- 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 808: Police force changes mind on warning letter to close pass driver (video includes swearing)
A police force which issued a driver with a warning letter after a “shocking” close pass, then told the cyclist on the receiving end that they would not engage with him on social media because he swore in the video, has reviewed its original decision with the driver given the option of an awareness course or conditional offer.
When road.cc reader Tony sent us the clip originally, he said: “This happened in Grays, Essex. Had just exited a roundabout and was reasonably far out from the kerb, Range Rover driver decides to overtake ignoring the oncoming traffic.
“They then drive closer to me, squeezing between myself and an oncoming vehicle, forcing me to swerve hard to my left to avoid being hit.”
However, Tony, who described the incident as “shocking driving,” was disappointed with Essex Police’s original response.
“You'd think this was a clear cut send out a NIP [Notice of Intended Prosecution] for the police, but nope, their response was to send a warning letter,” he explained.
“I've shared the video on Twitter calling out Essex Roads Policing, and yes I used some swearing in the tweet, their response on Twitter was, and I quote: ‘Once you remove the offensive language we will engage with you, but not via this platform’.
“I can usually brush off close passes quite easily, but this one actually left me quite shaken for several hours,” Tony continued.
“I fully intend to raise an official complaint regarding the outcome and then appeal to the PCC [Police and Crime Commissioner] when they brush it off.”
Possibly because of the attention the tweet was getting on Twitter even before we featured the footage on our Live Blog last Thursday, Essex Police reviewed their decision, with Tony saying in a new tweet on Friday: “Interesting, just had an email and checked the Essex Extra Eyes website and it now shows the driver has been given the choice of course or conditional offer.”
Interesting, just had an email and checked the essex extra eyes website and it now shows the driver has been given the choice of course or conditional offer.#cycling https://t.co/jwUUkavErs
— CykelTony (@tony_eh) July 29, 2022
> 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
- Pub bike 2 hours 10 min ago
A similar issue occurs every day on Priory Lane that links the Roehampton Gate entrance of Richmond Park with the Upper Richmond Road: part of the...
- HLaB 6 hours 2 min ago
My older Lezyne strip drive pro (the same charging system) would do similar. I'd charge it up in the office and it would say it had full charge...
- Rendel Harris 6 hours 44 min ago
That statement is not borne out by any comparison times between the two on significant Tour or training climbs or time trials, Pogacar is faster...
- Dunnoeither 7 hours 32 min ago
Thankfully no one here lives in a country with a history of colonialism, slavery or a corrupt financial industry (the list goes on)so we can point...
- Mr Blackbird 10 hours 15 min ago
I agree. The officials probably earn a pittance or just get paid expenses. They do what they do for love of the sport. Without them the sport would...
- ubercurmudgeon 9 hours 41 min ago
Those rainbow bands look more like plaid at that speed.
- Hirsute 11 hours 33 min ago
Oxford from Emily Kerr "Anyone know anything about the THIRD major smash up on Iffley Rd in my ward in a year? "
- Miller 12 hours 49 min ago
It may not be as bad as made out but it's not great. In fact it is frustrating because bits of it are actually quite good but it repeatedly does...
Add new comment
14 comments
I'm reading this on the train home from Wolverhampton Magistrates Court where I was a witness in a driving without due care case after being close passed.
The accused represented themselves & called their passenger as a witness. She admitted being too close (didn't even leave the lane!) & he claimed I should have been on the pavement! After watching my (awesomely edited) video they decided not guilty as I hadn't had to swerve or brake.
WTF?
Was the incident pre or post new HC ?
You'd have thought "he claimed I should have been on the pavement" is an admission of guilt.
Pre update. I was careful to quote the old rules in my evidence.
The prosecution asked "do you think you passed too closely and should you have waited until the van in the right lane had passed?" to which she replied "yes".
Slam dunk guilty.
Her passenger said "as a driver and a cyclist I believe the cyclist should not have wobbled pulling away, should not have cycled so slowly uphill, should have been on the pavement and there were no potholes to swerve around as claimed" (you can clearly see them in the video!). "Therefore I believe the cyclist is not safe and competent!" I struggled to stay silent at this point.
