# Police let down



## benb (19 Oct 2016)

Warning - contains some swearing.
Ignore the shouting and swearing. What I'm interested in is how the investigating officer came to the conclusion that the case didn't pass the "evidential test" 



(Copied from video description)

I was cycling centrally through the pinch points, which is necessary to discourage overtakes where there isn't room to do so safely. This is quite normal and uncontroversial cycling practice.

This driver decided they didn't like my road positioning, so deliberately overtook too closely. They then shouted some nonsense along the lines of "How much room do you need?" out of the window.

Unfortunately I didn't manage to keep my temper, having just been endangered by his driving, so I called him a dickhead and gave him the coffee beans. That was a mistake, as we shall see.

We exchanged further words, and I was trying to explain why I was central in the lane through the pinchpoints, but he wasn't interested in any actual reasons.

He pulled over ahead, accosted me at the lights and was extremely verbally and physically abusive and threatening. By this point I had calmed down and didn't respond in kind. Again I tried to explain my road positioning to him.

I made a formal complaint to Surrey Police on 2 counts: the dangerous overtake and the abusive threatening behaviour.

They declined to take either further. The former because it didn't pass the "evidential test". That is, in the view of the investigating officer the CPS would not proceed with a prosecution as the evidence of careless driving was not sufficient. My estimate at the time that the vehicle was no more than 30-50cm away from me, and the stills of the pass corroborate that. If this does not pass the "evidential test" I don't really know what would.

They also declined to progress the abusive and threatening behaviour, as I called him a dickhead first, and therefore antagonised him. As if an alarmed response due to having your life endangered is equivalent to his behaviour.

So there you have it. Thanks guys.


----------



## Rooster1 (19 Oct 2016)

What goes around comes around, the guy will end up in a bad situation one day and not get away with it. You are right to move over at pinch points, I have two on the way to work, a single car width road and a hump back bridge. Sometimes I get abuse, mostly not. I hope you can put this one in archive and move on. Keep riding


----------



## Joffey (19 Oct 2016)

You called him a dickhead and then said 'f&ck you"....

He was close, I agree, and I hate close passes but to me on the video alone it doesn't seem 'that' close. Usually I would ride in a prominent road position so it is impossible for a car to overtake, not so they can overtake closely. 

It is hard to keep ones temper when closely passed his reaction isn't really aggressive considering you called him what you did. The driver is just uneducated and we have to allow for these numpties unfortunately.

Hope you aren't too shook up and please don't take my comments the wrong way. I'm just been impartial. I can see why the Police wouldn't take that further. But it was a close pass. Shame we all know that sometimes that isn't enough for the Police to do anything.


----------



## Drago (19 Oct 2016)

Careless/dangerous has such a woolly, subjective definition that one CPS lawyer would gleefully run something like that, the next wouldn't countenance it. A minimum overtaking distance written into law would knock that dead.

As for the gobbyness, you committed a S4a public order offence first by likening his head to a Willy, so they would have to be even handed and finger you as well as him. Strictly speaking they've evidence of a recordable crime and should progress it, so they're doing you a favour by telling you to leave it. This is why I'm forever telling people not to get involved in verbal jousting - you could at least have had him for the public order offence if you'd not indulged in a spot of it yourself, but your gob undid any chance of that happening. Your gob, not the Coppers.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Oct 2016)

It was a close enough pass to warrant police action and you were justified in being alarmed by it. 

Your problem isn't that it failed the evidential test but that it passed the can't be arsed test. You're just a cyclist.


----------



## benb (19 Oct 2016)

Joffey said:


> You called him a dickhead and then said 'f&ck you"....
> 
> He was close, I agree, and I hate close passes but to me on the video alone it doesn't seem 'that' close. Usually I would ride in a prominent road position so it is impossible for a car to overtake, not so they can overtake closely.
> 
> ...



Actually I said "thank you" if you're talking about the bit where he said "You're not a car" and then I said "I know I'm not a car, thank you". Like I said, I don't care much about the lack of progress on the public order offence, but I'd point out there is a big difference between an angry response at being endangered and what he did.

