- 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
Updated – Near Miss of the Day 549: Cyclist “flabbergasted” as magistrates acquit close pass driver (video includes swearing)
A road.cc reader has said that the decision of magistrates to acquit a driver filmed making a very close pass on him at speed on a careless driving charge has left him “flabbergasted.”
We featured the video, shot by Rendel Harris while out on a bike ride with his wife in southwest London, on our Near Miss of the Day series back in February this year.
Rendel updated us on the outcome of the case after attending court as a witness on Monday.
He told us that the driver “was acquitted by the magistrates on the grounds that ‘there is insufficient evidence to prove the case of careless driving’.
“The defendant relied on a number of points to make his case, amongst them that I definitely made no checks behind me whatsoever, even though you can see from my shadow on the video (and the prosecuting solicitor pointed out) that I made at least three clear headchecks prior to signalling and carefully beginning to pull across the road (something the defendant chose to characterised as ‘veering wildly into my right of way’).
“The defendant also claimed that my (admittedly fruity, but then I get like that when people try to kill me) bad language after the incident proved that I was in ‘an aggressive state of mind and probably not fit to be riding a bicycle on the public highway’.
“But here's the real kicker,” Rendel continued. “He claimed that he was not, as I stated, at least 40 metres behind me when I began to pull out, apparently that was ‘completely untrue’ (he should have a word with Susan, who was 40 metres behind me at the time, and he was behind her), in fact I was ‘two to three metres ahead’ when I pulled out.
“Leaving aside the fact that I rather enjoy life and I'm not in the habit of attempting suicide, he admitted to the court that he was travelling at 30 mph. At 30 mph, a car covers 13 metres per second.
“As can be seen on the video, he passes me three to four seconds after I signal and start to pull out, so had I been 2/3 metres ahead of him when I pulled out, he would’ve had no alternative but to have hit me, it's literally a physical impossibility to (allegedly) dive in front of a car going 30 mph that is 2/3 metres behind one and for the car either to stop or evade one, he would've had to react in 0.25 of a second to do that.
“The fact that it took him four seconds to catch up with me and make such a ridiculous close pass proves that he was shamelessly lying. Unbelievable.”
Rendel added: “Many thanks to the Metropolitan Police traffic office for bringing the prosecution, and to the prosecuting solicitor who did a very good job of presenting the evidence, why the magistrates chose to ignore it in toto is a matter for them.
“It does make one wonder if it's actually worth sending in any evidence if this is going to be the result; I suppose I will have to invest in a rear-facing camera as well if magistrates are so incapable of judging on the clear physical evidence placed before them!”
Clearly it’s a frustrating outcome not just for Rendel and his wife, but also for the investigating officers who deemed the close pass bad enough to refer it to the Crown Prosecution Service, and for the prosecutors who took the case to court; another day, and another court, and we suspect the verdict may have been different.
Here's our original story, published on 28 February 2021 under the heading, "Near Miss of the Day 549: Cyclist nearly taken out by speeding driver desperate to overtake (video includes swearing)."
*WARNING: VERY STRONG LANGUAGE*
A cyclist launches into a string of expletives after he is nearly knocked down from behind by a speeding driver desperate to overtake him before he makes a right hand turn. The strong language is perhaps understandable seeing as the rider was just centimetres away from being wiped out.
Today's near miss video was submitted by road.cc reader Rendel Harris and shows him riding along Malden Road in Worcester Park, London with his wife.
Mr Harris explained what happened next and apologised for his choice of words but said "nearly being killed brought out some of my more robust expressions".
He said: "As I was riding along Malden Road, I prepared to move out in order to be ready for the upcoming right hand turn into Motspur Park Road.
"As can be clearly seen on the video from my shadow on the road, I made three separate head checks to ensure there was sufficient safe space for me to move out, and made a very clear hand signal.
"At this point my wife, who was approximately 50m behind me, seeing me signal, checked behind her to see if it was safe for her to start moving out as well.
"At this point the blue Peugeot was behind her; as soon as I started to move he floored the accelerator and swerved past me well in excess of the legal speed limit, missing me by a maximum of 20cm, probably much less.
"He also clearly put the oncoming car in danger as well. Sheer stupidity and spite.
"Apologies for the language, it turns out that being nearly killed brings out some of my more robust expressions."
