“The driver is going to have to inconvenience someone,” said the police worker who reviewed the poor driving featured in our Near Miss of the Day series – that “someone” was of course a cyclist, and we are glad it was just an “inconvenience” he suffered.
Here is the reply that road.cc reader Richard got from Gloucestershire Constabulary when he sent the footage to them.
Thought your readers may be interested in my latest submission to Gloucestershire Constabulary for your NMOTD. I have attached a copy of the video I sent in and below is the reply I received.
“I’m not going to prosecute the driver.
“Initially he has left plenty of room. The opposite carriageway is clear. The van then appears from the mini roundabout and the car is already quite far passed you. At this point the driver is going to have to inconvenience someone because of the situation has developed in a way the driver didn’t foresee.
“Because of this it wouldn’t meet the threshold for careless driving as the driver hasn’t been careless they have been the victim of unforeseen circumstances.”
An interesting take on a close pass that put the cyclist in danger, don’t you think?
> 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
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
121 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 674: “The driver is going to have to inconvenience someone,” say police – that “someone” was a cyclist”
Jesus, apart from the fact
Jesus, apart from the fact that if it was printed by the police as it is printed here, they need to go back to school. It is grammatically dreadful.
Aside from that, the driver was approaching a roundabout, so why didn’t they simply wait a few seconds? You should never overtake on the approach to a junction, well that is what I was taught by my driving instructor.
With a police response such as this, is it any wonder that the standard of driving is so poor?
I am also surprised that this is not in Lancashire, this is the standard response.
I am also surprised that this
I am also surprised that this is not in Lancashire, this is the standard response
I am outraged! BP is getting special treatment from Lancashire Constabulary- the standard response to me is no response at all no matter what the offence. However, the YouTube channel draws closer
So they are accepting
So they are accepting starting an overtake when you can’t see you can safely complete it, if an oncoming vehicle appears in the distance is seen as OK ?????
Now that’s the sort of
Now that’s the sort of driving you should be offered an improvement course for. If you can’t foresee that situation developing, you really do need some help.
Didn’t even indicate at the
Didn’t even indicate at the roundabout.
German car.
German car.
Overtaking on the approach to
Overtaking on the approach to a roundabout with a blind entrance to your right (worth noting that the driver of the car would have been even more blind than the camera view), let off because of the unforeseen circumstances of, um, somebody else using the roads at the same time as you. Well that seems fair.
The Police wrote:
But what about driving without reasonable consideration:
The offence of driving without reasonable consideration under s.3 RTA 1988 is committed only when other persons are inconvenienced by the manner of the defendant’s driving, see s.3ZA(4) RTA 1988.
Have they even read the
Have they even read the Highway Code? 153 says they shouldn’t overtake when there’s traffic calming. 167 – do not overtake approaching a junction. Even if it wasn’t prosecutable the driver really needs educating.
Don’t be silly – have they
Don’t be silly – have they read The Highway Code?? Of course they haven’t – very few will have picked it up since learning to drive. That’s one of the reasons driving standards are so low.
I would re-submit the footage
I would re-submit the footage if its not too late. Hopefully it will get picked up by someone who isnt an empty uniform and actually wants to do their job.
“At this point the driver is
[I]”At this point the driver is going to [b]have to [/b]inconvenience someone because…”[/i]
Nothing.
At this point in the video they should [b]apply the brake [/b]and bail out of their misguided manoeuvre. I don’t see any other reasonable course of action.
That weasel word “inconvenience” here means “endanger”. The police officer is a disgrace.
Whilst it’s clearly a really
Whilst it’s clearly a really shit bit of driving the rider should have been able to see it unfolding and braked/soft peddled so the risk of getting twatted/kerbed diminished.
We can’t trust drivers so we have to use our own brains in these sorts of situations as the OB are clearly not willing to do their jobs.
