- 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 806_ Driver reverses at cyclist, runs over dog (rear view) 1-18 screenshotNear Miss of the Day 806: Driver escapes punishment after reversing at cyclist and running over dog
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.
Latest Comments
- brooksby 42 min 31 sec ago
So the choice appears to be safer, flexible wands which don't do anything to stop motorists driving over them to park, or more rigid, less safe...
- mdavidford 50 min 45 sec ago
Seems probably even more appropriate than what I originally intended.
- slc 2 hours 2 min ago
Credit to the author for attending the opposition meetings and trying to understand their concerns, but I agree with hp. There has been significant...
- RoubaixCube 3 hours 3 min ago
I like how youre using a Mojito X to advertise an Mojito 3
- Basemetal 3 hours 24 min ago
The PU dip on the palm and fingers is over the knitted nylon so not chilly in use, and the material is thick enough to provide some cushioning. It...
- Geoff H 3 hours 38 min ago
“jumped-up, arrogant” cyclists motorists causing “carnage” and posing a risk to pedestrians everyone else. Fixed it ..........
- chrisonabike 3 hours 49 min ago
Given that - at least in UK- we have a mostly flip-flop political system and parties in power eventually run out of credit with the electorate -...
- OldRidgeback 4 hours 51 min ago
If he'd been able to get hold of one of the rarer five speeds, it would've had a better choice of ratios. You can see it's got proper brakes, a big...
- David9694 5 hours 1 min ago
But whAT aboUT thE disable d? (Foreground left - pretty faded)
Add new comment
202 comments
He was driving too close, too fast for the conditions, met rather than passed the cyclist, got a reaction from the cyclist and then the red mist descended, he selected reverse with some level of malicious intent towards the cyclist.
He'd probably passed quad bike man a few minutes before and it was only running him off the road and running over the dog that stopped him in his tracks. We'll never know what he was intending to do, had he managed to catch up to the cyclist.
We've even seen events distorted on this thread such that quad man should have anticipated the possibility of a fast-reversing rage rover coming around the corner.
perhaps it's a bit free and easy quadding around the lanes with a loose dog on the back - just another sacrifice we've all had to make for cars.
Country folk can sometimes be proprietary about their area - because they're more actively involved with it or because they actually own it. (Add your disclaimers ad lib eg "the poor had no lawyers" in Scotland at least http://www.andywightman.com/poor-had-no-lawyers
).
There is - for better or worse - some more "relaxed" or nonstandard driving by urban standards. So all kinds of vehicles or as here dog on back of quad bike not in a cage. That is all debatable (I've no settled opinion). However I'm pretty sure the car driver here and any pals would break out their shotguns if you whizzed past their horse on a bike / in a car, then chased after them.
Apart from narrow busy A-roads I can't think of any problems I've had cycling in the countyside. I bet people are pleased I've not come in a car to run over their sheep / get stuck in their drystone wall.
'There is - for better or worse -'...Worse, no doubt about it:
To add to the anecdata I could offer:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-42661262
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-31484661
Until recently Google street view showed an example of 'relaxed' driving as a Land Rover (having exited from a nearby farm) veered way over the centre line very close to where Craig Armitage was sadly killed.
Proving an offence of careless or dangerous driving does not require the prosecution showing the driver had "malicious intent," whatever that is.
You may wish to read up on the law before getting in a motor vehicle again.
Exactly. Indeed, it doesn't even require them to have specifically endangered anyone - only that there was the potential for it to cause danger. Even if the quad bike had not been there at all, it would still have been an offence of dangerous driving.
TBF, I think what Jim is saying is that driving that simply shows the features of an offence without the context of other factors isn't likely to set the machinery of justice in motion, as we often see. Clearly though, that is not the case in this instance - but given that there are several aggravating factors, including the death of a dog, the lack of any action in this case is concerning.
You may wish to read comments without your blinkers on before you reply to them
Nowhere did I say or even imply that malicious intent was necessary for a prosecution for dangerous driving. I was merely pointing out that of the thousands of instances where there is evidence of dangerous driving, only a fraction of them progress to prosecution. That's the reality.
That's a plausible interpretation, but the police aren't using it - instead they're claiming that the insane reversing is a road rage response, but that it was a natural result of the cyclist shouting "watch out" and thus not something they can deal with.
Agreed that the police stance was ridiculous, but that doesn't mean that it would be the defence's argument in a court case.
If I had my way, the defence would have trouble coming up with an argument.
