The latest video in our Near Miss of the Day series starts with a driver overtaking a couple of cyclists dangerously – and ends with the motorist shortly afterwards slamming his brakes on without warning, causing one of the riders to crash.
It was filmed in Dorney, Buckinghamshire yesterday by road.cc reader Lyndon (and is the second video from him we have featured this week), who told us: “I had an encounter today which I’d consider a hit and run.
“It was a nice day so a friend and I decided to head down to Windsor, Berkshire. Just outside of Dorney Lake, a white BMW followed passed very closely.
“I knew there was a busy junction ahead and figured I’d catch the driver up at the junction and tell them to be more considerate.
“When I got near the the car, he saw me and brake checked me, and I went into the back of him. If you play the video slowly, you can see him looking in his wing mirror as I am falling down.
“I am completely dumbfounded as not only did the collision make a loud bang, that the passenger in the vehicle did not encourage him to stop at the scene.
“It’s a sad state of affairs when someone knocks a cyclist down and leaves them in the road.
“I have sent the footage to the police, full files of front and rear footage where the faces of the driver and passenger are visible. I can only hope Thames Valley Police will prosecute him,” he added.
“I do not understand how someone who behaves this way is permitted to use a vehicle on public roads.”
> 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">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
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
75 thoughts on “(Not so) Near Miss of the Day 496: Driver deliberately slams on brakes, causing cyclist to crash”
Yet again, the common thread.
Yet again, the common thread. BMW. Say no more.
biker phil wrote:
Sorry that’s a silly comment. Its the same attitude that says all cyclists jump red light. We need to be better than cheap stereotyping.
It’s not silly. Watch the
It’s not silly. Watch the NMOTD and see what make of car makes up the vast majority. You must drive a BMW
biker phil wrote:
I watched the last 5 – precisely 1 Beemer. It’s called confirmation bias – look it up rather than posting trash.
The other 4 were Audis ?
The other 4 were Audis ?
I agree with that too- also
I agree with that too- also Golfs with more than 1 exhaust pipe (or anything with more than 1)
Vile behaviour from the
Vile behaviour from the Beemer driver.
I do worry that the rozzers will use the travelling too close excuse on the brake testing. Fingers crossed the driver gets prosecuted.
Might be worth making a claim on their insurance. Get photos of the bike and any injuries.
It’s a quere one in a way,
It’s a quere one in a way, yes the driver did a close pass and something should be done to him as he has issues with cyclist. But we shouldn’t chace down the car as shit happens and this may infulance the police more then the bad and dangrous driving, which is wrong. Then the morron brake checks a felow road user, some people will say he as too close but a brake check is dangrous driving and he should be done for it. Will he be done for it? if Lanc’s I would doubt it.
The paused still rear shows
The paused still rear shows driver smirking at the start of the manoeuvre,purposely very close..police need to issue at least a warning. The BMW is even fitted with a dash cam, calculable evidence. Serious injury could have been caused. There’s a cyclist coming the other way too on the “overtake”!
The brake check where the rider landed in the middle of the road potential for injury from passing vehicle too.
This driver is dangerous and should be held responsible for their deliberate actions.
good luck!
I wouldn’t have cycled that
I wouldn’t have cycled that close to the car. I don’t know the reason for the traffic cones, but they would indicate that more caution/observation than normal is needed. There is also a bigger gap than you would expect to the next car suggesting something is going to happen.
It’s hard though after initial punishment pass to control that adrenalin flow. Hopefully the driver will be prosecuted for the initial pass.
Having been on the wrong end
Having been on the wrong end of one of these incidents:
https://road.cc/content/news/270977-brake-checking-motorist-deliberately-causes-crash-hertfordshire-police-tell
I can fully sympathise and hope that in your case the motorist gets some love and attention from the local constabulary. Whilst I got a bit trolled in the comments, one point did stick with me about the red mist coming down and questioning what exactly it was I planning to do once I’d caught up with the driver?