Why not both? I think in
Why not both? I think in general cyclists are pretty aware of the dangers of the environment. Constructive criticism’s good and yes – maybe here you could have spotted this coming, or been a bit sharper. However the rider was negociating the speed hump and I’m guessing also having an eye on the overtaking car. From when the van actually turns into this road (they could have gone another way at the roundabout) until the cyclist starts braking is only 2 seconds. I believe the standard for “momentary lapse of concentration” in a car is between twice and five times that…
S13SFC wrote:
now we are into the realms of guessing, because if the driver does slow and try to pull in behind (as they should) then that is the worst response.
Interesting watching this a
Interesting watching this a few times. Driver looks like they’d have been past the cyclist if they’d not had to brake for the speed bump . You really wonder if they even noticed it ? Pretty poor driving , not backing off soon as they realised the speed bump was affecting their overtaking, if they even did see it until too late. Then not signalling at a roundabout .
“Because of this it wouldn’t
“Because of this it wouldn’t meet the threshold for careless driving as the driver hasn’t been careless they have been the victim of unforeseen circumstances.”
Some real steep mental gymnastics to defend the car driver there. Unforeseen circumstances? They didn’t have time to complete their overtake and tried to crush the cyclist instead of abort it. This needs appealing, and these motorist appeasing police should be retrained or sacked.
Jenova20 wrote:
Unfortunately if the policeman had spotted that this was less than stellar driving that would automatically put them in the “well above the standard of a careful and competent driver” bracket. Or at least it would appear from what passes muster in the courts. In which case it would be not just unfair of them to penalise this dozy chap but it could probably be challenged in court!
Gloucestershire Constabulary
Gloucestershire Constabulary doesn’t follow-up on incidents that affect cyclists unless there’s an injury. They seem to take a pro-driver standpoint, despite putting up the standard “give cyclists 1.5m” posters around the county.
I am the OP.
I am the OP.
I am afraid that is not true. I’ve had several submissions followed up by “words of advice” and this same officer has told me that they have sent a summons for two of my previous submissions, although I have heard nothing more about them since.
At least this officer takes the time to respond and justify the decisions made and even though I disagree with this one I suspect that they are thinking ahead to possible arguments that a defence lawyer would make if it came to a court case.
It is my belief that the law needs to change in order to deal with driving like this so that people are not put off cycling on our roads.
You were lucky then. I was
You were lucky then. I was punishment passed by a van in Cheltenham that then slammed on in front of us and swung his door open into my mate. We had other witnesses to this. Gloucestershire’s finest then explained to my mate, as he as being treated by paramedics, that since we were riding two abreast he get we were breaking the law and therefore ‘asking for it’.
And so my faith in my local police force is zero.
I have been submitting for
I have been submitting for over a year now. There was no system in place when I started but one was introduced shortly afterwards. Initially the submissions were dealt with by different officers and I didn’t get any response from some of my early submissions and variable responses from others. Recently however nearly all my submissions have been dealt with by the same officer and I have been given feedback every time. I have to say that I am a lot more selective in what I submit now as a result of this feedback which, I hope, gives more time for officers to concentrate on incidents they can respond to.
From your description I suspect that action would have been taken had you submitted video evidence but I did think action would be taken for this one so no guarantees.
I think you have hit the nail on the head here though in that at present responses to poor driving around cyclists are very variable both within and across different forces from what we read on this site.
This video camera’s narrow
This video camera’s narrow lens implies that the driver was in the wrong, but it’s difficult to tell without seeing the wider angle picture, so it’s no wonder the police didn’t follow up on this and put out what I consider to be a perfectly reasonable, albeit illiterate response.
Fuck off troll.
Fuck off troll.
No need to be rude now,
No need to be rude now, especially when I was kind to you when you had Coronavirus.
Oh now you are saying video
Oh now you are saying video evidence is king…. but when it comes to your hero Nick Freeman you seem to say that there are other circumstances at play. Go back under your bridge….
It’s difficult to tell if the
It’s difficult to tell if the car had completed its overtake or not going over the speed hump, so yes without that vital video evidence there is nothing to be done here.
