A cyclist who was close passed at high speed says the driver involved made “no attempt at all to correct their line and give me space”, instead displaying “a shockingly ignorant attitude towards vulnerable road users”.
The latest instalment of our Near Miss of the Day series, highlighting driving standards and the lack of consideration for vulnerable road users on UK roads, comes from Wiltshire where road.cc reader Stephen was on the receiving end of this close pass back at the start of the year.
It happened on the A4 between Beckhampton and Cherill, a route which he explained “isn’t normally a problem because it’s a very wide road with good visibility”.
“You’ll see a few cars pass me and give plenty of space, then after a while a tatty VW Transporter comes along and makes no attempt at all to correct their line and give me space,” Stephen recalled.
“A driver with a shockingly ignorant attitude towards vulnerable road users.”
The footage was reported to Wiltshire Police via Operation Snap and Stephen received a reply acknowledging it and stating the video and witness statement would be looked at, although no further details on the outcome would be provided.
When we contacted Wiltshire Police to try to find out the outcome of the report the force asked for a crime reference number to look into the matter, something which Stephen never received during his report to Operation Snap.
> 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
45 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 935: “A driver with a shockingly ignorant attitude towards vulnerable road users””
Looks malicious to be honest.
Looks malicious to be honest. Surely the police are acting on that?!
That looked like a deliberate
That looked like a deliberate action by a mouth breathing Reform voter.
There is well known saying:
There is well known saying: “Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.”
Ironically, this remark was made during a court case to have a conviction for dangerous driving quashed!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Sussex_Justices,_ex_parte_McCarthy
The car drivers that passed
The car drivers that passed before the van and the bikers that passed after all managed to give plenty of room. How come the VW van driver thought this was acceptable? I hope the cops take action.
Yes, but most of them
Yes, but most of them exhibited that strange (but all too common) obsession with keeping some part of their vehicle in the lane with the cyclist – despite there being a completely empty lane at their disposal
OldRidgeback wrote:
” plenty of room ” ? No they absolutely didn’t, they had a whole lane to the right yet chose to drive on tge hatchings or 50% in the cyclists lane .
Jaijai wrote:
Lane width = 3.5m. Average car width = 1.82m. Half average car width = 91cm. Car driving 50% in lane leaving cyclist 2.6m space. Cyclist with wheels 50cm from kerb will take approximately 75cm of lane. Passing distance of cars 50% in lane = 1.85m. All the passes prior to the dangerous one are fine, let’s give drivers some credit where it’s due.
Tbh, I think you’re being
Tbh, I think you’re being generous with sugesting they are giving 1.85m the 1.5 metre rule is for vehicles travelling at 30mph. At the speed the cars are going here they should be giving more space than that. The point is, there is so much space to pass, so why give the minimum distance possible?
Last I checked, 1.85m is
Last I checked, 1.85m is [checks trusty Stanley tape measure] more than 1.5m.
The draft version of the Highway Code changes did indicate that over 30mph (or larger vehicles) should give 2m, but that was watered down for the adopted version, so now it’s:
Just because it didn’t make
Just because it didn’t make it into the Highway Code doesn’t mean that drivers shouldn’t be giving that amount of room anyway. The HC guidance as it stands is a nonsense – for pedestrians in the road it’s 2m and low speed, but for cyclists it’s ‘more than 1.5m at higher speeds’, even though a cyclist is much more likely to need to make an unexpected significant deviation.
But, because it isn’t in the
But, because it isn’t in the Highway Code, and because most of the drivers have clearly moved out significantly and – taking Rendel’s arithmetic at face value for the situation – in accordance with the requirements of the Highway Code, Rendel is quite right in suggesting we give some drivers some credit where it’s due.
Nobody is suggesting we knight them; just note that most moved out, while one among them should quite rightly be hung up and pelted with the contents of a festival toilet.
Depends what you mean by
Depends what you mean by ‘give some credit’ – if you mean recognise that it wasn’t absolutely terrible, then fair enough, but I think most people would interpret it as congratulating them, which isn’t really deserved. It’s really more a case of give them less ‘debit’ than the other one.
I’m not struck with the idea
I’m not struck with the idea that most of the passes were too close. Most moved out and gave what appeared in the video to be sufficient space.
