Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Near Miss of the Day 782: No action taken on very close pass

Our regular series featuring close passes from around the country - today it's Greater Manchester...

“Failure to act on this one is utterly ridiculous,” says the road.cc reader who sent in today’s submission in our Near Miss of the Day series, filmed in Greater Manchester.

“75 centimetres away at 31 miles per hour,” he said.

“In my incident description in the police report, I said: ‘Analysis of the video shows that the car was approximately 75 centimetres away from me and travelling at approximately 30 miles per hour when the driver overtook me,” he added.

“This is far too close, even in the presence of paint."

> 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 [at] 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

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

27 comments

Avatar
wtjs | 1 year ago
0 likes

Look, the procedure is quite simple: The Bad Cops have already decided to take no action because the cyclist has not been killed or seriously injured. Anything they say to justify the decision is just self-serving rubbish they have made up while grasping at any excuse they can think of. There is never enough evidence for them to do anything

Avatar
Phteven | 1 year ago
2 likes

TBH I don't really see the issue here. This cyclist would lose their shit commuting in London where this is basically normal.

Avatar
mdavidford replied to Phteven | 1 year ago
13 likes

Phteven wrote:

TBH I don't really see the issue here. This cyclist would lose their shit commuting in London where this is basically normal.

The fact that it's normal (and not just in London) is the issue.

Avatar
Accessibility f... replied to Phteven | 1 year ago
5 likes

That's because you're here from Pistonheads, a right-wing forum filled with people who complain when laws are enforced on them.

Avatar
grOg replied to Phteven | 1 year ago
0 likes

Yep; the problem is really the 'bike lane' lines painted on the road; drivers feel entitled to drive within their marked lane past a cyclist in their marked lane.

Avatar
IanMSpencer | 1 year ago
3 likes

This reminds me of the aggrieved police who were close passed by a lorry.

I suspect there is no definitive case law to guide anyone - and most likely when such a case does come up it will be settled in line with Mr Loophole arguments rather than what is safe. So then we would be in mobile phone territory where for a decade or so everyone knew phone law was inadequate but government pretended all was fine. (Never bother complaining to Government about law being misinterpreted - they just reply that it is up to the courts to determine, they have no concept that writing poor law that can be misinterpreted might be the fault of Government).

Logic tells me that 1.5 metres is to do with wobble room, therefore paint on the road makes no difference, yet as a group, we will quite happily accept cycling two abreast and a driver passing carefully the other side of a white line in the centre of the road - of we were not,we would ride single file. So I don't think there is a simple formula based purely on measurement. This is why it needs the police to be more agile in their reviewing of footage.

Avatar
JimM777 replied to IanMSpencer | 1 year ago
6 likes

Indeed. I would say that 90% or more of motorists think that they can be anywhere within the white lines either side of them, and would be very surprised to be told that that is not the case if they are passing a cyclist - and that the reaction would be: Then what the bloody hell are the lines for?

Avatar
Velo-drone replied to JimM777 | 1 year ago
3 likes

Correct answer is that the lines are there for guidance on road positioning when not passing another road user

Drivers generally have no difficulty understanding that if they want to pass another car, or indeed motorcycle, that the location of bits of paint on the road aren't the determinant of where they need to be to pass safely.

Most drivers also inherently understand that they need to give reasonable space when passing a pedestrian on the road.

We just need a general mindset shift to where drivers in general understand that they need to leave at least as much space and care when passing a cyclist as if they were passing a pedestrian.

Avatar
JimM777 replied to Velo-drone | 1 year ago
8 likes

I don't know what to make of your assumption that drivers take due care when passing a pedestrian. I will never forget the occasion when I and my future wife were walking, correctly on the side facing incoming traffic, me closer to the kerb, she alongside me, when a car shot post us at high speed from behind, overtaking another car, and inches from my wife.

The fact is that when drivers are behind the wheel of a car, they no longer see things outside of their car as humans but as objects - not as someone who might be their son or daughter, but as a nondescript thing that is a nuisance.

