- 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
Near Miss of the Day 639: Close pass not close enough for police to act
A video of a close pass in Cheshire last month that forced a cyclist to stop at the side of the road turned out not to be close enough for police to refer the matter for prosecution, leaving the rider frustrated at the lack of action against the van driver involved.
Róisín, the road.cc reader who sent in the clip, told us: “This pass actually had me pull off the road, as I could hear that the driver (white VW Transporter DC66 UAK) approaching from behind had absolutely no intention of waiting until it was safe to pass, and I was afraid the driver would simply pull over into me in order to avoid hitting the oncoming car.”
However, when she sent the footage to Cheshire Police, she was told that the driver would not be prosecuted because the incident did not meet the force’s minimum criteria for taking further action. The force said:
On this occasion we will not be proceeding with a formal prosecution against any parties involved.
This is because the incident in the footage you’ve supplied doesn’t demonstrate the minimum threshold of what we would be looking for in order to pursue any offences so on this occasion no action can be taken against another party but thanks for letting us know, I’ve logged the details in case it comes to our attention again.
Reason being from the footage I don’t see the overtake close to the mouth of the blind bend and I don’t see the close pass.
When the van passes the O/S wheels are over the hazard line of the opposing lane.
I accept the van could of caused the mini to slow / move position but it would not justify prosecution.
From the police data-base there are no other complaints regarding this incident.
“It strikes me as odd that, whenever the police do a 'Close Pass' operation, they always find plenty of drivers to educate/prosecute, and yet all too often when cyclists submit videos of frightening experiences such as this one, the police don't see anything wrong with it,” Róisín said.
“It takes a good two hours or more to make a submission, and it is frustrating when nothing is done about the dangerous drivers who are putting cyclists' lives at risk and putting people off cycling.
“I don't know how the police forces decide who to put in charge of assessing these submissions, but I get the impression they are not cyclists,” she added.
> 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
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Geordiepeddeler 3 hours 45 min ago
Cycling infrastructure does not force drivers to break the law, drivers are the reason they break the law, no one else.
- chrisonabike 3 hours 58 min ago
Ah but taking pictures of things to defy the man (avoid a fine) is righteous. Taking pictures of people to grass on them to the cops (perhaps...
- ktache 5 hours 48 min ago
But getting paid for it is the very definition of professional....
- ktache 5 hours 56 min ago
Never had a Shimano QR fail on me. They just work. And the top end ones look good too....
- Backladder 6 hours 42 min ago
If you're only looking at the guy in front of you then you're going to crash whatever brakes you have, you need to look beyond them to anticipate...
- jaysa 7 hours 8 min ago
As a woman, this works great for me! My chain broke once, and a kind guy stopped with a chain breaker and sorted it all out for me. We stopped at a...
- andystow 7 hours 59 min ago
Same. I also have gone through a bunch of their tyres, and only the extralight disappointed (torn sidewall) but the standards are fantastic....
- chrisonabike 9 hours 57 min ago
Indeed - but it's no more inconsistent than our current road design - very often UK high streets are "for shopping" and also a busy through route....
- mike the bike 11 hours 27 min ago
If you ask the world's leading economic commentators how many people have been rescued from abject poverty by capitalism the average answer would...
Add new comment
30 comments
First of all thank you for submitting the footage on behalf of all of us cyclists. If we keep going I hope that police forces will start to take drivers like this to court. As it is, a warning letter is far better than "no further action" which most of my early submissions received and it's better than "words of advice" which some of my more recent ones have lead to. The letter has been logged and if this particular driver repeats the behaviour I would hope the police will be less lenient next time.
I am afraid we will have to accept small steps in the right direction but I think we are heading in the right direction, especially since road.cc started asking the police for comments. I certainly hope so.
Those that I have submitted that have gone on to get a warning letter or more have all involved inconviniencing oncoming traffic.
The ones where it's just me getting buzzed by 40 or 50mph cars just go into the void...
I agree with the comment that it would really help if the closeness of the pass was visible in the video. If the camera were tilted the other way it would be crystal clear, but you can't see how close it is until the car is off in front and you lose the impact.
Just goes to show that cyclist safety << motorist inconvenience.
Meanwhile, kid on a scooter gets 4 months in prison.
Yes he was on the wrong side of the road, but the Merc that turns into the side road ought to have given way to a vehicle/pedestrian established in the carriageway and stopped, not carried on driving towards the danger!
The bus is a non-issue, it's up to the bus to wait until the carriageway is clear before turning, as it needs to occupy the other lane. What would the bus have done if the scooter had been a car?
Bonkers over-zealous use of the law - no wonder kids don't play in the streets anymore!
He is riding an illegal motorbike on the road dangerously. Yes, most of the danger is to himself but e-scooters are classed as motorvehicles the same as anything with a motor that can do upto and above 8mph unassisted. My mums mobility scooter needed lights, indicators and registered with the DVLA even though (but because) it could only do 8mph max.
Thats just another sign of politicians unwillingness to takle the problem. It ludicrous that I can pedal an Ebike lightly assisted up to 15.5 mph but that a slower mobility scooter needs dvla approval. Drop the requirement for everything that has a motor that's limited to 15.5 mph. If it's really essential add an 8mph band for under 17's to stop teenage loons hurting themselves and others.
It's not rocket science.
I suspect they need to rewrite lots to get scooters legal but not legalise most of the other things. Bikes pretty much come under the bike laws though as long as the speeds are limited and you need to pedal. Personally I think the scooters should have the same requirements as the mobility scooters. Limited to single figure speeds if going to be allowed on pavements etc.
There are more details here - https://www.huntspost.co.uk/news/crime/e-scooter-narrow-miss-with-bus-83...
