The latest instalment of our Near Miss of the Day series comes from Gloucestershire, where a car driver overtakes a cyclist on a single lane with a row of parked cars.
The footage shows the motorist pulling out to pass before tucking back in to avoid an oncoming van, only to attempt the manoeuvre again immediately. This forced an oncoming driver to stop.
This case ended up in court, where the vehicle owner was fined £1,000 for failing to identify the driver.
The incident took place a year ago, but the cyclist, road.cc reader Richard, was only recently informed of the outcome.
He has pointed out the similarities to Near Miss of the Day 786 from 2022, which was at the same location and resulted in no further action from Gloucestershire Police.
In response to this near miss, the Gloucestershire Constabulary responded saying, “I have watched the video, and the driver doesn’t cause you to react and change direction or brake, so their driving can’t be considered careless. They have been behind you for some time and not forced their way past.”
Richard points out that the only difference for this near miss was that another driver had to stop.
He said: “The main difference I can see is that another driver had to stop to avoid a collision, i.e. was inconvenienced.”
In 2024, Gloucestershire Constabulary’s non-crime unit head came under fire for saying that clips submitted to Operation Snap needed “to show that the driver or rider is being inconvenienced in some way.”
The officer, Robert Vestey, said: “We get a lot of images sent in from cyclists, and in the Highway Code you have something called a close pass, where you should allow cyclists 1.5m width.
“But a close pass itself isn’t an offence, and a lot of cyclists don’t realise that, so they get quite frustrated with us.”
> 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
42 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 946: £1,000 fine after impatient driver close passes cyclist”
Without in any way defending the driving, which is stupid, dangerous and selfish, I would have been interested to see where this had gone if the registered keeper had not been fined for refusing to nominate (something which, in passing, should be punished by immediate confiscation of the vehicle and suspension of licence, neither to be returned until they have provided the necessary information). I’ve been told twice by the Metropolitan police that a close pass cannot exist if the cyclist and the driver are in different lanes, in both cases I had submitted video of a driver coming within inches of me when I was in a painted cycle lane and they were in the main lane. Is this the case in law, does anybody know? If it is, then this driver was technically not guilty of a close passing offence as they were completely in the right-hand lane and the cyclist, at least at the start of the pass, was in the left-hand lane. I suspect a decent lawyer could have got the driver acquitted on this one, unless the reading of the law above is incorrect.
It is nonsense. I am not aware of anything that would indicate that. A close pass is a close pass, irrespective of whether there is a line of paint or not. No CPS guidelines on that at all.
I think this is just prejudice on the part of relevant officers
You’re right, apart from the decent lawyer point. A lawyer may not mislead the court, and pretending that a rule exists when it does not would almost certainly lead to disbarment.
Only if anyone actually bothered to pull them up on it. And ‘pretending it exists’ doesn’t necessarily have to mean saying anything false.
They don’t have to state that the rule exists, they can simply point out that the two vehicles were in separate lanes and the average jury member/magistrate will make up the rule in their heads for them, in my experience.
Perhaps before pulling out to go round parked vehicles it is sensible for cyclists to check whether someone is already in the process of overtaking them. Then questions arise about whether the cyclist has visually checked and signalled adequately. Of course a competent motorist should anticipate the cyclists move to the centre of the road but so by the same measure the cyclists should have properly signalled their upcoming manoeuvre too, as per highway code, not just the minimal flick of the wrist that some cyclists have adopted.
Yes, because it’s easy to see how the motorist could have been confused into thinking that they were just going to ride straight into the parked car instead.
Remember that 1.5 meter is the theory. A motorist can squeeze in their car as close as they can to a cyclist in motion. Until they can’t. Then it’s too late. For the cyclist, that is.
Are Road.cc going to organise the Miss and Mister of the Near Miss of the Day?
No – it’s nonsense. The law just says there’s an offence when driving falls below (careless) or far below (dangerous) the standard of a competent and careful driver. (There is, of course, no such offence, per se, as ‘a close pass’.)
CPS guidance cites “overtaking dangerously” (dangerous) and “driving too close to another vehicle” (careless) as examples, without any qualification of “but not if they’re in separate lanes”.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/types-crime/driving-offences
None of which is to say that a decent lawyer couldn’t get an acquittal anyway, by pretending that such a rule does exist.
When you get cycle clubs out filling both the in direction lane with their peloton and even expanding out into the opposite direction lane even a wheels in the gutters on the opposite side of the road overtake by a motor vehicle becomes a close pass. Sometimes some cyclists feed the monster with their own behaviour.
