Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Near Miss of the Day 806: Driver escapes punishment after reversing at cyclist and running over dog

Update: North Yorkshire Police concluded that the motorist “probably just wanted to speak” to the cyclist following the close pass, and advised the cyclist “not to shout in future”

Update, 09/09/2023: The driver of a 4x4 who close passed a cyclist on a country lane before reversing back down the road towards him, hitting a dog in the process, has escaped punishment after North Yorkshire Police “carefully considered” footage of the shocking incident. Instead, the motorist was given road safety advice from officers “in order to prevent further incidents”, while the cyclist was allegedly advised “not to shout in future”.

In the immediate aftermath of the incident (which can be viewed below, and in our original Near Miss of the Day feature at the bottom of this update), the police told road.cc reader Peter that “no traffic offences were committed” and that the cyclist had contributed to the driver’s decision to reverse by shouting “watch out!” following the close pass, an act the officer said constituted ‘road rage’.

Following that rather unsatisfactory verdict, Peter lodged a complaint with the North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner, who conducted a review into the incident. According to the chief inspector, the review concluded that “the initial decision was wrong and that an investigation is in fact required.”

However, Peter has since told road.cc that “the new investigation ended disappointingly in the same place as the initial peremptory response”.

According to Peter, the blame for the motorist’s collision with the dog was pitted on the driver of the quad bike (and presumably the dog’s owner), who was found to have been driving “too fast” at the time of the incident, as well as failing to have properly secured the dog or registered his vehicle. North Yorkshire Police told road.cc that the quad bike rider has not been identified, and that it is currently unclear what happened to the dog.

Peter says that he was told by phone that no blame was placed on the 4x4 driver, with the officer allegedly telling the cyclist that the motorist was reversing because he “probably just wanted to speak” to him.

Meanwhile, Peter claims that he was also “advised not to shout in future” during similar incidents.

A spokesperson for North Yorkshire Police told road.cc: “Officers carefully considered the video footage of the incident, and spoke to the driver of the Kuga and the cyclist.

“However, despite extensive enquiries, the rider of the quad bike has not been identified, and it is not known what happened to the dog seen in the video.

“The driver of the Kuga was given advice about road safety in order to prevent further incidents.

“The safety of all road users is a priority for North Yorkshire Police. We urge anyone who witnesses driving offences on our roads to contact us. Footage from a dashcam, CCTV or a passenger’s mobile phone can be sent to us – search for ‘Op Snap’ on our website.”

You can read the original Near Miss of the Day article below:

This is one of the most shocking submissions we have had to our Near Miss of the Day series, with the driver of a 4x4 making a close pass at a cyclist on a country lane and, when the rider remonstrated, reversing back down the road towards him, forcing a quadbike rider to swerve and running over a dog that had been travelling on it.

Incredibly, North Yorkshire Police decided not to act on the footage, citing among other things that the cyclist had contributed towards the sequence events by shouting at the driver to “watch out!” The cyclist, road.cc reader Peter, has now raised a complaint with the North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner.

The incident happened on the morning of Tuesday 5 July 2022 on Orcaber Lane near Austwick, in the south west corner of the Yorkshire Dales National Park. The incident starts at 1 minute 7 seconds into this video, shot from a rear-facing camera.

“I reported this incident to North Yorkshire Police,” Peter told us. “Their response, in a telephone call, was ‘no traffic offences were committed’ and that they would take no action.

“Briefly, they described my shouting ‘watch out’ as an oncoming wide SUV passed me at a speed I felt was too fast for a single-track country lane as ‘road rage’ and a contributory factor in the driver then reversing at speed towards me.

“I was saved from the encounter I feared by his running over a dog that fell from a quad bike that he forced off the road.”

Reversing a vehicle is covered by Rules 200-203 of the Highway Code.

Rule 202 says, among other things, that drivers should:

Look carefully before you start reversing. You should … check there are no pedestrians (particularly children), cyclists, other road users or obstructions in the road behind you … reverse slowly …

Rule 203 says:

You MUST NOT reverse your vehicle further than necessary.

“Given the police response, I am contacting the Police and Crime Commissioner with my concerns that the response indicates a worrying lack of concern with improving safety for vulnerable road users,” Peter continued.

“I think that my intuition that this driver was dangerous when he passed me was vindicated by his subsequent dangerous behaviour. I had expected that he would at least receive a warning from the police that this kind of behaviour is not acceptable.”

He added: “I pointed out to the PCC that the York and North Yorkshire Road Safety Partnership Safer Roads Strategy 2021-26 states that ‘Pedal cyclists account for a high and increasing proportion of all KSIs over the last five years’.”

As for the dog – which we suspect from the footage may be a working border collie given the prevalence of sheep farming in the area – Peter told us: “It seemed immobile but the two drivers didn’t seem to want to speak with me so I left without knowing whether it was dead or alive.”