But "not _that_ close" really? Have another look at the stills at the end of the video. He was less than 50cm away.


----------



## benb (19 Oct 2016)

Drago said:


> Careless/dangerous has such a woolly, subjective definition that one CPS lawyer would gleefully run something like that, the next wouldn't countenance it. A minimum overtaking distance written into law would knock that dead.
> 
> As for the gobbyness, you committed a S4a public order offence first by likening his head to a Willy, so they would have to be even handed and finger you as well as him. Strictly speaking they've evidence of a recordable crime and should progress it, so they're doing you a favour by telling you to leave it. This is why I'm forever telling people not to get involved in verbal jousting - you could at least have had him for the public order offence if you'd not indulged in a spot of it yourself, but your gob undid any chance of that happening. Your gob, not the Coppers.



As said, I'm more interested in the lack of response on the dangerous overtake than the public order.
Yes, I did call him a dickhead, but funnily enough I was quite angry at having just having had my life put in danger.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to not react angrily to driving like that.


----------



## Origamist (19 Oct 2016)

You could point Surrey Police in the direction of another constabulary who seem to take close passes much more seriously:

https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/latest-news/news.aspx?id=4942

Obviously, it won't help in your situation, but it would be good to flag up a different approach to theirs that is more progressive and enlightened.


----------



## Andrew_P (19 Oct 2016)

I god I hate self-gratification artists like that, they are getting more and more common. So difficult not to engage with them both during the pass and then their need to further it, but they seem to see it as a bit of sport both in how close they can get and how far they can improve their macho ego later on.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Oct 2016)

Drago said:


> so they would have to be even handed and finger you as well as him



How come that applies here and not in Russ Will's thread about Criminal Damage Investigation - Need your help! where they're doing F all against the driver but giving the cyclist a criminal record?
(Rhetorical question)


----------



## benb (19 Oct 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> (Rhetorical question)



Where would we be without rhetorical questions?


----------



## JtB (19 Oct 2016)

benb said:


> Where would we be without rhetorical questions?


I don't know, where would we be?


----------



## steveindenmark (19 Oct 2016)

I think this ended up being six of one and half a dozen of the other.

He passed close, you had your say, he had his and he moved on. But then you gave him the @Anker sign or the finger as he moved on. Are you surprised he got a bit anti. His complaint was that you were too far away from the kerb. By that time the chat had escalated and I didnt hear you telling him why you were riding there. Its not a great surprise that he wasn't interested by then.

You could have handled this a lot differently and I'm not surprised the police were not interested. You gave as good as you got.

This is only my opinion and others may see it differently. But now you have watched the clip, wouldn't you do it differently next time.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Oct 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> I'm not surprised the police were not interested. You gave as good as you got.



Why should bad language by either party cancel out the separate offence of the close pass?


----------



## User33236 (19 Oct 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> ......But now you have watched the clip, wouldn't you do it differently next time.



^^^

Precisely the reason I use a camera on my bike, mainly my commuter. On the rare occasion I encounter an issue I review the footage to see what I may be able to learn from it and, consequently, what I could do different next time.


----------



## steveindenmark (19 Oct 2016)

Ive looked at the clip a few times and he is close but Benb didn't appear to have to change course, the driver got through and the space quickly opened. But Benbs perception may be totally different. Trying to judge this with these cameras is very difficult. Would you get a conviction. I doubt it.

Benb made 2 complaints, the second being abusive and threatening behaviour, which led to my comments.

The police have looked at it and made their decision. Its not the one Benb wanted and he is obviously a bit peed off. Its not the first time we have seen it on here and it wont be the last.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (19 Oct 2016)

Drago said:


> A minimum overtaking distance written into law would knock that dead.



If you remove the subjectiveness of a "close pass", will it not be harder to then prosecute them? While a minimum passing distance sounds nice and clean cut. How hard will it be to prove, with random cameras, and random focal lengths, etc?

Obviously close ones will be clear cut, but the closer ones that are still unacceptable, I believe would turn into "Prove I was within xxx cm" and there is no other option.


