- 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
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Near Miss of the Day 501 (UPDATED): HGV driver said he had to cut corner because of fast oncoming traffic
*Update (November 24): The driver has been suspended by his firm, pending further investigation*
*Update (December 4): The driver has left the firm following a disciplinary process*
Today’s breath-taking near miss sees the driver of a builder’s merchants lorry cutting the corner when turning into a side road and almost flattening a cyclist in the process. The manoeuvre itself is only half the story however.
The incident occurred on Thursday on Stoke Road in Sonning Common, at the junction with Gravel Hill.
Secret_squirrel writes: “I had some new kit arrive – ironically a fluoro gilet – and an hour to kill so I thought I would take it for a test ride. Turns out all the fluoro or lights in the world means nothing if the driver doesn’t look or has some very iffy looking wing mirrors.”
Secret_squirrel said that even after he stopped and shouted, the driver continued, forcing him to get out of the way.
“When I challenged him on his driving, he replied that his view had been blocked by the silver deflectors on his wing mirrors, and that he had to turn quickly as the oncoming traffic tended to be fast.
“After exchanging a few more words, he left without leaving any contact details.”
Secret_squirrel has submitted the footage to Thames Valley Police and also to the business in question. He was told that the firm would investigate which driver was involved and get back to him.
“The white 4x4 driver was really nice,” he added, “as was a lady from a nearby house who offered me a cup of tea.”
> 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
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- Laz 1 hour 3 min ago
hopefully, that will be the last time we see that van in drivable condition
- Nick T 2 hours 19 min ago
Come again chief? The Tarmac in size 56 has a 73.5 degree HTA, the Addict in the same size comes in at 73.4 degrees. In terms of bike fit that's...
- TheBillder 4 hours 1 min ago
My new double glazed wooden framed sash windows are £1600 plus vat per (quite large) window. House built in 1904. The cost includes fitting and...
- galibiervelo 4 hours 17 min ago
We promote #bikefriday You dont need it - go for a spin. Nice bikes and kit are lovely, but not as noice as a dawn spin this friday morning with a...
- David9694 4 hours 20 min ago
Council acting like ‘the Sheriff of Nottingham’ with parking charges...
- David9694 4 hours 24 min ago
Man taken to hospital after vehicle crashes into pub...
- David9694 4 hours 34 min ago
Car flips in Millennium Way, Sheerness, near former Aldi supermarket that reopens as Home Bargains this weekend...
- RoubaixCube 5 hours 3 min ago
Ive been using the same £2-3 dish brush I bought from wilko, tesco or pound land for as long as I can remember. I dont understand why anyone would...
- S.E. 6 hours 39 min ago
I'm thinking CX tyres...
Add new comment
75 comments
I have had reason to buy new "door mirrors" for my cars on a few occasions (mostly local drunks deciding that pulling off a few is an appropriate way to liven up their stagger home in the early hours) ... and the manufacturers parts catalogues often list them as wing mirrors.
I am a Computer Science teacher and therefore prone to being over-pedantic, but seriously ... just give this one up.
I always fold back the mirrors of vehicles parked up on footpaths.
Ah, the top of Gravel Hill. I've had to wait for the bus opposite there a couple of times, it's almost a 180degree turn. You're guaranteed to see a few near misses if you hang around there for a few minutes.
If you can't see round the corner, wait until there is plenty of time and proceed slowly with caution. Shouldn't be difficult for a professional driver who has passed HGV tests!
FYI: It's Stoke Row Road. Exactly as posh as it sounds.
That massive fence is not helping visibility either. I wonder what favours were called in for that to get planning permission.
With it not being right next to the road, if it's not more than 2m high (which appears to be the case) then no permission is required.
I would consider that next to the road. Look at the difference in visibility between 2011 and 2019...
If it faces the highway, which it does, anything higher than 1m needs planning permission, and I can't see Highways recommending that be granted, given the obvious obtruction to visibility. Not too late for someone to make a complaint to Planning Enforcement.
I beleive that if it is more than a metre from the highway, it can be 2m high without planning permission - within a metre, it requires planning permission if it is over 1m. So if that bit of grass were a pavement (i.e. part of the highway), then it would need planning permission for a fence over 1m.
The chances of Oxfordshire County Council, as the transport authority, objecting to anything as part of a planning consent, are miniscule. They just don't. That leaves the planning authority - in this case South Oxfordshire District Council - unable to object to a planning request on transport grounds, even if the district councillors on the committee (who are likely to include people who cycle) know how dangerous the new build will be. In my neck of the woods we have had new drives from new houses put on blind bends because of the uselessness of the county.
The assumption that better visibility will reduce danger is not correct. There is a lovely story about a helpful houseowner trimming his hedge to help drivers who had to stop and look before they could pull out at a junction. Result? The drivers glanced as they approached, barely slowed down and there were repeated collisions. This was also borne out at a roundabout where there had been multiple collisions, so the council installed baffle plates to restrict vision; collisions dropped dramatically.