HP wrote before that he doesn
HP wrote before that he doesn’t interact with drivers anymore, just gets the footage. I try now just to just get their face and no more after one nmotd where the cyclist simply says “thanks, I just wanted your face for the camera”.
I think you have to sit down at home in peace and quiet and make a decision that from now (nearly) no matter what happens you will just let the camera do the talking.
it is harder to do than say.
it is harder to do than say. I want to stop swearing as much as I do, but sometimes it’s just a reaction. but good advice
Have been there myself,
Have been there myself, police were absolutely useless, refusing to take any action as the driver would inevitably claim they had to brake for a dog.
Given my experience of
Given my experience of submissions to Thames Valley Police, I think they would have done something about the close pass. If you’ve got the cameras, that’s the best way to educate a driver. Remonstrating at the time is not going to work.
No excuse for the brake check, causing an accident and then leaving the scene though. Pretty blatent. Hopefully the police will act on that too.
If there is any damage to yourself or bike, you could start a civil action against the driver for damages. You can request their details directly from the DVLA using this form:
https://www.gov.uk/request-information-from-dvla
The crash is a non-starter-
The crash is a non-starter- you always have to be able to stop before hitting a vehicle ahead- if you don’t, it’s your fault. I think the driver probably did do it deliberately, but the police aren’t going to do anything at all about that. I agree about the BMWs- having said that, I spent 6 hours last week cycling home from Coniston against rain, a headwind and towing a heavy trailer. There were deep road floods everywhere and nobody, out of the many motorists travelling both directions and including several BMWs, charged through the floods to soak me. Pretty good driving overall- I was amazed.
I’d argue that the Police
I’d argue that the Police actually take a very dim view on deliberate brake checking, especially when caught on camera.
However, they will take an even dimmer view of one road user actively chasing another down following a minor altercation. This is the very definition of road rage.
The BMW driver could easily say that they felt threatened and took defensive action, explaining both the action and failure to stop post accident.
I don’t say this to be a dick, I’ve seen this played out before close hand. A mate of mine did something very similar, and only escaped prosecution because the driver didn’t wish to further pursue it.
The lesson I want to stress, is don’t chase cars no matter what, but especially when you already have them bang to rights on camera.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
I take your point but I find it hard to believe that even UK police would say oh, you felt threatened so you deliberately caused an accident, that’s cool. Also, if you felt threatened in a big powerful car on a clear road against a cyclist who will max out around 30mph your obvious option is surely to drive away!
Wrong.. as a former traffic
Wrong.. as a former traffic cop I have successfully prosecuted brake checkers just on the basis of independent witness evidence.. with cam vision like this, it would be even easier to convince the courts.
grOg wrote:
Great to have your input, it is with considerable regret that I have to advise that your former colleagues do not show the same level of enthusiam for dealing with such situations.
Is there any damage to you or
Is there any damage to you or your bike? If so, start a claim against his insurance. If he knows you hit him, he has an obligation to inform his insurers.
As the rider collided with
As the rider collided with the vehicle this could backfire. It would be very hard to prove this was a deliberate brake check, and the rider (I think) would be liable for any damage to the car.
I have every sympathy with Lyndon, however, in this case, he is on shaky ground.
The close pass and failing to stop would be on the driver, but the collision, sadly, is on the rider.
I wish Lyndon every luck with the Police, but as the evidence shows the collision to be his liability he may wish this to quietly die a death.
And crash for cash scams? Are
And crash for cash scams? Are they the victim’s fault too?
Yes, it might be very difficult to prove a brake check, and I suspect the police might take objection to a bit of ‘red mist’ on the cyclist’s part (hard as I know it is not to react), but it’s not as simple as person behind = liable.
This was an ‘open road’
This was an ‘open road’ incident though where you should be able to stop within the distance you see.
