- 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 43 min 17 sec ago
That's just fucking outrageous.
- Barraob1 52 min 5 sec 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 1 hour 19 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 sec ago
Not fair - I think it's just a misquotation from "1984 On Wheels" EDIT "Animal Farm" obvs... - "Two wheels good, four wheels better!"...
- Daclu Trelub 1 hour 34 min ago
Great stuff, the BBC is simutaneously pissing off the Left and the Right. Doing its job properly.
- pait 2 hours 28 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 3 hours 15 min ago
Right whingers gonna whinge!
- bobrayner 3 hours 38 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 4 hours 16 min ago
It was on Reporting Scotland - The BBC One Scotland news that comes on after the News at 6
- Backladder 5 hours 49 min ago
So it is only universal to the frames that are designed to work with it?
Add new comment
145 comments
was the cyclist an owl?
I think that formed part of the reply !
abuse of me and my actions on RCC's FB page
I can't be bothered to look up what these morons are saying- people who voice stupid opinions when they have the video evidence in front of them showing the driver to be at fault, can be described fairly as such!
That's horrible Rendell, what a despicable w*nker.
I think you will have to force them to tell you what they've done by making a complaint. I'm doing that at the moment following the covert decision to not bother a driver about passing a traffic light 1.5 seconds after it turned red. I had to work against resistance to even determine that the NFA decision had been made several months earlier. They will try all tricks available!
Thanks, have set aside time this week to pursue them!
We're all wishing you success Rendel, if only in our own selfish interests in getting this driver off the road.
Driver is guilty. I'm afraid I'm repeating my usual refrain: when they won't say what they've done and they're treating the victim as merely a witness, it means they haven't done anything.
Yes wtjs, member of public makes complaint, gets pro-forma response, in this case 'We've sent an NIP' (which is actually a good thing) and then jack shit.
What I don't get in this example is that the Met are going to have to follow up the NIP to the driver with another action. You can't just send out a letter warning of potential prosecution and leave it at that.
Either:
Send a further letter stating NFA
Or 'investigate' it and there is an outcome.
They would then have to inform the driver of the outcome.
How easy would it be to inform the complainant, the victim, at the same time?
It does give rise to the suspicion that sweet FA has been done about these type of complaints.
That's the problem right there. Many police forces consider cyclists reporting these incidents a witness to it, not a victim of it. As witnesses, the police are not required to share the outcome.
It is clear they consider a close pass with no collision, and therefore no damage/injury, to be a victimless crime.
Unlike me swinging a sledgehammer two inches from my neighbour's head ...
What I don't get in this example is that the Met are going to have to follow up the NIP to the driver with another action
I wonder about this, in the sense that I don't know the answer. Do they have to follow up are are they just forgetting to bother most of the time, reinforcing the idea in the mind of these crims that they don't have to bother responding to an NIP, even if the police really spent the postage on sending one? We hear a lot on here about the police claiming to have sent NIPs, but very little about successful prosecutions. I have written about what seems to be in Lancashire a 2 year delay in prosecutions coming to court. My cynical view is that the police are telling the courts 'don't bother to much about this cyclist rubbish' so the courts don't- but they can bring cases to court if they want to. We recently heard about cyclists failing to pay fines for cycling in a restricted pedestrianised street in Grimsby, and then the court case more than doubling the payment and the original fine was only given last November! A close pass case which occurred to me in September 2019 will supposedly be in court in June 2021, at the earliest. I suspect the Lancashire plan is to simply forget about a lot of cases, and advertise this as a plan to 'free up court time'. When the police won't even bother to send an email confirming what they have actually done, I am not the only one to believe they are reluctant to commit themselves in writing to actions which can be verified.
And the next maiming or killing of a cyclist reported as an unfortunate accident by a driver with a perfect record...
IIRC
Once the police issue a summons (on behalf of the Clerk to the Magistrates), then it is sort of out of police hands and any timetable thereafter is set by the Magistrates Courts.
I think that there was already a backlog (a lot of courts have closed in the last twenty years or so) and COVID has exacerbated this.
Once the police issue a summons (on behalf of the Clerk to the Magistrates), then it is sort of out of police hands and any timetable thereafter is set by the Magistrates Courts
I bet there are ways for the police to influence these cases, even at the Magistrates' where they don't get the obviously urgent cases. However, that's cynicism talking not knowledge.
Nothing to do with 'urgency'.
Some offences (usually the more serious ones) are only dealt with at Crown Court.
Lesser offences at Magistrates Court.