Avatar
Awavey | 1 year ago
0 likes

has anyone ever known a close pass in a cycle lane to get a prosecution ? just wondering if it just gets disregarded as theres no lane violation if you like, and the miss the distance is still too close.

just paint them all 1.5metre and problem solved right  1 and fwiw we do have roads where vehicles have to drive in the cycle lane to pass oncoming vehicles, so road width isnt an issue.

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to Awavey | 1 year ago
7 likes

Awavey wrote:

has anyone ever known a close pass in a cycle lane to get a prosecution ? just wondering if it just gets disregarded as theres no lane violation if you like, and the miss the distance is still too close.

I was told by the Met two years ago that they wouldn't action any close passes    if I was in a cycle lane and the car wasn't, even if (as in the case I was enquiring about) the driver quite clearly moved from a safe distance to "buzz" the cyclist as a punishment (in that case revenge for having the cheek to force him to stop on an amber light by doing so myself).

Avatar
Awavey replied to Rendel Harris | 1 year ago
1 like

thats what I suspected, but havent had it confirmed before.

Avatar
giff77 replied to Rendel Harris | 1 year ago
2 likes

This now seems to be pretty much the rule of thumb by numerous forces due to the CPS and PF in order to take the pressure off the courts. It seems action will only be taken if you hit the deck. The only hope we have is that forces are more proactive in issuing endorsable FPNs. A way forward would be to have courts that solely deal with driving offences and have judges, magistrates and sheriffs who specialise in this area. 

Avatar
JimM777 | 1 year ago
9 likes

This is precisely why those stupidly narrow "cycle lanes" make a road more dangerous for cyclists. While not condoning the drivers, it's understandable that the lane markings are taken as rigidly correct separations of cars and cyclists. What is needed is another lane, say perhaps with chevrons between the cycle lanes and the car lanes - otherwise don't paint in cycle lanes at all.

Also studies have also shown that the more road markings, signs, etc, can result in drivers being less careful, since they may simply follow the set rules without thinking.

Avatar
brooksby replied to JimM777 | 1 year ago
2 likes

JimM777 wrote:

What is needed is another lane, say perhaps with chevrons between the cycle lanes and the car lanes

Whilst I think that's a really good idea - like when you have chevrons between two lanes of 'normal' traffic, often in the space between two sets of pedestrian refuges - I can't imagine any council in the country going for it. After all, it would take up far too much road space and it's only for cyclists... 

Avatar
Grahamd replied to JimM777 | 1 year ago
3 likes

JimM777 wrote:

. What is needed is another lane, say perhaps with chevrons between the cycle lanes and the car lanes - otherwise don't paint in cycle lanes at all.

I think what is needed is a minimum standard for cycle lanes, say 2.25m (75cm from the kerb plus 1.5m).

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Grahamd | 1 year ago
3 likes

Agree - more and more I think we need a standard for cycle lanes: don't.  If as a council you're skint a minimum is a continuously protected cycle lane (which no-one seems to do - they're always interrupted for any reason or stopping and restarting).  False economy though - before you start you'll need resurfacing because the edge of the road is home to the worst of the potholes and gravel traps, continual maintenance (lanes fill up with rubbish) and enforcement (everything parked / dumped in the lane).

Unless the goal is largely "tick box, claim money".

So just don't (and shame on you) until you can save up the money (yeah, I know it doesn't work like that...) for a separated cycle path of appropriate standard.  If the questions are "what gets people cycling" and "what makes people on cycles safer" cycle lanes are scoring very few points.

I've hypocritically called for these in the past though - why?  For some drivers, until the paint wears off, they can help visually narrow the road which can keep (some drivers) speeds down.

Avatar
HoarseMann replied to JimM777 | 1 year ago
3 likes

The only thing those narrow cycle gutters are good for is creating a bit of space to filter up the left of a traffic jam.

