Today’s near miss sees a Mitsubishi Shogun driver delivering what must surely have been a deliberately close pass at speed.
The incident happened on Thursday February 1 at about 7.30pm on Norton Lane near Wythall in Worcestershire.
Malcolm, who provided the footage, said it wasn’t even the first time the group had been targeted by the driver.
“This clown has close passed our Thursday night group in the same manner two weeks running. The second time I got it on camera, but can’t make the plate out from the footage.
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">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).
20 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 98: High speed almost-certainly-deliberate close pass of group ride at night”
Ooh, look. It’s attempted
Ooh, look. It’s attempted murder!
A nation of 4-wheeled vigilantes, convinced they are in the right. In the absence of robust prosecution & sentencing, you can imagine why they think that.
Madness.
Sub4 wrote:
Not sure if serious….
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Ooh, look. It’s attempted murder!
A nation of 4-wheeled vigilantes, convinced they are in the right. In the absence of robust prosecution & sentencing, you can imagine why they think that.
Madness.
— Yorkshire wallet Not sure if serious….— Sub4
Not sure why this wouldn’t be a serious comment.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
This. Sounds reasonable to me.
number9dream wrote:
Ooh, look. It’s attempted murder!
A nation of 4-wheeled vigilantes, convinced they are in the right. In the absence of robust prosecution & sentencing, you can imagine why they think that.
Madness.
— number9dream Not sure if serious….— Jimmy Ray Will
Not sure why this wouldn’t be a serious comment.
— Yorkshire wallet This. Sounds reasonable to me.— Sub4
To me, attempted murder conjures up stories about the bloke trying to kill his kids with a hammer, not a bloke in a 4×4 driving too fast and close. You belittle the seriousness of attempted murder things grouping such things together. Intention to harass or scare is not Peter Sutcliffe in a 4×4.
Come on, it’s pretty shit case of attempted murder if you really think that was the drivers intention.
If you really do think it was attempted murder then email Road.cc and see if they’ll change their video series to ‘attempted murder of the day’.
Shouldn’t be on the road,
Shouldn’t be on the road, obviously. Any clever software geeks out there who could clarify the image and get the number?
There are plenty of these drivers who see punishing any perceived infringement by cyclists as their duty, and then they break the law doing it; presumably irony isn’t their strong point either. Until the advent of the small, light, affordable hi def vid cams, all these incidents would be dismissed by those in authority and the media, but now we’ve got the evidence, we sometimes get justice.
burtthebike wrote:
That looks terrifying and the idiot driving should be caught before they kill someone.
I can’t claim to be a massive expert but Youtube videos will be messed around with during the upload and storage process. That can make getting whatever information present out harder. To have the best chance the original file is needed. If the recorded resolution is high enough, then it may be possible to either remove the blur from a single frame or to have a go at the whole clip.
Others might be able to make better suggestions, but fwiw I’d be looking at something like Amped or Stellar Phoenix Video Repair, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mrPp3iGKzo and https://www.stellarinfo.com/blog/how-to-fix-a-blurry-video/ respectively. It might even be worth pinging their tech support an email, they might see it as a worthy demonstration of their products capabilities if asked nicely.
Other than that, perhaps just going to the Police. They’ve got multiple witnesses to driving well over the 30mph limit, overtaking close to a junction, intentionally driving in an aggressive and dangerous manner towards vulnerable road users twice . On top of which the vehicle appears to have a patch on the off-side behind the front wheel; it’s likely to be a local and (given the standard of driving) possibly known to them already. Definitely, worth giving them a shot.
The whole debate in which
The whole debate in which cyclists are accused of being dangerous and not paying their way needs to be turned on its head to home in on the most dangerous and most destructive personal vehicle – a 4×4 or SUV as seen in this incident.
Remember to mention the children, the tax payer etc.
Ramuz wrote:
This. Ever noticed how so many of the people you encounter complaining about cyclists taking up the road are driving some f-ing juggernaut SUV which never goes off road, and which is far *far* too wide for any urban environment where there are actual buildings or people or parked motor vehicles…?
brooksby wrote:
Yup, and the drivers are unable to park, as I found this week when visiting local hospital and saw plenty taking up 2 places. Inconsiderate b45tards.
Ramuz wrote:
Meh, pick you battles: most modern SUV’s are based on road car chasis. Mine is no longer, wider or heavier than a saloon and does better mileage than my old mini.
I’ve also hit a Clío at 30mph and I can tell you it hurt enough to care about /all/ vehicles being dangerous.
Benjamin Nickolls wrote:
So the extra height, transfer box, diff, and driveshafts on a 4×4 weight nothing? And that extra frontal area causes no additional drag? Nice trick!
Ramuz wrote:
4x4s do pay significantly more VED than run of the mill vehicles (whatever that is), I think I’m on £300+.
Your other points are anecdotal unless you can provide supporting evidence.
Also sounds like Benjamin has one of those soft roading faux by faux jobbies that are mostly seen on the school run with mumsies at the wheel, a slightly beefed up saloon car and not a valid comparison to a Shogun type 4×4.
You’d think that if the
You’d think that if the cyclists are sure its the same driver/vehicle and its happened more than once, they could argue that its harassment and the police ought to be taking it way more seriously…
Yes. ageed, go to the Police
Yes. ageed, go to the Police whether you have a clear image of the number plate or not.
Get this so often, its the
Get this so often, its the underlying narrative that people on bikes are a menace and fair game that needs stopping. Zombies like this driver will always follow the lead of Sun Mail headlines.
He will be in the pub now telling his mates “buzzed some of fucking cyclist pricks” etc and it’ll be ok no one will challenge him.
Happened to me just last week
Happened to me just last week on my first ride after seven months off the bike due to being hit by a van. 4×4 passed within inches on a wide, empty A-road. Obviously deliberate.
You need to picture these close-pass videos being pedestrians instead of cyclists – can you imagine the outcry?
Attempted GBH with intent is
Attempted GBH or wounding with intent is what it is and should be charged as such, but fuzz will shrug their shoulders.
Driving with the intention to cause harrassment, alarm or distress
“Sections 59 and 60 Police Reform Act 2002 gives police the basis for dealing with
the anti-social use of vehicles. A constable has the power to seize a motor vehicle
that is being driven in a manner contrary to Sec 3 Road Traffic Act 1998, or that is
being driven elsewhere than on a road, if it is causing or likely to cause harassment
alarm or distress to members of the public.”
Sounds reasonable to me.
Deeferdonk wrote:
Thanks for posting that, it could be v useful.