When you get cycle clubs out filling both the in direction lane with their peloton and even expanding out into the opposite direction lane even a wheels in the gutters on the opposite side of the road overtake by a motor vehicle becomes a close pass.
@Robert Hardy would the cyclists’ offense be “obstructing the Kings highway” or merely that they should know that motorists have to get in front of cyclists regardless of what speed they’re going?
(Thinking of Mr. Loophole’s video of himself making good progress driving down a narrow county lane without particularly good sight lines IIRC – while berating some cyclists in front).
(If it’s not safe to overtake, don’t overtake … but yes, there’s a sensible trade off.
OTOH you’ve as much obligation to jump in the hedge every minute because lots of people happened to decide to drive there then as motorists have to overtake you after 20 seconds at say around 20mph when they could be doing whatever).
I don’t believe this was the case here…
@ktache Robert is making an intentional habit of posting irrelevant digs at cyclists across the site today.
I’ve been told twice by the Metropolitan police that a close pass cannot exist if the cyclist and the driver are in different lanes…
unless the reading of the law above is incorrect
It’s not ‘the law’ is it? It’s just bollocks made up by the police to try and eliminate the Scourge of Cycling. All this uncertainty and the 1000-odd NMoTD cases have left us with LancsFilth ignoring all close-passing, Gloucester inventing ‘the rider must be inconvenienced’ and Kent declaring: rider must be KSI’d (a paraphrase of ‘we’re not going to even look at any video where there’s no collision’)
I wish I had close-passes with that much space! Driver was a total c0ck though.
Don’t forget that the camera makes the vehicle look further away than it really is. I’ll bet the door mirror was no more than a couple of inches from the handlebar.
Don’t forget that the camera makes the vehicle look further away than it really is
Yes and no! Wide-angle, which this one is set at, is the way to make passes look closer, and the passing vehicle look faster. Mine are generally set at the longest tele setting I have, because I want the plates of vehicles on the other side of the road. This one was accidentally set on wide
I wish I had close-passes with that much space! Driver was a total c0ck though
Show us one, then! Or are they all imaginary? Here’s one of mine:
ttps://upride.cc/incident/sk19evu_stagecoach42_closepass/
Just insert the ‘h’ removed from https
There is something deeply deeply fucking stupid about the argument that “we will punish them if they inconvenience you by causing you to move your fingers slightly to brake or arms slightly to steer but we don’t give a shit if they come so close that doing so would potentially hurt or kill you”.
I don’t know about the rest of you but I tend not to brake or steer if someone close passed me because thats exactly what will turn it from a shit experience into a deadly one. Steering and braking is far less inconvenient to me than being scared for my life and hoping that I don’t hit a pothole while I avoid steering as they fly past.
I tend not to brake or steer if someone close passed me because thats exactly what will turn it from a shit experience into a deadly one
I have made this argument many times on here. It seems to be Gloucestershire’s dodge, passed on to us by Bungle. I’m intent on doing nothing that makes it more likely that I die under Sainsbury’s wheels:
https://upride.cc/incident/yn67mvj_sainsburys44tonner_closepass/17.6.22
Ah, good. I see the site has solved one of the problems with inserting links.
Totally agree – I’ve had plod ignore multiple video submissions of close passes in situations where there was no need (no oncoming traffic & plenty of available space to safely pass,) and where the pass is into a blind bend etc. Round here you don’t even get an explanation, but it does seem that they only take action if a) you are lucky that the shared brain cell is being used by the reviewing officer at the time & b) your footage shows you demonstrably taking evasive action or braking heavily. Which all serves to punish confident riding, possessing nerves of steel, situational awareness (“I’d better not change line due to that pothole/parked car/zombie pedestrian” etc) & good bike handling. You’re better off just swerving into the nearest hedge just in case.
There’s never a need. If there isn’t space to pass safely, don’t pass.
“But a close pass itself isn’t an offence…”
Er, no. Wrong.
It 100% is an offence because it falls into the category of careless if not dangerous driving.
I can’t remember a single close pass experienced by myself or seen online that does not meet that standard.
I’m a hater of, and keen reporter of (see NMOTD passim) close passes, but it’s not strictly true to say that*every* close pass is an offence: if I’m slowing down for traffic lights and doing 4 mph and a car driver passes me giving me a metre at 6 mph you’re not going to be able to frame a careless/dangerous driving charge on that, are you?
