A road.cc reader whose video we featured recently in our Near Miss of the Day series has been in touch to tell us of the outcome with police – and in his own words, “it’s not good news.”
Andy, who reported the very close pass on him by a lorry driver towing a trailer to Kent Police told us: “It would seem that I may need to move just over the border to neighbouring Surrey if I want to stay safe because Kent Police seem to view a dangerous close pass from a vehicle towing a trailer with incorrect number plates as not worthy of investigation due to their being no offence being committed.
“This is despite me providing the evidence from both a front and rear camera for at least three minutes before the incident to prove there were mitigating circumstances from a prior incident (something which I find hard to agree with and which suggests a prior incident could in some way negate a second regardless of the outcome).”
In their response, Andy was told: “After reviewing your call to us, there are no offences for Kent Police to record at this time; however if you access the Kent Police website, you can report such incidents there,” before informing him that if he wished “to report any further updates to this incident,” he could do so via email or on the non-emergency number 101.
Here’s our original article.
Today’s video in our Near Miss of the Day series shows a motorist in Kent being given a close pass last month by the driver of a flatbed lorry, who also happens to be towing a trailer with a mini digger on it.
Towing a trailer is something we often see contributing to close passes, with the driver typically pulling in before the rear of the trailer has passed the cyclist being overtaking.
In this case too, the situation is exacerbated by parked vehicles on the road and as the title of the video alludes to, is it really too much to expect the driver just to wait a couple of seconds until it is safe to overtake?
This one was submitted by road.cc reader Andy, who told us that he reported the incident to Kent Police six weeks ago.
“However, I’ve not had a response beyond confirmation of the report and it’s their policy to not respond to reports after 6 weeks if they’ve been unable to take any action, so I guess that’s the case with this one and it’s OK to publish it now,” he said.
> 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
54 thoughts on “Updated Near Miss of the Day 671 – and “it’s not good news” from the police”
Quote:
MacMichael strikes again!
Sriracha wrote:
and also
It wasn’t a lorry either,
It wasn’t a lorry either, looks like a 3.5 tonne tipper.
Not only a shit driver but
Not only a shit driver but illegal rear number plate as well. I suspect it was a with-holding the name of the driver which flummoxed Kent Police if they have done fuck-all action on it.
Quote:
No, you can’t attribute blame to the inanimate objects parked perfectly legally. There was only one person at fault there and it was the lorry driver.
I’m always weary of trailers like this, as often the contributing factor behind these near misses is that the driver literally forgets they even have a trailer attached in the first place.
Garage at Large wrote:
My God, I actually agree with you, this is surely a sign that the end of days is nigh. However, what you can attribute blame to is idiotic road design that prioritises people’s “right” to have free storage for their private property taking up at least a third of the road width to the severe detriment of road users’ safety.
Garage at Large wrote:
No, you can’t attribute blame to the inanimate objects parked perfectly legally. There was only one person at fault there and it was the lorry driver.
I’m always weary of trailers like this, as often the contributing factor behind these near misses is that the driver literally forgets they even have a trailer attached in the first place.
Nope – this was a close pass as soon as the driver started it (check positions of cars). It just got worse when they pulled in. And as stated, saving precisely 3 seconds when you check this on the map.
It’s as logical to point out that this kind of thing is made worse (or more frequent) because we currently generally allow people to stow their properly along the sides of the roads* as it is to say that a factor is a driver “forgetting” that they have a trailer. A “professional” driver insofar as this appears to be an employee of a company towing their equipment.
You’re quite correct about “forgetting” one sense. But what is forgotten is anything that drivers have passed – as soon as they’ve got their door beyond it. That appears to be rather common.
