“What a wanker!” – That’s the description a member of a group of cyclists gave of an angry van driver who drove post the riders with hand firmly on the horn after they pulled over to the side of the road to let him past, and from the video, it’s hard to disagree with that opinion.
Andrew, the road.cc reader who filmed the footage, told us: “Ignore the timestamp on the video – this took place on Saturday 7th August at about 10.30am on Broadcommon Lane near Hurst in Berkshire. I’m a member of 700cc cycling club out of Windsor and this was a regular route we do, usually trying to stick to quieter roads.
“As you can see from the video, we saw the van driver a long way down the road and all slowed and moved across but he (assume the driver was male) actually then accelerated past us with his hand on the horn. It was pretty scary, especially for those at the front.
“I’ve reported it to Thames Valley Police via their online portal, although other members have told me that unless anyone is actually hit and/or injured they won’t take any action.
“Seems a pretty poor approach to me, but then I’m just a lowly cyclist,” he added. “Perhaps the new Highway Code will force some changes in attitudes for the police as well as drivers.”
> 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
36 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 621: “What a w*nker!” – Angry van driver accelerates past group of cyclists with hand on the horn”
“I’ve reported it to Thames
“I’ve reported it to Thames Valley Police via their online portal, although other members have told me that unless anyone is actually hit and/or injured they won’t take any action.”
If it helps thats not my experience with TVP (albeit the Oxfordshire section) – they were pretty reasonable.
BL18CFY if I have read the video correctly. Appears to be untaxed which might be just desserts and prompt the rozzers for an easy win.
https://car-check.co.uk/check/BL18CFY
If they do anything, it will
If they do anything, it will likely be “words of advice”. Tax is dealt with by DVLA – not a police matter unless they are physically present – so rather than relying on TVP to contact them, it’s best to report those directly.
Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:
Cool – didnt know. Reported using the link below and linked to the YouTube video as evidence.
https://www.gov.uk/report-untaxed-vehicle
What set of words did you use
What set of words did you use for the ‘usual period time vehicle can be seen on the road’ ?
It just doesnt feel like a form that’s designed for I was cycling along when this vehicle passed me in a manner that identified the driver as complete codpiece, so I looked their registration up later to check the tax status and found I was doubly right on them.
Also isnt this all supposed to be automatic thesedays, arent DVLA supposed to issue fines the moment your tax expires and you havent SORNd it ? Why isnt that system working?
Personally, I usually write
Personally, I usually write “Seen at h:mm on ddmmyy as per video”
Being anonymous, there’s no way of knowing whether that’s the right approach.
And thanks to YouTube viewing
And thanks to YouTube viewing stats, I know for a fact that DVLA at least look at it. Obviously, being an anon report, no idea if anything’s then done
Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:
I once used the report untaxed vehicle form, then chased it up. Got a letter back from the DVLA stating that unless I knew where the vehicle parks overnight and it is not on private land, they would do nothing.
If I had that info then they might have towed it. So I gave up.
Yep, untaxed and either
Yep, untaxed and either recently sold or owner moved house as the V5C was last issued in Dec 2020.
I can’t tell from the video
I can’t tell from the video what size transit van it is but the road itself has a 3 tonne limit and bigger transits can be over that. Possibly shouldn’t have even been there.
DVLA had it’s Revenue weight
DVLA had it’s Revenue weight as 3500kgs. So does that mean maximum weight it can hold, or the weight of the vehicle as sold?
It’s the MGW. As in, total
It’s the MGW. As in, total weight of a fully laden vehicle. So for instance it can’t go over a 3T MGW weight restriction, irrespective of how much it actually weighs at the time.
That is the maximum total
That is the maximum total weight the vehicle can be (excluding a trailer) so it should be lighter than that almost all the time. many vans capable of carrying more are registered as 3500kg max so that the driver doesn’t need to sit an additional C1 test (unless you are an old far with grandfather rights) they can then only be prosecuted for being overweight/unlicensed etc) if thee vehicle is actually put onto a weighbridge).
I am on a number of moorhome groups and incerdibly some of these roll out the factory at 3300 kg with 4 seatbelts a locker for 2 gas bottles and an empty 100 litre water tank. then you have to add on whatever is in the cupboards plus a couple of e bikes. 🙂
not surprising there is much discussion on fitting air suspension fittied and getting the vehicle recatgorised but then youngsters cant drive it unless they sit the test
They can be prosecuted for
They can be prosecuted for being overloaded if they are weighed and found to be above MGW.
