“The driver is going to have to inconvenience someone,” said the police worker who reviewed the poor driving featured in our Near Miss of the Day series – that “someone” was of course a cyclist, and we are glad it was just an “inconvenience” he suffered.

Here is the reply that road.cc reader Richard got from Gloucestershire Constabulary when he sent the footage to them.

Thought your readers may be interested in my latest submission to Gloucestershire Constabulary for your NMOTD. I have attached a copy of the video I sent in and below is the reply I received.

“I’m not going to prosecute the driver.

“Initially he has left plenty of room. The opposite carriageway is clear. The van then appears from the mini roundabout and the car is already quite far passed you. At this point the driver is going to have to inconvenience someone because of the situation has developed in a way the driver didn’t foresee.

“Because of this it wouldn’t meet the threshold for careless driving as the driver hasn’t been careless they have been the victim of unforeseen circumstances.”

An interesting take on a close pass that put the cyclist in danger, don’t you think?

https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-674-driver-inconveniences-cyclist-288521

On 09/12/2021 06:28 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> “The driver is going to have to inconvenience someone,” said the police worker who reviewed the poor driving featured in our Near Miss of the Day series – that “someone” was of course a fairy-cyclist, and we are glad it was just an “inconvenience” he suffered.
>
> Here is the reply that road.cc reader Richard got from Gloucestershire Constabulary when he sent the footage to them.
>
> Thought your readers may be interested in my latest submission to Gloucestershire Constabulary for your NMOTD. I have attached a copy of the video I sent in and below is the reply I received.
>
> “I’m not going to prosecute the driver.
>
> “Initially he has left plenty of room. The opposite carriageway is clear. The van then appears from the mini roundabout and the car is already quite far passed you. At this point the driver is going to have to inconvenience someone because of the situation has developed in a way the driver didn’t foresee.
>
> “Because of this it wouldn’t meet the threshold for careless driving as the driver hasn’t been careless they have been the victim of unforeseen circumstances.”
>
> An interesting take on a close pass that put the fairy-cyclist in danger, don’t you think?

Not really. Not at all, in fact. The vehicle which turned off the
roundabout was also visible to the fairy-cyclist and it is always open
to every vehicular road-user (including fairy-cyclists) to use the
brakes in order to slow down or even stop, as necessary. There is no
"right" to plough on regardless into a changing and evolving traffic
situation.

Of course, that's assuming that brakes are fitted to the vehicle.

> https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-674-driver-inconveniences-cyclist-288521

On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 6:28:37 PM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> An interesting take on a close pass that put the cyclist in danger, don’t you think?

What about HC Rule 153 that says they ++++shouldn't overtake when there's traffic calming+++++.
riracha | 2762 posts | 1 hour ago
5 likes

"At this point the driver is going to have to inconvenience someone because...."

Nothing.

At this point in the video they should apply the brake and bail out of their misguided manoeuvre. I don't see any other reasonable course of action.

https://cdn.road.cc/sites/default/files/styles/main_width/public/SmartSelect_20211209-190558_Samsung%20Internet.jpg

That weasel word "inconvenience" here means "endanger". The police officer is a disgrace.

https://cdn.road.cc/sites/default/files/styles/main_width/public/SmartSelect_20211209-190558_Samsung%20Internet.jpg

Rule 153

Traffic-calming measures. On some roads there are features such as road humps, chicanes and narrowings which are intended to slow you down. When you approach these features reduce your speed. +++++Allow cyclists and motorcyclists room to pass through them.+++++ Maintain a reduced speed along the whole of the stretch of road within the calming measures. Give way to oncoming road users if directed to do so by signs. +++++You should not overtake other moving road users while in these areas++++++

RoubaixCube | 410 posts | 1 hour ago
3 likes

I would re-submit the footage if its not too late. Hopefully it will get picked up by someone who isnt an empty uniform and actually wants to do their job.

reply quote

>
> https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-674-driver-inconveniences-cyclist-288521

On 09/12/2021 18:28, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> “The driver is going to have to inconvenience someone,” said the
> police worker who reviewed the poor driving featured in our Near Miss
> of the Day series – that “someone” was of course a cyclist, and we
> are glad it was just an “inconvenience” he suffered.

A poor choice of words.

> “Initially he has left plenty of room. The opposite carriageway is
> clear. The van then appears from the mini roundabout and the car is
> already quite far passed you. At this point the driver is going to
> have to inconvenience someone because of the situation has developed
> in a way the driver didn’t foresee.
>
> https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-674-driver-inconveniences-cyclist-288521

From the camera view, the cyclist was in a position to see and
anticipate and had the means to make the situation more comfortable.

On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 10:07:26 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:

>
> From the camera view, the cyclist was in a position to see and
> anticipate and had the means to make the situation more comfortable.