* On this road this is clearly such a problem that – unusually – the council have not just put in double yellows but marked parking bays. Our UK malaise – you can park anywhere you’re not specifically prohibited – although it’s wider than this given pavement parking. The real problem here though is that this should clearly be a “street” – minus through traffic – but it looks like it’s a road (for through traffic to get somewhere) namely the start of the A227.
chrisonatrike wrote:
So isn’t it just a fantastic idea that the government is going to start allowing anyone to tow a 3.5T trailer without an additional test?
Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:
Given the skills of some of “the professionals” I think the additional carnage will be in the same ballpark regardless. I’d say without elevating driving to the level of flying a plane the calculation runs:
number of humans driving x hours driven x hazards in the environment x constant human accident factor *.
Paid motor vehicle drivers are held to entirely different (lower) standards than those paid to drive a train, a boat, a plane. Yes a direct comparison is unfair as most drivers have additional duties or the driving is secondary to their main role (e.g. crane driver). Note though that navigational officers on ships also have other duties.
* I think suggesting there is a constant human factor is reasonable. There are certain specific factors – which e.g. insurers note! Outside of those, because no-one treats driving like flying a plane everyone fluctuates wildly in their degree of focus. People will definitely have different levels of training / ability but they’re all zoned out at some point. Particular risks are associated with youth, demonstrated recklessness / prior wrecks, certain health conditions and possibly age, being male (insurers noticed that being female is associated with fewer accidents). But the numbers of these are reasonably constant. Without the much greater training, focus and environmental prompts / support that we provide to pilots / train drivers then people are on average going to hit stuff at a certain rate, more or less.
Perhaps we’d all like to call
Perhaps we’d all like to call Hoopers & Sons tomorrow and comment on their driver’s level of respect for other road users.
GMBasix wrote:
Better thing to do is hammer them on trustpilot. Happy to start the ball rolling. They do care about their reviews.
Update: Apparently they’re not on trustpilot so scrap that idea.
Not on TrustPilot, but they
Not on TrustPilot, but they do have some Google reviews?
You do know that the business
You do know that the business owners haven’t had a chance to respond to the incident?
Seems disproportionate to bombard a small business with negative publicity when the owner might not have even realised anything had occurred. I’m sure no one thinks that driving was acceptable.
Garage at Large wrote:
You do know that the video was submitted to the police over 6 weeks ago, therefore it is fair to assume that a 6 week window is time enough for a private business to respond. No?
Also, looks like a “Family Business” from their website so quite easily could have been one of the 2 generations of Hoopers that own the business that perpetrated the dodgy overtake so they quite possibly wouldn’t respond in any case.
Please don’t feed the troll.
Please don’t feed the troll.
You think that the police
You think that the police ever contacted the company concerned? Not even an NIP I suspect.
Looking at that layout, one
Looking at that layout, one for taking primary to also discourage drivers from the other way squeezing you out.
Primary position was taken,
Primary position was taken, the driver pretty much forced his way through
I wouldn’t have said the
I wouldn’t have said the cyclist managed to reach primary position at any point – primary position would have been right in the centre of the lane. The rider stays out of the gutter (which is good) but still is always in a secondary position.
I phrase that slightly awkwardly because after the box van goes past, we can see the cyclist start to move to the right – it’s possible the cyclist tried to move into primary position but the lorry forced its way through before he could.
I think we have different
I think we have different ideas of primary. If primary had been taken, there would not have been enough space between the prked cars and the cyclist.
Looks to be a secondary (unless there is some camera fov effect).
Yes, primary, adopted
Yes, primary, adopted immediately after the oncoming van passed, would have prevented the Hooper driver from passing as he did.
This demonstrates the lesser addressed features of Cyclecraft and NSCT, those of observation and negotiation.
We can’t see the cyclist’s actions, but continuing rear observations are vital approaching a situation like this, where the outline of the available carriageway is continually changing, and features such as shops and other traffic make for a dynamic environment.
