- 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 1 sec ago
Hmm - cylinders of plastic filled with a paint-eating solvent, maybe?
- mdavidford 6 min ago
Seems probably even more appropriate than what I originally intended.
- slc 1 hour 18 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 2 hours 18 min ago
I like how youre using a Mojito X to advertise an Mojito 3
- Basemetal 2 hours 39 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 2 hours 54 min ago
“jumped-up, arrogant” cyclists motorists causing “carnage” and posing a risk to pedestrians everyone else. Fixed it ..........
- chrisonabike 3 hours 4 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 6 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 4 hours 17 min ago
But whAT aboUT thE disable d? (Foreground left - pretty faded)
Add new comment
202 comments
I sent some footage of three close passes to NY Police last week and got an email saying 'positive action'. Now we all know that means a letter, or a course, or maybe[not] points etc. The thing is the footage I sent, close passes with one at high speed, are no way near as bad as some nutter reversing at high speed in order to try and get you, let alone force another vehicle off the road and kill a dog. This shows that the procedure for evaluating footage has too much noise. Different people should not give wildly different outcomes if a proper process is followed. It really does make me think that whoever makes these decisions, or a least some of those who do, are not fit for work of any kind.
Agree but maybe you've some false expectations? There are many things in the UK connected with road safety - or actually just "policing" full stop - which end up delivering a such a range of outcomes the process seems amateurish. Note - that's not to say that those delivering it are incompetent.
Editorialising, I think at a higher level this reflects not just the actual priority given to these officially rather than the rhetoric ("delivering safer streets" / "prioritising walking and wheeling"). It's in the broader UK culture. It's not just "wooliness" - the UK can certainly produce world-ranking rule-obsessed officious jobsworths. We seem addicted to the model of "plucky individual / local groups" snatching a small victory though, rather than the more prosaic "getting efficient bureaucracy (if that isn't a contradiction in terms) to achieve clearly specifed tasks as standard". Yet we don't expect that approach with motor transport (there is the odd exception).
Quite incredible response from the police in this incident.
This is one of the few ones I will not watch. However, get it to the RSPCA and the newspapers if the Police don't want to do anything. The first might actually prosecute this, you never know, but if there is anything the Public hate, it is un-neccesary injury to animals. So get the publicity out there.
Unbelievable response from N Y police!
Taking this to the PCC is a waste of time, he should be making an appeal to a superior officer. Mind you, I already suspect that the driver is a member of the same lodge as the investigating officer.
If a driver can be triggered to do something so dangerous by a simple warning shout, then they are not mentally capable of driving safely and should be removed from the road.
As for shouting "Watch out" when the driver was clearly not taking care around a vulnerable road user and saying it was road rage; literally incredible. What was he supposed to do, ring his bell?
After trying several versions of the registration, it turns out to be MM18VDP, so if anyone sees it, make sure to stay well clear and under no circumstances drag your pedal along the bodywork or kick a door panel.
Taking this to the PCC is a waste of time, he should be making an appeal to a superior officer
The latter is a waste of time as well, but Lancashire PCC actually advertises : if you have reported something to the police and are dissatisfied with the response, write to the PCC. I have loads of 'no response at all' so I sent some in for a laugh. After 3 weeks I received the 'we apologise for the delay, we'll look iinto it' letter:
I have forwarded your concerns onto a member of the Safer Roads team to look into further and provide me with some feedback. I will provide you with an update when I have received a response
This response will simply be a relaying of whatever ridiculous lies the police have conjured up.
Given the disparity in response from various police forces, with some seemingly wilfully ignoring close passes, I wonder if badgering Cyling UK to take this on - a few well placed prosecutions of chief constables for Misconduct in Public office (max sentence life imprisonment) might motivate them.
I am wondering if having a kitty or getting a bulk enquiry account with AskMID.com would be worth it.
If you pay a tenner you can get the insurance details for MM18VDP and then call their insurer and report the incident. Not sure how much difference it would make other than possibly leading to them highering their premiums or not insuring them in the future.
Might be interesting to highlight to the insurance company how one of their customers drives.
i do wonder if there is money in a business bringing private prosecutions for this sort of stuff.
Where there's blame...
I don't think i'd feel happy about a Saul Goodman representing me but at the same time I do feel like the response from the police is enough to illicit me seeking out legal help.
AskMID.com should be used with care.
The free insurance check is only for owners or drivers of said vehicle and the paid service is only if you have suffered loss in an 'accident'. You could find yourself in legal trouble if it's used for other purposes although I think this is unlikely.
I have a friend who uses it when reporting incidents to the Police if there is no tax or MOT.
Statement to Police; "This vehicle has no MOT or tax and so I assume it has no insurance as well but I do not have access to that information so I'm sure you will check for yourselves."
Definitely a friend though obviously as I would never dream of being that sneaky! Ahem.
Yes, from a legal standpoint the rider in the video would need to submit the request for the info as he is the cyclist involved in the incident.
