Near Miss of the Day 649: Driver makes close pass on cyclist – then gets out of car to confront rider

Maybe you should change your name to Nigel Ghandi? Clearly you're far superior to the rest of us when it comes to controlling your emotions in the face of hateful, aggressive and life-threatening behaviour.

I'm sorry if I might shout an expletive or two when a two tonne killing machine comes within inches of turning me into road kill, and preventing my loved ones from ever seeing me again.

Are you really that clueless?

HollisJ wrote:

I'm sorry if I might shout an expletive or two when a two tonne killing machine comes within inches of turning me into road kill, and preventing my loved ones from ever seeing me again.

Are you really that clueless?

I do believe that Nigel thinks that all cyclists are angry MAMIL's just looking for an excuse to vent their anger at motorists who risk injuring or killing them with their motorised weapons.

He has repeatedly shown an inability to separate a relfexive reaction and emotions.  He sees any form of reaction by a cyclist as an angry reaction and nothing will change that perspective.

No, it is just their MO to wind up posters.

They caught me out on the same point when they changed their username to TTDanger (one of 5 username changes) and I thought I was responding to an infrequent poster.

Yes HollisJ he is that clueless. Always blames cyclists for these things, makes up points to score against others and then confronted by people like you who have suffered, might offer a mealy mouthed apology whilst also doubling down on his lies. The last victim he accused of calling the driver a fucking twat (the cyclist actually said what the fuck) as the driver got close enough to knock him off his bike. When victim posted on here to point out it didn't happen, instead of offering a full unconditional apology for using him in his games, he decided to weasal out of it with "I've heard it said before in these videos". 

But as even his mum hates him enough to send him anti-cycling material, I think he really just has a self-loathing that he has turned against most of the cyclists on here to try to win her love back. Hence him dropping deliberate antagonising items in these threads to show her later.

Nigel Garage. Please explain why you think cyclists should be corteous but have no issue with drivers who lack basic decency. 

Nigel Garage wrote:

I know people get bored of me saying the same thing over and over again, and accuse me of "victim blaming", but honestly that would all have been avoided by just being courteous. Yes the driver was in the wrong for close passing, but people just need to take a deep breath, suck it up, and report it to the police when they get home.

I was pondering how I can control my emotions much better than the population at large, and it's really just down understanding the consequences of your actions, like this:

• Trigger: being close passed by a motorist
• Behaviour: scream and shout like an overgrown 7 year old
• Result: nothing good; a potentially dangerous assault at worst.

Now you understand the trigger doesn't ever produce a good outcome, you can set about changing your habitual behaviour. Habits tend to be very difficult to break through active, conscious decisions as they tend to be performed through the primitive part of the brain that acts unconsciously. So you need to practice mindfulness when you the trigger approaches, and rewire your brain over time to break out of this destructive pattern and form a new - calmer - habit in its place.

One exclamation is not scream and shot like a seven year old.

meanwhile 

trigger - criticism of driving

behavour - physical attack or threat of physical attack

consequence - nothing apparently, because drivers, Nigel and apparently the police believe we should just tolerate tis behaviour from drivers.

wycombewheeler wrote:

One exclamation is not scream and shot like a seven year old.

meanwhile 

trigger - criticism of driving

behavour - physical attack or threat of physical attack

consequence - nothing apparently, because drivers, Nigel and apparently the police believe we should just tolerate tis behaviour from drivers.

Exactly this.  Nigel's default position is that the cyclist must doff their cap to their motoring overlord as any form of reaction means that they are angry.

I wonder what Nigel's response would be in this situation....

"A cyclist on a shared use path close passes a pedestrian, the pedestrian shouts in excalmation as the cyclists passes, the cyclist stops their bicycle and goes back to remonstrate with the pedestrian"

So Nigel what do you say to the above scenario?  But I'm guessing he will ignore it

Nigel Garage wrote:

That said, I do believe that projecting kindness and compassion spills over into others' behaviour.

How's that going for you here? Looks to me like either that claim is baloney, or you're not as kind and compassionate as you like to make out. Or possibly both.

Nigel Garage wrote:

I'll say what I've already said. You can only control what you can control. As a cyclist, you can only control your own behaviour on the bike, you cannot compel others to behave differently, whether they are pedestrians or drivers. That said, I do believe that projecting kindness and compassion spills over into others' behaviour.

In the case above, if I was the cyclist and had startled the pedestrian, I would apologise and be on my way. If I didn't feel that the pedestrian's actions were warranted, I would simply continue on my journey and not engage them.