Avatar
IanMSpencer replied to JimM777 | 1 year ago
3 likes

Of course, it's been an increasing theme that the HA recognises that the average motorist is incapable of correct judgement.

The best examples of these are the old trunk roads with suicide lanes where motorists delighted in failing to play chicken successfully. For a while the tried the one solid white line and one broken one to imply priority to one side (I didn't ever see how that was underpinned by road laws though) then they got rid of the third lane and made it two extra wide lanes to allow overtaking by encroaching on the other lane with oncoming traffic. Then they realised that this didn't work either, so they now often paint a wide "only enter when necessary" striped section in the middle of the road. They also are inclined to delete the second lane of dual carriageway because motorists are incapable of managing to drive capably passing other cars when separated by magic paint (there is a notable section of road in and out of Kidderminster, for example, it requires motorists to turn corners occasionally which is obviously too challenging).

You'd think as motorists can't be trusted to assess safe overtaking when observing an HGV thundering towards them, that constraining their choices with cyclists would be an obvious extension.

Theoretically, self-driving cars is the next step, as even "professional" drivers can't be trusted to be competent. Unfortunately, self-driving cars are being developed by human beings, so there is little hope!

Avatar
Flintshire Boy replied to IanMSpencer | 1 year ago
1 like

.

What's that song again?

.

Ah yeh, 'Always look on the bright side of life, da da, da da'.

.

Avatar
lonpfrb replied to IanMSpencer | 1 year ago
0 likes
IanMSpencer wrote:

.
Theoretically, self-driving cars is the next step, as even "professional" drivers can't be trusted to be competent. Unfortunately, self-driving cars are being developed by human beings, so there is little hope!

Fair point on human innovation though budget limits on testing are a common engineering issue. Bean counters in charge, so have we spent the budget not is it good enough...

One notable change is that almost no hard problems are solved with logic alone, any more. Machine Learning is now normal so the effect and efficiency of training is a competitive advantage. Further production at global scale in smartphone and GPUs mean that the future vehicles will be able to cope with several hard problems including video recognition, physical modelling and object tracking. In other words, the elements of driving in complex situations. Add Beacons for harder objects (cyclists) to track and the safety goes up.

The sooner we can get humans out of the loop, controlling vehicles, the better. However it's a slow process to establish trust and sell the benefits that people will buy with their own money...

Avatar
grOg replied to IanMSpencer | 1 year ago
0 likes

Self-driving cars will remain 'theoretical,' as all the experts agree that the road conditions needed to make them safe to use, will never exist realistically.

Avatar
ktache | 1 year ago
2 likes

Both of those close passers weren't even close to the right-hand side of their lanes.

Avatar
giff77 replied to ktache | 1 year ago
3 likes

My observation is that motorists now days tend to hug the nearside section of the road rather than keep out to the right which ironically given  the drivers position affords them with better sight lines. This was something my dad encouraged me to do when I was learning,  one reason was to make it easier to pass pedestrians/cyclists (most of our local roads were rural) and also to reduce risk of punctures due to the crap lying nearside which we do our best to avoid when cycling. 

Avatar
grOg replied to ktache | 1 year ago
1 like

They were centred in their marked lane, which would seem reasonable for most drivers; therein lies the problem.. the bike lane marking, meant to give cyclists 'protected space' makes it more dangerous for cyclists, than if cyclists just used the roadway without bike lane marking.

Avatar
brooksby | 1 year ago
11 likes

As "passing the cyclist pretty darned close but it's fine because I didn't go into their little painted lane" goes, that was pretty par for the course.  I've personally experienced worse and I think I've probably seen worse on video on this very site.

Whilst I do imagine it felt a bit butt-clenching at the time, and agree that it falls foul of the current HC iteration, I'm afraid that I can see why the police couldn't be arsed to take it any further...

 

Avatar
HarrogateSpa | 1 year ago
6 likes

Both the driver and the highways authority should be prosecuted.

Latest Comments