This story was updated on Monday 12 December 2022 after the cyclist involved released a statement explaining how the incident had been resolved via a Community Resolution, something he described as “the best option for me and the other individual involved”.
The original video had been deleted from social media and another uploaded in its place with the driver’s number plate blurred following people “harassing another individual associated with this vehicle”. However, the cyclist told us due to the unsavoury nature of the replies he has chosen to delete it off social media for good, hence the lack of video below.
Jay McSerk took to Twitter to say: “The police have been in contact with the driver who voluntarily admitted to being behind the wheel.
“They are apologetic about the incident and the case will be closed via a Community Resolution. This is the best option for both me and the other individual involved.
“Unfortunately, a few people have gone out of their way to harass another individual associated with this vehicle. Because of this I’ve deleted the original tweet/video and now posting this one with the registration blurred out.
“If you have shared information derived from the original post, please remove it.”
A Community Resolution is a fairly unsevere punishment often used by police to resolve low-level ofending. If a person accepts a Community Resolution they are not prosecuted so are not required to attend court, but accept they committed the offence and may have to engage in reparation, ranging from an apology to attending a course.
Orginial story:
Sussex Police have come in for criticism after a motorist, who close passed a cyclist through a busy town, before reacting to the rider’s retaliatory slap to his vehicle by slamming on his brakes and chasing him on foot, escaped punishment for the dangerous overtake.
Cyclist Jay uploaded the footage of the terrifying incident to Sussex Police’s Operation Crackdown portal, but was told that the pass failed to warrant a prosecution or even a warning letter.
1/2
Reuploaded video of original video with blurring pic.twitter.com/3ac4bGfro7— Jay McSerk (@JMcserk) December 12, 2022
In the clip, the motorist, driving a white pickup truck, squeezes between the cyclist and a queue of traffic in the opposite lane. After Jay hits the rear of his vehicle – the universal signal that a driver is too close – the motorist then comes to a screeching halt right on a pedestrian crossing, before getting out of his car to confront the cyclist. Realising what is about to happen, Jay turns and flees, as the drivers shouts forlornly behind (ironically holding up traffic in the process).
Posting the video to Twitter, Jay wrote: “This driver is clearly a danger to everyone using the roads, using their vehicle like a weapon.”
The driver’s manoeuvre and reaction – and Sussex Police’s subsequent inaction – has been widely condemned on social media.
Guardian journalist and active travel advocate Peter Walker wrote: “Amongst everything else, bringing their pick-up to a tyre-screeching halt *on a pedestrian crossing*, seemingly to start a fight. And no action? Baffling.”
Time trial specialist and cycling author Michael Hutchinson also noted that Jay’s encounter with the angry pickup driver is certainly not an uncommon occurrence for cyclists across the country.
“So apparently driving like this is fine,” he said. “Rider lucky he could escape. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve had to take refuge in gardens, shops, etc.”
Much of the online ire has also been reserved for the attitude of Sussex Police, who contacted the cyclist on social media to tell him that he should simply re-report the incident. Responding to Jay’s tweet, the force told the cyclist that “if you do not believe the decision by Op Crackdown was correct you can contact them again and appeal this” – a reply described by one Twitter user as “mealy-mouthed”.
After Jay queried how best to appeal the original decision, Sussex Police again replied: “Although we have no say in the outcome they give so cannot comment on this, I would still suggest you re-report this as if it were a new report and express your further concerns. You may get a response.”
The police, however, later phoned Jay to inform him that they were looking into the case again, which sounds somewhat more promising.
> 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
72 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 839: Pickup driver screeches to a halt and chases cyclist on foot after rider slapped vehicle during close pass”
“Although we have no say in
“Although we have no say in the outcome they give so cannot comment on this, I would still suggest you re-report this as if it were a new report and express your further concerns. You may get a response.”
Do they mean when sufficient time has passed for this egregious crime not to be prosecuted, they’ll consider it again. How generous.