The rear obs should be full, turning the body from the waist (not just a neck-turn glance). That enables a proper, effective observation; and it telegraphs to drivers behind that the cyclist is aware of their presence and may be about to reposition himself. Often, the cyclist may move their hand out in a partial signal while twisting – not a full right-turn signal, but a gesture that nevertheless conveys a message (negotiation) that the cyclist is moving out or needs space.
I actually got a mini driver
I actually got a mini driver to brake last week when they were about to barrel though at 40+ mph with 2 oncoming cars. I put my arm out and down and shouted ‘whoa’ (not they would have heard !) and they then waited until it was clear.
Of course, they could have just scrubbed off a bit of speed earlier for a smooth overtake.
I find it hard to accept no
I find it hard to accept no action from the police in this case. It was an extremely close pass that forced the rider to brake and move into the kerb to avoid a collision. This is the type of NMOTD where road.cc really needs to contact the police for a comment in my opinion.
Unfortunately the comment
Unfortunately the comment will probably be along the lines of
” it is our procedure not to comment on individual cases”.
They could then be asked
They could then be asked about general guidelines used by the force which would be even more useful. If road.cc don’t ask we’ll never know.
Hooper & Son have commented
Hooper & Son have commented on YouTube saying it is the first they’ve heard of it.
However, their reply is a bit “oh noes, might get negative reviews about our workmanship and driving is nothing to do with that.”
What I couldn’t see was what
What I couldn’t see was what triggered the driver to move back in so early?
I do see some drivers who are horrified by the thought of having a wheel over the line and are desperate to get back to safety even though there is half a mile of visibility. In this case, as no oncoming traffic could get through, why was he so intent on moving across?
the blue oncoming car stopped
the blue oncoming car stopped right at the end of the clip?
I think the blue oncoming car
I think the blue oncoming car was the reason not to attempt to overtake the cyclist in the first place.
As for IanMSpencer’s comment, you’re right, the van was cutting up the cyclist something shocking before we even knew there was a trailer attached, so absolutely no excuses (not even the spurious ‘forgot about the trailer’). Still, someone ‘had to be inconvenienced’ I suppose.
What blue car ?
What blue car ?
‘The miserable grey overcast
‘The miserable grey overcast sky was in my eyes, your honour.’
hirsute wrote:
Can’t you see it? – the blue and gold one…
“After reviewing your call to
“After reviewing your call to us, there are no offences for Kent Police to record at this time;”
Then when? If Kent police can’t see the clear, definitive, blatant law-breaking there, then they are in the wrong job. No doubt they’ll be full of sorrow when the next cyclist is killed on their patch. Perhaps they should uphold the law instead of ignoring it, then they won’t need to feel sorry so often.
So there was a prior incident
So there was a prior incident (details of which would have been nice). But Kent Police decided that forcing someone to brake heavily to avoid being side swiped is not worthy of action on its own, then used said prior incident as justification for the drivers actions rather then evidence of premeditation.
If you can, you need to take this up the chain of complaints and maybe even publicise it using local newspapers etc.send the video via twitter to their branded Twitter accounts etc, especially the road police one.
If the prior incident is an
Are the police effectively saying this was retribution, so that’s OK? Is that how it is supposed to work, tit for tat until might prevails or the vulnerable get hurt?
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
I didn’t read it like that – I read it hat the 3 minutes video proved there was no mitigating circumstances from a possible prior incident
Captain Badger wrote:
It does read oddly – I’m wondering if a word’s gone missing, and it should read “despite me providing the evidence from both a front and rear camera for at least three minutes before the incident to prove there were no mitigating circumstances”?
mdavidford wrote:
Ahh, yes, that would be it – I think I’d subconsciously placed the “no” into teh sentence
Captain Badger wrote:
thats how I read it, I think the word “no” has been lost before mitigating cirumstances, either from original quote from “Andy” or in copying by Simon MacMichael.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Leave him! He’s already dead!
The article needs an edit to
The article needs an edit to make things clearer. There’s a bit of a mish-mash of the rider’s comments and the journo’s (and some NMotD cut-and-paste).
