Today’s near miss takes us to Oakley Street in Chelsea, London, where a Zipcar driver decided to tailgate a cyclist through a 20mph zone before overtaking far too close — and at a visibly higher speed — as the rider approached a zebra crossing with oncoming traffic and pedestrians crossing the road.
The incident was captured by London resident and long-time road.cc reader Rendel Harris on his regular morning commute.
*Video contains profanity, viewer discretion advised*
“I was riding down Oakley Street in Chelsea, London, on my usual morning route when a Zipcar driver started tailgating me about 50cm off my rear wheel, presumably impatient that I refused to move out of primary position into the door zone in order to let him pass,” Rendel told road.cc.
“Not only would I have had to put myself in danger to do so, but, as you can see on the video, I was keeping up with the car in front, and we were both travelling at or around the speed limit for the road (20mph).
“I gestured several times for the driver to back off but they didn’t, then as we approached a pinch point before a zebra crossing they close passed me at a speed considerably in excess of the speed limit then dived across me into the zebra crossing which had only just been cleared by a jogger whom you can see moving across on the right-hand side.
“There was also oncoming traffic in the opposite lane. What made this manoeuvre even utterly pointless was that a few seconds later we all arrived together at the junction with Chelsea Embankment, where we all had to stop for a red light.”
The close pass, captured clearly on Rendel’s camera, appears to breach multiple sections of the Highway Code, including recommended safe overtaking distance and approach to pedestrian crossings.
According to Rule 163, drivers should give cyclists “at least as much space as you would a car” — 1.5 metres, as a guide. Meanwhile, Rule 195 reminds drivers that they must “give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing”.
“All in all, some spectacularly bad, aggressive and dangerous driving that could easily have caused a serious incident, breaking at least two traffic laws and easily, one would have imagined, meeting the criteria for careless driving at least,” Rendel said.
“I sent the video to the police on the day and was pleased to receive an almost immediate response saying that further action would be taken, but, as is standard (and disgraceful) with the Metropolitan Police, I would not find out anything else unless the incident was taken to court.”
When road.cc contacted the Metropolitan Police for comment on the case, and to try to find out the outcome, a force spokesperson said they were unable to search for it as they did not recognise the crime reference numbers.
> 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

























11 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 928: Tailgating Zipcar driver overtakes cyclist at pinch point before zebra crossing in “utterly pointless” manoeuvre”
URGENT ADVICE – Never, ever
URGENT ADVICE – Never, ever submit a close pass video to the police containing swearing. You run the risk of being victim blamed and prosecuted for a public order offence. Always delete the sound track!
I know you’ve had such a
I know you’ve had such a ridiculous, and entirely unwarranted, time with it and that’s generally good advice but personally I’m happy to stand by my annoyed shout and if they wanted to make anything of it I have very good legal advice (two barristers in the immediate family alone!) and plenty of time to spare, also as a freelance writer not far off retirement I have no concern about threats of a criminal record. However, it wasn’t so much as mentioned.
So that’s why we can’t find
So that’s why we can’t find out what happens to submissions – the Met can’t recognise even their own reference numbers. What chance have we got of them recognising crimes?
When road.cc contacted the
When road.cc contacted the Metropolitan Police for comment on the case, and to try to find out the outcome, a force spokesperson said they were unable to search for it as they did not recognise the crime reference numbers
When they resort to such inept and transparent methods of deception (road.cc, I hope, emails Rendel to confirm the number, and they still deny all knowledge) it means they did nothing at all or sent the joke advice letter.
I should have said: That’s just Level 1 Brushoff- Level 2 would likely be GDPR/ Social Media; LL22 SWY, identifiable vehicle, we can’t even tell you whether we even hold information about the outcome, if there was an outcome
What’s level 3 Brushoff?
What’s level 3 Brushoff? “Sorry, this is a hardware shop. You must have called the wrong number”
the little onion wrote:
“Four candles, is it?”
wtjs wrote:
The splendid folk at road.cc did indeed get in touch with me twice to confirm the incident numbers; the absurd thing is that I found out that the incident only warranted a warning letter through the Met release of incident details (see thread on the forum) with exactly the same ID numbers, so they’ve clearly lied about that.
Right r.cc- on the blower to
Right r.cc- on the blower to MetFilth about why they’re pursuing the deception about the case which only warranted an advice letter. What’s the point?
wtjs wrote:
Just for the record as far as I can tell a warning letter and an advisory letter are different things. The explanation I got from Gloucestershire Constabulary is below.
I assume this means that a warning letter is more serious but as I’ve been told that a record is kept in both cases I’m not sure how much more serious.
Thanks for the info. but it
Thanks for the info. but it seems unlikely that this distinction is maintained across the UK- unless anybody knows of the difference being written down somewhere believable? (and not just one force making it up differently when they write to different people)
I’d report it to Zipcar too,
I’d report it to Zipcar too, I’d hope they would take this seriously