Do they mean when sufficient
Do they mean when sufficient time has passed …
That’s exactly what they mean – it’s another police dodge to pretend to be taking action while already having prepared the reasons why they couldn’t ‘after all’
Yep gives the impression of
Yep gives the impression of justice to the public, then in private they can file it in the bin.
Under the Road Traffic
Under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 a person may not be convicted of an offence unless they are served a Notice of Intended Prosecution within fourteen days of the alleged offence, so what the blazes do Sussex Police mean “re-report it as a new report”? Unless they’re encouraging the victim to perjure themselves by lying about the date they must know that advice is worthless.
Phew. It’s been over a
Phew. It’s been over a fortnight since I mowed down a bus queue. Good to know I’m in the clear . ?
for clarity, if there’s
for clarity, if there’s actually a collision (e.g., you mowed down a person, or hit a cyclist with your vehicle, or another car, etc) then a NIP doesn’t need serving as the collision itself serves as a notice.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Which is something that needs to be changed – another piece of exceptionalism for car drivers.
Might they be thinking of proceeding with it as an assault? Still seems stupidly bureaucratic if the same evidence will be used.
Might they be thinking of
Might they be thinking of proceeding with it as an assault?
Are they hell! They’re thinking of binning it with the least effort possible on their part, and the most effort required by the people they really hate: people who report offences
Maybe they weren’t referring
Maybe they weren’t referring to the traffic infringement, but the getting out of the car, swearing and chasing him down the street. Not sure what offence that would amount to, but probably something.
A vehicle to watch out for if you ride in that area, handy that it has a vanity plate:
(obscured by request)
HoarseMann wrote:
Assault. “”A person is guilty of common assault if they either inflict violence on another person – however slight this might be – or make that person think they are about to be attacked.
update, actually very handy
… actually very handy it’s got a vanity plate – the white pickup model may change but the plate stays the same? It might not be the same business that the plate was previously registered to, so some caution, but wise to be alert if riding on the roads
around this garage:(obscured by request)
HoarseMann wrote:
Road CC could give a call and ask for comment
“
“
Response from the owner 3 days ago
Leaving reviews without explanation only gives us suspicion that you’re the individual that caused criminal damage to one of our vehicles recently. Cold calling us late at night is harassment & attacking our business is considered defamation. I will be forwarding your name to the police as a connection to this incident. We also have your IP address for the abusive email. Continuing to leave feedback that’s absolutely nothing to do with this business is low. But please feel free to visit our garage for a discussion if you wish!”
Bahahahahahah the irony. I hope he goes out of business forever and cannot afford to drive anymore.
Given the letters on the
Given the letters on the plate, and stitching together the info from their website and Companies House, it seems like the assailant was likely to be 39 year old Mr Grant Rovery, contactable on 07803 090409.
Very likely, and given that
Very likely, and given that he’s taken down his website and the garage facebook page it’s looking likely. Hopefully, people keep ringing him
Not sure why he’s taken his
Not sure why he’s taken his website down? Bit odd, especially as he’s keen for people to visit his garage for a chat (see below). Anyway, the internet never forgets:
(link removed)(obscured by request)
He, like Martin, seems to
He, like Martin, seems to think that someone rapping on a car or door is criminal damage. How strong are cyclists / delivery men these days?
What was the plate come on?
What was the plate come on?
In my best Worms voice : run
In my best Worms voice : run away !
Those pick up tricks should
Those pick up tricks should be banned. What possible role could they play that other cars don’t?
All they seem to offer is some kind of wild man of the outback fantasy with predictable driving style consequences.
They are massive, heavy, fuel inefficient and therefore fundamentally stupid.
Anyone disagree?
Certainly don’t disagree; the
Certainly don’t disagree; the purpose they serve is that by having a load capacity of over one tonne they allow anyone who owns a business that could claim has a use for it can get the VAT back. Ridiculous loophole, the vast majority will have the flatbed covered at all times. Very few genuine tradespeople would have one, it’s a tax dodge.