Garage at Large wrote:
Do you even read the drivel you post? An overtake is complete when the driver has safely returned to their own lane. Here is the driver crossing the speed bump with at least 3/4 of their vehicle in the oncoming traffic lane. There is nothing equivocal or “difficult to tell” about that.
But on that particular
But on that particular picture you’ve shared you cannot see where the car’s back endis on the road. It would appear to me to be well infront of the cyclist, so much so that I’ve mocked up a reconstruction in Photoshop with the wider angle.
Oh well done indeed, great
Oh well done indeed, great work. Have a sticker.
Hey if it makes you feel
Hey if it makes you feel better calling me that instead of other people and your partner I’m all for it
Garage at Large wrote:
I beg your pardon? Justify that remark or withdraw it.
Ah – I see the problem now –
Ah – I see the problem now – a spatio-temporal anomoly was causing the rear of the car to travel faster than the front, so the driver couldn’t safely slow without risking both themselves and the cyclist collapsing into a localised black hole.
Garage at Large wrote:
An excellent reconstruction –
An excellent reconstruction – but in your photoshopping you appear to have cropped out the front of the bike (understandable oversight because who’d expect cyclists to be making a practical journey). I’ve restored it:
Garage at Large wrote:
Btw, not at all difficult to see who was in the wrong, without the need for photoshop (but I’ve annotated it just so it is clear for you) –
jh2727 wrote:
We just need to bear in mind that facts don’t belong anywhere in Nigels interpretations. He likes to lie and make sh!t up with alarming regularity. Yet he thinks he has the moral high ground
Garage at Large wrote:
pretty sure the video shows a 5 door golf, not a 3 door.
He shouldn’t be overtraking
He shouldn’t be overtraking in the first place. Rule 153 is very clear. “On some roads there are features such as road humps, chicanes and narrowings which are intended to slow you down. When you approach these features reduce your speed. Allow cyclists and motorcyclists room to pass through them. Maintain a reduced speed along the whole of the stretch of road within the calming measures. Give way to oncoming road users if directed to do so by signs. You should not overtake other moving road users while in these areas.”
Garage at Large wrote:
he certainly hadn’t completed it before slowing down for the speed hump, which leads the question why start an overtake when you know you will slow to the speed of the other road user before completing it?
The idea that it would be completely unforeseen for another vehilce to come aroud the bend on their side of the road is incredible to me. Someone pulling oout of their driveway without looking left as well as right might be unforeseen, someone coming the other way on a public road is hardly a surprise.
Garage at Large wrote:
Did you go downstairs from your bedroom and check what your mum said about this overtake? Or did you just whatsapp her?
When was the last time she let you take your bike out on the road?
TriTaxMan wrote:
No I was talking to your wife actually, in light of the Sex and the City reboot she’s very keen on buying you a Peloton for Christmas.
Another example of your famed
Another example of your famed politeness and courtesy.
Garage at Large wrote:
How very 1980s of you to assume I have a wife as opposed to a husband. How about you throw in some casual racism too?
And just for reference maybe go back and look at when you insulted him before with your assumptions……
TriTaxMan wrote:
Oh, he’s covered that base a number of times in the past.
.
.
Oh really? He could have
Oh really? He could have anticipated his need to slow on the speed bump. Just bad driving.
.
.
In what way is the lens
In what way is the lens ‘narrow’?
One look at the still image tells me that the lens is a fairly wide angle lens, as fitted to pretty much all action/dash cameras. These lenses will give an exaggerated impression compared to the human eye, but in the opposite way to your suggestion.
Perhaps the OP could let us know what camera was used, so we can know for certain what the focal length and angle of view of the lens is.
It’s an apeman A80. I
It’s an apeman A80. I believe the FOV is 170 degrees.
I was experimenting with low res high frame rate at the time to see if it helped pick up reg numbers in poor light which I find a problem at this time of year. This sample is reduced to 30fps to cut down file size which hopefully explains the low quality.