Cash for crash is normally where there is no reasonable possibility of being to stop in time eg they pull out of a side road, swap lanes on a dual carriageway with little or no warning eating up your braking gap.
hirsute wrote:
I must admit, the example that you provide is something akin to what I was expecting to see – overtake followed by brake check. As the beemer pulled away though, and it took about 40s of furious pedalling to catch up, the close pass and the brake-check are, to all intents and purposes, discrete incidents.
quiff wrote:
I think my point is somewhat missed
A proved case of a cash for crash scam would not be the victim’s liability by definition, but that is the point – it needs to be proved (not sure but it would likely be a fraud, and so be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Liability is civil, and has a lower burden of evidence, that of balance of probabilities).
In any case that is irrelevant as I don’t believe there is any suggestion of C4C here.
On an open road, the rider accelerated to catch up with the car in front and was subsequently too close to be able to stop when the driver applied the brakes. I agree with you, I believe that the driver saw an opportunity and brake checked, BUT that is my opinion, and it would be very difficult to convince a court, even under civil law.
Essentially, it is that simple. You must be able to stop in the distance that you can see to be clear (HWC 154).
I think we fundamentally
I think we fundamentally agree. All I was trying to get at is that being able to stop in the distance that you can see to be clear is not an absolute (and in fact it’s not even a ‘must’ in the HWC), it relies on certain reasonable assumptions. A deliberate brake check is not one of those reasonable assumptions. Totally accept your points about the difficulty of proving a brake check, and that the rider in this case got too close after chasing. I only mentioned crash for cash, as I thought a brake-check was one of the methods used for exactly this reason – they can be very difficult to avoid.
quiff wrote:
I think we do – my view regarding liability is a pragmatic one as to expected outcome. I think the Beemer driver to be an utter tw*t, and I hope Lyndon’s complaint re the close pass and leaving the scene gains traction.
Captain Badger wrote:
Yep, that’s confirmed it – we do agree
Rear-end collisions aren’t
Rear-end collisions aren’t always the fault of the rear vehicle operator;
The fact that the BMW driver left the scene of an accident after the sudden braking event that caused a collision is an additional incriminating circumstance against the driver – if the braking was innocent, any reasonable person would have stopped to check on the bicycle rider and exchange details.
There is a myth that the vehicle in the rear is always at fault when they get into a crash with the vehicle that is in front of them. The reality is that either person could be at fault. If you have a dash cam with your vehicle, for example, showing the authorities that the other vehicle was stopped suddenly and for no reason could be enough to have the other party held liable for the crash.
Brake checking is a form of road rage. Road rage in itself is illegal, because it is a form of reckless driving.
Correct, at the very least
Correct, at the very least the police should be asking the driver to explain their (apparent) brake check. Especially in the context of the very recent (apparent) deliberate close pass.
grOg wrote:
I agree with most of what you say in principle. However this is rarely how it plays out and my point (as I have stated more than once now) is about likely outcome, not the merits of the case
Considering the attitude and diligence that you exhibit, your retirement from the force is a real loss to cyclists and pedestrians, particularly as your in-depth understanding, consideration and appreciation seems to be lacking in many of your ex-colleagues. The examples shown on this page are frequently ignored by the police, and in more than one case that I have read the victim told that they were asking for it, and even threatened with action themselves on no good rational basis.
Whereas this does not lessen the work of officers such as yourself or Andy Cox for example, many forces are enabling crap and dangerous driving by refusing to take action on even the most egregious cases where evidence is in abundance
Unfortunately justice is not
Unfortunately justice is not often a straightforward path. There are many cases totally unrelated to cycling where the journey and outcome for the victim has been poor.
However, it’s important not to give up before you’ve started. I suspect there is a strong possibility that Lyndon could obtain some justice from this incident. But it will require effort on his part to drive the process and get through to an officer like grOg who is willing to take it forward.
HoarseMann wrote:
Indeed, but that is the exact issue highlighted
Where there is an appreciable risk of blowback the risk/benefit would need to be carefully weighed
Captain Badger wrote:
That is a moot point in this case as the footage has already been submitted to the police.