Not only that, if the owner
Not only that, if the owner buys it through their company and provides it to themselves as a company car, these crew-cab pickup trucks are classed as a commercial vehicle if the payload is over 1t, so payroll benefit in kind (BIK) tax is same as a van, a fixed £3500. Therefore BIK tax is 20% or 40% of £3500 per annum. Compare this with BIK rates of a non-commercial vehicle or car, this can be up to 37% (emissions based) of the new RRP. So, for a £40k car (not unreasonable to assume), the BIK is £14800, the annual tax is 20% or 40% of that. Just under 4x more. This is the main reason one sees so many pickup trucks on the road. The fact is that they
“have reclining leather seats, go really fast and get really shitty gas mileage”drive like a car, but qualify for the same BIK as a van.Not just if they provide it
Not just if they provide it as a company car. All pick ups are classed as a commercial vehicle full stop.
The only downside for these twats running them as a private vehicle is that the VED and insurance is high, as they are a commercial vehicle, primarily used for commercial reasons.
My point being if it’s a
My point being if it’s a company vehicle, the benefit in kind tax on payroll is up to 75% less on a “commercial” than a it would be for a car. All the purchase/lease and running costs are also put through the business.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I agree and I’m sure that is generally the case but, just to prove there may be exceptions… in 2007 my next door neighbour (a very skilled bricklayer & builder) got rid of his van and bought a Nissan thing and added a hard cover on the back. It became their main vehicle, used for transporting his other half and 2 children as well as for work, his regular home improvement project and other jobs. He kept it for 10 years before replacing it with another one.
But the driver in this video is most likely just an aggressive arsehole who deserves to be taught a lesson.
Yes, absolutely I’m sure
Yes, absolutely I’m sure there will be the occasional genuine user but the latest “double cab” models are really taking the piss, they have all the luxuries of a high-end SUV that would be totally impractical for a genuine tradie. To be fair I have seen a few out in Kent, Sussex and Surrey that appear to be in use by the more genteel type of tradesperson – landscape gardeners etc – but in London I’ve honestly yet to see one (and I see plenty) with a speck of mud on it or a load on the flatbed.
Not surprised.
Not surprised.
When I was hit by an insured and likely unlicensed driver (they had no clue what the road markings meant) their response was….
Well actually it’s been 11 months and no response.
Another otherwise law abiding
Another otherwise law abiding motorist, OLAM, being provoked by a cyclist. What did the cyclist expect? He had the temerity to touch a very expensive motor vehicle. The OLAM was a wee bit close and nearly hit the cyclist with the vehicle, but obviously commited no offence ; otherwise surely the police would have referred the matter to the CPS. Well unless the police are institutionally racist, sorry biased, against cyclists. Surely not, it must just be that the courts are overflowing, and the police have better things to do. Maybe the police could catch the OLAM speeding.
OLAM, nice.
OLAM, nice.
Institutionally anti cyclist.
Institutionally anti cyclist.
also, if you are driving so close to a cyclist that they are able to slap your vehicle*, then that’s a close pass
*unless you are driving past Mr Tickle
This beggars belief. That was
This beggars belief. That was a horrible pass, an understandable reaction from the cyclist which did absolutely nothing to cause harm to the 3t metal box the driver was in, and the driver’s response was then completely disproportionate. How does this result in no action from the police???
How does this result in no
How does this result in no action from the police???
I’m amazed at all this amazement, but I have endured many years of desensitisation therapy courtesy of Lancashire Indolence Mode of Policing and Lancashire Idleness Associated Response- in which no action is ever taken over any traffic offences, and the officers just hang around out of the way in Garstang Police Station just over the road from their favourite Aldi. I’m showing this one again, because it’s only been on once unlike MV57 GXO which I have featured many times over the last 7 months. Here is Transit P19 JTW, which must be the subject of an amazingly complex Lancashire Constabulary sting operation where they’re really going to get round to doing something one of these days. In addition, anybody interested in finding out, in these days of hard-working hard-pressed motorists, how they too can enjoy 5+ years of VED-free motoring should follow the example of Simon Snowdon, kitchen fitter in DX13 OPM and come to Lancashire, the Motorist’s Paradise
Completely impractical as a
Completely impractical as a tradespersons vehicle. Zero security for ones tools etc. Much less capacity than a van. And generally driven by twats. And far too big, aggresively styled etc. Crush the lot of them.