This is the terms of use:
"I confirm that I am a person or body corporate resident in the United Kingdom claiming to be entitled to compensation in respect of any loss or injury resulting from an accident caused by or arising out of the use of the above UK vehicle within the last seven years. I understand that it is an offence to wrongfully obtain information of this nature without reasonable cause and if I fail to provide true reasons for requiring information I may be committing an offence of unlawfully obtaining data contrary to section 170 of the Data Protection Act 2018. I also hereby confirm that the information provided will not be used for any purposes unrelated to the purposes of this enquiry. I agree that my receipt of such information will be subject to the Terms of Use as stated on this website."
To clarify you can check if a car is on the MID without needing to submit any info it's the actual insurer of the reg that requires you to enter name and email address.
There has not been a loss or injury AFAIK but mental health issues arising from seeing the aftermath of a dog getting ran over could well be likely depending on the person.
Awful response by the police.
The 'watch out' wasn't a contributory factor, but a warning that their driving was dangerous which they then went on to prove without a doubt that they need some serious re-training in how to drive.
Where do you begin with this?!
I better stop shouting "You f***ing c***" at every close pass. (Which I know I shouldn't do, but in the moment, it's impossible, for me).
Well done to the OP for reporting it and then taking it further. I really hope something comes out of it, but the cynic in me thinks its just a stalling tactic in the hope you'll give up.
That was definitely a close pass. But the reversing afterwards? Holy cow!
Some people think NMOTD is making things worse for cyclists. They are almost as bad as those that commit the close passes.
I'd be tempted to put it on Facebook about the dog as has been suggested. And then hit them with the punchline at the end, that could have been me, but I'm a cyclist so it doesn't matter about me.
That's an appalling incident. I'd suggest contacting the dog owner and showing that person the footage.
Do you think the dangerous driver and the dog owner know each other?
It's hard to say, maybe, maybe not. I don't know what the driver said to the dog owner after the incident as an excuse either. But if I was the dog owner and saw that video, I'd be pretty angry. It's very clear what happened from the footage. Whether or not the two people know each other, the dog owner should see the footage. It'd make for some tough talking.
My other take away from this is this particular driver was happy to use their car as a weapon against another human being, all for expecting them to slow down a little on a narrow country road.
But after hitting the dog the driver is out of the car, sat at the side of the road full of remorse. Do you think the driver would have been showing the same remorse had he succeeded in crashing into the cyclist? I think not.
I disagree.
I'm sure their lawyer would be informing the magistrate / judge of their remorse. *
* If the police passed it to the CPS and if they decided to take it to court. And if the case actually went against the driver. If...
Pretty sure the guy sitting at the side of the road looking forlorn is the quad bike rider / dog's owner.
I've just watched the rear view a second time and i reckon he's run over his own dog.(not that it makes it better).
Looks like 2 farm workers or farmer/worker both dashing off between fields.Something you often see.
Yes, it's quite possible the quad rider and the driver of the car know eachother. Perhaps that's one reason the police are taking no action, as maybe they don't want to press charges or appear as a witness against the other for the collision with the poor dog.
It shouldn't stop them taking action for the close pass and reversing though.
Not the brightest if they knew their Co-worker & dog are travelling shortly behind them but still did that insane reversing manoeuvre.
I was about to make a comment about the 4x4 drivers knowledge (or otherwise) that his mate (or otherwise) on the quad was close behind, with the intention (or otherwise) of trapping the cyclist or forcing the cyclist into a head on collision (or otherwise), but realised it might be prejudicial.
I would get this all over the Craven Herald/Yorkshire Post if the Police don't take action.
Having said I wouldn't watch it, I did. I think the dog was thrown off the quad bike swerving out of the way, the dog instinctively jumped to regain its footing, unfortunately into the path of the car that caused the quad bike to leave the road. I suspect the curve in the road played a part, especially as the quad bike would have held the inside line past the cyclist.
I could only bring myself to watch it once. I think the dog was bounced out of the quad due to it being driven at speed on uneven ground? One big bounce of the back wheels and presumably you will get thrown off the back of a quad unless you're holding on.
Both drivers are still out there presumably doing similar things. And everyone else sees videos like this one, sees that no action is taken, and we continue on where it's acceptable to drive like this.
I think I would get thrown off too.
Ah, so the old "in too much of a hurry to drive safely, but enough spare time to stop and attack a cyclist" chestnut...
Sadly I think you'd get more response - and certainly massively more public outrage - by posting this as "driver callously runs over dog while reversing". Animal abuse in the UK is often a trigger for people.
This is one of the more psychologically worrying incidents I've seen here. The guy was reversing at high speed for a distance down a country lane - and ran someone else off the road. I know some people get good at reversing and local roads but to me that could only signal "I've lost it, I'm now going to hit you and damn everything else".
No doubt a contrarian will be along soon saying "maybe the driver had dropped a contact lens / thought the rider had shouted for assistance and was reversing at speed to assist them as soon as possible".
Could anyone with more legal knowledge explain why the police felt there wasn't enough here? Otherwise it looks like "no human blood on road, no harm" to the point of negligence. Or even "crooked cops".
Pages