Thanks Bungle. Since a 24mm
Thanks Bungle. Since a 24mm lens on a 35mm camera, with a diagonal field of view of approx. 84deg. is generally considered ‘wide angle’ I’d say that a camera with 170 deg. field of view is extra, if not ultra wide angle.
So not so narrow.
Suggest you read the highway
Suggest you read the highway code, specifically 167.
For ease, 167 says this: “stay behind if you are following a cyclist approaching a roundabout or junction, and you intend to turn left.”
In this video, the car was approaching a roundabout and it turned left. Game, Set & Match on that rule I’m afraid.
Garage at Large wrote:
It’s amaxing how often – when it helps you blame the cyclist – you seem to be able to tell what happened before the shared clip, or what words were exchanged when they can’t be heard; but here, when the evidence is clearly visible, you can’t see it. It’s almost like you have an agenda.
Of course the fuckwad has an
Of course the fuckwad has an agenda. His pisspoor attempt at doing a Poophole type “evidence” shows it. Just a shame the site admins don’t treat his so over the top posts as what they are and just get rid again.
Especially as most of the victims are on here and have to put up with his direct blames.
If the Police can write to
If the Police can write to the submitter of the complaint to state “No further action”, then surely they could also write to the registered keeper of the vehicle involved stating the same but maybe including a few words of advice. Such as the inadvisability of overtaking at junctions or approach to roundabouts.
Anyone can make a mistake and very few drivers go out with the intent of hurting anyone, but being alerted to those errors of judgement, even without sanction, cannot be a bad thing.
Mungecrundle wrote:
No, that might encourage more people to submit footage, as word gets around that action will be taken
It’s much better this way…..
Mungecrundle wrote:
or even reminding them not to overtake other road users where there is traffic calming, you know as per the highway code.
The driver had to
The driver had to inconvenience somebody, and it sure as hell wasn’t going to be themselves.
Or rather, the driver didn’t
Or rather, the driver didn’t have to inconvenience anyone if only a little patient had been exercised and the rules of the road obeyed. Oh wait…
Do I have to take one
Do I have to take one everywhere ? Is it like ‘dogs must be carried…’ ?
I wish you’d have more
I wish you’d have more patients with other people’s typhoos, you big teas.
Quote:
Maybe, but that’s not really the point. He’s also chosen to start an overtake when there’s a speed hump and a junction that should both indicate to him that it’s not an appropriate place to do so. Why does that not meet the standard for careless driving?
If their eyesight’s not good enough to [fore]see the hump and roundabout, then they shouldn’t really be on the road in the first place.
mdavidford wrote:
Indeed highway code rule 153 instructs not to overtake in locations with traffic calming
(emphasis by me) note that it says road users rather than vehicles to be absolutely clear that this includes cyclists, and doesn’t just refer to motor vehicles
Could also include
Could also include pedestrians or wheelchair users where the footway is too narrow.
mdavidford wrote:
Maybe, but that’s not really the point. He’s also chosen to start an overtake when there’s a speed hump and a junction that should both indicate to him that it’s not an appropriate place to do so. Why does that not meet the standard for careless driving?
……..
Quite. Did….until they didn’t. A bit like saying “initially didn’t run you over. Until they did”…..
Classic cycling into a
Classic cycling into a problem.
The drivers made a mistake. you can see the problem .
You can
a. use your brakes be in control and solve it
b. carry on regardless putting yourself in danger.
Strange choice to make Maybe the cyclist is indestructible.
And in this case, the cyclist
And in this case, the cyclist clearly chose (a)
eventually
eventually
nicmason wrote:
Yes Nic. They were far too late. They should have done it the instant the driver wanted them to, and not a second later….
nicmason wrote:
Once it was clear the driver was not going to do what they should, and abandon the overtake. It makes it difficult for the driver to slow and pull in behind if the cyclist also slows.
So you advocate that before knowing what the driver will do, the cyclist should facilitate the wrong response and hinder the correct response?
If your opinion of the standard of driving we should epect on UK raods is so low, what does it say about policing of those roads, and refusal to take action against poor driving?