Totally agree. I had to drive
Totally agree. I had to drive one for a past job and it was a nightmare when having to navigate narrow roads with it. Had told the boss to change it but he insisted on keeping it due to its off road capabilities (that were never used). The worse part for such bad behavior is that it had immense accelaration for its weight and dubious cornering and braking abilities, so a guy used to drive it like a nut. Combine with occasional drivers like me who are not used to big cars and you have a great danger on road.
But this is very bad driving. The driver has to decide whether he is in a hurry or angry enough to stop and pick a fight. You can’t be both and be a reasonable person.
Jay should complain and keep
Jay should complain and keep escalating the complaint ’till he’s satisfied. Complaints are as organisationally wearisome as they are painful for the complainant but it’s the only way for some public bodies to learn.
it’s so obvious the driver
it’s so obvious the driver was after that reaction. He deliberately provoked the reaction from the cyclist so he could slam on his brakes and initiate a confrontation. If the police actually started to react to these reports then perhaps people would think twice before intimidating people on cycles.
Postcode lottery these days,
Postcode lottery these days, depending on how proactive or inactive your local police service decides to be. Some would offer an immediate response, in the form of a warning letter or even prosectution whilst other do nothing.
Somebody should collate all these and pin to a map.
His company has a useful
His company has a useful automatic booking tool for servicing. Just sayin’
Fursty Ferret wrote:
If you give them some feedback, you could win £250 worth of lifestyle vouchers – very generous! That would pay for a rear camera for a bicycle!
(link removed)Companies house appears to
Companies house appears to have matters recorded correctly:
02 Apr 2021 Cessation of Grant Rovery as a person with significant control on 1 March 2021
The driver of this classic
The driver of this classic nutter-vehicle is undoubtedly a dangerous nutter Anyone defending him is a troll/ nutter, and there are more of those on the ‘cyclist filmed hitting driver has charges dropped’ topic. Those nutters are, at least, easily spotted and avoided
wtjs wrote:
The behaviour of the motorist was insane. My guess, steroid junkie
My guess, steroid junkie
My guess, steroid junkie
Good point- in that case, tattoos
Ah, the good old “in too much
Ah, the good old “in too much of a hurry to wait half a second for the one oncoming car that’s stopping you from leaving the correct passing distance, but has enough time to get out and pick a fight when someone dares to retaliate for you endagering their life”.
As a sidenote, is anyone else struggling to undestand why normal people are even allowed to buy these massive, gas-guzzling, 4×4 monstrosities? I live in a more remote location than probably 98% of people in the UK. Near enough all of my driving is on remote, singletrack country roads, my driveway is half a mile of muddy lane with 15% inclines on it in some places. I have zero issue coping with a 1.5L, front-wheel drive Mini – even now, when it’s covered in snow.
There are a plenty of farmers around here who use them as workhorse vehicles (which is fine), but for every one of those you see, you see ten pristine, luxury exmples in an urban environment, that have probably never seen so much as a wet leaf in their lives (much like the one in the above video). The vast majority of people who own these things would seriously struggle to reasonably justify doing so. Same goes for SUVs.
See below for the full
See below for the full explanation, to do with tax breaks for ‘working’ vehicles. What is really required are tighter guidelines by HMRC as to who gets to claim this kind of vehicle as a commercial working vehicle.
Too close, and wrong to try
Too close, and wrong to try to overtake on zigzag line approaching traffic crossing.