The problem here was the driver's failure to observe, nothing to do with the visibility.
You are assuming the fence was put up with planning permission.. my educated guess would be it just got put up, going on my long experience with the sense of entitlement most people have.
As I recall - I may be mis-remembering. The fence was put up after the garden it surrounds was sold off as a building plot. I may be wrong - half a dozen new houses have been built in and around that patch.
ok now i dont feel so guilty about buying a 9th camera. That could have been fatal.
That was shockingly bad driving, good job you managed to get him to stop.
Why is this video up if it has been submitted to the police?
Why is this video up if it has been submitted to the police?
Because this police dodge that they 'can't accept it as evidence' if it has been made public is complete tripe, like all the other dodges like 'we must have 5 minutes before and after or th video in unacceptable'. They're all just ways of avoiding work.
Even if you think it is tripe why would you do it? It's not like it is out of your control in the way +/-2 minutes is
It had occurred to me to wait, but tbh my preference is that their site deals with it so fingers crossed they do. If the police pay them a visit that's a bonus. Plus I found creating the video for Road.cc somewhat more therapeutic than filling in the TVP form.
Abiut the only thing I regret not doing is lifting the bike to catch the drivers face on camera. C'est la vie.
Certainly with the Met (in my experience) having posted on social media at the same time as submitting to the police isn't a problem. When they send an email saying they intend to send a Notice of Intended Prosecution to the driver they ask you to take it down from any social media, they don't say if it's been on social media we can't proceed.
well certainly in the Mets case they often deal with cases where video footage evidence has been broadcast on national tv before theyve pursued a prosecution, so Im always slightly dubious that its a strict legal requirement
Certainly with the Met (in my experience) having posted on social media at the same time as submitting to the police isn't a problem
Any police force that uses that as an excuse for doing nothing clearly has 'doing nothing' as its main aim in life. If they didn't have that, they would just dream up some other excuse: many will recall the Essex Police designation of a serious close pass as insignificant because the cyclist hadn't wobbled or braked. This would have been hilarious if the matter wasn't so serious- what Essex Police want is cyclist blood on the road. What they mean by wobble is 'can you prove he actually hit you', and what they would say if you did wobble after being hit by the mirror, say, is 'there is insufficient evidence that the vehicle directly caused the wobble'. When it comes to stupid assertions and statements, the police are hard to beat. I have an extensive list from Lancashire- pity we don't have a Stupid Police Statement of the Day.
Why shouldn't it?
You don't think this video is in the public's interest that may help save lifes?
'Essex Police will review your submission in line with current prosecution policies and the decision on how the matter is dealt with is final. Although Essex Police Staff are not able to discuss the outcome from your submission you can view its progress on the SERP website.
Unfortunately if the evidence submitted has been posted on any social media sites or you tube then we regret that we will be unable to process your submission as the it will have been compromised.'
I know some say it is all bollocks but why make it more difficult?
The problem with that policy is that it might not be the crime victim that has posted it onto social media. The obvious way to play the system would be to run a dashcam and if you perform a dangerous maneouvre, just upload your own footage onto YouTube and ensure that the police do nothing.
I wonder if the same policy applies to robbing banks? Free money and a bank-robbing channel might even be popular.
My understanding is that this all boils down to the potential for media exposure to influence a fair trial (as jurors may be influenced by what they see/hear on the media rather than relying solely on the evidence presented in court).
Assuming this is the case (and I might be wrong, so feel free to correct me), then it does certainly seem ridiculous that any police force could conclude that a video being present on youtube means it would be impossible to find jurors who had not been influenced (cf. being reported on national news TV), let alone that they won't even bother investigating further or issuing a NIP.
The thing is that close passes are extremely unlikely to go in front of a juror as the video evidence is usually clear cut (despite all the differing views that we often have with NMOTD). Even if it does go to a trial, it's easy enough to ask potential jurors if they have prior knowledge of it.
When I chatted with an Avon & Somerset officer after a minor collision, I asked him about whether I should post it here as a NMOTD and he was fine with it and didn't anticipate any problem (I subsequently posted it).
One of the worst cases of dangerous driving I have seen, well below the standard of a careful and competent driver and don't let Thames Valley Police pretend otherwise. Be sure to update us with the result.
Amazing how quickly it was that the mass pile up of vehicles occured.
"My mirrors don't show what is round a corner behind a hedge - how could I know what was there ?"
I know the junction, it's terrible. I can see how this happened, but a quick move of the head to look past the mirror (and maybe not rushing to beat oncoming traffic) and it could/should have been completely avoided. Not looking for cyclists sometimes means not actually seeing them.
Pages