- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Updated – Near Miss of the Day 549: Cyclist “flabbergasted” as magistrates acquit close pass driver (video includes swearing)
A road.cc reader has said that the decision of magistrates to acquit a driver filmed making a very close pass on him at speed on a careless driving charge has left him “flabbergasted.”
We featured the video, shot by Rendel Harris while out on a bike ride with his wife in southwest London, on our Near Miss of the Day series back in February this year.
Rendel updated us on the outcome of the case after attending court as a witness on Monday.
He told us that the driver “was acquitted by the magistrates on the grounds that ‘there is insufficient evidence to prove the case of careless driving’.
“The defendant relied on a number of points to make his case, amongst them that I definitely made no checks behind me whatsoever, even though you can see from my shadow on the video (and the prosecuting solicitor pointed out) that I made at least three clear headchecks prior to signalling and carefully beginning to pull across the road (something the defendant chose to characterised as ‘veering wildly into my right of way’).
“The defendant also claimed that my (admittedly fruity, but then I get like that when people try to kill me) bad language after the incident proved that I was in ‘an aggressive state of mind and probably not fit to be riding a bicycle on the public highway’.
“But here's the real kicker,” Rendel continued. “He claimed that he was not, as I stated, at least 40 metres behind me when I began to pull out, apparently that was ‘completely untrue’ (he should have a word with Susan, who was 40 metres behind me at the time, and he was behind her), in fact I was ‘two to three metres ahead’ when I pulled out.
“Leaving aside the fact that I rather enjoy life and I'm not in the habit of attempting suicide, he admitted to the court that he was travelling at 30 mph. At 30 mph, a car covers 13 metres per second.
“As can be seen on the video, he passes me three to four seconds after I signal and start to pull out, so had I been 2/3 metres ahead of him when I pulled out, he would’ve had no alternative but to have hit me, it's literally a physical impossibility to (allegedly) dive in front of a car going 30 mph that is 2/3 metres behind one and for the car either to stop or evade one, he would've had to react in 0.25 of a second to do that.
“The fact that it took him four seconds to catch up with me and make such a ridiculous close pass proves that he was shamelessly lying. Unbelievable.”
Rendel added: “Many thanks to the Metropolitan Police traffic office for bringing the prosecution, and to the prosecuting solicitor who did a very good job of presenting the evidence, why the magistrates chose to ignore it in toto is a matter for them.
“It does make one wonder if it's actually worth sending in any evidence if this is going to be the result; I suppose I will have to invest in a rear-facing camera as well if magistrates are so incapable of judging on the clear physical evidence placed before them!”
Clearly it’s a frustrating outcome not just for Rendel and his wife, but also for the investigating officers who deemed the close pass bad enough to refer it to the Crown Prosecution Service, and for the prosecutors who took the case to court; another day, and another court, and we suspect the verdict may have been different.
Here's our original story, published on 28 February 2021 under the heading, "Near Miss of the Day 549: Cyclist nearly taken out by speeding driver desperate to overtake (video includes swearing)."
*WARNING: VERY STRONG LANGUAGE*
A cyclist launches into a string of expletives after he is nearly knocked down from behind by a speeding driver desperate to overtake him before he makes a right hand turn. The strong language is perhaps understandable seeing as the rider was just centimetres away from being wiped out.
Today's near miss video was submitted by road.cc reader Rendel Harris and shows him riding along Malden Road in Worcester Park, London with his wife.
Mr Harris explained what happened next and apologised for his choice of words but said "nearly being killed brought out some of my more robust expressions".
He said: "As I was riding along Malden Road, I prepared to move out in order to be ready for the upcoming right hand turn into Motspur Park Road.
"As can be clearly seen on the video from my shadow on the road, I made three separate head checks to ensure there was sufficient safe space for me to move out, and made a very clear hand signal.
"At this point my wife, who was approximately 50m behind me, seeing me signal, checked behind her to see if it was safe for her to start moving out as well.
"At this point the blue Peugeot was behind her; as soon as I started to move he floored the accelerator and swerved past me well in excess of the legal speed limit, missing me by a maximum of 20cm, probably much less.
"He also clearly put the oncoming car in danger as well. Sheer stupidity and spite.
"Apologies for the language, it turns out that being nearly killed brings out some of my more robust expressions."