Shame he didn’t trip up chasing said rider. Good he has been found out and where he works. Perhaps some folk could ask for a comment as to why he thought putting a vulnerable road user at risk was worth it
Your scheduled announcement
Your scheduled announcement that a Community Resolution doesnt leave a criminal record, is not recorded nationally, and is not legally binding on the offender.
Its also an easy cop-out for Lez Rozzers of course…
I do wonder if the driver was an employee and not the business owner – though the agressive response to the reviews suggests a certain element of shared anger management training is needed.
Well I’ve gone through my
Well I’ve gone through my posts and removed links and obscured images as requested by the OP.
A police led community resolution is at least something, but I think a better solution would be to enforce the traffic laws, especially where a vulnerable road user is involved. Why can’t the police just hand out 3 points and £100 fine for this sort of thing. The process and legalities need to be streamlined.
It’s a shame the ‘hierachy of road users’ doesn’t extend to police dashcam portals, where footage involving pedestrians, cyclists, horseriders or motorcyclists gets a bit more priority. You get the feeling the police didn’t even look at the original video submission.
A better solution after the
A better solution after the police reverse ferret would have been a police caution for the assault.
A better solution would have
A better solution would have been a police caution for the assault
This was never on offer and would not have fulfilled the police requirement for a non-penalty penalty chosen from their very large bag of tricks. We’re not going to find out now because of the omerta enforced by the police, but I would have enjoyed the non-apology apology written for him by the police: he apologises for the misunderstanding over his motive for coming gently to a halt and seeking to warmly thank the cyclist for indicating that he had come slightly closer than the non-mandatory 1.5 metres
The OP has rather let the
The OP has rather let the side down on this one, unless the offender has paid significant reparations and the OP tells us about them. Otherwise, he’d have been better to leave the case with the police recorded as having done nothing about the offence, which was their original intention. An apology without reparations is entirely worthless, because the fact that no offence is on the record of the villain means that he could commit a similar offence again tomorrow and the police and the Shyster Solicitor could turn up in court with ‘the defendant has a clean record, Your Honour ‘- although my guess is that he doesn’t, regardless of the present case
You are probably right,
You are probably right, however, the OP has got the police to admit a mistake. It’s not easy to admit you were wrong but it’s a necessary first step to getting it right next time. I’m not saying things will change overnight but small steps in the right direction is encouraging. Let’s hope the force and the driver learn from this incident.
The OP has taken time and trouble to report this and then question the decision. In my opinion he deserves our thanks.
Bungle_52 wrote:
In order to inspire confidence for the public, there does need to be an explanation of what when wrong on the initial submission and how the police will rectify it. Right now it looks like they got found out publicly and they made the publicity problem go away (at least to a cynic like me). I’d like to be wrong.
No criticism of the OP from me, they’ve got a life to lead, they know what the best decision for them is.
If the driver has come in for
If the driver has come in for a lot of abuse, the person may well think twice in the future. The community resolution is a bit weak-kneed but at least the police finally took some action, even if it was feeble.
the person may well think
the person may well think twice in the future
Drivers like this don’t even think once
Amazing. At the very least,
Amazing. At the very least, one would expect Sussex police to notify the driver that if he pays attention to the rules for safe passes, he won’t have to worry about cyclists being able to touch his precious truck. Think of all the angst they could save him.
Community resolution is
Community resolution is literally that the thug in the truck writes an apology letter. The police 1st response is the bigger problem, that they didnt do anything until social media shamed them. The thug has an anger problem that should have resulted in being prosecuted before he kills someone, the police had time to consider their action and decided to do nothing about someone using their vehicle as a weapon then chasing their victim down the street.
The ‘cycling community
The ‘cycling community resolution’ will have caused the perp more trouble! Their company has had to deal with some flack because of it (and rightly so IMO). Perhaps they will now be a little more careful who is driving company vehicles and provide some additional driver training.
I believe Mark Hodson is working on a proposal to standardise 3rd party traffic incident reporting across police forces. So hopefully in time, levels of enforcement will improve.