The driver SHOULD NOT have even been overtaking:

Rule 153

Traffic-calming measures. On some roads there are features such as road humps, chicanes and narrowings which are intended to slow you down. When you approach these features reduce your speed. +++++Allow cyclists and motorcyclists room to pass through them.+++++ Maintain a reduced speed along the whole of the stretch of road within the calming measures. Give way to oncoming road users if directed to do so by signs. +++++You should not overtake other moving road users while in these areas++++++

On 09/12/2021 10:07 pm, TMS320 wrote:

> On 09/12/2021 18:28, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

>> “The driver is going to have to inconvenience someone,” said the
>> police worker who reviewed the poor driving featured in our Near Miss
>> of the Day series – that “someone” was of course a cyclist, and we
>> are glad it was just an “inconvenience” he suffered.
>
> A poor choice of words.
>
>> “Initially he has left plenty of room. The opposite carriageway is
>> clear. The van then appears from the mini roundabout and the car is
>> already quite far passed you. At this point the driver is going to
>> have to inconvenience someone because of the situation has developed
>> in a way the driver didn’t foresee.
>>
>> https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-674-driver-inconveniences-cyclist-288521
>>
> From the camera view, the cyclist was in a position to see and
> anticipate and had the means to make the situation more comfortable.

And most of us - in or on whatever sort of vehicle - would have done
just that.

On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 10:07:26 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
> On 09/12/2021 18:28, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > “The driver is going to have to inconvenience someone,” said the
> > police worker who reviewed the poor driving featured in our Near Miss
> > of the Day series – that “someone” was of course a cyclist, and we
> > are glad it was just an “inconvenience” he suffered.
> A poor choice of words.
> > “Initially he has left plenty of room. The opposite carriageway is
> > clear. The van then appears from the mini roundabout and the car is
> > already quite far passed you. At this point the driver is going to
> > have to inconvenience someone because of the situation has developed
> > in a way the driver didn’t foresee.
> >
> > https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-674-driver-inconveniences-cyclist-288521
>
> From the camera view, the cyclist was in a position to see and
> anticipate and had the means to make the situation more comfortable.

How could the cyclist have anticipated the oncoming vehicle? The idiot car driver who overtook in a traffic calming zone didn't do that, despite breaking Rule 153 by overtaking in the first place.

On 10/12/2021 11:39 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 10:07:26 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 09/12/2021 18:28, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

>>> “The driver is going to have to inconvenience someone,” said the
>>> police worker who reviewed the poor driving featured in our Near Miss
>>> of the Day series – that “someone” was of course a fairy-cyclist, and we
>>> are glad it was just an “inconvenience” he suffered.

>> A poor choice of words.

>>> “Initially he has left plenty of room. The opposite carriageway is
>>> clear. The van then appears from the mini roundabout and the car is
>>> already quite far passed you. At this point the driver is going to
>>> have to inconvenience someone because of the situation has developed
>>> in a way the driver didn’t foresee.

>>> https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-674-driver-inconveniences-cyclist-288521
>>
>> From the camera view, the fairy-cyclist was in a position to see and
>> anticipate and had the means to make the situation more comfortable.
>
> How could the fairy-cyclist have anticipated the oncoming vehicle?

By seeing it with his eyes?

In the same way that anyone watching the video you posted can see it.

> The idiot car driver who overtook in a traffic calming zone didn't do that, despite breaking Rule 153 by overtaking in the first place.

Which bit of "Initially he has left plenty of room. The opposite
carriageway is clear..." is too difficult for you to understand?

On 09/12/2021 22:41, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 10:07:26 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
>
>> From the camera view, the cyclist was in a position to see and
>> anticipate and had the means to make the situation more
>> comfortable.
>
> The driver SHOULD NOT have even been overtaking:

Perhaps, but things are never perfect (I am surprised Nugent doesn't
agree with you - though we know he always swings it to make it the
cyclist's fault). For this, road users have to develop defensive
techniques. I expect you would not be here had you not done so. This is
something to shrug off, rather than go snivelling to the police.

> On 10/12/2021 11:39, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> How could the cyclist have anticipated the oncoming vehicle? The
>> idiot car driver who overtook in a traffic calming zone didn't do
>> that, despite breaking Rule 153 by overtaking in the first place.

Mid~overtake, the car driver reacted to the presence of the van. So we
know the driver saw a change of circumstances. The cyclist had exactly
the same view. Once the van appeared the cyclist would know what the
driver's options must be and there was plenty of time to deal with the
eventualities.

In this case, everything the cyclist needed to know was going on in
front. It is not like the situation on the country lane where
the driver approached from behind and shoved past the cyclist with
nothing in the cyclist's means to make the situation more comfortable.

