- 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
Lady Bathurst close passed by overtaking motorist during charity ride (National Foundation for Retired Service Animals)“This shouldn’t be normal, but it is”: Chris Boardman blasts “common criminal behaviour” after overtaking driver “almost kills” cyclists – “protected by hi-vis” – on charity ride
The “common criminal behaviour” of dangerous drivers around cyclists needs to be eradicated before we “lose a vital transport choice”, says National Active Travel Commissioner Chris Boardman. The former Olympic champion made the comments in response to a video posted on social media today by the National Foundation for Retired Service Animals (NFRSA), which showed the charity’s founder Lady Bathurst, cycling the length of Britain to raise awareness for the foundation, on the receiving end of an extremely close pass by an oncoming driver overtaking a lorry at speed.
The shocking incident – which, as Boardman pointed out, saw three cyclists, supposedly protected by hi-vis clothing, “almost killed” – took place yesterday as Lady Bathurst, the former High Sheriff of Gloucesthershire, crossed the border into Scotland, two weeks into her attempt to ride her e-bike from Land’s End to John O’Groats to celebrate the NFRSA’s first year and to raise awareness of the charity’s work.
It was such a happy day going over the border yesterday - but it nearly ended in disaster. Lady B was in the cycle lane, waving to fellow cyclists, just as a woman in a red car dangerously overtook a lorry, nearly hitting her, & causing the support car to swerve. Not a nice… pic.twitter.com/ZMEV7hW6EI
— NFRSA (@The_NFRSA) September 27, 2023
However, as the 58-year-old cycled alone on the hard shoulder, waving to two cyclists riding in the opposite direction, a motorist attempted to overtake a lorry driver approaching a bend in the road, missing Lady Bathurst by centimetres at speed and causing her to wobble.
The overtaking driver also manages to pull in front of the lorry just as another motorist, driving a support vehicle as part of the charity ride, appears around the corner.
Drone footage captured by the charity also shows the lorry driver narrowly passing the two cyclists on the other side of the road.
“F***ing hell,” the Countess can be heard saying in the video, posted this morning on X, formerly Twitter, by the NFRSA, as she came to a stop on the hard shoulder shortly after the near miss.
“My knees are actually shaking. It was literally inches away. I was waving… and I laughed, and just wobbled out, and she… I very nearly was a dead Countess, not a cycling Countess!”
Posting the clip of the incident this morning, the NFRSA wrote: “It was such a happy day going over the border yesterday – but it nearly ended in disaster.
“Lady B was in the cycle lane, waving to fellow cyclists, just as a woman in a red car dangerously overtook a lorry, nearly hitting her, and causing the support car to swerve. Not a nice experience at all.
“Please motorists – be careful when overtaking on country roads.”
Reposting the video, Lady Bathurst added: “I was riding alone yesterday afternoon, in beautiful Scotland on the NFRSA Charity Bike Ride, when this happened. It was unbelievably frightening and shook me up.
“Please, when overtaking on country roads, be aware of what might be on the other side of the road. Thank you.”
> Chris Boardman speaks about losing his mum at the hands of killer driver for the first time
Meanwhile, Active Travel England’s Boardman, who today called on the government to back and provide funding for cycling schemes at a meeting at 10 Downing Street, described the shocking incident as something that “shouldn’t be normal, but it is”.
“Three people – ‘protected by high viz’ – almost killed whilst doing something wholly beneficial for society. This shouldn’t be normal, but it is,” Boardman wrote.
“This is common criminal behaviour and we need to stop it or we will lose a vital transport choice.”
Despite Boardman’s comments, some social media users responded to the video by arguing that Lady Bathurst should have been wearing hi-vis and that the charity cyclist was lacking “concentration” at the time of the close pass, prompting the Countess herself to intervene in the discussion.
“The top had reflector strips. I wasn’t wearing my coat. Hot!” she said, in response to one social media user who claimed that “cyclists MUST wear hi-vis clothing. It’s a no-brainer.”
“To be honest,” Lady Bathurst continued, “She was going that fast, I’m not sure she’d have seen me if I’d had fireworks coming out of my head!”
Replying to someone who accused her of “showboating”, she said: “Showboating? Really?? I was BEING FRIENDLY and returning a wave from a cyclist on the other side of the road. I was NOT expecting a red missile to narrowly miss me. What is wrong with you?”