----------



## steveindenmark (19 Oct 2016)

The favourite pinch points in Denmark seem to be roundabouts. If they look thin, I stick the bike in the middle of the lane so cars cannot come past. Up to now it has not caused a problem. But if I stay at the edge of the road, they will try and squeeze past.


----------



## Johnno260 (19 Oct 2016)

I get pinched like this a lot, I have given up saying anything as you get the generic you're a bike get off the road, or people get aggressive and I don't really want to justify a reason for self defence in court.

I have noticed a lot if you make a gesture or react you get brake tested almost straight away, attitudes in general on the road are horrible.

Worst case I saw last week was someone pulling out a side road, going across a cycle path he cut a cyclist up badly, then turned left almost immediately and almost hitting the guy again.

I have also had issue when keeping a safe distance from a cyclist, the poor kid was very nervous and wobbling a lot, the motorist behind wanted me to overtake but there wasn't room as the guy really was wobbling and there was oncoming traffic, I was then tailgated by the guy and I had my daughter in the car so I pulled into a lay by to let him pass but he took this as a que to follow me in and have an argument.

Morale of the story would be try not to react, there are too many nutters out there, if you have footage approach the police and report the other road user.


----------



## fossyant (19 Oct 2016)

I think the lesson to learn from this and the other CCer who got a fine is that we should at no point swear or get abusive in a situation like this. You quickly lose the upper hand.

It's difficult to do when someone threatens you. I've done it myself when a driver deliberately drove at me a few times. It only got as far as intelligence for the police but they did tell me the driver was known to them.


----------



## mjr (19 Oct 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> If you remove the subjectiveness of a "close pass", will it not be harder to then prosecute them? While a minimum passing distance sounds nice and clean cut. How hard will it be to prove, with random cameras, and random focal lengths, etc?
> 
> Obviously close ones will be clear cut, but the closer ones that are still unacceptable, I believe would turn into "Prove I was within xxx cm" and there is no other option.


There was another option: he might have been done for road rage if it hadn't become a two-way.

I don't see how it can become significantly harder to prosecute them than it currently is, where the proportion of prosecutions currently rounds to 0% unless it's a police officer who they close-pass. It's already almost impossible to prove that a pass it too close with uncalibrated cameras alone (edit because even if you can prove a distance by measuring objects on-camera, there's no fixed minimum for how close is too close - or are there precedents that aren't widely known?


----------



## benb (19 Oct 2016)

fossyant said:


> I think the lesson to learn from this and the other CCer who got a fine is that we should at no point swear or get abusive in a situation like this. You quickly lose the upper hand.
> 
> It's difficult to do when someone threatens you. I've done it myself when a driver deliberately drove at me a few times. It only got as far as intelligence for the police but they did tell me the driver was known to them.



Yeah, I'm really going to try not to react angrily in future, but it's really hard when someone has just nearly wiped you out, and the adrenaline is going.


----------



## benb (19 Oct 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> I think this ended up being six of one and half a dozen of the other.
> 
> He passed close, you had your say, he had his and he moved on. But then you gave him the @Anker sign or the finger as he moved on. Are you surprised he got a bit anti. His complaint was that you were too far away from the kerb. By that time the chat had escalated and I didnt hear you telling him why you were riding there. Its not a great surprise that he wasn't interested by then.
> 
> ...



6 of one and half a dozen of the other - maybe, if you are only concerned about the swearing.

Only one of us endangered the other's life.


----------



## steveindenmark (19 Oct 2016)

benb said:


> 6 of one and half a dozen of the other - maybe, if you are only concerned about the swearing.
> 
> Only one of us endangered the other's life.


I appreciate your view but as an independent observer, that is hard to see on the clip.


----------



## Phaeton (19 Oct 2016)

What did you want the outcome to be? @benb


----------



## Biff600 (19 Oct 2016)

It didn't look that close.

It seems to me that since the news reported on minimum passing distances a vast amount of cyclists have jumped on the bandwagon and have complained what they assess to be 'too close'

I agree that there should be some leniency towards the distance that vehicles pass each other due to the safety aspects of cycling, but would you rather have an articulated truck pass you at 1.5m at 56mph or Mondeo-man pass you at 1m doing 30mph ??