But they can be prosecuted for exceeding a posted weight limit purely on the basis that they are there, since the limit is based on MGW not actual weight.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
If the max gross weight of the vehicle is 3.5t, it doesn’t matter whether the vehicle is laden or not, it’s a 3.5t vehicle, and therefore is not permitted on that road. Good luck getting the police to act on that.
I believe that all vans (know what I mean, transits, sprinters etc) are classed as 3.5t. Caddies, Kangoos etc are classed as cars. Note I believe, I’m sure some knowledgeable individual will be able to clarify/correct etc
I have also had success with
I have also had success with TVP – but you need to chase it up via 101 phone call. They are pretty reasonable. Just ring up and ask if the NIP has been issued.
Mention the road weight limit, the tax being unpaid, and that there were several cyclists put at risk. The use of the horn shows intent.
Perhaps the new Highway Code
Perhaps the new Highway Code will force some changes in attitudes for the police as well as drivers
I can’t see it. I think forces throughout the UK are fixed on ‘business as usual’. They don’t pay any attention to the Highway Code now so it’s going to require a lot of complaining from people like me who aren’t put off by the ridiculous police complaints system (the police decide the police are doing the right thing- after 6 months delay to try and put you off). I have now moved on to the PCC stage, with a massive fully illustrated file of all the offences Lancashire Constabulary has ignored. I doubt if the PCC will be any better, but they will have to work through the file. We’ll see. LC has made it easier for me by contemptuously ignoring loads of red light offences- but they can’t dispute them!
Andy Cox is chairing a
Andy Cox is chairing a national working group next month to share/discuss best practice, so we may see something come of that. A set of guidelines to enable dashcam/cyclecam reporting has also recently been published but that largely deals with enabling the reporting, not what to do with it after that.
set of guidelines to enable
set of guidelines to enable dashcam/cyclecam reporting has also recently been published but that largely deals with enabling the reporting, not what to do with it after that
Thanks. Lancashire has designed a system for shunting online incident reports onto a hidden sideline for 18 or so days, so that it’s always too late to do anything about the incident. They then claim that they deal with every case ‘within time constraints’. They have designed another system for sending offenders ‘educational material’ but without even a warning letter. Fraud and deception pervades the LC response to online incident reports because they hate the idea of irrefutable video evidence of offences. Surely there must be a special place in Hell for Lancashire Constabulary?
Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:
Why would the leader of a tiny pressure group be chairing something like that? It is normal for the chair of any such meeting to be impartial and independent, and having someone with such a narrow but widely known agenda would be anathema to any independent people thinking of going, so the whole thing will be Fair Fuel supporters talking to other people like themselves.
I think you are getting your
I think you are getting your Coxs mixed up.
Could be painful.
Andy and Howard are very different.
Sniffer wrote:
Ooops! Thanks; more water with it before I post.
Total Berkshire Hunt.
Total Berkshire Hunt.
Rendel Harris wrote:
The accepted abbreviation is Berk, which is why it is unparliamentary language.
‘Berkeley Hunt’
‘Berkeley Hunt’
grOg wrote:
can be either.
Thought it was fairly obvious
Thought it was fairly obvious. There is a nice passing place that the cyclists ignored and the van driver was merely courteously drawing their attention to it.
Always cycle in a studious manner and with courtesy to other road users.
are you being sarcastic oh
are you being sarcastic oh hairy one ?
Oh no – signed in with the
Oh no – signed in with the wrong account !
Busted !!
hirsute wrote:
Yes, obviously as soon as they saw the van those cyclists should have engaged reverse gear and cycled backwards to the gateway they’d just passed.
Silly inconsiderate cyclists!
IanGlasgow wrote:
I’ve always thought that a lot of motorists forget that the vast majority of bicycles (the ones with gears) don’t have a reverse gear, and that “going backwards” is a real faff…
brooksby wrote:
Some do!
http://www.sturmey-archerheritage.com/index.php?page=history-detail&id=1155
hirsute wrote:
And I’m sure, given your name, you have a forelock to tug, unlike some of us. Not that we would.
Bit of a whoosh there eburt.
Bit of a whoosh there eburt ?
hirsute wrote:
Bit of whoosh there hirsute?
So asides from dangerous
So asides from dangerous driving, this w@nker used the horn illegally in an untaxed vehicle on a road the vehicle is not allowed because of a weight restriction. This should be pursued with the police. I’d hope that road.cc took up the pursuance on behalf of all cyclists.
I think the van mistook the
I think the van mistook the squealing racket of the disc brakes as the mating call of another van honking its horn and was responding in kind. Then again, I’m probably wrong because those squealing disc brakes sounded much louder than the van’s horn to me.