Finding hard to imagine what
Finding hard to imagine what “mitigating circumstances from a prior incident” might be – surely the only thing that could be regarded as relevant by the police would be a previous altercation between the rider and the driver, in which case the only influence it could have would be to raise the bar from bad driving to deliberate aggression. Anything else is surely irrelevant to this particular incident?
Rendel Harris wrote:
It’s a rather worrying statement (to put in mildly). Are the police in effect saying, “you might have upset the driver before, in which case it is fine for him to endanger your life with his vehicle”?
Well, the obvious response to
Well, the obvious response to “making a rude gesture” or using a naughty word is “run them over until they are dead flat”
Steve K wrote:
Or, indeed, that if retribution is OK, you can lie in wait and sort them out at your convenience and in the manner you choose. Which is of course, also unacceptable and Not Cricket (if deliciously tempting).
For completeness I’d like to
For completeness I’d like to see the earlier incident, just to see why the Rozzers dont think this one is worth of follow up.
The rider clearly had to take evasive action which makes the lack of follow up even less acceptable.
I’ve said it before and I’ll
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.
This is the type of NMOTD where road.cc really needs to contact the police for a comment in my opinion.
There seems to be a little
There seems to be a little confusion over the comment I made regarding previous incidents (it’s my video, BTW). typically when reporting an incident Kent Police ask that there is sufficient footage before and after any incident, presumably to show that there are no mitigating circumstances. In this instance there were none and indeed enough footage was submitted. My comment was simply questioning would it be OK to endanger somebody’s life *if* there were?
They also ask that the footage isn’t made public while investigating (presumably to avoid potential jurors seeing it and defence lawyers using this as some kind of defence against prosecution). Given that Kent Police say that if no response is received after 6 weeks then no further action is being taken explains why Hooper & Son’s were unaware of the footage until posted. On this occasion I wrote to Kent Police for an update and were told that no offence had been committed (towing a trailer with a number plate different to the towing vehicle is not an offence?)
Interesting question re UK
Interesting question re UK because where I live a trailer is registered separately and gets it’s own different number plate. So, back to your question, would it be illegal if I towed my trailer to the UK. I think caravanners must know the answer to this.
Agricultural trailers
Agricultural trailers generally do have their own registration plate, as it’s otherwise a massive hassle to swap plates every time you stick them on the back of a different tractor. But everything else, AFAIK, must match the towing vehicle.
Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:
Genuine question, but why is that any different from LGVs?
In my company’s vehicle yard tractor units carry a 3rd number plate that simply slots into the holder of whatever trailer they’re towing – it’s minimal hassle, no tools. Takes about the length of time to walk to eth end of the trailer when hooked up. When released same to retrieve.
Trailers can have their own
Trailers can have their own number plate so that they can be used internationally, but in the UK, they still must display the same number as the towing vehicle. The exceptions either relate to military trailers which all have a number plate in the same format as military vehicles of which the DVLA holds records as being a military classification or where the towing vehicle is an agricultural machine, a plate fixed on the trailer may, instead of displaying the registration mark of the towing vehicle, display the mark of any other agricultural machine kept by the keeper of the towing vehicle.
Thanks for clearing up the
Thanks for clearing up the confusion. Sorry for adding to it.
As for the number plate. Wrong plate = offence, Wrong colour plate = offence. But then for some reason the Police with their auto tracking cameras and own dash cams don’t seem to want to do anything about all the other illegal number plates out there for some reason.
From the UK Gov website:
From the UK Gov website:
“Your trailer must display the same number plate as the vehicle you’re towing it with. If you’re towing more than one trailer, the number plate must be fixed to the trailer at the back.”
Here’s a portion from the statement/report to Kent Police:
“Note that the vehicle was towing a trailer which was displaying a different registration mark to the towing vehicle.”
Despite this, allegedly “no offence” was committed?