I just think we need to get away from being so negative about the prospect of police action in these cases. It fosters a fatalistic attitude that there’s no point submitting footage and the police don’t care.
My experience has been that they do care, but need help in understanding how much this issue affects the victim in order to make the right priority call. They can’t enforce everything and with limited resources, you need to make your voice heard – quite literally, like phone them up and talk to them, it’s difficult to convey all that needs to be said in an online form.
HoarseMann wrote:
True, and I hope to be proved wrong
That’s a bit chicken and egg. I do submit footage, however the attitude may come from experience rather than fatalism.
My experience has been that they do care, but need help in understanding how much this issue affects the victim in order to make the right priority call. They can’t enforce everything and with limited resources, you need to make your voice heard – quite literally, like phone them up and talk to them, it’s difficult to convey all that needs to be said in an online form.— HoarseMann
I think it’s great when you get someone who does – such as gr0g who has been contributing here. However whereas the Met and GMP show a great record, Lincs and others not so much, and threats of action against the victim do wonders in silencing dissent
My issue here is the driver
My issue here is the driver leaving the scene, which is a criminal offence. If I have to pay for the scratch to his vehicle, I’d be happy to- but I’d have needed him to remain at the scene to exchange details.
The footage clearly shows no obstructions in the road, and the steady flow of traffic in the opposing directions says the same.
My intention, which I will rethink in the future, was to simply tell the driver at the junction ahead to just leave more room. I’ve been through this many times, and the police are quick to dismiss complaints. If the police won’t prosecute, I figured the least I can do is try and educate.
Hi Lyndon. My analysis is
Hi Lyndon. My analysis is simply on likely outcome, you do have my sympathy. It wouldn’t be the first time that I’ve chased someone down, and it was rotten luck to come off – sounded painful, hope you’re ok
I’m alright, and a lesson
I’m alright, and a lesson learned. There was some damage to my bike and kit, but I will wait to see how the police proceed and decide on my next steps then.
The close pass doesn’t bother me too much, its a daily occurance in Bucks and Berks. Being involved in a collison and leaving in a hurry- that’s simply not right and I can only hope TVPD see it the same way.
I agree entirely, good luck
I agree entirely, good luck old chap!
Hi Lyndon.
Hi Lyndon.
From my own experience I was able to trace the vehicle insurers through the Motor Insurance Bureau. Cost £4.50
https://www.mib.org.uk/check-insurance-details/check-a-vehicle-not-at-the-roadside-after-an-accident/
I claimed for some minor damage to the bike, helmet and my bibshorts (on a MTB – I know, how do I live with myself?). The insurance company involved, Aviva Insurance, were excellent and settled very quickly without dispute.
The Police may fail you but matey boy in his BMW won’t be smirking when his insurance renewal comes through and he has to declare any claims against him for the next 5 years.
Nice pursuit effort BTW.
Thanks for the advice, I will
Thanks for the advice, I will most likely go this route anyways. My handlebars, frame and shoes were all scuffed or scratched, wheel out of true and brake rotor bent. A bit of kit was ripped. What percentage of value of your items did you claim? For example, your frame cost 1000.00, light damage was 10% of that value?
I’m conscious that I may have a battle on my hands with insurers and don’t want to get taken for a ride…again.
I don’t do spurious whiplash
I don’t do spurious whiplash claims and I avoided any meaningful injury so it was just under £500 that I put in a claim for. A quick spreadsheet with links to replacement items and some pictures of the damage, an estimate for repairs from your local bike shop. To be honest, with the video, a Police statement, polite emails to the person assigned to your claim and a relatively trivial compensation value it’s not worth the effort of the insurance company to give you the run around but they will need a few weeks to get a response from their insured driver.
When my car and house insurance came up for renewal, Aviva were top 5 competitive on price so I now insure with them based on the way they dealt with my claim.