For the record, I had a bus brush my arm yesterday as it passed me


----------



## steve50 (19 Oct 2016)

benb said:


> Yeah,* I'm really going to try not to react angrily in future,* but it's really hard when someone has just nearly wiped you out, and the adrenaline is going.


That is the best and only way to deal with these situations, I can fully understand your anger and frustration at some nobber passing you too closely especially at a pinch point BUT as I have said before on these boards, you never know who is behind the wheel of the car and how they are going to react once you have given them the finger or some verbal abuse.
If you are more than capable of taking care of yourself in a fist fight then fair enough do what you will, but if you are like the majority of us it is best to let it go over your head, pull over and calm down or just carry on cycling and let it go.the next guy to get out of his car in anger could be carrying wrench or a knife.....................is it really worth it?


----------



## benb (19 Oct 2016)

Phaeton said:


> What did you want the outcome to be? @benb



I'd have liked him prosecuted for careless driving, and got points and a fine.


----------



## Phaeton (19 Oct 2016)

benb said:


> I'd have liked him prosecuted for careless driving, and got points and a fine.


What do you think the Police should do with you?


----------



## benb (19 Oct 2016)

For those who are saying it's "not that close", you'd be hapy to be overtaken as close would you?


----------



## benb (19 Oct 2016)

Phaeton said:


> What do you think the Police should do with you?


What do you mean?


----------



## jarlrmai (19 Oct 2016)

It just astonishes me that a bit of swearing is always used to erase the evidence of dangerous driving.

So "you swearing" leads to a "threatening confrontation by them" is a defence.
But "being dangerously closely passed by them" is not a defence for "you swearing."


----------



## benb (19 Oct 2016)

jarlrmai said:


> It just astonishes me that a bit of swearing is always used to erase the evidence of dangerous driving.
> 
> So "you swearing" leads to a "threatening confrontation by them" is a defence.
> But "being dangerously closely passed by them" is not a defence for "you swearing."



To be fair, the officer didn't say that the swearing had anything to do with their decision to not progress the dangerous overtake. 
The decision to not progress the abusive behaviour was a completely different unit.


----------



## mjr (19 Oct 2016)

Biff600 said:


> I agree that there should be some leniency towards the distance that vehicles pass each other due to the safety aspects of cycling, but would you rather have an articulated truck pass you at 1.5m at 56mph or Mondeo-man pass you at 1m doing 30mph ??


Neither, thanks.



> For the record, I had a bus brush my arm yesterday as it passed me


I hope you've reported the nobber to the police and the traffic commissioner, in the hope he can be stopped before he gets even closer and gently taps someone under the wheels.


----------



## Gert Lush (19 Oct 2016)

How about driving without due care and attention? How can he concentrate on where he's going when arguing with you?


----------



## jonny jeez (19 Oct 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Why should bad language by either party cancel out the separate offence of the close pass?


Fair question. I suspect because its contentious that the separate offence took place.


----------



## GilesM (19 Oct 2016)

To be fair to the Police, in the video it's hard to tell that the guy gets dangerously close, I would just let Karma sort this one out, I have a feeling this particular driver isn't the luckiest man on the planet.


----------



## hatler (19 Oct 2016)

That's piss-poor behaviour from the driver and hugely disappointing from the MP, but no real surprises there. It almost makes me want to live in the West Midlands.


----------



## Joffey (19 Oct 2016)

benb said:


> Actually I said "thank you" if you're talking about the bit where he said "You're not a car" and then I said "I know I'm not a car, thank you". Like I said, I don't care much about the lack of progress on the public order offence, but I'd point out there is a big difference between an angry response at being endangered and what he did.
> 
> But "not _that_ close" really? Have another look at the stills at the end of the video. He was less than 50cm away.



I had a similar problem with a video - they don't seem 'that' close but from the camera we can't see how wide your ass / shoulders are to judge that he was 50cm away from you. I really do sympathise, it happens to me quite often.