He has previous convictions:
I suspect he's well known to the police as a trouble maker. Maybe he's evaded punishment for other suspected offences, but once he got on an e-scooter they were like, right, we've got yer now! Even worse than TWOC'ing your mum's Fiesta!
Well it's Cheshire police up to their old tricks again, bless 'em.
Like Nelson putting a telecope to his blind eye "I see no ships....."
Do you know what? I would have given the rozzer's the benefit of the doubt if they had said - honestly mate - no-one will convict with that video, its all cock eyed and it doesnt show the close pass clearly.
Its the mealy-mouthed justifications that really make me fume.
If it takes 2 hrs to do a submission you're doing it very wrong indeed.
However the police response here is telling - the main consideration appears to be whether another motorist is inconvenienced rather than that a cyclist is forced off the road to save their skin. Depressing.
2 hrs is not unreasonable imo. Extract clips from camera(s). Edit down to 3-4 mins. Faff around with compression/video quality. Spend ages on submission site.
agreed, it takes me about 2hrs all told to do a submission as well, its why I pick only the really bad ones to do, but my time is spent more checking, double checking and triple checking the details, so youve got the right street/road of where you were, right vehicle details, right time & date, youve provided enough detail about the "incident" you are reporting, filled in all the fields on the submission form properly, my camera records in 5min segments so I just upload the raw file
Depends if the 2 hours includes upload time and the speed of connection.
"I accept the van could of ..."
It's '...could have..'
A lack of a grasp of basic grammar displays a lack of education but apparently not a lack of legal expertise.
So, if they don't consider it strong enough evidence for prosecution, why don't they send a warning letter that their driving caused considerable fear for safety in the cyclist?
Probably because the driver would react with a fist pump. Isn't this what they are trying to achieve? Driving cyclists off the roads because they (mistakenly) believe this will benefit them.
Well, that's why the police need to adjust some drivers' attitudes.
I just think that a pointless letter stating "you have succesfully intimidated some cyclists, don't do it again" helps with shifting these attitudes.
Possibly, but I'd rather the police actually act on video evidence rather than doing nothing. Once they get into the habit of working with cyclists/drivers who submit video evidence of poor/inconsiderate/dangerous driving, then maybe the police will realise that it's a great way of getting the public to do most of the job for them and they just have to process the paperwork.
Today, a warning letter and maybe tomorrow prosecution rather than nothing today and nothing tomorrow.
"I accept the van could of caused the mini to slow / move position but it would not justify prosecution"
So the police are saying if the mini driver had been more inconvienenced then it would justify prosecution, but the fact that the rider felt compelled to stop in order to preserve her life doesn't. Beggars belief, but we hear it time and time again.
it would not justify prosecution
When the police decide they can't be bothered to prosecute nothing justifies prosecution as far as they're concerned. They then put a great deal of time and effort into justifying not doing anything. We see on the Dame Sarah Storey/ Inspector Kevin Smith topic the comment about 'some drivers don't realise there is no loophole to allow crossing unbroken white lines while overtaking 10+ mph cyclists'. Lancashire Constabulary certainly doesn't realise that, because all these cases get NFA'd immediately. I realise you've all had to put up with this several times before, but this is the one that the original Lancashire TacOps officer and the Detective Sergeant writing on behalf of the laughable Professional Standards department decided required verification by video from the offending vehicle which happened to not exist, so they couldn't do anything. They haven't repeated that dodge but they're still NFA-ing them with no explanation (usually, it's no response at all)
Err, I think that's the exact opposite of what the police are saying here.
The response goes through all the possible offences that could have been commited: a close pass, or passing too close to the blind bend.
The mention of how the mini might have had to slow is to indicate that the pass may be quite poor in it's impact on other road users, but the officer is saying the inconvenience to the mini driver does NOT qualify for prosecution.
And i agree with the assessment of the close pass. If you freeze frame, the van doesn't look that close at it's nearest approach, but of course without a view of the wheels you can't see for sure. The speed of the cut-in certainly shows that the pass was reckless (too fast), but it's not clear there's enough to prosecute here.
Probably was a close pass but the footage does not show that to the neutral (or perhaps those yet to be inititated in the close pass club. Maybe we could have an equivalent to the primary club tie) observer.
Looks like a drift ghost X or XL which allows the lens to be rotated to allow a level shot and the side of the camera has a rotating disk which allows a change on the Y axis to get a better view.
Try a few adjustments - as GMbasix says, 'There is too much sky in the photo'.
Sadly I can see where they are coming from
However, there is clearly enough evidence to support the prosecution of the Officer for the use of "could of"
I have no doubt that this is a close pass, but equally, I can see that I would have no chance of convincing somebody on a jury/bench who did not experience this on a fairly frequent basis.
The problem is that there are few-to-no reference points that make a reliable, objective assessment of the proximity.
It is worth spending time ensuring that a helmet camera picks up some key details, such as the ground in front of the bike, and the front wheels of both the bike and the passing vehicle.
There is too much sky in the photo (nice weather, btw), everything above mid-way in the screen is unnecessary, at the expense of useful data in the foreground.
It doesn't help that it is all at a jaunty angle: either the camera could do with re-positioning, or the bezel needs to be rotated, if it has one.
Still, as I say, we can see what happened. It is within the discretion of a uniformed officer to send an advisory letter at least, or even to consider a s59 warning: the oncoming vehicle was clearly either inconvenienced into slowing down, or was already travelling so slowly that it was only that luck that prevented a greater conflict as the van passed.
Very helpful comments. Thanks.
Agreed, I make sure to mount my handle bar camera is such a way to get part of the right drops in the frame which makes easy to see just how close some passes are
So ... are they looking at this from the perspective of how it affects the oncoming vehicle and not how it affects the cyclist? That would actually explain a lot.
Also ... "could of". Give me strength!