- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
(Not so) Near Miss of the Day 828: Driver hits cyclist at speed, leaving door mirror behind
Now and again in our Near Miss of the Day series, we feature a video that doesn’t quite fit that description, because rather than a close pass, the motorist actually hits the bike rider with their vehicle … and that’s we have in this latest video, with the van driver involved smacking into a cyclist taking part in a time trial with such force that the vehicle’s door mirror broke off and was left on the road.
Several drivers gave road.cc reader Ooblyboo plenty of space before the van driver came up from behind and hit him, leaving him bruised but thankfully nothing worse.
“It was on 8 May,” Ooblyboo told us. “I was racing in a VTTA 10-mile time trial on the F11/10 course near Tring on the A41. It was a Sunday morning, about 9.30am – traffic was light and conditions were good. Overcast, no low light, warm and dry.
“I got one hell of a thump – the whole wing mirror came off. If you look closely in the video you can see bits of it bouncing down the road. I just heard a very loud bang and suddenly I was covered in bits of glass and plastic and I felt a sharp pain in my backside.
“I didn't initially know what had happened to me but quickly realised I had been struck by the van’s wing mirror at what must have been at least 60mph.
“The driver just carried on and after I briefly checked myself over I decided to continue the race as it was the only way I knew how to get back to HQ (I don't live in the area) and I didn't want to stop on the dual carriageway. I had heavy bruising but didn't require hospital.
“I reported it to the organiser who produced a thorough report for CTT [Cycling Time Trials] and were very helpful.
“I also reported it to police who took some time to investigate but I am pleased that they did follow through with the investigation and eventually I was informed that the driver was found guilty at court of three offences – driving without due care and attention, failing to stop at the scene of an accident and failing to report an accident.
“They didn't initially tell me what the penalty was but after some back and forth they eventually told me that the driver received points and a fine. I don't know how many/how much.
“I don't know what the driver was doing but watching the video, it appears to me that they must have been distracted by something – we will never know,” Ooblyboo continued.
“As far as my feelings on this: I was incredibly fortunate that the mirror struck only my body and not the bike. A couple of centimetres further to the left and I might not be around to tell the tale.
“It shows how vulnerable we as cyclists are on the road and it also shows why it is crucially important that drivers remain focused and in full control of their vehicle at all times. Sadly the standard of driving in this country seems to be falling. I haven't ridden an open-road TT since.”
Ooblyboo added: “As per the rules of the event, I had a flashing front and rear light and helmet, and I had only put the Cycliq Fly 6 on the bike on a whim, having only bought it about two weeks beforehand! They are well worth having.”
> 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.
Latest Comments
- CyclingInGawler 3 hours 33 min ago
"Folkestone Magistrates’ Court heard this week that Williams was following another motorist in front as he emerged from a roundabout onto the...
- eburtthebike 5 hours 52 min ago
But of course that entire generation was wiped out because they weren't wearing a helmet.
- HoarseMann 6 hours 6 min ago
It's only 999 if it's a threat to life or a crime in progress. Once the perp has driven off and there's no longer a threat, it's a 101 job.
- chrisonabike 7 hours 3 min ago
Another I'd missed last month:...
- andystow 7 hours 25 min ago
Wow! This is a place I go to a few times a year, but it's right across the parking lot from the pub I go to weekly.
- lonpfrb 8 hours 6 min ago
This administration has the opportunity missed by the previous one to join up the departments to address the fact that capable people just don't...
- stonojnr 8 hours 40 min ago
I'd question how did the driver heard the swearing to make such a complaint....
- mark1a 9 hours 36 min ago
Thankfully, there was a massive clue at the top of the article.
- john_smith 2 sec ago
"Not really - use of the word 'accident' implies that an incident was unavoidable."...
Add new comment
78 comments
They didn't initially tell me what the penalty was but after some back and forth they eventually told me that the driver received points and a fine. I don't know how many/how much
The fact that the police are prepared to put much more effort into trying to not tell you information than the effort required to tell you immediately (despite what they're claiming to you, or trying to imply, there is no restriction on what they can say about the case, GDPR et. etc.) shows that the points and fine were a gross under-penalty which they don't want you to know about or spread around. People will argue that the problem is the courts not the police, but the truth is the entire justice system does not view even serious and almost deadly offences against cyclists as real offences.
