- 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 586: Texting driver oblivious to cyclist she nearly hit
There’s a phrase often used by traffic police in safety campaigns and on social media – the Fatal Four – highlighting the four most common factors behind deaths or serious injuries on the road. Drink and drug driving, speeding, and not wearing a seat belt are three, with the most recent addition to the list being using a handheld mobile phone while driving, which is what we have in today’s Near Miss of the Day video from North London as a texting driver pulls out on a cyclist, oblivious to his presence.
Dean, the road.cc reader who captured the footage, told us: “I was behind a car in the right-hand lane (right turn only by the way) on Southbury Road in Ponders End, preparing to turn right into the High Road.
“We both started moving off, and a driver in the left-hand lane (driving inside the cycle lane I might add) pulled into the right-hand lane (a right-turn ONLY lane) and cut me off, I shouted in surprise and swerved to avoid her hitting me.
“I later saw the same car at the traffic lights ahead and I realised as I was passing that she was on her phone texting. I told her that she almost hit me and how close she was to taking me out. She was unapologetic and hid her phone.
“I got home and after watching the footage back, realised she was also texting while she cut me up, and that's why she didn't even realise she almost hit me.
“If it was an honest mistake, I would have understood, we all make mistakes, but texting while driving is an intentional choice.”
> 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
- ktache 4 hours 6 min ago
The people at Hexlox have asked me to tell others about their black Friday deals, but I don't quite know what the offer is yet. But saving anything...
- Freddy56 4 hours 16 min ago
Would love to know if anyone else thinks the army green winter jackets are actually better than black to hide the cyclist profile in low light?
- momove 4 hours 24 min ago
You two are going to have to help out the undereducated here!...
- VIPcyclist 4 hours 49 min ago
Whilst I was reading this I was thinking : sounds familiar, yep, that's right . Then I read the bit about being referred for a fitness to drive and...
- Dnnnnnn 5 hours 2 min ago
I'm unclear how simply considering the views of people who travel through an area is voting for rat-runs. No need to explain though.
- David9694 6 hours 1 min ago
When you don't know for sure what the whinge would be if this work was postponed to January, but you know there would be one:...
- biking59boomer 6 hours 42 min ago
Sadly the cyclist hate in this country seems to have worsened of late. Dangerous motoring combined with anti-cycling officialdom in some places is...
- Cyclo1964 9 hours 14 min ago
Brilliant 🤣
Add new comment
76 comments
True. I was ranting on this esteemed organ a while back, when Herts sent out that they won't inform me what they choose to do but it could include [one of these 4 options]
I ended up in an email to and fro with the rozzer, cos I said that that the way it was written could also include "do nothing", and could he confirm that at least some action would be taken. He just returned the oiginal email. Frustrating...
As it happened, later on I contacted the dept by phone for another report. The constable I spoke to then was able to confirm what action they would take. Policy was to only email out a blanket response, but they were happy to talk about it if I called in. I suppose this was a screening for numbers tactic - filter out those that don't give too much of a stuff - and not anything to do with GDPR etc.
For WMP, we don't even if the email acceptance. They use the Nextbase provided portal which lots of forces now use. I get a number generated from there to say an upload has been done and then nothing. When I started to chase up (Subject Access Request of FOI - anyone know?) and after being sent on a round way even back to nextbase, I finally got contact from Stuart (Manager of the Traffic Team) who just reiterated they don't tell anyone as they don't have the resources to follow up on everything and I should just keep submitting.
I have since seen that they do recieve the lions share of the videos from Next Base with 8k from 20k submitted from 6 or more forces, and I expect alot are from Car Dashcams as well. However I would still like to know if the minimum 1 hour of copying from camera, clipping to 2 mins either side, converting to a smaller sized format and uploading to them is a waste of mine or there time or whether it is actually having an affect.
Yes, if they are relying on members on the public to support them in their role, ensuring the public has confidence that its assistance is being acted on is a necessary overhead in the process, otherwise no confidence = no support. How they effectively maintain that confidence is up to them, but maintained it must be.
Lancashire Police will not use the Nextbase system. It means they have to get off their fat arses, put their bacon butty down, and do some policing.
Lancashire Police will not use the Nextbase system
This will not do! biker phil must be banned from the site forthwith for roundly criticising Lancashire Constabulary when it's my job, undermining my credibility. I should be the one to point out that ignoring use of a handheld mobile phone while driving, which serious offence being proved on meticulous and conclusive video, is all in a routine day's non-work for Lancashire's Finest. Unlike Alice in Wonderland, who was able to believe several impossible things in one day, LC officers disbelieve innumerable completely proven serious road traffic offences every day and rejoice in filing them straight in the bin. The thing they find easiest to ignore, because they don't believe the offence exists, is extremely close passing of cyclists. Even if the vehicle hits the cyclist with the mirror, they ignore it... but that's nowt for the lads. They ignore red light crashing offences proven in the most indisputable way and the initial response of the comedy LC complaint system is that they don't know who, from the Neighbourhood Policing Team, decided on No Further Action because 'the log wasn't signed'. This dodge is designed to prevent complaints, which have to be directed at a particular officer, but I decided that I would become (no, not more powerful than you could possibly imagine) not inconsiderably annoyed and determined to follow a complaint about this Passing Traffic Lights at Red is Not an Offence in Lancashire (NaOiL) policy to the Bitter End. I thwarted the 'we don't know who did it' by sending it to the PCC who immediately ejected it back to the police, because it's really all the same thing. Tomorrow, it's 4 calendar months since the formal beginning of the complaint, and they're still trying the foot-dragging dodge. Too busy for serious road traffic offences are they? we'll see how much time this dodge saves them!