Another social media user also attempted to pin at least some of the blame on the charity cyclist, arguing that “you took your eyes off the situation unfolding in front of you to smile and converse with the cyclist across the road instead of moving over to the left of the cycle lane as a precaution. That wave almost cost you your life.”
“I could have been doing a handstand and cartwheels,” Lady Bathurst pithily replied. “The fact is at whatever stage, I was safely within the lines of the bike lane. The motorist overtaking did so in a reckless manner and was doing well over 70.
“I’d argue the stupidity of the driver nearly cost me my life.”
After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
Latest Comments
- hawkinspeter 2 min 55 sec ago
They've got GPS tracking information, so the app can not allow the journey to be "finished" unless the bike is left in an authorised parking...
- chrisonabike 3 min 24 sec ago
An excellent idea but then - due to expensive lawyers and accountants - no doubt the richer would be found to personally not own or control a penny...
- mitsky 12 min 7 sec ago
Re: the shipping container bike lane......
- Willd 18 min 27 sec ago
The section being talked about is the southern part of Clifford Bridge Road from the B4082 to the B4027. A cycle route of sorts already exists on...
- Rapha Nadal 25 min 12 sec ago
I'd buy a motorbike fo rthat kind of money!
- hawkinspeter 43 min 58 sec ago
Article on the BBC - "thousands" demand halt: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6296300l05o
- wtjs 10 hours 47 min ago
There is an increasing 'disconnect' between comments in this topic and reality. Cords are either all cotton or mostly cotton and are going to last...
- ktache 11 hours 18 min ago
There are people out there who will make you the belt out of your old tyre.
- chrisonabike 11 hours 19 min ago
Furry dice and an air freshener for your helmet.
Add new comment
107 comments
I don't want to see any driving like this, which was apparently common in the HAZZARD location
Dr Walker did a study observing motorists interactions with cyclists in various attire and concluded that there was very little difference in the space given during passes. I've attached an image below of the clothing worn. Personally I know where my eye is drawn to and am interested if others have the same reaction.
There is now such a plethora of HiViz on the streets today that our brains pretty much phase it out. Fluorescent colours are well and good except in some environments they blend into the background and become camouflage. I've found bright colours or contrasting colours work best and in this particular instance purple has been a good call for visibility.
Drivers with over 20 years behind them will never have done the HPT and even those who have done so rarely implement those practices. Until drivers proactively observe while driving then our roads will never be safe. It's really not difficult to look further up the road and make decisions based on what we see.
Yes the cyclist could have been into the left more but that lane looks absolutely rubbish to be on. Even moving into the left still means the driver was still within the recommended 2.0m at speed. They quite simply should have held back.
I've also attatched an old clip. I'm wearing a bright yellow rain cape on this occasion and the driver still makes contact.
https://youtu.be/UtM71BQDyng
HiViv like helmets is a red herring to road safety and is the easy way out but it in no way reduces the instances of collisions and near misses.
Plain blue, extreme left is most visible.
Yep. That's the one.
I ride a lot in the city on roads with parked cars and I find that cars coming in the opposite direction on my side of the road while passing parked cars, are much more likely to pass closely than cars overtaking me.
I tend to ride in the centre of the lane when on narrow roads and I find myself often squeezed over to the left by vehicles who should in fact be giving way to me. The fact is that they know they can drive directly at me and I will be forced out of the way because if I don't move I will be killed. The other day I was forced off the road entirely.
Drivers. If you should be giving way to a car then you should also be giving way to a cyclist.
Ride primary, get a camera and report them. It hasn't happened to me since this incident. Anecdotal I know.
https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-833-oncoming-driver-forces-cyclist-sw...
The cyclist did NOTHING WRONG. And yes, she would almost certainly have been killed if that car had hit her head on at that speed.
Editor:Could we have a follow up on this about whether the driver was traced by police? There can't be any doubt that a prosecution is wholly justified in this case.
To quote McEnroe, "You can not be serious"! Nothing wrong? Ha!
Please watch it again, closely. She took her attention off of the road, her hand off of the handlebars, just to wave to someone, wobbled, (as she admitted), nearly swerved out of the cycle lane into the oncoming car, which she was totally oblivious to. What more do you want? Oh yes, she couldn't be bothered to make herself as visible as possible. It's only because the car was oncoming and overtaking that you're outraged. Its no different had the car been coming from behind, except she had the advantage of being able to see the car coming, if she had bothered to look. Before she wobbled and swerved, she probably had 1.5m of space, but you think it's the car driver's fault that she is not paying attention and can't control her bike! That's the point of 1.5m passing space, in case the cyclist wobbles, which she did, and therefore was not hit.
