutes — first by lorry driver and then by pick-up driver”
That lorry driver was taking
That lorry driver was taking no prisoners and I’d have reported the pickup.
I’d have probably reported
I’d have probably reported the pick up too, but it’s Kent police who really aren’t that interested in road crime. Last time I submitted, albeit a year or so ago now, they weren’t even taking video – just a description of the incedent with a promise to request video if they thought it should go further.
Well it looks like they’ve
Well it looks like they’ve got a page now. It says they’ll accept video evidence but I haven’t been through the whole process. Looks very similar to Gloucestershire’s old system before they went with OP Snap. You need to report within 7 days and 1minute before and after. No more excuses.
https://www.kent.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/rs/road-safety/making-a-road-traffic-incident-report/
Drivers that I expect to be
Drivers that I expect to be absolute cunts on the road:
Pickup drivers – swear its rare they don’t intentionally pass you closer than necessary even when the road is completely clear. Certain type of person in the UK buys a pickup instead of a van.
Those open bed scrap metal dealer type lorries – absolute menaces to everyone on the roads. Guaranteed to completely ignore speed limits especially 20s in residential areas.
if theres splitter islands
if theres splitter islands never leave primary
I thought there was a cross
I thought there was a cross-border arrangement where UK drivers in the EU can be traced, and vice versa – but I’m not 100% sure.
HarrogateSpa wrote:
The obligation for the UK to provide EU nations with vehicle data for offences committed in their countries and vice versa was revoked in 2020 as part of Brexit. UK drivers can no longer be fined by post for “minor” traffic offences such as speeding and vice versa. I had direct experience of this when this driver (below) overtook at high speed straight into my face as I descended a hill; the police originally sent an NIP but when they found that the driver was an EU resident they dropped it. I don’t know the exact details but I think it’s pretty much if you haven’t wounded or killed anyone you won’t be pursued via camera evidence (on-the-spot fines still apply, I think).
Brexit is also why a lot of
Brexit is also why a lot of EU police forces issue on the spot fines.
If you report the drivers
If you report the drivers then the police may do nothing. If you don’t report the drivers the police will definitely do nothing.
Yeah, if nothing else it will
Yeah, if nothing else it will add to a statistic somewhere. Either damning in their lack of action or contributing towards needing more resources for the obvious dangers on our roads.
Poor road design for cyclists
Poor road design for cyclists, impatient, entitled drivers: great mixture with inevitable results.
Glad you’re ok.
Horrible and no real way to
Horrible and no real way to avoid it.
Submit the footage anyway.
Submit the footage anyway.
You should also report the
You should also report the car blocking the pavement and parked on double yellow lines.
Sadly the police aren’t
Sadly the police aren’t usually interested in this. Double yellows are usually a civil enforcement issue, and pavement parking only of interest if the way is blocked. I agree this is not very friendly to users of wheelchairs or double buggies, but unfortunatelky can’t see the police taking any action.
quiff wrote:
Absolutely. Even in places with efficient parking enforcement or – like London and now Edinburgh – where they have decided it’s not legally on – you’d probably be unlucky to get much trouble for this.
And just look at the space that people driving have, vs. the space they think is fine to leave for those not in a vehicle. (Ignoring they shouldn’t be there in the first place – double yellows seem to be seen in practice – including in Edinburgh – as more of a suggestion that you shouldn’t park for too long…)
This is the reply I got when
This is the reply I got when I reported a van completely blocking a cycle path.
OP SNAP deals with moving traffic offences and cannot deal with parking offences.
Double yellow lines/obstructing cycle path would require to be dealt with at the roadside by Local Authority officers.
Police could issue a ticket for Unnecessary Obstruction (not double yellow lines), but this would be done at the roadside.
As far as I can tell there is no way of reporting blocking a cycle lane. You can let the local council know and they will sometimes send someone to check if there are multiple reports but they can only act if they actually witness the offence. Obviously a ridiculous situation but there we are.
I got the same response when
I got the same response when reporting a pickup parked on white zig zags blocking the sight line for a pedestrian crossing. Zero chance of the local council doing anything.
jamesha100 wrote:
Depends where you are but last year a DPD driver I reported was NIP’d by the Met after I submitted a video of him parking on the zigzags of a zebra (it was directly outside a school which may have made a difference) and telling me to fuck off when I (politely, honest) asked him not to. I just ticked the “Not complying with a traffic sign” box on the online submission form.
I suspect the difference is
I suspect the difference is that the driver was actually parking in the video. That would make it a moving traffic offence which the reply I got would imply they can deal with.
I may be wrong.