Best of luck.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Thanks for the advice, I will most likely go this route anyways. My handlebars, frame and shoes were all scuffed or scratched, wheel out of true and brake rotor bent. A bit of kit was ripped. What percentage of value of your items did you claim? For example, your frame cost 1000.00, light damage was 10% of that value?
I’m conscious that I may have a battle on my hands with insurers and don’t want to get taken for a ride…again.
I don’t suppose you are a
I don’t suppose you are a member of Cycling UK/British Cycling (or have other bicycle-specific insurance)? If so, both offer legal advice including support with making a claim after an incident. I would certainly be inclined to use such a service, not only because it should make life a lot easier for you but they should be able to offer advice and present the strongest possible argument given the potential for insurers to decide against you.
The cynic in me agrees with Cap’n Badger that the insurers will be looking for any opportunity to blame this on you, thus avoiding having to pay out. Given that you did go into the back of the car, I do think you will have a battle on your hands to win this by yourself. Rightly or wrongly, insurers do very often take the stance that if you go into the back of someone, it is your fault for not providing enough stopping space.
You need a willing student in
You need a willing student in order to educate, in that moment, the chances of finding one are pretty slim.
In some ways I would be glad he drove off Lyndon. I can’t imagine if he’d stopped there would have been an apology and a civil exchange of details – he might have pulled a weapon out on you.
I think Mungecrundle’s suggestion of a claim via MIB is a good idea. I would think it could be done in parallel with the police submission.
It’s a deliberate,
It’s a deliberate, unnecessary “brake-check”. Which, I’m fairly sure, is an offence in itself.
And it seems highly unlikely that there was significant damage to the car, otherwise the driver wouldn’t have driven off.
Seems more than worth the risk to get a dangerous, aggressive driver off the road.
kraut wrote:
Hello K. Like you, in my opinion I have no doubt in my mind as to the intent of the driver. However it is merely that – an opinion, which is unlikely to carry much weight with the police or even the courts.
Hopefully TVP will view the close pass in isolation and send out a NIP, but in the case of the brake check I think it’s a non-starter
A cycling inclined policeman
A cycling inclined policeman or solicitor should make mince meat of the driver with this video evidence.. the vision is clear and incriminating against the driver.
grOg wrote:
I’m glad to hear it. I for one would like to see more of this attitude. Sadly, from the evidence I see on these pages, that seems to happen rarely at best.
As a former traffic cop, I
As a former traffic cop, I can ascertain the video clearly shows that the driver braked hard for no reason.. very easy to reach the conclusion this was deliberate dangerous driving. Your conclusion that the evidence shows the cyclist to be liable for the collision is quite strange.
In which case the force in
In which case the force in question will have no problem chasing a prosecution. Here’s hoping, but I won’t hold my breath…..
And inform the police, as
And inform the police, as mentioned elsewhere.
I like this idea
I like this idea 🙂
Isn’t it an offence not to
Isn’t it an offence not to stop after a collision?
Yes.
Yes.
The Road Traffic Act 1988 s 170 (2) states that it is an offence for a driver of a vehicle to fail to stop and give their details when involved in an accident that has caused either damage or injury to someone other than the driver or their vehicle.
Whether this was the ‘brake
Whether this was the ‘brake checking’ BMW driver’s fault or the cyclist’s failure to leave sufficient braking distance; it is still a reportable Road Traffic Collision. So it is the responsibility of the driver of the motor vehicle to stop, exchange details and report the matter to the police. Not the cyclist.
Depending how the individual force operates (each police force has slightly different rules) the police should then ‘investigate’ the incident. ‘Investigate’ covers a broad range of actions and (unfortunately) inactions.
In this case I would suggest as a minimum (because of the injury/damage); interview the cyclist, view the video footage, trace and interview the car driver.
A Notice of Intended Prosecution is not required as it is an RTC. However, an NIP may be required for the initial close pass as that is probably a separate incident/offence.
My worry would be that the initial close pass is ‘lost’ in the investigation and the police fail to prosecute for either incident. So treat as two separate complaints.