So the police are the sole arbiters of whether a case is serious or not? This year I've had an NIP sent to a driver for entering an ASZ but "no further action" against a driver who deliberately swerved at me as a punishment thinking (wrongly, he hadn't noticed the cyclist pre-release lights) that I had jumped a red - from the same force. Wheter or not police take action seems frequently to be entirely arbitrary.
I think it is pot luck. Sent 3 off which were the same and the one that was rejected was the one with the L driver coming the otherway as I was close passed. I thought the presence of the L driver would sway any doubts.
TBF thats not what Nige said.
Yes, I think to all intents and purposes they are. That in itself isn't the problem, as really someone has to be.
The problem is actually whether those entrusted with that task are competent, and have the resources to do it. This issue is the same for any role where decisions are made, and the only way to change it is by campaigning for change.
West Midlands Police won't give updates unless it goes as far as court.
Most forces DON'T update the submitter of the complaint with the outcome of the case.
Are you sure you're a cyclist? You seem woefully misinformed about most subjects pertaining to cycling...
"pulled into the right-hand lane (a right-turn ONLY lane)"
That would be very unusual. Arrows on roads are normally advisory. There's nothing wrong with the driving (at that point) except that there was a cyclist already in that lane!
I agree that the "pulled into the right-turn lane" is misleading as from that distance to the almost at the lights, it isn't one marked as one. However she was using it as a MGIF of the rest of the traffic the same as the BMW X(1or3) that she decided to follow blindly. Still not as much as a MGIF arsehole as the Corsa.
And I would argue there was everything wrong with the manouvre from two ticks of the indicator (two more then the Fiesta and BMW did when they pulled out) to not looking to see if it was clear.
"And I would argue there was everything wrong with the manouvre from two ticks of the indicator (two more then the Fiesta and BMW did when they pulled out) to not looking to see if it was clear. "
Yes, sorry, that was what I meant. Everything involved in not seeing the cyclist. If the lane had actually been clear (and they'd checked) then it wouldn't be a terrible piece of driving.
Also the idiot in the Corsa twice overtaking into oncoming traffic with no indication for absolutely no gain, and with a 'Baby on Board' thingy in the window designed to alert emergency services of a child in a crashed car which, if they carry on driving like that, could be anytime soon.
That's an urban myth. Not true at all.
You sure about that? Not what I was told by my emergency service Aunt a few years back. She told me she gets annoyed if she sees those signs with no child in the car as it means the emergency services will spend time looking for a missing child that might not be missing.
Dave Dave is right that it isn't specifically for Emergency Services but more of a warnign to other drivers to be more careful around the car due to the babies AND because the driver might also be more distracted. Abit like P plates are there for letting other drivers know the drivers abilities are raw and four circles let other people know that driver is a wanker.
However I also suspect that Emergency Services do also check for babies in an RTA if they do see the sign.
I think they look anyway.
What, they'll see the sign, but not the sodding great child seat? Come on.
The sign is there, the child seat is empty. Does that mean the child was thrown clear / crushed under some debris / not even in the car?
I agree with you that it was never intended as an emergency servces notification but I suspect if they approach a multi car wreck and one has one of these signs, that ones occupants might be checked on first by most people.
That doesn't make what Dave Dave says incorrect. Those f*cking things are just more waste plastic consumerist tat, with no discernable value.
I'm sure your Aunt, apart from understandably getting wound up by them, would have taken cues from a collision site (child seats in the wreck etc) to see whether they needed to particularly check for infants.
A couple of weeks ago when we had a discussion on whether someone should have indicated that they were changing lanes and peoples preference were "nah as still only a single lane" want to revise that on this showing as at least three cars pull out without indicating along here when there is no demarkation of the lanes.
Plus an unnecessary MGIF from the silver Corsa into opposing traffic.
Not sure when Dean took the video, but according to DVLA the MOT on that Peugeot expired on 11th April, and hasn't been renewed yet.
I'm not sure but there might still an extended period for MOT's etc because of Covid lockdowns though so probably wouldn't be done for that.
Nope. MOT extensions applied only for those expiring between during Mar-Jul last year. There was no further extension.
Unless they've updated it since I last looked, the penalty for driving with no MOT is a slap on the wrist*. (Whether or not the car has a valid MOT, it's the driver's job to ensure it's roadworthy at all times while driving.**) You need an MOT to pay the road tax for a year, but the MOT can expire the day after you pay, and enforcement by other checks is nonexistent.
*Just checked, they've updated it - it's now 'up to' a £1k fine, but still no penalty points.
** An unroadworthy vehicle, whether it has a current MOT certificate or not, can attract fines and 3 points _per defect_. That's what they really focus on.
I assume issues which would fail an MOT count as unroadworty. If so, there is zero focus on them. Despite not travelling far I see flagrant, obvious, deliberate MOT failures several times on every outing. Darkened front windows, illegible or missing number plates (always the front one missing, it's a "look" round here), excessive exhaust noise. None of it is accidental. The police must be focusing with their eyes shut.
The missing front numberplate, I suspect you will find one that doesn't do the job at all tucked in the window somewhere. But the ones with anti camera flash coatings, changed for vanity and lots of other thing against the law do make me wonder if MOT's do pick these up or and report on them or whether the people change them to legal ones prior to the check.
Pages