IIRC a few NMOTD ago we had a
IIRC a few NMOTD ago we had a bus driver who started an overtake then slammed on its brakes and swerved in narrowly missing the cyclists back wheel. If that cyclist had “seen the potential problem” as Nic decided he would now be dead.
Still I’m sure on that footage he would have blamed the cyclist somehow.
nicmason wrote:
I take where you’re coming from. However, the problem is that if your response to situations like this is just “the cyclists should have stopped” you create (or, more realistically, perpetuate) a situation where “might is right” and drivers just carry on regardless of right of way on the basis that the cyclist will stop. And then one time they won’t.
I think you need to view the
I think you need to view the clip with the sound on. You can literally hear the brakes being applied.
More importantly, the driver would not be making a mistake if he understood and followed the highway code. The HC predicts these conflicts. That is why it is bad driving. I think if you read most of the comments the suggestion is that the police should not be letting the driver off and in this case some retraining would be appropriate.
IanMK wrote:
This.
Part of safe driving is that when, inevitably, a mistake is made (by you or others) the outcomes are more likely to be low stakes as you are not engaging in high-risk driving
Cyclist didn’t cycle into a
Cyclist didn’t cycle into a problem. Problem was caused by driver. I know the likes of you and Boo always like to state that once the car has its nose in front, the cyclist needs to brake quickly to a stop, get off and bow heads to the driver and pray the driver has a safe journey, but it is always up to the overtaking driver to ensure it is a safe manouvre without forcing other road users to deviate in speed or direction.
But I suppose as someone who has confessed to being a multiple bad driver and still drives badly even after being caught (at least once) needs to blame the other vulnerable road user.
Average driver. Better than
Average driver. Better than some worse than others Like most people.
nicmason wrote:
Which is why we need action to raise the standard to a point where it’s acceptable. Like enforcement against incidents like this.
a) shit happens, put up with
a) shit happens, put up with it
b) shit happens, do something about it
Obviously a) is the way to go.
hirsute wrote:
This is the way….
nicmason wrote:
So a scale of 0-10 you’re a 5. How would you rank the driver in the clip?
IanMK wrote:
This one goes up to 11…
Everything’s relative….
Well, they didn’t go round
Well, they didn’t go round the roundabout the wrong way so 8.
IanMK wrote:
Most drivers think they are 8.5 apparently…
Daveyraveygravey wrote:
Wasn’t there a survey years ago that found that British Drivers thought that they were the best in Europe. Italian drivers actually agreed with the pan-European belief that they were the worst. Overall German drivers came out on top.
IanMK wrote:
It would be interesting to know how many Italians actually ranked themselves as bad drivers as opposed to their compatriots – I’ve heard many, many drivers complain that the general standard of driving is too low but I don’t think I’ve ever heard one describe themselves as a bad or even a weak driver.
Yes, which is why it is
Yes, which is why it is harder to get convictions on even careless driving as you state a driver who drives the wrong way on Roundabouts AND already been sent on a Re-education course is the average standard.
And even after the course, still the average driver still defends driving like the above as OK because the cyclist is still alive.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
TFTFY
I never defended the driver.
I never defended the driver. it was poor. my comment was on the cyclist who could have reacted more quickly. You’re all (rightly for once) condemning the driver so need to add to that.
nicmason wrote:
But none of us were victim blaming, so you needed to do that?
an observation. hardly victim
an observation. hardly victim blaming. But whatever.
Read your own post again.
Read your own post again. You absolutely blamed the cyclist.
I didnt blame the cyclist for
I didnt blame the cyclist for the incident. I commented on their approach to dealing with it/
nicmason wrote:
How much more quickly than quickly enough to avoid a collision is required in an emergency Nic? Come now, we need an above-average-driver’s opinion on this…
oh….
First words were Cyclist
First words were Cyclist cycled into problem. Just sounds to me like you want to blame him for not doing what I assume you do which is stopping each time a car wants to overtake.