----------



## jarlrmai (19 Oct 2016)

Wide angle lenses exaggerate distances however most action cams have them.


----------



## Phaeton (19 Oct 2016)

jarlrmai said:


> Wide angle lenses exaggerate distances however most action cams have them.


Yes if eventually the close pass rule is introduced then everybody will have to swap them for a side mounted one with a range finder type of makes on, much like they have on reversing cameras.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (19 Oct 2016)

Phaeton said:


> Yes if eventually the close pass rule is introduced then everybody will have to swap them for a side mounted one with a range finder type of makes on, much like they have on reversing cameras.



I'd have my doubts if they're as reliable as the parking sensors on the cars I have driven


----------



## jarlrmai (19 Oct 2016)

I bought a cheap laser distance finder, but as it shoots a red visible light laser I can't use it on my bike (might blind a road user,) handy for DIY though.

there are plans for an IR Arduino one which would be a cool project or you could make a LIDAR.


----------



## Phaeton (19 Oct 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> I'd have my doubts if they're as reliable as the parking sensors on the cars I have driven


Yes But! When the object enters the red zone you are supposed to stop, not carry on to see how accurate they are


----------



## ianrauk (19 Oct 2016)

benb said:


> Yeah, I'm really going to try not to react angrily in future, but it's really hard when someone has just nearly wiped you out, and the adrenaline is going.




Sometimes it just cant be helped Ben. I would have done the same as you, no doubt.


----------



## GGJ (19 Oct 2016)

My take on this situation is the driver was looking for an argument, why else would he give a close pass and almost break his neck to watch the reaction of the cyclist


----------



## hatler (19 Oct 2016)

Agreed. That wasn't a look of concern ("Oh bless me, I really did pass that cyclist a little too closely") or one of surprise ("Oh my word, where did that cyclist appear from ?"). That is someone looking for a response to his deliberate bullying.


----------



## Johnno260 (19 Oct 2016)

GGJ said:


> My take on this situation is the driver was looking for an argument, why else would he give a close pass and almost break his neck to watch the reaction of the cyclist
> View attachment 148417
> 
> View attachment 148418
> View attachment 148419



When you see those stills the guy was 100% looking for a reaction.


----------



## GGJ (19 Oct 2016)

He must have driven at least two car lengths with his head turned to the left looking at the cyclist and not paying attention to the junction ahead


----------



## marknotgeorge (19 Oct 2016)

jarlrmai said:


> I bought a cheap laser distance finder, but as it shoots a red visible light laser I can't use it on my bike (might blind a road user,) handy for DIY though.
> 
> there are plans for an IR Arduino one which would be a cool project or you could make a LIDAR.



I have a vague idea for a project using a Raspberry Pi, an ultrasonic sensor and two cameras. The sensor and one camera points sideways and are mounted at the back of the bike, and the other camera points forwards. The sensor sets off both cameras, so you get images of the side of the vehicle and the back with the all- important reg plate.


----------



## dim (19 Oct 2016)

I have a few sections on my commute where I take the centre of the lane due to the road narrowing, or bad potholes

I know where these areas are, and if a car is behind me, I put out my arm to show my intentions, then peddle like crazy.... move to the left once the road is fine, and give a friendly thank you wave

no probs so far, but I suppose there is always a dick who will try and squeeze me out of the way one day .... 

thats cycling .... but if more and more people get video camera's, drivers will be more aware of the consequences if police take a tough stance


----------



## Shut Up Legs (19 Oct 2016)

Drago said:


> Careless/dangerous has such a woolly, subjective definition that one CPS lawyer would gleefully run something like that, the next wouldn't countenance it. A minimum overtaking distance written into law would knock that dead.