And of course it is grossly lenient. You should expect, though I realise not always receive, points and a fine for driving without due care and attention. So failing to stop / failing to report had what effect on the penalty exactly? And was there a "not guilty" plea, as implied by "found guilty at court"? (I suppose could have been misreported by the police, but wouldn't bank on it). I was under the impression that these were serious matters. Guess not.
It doesn't seem likely it went to court if Ooblyboo wasn't called as a witness, or at least notified that they might be called as a witness on a certain date.
If the driver pleaded guilty in advance of the court date, then no witnesses are called. The hearing at court is just for the magistrate to review the evidence and determine the level of punishment to be handed out.
However, Ooblyboo should have been given an opportunity to attend the hearing from the public gallery. They also should have been offered to write a victim impact statement and have it read out in court.
I'm certain it must have gone to court, as leaving the scene cannot be dealt with via a fixed penalty notice.
According to the narrative the criminal was "found guilty at court". Which says to me (a) the case went to court; and (b) he entered a not guilty plea but was found guilty. Even if I am wrong on either or both of these, doesn't answer the failing to stop / failing to report question.
It's as Chris Boardman, in tragic circumstances, pointed out: road crime is not seen as real crime.
Stairlift and hoist company — perhaps they were sent out to "generate new business"?
That's definitely a ban in my sadly-non-authoritative eyes.
(question unrelated to events)
Are there many such roads in the UK and is it customary for cyclists to ride there? Not interested in starting an argument, I'm sure it's legal to cycle there and that's that. Just wondering about how 'normal' this type of situation is.
Where I am, on this type of road (dual carriageway with divider) cycling would be prohibited and even if allowed, personally I don't think I'd risk it.
Yes there are quite a few A roads like that, often used to bypass town centres. You can cycle on any road in Britain except motorways. Generally cyclists avoid them but they're often used - as here - for time trials due to the fact that they offer long traffic-light-free stretches.
I wouldn't ride on them for a king's ransom myself, but it's perfectly legal.
I know all the arguments / discussions around victim blaming etc and, like you, I would never ride on an A road like the one in the video.
I would but only on the hard shoulder. I wouldn't ride on a dual carriageway without a hard shoulder.
My original view was that they were good for TTs because the traffic can be light early morning and you don't have to worry about cars entering from side roads or oncoming traffic. Obviously I have now revised my view and think TTs on closed tracks/roads, although more difficult to organise, are the way forward.
They also use them for time one trials because they are fast, due to better road surfaces, and also because of the draft from passing vehicles.
I recall a report of a time trialist being disqualified for riding close to the line between lanes, in order to make cars pass closer and gain a benefit.
.
Yup - agree with Rendel (don't want to make a habit of that!!) - it's legal, but a long way from safe.
.
'I may be dead, but at least I was in the right'.
.
It's the drivers who make it unsafe though, and once you come around to that view, you realise all roads are equally unsafe whilst we allow drivers a literal licence to kill.
Absolutely this^
It is dangerous drivers that are the problem. If the public see A-roads as the problem then all A-roads needs to be closed until the problem is fixed.
Flip that around though and you see the problem: "I have 'rights' but occasionally I can get killed for exercising them, and the law doesn't take that seriously. So what do those 'rights' actually mean?"
This one's "recreational" but it still holds. It's like the state built a coconut shy on your commute / school route route. Over time it got used for archery, then firearms. Now the state encourages you to walk to work or school - for health! - and notes the range has a good safety record. They say they guarantee your right of way across the shooting range ("share the range") and they've put up signs with guidance for people to not shoot when others are crossing. They're considering if they need a review to maybe come down harder on any rogue shootists...