And right for once? So in 674 NMotd and countless other videos of atrocius driving including people knocked off from behind, you think this driver is the only one who did something wrong. And you class your driving as average……..
Yep, it is people like you which means Dangerous driving is Careless at best in courts as it doesn’t fall dangerously below the average driver.
nicmason wrote:
The article is about the police reaction to the incident. Most of the discussion was about the threshold for it being actionable. You twisted it to gaslight the victim (and potential future victims of idiots like this driver).
nicmason wrote:
The rider did all that they needed to do. This no collision outcome was due to to their action of adjusting their course and braking.
The driver completely failed in their duty of care to other road users, willfully breaking at least 2 HWC rules that are there for everyone’s safety.
This bollox about mistakes. It’s sheer incompetence that can and should be rectified. And yet again the Police have been found wanting. The no injury outcome was thanks to the rider, and not the culprit. This driver will continue to make these “mistakes” until eventually they hurt someone.
And let’s make no bones about this. This incompetence doesn’t just affect people on bikes. This individual will be equally incompetent, and as much of a liability, around pedestrians, horses, and other motorists.
Really Nic, is there no situation that you can’t attempt to skew to make it anyone but the driver’s fault?
Captain Badger wrote:
Classic Gaslighting
The mistake the driver made,
The mistake the driver made, was using his breaks in the middle of an overtaking manouevre – he slows for the speed bump before the van becomes visible. At which point is the cyclist to know that going to whether the driver is abandoning the overtake (in which case it would be prudent to continue at the same speed), or is just pausing for a break during the overtake.
BTW, if the driver had positioned his vehicle fully in the right hand lane, he could have easily driven over the speed cushions without reducing speed and without damaging what ever precious cargo he was carrying and completed the overtake before the van came round the corner.
jh2727 wrote:
well, one of the mistakes anyway. The first mistake was to begin an overatke in the vicinity of a speed bump contraveing rule 153
Following up with breaches of 163 (do not get to close to the vehicle you intend to overtake) and also (move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in). The driver does neither due to applying brakes mid overtake (perhaps thats why rule 153 exists) and then finding an oncoming vehicle is approaching.
perhaps rule 162 (before overtaking make sure the road is sufficiently clear ahead) would have avoided that
Rule 167 is unequivacal “DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example approaching or at a road junction”
But of course breaching of 4 rules of the highway code is not sufficient to be considered below the standard of a carful and confident driver. WE only look at teh final outcome where the driver has painted themselves into a corner and responds by endangering the cyclist rather than another road user.
So as far as I can see the driver has breached 153, 162, 163 and 167 before the oncoming vehicle is involved, and only a second breach of 163 once the unforeseen (but entirely predictable) circumstances presented themselves. If only their was a guide which advised drivers how to act to minimise the chances of these unforseen circumstances causing a problem, [perhaps drivers could also be trained and tested in some manner. Maybe we could require them to be registered and identifiable so that action could be taken against those who wil not follow the rules, orin minor minor cases warning letters reminding them of the highway code as it pertains to their actions.
OR – we could just say people make mistakes, make allowances and try not to be killed.
Completely agree. It’s all
Completely agree. It’s all very well being right, but it’s not a great comfort when you’re flat.
Part of being a road user is anticipating mistakes, not just barrelling into complex situations at 30mph and then moaning because someone changes lane unexpectedly or whatever. It’s true for cars and its true for bikes
RobSC wrote:
Absolutely none of the above apply in this instance.
Wow, the cyclist was
Wow, the cyclist was travelling at 30 mph as well as the car !
Did you bother to read anything that has been posted ?
I’ll give you a clue based on what has been posted rule 153, 162, 163, 167
Or do you think like nicmason, that bungle should have been omniscient ?
hirsute wrote:
He doesn’t know what you’re talking about. I suspect his first ever bike is a Ribble..
Captain Badger wrote:
Still in the future then?
TheBillder wrote:
You got it!