Mr Harris said he reported the incident to the Metropolitan Police the same day and received a prompt reply saying the driver was being sent a Notice of Intended Prosecution.
However, when he tried to follow up on the outcome this month he said he was told 'no further details will be provided whether the case is active or not'.
> 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
Latest Comments
- Daclu Trelub 1 hour 56 min ago
That's just fucking outrageous.
- Barraob1 2 hours 5 min ago
You can hit something and have a loss of control and fall off. According to the article there was difference in height between the road surface and...
- Hirsute 2 hours 32 min ago
Double decker bus hits rail bridge - trains replaced with bus service. https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/24843532.police-update-bus-hits-brid...
- chrisonabike 1 hour 12 min ago
Not fair - I think it's just a misquotation from "1984 On Wheels" EDIT "Animal Farm On Wheels" obvs... - "Two wheels good, four wheels better!"...
- Daclu Trelub 2 hours 47 min ago
Great stuff, the BBC is simutaneously pissing off the Left and the Right. Doing its job properly.
- pait 3 hours 41 min ago
I used a Carradice saddle bag plus a full frame bag from Rogue Panda on a weeklong trip last year. Having only one of them would have made the trip...
- don simon fbpe 4 hours 28 min ago
Right whingers gonna whinge!
- bobrayner 4 hours 51 min ago
This is an article about exciting bikes for 2025...? If you want an article about exciting steel bikes in particular, I'm sure there's one from 1995.
- TheHungryGhost 5 hours 30 min ago
It was on Reporting Scotland - The BBC One Scotland news that comes on after the News at 6
- Backladder 7 hours 2 min ago
So it is only universal to the frames that are designed to work with it?
Add new comment
145 comments
The same type who froth about courts being soft on crime....
"Look at this Bob, a story of a paedofile being sentenced, why isn't he hung up by his balls for the entire sentence. They are soft on crime".
Next Page
"Cor, look at this actors 15 yo daughter in her swimsuit on the beach. Says here she will be 16 next week. Cor, I would do 'er".
Absolutely on the button
Given the car he's driving the last laugh is on him.
Appeal this to the crown court, and get a real judge. Magistrates are a law unto themselves.
Yeah ... that is not a thing.
Can't be done, unfortunately, not guilty verdicts in any court can only be appealed on the grounds of errors in law, not errors in interpretation of the evidence. If I could I would!
Whilst it's frustrating that this driver will not get points or a fine, hopefully the ordeal of a court case will make them think twice next time.
It's been very useful you sharing this Rendel, as it gives good insight into the justice process and what the level of evidence needs to be.
As you say, a rear camera is probably a good idea. When I only had one camera, I put it on the rear, as I felt that was where the majority of the risk was. Most of the time I can pre-empt what's going to happen in front of me.
It also shows how important it is to resist the reaction (understandably difficult to do sometimes). But it is something that you can train yourself to avoid doing - I yell out the numberplate, by the time I've done that, the urge for any expletives has hopefully subsided!
And yet another defence lawyer / Police officer has decided if you don't yell expletives, it means it wasn't bad enough for a Prosecution (or you will be done for public disorder). It is one of those dammed if you do and dammed if you don't cases.
Standard operating procedure on a close pass is to swerve and stop at the roadside to evidence your shock and fear. Simulation of loss of control, optional...
If there's no evidence, there's no crime. Public order offences not needed.
I'm afraid the driver will take exactly the opposite lesson; I can get away with anything so I might was well drive as dangerously as I like. If they won't convict me on damning evidence like this, I'll never be convicted.
"justice process"? Never was the law such an ass.
"justice process"? Never was the law such an ass
Evidence repeatedly displayed on here shows that we have a reasonable police and legal system for punishing drivers who close-pass police officers on bikes- everyone else will have to ensure they are properly KSI'd before any attention will be taken by the same police and legal system. This is especially true in areas with REALLY Bad Cops such as, dare I say it, Lancashire
Not sure why the victim thanks the prosecutor, if they had used your rebuttals in the article then even the car centric magistrates would have to find the driver guilty.
Did you read the article?
(not sure why "Rendell added" twice)
The prosecution isn't at fault if the magistrates are unable or unwilling to process logic.