Mr Harris said he reported the incident to the Metropolitan Police the same day and received a prompt reply saying the driver was being sent a Notice of Intended Prosecution.
However, when he tried to follow up on the outcome this month he said he was told 'no further details will be provided whether the case is active or not'.
> 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 [at] 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
Latest Comments
- Hirsute 4 sec ago
https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/24722763.colchester-driver-convicted......
- Cugel 31 min 59 sec ago
More selling of "ideas" rather than actual items of true function and utility. The world is seeing an ever more rapid churn of such stuff in...
- David9694 44 min 9 sec ago
Trying to create a new LTN in Bristol: Bizarre parking on West Country street as Audi mounts parked car...
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 52 min ago
Wasn't her quote something like "Any man who takes the bus after the age of twenty-five [maybe thirty?] is a failure?...
- andystow 4 hours 43 min ago
Based on my experience with the Hunt wheels, I might do a review on their durability in three or four years.
- Destroyer666 9 hours 9 min ago
"...the beeswax-based covering magically shuns off whatever might be lurking in the corners. Even after multiple rides, when the bars rattled about...
- David9694 10 hours 32 min ago
t-boned
- Rendel Harris 11 hours 52 min ago
I didn't know the blue RA saddle was a holy grail - I had a 1986 RA bought new in 1987 with a blue saddle that lasted me very well until 2002 when...
- newbankgyratory 12 hours 2 min ago
Solution: Put these up everywhere. Source: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/traffic-signs
- Rendel Harris 12 hours 59 min ago
Glad you like it - this week was the first proper commuting week since I got it, 250kms nice and warm but not boiled, indeed - and when the...
Add new comment
145 comments
Rendal, I sympathize, that was outrageous driving. I think that perhaps you should reconsider getting a good mirror (from a previous discussion you weren't keen on the idea). Personally I wouldn't have a bike without one (a good motorbike quality one, not some cheap rubbish), and in your case, you would have seen the car approaching and been able to take evasive action. It's really not worth being in the right and 6ft under instead of taking the miniscule weight/aerodynamic hit of a good mirror.
I understand that rendal made 3 shoulder checks.
Even better than the view in a mirror.
Not getting into the six pages of comments here, but that was a shockingly close pass from a car which was clearly speeding. I'm glad no-one was hurt. The driver of that car deserves bad juju for that (or a screwdriver in their tyres).
I'm not convinced that the admins banned all of the trolls... (or, all of the usernames of one troll, I don't know...).
Well not all PBU's if that is what you mean. Still at least we know this one is who he is now.
Seems second PBU is now CBU as welll now.
Has Martin73 gone too? Just checked in after a long day out (92 miles on the Thames path gravel, I'm calling that equivalent to at least 130 on the road!) and doesn't seem to be anything from him left on this thread at least. If he has been removed then well done again mods and long may this proactive approach to the sub-bridge dwellers continue!
Might be just on here. Still posts on the Main thread under the dog walker. The next few days will tell.
That is rotten, and in the face of insurmountable evidence !!
I wonder if that could be taken up as a civil case by a no-win no fee solicitor?
It's not right that the driver gets away scott free from that, at the very least their insurance should go up next year.
As there was no injuries or damage, what would he claim for? Mental stress maybe but that would need Doctors reports etc.
Entirely feasible, and if he's a member of one of the cycling groups, their membership benefits will cover the cost of a consultation.
I'd be lying if I said there was an awful lot of mental stress - I was still shaking when we got home an hour later but as someone who rides 30k most days n central London one gets fairly hardened to this sort of thing! Still feel edgy when I approach that turn though...
So there has been a permanent effect, as well as serious temporary effects; you're a victim.
Hi Rendel
What a horrible incident, I have had a couple of these overtakes, but nothing as bad as yours.
Your video begs the question how "How could the magistrate aquit this nutter?" Clearly he lied to the court and I don't know what arguments the defense put forward, but the balance came down in his favour. It is strange, the police clearly thought an offense had been commited, the CPS thought there was a good chance of conviction, your video was quite explicit.