That type of road is only 10mph higher on the speed limit then the country lanes that cyclists do have to use regularly. And with the long sight lines and room for manouvreing. I would state it should actually be safer then the ones with lots of turns, narrower and with less chance of meeting a car on the wrong side of the road.
as many have said, it is perfectly legal to ride here, and many judge it to be dangerous. I feel thet a large part of that danger comes from the fact that riders are so rarely encountered on this type of rad, to the extent that drivers don't expect them to be there and aren't looking out for them. However if the drivers were alert to the presence of riders (perhaps if they encounered them more often) then these roads should be safer and cause less driver frustration as the site lines are such that they have much more time to move over (and have a lane to move into) to preform the overtake safely.
If only organised events like this had to put out additional high viz signage to let drivers know about the race and warn them that riders woul be present..... Oh wait....
On a side note, what a strange country this is that a dual carriagway like this (with 70 mph speed limit) permits cycling and yet a motorway (which has wider lanes and better site lines again) doesn't allow it on the hard shoulder.
For people who don't know, such events are marshalled and signed. People with poor observational skills aren't likely to absorb what they are being warned about if they even managed to lift their eyes from their phones to notice that there are signs.
The other unfortunate aspect is that riders are spaced out, departing at minute intervals typically, so drivers will come across lone cyclists rather than a group.
Without being victim blaming, the reality is that we know many drivers are proven to be unable to apply the attention required to the task of driving to be able to make riding on any road safe for cyclists, but a dual carriageway clearly offers drivers more opportunity to switch off or switch over to something of more interest to them. Therefore I do think we have to accept that the risk of very poor driving killing people is too high on this type of road.
Our club has had a time trial rider killed on a major road and escape with the momentary lack of attention defence. Given that the law repeatedly demonstrates that this standard of driving is only a minor, understandable deviation from the standard of driving required, is have to agree that dual carriageway time trialling on NSL roads is high risk, we cannot depend on drivers - or the law encouraging proper behaviour.
Your post is too accommodating to drivers.
There is such a road near me that is used every week by TT riders where a lady was sadly killed earlier this year. She was hit by a van driven by a local man.
I used to use OSM mapping on my Garmin generated by a German team. I got them to amend their road weightings because the UK appears to be the only place where a road defined as a trunk road allows cyclists. In Europe, a non-motorway trunk road would by definition ban cyclists. I guess it goes back to historical right of way laws in England (specifically because Scottish law has different right of way concepts). Part of that is that in England we only have defined rights of way anything else is permissive or banned, but that right is well-guarded. Other countries are more relaxed about access.
We made a navigational error this year and we're led round M42 J10 which is a junction with the A5. That was scary in a group.
That is true , actually there are places where in a such road any motor vehicle that cannot reach the speed of 50km/h is banned. And it makes sense, as they are practically immobile objects in the middle of the road. Just remember in Friends TV Show when Ross had taken his dad's Porssss and was super slow, the policeman just issued him a ticket.
Fucking points and a fucking fine. Fucking hell...
Never mind how fast the cyclist was going, the point is how the driver didn't lose their licence? They have clearly demonstrated beyond all doubt that they are incapable of driving in a safe manner and not killing people, but they still keep their licence. This is not acceptable, and they should be immediately banned and have to sit an extended test before they are allowed to drive again.
This incident reinforces the impression that driving is a right and if some random cyclist gets killed, well, that's a shame but, you know, cyclists!
is it just me but that felt alot like the van driver steers into that...?
I did wonder that to start with but I think it was pure lack of attention. Whatever the driver was doing, they weren't looking at the road or me.
Or the other cars in front who seemed to move across the road for some strange reason.
You're more forgiving than I am, or maybe I'm just a cynic at heart, but from where they start to be visible on the road, to when they pass you, imo, it was a deliberate attempt to buzz you or scare the xxxx out of you.
no doubt as a reaction to the TT event and that self entitlement road rage of damn all those cyclists making me drive in the right hand lane to overtake and pay attention, that they miscalculated, though fortunately not badly enough to have ended with another KSI stat, at which point everyone would have blamed the stupid road for the danger, and not the idiotic drivers.
It did appear that they moved toward the white line but then back in again just before hitting the human being.
Whether deliberate or just driving for quarter of a mile at 60mph+ without looking where they were going... this should be an instant ban and extended test at the minimum. It's pure luck that this was not a KSI.
Pages