All of the positive action
All of the “positive action taken” reports I’ve made have been when the car is already parked and unattended. The police did send helpful guidance that to prosecute they would prefer video to still images, to make it clear the vehicle is parked. Happy to oblige.
quiff wrote:
Thanks for that. After a bit of research I now think that the difference is that it’s parking on a zig zag rather than a cycle lane that is the difference. Apparently parking on double yellows, cycle lanes and pavements is not illegal and therefore is not a police matter unless causing an obstruction and in that case it can only be dealt with by an officer at the scene. Driving on the pavement is a police matter but driving in a mandatory cycle lane is apparently a grey area.
In summary : it’s complicated and I may still have got it wrong.
Yes, sorry, should have made
Yes, sorry, should have made clear I was just clarifying that Rendel’s would have been acted on because it’s a zigzag offence, not because he provided evidence of the act of parking. I checked with my Op Snap team in advance whether they could accept zigzag reports, before going to the bother.
Looks like I was mistaken
Looks like I was mistaken again.
This is the response I got yesterday for a report of driving on the pavement AND in a cycle lane with solid white line.
Gloucestershire
Your evidence has been reviewed and we have decided that there is insufficient evidence for us to proceed with a prosecution.
Although the vehicle is technically committing a non-endorsable offence by driving on a pavement and in a cycle lane, the action has not affected or disrupted any road users or put any pedestrians at risk.
I do understand that
a DPD driver I reported was
a DPD driver I reported was NIP’d by the Met after I submitted a video of him parking on the zigzags of a zebra
Ah! But have you verified that the ‘NIP’ actually resulted in actual action using the fabulous new Met ‘hopefully in December’ database which is open to the reporter/ victim who has the initial report reference?!
Don’t be daft sir, it’s not
Don’t be daft sir, it’s not the twelfth of never yet!
jamesha100 wrote:
Unlike double yellows, which are a local authirity matter, zigzags are enforceable by the police and, here at least, they accept reports online. Every report I’ve made of zigzag line parking has had positive action and (judging by the eventual absence of repeat offenders from the zigzags) I assume that positive action must have escalated to more than a warning. Your police force may vary of course (e.g. Lancs!)
Rider should have been using
Rider should have been using the Primary position, the pickup driver might not have like it but saves the rider from a close pass.
I think the driver would have
I think the driver would have accelerated more with the same result.
I can show you numerous
I can show you numerous videos of drivers in exactly that situation where I’ve been riding primary and it’s put me in even more danger because they’ve decided to overtake at high speed and dive into the pinch point at a sharp angle. I know, as ooblyboo himself notes, that it’s apparently de rigeur for at least one person in every comment section on a close pass to state that the rider should’ve been in primary position but it’s really not the panacea for avoiding close passes that some people seem to think.
Just to demonstrate, here is
Just to demonstrate, here is a recent one on Oakley Street in Chelsea; I’m riding exactly in the centre of the lane and keeping up with the traffic in front, driver overtakes, breaking the speed limit {I was doing 18mph, 20mph limit), close passes, in the face of oncoming traffic and going into a zebra crossing with pedestrians on it.
https://youtu.be/w0kKYjXTLus
(Warning, contains “language”)
Horrible pass but zebra
Horrible pass but zebra crossings with an island should be treated as 2 separate crossings so no issue with the car not stopping there.
Yes, but if you look closely
Yes, but if you look closely there was a lady jogger running over the zebra on our side of the road as the driver made the pass and dived towards the crossing. She had reached the island (just) as he reached the crossing but if something unexpected had happened, e.g. she had tripped and fallen, he would have had no chance of avoiding her.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Not defending that reckless pass for a second, but there was a pickup in front of the zipcar which had already slowed / stopped for the crossing, and which the zipcar braked for – so not sure she was at that much risk. Ridiculous pass on you though.
Possibly – although would
Possibly – although would they have been able to avoid hitting the back of the pickup if it had to make an emergency stop because the jogger tripped over? Not a good pass, for sure, what you can’t see on the video, because I only have a forward-facing camera, is that they had been tailgating me about 50 cm off my back wheel since we left the King’s Road, they must have been able to see that there was traffic ahead which meant passing me was no advantage so one can only conclude it was done to punish me for refusing to move into the door zone on the left in order to let them past (as I said above, I was riding around 18 mph on a 20 mph road so absolutely no reason to move over and let them through even if it had been safe to do so).
I think the default is to
I think the default is to take primary to be more visible, be out of the door zone and give someone room to escape into.
Good for the incompetents who might otherwise try but aggressive, not caring drivers are not often dissuaded unless they might scratch their motor.