The prosecution couldn't apologise enough and were shocked that she admitted guilt but still got off.
I was gutted she didn't have representation as I was itching to be cross examined by the defence having memorised my statement and the relevent HC advice and wanted to shoot down all the points made by her passenger.
I don't suppose there is any way you can appeal this clear miscarriage of justice?
hse.gov.uk says:
A party to proceedings before a magistrates' court may appeal the court's decision to the High Court 'by way of case stated' on the ground that a decision was wrong in law or in excess of the court's jurisdiction (but not, for example, on the ground that the decision was against the weight of the evidence).
My untrained guess is no.
Rather than accepting the risk to the person, effort to record and report evidence, uncertainty of the enforcement process, there is another way: Avoidance.
Specifically, using a visual aid to spacially challenged drivers so that they become aware of the minimum safe passing distance (1.5m) and failing that you have evidence of a collision so that it can't be denied thus supporting prosecution.
The visual aid is simple and cheap: 1.5m of white plastic pipe 15mm from your local hardware shop affixed to the seat post perpendicular to the top tube on the off-site. Gaffer tape works well for sufficient stability yet no structural effect.
This is effective because it's not expected though less suitable for riding in groups unless it has been explained and adjusted for..
The Road Police feedback I have had was 'Good idea'.
Ride safe.
#VisionZero #TravelKind #WMPRPU
Any chance you could send in the video for NMOTD?
Can't blame the police for this one, it's down to poor prosecution, poor direction from the judge or the jury. Whichever it was something needs to change.
I certainly will.
In my opinion the prosecution did a great job in getting the accused to admit guilt. Sadly it was not a jury trial, just three Magistrates who probably all drove to work in their cars, close passing cyclists all the way!
EDIT: I have now submitted this for NMOTD.
someone I know (obviously not me) always does a pretty blatent wobble when ever he/she is closed passed for this very reason.
Standard Operating Procedure unless you practice Avoidance (see above) when you would have evidence of collision, non-structural.
they decided not guilty as I hadn't had to swerve or brake.
Essex Police has been recorded on here as using that dodge.
someone I know always does a pretty blatent wobble when ever he/she is close passed for this very reason
Doesn't make any difference, because that's just an excuse- they would just bring out another excuse if there was wobbling or braking, because the aim is no action by the police- and if that objective fails, the aim becomes no penalty for the offender. This 'wobble or brake' criterion is one of the most stupid around, used by police forces with a lot of stupid officers on traffic. They have no conception of cycling because they have not cycled since childhood. When some nutter in a BMW or Audi comes past you at 50, they're gone in an instant unless they've managed to finish you off- there is no time to 'wobble or brake'. If you 'wobble or brake' when this happens, you're going to be under those Sainsbury's 44-tonner wheels- Lancashire Constabulary doesn't bother with excuses now- they just never respond to anything sent in the OpSnapLancs
What is a "conditional offer"? As a cyclist who has also suffered such passes, haven't we all? such a deliberate, grossly dangerous pass deserves more than a course or a conditional offer, it needs a fine and points. But then, I suppose the aim is to reform their driving, and having to attend a course might have the desired effect.
It looked like a punishment pass to me, with the driver annoyed that the cyclist didn't ride on the potholed resurfaced, doubtless bumpy and uncomfortable section on the left.
Conditional ofer is them admitting fault and accepting a fine and points instead of the driving course if one is offered. Of course they can challenge the decision entirely and take it to court if they wish.
A conditional offer is a Fixed Penalty £100 & 3 points for careless driving. Or, most likely, they will attend the course; which they still have to pay for and will cost them some time. If they are really daft, they could plead not guilty and contest it in court; where the points and fine could be greater if found at fault.
This is about as good as it gets and I'm pleased to see the police change their view of this incident upon review. However, it just shows how the process needs improvement, so that there's less ambiguity when it comes to charging decisions.