We'd all like to think that. Unfortunately, this hasn't been the case in Queensland, Australia. This very long discussion thread in the BNA fora contains numerous accounts of close passes, and I get the impression from it that the close-passing law hasn't been very effective:
http://www.bicycles.net.au/forums/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=72155&p=1368818#p1368818


----------



## johnnyb47 (19 Oct 2016)

If I was the driver of that car and the cyclist started having a rant at me ,I would of stopped further up the road and apologised to him and took the flack , simply because its more difficult to judge spacial awareness whilst driving, and the fact I may of driven to close without realising it. It would of taken the heat out of situation and hopefully a lesson learnt for the motorist. For the motorist to get out and have a go at this guy makes me think he knew he was in the wrong or maybe it was done deliberately to p the cyclist off. Just the other day I confronted a bus driver who barged past me
leaving inches between us. His attitude was appalling and is now under investigation by his company. If he would of been genuinely concerned and worried about his bad driving and apologised I would of just let it go knowing he would be more sympathetic towards cyclist in the future ,,simply because we are human beings who will make mistakes from time to time


----------



## Smokin Joe (19 Oct 2016)

The problem with "Having a rant", however tempting it might be is that it puts the other party on the defensive. Nobody likes being shouted and sworn at, particularly in public and they are more likely to confront you if only to cover their own embarrassment at being given a dressing down. People are more likely to either acknowledge their mistake if you suffer it calmly, and if they don't they may take what they've done on board and absolve to be more careful in future. 

I'd never risk a fight with a driver when I'm on my bike for obvious reasons, you are too vulnerable. And if it kicks off on the pavement when the guy has jumped out a punch up while waddling round on cleats is never a good idea. Like a good general, only ever get into a fight you know you can win. The courage to walk away is just as noble as the courage you need to have a fight.


----------



## Justinslow (19 Oct 2016)

I had someone more or less "aim" at me coming from the other direction at speed on a rural back road (without central white lines) in an Audi a few weeks ago. I honestly thought I'd get hit and rode in the gutter in the few seconds I had to do anything, as the car passed I shouted Feck off! as loudly as i could, it was a fearful shocked reaction and just came out. The Audi continued as if I was invisible.

Back in the summer a few of us rode to London for the Dunwich Dynamo, I had a car overtake on a dodgy long bend in Essex, unfortunately some other traffic came the other way and the overtaking car drove next to me at the same speed for several seconds in no mans land close enough for me to take my hand off the bars and touch it, (I didn't, but could have done) frightening, my mate behind couldn't believe it.


----------



## stalagmike (19 Oct 2016)

Smokin Joe said:


> The problem with "Having a rant", however tempting it might be is that it puts the other party on the defensive. Nobody likes being shouted and sworn at, particularly in public and they are more likely to confront you if only to cover their own embarrassment at being given a dressing down. People are more likely to either acknowledge their mistake if you suffer it calmly, and if they don't they may take what they've done on board and absolve to be more careful in future.
> 
> I'd never risk a fight with a driver when I'm on my bike for obvious reasons, you are too vulnerable. And if it kicks off on the pavement when the guy has jumped out a punch up while waddling round on cleats is never a good idea. Like a good general, only ever get into a fight you know you can win. The courage to walk away is just as noble as the courage you need to have a fight.


You could give someone a nasty scrape down the shins with your cleats tho


----------



## benb (20 Oct 2016)

dim said:


> if more and more people get video camera's, drivers will be more aware of the consequences if police take a tough stance



And as we see daily, it's a big if.


----------



## benb (20 Oct 2016)

johnnyb47 said:


> If I was the driver of that car and the cyclist started having a rant at me ,I would of stopped further up the road and apologised to him and took the flack , simply because its more difficult to judge spacial awareness whilst driving, and the fact I may of driven to close without realising it.



And if the driver had done that, I would have accepted his apology and probably parted with a handshake.


----------



## Apollonius (20 Oct 2016)

The underlying problem here, and it is by no means uncommon, is that the driver of the car genuinely believes he has a greater right to use the narrowed lane than the cyclist. He has no understanding of the reason for the road being intentionally narrowed. His Clark***ist sense of entitlement possibly derives from his ego investment in his (to him) high-status car (no laughing at the back please.) He believes inferior "vehicles" should get out of his way.