Magistrates don't have to do anything. Heck there was an actual judge in the high court who recently told a woman in her sentencing hearing that she would have sent her to prison if she (the convicted) were a man - she didn't give her a custodial sentence, purely on the basis of her gender.
Yes, the prosecutor made virtually all the points I've made and stressed the fact that it was physically impossible for me to be three metres ahead of a car doing 30 and pull out without being hit. No complaints about his work at all, couldn't have put the case more clearly.
In a lot of close passes, the video doesn't do them justice - the vehicle doesn't look as close as they are in reality. I thought that might be the case here, and then I watched the video and physically flinched as the car went by. The quality of our justice system, and of magistrates in particular, is abysmal. I'm sorry, Rendel.
Thank you - I've simmered down a bit and thought well at least I've given him a few sleepless nights, hopefully, and maybe next time he thinks of pulling this macho crap on a cyclist he will hold back and think hang on, maybe they've got a camera...
As well as being one of the worst, blatent and shocking close passes I have seen, the magistrates ruling adds insult to injury.
One would love to know what said magistrates record is/are on these kind of offenses.
Thats a bit more faith lost in the justice system.
Cases like this make me wonder if there is value in crowdfunding a non-profit or an offshoot of CyclingUK or similar to go after these idiots with a private prosecution. The concept that because no physical harm has been caused the victim can be treated as a witness needs shooting down in flames. If we cant get them through the courts directly we should go after their insurance company and price them off the road.
Sorry Rendel
+1... unbelievable. You can even see Rendel shoulder checking from the shadow before steadily moving across!
Is there an appeals process?
Unfortunately not, as a witness I don't have that right - if I did I'd exercise it for sure!
Rendel you are not only "a witness" you are the victim of the crime or is it only the defendant who has a right to an appeal?
Have you taken legal advice? I'd suggest CUK if you're a member.
I've plenty of lawyers in the family - the word is, sadly, there's nothing further to be done.
Maybe the experience will make the driver more careful in future, and if not, then at least there's a chance that an honest magistrate will preside.
What needs to be done is to change the mistaken belief that unsafe driving is acceptable and collisions are inevitable. Then intimidating vulnerable road users must become, like drink driving, socially unacceptable.
This must start with our elected representatives then the reluctant general public.
"The Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) helps to drive growth, enrich lives and promote Britain abroad"
So attitudes must be changed starting with regulation of the mainstream media to prevent hate speech and adopt best practice for responsible reporting.
If we could mobilise everyone who cycles, has cycled, or wants to cycle, there could be change...
CUK, over to you!
But mad Nad runs that ministry.
Thanks Squirrel!
Just to update this, police and prosecutors went ahead with a charge of driving without due care and attention and I was in court as a witness last Monday. The magistrates acquitted the defendant on the grounds of "insufficient evidence" (not quite sure how much more evidence they needed). The defendant's case was that I hadn't made any checks behind me before pulling out (despite the fact that it's quite clear that I did from the shadow of my head on the road, and the prosecutor pointed this out on the video) and, incredibly, that he was not at least forty metres behind me as I started to pull out as I stated (and my wife, who was just ahead of him, confirmed) but that I was "no more than three metres ahead" before I "veered wildly" into his path. Under questioning he admitted that he was travelling at 30mph when I began to move; at 30mph a car travels at 13 metres per second, so he would have had around 0.25 of a second to react, i.e. it would have been impossible not to hit me. In fact, as can be seen from the video, 3+ seconds elapse between my starting to pull out and him reaching me (and this only because he accelerated hard, if he had stayed at 30mph it would have taken him 5-6 seconds to reach me, by which time I would have been at the centre line and he could have safely and legally undertaken me). Simple maths proves that my statement of the distance between us was true and his was a blatant lie, and the prosecutor (who was excellent) took pains to point this out, yet the magistrates chose to ignore this. If the case had been lost because of a lack of, or ambiguous, evidence, that would be one thing; to lose because the offender blatantly lied about what happened and the magistrates were incapable or unwilling to accept the physical evidence of the video over his word absolutely stinks.
Rotten luck Rendel. You were robbed, that was an open goal and the magistrate was clearly in dereliction of duty by failing to consider plain as day evidence. Shame on them.
The magistrates should be publicly named.
Pages