Near Miss of the Day 651: “If I’d continued to go straight on, I would have gone under the wheels of this lorry”

I am starting to think that a necessary pre condition for any action at all is that the rider has to take avoiding action and probably drastic avoiding action as in this case. A lot of close overtakes do not give any chance to take avoiding action but they are obviously potentially much more dangerous as shown when drivers misjudge it and actually run into the back of cyclists and kill them. Even then they don't get charged with dangerous driving which I really don't understand.

Bungle_52 wrote:

I am starting to think that a necessary pre condition for any action at all is that the rider has to take avoiding action and probably drastic avoiding action as in this case. A lot of close overtakes do not give any chance to take avoiding action but they are obviously potentially much more dangerous as shown when drivers misjudge it and actually run into the back of cyclists and kill them. Even then they don't get charged with dangerous driving which I really don't understand.

I've had positive responses from A&S about incidents where I didn't need to take any action, so again it most likely depends on how advanced (or not) your local police force is with dealing with cyclists/video.

That's very interesting, thank you. Have you posted any on NMOTD?

Bungle_52 wrote:

That's very interesting, thank you. Have you posted any on NMOTD?

I think there was one where the driver was coming the opposite direction at speed and came too close, but I can't remember the number - it was near Chew Valley Lake. Most of the simple close passes where I didn't need to react are too boring to post here.

Edit: Found it, number 414: https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-414-driver-almost-hits-cyclist-head-273709

NMOTD 414. Thank you.

I wouldn't find any NMOTDs that have resulted in some sort of action boring. Not only does it help us to decide what is worth submitting but also, as far as I can tell, this site is the only repository we have as a reference to compare the responses of different police forces and at some point it will become a valuable resource for cycling organisations pressing for changes to the current system.

I almost added yesterday though thought I'd gone on too long already, I bet someone now goes through every single NMOTD just to "win the internet" to prove me wrong.

Well congratulations for not disappointing my already low expectations, and be my guest to carry on revisiting the NMOTD archives and posting examples you think are worse, because you wont change my opinion on this case one bit.

I have to disagree with your view on this. 

All of your examples show close passes, and whilst I am sure that in a few, rider competence stopped an incident from being more serious than it was, there is still a fundamental difference between these and the video above.

That difference is that in the video above, without positive rider action, there would have been an accident, no ifs or buts. Also in the video above, there is categorical evidence of the lorry being improperly (and dangerously) positioned and not giving away at a junction. Finally, the road / weather conditions on the day are also arguably a differentiating factor. 

There is no conspiracy here, its simply that the example above ticks all the right (or wrong depending on your viewpoint) buttons to facilitate a conviction. 

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

I have to disagree with your view on this. 

All of your examples show close passes, and whilst I am sure that in a few, rider competence stopped an incident from being more serious than it was, there is still a fundamental difference between these and the video above.

That difference is that in the video above, without positive rider action, there would have been an accident, no ifs or buts. Also in the video above, there is categorical evidence of the lorry being improperly (and dangerously) positioned and not giving away at a junction. Finally, the road / weather conditions on the day are also arguably a differentiating factor. 

There is no conspiracy here, its simply that the example above ticks all the right (or wrong depending on your viewpoint) buttons to facilitate a conviction. 

Create whatever justification makes you happy in your own head. Today's NMOTD is a case in point - dreadful effort at passing into oncoming traffic, inches away from a head-on crash, emergency stops all round (including full lock up on an ABS-equipped car, good effort, they probably had to lever the brake pedal out of the bulkhead!), could have wiped out an entire group ride, car's untaxed on top. Result - warning letter, bien sur, naturellement. Votre nom n'est pas Inspector Kevin, c'est vrai?

https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-652-overtaking-driver-almost-causes-h...

And of course, some police forces would have threatened to prosecute Insp Kevin for his blue language upsetting the sheep...

https://road.cc/content/news/cyclist-could-be-prosecuted-close-pass-vide...

Awavey wrote:

so even with a jury trial, if you cant convince them that driving falls far below the standard expected & that it would be obvious that driving in that way would be dangerous, then theres really no hope at all.

falls into the 3 categories that can be found guilty by juries of uk drivers

1) drugs

2) foreigner

3) drives a different category of vehicle (Lorry, cyclist, motorbike)

Thank you for engaging here. Re: "it definitely helped to have a good knowledge of traffic legislation so I could put in a 4 page statement" - are there any general tips you can share (not necessarily specific to your incident) which might help people prepare better reports and/or get better outcomes? E.g. the sort of information that should go into a statement, or things to avoid? I agree with the sentiment expressed by others that you shouldn't need detailed legal knowledge to make a victim's statement, but if there are general pointers that help us to help you (in your capacity as an Inspector, rather than victim) then I'm sure we're all ears.         

I will paste the statement when I get a chance. It's not enough to say "he nearly killed me" explaining the sheer terror of being confronted by a truck on the wrong side of the road with only your brakes and handling skills stopping your kids from not having two parents helps. 
 