If roles were reversed and I was a pedestrian who had been closely overtaken by a cyclist, there is an issue in law. Because cyclists are not compelled to identify themselves through registration, you cannot get justice when they behave contrary to the law, hence the reason why top lawyers such as Nick Freeman advocate for a "tabard" system to overcome this issue. I would therefore be far more likely to speak out to the cyclist, to let them know that their behaviour was dangerous, although I would weigh up the seriousness of the incident before doing so.

I never asked what you would do if you were in the same situation. 

So I will ask the question again..... this time try not and give the politicians answer.  

In this situation 

"A cyclist on a shared use path close passes a pedestrian, the pedestrian shouts in excalmation as the cyclists passes, the cyclist stops their bicycle and goes back to remonstrate with the pedestrian"

I want to know your viewpoint as an obeserver of those events not what you would do if you were either the cyclist or the pedestrian, in exactly the same way that you gave your opinion about the reactions of the cyclist and the driver in the video.

But I will provide your previous responses as a guide

Trigger: being close passed by a motorist cyclist
Behaviour: scream and shout like an overgrown 7 year old
Result: nothing good; a potentially dangerous assault at worst.

I hope you are not going to try and give a different response.... because anything other than that will expose your hypocrisy

Nigel Garage wrote:

This only works if you put yourself as the subject of the trigger. You can't "observe" it in the way you're suggesting as a third party.

So as the pedestrian:

Trigger: being close passed by a cyclist
Behaviour: scream and shout like an overgrown 7 year old
Result: unclear; would depend on the physical attributes of the participants, but unlikely to be positive

So I think I understand your viewpoint.

In any situation where someone puts your life in danger you just have to accept it, you are not allowed even to react in shock because if you do you will be to blame for any subsequent reactions from the perpetrator

Nigel Garage wrote:

No, I didn't say that. I said that the rule of law is there for redress. I even stated how Nick Freeman had suggested a tabard system for cyclists to address the legal vacuum around cyclist identification, although I believe (to answer your other post) that would be disproportionate to the magnitude of the problem.

So the rule of law is there for redress?  Lets look at the video, the driver of the vehicle breaks two laws, the cyclist none but you still try to pin blame onto the cyclist.

I assume you agree that the close pass was contrary to road laws?

And I would argue that the driver is also guilty of affray which is " the use or threat of unlawful violence towards another and his conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety."

As for the cyclist you might want to look at the Public Order Act 1986 which can be summarised as follows :-

Threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or display of visible representations, which:

• Are likely to cause fear of, or to provoke, immediate violence: section 4;
• Intentionally cause harassment, alarm or distress: section 4A; or
• Are likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress (threatening or abusive words or behaviour only): section 5.

Therefore it is clear for all to see that the cyclist in question did none of those.

Edit

It has repeatedly been shown that the rule of law in terms of redress for close passes is woefully inadequate.  Even in cases where the driving is downright dangerous.  And you repeatedly weigh in on NMOTD saying that there is not enough evidence from video recordings to prove an offence.  You repeatedly try to pin blame for a close pass on the behaviour of a cyclist or try and say that you would take preemtive action to avoid these situations.

Out of question if you are such a good cyclist and you are able to avoid all conflict on the road why are you investing in a camera?

Nigel Garage wrote:

We don't live in some kind of anachist/vigilante mob justice world.

Somewhat ironic, given your previous support for drivers who assault cyclists with whom they have differences.

Nigel Garage wrote:

Because cyclists are not compelled to identify themselves through registration, you cannot get justice when they behave contrary to the law, hence the reason why top lawyers such as Nick Freeman advocate for a "tabard" system to overcome this issue. I would therefore be far more likely to speak out to the cyclist, to let them know that their behaviour was dangerous, although I would weigh up the seriousness of the incident before doing so.

So do you also advocate for a "tabard" system for all individuals so that they can be easily identified? 

I mean it's not like a driver of a Range Rover Sport got out of their car and assaulted a cyclist, not withstanding the Number Plate on their vehicle, and the police were unable to trace the individual within 6 months to presecute the assault........ Oh wait that's exactly what happened.

With that persons individual tabard they would have been easily identified.  No?

• Trigger: read something you think is misinformed, deliberately provocative or just in bad faith.
• Behaviour: start replying, descending to abuse when attempts at reason elicit more of the same.
• Consequence: one person gets their kicks, the poster releases some anger but ends up more irritated and everyone else gets bored.