Frankly, if anyone should be prosecuted for careless 'driving', it should be her! She didn't have a clue what was going on.
What more do we want?
Do we have to spell it out for you (again)?
What does that even mean? It's broad daylight. Would you be satisfied if she had an orange tabard instead of purple? A front light in daytime? A big metal cage around her?
No, it still would have been a horrendous close pass if the car had been going the other way on the correct side of the road.
It is different, because the driver is on the wrong side of the road. The cyclist would not expect such a dangerous maneuovre by the driver, and if you watch the clip in real time you'll see that she had very little time to spot it.
Er, no. If you think that she moved 1.5m to her right, then I really would not want you to pass me when driving. If your misperception of distance/length extends to other areas, then I fear that your penis may be much smaller than you think it is.
You've taken the trolling a bit too far, there. You need to dial it back - less is sometimes more.
Not only that, but 1.5m is the recommended minimum in the HC for speeds up to 30mph. The overtaking driver was clearly doing a LOT more than 30.
In the first few seconds of film, which cyclist is much easier to see? The correct answer, in case you can't admit to yourself, is the one in hi-vis. She had hi-vis in her basket, but perhaps thought her dark purple tabard was more appropriate.🤷
It was a "horrendous close pass" because she nearly swerved out of the cycle lane. She could have, and would have, moved to the left of the cycle lane had she being paying attention. Instead, she almost lost control of her bike and swerved into the car, with one hand on the handlebars. What do you not understand about the facts that are there to see with your own eyes? See frame taken from the film.
The driver is not on the "wrong side" of the road because they are overtaking. That's usually accepted as the correct side of the road to overtake on. I never said the manoeuvre wasn't dangerous. I'm pointing out what the cyclist did wrong. It's a dangerous road, so she should expect cars overtaking. She said she was safely within the cycle lane. How the hell does that make her safe? Does that give her the right to not pay attention to the road and lose control of her bike? Of course not, and if you think otherwise you're as big a fool as she clearly is.
If you watch the clip in real time, you'll see that she did have time to see the car, if she hadn't been looking at the other idiot waving at her when he had a truck about to pass him. The driver also had lights on.
I concede she didn't have 1.5 m space. I meant that she could have had 1.5m if she had moved to the far left, perhaps a bit less. I know which side of the cycle lane I would have been on. Yes, the driver was too far over too, but remember, I'm talking about what she did wrong.
And yes, she was clearly being careless. Honestly, do you ride like that? Not looking at the road ahead, one handed, wobbling about on roads with fast traffic. If yes, good luck! 🫣.
In the first few seconds of film, which cyclist is much easier to see? The correct answer, in case you can't admit to yourself, is the one in hi-vis. She had hi-vis in her basket, but perhaps thought her dark purple tabard was more appropriate.🤷
It was a "horrendous close pass" because she nearly swerved out of the cycle lane. She could have, and would have, moved to the left of the cycle lane had she being paying attention. Instead, she almost lost control of her bike and swerved into the car, with one hand on the handlebars. What do you not understand about the facts that are there to see with your own eyes? See frame taken from the film.
The driver is not on the "wrong side" of the road because they are overtaking. That's usually accepted as the correct side of the road to overtake on. I never said the manoeuvre wasn't dangerous. I'm pointing out what the cyclist did wrong. It's a dangerous road, so she should expect cars overtaking. She said she was safely within the cycle lane. How the hell does that make her safe? Does that give her the right to not pay attention to the road and lose control of her bike? Of course not, and if you think otherwise you're as big a fool as she clearly is.
If you watch the clip in real time, you'll see that she did have time to see the car, if she hadn't been looking at the other idiot waving at her when he had a truck about to pass him. The driver also had lights on.
I concede she didn't have 1.5 m space. I meant that she could have had 1.5m if she had moved to the far left, perhaps a bit less. I know which side of the cycle lane I would have been on. Yes, the driver was too far over too, but remember, I'm talking about what she did wrong.
And yes, she was clearly being careless. Honestly, do you ride like that? Not looking at the road ahead, one handed, wobbling about on roads with fast traffic. If yes, good luck! 🫣.