HoarseMann wrote:
— HoarseMannPedant [ON] flak [OFF]
Damn it! Been shot down again
Damn it! Been shot down again
HoarseMann wrote:
Judging by the various blurred images and removed links, I’d guess that they’re getting a lot of grief. I don’t really agree with people harassing him, but if the police are failing to do their job, then what’s the alternative? Causing the business some grief is more acceptable because it was advertised all over the vehicle.
The business wasn’t
The business wasn’t advertised on the vehicle. It had a vanity numberplate, that was visible on a different vehicle used in a photo on the company Google listing.
Google must be putting photos added to google maps through image recognition, the number plate had been ANPR’d by google and came up in an image search!
I think highlighting a potential link with that vehicle to the company is ok. As is sharing details of a vehicle that is being driven dangrously so that others can avoid it. But direct harrassment of the company owner is a step too far.
Hmmm.
Hmmm.
What is a vanity numberplate if not an advert?
The issue for the company, aiui anyway, is why does he lend his vehicle to reckless idiots who are inclined to violence.
HoarseMann wrote:
Sorry – I should have paid attention to the video. I saw a bunch of blurred vehicles and assumed that the company logo was there.
I agree about direct harrassment, but am generally okay with businesses reaping the results of employing psychopaths (see Twitter for more info)
HoarseMann wrote:
I agree with the ‘cycling community resolution’ as it seems to be more effective. . Large companies and institutions require their staff to adhere to codes of conduct outside of work and will sack them if they don’t, because that behaviour can impact the companies reputation and have a financial impact. Cyclists taking action to highlight how business employees behave will bring longer term benefits than just retribution for one incident, as other businesses will be aware of what can happen and will likely require their staff to be good citizens outside of work or get sacked.
Sounds to me as though the OP
Sounds to me as though the OP has been pressured to removing all records of the offending vehicle. The supposed ‘carrot’ being a completely worthless community resolution order.
I wonder what the ‘stick’ was from the police to ensure the OP’s compliance?
Make no mistake, this is no positive outcome. The offender has contacted the police, complained of harrassment and the police has supported that offender, ensuring that the victim stops talking about the incident and remove all evidence of it from the internet.
Utterly disgusting if you ask me.
As an aside… if a motorist
As an aside… if a motorist stops their vehicle, gets out of said vehicle and aporoaches me in an aggressive manner, am I OK to assume I am in danger and defend myself?
If I have the drivers action on camera, and I go straight for a throat punch, am I getting done for assault?
I did have a guy look to get out of their van once… he got as far as opening the door before I said, ‘oh, getting out of the van yeah, OK then’ before he decided to continue his verbal abuse from the safe confines of his vehicle.
The same basic principles
The same basic principles would apply as to any act of self defence – summarised here: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/self-defence-and-prevention-crime
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
The self defence defence is a minefield. A single punch to the throat might be considered excessive, given that using sufficient force would be lethal.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
IANAL but I think you’d be on pretty dodgy ground if there was any route/means of escape, which generally if you’re on a bike there will be. The rider here did the sensible thing. I never see any shame in running away from a physical confrontation when possible (and as an ex rugby player I’m not particularly scared of them), if for no other reason (and there are plenty of other reasons) than that there is always the chance that you can push or hit someone, they can go down and hit their head on the kerb and that’s your life ruined as you face manslaughter charges. It’s simply not worth it.
Don’t slap offending vehicles
Must admit I’ve been tempted to slap motorists that are way too close , but a part of me always worries there’s some total nutter inside , possibly armed with something in addition to their one tone plus weapon .
Must admit I’ve been tempted
Must admit I’ve been tempted to slap motorists that are way too close
I’m amazed you’ve all got the time- around here they’re passing at 40+, like this Discovery PX07 ZXM allowing me 20 cms. You rarely catch them up because there aren’t any traffic lights (except on the A6!), and so few cyclists that there are rarely any traffic jams.