Now you understand that some people just come on the internet for a knockabout you can set about changing your habitual behaviour. Try "smile and wave".

chrisonatrike wrote:

• Trigger: read something you think is misinformed, deliberately provocative or just in bad faith.
• Behaviour: start replying, descending to abuse when attempts at reason elicit more of the same.
• Consequence: one person gets their kicks, the poster releases some anger but ends up more irritated and everyone else gets bored.

Now you understand that some people just come on the internet for a knockabout you can set about changing your habitual behaviour. Try "smile and wave".

touche

although if they are generally misinformed, then informing them may have merit.

But also, if we consider this is not just about educating the misleading poster but the general level of information on the internet.

i.e.  People post about Covid not existing, or vaccines being useless. Clearly no amount of reasoned argument is going to change the minds of these conspiracy theorists, but if no counter view is provided then the undecided may be swayed by the one sided narrative they are viewing.

Probably not relevant in this case, due to the nature of the poster and the audience.

Hmmm... quite a bit to unpack here so please bare with me. 

1) You actually make reference to the route cause that can lead people to react to a fearful situation. However I'm not sure you take fully into account that everyone personal experiences are different, its easy to say I would have done this, etc. but unless you are that person in that situation with their experiences you can't know you would have acted differently. Which leads me to wonder if you have been hit by a car before? Not wishing it on anyone, just might be something to consider in others experiences if you haven't.

2) Speaking of experience many of the things you advocate can only come with experience as you yourself have attested. I think its good we share that experience, it can help others - it why I watch videos like this, to gain experience on what to look out for so I can stay safer on the roads. However I say that with some apprehension, as just because I am that way inclined - it shouldn't count against someone who isn't or doesn't have the experience to behave as not legally required but you see fit in a certain scenario.

3) Onto the arguement itself, not reacting being better. This assumes you know the long term outcome of this behaviour. I won't argue short term for the individual there may be obvious benefits that are easy to identify, but there is a thin line between this and enabling. I feel its too complex to try and say one is better than the other - if you can argue its expected for drivers to behave poorly then is even easier to argue that its expected for vulnerable road users to react to this. Calling said vulnerable road user an overgrown 7 year old is a weak arguement all round - especially if you're going to call out other for similarly poorly formed arguments.

4) Many on here, yourself included based on what you have disclosed, have experienced poor road behaviour from motorists which has compromised our saftey. Focus on what we can do differently in such situations can be a bit of a double edged sword - on the one hand it can't give people the knowledge to get themselves out of trouble in a dangerous situation - and this shouldn't be underestimated. It can also be - and I have seen it done enough to be concerned - used in to try and blame people for others failings, shifting blame towards an outgroup so that the ingroup can rest easier. So care should be taken when addressing such topics. I myself am concerned that if the worst should happen, how many excuses will be given the the person who kills me to absolve them of their responsibility?

5) Looking back across history, I am struggling to see of an example that ended well when a vulnerable "out" group was submisive to dangerous individuals from an "in" group. It is important that we recognise this as "in" and "out" groups because despite the fact that may of us also belong to the same "in" group - is lost on those dangerous individuals - and that isn't even entirely their fault - they are just acting on their own experiences and the narative even more dangerous individuals feed them through the media. I guess what I'm trying to say is we've seen similar scenarios in the past - maybe not in terms of scale - but as a cyclist there are interested parties dehumanising you for your choices. Submitting hasn't generally worked - and I get that spouting on a forum doesn't achieve a great deal - but each person here has friends and relatives whose stance may be softened slightly. When I first started cycling my parents weren't happy because they didn't think it was safe - they had a point, I've been hit 3 times. But they have also made the point of telling me they drive more carefully around cyclists now, at the time my kneejerk (internal) response was "thats great I managed to walk down the street the other day with stabbing someone". When I am less frustrated with the crap position we find ourselves in I can appreciate that my choices have helped make the roads safer for other cyclists. My opinion on this is that this is a better way of improving road safety - and can only be achieved if we can encourage more to cycle. I fear focusing on what a cyclist can do differently only serves to make cycling look dangerous and puts people off.

Thats my opinion atleast, maybe you can find something useful in it.

Erm, no - putting sustainable travel first over car journeys and making the roads safe for all types of cyclist to use, along with removing individuals who put vulnerable road users at risk, will encourage people to cycle.

Do you run cameras Nigel? Do you have any footage of other road users being dangerous that you have submitted to a police force? If so, how did it go?

