A cyclist in Essex questioned the county's police force's decision to take no further action against a driver for a "pretty scary" close pass, the rider believing a "potentially lethal driver hasn't been challenged".
road.cc reader Julian is keen to point out he's generally "really positive" about the work of Essex Police and the Extra Eyes reporting portal, which allows third-party footage of roads incidents to be submitted for an officer to assess, but "just thinks in this case they called it wrong".
"Essentially, I'm passing a parked car, keeping clear of the door zone whilst being conscious there's another parked car which is why I didn't tuck back in," he recalled. "The vehicle passed within a few centimetres of me — pretty scary!"
Essex Police opted against taking any action against the driver in the clip, the force suggesting the prosecution would not have been secure due to the fact Julian could have moved to his left after passing the first parked vehicle. However, as he explained to us, this could have left him "boxed in".
As per Rule 67 of the Highway Code:
Take care when passing parked vehicles, leaving enough room (a door's width or 1 metre) to avoid being hit if a car door is opened, and watch out for pedestrians stepping into your path.
Julian was keen to tell us that while this report's outcome was disappointing, "I would like it acknowledged that I'm really positive towards Essex Police and the Extra Eyes portal, which I have used in the past and have always been really happy with the positive action.
"I just think in this case they called it wrong and a potentially lethal driver hasn't been challenged, not even an advice letter, for their (in my opinion) dangerous driving."
road.cc contacted Essex Police and we were told: "We understand it is disappointing when it is decided no further action will be taken. There are a number reasons why a particular case might not be progressed, described here: saferessexroads.org/extra-eyes/results/.
"In most cases where no further action (NFA) is taken, this is due to the strength of the evidence not meeting current guidance from the Crown Prosecutions Service and Forensic Science Service, which is needed to give a good chance of successful prosecution if challenged in court.
"These standards are designed to ensure limited resources and limited court spaces are used on the cases most likely to result in a conviction. While we can't process every example of careless driving, the continued support of the public is very much appreciated as without this support, a great many drivers committing clear offences would not be held to account."
> 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
Add new comment
21 comments
Perhaps slightly unrelated to this, but regarding video submissions to the plod - I have used the 'Operation Snap' portal for our local Old Bill (Cumbria), and the automated response is always along the line that they will not inform me of the result of my submission (unless they want me to attend court). Is this everyone else's experience of Snap?
I note the police in this instance have informed the cyclist, even though it's a depressingly familiar 'can't be arsed with it'. Is there a bit of a postcode lottery as to being informed about the outcomes of video submissions?
It is a classic impatient pass, it is never good to be on the receiving end of one of these as I always feel the driver has already decided to deliberately take a risk.
It might be flattering to think the driver has decided I am a competent cyclist and that I am not going to deviate from my line, or that there is the potential for me to move away from them if I want to, and that they are confident that they have the car control to drive past me in close proximity.
However I probably do not share their confidence in their driving since I have only just seen what they are doing, and I know how that a pothole is likely to make me want to deviate providing there is room.
a lot of discussion a=on whether the rider should have pulled in or not, surely the point is that they didn't, the driver should be driving based on what is actually in front of them, not what they or anyone else thinks should be in front of them. The rider didn't pull over, the driver chose to close pass them - careless driving
Not that it changes that Essex police were wrong on this. But the "gap" is a marked parking bay.
So pretend there are no cars parked there, where would you be positioned and cycling/driving, same spot on the road right ?
Because it's a parking bay.
Yes as we all know the first priority and instinct of a cyclist must be to keep out of the way of the road users.
Personally I have no trouble reading the inner thoughts and desires of every road tax paying citizen, and am able to weave in and out of parked cars and moving traffic seamlessly without disrupting the important business of my four wheeled lordships.
The very fact the cyclist was not able to do as I do is a sign of profound malevolence in their core being.
WTF was the point of that overtake? They were barely
91.44m100 yards from wider roads. Not a lot of traffic about (that makes people suddenly get more keen about getting ahead).Pure MGIF with zero further thought.
Driver probably works for Essex police.
I agree with the cops on this one. He had plenty of opportunities to move over without interrpution. I would assume (maybe incorrectly), that the rider was aware of the car up his jacksie and rather than de-escalate, chose to escalate by not moving over and being considerate, which is a common flaw in most. Honestly, it is not worth it. The law or darwin will catch-up with the jerk in the car sooner or later.
Meanwhile the driver will carry on scaring vulnerable road users until they take someone out (or longer perhaps). That'll teach the rider not to move over quick enough!
DON'T FEED THE TROLL
(every time someone replies to them, they nip off and have a crafty wank)
Ooof! someone with a different opinion to you and your drone cohorts is instantly a troll eh?. We all know this site is an echo-chamber for drones. Don't worry, once you grow up, you'll understand. I promise
Is Darwin a particularly well known vigilante?
Darwin (character)
I have been doored, but being slow as always, no big troubles happened. Unless drain grates exist, I hug the curbe and always try not to keep drivers behind me in an empty road. They can be either, sleepy, stupid or angry and neither is good.
Darwin is hard, but speaks the truth.
You do you but I'd recommend modifying that if sporadic parked cars mean you'll end up weaving in and out of traffic and potentially getting hidden by a parked van.
Also taking the primary at junctions is a good idea: if you have to cross paths with traffic your best bet is being as visible as you can.
Is this how you get all your extra miles in, constantly moving over and pandering to the impatient motorist behind you?
This is what I do. I also bow and lay my coat over any puddles should one be in their path.
Pulling over to the left between parked cars merely creates the problem of having to pull back out for the next parked car, which is generally more dangerous for the cyclist. Let's be clear - the driver is at fault here.
A lot of motorists do seem to expect cyclists to move out to overtake Parked Car 1, then move back in for a few seconds, then move out to pass Parked Car 2, etc etc.
Which is weird, because I've never seen a motorist drive like that…
Depends on the size of the gap between parked cars, but I would pull in to the left if I thought it was a safe place for a following driver to overtake. The point is that it's my decision to make and this particular driver either doesn't know how to drive safely or doesn't care. It's a disgrace that the police aren't even sending the driver a letter.
I agree, I would move over if I judge that there is a long enough gap between the parked cars for the car behind to overtake me at a legal speed and for me to be able to pull back out again without having to slow or stop. I think in the instance above it's certainly highly debatable that those conditions applied and the cyclist was justifiably concerned about being boxed in. In any case, as you very rightly say, it's the cyclist's decision; too many drivers – and police assessors – seem to hold the belief that "if safe to do so" means "If the driver thinks it's safe for you to do so", it doesn't, it's our lives at stake and so we decide when it's safe.