A good cop would write a statement that details all this on your behalf or evoke these details.  The video itself is great evidence but it doesn't really tell the whole story  

Inspector Kevin Smith SYP wrote:

I will paste the statement when I get a chance. It's not enough to say "he nearly killed me" explaining the sheer terror of being confronted by a truck on the wrong side of the road with only your brakes and handling skills stopping your kids from not having two parents helps. 
 

A good cop would write a statement that details all this on your behalf or evoke these details.  The video itself is great evidence but it doesn't really tell the whole story  

That would be interesting as presumably it'd also help police forces if they already have a well written statement. Most of my submissions just consist of a couple of paragraphs - one to state the facts (where I was going and doing and what I saw) and sometimes one for my thoughts and how it affected me. I presume that video submission portals don't want to put too many requirements for submission as that'd lead to less evidence being submitted.

Yes. However i do think they allow you to add more. When you want to get across the fact you arent a robot and you were genuinely scared you were going on die more is more. 

Just a question on that. Would an exclaim of terror be interpreted as showing you are not a robot and actually did fear you might have died? Just wondering as someone on here, (you might have seen his comment about your colleague from Surrey sitting eating a donut and tweeting instead of stopping crime), decided that someone who cried out, not swore, just cried wooooaaarrgh when close passed at speed, deserved to be confronted by the driver. They state don't shout out as it makes the driver more angry and just go home and submit the footage to the Police. 

tbh I hope it wouldnt be interpreted as anything, as it might else imply not shouting out in that situation means it cant have been that bad an experience which would be totally wrong.

as in those kind of imminent peril moments, my "robot" cpu if you want, is maxing out dealing with the actions or reactions that are hopefully trying to keep me safe and doesnt have the spare capacity to vocalise anything at the same time.

even afterwards something like that my reaction would be one more of shock or dumbfoundedness, did that just happen kind of thing, am I still here, I know in the worst near misses Ive had and Ive had some doozy ones with trucks, I virtually go catatonic, and have to stop, pull off to the side of the road to compose myself again, basically I just have to shutdown & reboot I guess. Id have had to sit in the snow for a good 5mins before getting back on my bike if that scenario above had ever happened to me.

as for the reacting to drivers stuff in less perilous circumstances, look, Ive learned over the years there are a group of drivers on our roads who will react badly, sometimes because thats exactly what they are looking for to escalate, to any perceived slight you may make on them for their driving and yes that includes simply doing your best Keanu Reeves impression at them, I had one stop and try to reverse at me because I just asked why did you do that ? another slowed up and drove alongside me trying to force me into the kerb because I used my thumb and forefinger in a L shape.

So I try my best not to fall for that trap, because I never know where it might lead and I recognise how vulnerable I am actually on my bike, people have driven their vehicles deliberately to knock me off on more than one occasion when I used to react badly to them, its not a nice position to be in.

TBH, I'm a swearer and the one time I was taken out by a car you can clearly hear me shout "fucking hell" as I hit the deck, followed by a wanker when I realised the car was not stopping. The stupid thing is if he had come back and expressed remorse, I probably wouldn't have taken it further as bruised ribs and a slightly bent QR skewer was the only damage. However he carried on so Police got involved. 

However with Insp Kevin pointing out to ensure your statement shows how scared you are, and another force  apparently stating we didn't interpret it as bad as you didn't shout out in the video, the question was there.

As for the specific case i was mentioning, a specific troll did point out it was the cyclists fault and they should have been calm about being passed by inches by a car doing 30-40mph. The cyclist didn't swear but showuted out in shock. The driver decided he didn't like that and pulled over to confront the cyclist. The troll stated  he deserved to be confronted. 

Inspector Kevin Smith SYP wrote:

Yes. However i do think they allow you to add more. When you want to get across the fact you arent a robot and you were genuinely scared you were going on die more is more. 

Luckily most of my close passes haven't been too scary (or maybe I'm just jaded) and I've been mostly looking for a lesser result such as a warning letter.

Also, my opinion is that Avon & Somerset do seem to want to deal with cycling close passes and other road offences and I think they've improved their process over the last few years although I'm not a fan of their bottled response of "Thank you for taking the time to upload your footage which has now been processed (a warning letter or a fixed penalty or a prosecution has been issued). Thank you for helping to keep our roads safe. I can confirm that as you are a witness to this offence, you will not receive any further updates."

As others have said, thanks to you and your team for helping with road nastiness and removing some of the idiots from the roads.

I can confirm that as you are a witness to this offence, you will not receive any further updates.

Bottled or not, at least you get told the Police have even looked at the video. I get a submission number from Nextbase and then nothing. WMP state they don't let you know unless you have to go to court.

However the bolded bit does get me. For a car showing bad driving (like seen in UK Dashcams) or for the offences recorded my Cycling Mikey and WTJS (the RLJs more then the others), yes they are witnesses. However, with the majority of cycling submissions, they are from Victims of almost being killed by bad driving. It is normally only luck that we could submit footage. One of mine was an attempt by someone to lean out and push me off. This was when there was a spate of these in Birmingham in the same sort of area with serious injuries suffered by the victims. So in my eyes I was a victim of attempted assault, not a witness. Yet still nothing from WMP even on that one. 