On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 1:09:32 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:

> Mid~overtake, the car driver reacted to the presence of the van. So we
> know the driver saw a change of circumstances. The cyclist had exactly
> the same view. Once the van appeared the cyclist would know what the
> driver's options must be and there was plenty of time to deal with the
> eventualities.

It behoves the overtaking driver (putting to one side his ignoring of Rule 153 regarding NOT overtaking AT ALL in a traffic calming zone - see the humps) to follow rule 162.
Before overtaking you should make sure

the road is sufficiently clear ahead
there is a suitable gap in front of the road user you plan to overtake.
not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake
AND Move back to the left as soon as you can ++++but do not cut in+++

He/She broke the lot.

On 10/12/2021 01:09 pm, TMS320 wrote:

> On 09/12/2021 22:41, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 10:07:26 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:

>>> From the camera view, the cyclist was in a position to see and
>>> anticipate and had the means to make the situation more comfortable.
>>
>> The driver SHOULD NOT have even been overtaking:
>
> Perhaps, but things are never perfect (I am surprised Nugent doesn't
> agree with you - though we know he always swings it to make it the
> cyclist's fault).

There is no legal prohibition on overtaking in the presence of
traffic-calming street furniture.

As we all know, the HC is not "the law", though it may (or may not)
refer to the law.

> For this, road users have to develop defensive
> techniques. I expect you would not be here had you not done so. This is
> something to shrug off, rather than go snivelling to the police.

Well said.
>
>> On 10/12/2021 11:39, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> How could the cyclist have anticipated the oncoming vehicle? The
>>> idiot car driver who overtook in a traffic calming zone didn't do
>>> that, despite breaking Rule 153 by overtaking in the first place.
>
> Mid~overtake, the car driver reacted to the presence of the van. So we
> know the driver saw a change of circumstances. The cyclist had exactly
> the same view. Once the van appeared the cyclist would know what the
> driver's options must be and there was plenty of time to deal with the
> eventualities.
>
> In this case, everything the cyclist needed to know was going on in
> front. It is not like the situation on the country lane where
> the driver approached from behind and shoved past the cyclist with
> nothing in the cyclist's means to make the situation more comfortable.

On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 1:09:32 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
.. For this, road users have to develop defensive
> techniques. I expect you would not be here had you not done so. This is
> something to shrug off, rather than go snivelling to the police.

Compare and contrast with the next NMOTD in the series (nr 675) where the police acted in a more pro-active manner regarding road safety and not just pass it off as "one of those things", or the more sinister "this driver is going to have to crash with someone" tripe.

QUOTE:
Are you struggling with balancing everything on your pre-Christmas to-do list? Well perhaps you should take notes from the latest driver featured in our Near Miss of the Day series, who has truly mastered the art of multi-tasking. In a single manoeuvre they were able to break FOUR separate road safety rules, an incredible feat which earned them a spot on a driver awareness course organised by Thames Valley police.

This clip was sent in by a road.cc reader who told us that the driver was sent on the course due to “Overtaking on a solid white line; overtaking approaching the brow of a hill; overtaking approaching a corner”; and finally “overtaking on approach to the junction.” Quite the list, eh?

Rule 129 of the Highway Code tells road users that, where the carriageway has "double white lines where the line nearest you is solid," they "MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road." It adds that they "may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less."

As we can see, the cyclist in the video was storming along at almost three times that speed, making the overtake – and immediate left turn – even more dangerous. Hopefully the driver awareness course will take hold.

https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-675-four-rules-broken-once-288533

On 10/12/2021 15:33, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 1:09:32 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
>
>> Mid~overtake, the car driver reacted to the presence of the van. So
>> we know the driver saw a change of circumstances. The cyclist had
>> exactly the same view. Once the van appeared the cyclist would know
>> what the driver's options must be and there was plenty of time to
>> deal with the eventualities.
>
> It behoves the overtaking driver (putting to one side his ignoring of
> Rule 153 regarding NOT overtaking AT ALL in a traffic calming zone -
> see the humps) to follow rule 162. Before overtaking you should make
> sure
>
> the road is sufficiently clear ahead there is a suitable gap in front
> of the road user you plan to overtake. not get too close to the
> vehicle you intend to overtake AND Move back to the left as soon as
> you can ++++but do not cut in+++
>
> He/She broke the lot.

Nobody's perfect. The cyclist was not put in a situation where nothing
could be done and, in fact, he chose to do nothing.

If it happened to me I wouldn't have given it another moments thought.