The driver was on the wrong side of the road because they should not have been overtaking when there was a cyclist coming the other way. Even if the cyclist had been far over to the left, there was not sufficient space because the minimum distance is 1.5m at 30mph and the driver was driving well over 70mph.
Moreover, the theoretical position that the cyclist could have been in is irrelevant. It is where they actually are that matters. Personally, I would not have been cycling in the hard shoulder but in secondary position in the main carriageway. If the driver had come into my lane and hit me at 70+ mph would that have been my fault? Of course not.
The cyclist was clearly visible because it's broad daylight. Hi-viz is irrelevant, and has been shown to make no difference to the rate at which cyclists are victims of close passes. The driver could undoubtedly see the cyclist, but didn't care.
The cyclist wobbled, yes. So? She remained within her "lane" (hard shoulder) and it's the driver who shouldn't have been where they were, and certainly not at that speed. The road is dangerous because of the actions of the driver and others like them, not the cyclist.
Which cyclist is easier to see? I'd plump for the one nearer the camera.
blah blah duplicate sorry
Unpopular opinion on Hi-Vis - Being seen DOES NOT EQUAL Being Safe.
Yes you are more likely to be seen. But does it stop people doing stupid shit in cars? NO.
Hi Viz primarily in conditions with good visibility do not make you "safer".
Wearing Hi Vis does not prompt people to give more room than if not if in both situations you were seen. That is only how much risk and stupidity that an entitled minority of motorists decide to act upon. Something completely out of the control of yourself.
In poor conditions, or in a bustling urban environment where your movements may blend into the background, there is a greater case of not being seen but that is a factor for investigating officers to decide whether it was a major contributing factor to an incident.
Screaming "No Hi Viz" as an excuse to try and pardon a bad driver's actions is piss poor and needs to be stopped.
We have had hazard perception segments of driving theory tests for over 10 years now, I was one of the first to take it when I learned to drive. And my biggest takeaway was that drivers are supposed to be constantly scanning for hazards from an erratic lorry to a suicidal squirrel. If you can't see and react to a cyclist travelling in the same direction, how are you going to react to a child running into the road from a blind spot? If you can't you are not driving to the conditions of the environment and is thus careless driving. And yet nearly all drivers do this constantly, myself included from time to time, and I have to keep check of myself.
The theory "The others have to comply with the law and I will not do anything extra to get protected other than what the law requires" has many times been supported here, and I disagree with it. It reminds me the first Christians seeking to become martyrs in order to support their faith. I want to support my faith in cycling, but definitely don't want to feel unsafe and risk being a martyr.
You must always protect yourself, anyway you can. If you feel unsafe cycling, try to find other solutions to transport yourself but always try to push for changes in order to upgrade cycling infrastructure.
Usually people respond to my views with the classic "OK then stay at home, it's perfectly safe" but I think I do have a sense of what is safe over all given the benefits I get and what is not. In general I don't believe I ride in too unsafe conditions, what actually scares me is that I may inhale too much motor vehicle exhaust fumes in some road segments, but on the other hand cycling is an important part of my total physical activity.
I do admit that I am the opposite of hi viz. I ride a black bike, black helmet and when chilly black jacket, usually in dark blue denim jeans. But I usually use roads with segretated bike infrastructure and with not great speed difference between motor traffic and bicycles like the one shown her. So I feel safe.
I also disagree with that particular sentiment, but I honestly don’t see much of it on this site. What I do see (which is what’s being said in the above comment) is that these “additional methods/protections” a) aren’t infallible, and b) should not be used to apportion blame to the victim.
People here that offer counterpoints to things like Hi-Vis and helmets probably wear Hi-Vis and helmets themselves. They’re just saying that blame should not be apportioned to a cyclist not wearing Hi-Vis, if they’re hit by a driver (who if they were driving within the law and to the conditions) should have been able to see them anyway. They're saying that wearing Hi-Vis isn't a sure-fire way of having these incidents never occur. They not saying don’t wear Hi-Vis.
My opinions on Hi-Vis are that it only helps draw your eye to a specific part of a “scene” that you’re already looking at, it doesn’t help if the driver isn’t looking. I personally don’t wear it because most of it is hot and uncomfortable, and I cycle with a bright top or backpack with an orange, reflective rain cover, I have reflective strips on the bike and kit, and I run solid and flashing lights at all times. If a driver can’t see that, then they aren’t looking, so Hi-Vis isn’t going to do anything.