Correct.. their are two
Correct.. their are two separate events that the motorist should be investigated for by police.. the video clearly shows both close pass and brake checking events, which both appear to be deliberate dangerous driving; additionally, the driver nearly hit an oncoming car as well, no doubt due to watching the cyclist in his rear view mirror, rather than watching where he was going.
This video is a total mis
This video is a total mis-representation of what happens on our roads –
It’s always a black BMW
Highway code tells us to
Highway code tells us to leave sufficient distance to brake, I’m not aware of an exclusion for bikes. Not that this makes the actions of the car driver any better. And he (the cyclist) was asking for trouble going to the outside of the vehicle, could have been so much worse. The road isn’t a racetrack.
No, the road isn’t a
No, the road isn’t a racetrack, but neither is it a public space where people in metal boxes on wheels can go about bullying vulnerable road users.
Just watched that again… It
Just watched that again… It’s such a shame that the chap did chase after the BMW as that pass was ludicrous and any force not taking action in response would have serious questions to answer.
Alas the relaliation, the subsequent ‘criminal damage deliberately caused to the car’ (getting into the mindset of a contemporary police force there), will more than negate any need to investigate.
If you’ve got a camera on, you’ve won… surely?
But… and its worth noting this, should forces not take action when viable video evidence is submitted (and we are not demanding witch hunts here, a snooty letter to the driver will probably suffice 90% of the time), then more vigilante action is going to be the only natural side effect.
Retaliation? Cycling faster
Retaliation? Cycling faster is not retaliation. If he had kicked out or damaged the car or the driver, then that would have been retaliation.
“If you’ve got a camera on,
“If you’ve got a camera on, you’ve won… surely?” Yes but adrenalin sometimes takes over, especially with the starting close pass.
I had one on Monday when we are supposed to be in lockdown, squeezing through with oncoming vehicle when all they had to do was wait 10 seconds. I did want to catch up and speak to them, although in this instance I felt I would be in control and it wouldn’t have been a rant.
I regularly have a run-in
I regularly have a run-in with the same driver of a white van in my village.
He close passes at speed, if I’m going through where there’s only room for one vehicle (with parked cars all the way down the right hand side of the road, so I’m riding in the left lane, so it’s my priority) then he will keep on coming forcing me to pull over/stop.
I found out where he lives last night – am thinking of sending him a copy of the HC as an Amazon gift…
Ton of manure instead ?
Ton of manure instead ?
(No subject)
brooksby wrote:
Recently did the same and close passed a wing mirror with a d-lock… Wonderful!
Video link now broken. Does
Video link now broken. Does that mean the Rozzers are involved properly?
Essentially what’s happened
Essentially what’s happened is that the BMW driver has checked his car, has seen some damage to the bumper and has now reported the incident to the police.
The police are investigating the cyclist for criminal damage and this video has become important evidence.
For the drivers sake, the police are doing all they can to ensure justice prevails, however there are concerns that, as a custodial sentence is unlikely to be applied here, the cyclist may not have sufficient means / insurance to facilitate suitable compensation for the driver.
Hoping for an update in the next few days.
In related news, the passenger of the BMW car is receiving councelling for the mental trauma caused by the cyclists aggression in this attack.
I’ve privatised the video for
I’ve privatised the video for the time being. I am still waiting for police to respond to my submission, but don’t want to give them a reason to not pursue the driver.
I am still waiting for
I am still waiting for police to respond
Don’t wait too long- the primary police weapon is delay, followed by losing the documentation so “now too late to process”, you’re only a witness, we have taken some action but we’re not going to tell you what it was…
lyndonf wrote:
You need to phone 101 Lyndon and ask for an update. If you don’t chase it, it could get overlooked.
I figured I’d give them a
I figured I’d give them a week before chasing. That will still give them 7 days to get an FPN in the post if they decide to pursue. I’ll ring up tomorrow.
Spot on.
Spot on.
Any acknowledgement at all from the police?