I think most people would take the comment (Rendel’s, in the first instance) at face value in the spirit and context it was given, rather than analysing the linguistic and fiscal heck out of it ad absurdum.
Most people were doing what was needed. The VW van driver is a criminal.
GMBasix wrote:
True, but there’s a difference between doing the minimum necessary, and giving due consideration. With the exception of the motorcycle riders, I think they all could have passed more considerately.
You’re just straw man bashing here, frankly.
mdavidford wrote:
Apology accepted
GMBasix wrote:
Well done. But no.
mdavidford wrote:
[comment system weirdness]
I’m just disagreeing with you
I’m just disagreeing with you over how “most people” would see it.
You weren’t just doing that
You weren’t just doing that though. You implied that I was suggesting that most people would “analys[e] the linguistic and fiscal [sic] heck out of it ad absurdum”, which is nonsense. Quite the contrary – I was saying that most people, on a simple, “face value” reading, and without taking time to do an in-depth textual analysis, would read ‘give some credit’ as implying ‘praiseworthy’. You may disagree with that assessment, but the rhetoric you used to do so was dishonest.
mdavidford wrote:
I disagreed with ^ this ^. And I did so by asserting my view that most people would look at the video differently. That’s all. We can disagree, but please don’t accuse me of dishonesty. That’s unchivalrous.
You’ve failed to engage with
You’ve failed to engage with the point in my post. Which is, dare I say, a little dishonest.
mdavidford wrote:
If you want to perpetuate this – and I feel like the sails have blown out, frankly – then
However, I feel it would be better to let this go, and to confine this nonsense to this page. It’s getting silly, I don’t want argument in lieu of discussion, and I’m only really replying because you’ve insulted my integrity twice, which I think is out of order.
GMBasix wrote:
Come on now – you’re perpetuating it just as much as I am.
And neither do you – so I will continue to challenge the points where I have issues.
Well, for clarity then:
If you’re happy to withdraw that nonsense, then we can just agree that we disagree on how people would naturally read the phrase and move on.
I didn’t say you were dishonest – I said that the arguments you’d made were rhetorically dishonest – they misrepresented my comments, and then denied that was the case when I pointed it out.
Really?
Really?
Yep.
Yep.
Alternatively available in
Alternatively available in video form…
GMBasix wrote:
Yes, I wasn’t saying 1.85m is less than 1.5m (where did I state that?). I was suggesting they were leaving less than 1.85m, which they would likely be less than the minimum really the *should* be leaving. My point remains, if there is a whole lane to the side for overtaking, with no cars in it, why not use it?
Normally, yes, but since they
Normally, yes, but since they actually go into the chevron area, that is akin to using the opposing lane in a simpler layout. In short, if they’ve left sufficient room, they aren’t required to give more. We can’t criticise them for doing enough, even if it’s just enough.
VW transporters are just
VW transporters are just under 2m wide and looking at the rear view, it almost fills the lane with around 50cm to spare. I would say the lane width is nearer 2.5m at the point of the close pass and it doesn’t look any wider earlier on. Then there is the poor surface close to the edge. I wouldn’t be riding 50cm from that.
I think you are being very generous.
There is no doubt in my mind that the HC and the law should say pass cyclists on the other side of the road over 20mph.
I would be perfectly happy if
I would be perfectly happy if that were the law, but it isn’t.
There’s no way the lane on an A road would be 2.5 m wide. Standard width on British road lanes is, I believe 3.65 m and on A road like this it’s going to be around that. You can’t possibly judge with any accuracy what the lane width is from a camera on the kerb; your claim that the VW only leaves 50 cm in the lane can’t possibly be right because if it was they would’ve hit the cyclist. If you look at the cyclist’s back wheel they are a good 75 cm if not more off the kerb, they will be about 50 cm wide at the shoulder and hips so add 25 cm to that and the VW must be at least a metre off the kerb to pass them without hitting them; as we can see the driver remains completely within the lane it must be at least 3 m wide.
I’m not in the business of defending drivers and as I said above the pass by the VW driver is shockingly bad, but by my reckoning all the other drivers, even the ones who kept 50% of their vehicle inside the lane, were passing outside the HC recommended distance. They could and maybe should have given more space, but with the guidance as it stands they were following it.