PS, I’ve been worrying all weekend that was too obscure
If the cyclist was going at
If the cyclist was going at 30mph, then the car was speeding in a traffic calming zone which is another point ignored by the police then. Cyclist braked when necessary once the stupid drivers manouvre was apparent. Why do people think he didn”t?
There We Are Then.
There We Are Then.
Overtaking when approaching a
Overtaking when approaching a junction.
“unforseen” that a van might use the junction to…err…use the junction.
Overtake, brake test the person now behind you. (I am sure this is the thing they do for insurance fraud)
Other than that, all ok
Just if there is a body such
Just if there is a body such decisions can be reported to (other than the PCC who will refer it back to the force reaching the conclusion)?
So the police ignore the fact
So the police ignore the fact that the driver overtook in a traffic calming zone (speed bump) and ignored rule 166 “stay behind if you are following a cyclist approaching a roundabout or junction, and you intend to turn left”
So the police ignore the fact
So the police ignore the fact that the driver overtook in a traffic calming zone (speed bump) and ignored rule 166 “stay behind if you are following a cyclist approaching a roundabout or junction, and you intend to turn left”
Yes, of course. That’s what they do! The police, at least the bent forces like Lancashire, have decided that the police make the law and if cyclists don’t like being close-passed, cut up a treat or threatened with being ‘knocked off the road’, they should stay off that road ‘for their own safety’
Muddy Ford wrote:
I think it reflects well on the UK that we are surprised at police not upholding standards. However from a different place in the UK and an unrelated area of policing but see just how far the police can get from doing what appears to be their job – or finding any problem with what they did afterwards… It’s not just a police issue because you get the service you pay for and monitor / motivate. In this case we have under-resourcing, leading to negligence, unwillingness to deal with other departments (our in-tray’s already overflowing), incompetence (may be linked to under-resourcing – “can’t afford to” fire anyone) and then lying at all levels to cover their backsides.
I think it reflects well on
I think it reflects well on the UK that we are surprised at police not upholding standards
In Lancashire we’re not surprised.
What hope do we have of safer roads for cyclists when the police don’t appear to understand the rules of the road?
Not much. It goes without saying (again!) that close-passing of cyclists does not exist as an offence in Lancashire. They have never prosecuted anyone for it, and have never conducted any close-pass operations like the Operation Edward of Sheffield NW. There’s a Lancashire TacOps sergeant who thinks that cyclists have to move over into the gutter so that motorists can get past without crossing double white lines, and that the cyclist can be prosecuted for not doing so. He threatened to prosecute me, but was made to look the fool he is when I urged him to do so- and I never heard from him again.
This is simply poor driving.
This is simply poor driving. That was a dangerous place to attempt to overtake which is why the driver ended up cutting up the cyclist. I do not understand the police’s argument.
The driver didn’t look far
The driver didn’t look far enough ahead. It’s that simple. It’s an example of poor driving. The response by the police makes no sense.
The driver was approaching a
The driver was approaching a junction. I think HWC says don’t overtake in such a case. If you were a car that happened to be going at the speed you were they would have waited behind – maybe wondering why.
How about the driver
How about the driver inconveniences – himself. He could have braked , and gone behind the cyclist. That way, the cyclist, who is the most at risk, is made safe.
Doesnt the new HWC with its priority of road users, require that?
Anyone else old enough to
Anyone else old enough to remember this public information film first time round? (My apologies if it’s already cropped up.) A memorable slogan and a principle I’ve always tried to adhere to as both a cyclist and a driver. ‘Read the road’:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G6ZMuIjfn40
It’s not exactly rocket science, is it?
Apologies, I haven’t read the
Apologies, I haven’t read the 114 comments. The overtake is dangerous because the driver cannot see far enough up the road to make a safe overtake, simple. Please correct me if I’m wrong, Gloucester police have got it wrong.
Billy1mate wrote:
Pretty much sums it up for me
What hope do we have of safer
What hope do we have of safer roads for cyclists when the police don’t appear to understand the rules of the road?