Here’s the footage from his front-facing camera:

> 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.

Add new comment

202 comments

Avatar
Bungle_52 | 2 years ago
8 likes

Firstly thanks to Peter for taking the time and effort to submit the footage in the first place and then to chase it up.

Secondly it seems that not all PCCs are a waste of time if it was indeed the PCC that got this reviewed.

I look forward to reading the result of the investigation..

Avatar
OldRidgeback | 2 years ago
0 likes

And about time too. 

Avatar
Jenova20 | 2 years ago
1 like

I have to wonder if this decision would have ever been changed if the media hadn't kicked up a fuss over this. The Daily Mail did pick this up and publicise it a few days after NMOTD.

Avatar
wtjs | 2 years ago
5 likes

According to the chief inspector, the review concluded that “the initial decision was wrong and that an investigation is in fact required.”

I have seen these 'shut this complaint down with a pretend investigation' dodge before. I think that the 'review' will result in no action whatsoever against anybody, but there will be some bollocks about lessons being learned for the future. I await being corrected for undue pessimism- after the 'result' has been released

Avatar
David9694 | 2 years ago
3 likes

Any further news on this - one of the most concerning stories of driver behaviour we've had in a while?

Avatar
Sriracha | 1 year ago
11 likes
Quote:

Update, 09/09/2023:...

Bizarre. How does the reason (wanting to speak to the cyclist) suspend the authority of the Highway Code, and indeed the law, as regards reversing a motor vehicle. Driver could have got out and walked, no?

Avatar
IanMSpencer | 1 year ago
15 likes

It seems the police are blaming the cyclist for abiding by the Highway Code, which expressly stated that you should call out to other road users to let them know you are there, there is no specified form of words, but "Watch out" seems the most suitable form I can think of, polite, measured, but urgent - 66.

be considerate of other road users... ... . Let them know you are there when necessary, for example, by calling out

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82

Avatar
Hirsute | 1 year ago
9 likes

Institutionally biased.

Avatar
David9694 | 1 year ago
11 likes

staggering stuff - the police are tying themselves up in knots to not take any action against Mr High Speed/ long-distance reverse and to place blame on innocent parties.  And why too has Mr Quad Bike / dog owner disappeared from view? 

I'm not usually given to conspiracy stuff, but this all absolutely stinks - there is something pretty significant being covered up here. 

Avatar
HoarseMann | 1 year ago
13 likes

I've read that three times and it's still not quite sinking in.

How utterly ridiculous. Even if you were to accept that the driver just wanted a chat, there's no need for them to reverse in such a manner. They could just turn around at the next opportunity and easily catch up with the cyclist.

Avatar
leedorney | 1 year ago
10 likes

For this to get lost in beaurocracy is criminal in itself - that police had the Reg. so he should've been prosecuted for injury to the dog and probable injury to the cyclist as they're what he reversed at speed to do...who in the right mind does that! Guy needs banning from driving

Avatar
Muddy Ford | 1 year ago
14 likes

Fucking ridiculous, shame on you Yorkshire Police. This stinks of Freemasonry or maybe it's just the only legal hate crime allowed and haters will be haters. 

Avatar
AidanR | 1 year ago
14 likes

Because nothing says "I want to chat" like reversing 2 tons of metal at speed towards someone who has nowhere to escape to.

Avatar
Jimmy Ray Will | 1 year ago
11 likes

I for one can't believe that it would only be cyclists who are confused, disappointed, disgusted, by the police findings on this one.
Has the update of the investigation and the police response been pushed out to wider social media channels? This could be potentially very embarrassing for the boys in blue.
To blame everyone but the driver is absurd, and the line 'just wanting to chat' is patently ridiculous. This needs trial by media... get the pitch forks out!

Avatar
eburtthebike | 1 year ago
0 likes

"According to Peter, the blame for the motorist’s collision with the dog was pitted on the driver of the quad bike......"

Pitted on?  Is that English?

EDIT: Collins dictionary:

verb

Word forms: pits, pitting or pitted

17. (transitive; often foll by against) to match in opposition, esp as antagonists

18. to mark or become marked with pits

19. (transitive) to place or bury in a pit

Avatar
eburtthebike | 1 year ago
7 likes

Isn't this exactly the type of case the All Party Cycling Group are talking about in their report?  In any rational analysis by an objective person (like me for instance) this would be dangerous driving, and the fact that the cyclist shouted a warning would not be extenuating circumstances for the driver, but a clear condemnation of their attitude and hence their driving.

Avatar
wycombewheeler | 1 year ago
3 likes

So in the view of the police, telling someone they are drving dangerously is in fact the cause when they continue to drive dangerously.

I am baffled.