I would have used the whole lane so he couldn’t squeeze past
I usually do but I had to wait for the oncoming van to clear before moving out. I did start to move out but then heard the driver behind overtaking. I felt it safer to stay where I was even though I was in the door zone of the parked cars. Lesser of two evils I guess.
This encouragement to take the whole right lane is fashionable, but it’s easier said than done. The road-rager driving into you from behind would be sympathetically treated by the police, and the courts in the unlikely event of it ever getting that far, because it was sunny/ dark/ raining/ dry etc.
What’s the biggest surprise is that GlosPol actually sent a NIP in the first place, that is a major improvement in their action on these cases, which in my limited experience and that of friends who ride over the border from me, is usually limited to warning letters only. Of course the penalty for the actual bad driving would have been less than the penalty for the failure to nominate.
And the insurance next year will be eye watering.
If the registered keeper refuses to disclose who was driving they should be given the points for the offence as well as a hefty fine.
I don’t understand why people who refuse to disclose the driver aren’t charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice, which has a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and even for the lowest category of offence (Culpability C, “Unplanned and/or limited in scope and duration/Unsophisticated nature of conduct/Underlying offence was not serious, Harm 3, “Limited distress caused to an innocent party/Limited impact on the administration of justice/Limited delay caused to the course of justice”) has a starting point sentence of six months’ imprisonment. Perverting the course of justice is defined as “The act of doing something that interferes with the justice system”; withholding the name of a guilty party from the authorities when questioned seems quite obviously to fall into that category.
I don’t understand why people who refuse to disclose the driver aren’t charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice
I do. The police can’t be bothered. They really can’t be bothered with anything to do with crime or justice, as shown by these links:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn08j2g9ze9o
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62l429w2pko
One of the West Midlands High Street drug dealing shops was just around the corner from a police station. I have little doubt that the police have been repeatedly informed about these dealers, but they simply follow their Standard Operating Procedures and ignore the reports.
I have had problems with companies owning vehicles before. The registered keeper of a vehicle, whose driver had pulled in on me forcing me to take evasive action, was sent a NIP. This was the result I was given after I waited a year to ask for it :
I asked for an explanation and this is what they said :
The incident occurred on 05/03/24 and I reported it 06/03/24.
Yes, that looks like a popular and established police dodge. I wonder what the Latin for ‘We Just Can’t Be Bothered’ is , so all these forces could put it on their badge/ crest/ logo
See also “ghost owners”
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2026/apr/23/ghost-owners-uk-vehicles-in-use-without-proper-records-dvla
According to a parliamentary question asked by the MP, the DVLA has not fined a single person in the last five years for failing to update their address. A Department for Transport spokesperson said: “Our road safety strategy takes direct action to crack down on illegal plates that help criminals evade detection. This includes proposals for tougher penalties for driving with illegal plates, reviewing the standards for number plates and stricter checks during MOT testing.”
That’s from your Guardian link. Illegal plates are routine in Lancashire. How reminiscent that DoT Completely Contrary to the Truth non-reply is, when I look at Lilian Greenwood’s reply to my MP over BF64 TGE, a Transit owned by a listed company which I have shown on here many times. 4 years 5 months without VED, when I have been telling them where it is every night since 2022. Greenwood wrote ‘we make VED easy to pay and difficult to evade’. What useless tossers these people are!
1000 close passes provided to road.cc for reporting. How many close passes actually reported to police opsnap? Could road.cc (and CyclingUK etc.) not apply constant pressure to get a minimum standard of police reaction to close passes, i.e. they should be considered careless driving in all cases unless there is significant doubt. Why does careless driving even need to consider winning over a jury? That’s why the standard of driving in this country is so shit. The driver should be required to do the hard work of proving it wasn’t careless or inconsiderate.
Mainly because close passing is not against the law, it’s only a “should” in the Highway Code. Although a change in police/prosecutor attitudes would be welcome, what we really need is a change in the law mandating minimum passing distances that result in fines/points when broken, no ifs no buts and no was it careless or not debate. It might need some caveats regarding speeds so that, as in my example above, drivers giving a cyclist 1m at 6mph don’t get prosecuted; I’d be happy with a minimum 1m up to 10mph, 1.5m over 15mph and 2m over 25mph.
I’d be happy with a minimum 1m up to 10mph, 1.5m over 15mph and 2m over 25mph
Unfortunately, if you visit Lancashire, this is the best you’re going to get at 30+ mph