There is some wiggle room in your justifications. 30mph is 44 feet per second, I usually round it up to 15 yds per second. If you were riding at 20mph and the driver was doing 30mph then it is the closing speed which is important. In this instance the driver would be coming up behind you at 10mph. 10mph = 5yards per second, so at those speeds you may have pulled out in front of the driver from his perspective. However, I think you were going slower than 20mph and the driver was going much faster than 30mph, so although you looked, signalled and moved out in good time because the drver was going so fast he decided to swerve past you into oncoming traffic rather than brake. He then blamed his terrible driving on you. After all he is entitled to drive at speed and you got in his way.
I might suggest it's that it's cos the mag was too lazy/incompetent/bigoted [delete as appropriate/necessary] to carry out their duty to a fit and proper standard....
More likely the driver was a friend of a friend of the magistrate and called in a favour. I can't think why else they would dismiss the absolutely clear evidence - there is no way that driving was careful.
Good point, missed corrupt out
However, I think you were going slower than 20mph...
Unless Rendal has a chipped ebike, it sounds like the motor is on at all times so 15.5mph tops. (although the bike might make that noise whether he is above or not).
Yes I was just pootling and the ebike is legally restricted to 25kmh.
I was riding an ebike restricted to 15.5mph, so when I began to move we would have had a closing speed of 15 mph if he was on the legal speed limit, which from my checks (of which he denied the existence) he was, or 25kmh, or 7 metres a second, so it should have taken him six seconds to reach me, more than enough time for me to make my manouevre and be safely out of his way. The reason he reached me in around 3.5 seconds was because he hit the gas hard as soon as he saw me move so passed me at 40mph+.
That is what I thought happened from your description and video.
The problem is that when you start playing with the numbers there are many possible answers. It's like saying "give me two numbers which add uo to ten"
The magistrate has a duty to take everyone's statement on trust, at least at the start of the hearing, there will always be differing accounts from witnesses who saw the incident from different perspectives. This magistrate appears to have sided with the driver in the face of damning evidence, from your account, the video and the mathematical logistics.
I'm baffled!
Yep, as my Aussie friends like to say, "Got me knackered, mate!"
The sad part about this decision is that it effectively renders all front facing video footage, without rear facing footage useless. It give's idiot drivers carte blanche to reject the NIP and take it to court in cases of close passing knowing that the magistrates seem to have their back
On a complete aside, Rendel you said that as a witness you don't have the right, but surely as the victim you should have a right to appeal. You can be both victim and witness, no matter what a shady magistrate seems to think
One can only appeal a guilty verdict as the convicted person, not guilty verdicts can't be appealed unless there is a proveable error in law. Trust me, if I could I would!
No it doesn't. I know this one is depressing but that's no reason to presume that all will end badly. This isn't a first time case and there is no precedent set by it. There have been dozens of successful prosecutions listed here, not to mention the ones from cycling Mikey and others. We mustn't give up - bike cams are still a relatively new thing, time and weight of numbers are on our side.
Absoultely SS - I'm back in court at the end of the month for another case and hopefully will get more sense,, since September I've submitteed fourteen videos to the Met, three rejected for not clear enough evidence, seven courses, and four going to court. Not discouraged by any means, in fact more determined to keep pushing until we're acknowledged as having equal rights on the road.
Well done, and keep up the good work. I think people like you and Mikey deserve some sort of recognition; honourary traffic cop perhaps?
The number of successful cases submitted by cyclists perfectly demonstrates the monumental size of this problem, and all the government strategies on walking and cycling are doomed to failure unless they really, really tackle dangerous driving.
I was unsuccessful in reporting a close pass with only vehicle data despite the police being able to identify the car. So that showed I needed better evidence to get some action.
I got a Cyclic Fly6 rear facing camera and a few weeks later was close passed with it on. I reported that and was asked to upload the video. Driver was offered to explain the incident but didn't attend the Police station so was referred to CPS, and got 3 points plus fine costs etc.
My conclusion: Rear facing camera does work as the hazard mostly comes from behind.
Yes, the people who can clearly see a person in front of them..
Given the risk, cost and uncertainty I now use Avoidance instead of cameras...
That is a real shocker, both the incident and the verdict. Absolutely frustrating that the magistrates ignored the calculated poaitions. It's a pity your Mrs wasn't using a camera, that would have cleared things up.
Absolutely no doubt what so ever that the magistrates are Daily Mail readers based on the video evidence!!!
Pages