First question for a careless driving charge - would that driving be an insta-fail during a driving test? Yes.
Second question for a dangerous driving charge - does driving in reverse at high speed compromise control of the vehicle? Yes.
Bonus question for a driving ban - did someone or something get hit as a result of the driving? Yes.
You didn't write what you meant but I think you got it right. Although it looks like we've recently had a (partial?) contrarian clearout I'm not seeing anyone who thinks that this was anything other than dangerous / reckless. That includes you I suspect! I agree there are always excuses and for driving these seem to be taken at face value rather more than in other cases. If this did get to court no doubt we'd see some creative lawyering by the defence.
Still bothers me that the police did nothing other than blame the cyclist. I know it's paranoid thought but a couple of these have had the feel of "report something to the police and rather than try to track down the absent (driver) they might use the reporter to fill their quota".
The dog jumps off because the quadbike has been upended.
Possibly. However I like to think working dogs are smarter than that, and in this case the dog was caught out by the car behaving unusually, i.e. stopping and reversing. It seems most road traffic incidents are caused by "unusual" or unpredictable behaviour, and in this case impacts dogs also.
F**k off... That police response is beyond a joke. I'm relieved that the cyclist has taken further, that's an absolute piss take.
It's clear for all to see if it wasn't for the innocent dogs demise, it would have been someone else under those wheels.
I'd push this as far as I could, local MP, local press... The idea that the cyclist is to blame because they said 'watch out'... Literally f**k off.
^all of this.
Do NYP say a driver caused Road Rage if they've sounded their horn in response to dangerous driving? Thought not.
F**k all the way off. Twice.
Could be one of Ashley Neal's friendly toots just to let cyclists know they're there though...
Looking at this again, I think both of these drivers are as bad as each other. The quad rider is not without fault. That dog should have been restrained on the vehicle as advised in the highway code rule 57. It needs a licence plate to be legal for use on the road, so probably uninsured too. They were travelling far too quickly for that blind bend.
As for the car driver, well, I don't see how that wouldn't pass the threshold for dangerous driving.
The only thing I can think is the quad rider and driver are known to each other and the police have decided that the harm caused to the dog would be seen as a mitigation in any court case. Maybe they think they've had punishment enough and will have learnt a lesson? I would prefer they leave that decision to a court.
Exactly what I was thinking on rewatching. Off to the same job - gaffer in vehicle, worker and dog on the quad. Maybe even relatives?
Looking at this as charitably as I can it could be police saying "provocation by cyclist, 'country standard' driving gets a pass then it's a really bad day for the drivers, plus no other witnesses. NFA".
I hate to say this but give it to the Daily Heil website.
Whilst there will be inevitably some loons who will suggest the cyclists actions killed the dog, there's also a decent possibility that one of their psychotic readership will track down the driver......
They'll pick this up the second they spot it. They love cycling related stories because they generate clicks with little effort, and they can just slap a "who was at fault" headline on it.
Someone should forward it to them since this was actually help us get justice for the dog and cyclist if it gains media attention, regardless of the spin they put on it.
Or the Sun; they seem to have suddenly developed an interest in the safety of cyclists
"SILLY CYCLING Watch as cyclist with no helmet clings to HGV but falls off in front of traffic"
It's even got a helmet survey!
"Sun Poll Do YOU wear a helmet when cycling?
Yep, safety first
No, I really should
Can't peddle (sic) to save my life"
I wasn't able to take part as none of the options made any sense.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/19331585/watch-as-cyclist-with-no-helmet...
Personally I'd pick the last option - sales isn't really my thing.
The article says the following
and yet the cyclist fell onto his hands and knees - his head went nowhere near the road...
Nobody, but NOBODY should be clinging to an HGV without the protection of a cycle helmet.
Fixed it
Not quite - safety first, if it saves one life:
Any mode of transport, any time.
Although they do seem to be back on form with
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19344480/outraged-neighbours-house-demolis...
Utterly appalling behaviour.
I'd be willing to crowdfund a prosecution for dangerous driving or article 170 violation which would force the CPS to take over the case and prosecute the driver.
Then make a formal complaint asking it to be referred the police professional standards body for both the PC and their supervisors.
(disclaimer that's how it works in my head)
not sure why the RSPCA can't prosecute this, after all they seem able to bring their own prosecutions if a footballer kicks a cat, so why does killing a dog in a fit of rage not cross their threshold?
The rage wasn't directed at the dog, so the injury wasn't intentional. The police should deal with this, not the RSPCA.
Pages