Nigel Garage wrote:

No, I don't have a camera. I'm going to get one though, waiting for Black Friday.

I will have to buy an expensive one - I ride so fast that a cheap camera will just record a blur... you can look forward to some Garage NMOTD action coming soon!

I look forward to you capturing the misdeeds of all those nefarious cyclists and pedestrians out there (and horsists? Is Essex is horsey or is it more pony and trap?).

"He's as fast as three fast men!"

Doing the same myself actually. I've finally caved and decided to get one, as annoyed as that makes me I'm trying to justify it as I switched insurance providers this year and saved a substancial amount and am using that saving to buy camera which will do a similar job. Opting for a Cycliq as I subscribe to the notion that having lights running increasing others awareness of me and helps prevent confrontation with those that are suseptable to making honest mistakes. 

It just makes me really sad that its got to the point where I feel its necessary, doesn't fill me with much hope that things will improve.

Thanks - already signed up, as was previously waiting for the Fly12 to come back in stock since mid-june. Fortunately the Black Friday marketing came out just before they restocked. Imagine many are doing likewise now, hopefully there is sufficient stock that people who can afford and want a camera are able to get one. Even better is the discounts enable more people who want one to be able to afford it. I am likely going to end up getting a dashcam for the soon as well.

That puts a lot of onus on the vulnerable to arm themselves with expensive equipment to record such incidents - this shouldn't be a barrier to entry. 

Take your point that a cyclist swearing at a car/motorist, doesn't look good on for those observing. There are 2 issues there though, first that is in large part because we've allowed the social narrative to be "oh look at the angry cyclist" as opposed to the "something has scared them, i hope their ok". Second, if we think - and I agree with you on this - that it is difficult without outside enforcement/coersion to improve arrogant behaviour in some motorists, I don't see any more success being found trying to alter the fearful behaviour exhibited by some cyclists.

Given the state of things in the UK its often helpful to look further afield at countries that have better road safety records. I'm not aware of one, so please let me know if there is, but can't see an example of where road safety for all road users has improved 1) by requiring higher standards by the vulnerable than those that can do harm, or 2) by telling the vulnerable to keep quiet when they're scared. 

Agreed.

I've never found any good at all comes from yelling at drivers in confrontations. It just ruins my ride and makes me feel all wound up, and I cant imagine it would ever change a driver's behaviour.

What's more, a bully (which deliberate close passers most likely are) thrive on a reaction.  Nothing makes their day more.  Better to take a deep breath and look utterly unmoved.

As this incident proves, if you shout and scream you need to be ready for a physical confrontation.  And as a 65kg 48 yr old wearing lycra and SPDs, it probably wouldn't end well for me!

PRSboy wrote:

Agreed.

I've never found any good at all comes from yelling at drivers in confrontations. It just ruins my ride and makes me feel all wound up, and I cant imagine it would ever change a driver's behaviour.

What's more, a bully (which deliberate close passers most likely are) thrive on a reaction.  Nothing makes their day more.  Better to take a deep breath and look utterly unmoved.

As this incident proves, if you shout and scream you need to be ready for a physical confrontation.  And as a 65kg 48 yr old wearing lycra and SPDs, it probably wouldn't end well for me!

If you agree with Nigel perhaps you will answer the same question that I asked him.

In this situation 

"A cyclist on a shared use path close passes a pedestrian, the pedestrian shouts in exclamation as the cyclists passes, the cyclist stops their bicycle and goes back to remonstrate with the pedestrian"

I want to know your viewpoint as an obeserver of those events not what you would do if you were either the cyclist or the pedestrian.

Would you jump to the defense of the cyclist, saying that had the pedestrian simply ignored the dangerous maneuver and kept quiet that the cyclist wouldn't have had an excuse to try and pick a fight with the pedestrian?  Or would you side with the pedestrian given the fact that the dangerous maneuver of the close pass was the thing that precipitated the pedestrians reaction?

TriTaxMan wrote:

PRSboy wrote:

Agreed.

I've never found any good at all comes from yelling at drivers in confrontations. It just ruins my ride and makes me feel all wound up, and I cant imagine it would ever change a driver's behaviour.

What's more, a bully (which deliberate close passers most likely are) thrive on a reaction.  Nothing makes their day more.  Better to take a deep breath and look utterly unmoved.

As this incident proves, if you shout and scream you need to be ready for a physical confrontation.  And as a 65kg 48 yr old wearing lycra and SPDs, it probably wouldn't end well for me!