----------



## vickster (20 Oct 2016)

Apollonius said:


> The underlying problem here, and it is by no means uncommon, is that the driver of the car genuinely believes he has a greater right to use the narrowed lane than the cyclist. He has no understanding of the reason for the road being intentionally narrowed. His Clark***ist sense of entitlement possibly derives from his ego investment in his (to him) high-status car (no laughing at the back please.) He believes inferior "vehicles" should get out of his way.


or he's just a bit thick?


----------



## mjr (20 Oct 2016)

Justinslow said:


> I honestly thought I'd get hit and rode in the gutter in the few seconds I had to do anything, as the car passed I shouted Feck off! as loudly as i could, it was a fearful shocked reaction and just came out. The Audi continued as if I was invisible.


Yeah. I've been in that sort of situation more than once. A simple exclamation (something like "whoao!") was part of what triggered the road rage confrontation (along with their dangerous overtake!) five or six years ago which motivated me to get a handlebar camera and yet, I still sometimes can't help exclaim when a motorist does something incredibly dangerous near me. I think the last one was a "bloody hell" on 2 October as a few of us headed onto the verge when an oncoming white hatchback driver decided they weren't stopping in a passing place on a single-track road up near the coast for no bloody cyclists. 

That same ride, on the wider single-carriageway coast road (A149), on the short stretch between a village and our turning off it, I saw something I'd never seen before. Please excuse me if I've mentioned this before. A motorist overtook with their car fully on the other side on a long straight with perfect visibility and just didn't accelerate at all... with the result that an oncoming car met it. Credit to both motorists for stopping dead rather than pulling in and crushing cyclists dead, but what the heck were they thinking? Driver of the oncoming car wasn't happy but we turned off before I saw how that one was resolved.


----------



## jarlrmai (20 Oct 2016)

I had it on my last ride, I was going around a blind corner with double white lines on a slight downhill so about 20+mph, a car over took me with oncoming traffic the gap was closing I had to move sharply into the gap I had to the curb I exclaimed "jesus christ" the car stopped up ahead and I heard some expletives from the window which I ignored (I was totally isolated on a country road I looked at my stem and just hoped he didn't u turn or reverse at me.) eventually he drove off but at every side road/pull in I kept an eye out for him. I didnt have my camera as I was on a 40 miler and it doesn't last long enough.


----------



## benb (20 Oct 2016)

[QUOTE 4519410, member: 9609"]Had the driver parked up especially to have a go at you ? if he had then I would have thought that would constitute road rage in itself[/QUOTE]

Yep, he specifically parked up to accost me.


----------



## Racing roadkill (20 Oct 2016)

Well he was over the line as regards section 5 public order act, but other than that, there wasn't much the police could do there. In the grand scheme of things, the initial pass wasn't as close as some I've had. Having said that, it wasn't ideal. I wouldn't have reacted to the pass, save for a quick coffee shaker possibly, but he didn't actually try to grab you or hit you, so that's probably why they decided on no further action.


----------



## T4tomo (20 Oct 2016)

benb said:


> For those who are saying it's "not that close", you'd be hapy to be overtaken as close would you?
> View attachment 148407


2/3 of his car is not in the lane. I'm not saying it's great driving, but I've seen a lot lot worse

That said, his behaviour post pass of driving along looking at and arguing with cyclist should have been enough evidence for police for careless driving or what ever it's called as he was paying no attention to the road ahead, and he was clearly spoiling for a fight.

There should be an offence of "being a general nobber" which the driver was clearly guilty of.


----------



## Pale Rider (20 Oct 2016)

T4tomo said:


> there should be an offence "being a general nobber" which the driver was clearly guilty of.



I've often thought the same, but such an offence would criminalise the entire population so it would quickly lose impact.


----------



## benb (20 Oct 2016)

T4tomo said:


> 2/3 of his car is not in the lane. I'm not saying it's great driving, but I've seen a lot lot worse
> 
> That said, his behaviour post pass of driving along looking at and arguing with cyclist should have been enough evidence for police for careless driving or what ever it's called as he was paying no attention to the road ahead, and he was clearly spoiling for a fight.
> 
> There should be an offence of "being a general nobber" which the driver was clearly guilty of.



Are you serious? I'm on the centre line. He is less than 50cm away from me. 
His position in the lane is not relevant; it's his position relative to me that is.