Also drivers "just wanting to speak with cyclists" often from moving vehicles driving far to closely is one of the scariest things that happen on the roads. I wonder if I barged into the police inspectors house waving a sword at him, if he would consider that "I just wanted to speak with him"

Avatar
peted76 | 1 year ago
3 likes

What a load of rubbish. Even IF they can't locate the driver of the quad, they have video evidence that someone reversed at speed without due care (regardless of the reasons for doing so). That's got to be worth a telling off letter surely..BUT no, they tell the cyclist that he caused it by shouting 'watch out' as the moton sped past.

 

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to Bungle_52 | 2 years ago
2 likes

If it is anything like the previous time a CI got involved, they will state after review of all available CCTV, the current ruling strands AND come and make a complaint if you are hard enough.

Avatar
Jimmy Ray Will replied to David9694 | 2 years ago
5 likes

I've had it on good authority that the cyclist is due in crown court next month, facing road rage charges. 

Additionaly, the cyclist is now fighting two civil claims, one from the quad driver, who is looking to recover damages relating to the death of the dog. The driver of the 4x4 is also claiming compensation for the mental anguish of being forced to run over the dog in the first place. 

All in all, on this occasion it looks as though justice will thankfully be done. B@$+A7d, rat faced, tax dodging, fetishist paedo cyclists! 

Avatar
wtjs replied to wtjs | 1 year ago
17 likes

wtjs wrote:

According to the chief inspector, the review concluded that “the initial decision was wrong and that an investigation is in fact required.”

I have seen these 'shut this complaint down with a pretend investigation' dodge before. I think that the 'review' will result in no action whatsoever against anybody, but there will be some bollocks about lessons being learned for the future. I await being corrected for undue pessimism- after the 'result' has been released

Pretty impressive prescience from me a year ago. Pretend investigation by the PCC, resulting in support of the original police decision. Blaming the victim because shouting 'watch out' is road rage. If you're not all disgusted, although not surprised, by the police and PCC, you should be!

Avatar
Secret_squirrel replied to David9694 | 1 year ago
13 likes

David9694 wrote:

staggering stuff - the police are tying themselves up in knots to not take any action against Mr High Speed/ long-distance reverse and to place blame on innocent parties.  And why too has Mr Quad Bike / dog owner disappeared from view? 

I'm not usually given to conspiracy stuff, but this all absolutely stinks - there is something pretty significant being covered up here. 

My pet theory. 

4x4 driver was the farmer, & Quad rider was farmhand or relation.

Dog was 4x4 drivers, carked it, and police quietly decided that "justice" had been done.

Filthy decision in my book.  Clear case of road rage and dangerous driving.

This is the sort of egregious failure to enforce the law that I'd love to follow up with a private prosecution.

Avatar
Hirsute replied to Jimmy Ray Will | 1 year ago
6 likes

Never underestimate dog lovers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn377v8e2m0o

I don't pretend to understand this love affair, only that it exists.

Avatar
brooksby replied to eburtthebike | 1 year ago
0 likes

eburtthebike wrote:

"According to Peter, the blame for the motorist’s collision with the dog was pitted on the driver of the quad bike......"

Pitted on?  Is that English?

EDIT: Collins dictionary:

verb

Word forms: pits, pitting or pitted

17. (transitive; often foll by against) to match in opposition, esp as antagonists

18. to mark or become marked with pits

19. (transitive) to place or bury in a pit

Typo for "pinned", maybe?

Avatar
Secret_squirrel replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 2 years ago
0 likes

Last one was a Chief Vagina stubble. CI's are a dime a dozen in comparison. 

Avatar
brooksby replied to Jimmy Ray Will | 2 years ago
1 like

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

... being forced to run over the dog in the first place. 

???  Seriously??

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to wtjs | 1 year ago
13 likes

Damn, and at the time I thought you were a little too cynical.

TBH I thought this might get somewhere mostly because of the dog, not the cyclist. Not even that.

Looks like your findings about the pointlessness of PCCs and the hopelessness of expecting the police to police themselves are pretty general sadly.

Avatar
David9694 replied to Secret_squirrel | 1 year ago
1 like

Some sort of relationship there, either pre-existing or possibly forged on the spot maybe also with money changing hands. 

Avatar
Jimmy Ray Will replied to brooksby | 2 years ago
4 likes

Oh I sincerely hope not! 

But as my old mother always says, 'many a true word is spoken in jest'

Avatar
wtjs replied to chrisonabike | 1 year ago
9 likes

Looks like your findings about the pointlessness of PCCs and the hopelessness of expecting the police to police themselves are pretty general sadly

The utter stupidity of responses by the police themselves and the PCC to complaints about the police may be imagined even if you have not experienced it yourself. I have mentioned previously such a complaint where the police claimed that they had to have confirmatory video (needless to say, my video was perfect) from the offending vehicle, but there was none so they couldn't do anything 

Pages

Latest Comments