If you agree with Nigel perhaps you will answer the same question that I asked him.

In this situation 

"A cyclist on a shared use path close passes a pedestrian, the pedestrian shouts in exclamation as the cyclists passes, the cyclist stops their bicycle and goes back to remonstrate with the pedestrian"

I want to know your viewpoint as an obeserver of those events not what you would do if you were either the cyclist or the pedestrian.

Would you jump to the defense of the cyclist, saying that had the pedestrian simply ignored the dangerous maneuver and kept quiet that the cyclist wouldn't have had an excuse to try and pick a fight with the pedestrian?  Or would you side with the pedestrian given the fact that the dangerous maneuver of the close pass was the thing that precipitated the pedestrians reaction?

The blame clearly lies with the cyclist for passing the pedestrian in a manner that worried them sufficiently to shout out.  So I would side with the pedestrian.

However, if the confrontation ended up with the cyclist hurting the pedestrian in a fight then it would be a pyrrhic victory.

I wasn't criticising the reaction, but rather saying that if we react like that (and I do, but am trying not to!) then we need to be ready to respond if the driver pulls over and gets out for a fight.  Or if they don't, spend the next 5 minutes feeling all wound up and cross, when you should be enjoying a nice cycle ride.

PRSboy wrote:

The blame clearly lies with the cyclist for passing the pedestrian in a manner that worried them sufficiently to shout out.  So I would side with the pedestrian.

However, if the confrontation ended up with the cyclist hurting the pedestrian in a fight then it would be a pyrrhic victory.

I wasn't criticising the reaction, but rather saying that if we react like that (and I do, but am trying not to!) then we need to be ready to respond if the driver pulls over and gets out for a fight.  Or if they don't, spend the next 5 minutes feeling all wound up and cross, when you should be enjoying a nice cycle ride.

The point I am trying to make is that no one should be subjected to the close pass in the first place.  Attempting, as Nigel does, to say that the cyclist reacts out of anger as opposed to shock is what I disagree with.

Nigel knows this because in his very first post he said "I know people get bored of me saying the same thing over and over again, and accuse me of "victim blaming", but honestly that would all have been avoided by just being courteous."

Then he goes on to say this

Nigel Garage wrote:

I haven't responded to you because the answer to your question is self-evident. Of course I've reacted to sudden shock at points in my life, I'm a human being. I have also got angry at being close-passed by a car, but it became clear to me very quickly that it's a futile and self-destructive emotion in the circumstance, and I've learned to control my emotions better.

Which IMHO is projecting his previous anger issues onto the cyclists who react out of shock.

PRSboy wrote:

Agreed.

I've never found any good at all comes from yelling at drivers in confrontations. It just ruins my ride and makes me feel all wound up, and I cant imagine it would ever change a driver's behaviour.

What's more, a bully (which deliberate close passers most likely are) thrive on a reaction.  Nothing makes their day more.  Better to take a deep breath and look utterly unmoved.

As this incident proves, if you shout and scream you need to be ready for a physical confrontation.  And as a 65kg 48 yr old wearing lycra and SPDs, it probably wouldn't end well for me!

I disagree with you and Nigel on this.  My ride is ruined and I am wound up every time I get a close pass, and in rural Sussex it happens often enough and needless enough to be 2 or times an hour. I'm usually on my own, so it isn't a bunch of lyrca clad TDF wannabes holding up a poor motorist for miles on end, it's just me, for maybe 30 seconds.

I can't help but shout and gesticulate about the closesness of the pass. I've noticed that other vehicles will then give me more room, almost without fail.  So I have saved myself from an immediate second close pass. 

One time, I had a guy slow down, open the passenger window and lean across his wife to argue about my reaction to his poor driving, with his approx 12 year old kid sitting in the back, as we continued along the road at 15-18 mph.  I looked at his wife, who looked appalled at his behaviour, and his kid who looked bemused, and I congratulated him on the fine example he was setting.

I have toned my reactions down, I used to swear like a navvy, and I recognise now that doesn't win friends.

I've tried a cheap camera, but it is such a pain to use, I gave up.  The battery lasted an hour, which is shorter than most of my rides, so when exactly do you turn it on?  Close passes happen from behind and you don't get any warning most times.  The resolution wasn't great either so often the vibration or the lighting would make number plate recognition impossible.  And even if all that was great, I don't want to sit at home on my pc editing videos of shit driving.  To send to a police website that probably won't do anything.