Yesterday morning (about 8am, so good visibility), wearing my usual long sleeved hi-vis jacket, front facing Cateye AMPP500 turned on, white helmet on, cycling in the bus lane (signed for cyclists as well as buses) alongside the road.
Driver comes to the junction on a road on the left, looking to join the road I am on. I can see the driver looking at me. Stares directly at me. Starts to pull out anyway. I hit my brakes, the driver hits their brakes, but its okay they gave me a little "wave apology." Didn't lower my heart rate though.
Genuninely think they didn't expect to see a cyclist, so they were focused on the cars beside me.
I will still always choose hi-vis clothing when cycling. It didn't help this driver see me, but how many of the other drivers give me room simply because they have seen my hi-vis/lights? I'll never know, but even one is worth it.
I looked for evidence that lights and high Vis increase safety of cyclists more than other factors, and I actually couldn't find any.
Of course it's important to be seen and it makes sense that being visible will increase the chances of that happening, but the biggest factor in being seen is that somebody is actually looking.
If a driver expects there to be cyclists then they will be looking for them and will be more likely to see them. Drivers will look for cyclists if they think that cycling is something that people are likely to do on the road, and the people who expect this more than anybody else are cyclists.
So, the most important factor in increasing visibility of cyclists and cycle safety is in fact to get drivers onto bikes, even if it's just some of the time.
I looked for evidence that lights and high Vis increase safety of cyclists more than other factors, and I actually couldn't find any.
Of course it's important to be seen and it makes sense that being visible will increase the chances of that happening, but the biggest factor in being seen is that somebody is actually looking.
If a driver expects there to be cyclists then they will be looking for them and will be more likely to see them. Drivers will look for cyclists if they think that cycling is something that people are likely to do on the road, and the people who expect this more than anybody else are cyclists.
So, the most important factor in increasing visibility of cyclists and cycle safety is in fact to get drivers onto bikes, even if it's just some of the time.
I can't believe she is doing this ride without hi-viz AND without bright flashing lights, especially on roads like this. She was not paying attention to the road ahead. She obviously didn't see the car coming. If she had, she would have been well over to the left. She very nearly veered into the oncoming car. Hopefully she will have learnt a valuable lesson from this near miss.
The overtaking manoeuvre probably was dangerous but unfortunately that's very common on this type of road in Scotland. The road/cycle lanes is dangerous by design. Organising a charity ride with an inexperienced cyclist and not insisting on hi Viz and lights is irresponsible. She has a front light, but it's not switched on and it's pointing at the sky!
She said "I'd argue the stupidity of the driver nearly cost me my life" I'd argue that ultimately her stupidity/ lack of attention / inexperience nearly cost her her life! Her own comments demonstrate her ignorance.
And what is Chris Boardman talking about? "protected by hi-viz." She's not wearing any hi-viz! 🤔
I can't believe she is doing this ride without hi-viz AND without bright flashing lights, especially on roads like this. She was not paying attention to the road ahead. She obviously didn't see the car coming. If she had, she would have been well over to the left. She very nearly veered into the oncoming car. Hopefully she will have learnt a valuable lesson from this near miss.
The overtaking manoeuvre probably was dangerous but unfortunately that's very common on this type of road in Scotland. The road/cycle lanes is dangerous by design. Organising a charity ride with an inexperienced cyclist and not insisting on hi Viz and lights is irresponsible. I would say that ultimately her stupidity/ lack of attention / inexperience nearly cost her her life!
I hope you are being sarcastic!
If s/he isn't, then this is victim blaming of the worse type. Not very good for a third post. One could almost wonder if they are trolling.
Victim blaming? Have you watched it properly? Be real. She didn't even see the car coming! She could, at least, pay attention to the road, even if she couldn't be bothered to wear hi Viz or use lights! 😡
I'm being realistic. Which point/s do you not agree with? Anyone with experience of Scottish A-roads and common sense wouldn't do this without hi Viz and flashing lights. I wouldn't choose to do it and I've been cycling for 40 yrs.
All of it.
This type of shite is what makes my blood boil. You've taken the fact that there was a car on the wrong side of the road travelling at high speeds narrowly avoiding a person on a bike in a cycling lane (on the opposite side of the road), passing within millimeters of her!
And with all that information, you have somehow managed to place the blame at the hands of the person on the bike.
The ONLY person at fault here, is the person behind the wheel of the car, and to suggest otherwise is everything wrong with the state of the roads today.
Pages