What we need is for Inspector Kevin Smith SYP to be made national lord of video submissions or whatever the appropriate title is. Maybe a superhero duo team of him and Saint Chris could sort out active travel in the UK.

That's interesting - I will say how it made me feel, but I probably try to be a little dispassionate and objective in my reports and avoid hyperbole. That said, all 6 reports I've made have been progressed, with one going to court. 

quiff wrote:

That's interesting - I will say how it made me feel, but I probably try to be a little dispassionate and objective in my reports and avoid hyperbole. That said, all 6 reports I've made have been progressed, with one going to court. 

I've started putting feelings referenced to the time log on the  vid to provide context for swearing etc - partly as emotions are submissable evidence. eg if you fear for your safety that may be supporting evidence to constitute assault etc.

It can be done dispassionately, and I believe (have no empirical evidence mind) that it makes a difference on how the submissions are viewed, particularly as (in herts) you submit first and then upload when asked.

Wow, a very scary close shave,  and we are all thankful that it wasn't a different result.  

I'm interested in the "knowing the processes" comments, as this looks like it's a bit of a problem in Hertfordshire.

I submitted a case of driving with mobile phone and not holding the steering wheel (see "Look – No hands" on Road.cc, 19/3/21) and you commented at the time that it was a "slam dunk" for careless driving ; however Herts Police had initially decided mobile phone use was unenforceable due to DPP-v-Barreto; and they subsequently changed their story to "have to be 100% confident" to put a case to the CPS;  before eventually changing again to "the video itself shows no offence being committed, no adverse driving by the driver" when explaining their answers to my MP via the the OPCC.

From an FoI it turns out that, out of 405 video-evidenced submissions this year (to Aug), Herts Police had taken only one case to court - so they are obviously not good at building the cases to reach their 100% confident threshold. I also found out that they also keep no statistics of how many of these cases were reported as "cyclist close-pass" even though this is one of the boxes you tick when making the online report.

You have to have someone who is willing to prosecute to Prosecute. I put through some cases that others maybe wouldn't because I'm confident in my rationale and happy to explain it to a court. 
 

I have recently put through a number of  cases as you describe as "not in control".  I'd be happy to offer my opinion on the matter to your local force but there's nothing i can do to change their processes other than say "we'd have run that, no problem"

Thanks for the offer, although I'm told DET can never change outcomes (even though they then did in practice in this case). As you say, the problem is proobably more about willingness; and I've noticed that the local tri-force RPU, covering Hertfordshire certainly seem to be able to prosecute mobile phone offences quite sucessfully, tweeting about cases they have actioned, even if DPP-v-Barreto prevents the Herts DET from doing so!

I had a long awaited, and rescheduled, conference call with the Herts PCC today and he said he would write to the Chief Constable regarding criminal justice outcomes in relation to using a mobile phone whilst driving, and also to request from the Chief Constable an explanation as to the different approaches to prosecuting between RPU and DET and report back, and consider his Police and Crime Plan approach to the questions of close passing. That last one was a bit more vague as a commitment to do something. I'm vaguely hopefull this all might have some effect, but don't have huge expectations that it will

I guess the depressing part is the post-code lottery evident in much of the content on Road.CC; some forces like yours are obviously pretty proactive on road-safety for vulnerable road users, others are best decribed as comatose.
 
If only the NRPOI had a "national day of action on close-passing" that ALL forces did something useful for . . . !

Inspector Kevin Smith SYP wrote:

I also don't have the same barriers that members of the public have faced when trying to report incidents in the past (barriers I have been working to remove). 

Could you please elaborate on what those barriers are, and how you were able to go around them in ways Joe Public could not?

It would be good to go into a report submission fully versed on what to expect so that we might potentially be able to craft a better report that ticks more boxes.

Just being able to submit HD footage is currently a large barrier in my force. I am hoping this will be alleviated by the imminent adoption of Nextbase and having one route in to a specialist officer (which is also new and entirely down to PS Rob Jones amd Insp Jason Booth - credit where it's due)

Just a mention on Nextbase as I use it with WMP. There seems to be a limit both on the size of the file, and the amount of text that can be added to the statement. Nothing in the system states that but the upload for me bounces on anything over 500MB. For example, 4 mins of HD in Go-Pro original recording is higher then that and I find I have to use their software to save as an Avi, then convert to a different compression for the file to get it below this invisible limit. But I do find the statement length restriction stupid (5 lines of text max it seems like), as I like to state how scared for my life I felt in some of the situations when it is a close pass or unsignalled lane change or left hooks etc. 

500mb limit ... Video to Police Scotland has to be emailed ...

And you can't upload to YouTube, WeTransfer, DropBox, OneDrive et al an provide a link either.

If you are lucky, they *might* send an officer to take your statement, and they *might* have a memory stick with them.

What email systems allow you to email a file of more than 10 MB or 20 MB ?