Rendel Harris wrote:
That’s all rather fine, but does assume that the drivers are capable of doing those calculations in their head, on approach to the overtake.
Much easier to work out that going fully into the other lane is the sensible option.
Lane width = 3.5m. Average car width = 1.82m. Half average car width = 91cm. Car driving 50% in lane leaving cyclist 2.6m space. Cyclist with wheels 50cm from kerb will take approximately 75cm of lane. Passing distance of cars 50% in lane = 1.85m. All the passes prior to the dangerous one are fine, let’s give drivers some credit where it’s due.— Jaijai
Lane width = 3.5m. Average
Lane width = 3.5m. Average car width = 1.82m. Half average car width = 91cm. Car driving 50% in lane leaving cyclist 2.6m space. Cyclist with wheels 50cm from kerb will take approximately 75cm of lane. Passing distance of cars 50% in lane = 1.85m. All the passes prior to the dangerous one are fine, let’s give drivers some credit where it’s due
Time for some real numbers- this is the Lancashire Constabulary approved method of passing a cyclist on this busy B-road
https://upride.cc/incident/kn21axh_lancspolice_closepass/
Note how a couple of vehicles immediately followed the police example. I would like to be able to say that LC claimed that none of these measurements are relevant because nobody in the force has the Tape Measure Badge, but, naturally, the police did not respond to the report
https://upride.cc/incident
https://upride.cc/incident/cd10wer_audiq7_closerpass/
An Audi driver, of course, has to demonstrate that he’s a more devoted Mail and Telegraph reader even than the police, and can teach Terror-Cyclists a lesson they won’t forget
Both the Police Peugeot and
Both the Police Peugeot and the Audi drivers remained within the left lane throughout
Just another one with
Just another one with measurements- I’m keeping them together for reference. The nearside rear tyre went inside the end of that ‘L’, and the driver kept Hyundai ix35 YD11 HAE completely within the left lane throughout. I’d say he allowed me less than 140 cms between nearside mirror and kerb. Lane width 314 cms kerb to middle of centre line
https://upride.cc/incident/yd11hae_ix35_closepass/
These are the passes that
These are the passes that should be treated the most seriously. Either the driver wasn’t paying any attention and didn’t notice the cyclist or they intentionally passed that close and are intentionally dangerous. Either way they should face serious punishment.
I hate these passes. There is some vague acknowledgement when there isn’t much space to pass and people make a shit decision. When they could have passed with 4m of space and give you 30cm they are just a massive cunt.
I’ll say it again – road.cc
I’ll say it again – road.cc needs to do a thorough, proper piece of investigative journalism. I’m the UK there is now a confluence of no on-road police presence and overwhelmed video reporting mechanisms allowing drivers to drive how ever they damn feel regardless of what the law says. It needs investigation.
Shocking pass. For the time
Shocking pass. For the time poor/impatient might be worth mentioning that it comes about 1m40s into the video.
And again on the front-facing
And again on the front-facing camera at ~3m08s
Gloucestershire stopped
Gloucestershire stopped giving me reference numbers for a few weeks. When I questioned them the explanation was something to to do with GDPR but they said they could identify each report from the submitting person’s name, the date and the location. It then transpired that some reports got the incident date and some got the report date. They later decided that reference numbers were Ok to give out again.
Any way it may be possible to find out the outcome by giving the name of the submitter, the report date, the incident date and the location.
Any way it may be possible to
Any way it may be possible to find out the outcome by giving the name of the submitter, the report date, the incident date and the location
It probably won’t be, in most UK forces jurisdictions.
This comes up time and time again. This is totally impossible in Lancashire, for the simple reason that they did nothing at all no matter how bad the offence, and they don’t want the evidence of that fact to get out.
Time for a national overhaul
Time for a national overhaul of Operation Snap. What is the point of submitting footage like this when theres’ no way of finding what happened?
I’ll say it again – road.cc
I’ll say it again – road.cc needs to do a thorough, proper piece of investigative journalism. I’m the UK there is now a confluence of no on-road police presence and overwhelmed video reporting mechanisms allowing drivers to drive how ever they damn feel regardless of what the law says. It needs investigation.
Boofus wrote:
You’ve already said it again.