----------



## Justinslow (20 Oct 2016)

benb said:


> Are you serious? I'm on the centre line. He is less than 50cm away from me.
> His position in the lane is not relevant; it's his position relative to me that is.


Just as a question, and I'm in no way criticising you but if he passed you close and you were in the centre then why not ride over to the left a bit more and he could have made a "safe" pass? I don't know the road, is this not possible?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (20 Oct 2016)

Popcorn moment.


----------



## Justinslow (20 Oct 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Popcorn moment.


Trying to see it from both sides mate, you know an "open mind".

@benb was clearly saying "stay behind me" with his bike positioning, but alas it didn't work and he got close passed and the police want nothing to do with it, what else could he have done to avoid a close pass?


----------



## jarlrmai (20 Oct 2016)

Nothing, that's the whole f**ng point.


----------



## Justinslow (20 Oct 2016)

jarlrmai said:


> Nothing, that's the whole f**ng point.


Well it looks in the video that the pinch point isn't really that narrow, the car squeezed through and didn't hit @benb and didn't hit the raised kerb so it stands to reason that if his positioning was slightly to the left there would have been a bigger gap, given that some car drivers don't give a monkeys and will overtake anyway, at least he would not have had a "close pass"?


----------



## jarlrmai (20 Oct 2016)

The driver was punishing him for holding him up through the 1st pinch point and then again when the oncoming traffic is overtaking the bus, he overtakes closely whilst staring at him. Maybe should have been more central, but at the point he overtakes him there's actually no pinch point (the 1st driver is the one that cuts him up at the second pinch point.)


----------



## Pale Rider (20 Oct 2016)

"Come on, Hamish, get a move on."

"Better wait, Angus, he's one of those headcam idiots so we'll only end up getting slated on CycleChat."


----------



## steve50 (20 Oct 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> "Come on, Hamish, get a move on."
> 
> "Better wait, Angus, he's one of those headcam idiots so we'll only end up getting slated on CycleChat."



Really????


----------



## benb (24 Oct 2016)

Justinslow said:


> Just as a question, and I'm in no way criticising you but if he passed you close and you were in the centre then why not ride over to the left a bit more and he could have made a "safe" pass? I don't know the road, is this not possible?



It was a pinch point. I didn't want him to overtake there so I took primary. That's quite normal cycling practice, no?


----------



## GGJ (24 Oct 2016)

Justinslow said:


> ...then why not ride over to the left a bit more ...



A question often asked, usually by non cycling motorists and a very valid question it is too.

We as cyclists should all ride to the left and in the gutter, it's our place, in fact it's the only place we're guaranteed not to be run over by a motorist. A motorist who after all has the sole rights to that stretch of tarmac, you know, that stretch of tarmac that we cyclists don't even pay road tax for. Motorists wouldn't be brave enough to ride the gutter for fear of their expensive alloy wheels coming into contact with a high kerb, or their low profile tyres being shredded by the detritus left in the gutter and what with the possibility of damaging the suspension when running over one of the sunken drain covers in the gutter, it just isn't going to happen. No... motorists won't ride the gutter for fear of damage to their precious vehicles, but they are more than happy to put our/your life at risk if you dare to be in front of them. 

We cyclists don't even pay road tax, we don't require a license, we don't have registration, our place in the gutter, so come and ride the gutter where we belong...

As to my stance on road position... it is centre of the lane I'm in unless the road ahead is smoother than a baby's bottom with no sunken drain covers and I'll then move over a tad further left, but still give myself a good metre from the kerb


----------



## mjr (26 Oct 2016)

Racing roadkill said:


> In the grand scheme of things, the initial pass wasn't as close as some I've had. Having said that, it wasn't ideal.





T4tomo said:


> 2/3 of his car is not in the lane. I'm not saying it's great driving, but I've seen a lot lot worse


What is this? Are we OK with police not enforcing driving laws because cyclists like to micturate up the wall with comments like "call that close? When I was a lad, we had to cope with riding on the car bonnet until they turned off!"


----------