Then there's 'either way' offences, which can be dealt with at either court.
Finally you can have cases dealt with at Magistrates Court (this might only apply to either way offences), but the sentencing takes place at Crown Court. Usually because the maximum prison sentence Magistrates can impose is (or certainly was) 6 months.
We're really flogging this to death! I'm using 'urgent' as proxy for 'serious', because the ones that are serious clearly can't wait 2 years. However, there has to be a reason (even allowing for different areas of the country having different backlogs) why a 'cyclist failing to pay a fixed penalty notice from November 2020, in Grimsby' has already got to court, but this close passing in Garstang, Lancashire from Sept 2019 will be heard in June 2021 at the earliest. I think the reason is official or unofficial indication of urgency (or what Lancashire Constabulary actually want to be dealt with, as opposed to what they want not to be dealt with) from the police to the court
Seems like the other way round, when this clear case was put before the magistrates by the police and CPS and the magistrates rejected it.
Therefore you can see the reluctance of the police to pursue less dangerous incidents.
Good lord... one of the worst I've seen, for the sheer wilfulness of it. Glad you and your wife are ok.
Hopefully a Dangerous driving charge heading their way.
Thank you, I hope so too!
That's an horrendous piece of driving. From a personal point of view, somehow it's even worse when it's on a road you know well and cycle on often.
Yes same for me, although I don't live down that way any more I grew up there and must have made that turn a thousand times, never happened before - like finding a shark in the local park pond!
Actually looks like the driver never saw you, or your wife. Appalling.
Good to see that the Met will generate an NIP promptly.
Your wife, whilst not being independent, was ideally placed to be a witness.
Yes she's on the form as a potential witness.
Sorry to be contradictory but I know he saw me, from my observation and my wife's evidence: he was driving along at the speed limit when I made my three headchecks and there was plenty of space and time for my manouevre. When he saw me start to move across he floored the accelerator and sped up to 50mph and gunned straight at me - basically he couldn't stand the idea that a cyclist was pulling across him and wasnt having it. If he'd maintained the speed he was carrying when I started to move, by the time he reached me I would have been at the centre line ready to make my right turn and he could have safekly and legally undertaken me. I fear he knew exactly what he was doing, that's what makes the whole thing so scary.
Atb!
That's a very valid observation. Which makes it all the worse, being entirely deliberate
What I was getting at was that the speed and minute margin for error; it was like they never saw you. Like they drove past and only then thought 'Was that a cyclist?'
I find it difficult to understand the level of victim blaming over on Facebook. I've had very similar turning into my road. Speeding driver, overtaking approaching a junction and failed to notice that the cyclist has looked over his shoulder several times. It's all in the HC people. Glad you're okay Rendel.
like you I was perplexed by the pitchforks over on FB. The victim blaming is unreal.
There are several roads my way that even with clear signaling and shoulder checking even at extended distances the motorist stubbornly refuses to let you out and on occasion forces you to actually stop and cross by foot. On one occasion on turning into my street I actually had an offside pass as opposed to a nearside one just as I was starting to turn! This applies also to pot holes and damaged ironwork etc. It really feels like they didn't read the part in the HC that a cyclist/motorcyclist may need to suddenly take evasive action and to allow room for that!
Like Brooksby, I a number of years ago adopted the pointing fingers to emphasise I'm going that direction so suck it up and wait for me to complete my manuevor.
Rendal. I'm really glad you're ok and only suffered a major adrenaline rush. Hopefully the police will draw up a case and the CPS actually progress it as this very definitely falls into dangerous driving.
Thank you kindly. I shall be pursuing with the Met next week to see if I can't get further information!
Thank you kindly. I didn't realise it was on Facebook, some quite spectacular opinions on there! One guy telling me he can tell I didn't really make a proper headcheck from my shadow!
Must be the same guy who could tell from the shadow that the cyclist had kicked a door mirror a few months back.
I have a lot of respect for the police, they have an unbelievably tough job at the best of times, let alone during a pandemic. Unfortunately they have to prioritise their focuses on limited resources and however serious their close pass campaigns/messages are, they constantly fail to uphold their intentions with action, accountability and follow through. We can no longer go on having the book passed, it is time that close pass offences were taken out of the hands of regional police departments and under the responsibility of a dedicated, centralised operation with the sole responsibility to review and enforce close passes.
Every time a driver gets away with such dangerous driving, it reinforces their pitiful behaviour and next time it could be a fatality. So it's time to put pen to paper and put a compelling case to the powers that be.
Pages