On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 5:59:01 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
> On 10/12/2021 15:33, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 1:09:32 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
> >
> >> Mid~overtake, the car driver reacted to the presence of the van. So
> >> we know the driver saw a change of circumstances. The cyclist had
> >> exactly the same view. Once the van appeared the cyclist would know
> >> what the driver's options must be and there was plenty of time to
> >> deal with the eventualities.
> >
> > It behoves the overtaking driver (putting to one side his ignoring of
> > Rule 153 regarding NOT overtaking AT ALL in a traffic calming zone -
> > see the humps) to follow rule 162. Before overtaking you should make
> > sure
> >
> > the road is sufficiently clear ahead there is a suitable gap in front
> > of the road user you plan to overtake. not get too close to the
> > vehicle you intend to overtake AND Move back to the left as soon as
> > you can ++++but do not cut in+++
> >
> > He/She broke the lot.
> Nobody's perfect. The cyclist was not put in a situation where nothing
> could be done and, in fact, he chose to do nothing.
>
> If it happened to me I wouldn't have given it another moments thought.

Since Hull was the most traffic calmed city in the UK when I was commuting, I have had hundreds of occasions where drivers have attempted to overtake me in traffic calmed zones, despite the fact that I was cycling at the 20mph speed limit. The vast majority bailed out when they realised that they couldn't get by safely due to the speed humps slowing them down. The humps are very severe in Hull, not the little humps in this incident. You can drive over them at 15mph maximum without damaging your car.

https://goo.gl/maps/RJL7inCzMkoBLfWD8

On 10/12/2021 16:55, JNugent wrote:
> On 10/12/2021 01:09 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 09/12/2021 22:41, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 10:07:26 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
>
>>>> From the camera view, the cyclist was in a position to see and
>>>> anticipate and had the means to make the situation more comfortable.
>>>
>>> The driver SHOULD NOT have even been overtaking:
>>
>> Perhaps, but things are never perfect (I am surprised Nugent doesn't
>> agree with you - though we know he always swings it to make it the
>> cyclist's fault).
>
> There is no legal prohibition on overtaking in the presence of
> traffic-calming street furniture.
>
> As we all know, the HC is not "the law", though it may (or may not)
> refer to the law.

Indeed, yet you obsessed over a non-law about obstruction.

>> For this, road users have to develop defensive techniques. I expect
>> you would not be here had you not done so. This is something to shrug
>> off, rather than go snivelling to the police.
>
> Well said.

Unlike you, I try to be objective.

On 10/12/2021 18:20, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 5:59:01 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 10/12/2021 15:33, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 1:09:32 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mid~overtake, the car driver reacted to the presence of the
>>>> van. So we know the driver saw a change of circumstances. The
>>>> cyclist had exactly the same view. Once the van appeared the
>>>> cyclist would know what the driver's options must be and there
>>>> was plenty of time to deal with the eventualities.
>>>
>>> It behoves the overtaking driver (putting to one side his
>>> ignoring of Rule 153 regarding NOT overtaking AT ALL in a traffic
>>> calming zone - see the humps) to follow rule 162. Before
>>> overtaking you should make sure
>>>
>>> the road is sufficiently clear ahead there is a suitable gap in
>>> front of the road user you plan to overtake. not get too close to
>>> the vehicle you intend to overtake AND Move back to the left as
>>> soon as you can ++++but do not cut in+++
>>>
>>> He/She broke the lot.
>> Nobody's perfect. The cyclist was not put in a situation where
>> nothing could be done and, in fact, he chose to do nothing.
>>
>> If it happened to me I wouldn't have given it another moments
>> thought.
>
> Since Hull was the most traffic calmed city in the UK when I was
> commuting, I have had hundreds of occasions where drivers have
> attempted to overtake me in traffic calmed zones, despite the fact
> that I was cycling at the 20mph speed limit. The vast majority bailed
> out when they realised that they couldn't get by safely due to the
> speed humps slowing them down. The humps are very severe in Hull, not
> the little humps in this incident. You can drive over them at 15mph
> maximum without damaging your car.
>
> https://goo.gl/maps/RJL7inCzMkoBLfWD8

This view shows a road with parked cars that define a channel of static
width. Overtaking here would be more akin to barging past.

On 11/12/2021 12:38 am, TMS320 wrote:

> On 10/12/2021 16:55, JNugent wrote:
>> On 10/12/2021 01:09 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 09/12/2021 22:41, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 10:07:26 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
>
>>>>> From the camera view, the cyclist was in a position to see and
>>>>> anticipate and had the means to make the situation more comfortable.
>
>>>> The driver SHOULD NOT have even been overtaking:
>
>>> Perhaps, but things are never perfect (I am surprised Nugent doesn't
>>> agree with you - though we know he always swings it to make it the
>>> cyclist's fault).
>
>> There is no legal prohibition on overtaking in the presence of
>> traffic-calming street furniture.
>
>> As we all know, the HC is not "the law", though it may (or may not)
>> refer to the law.
>
> Indeed, yet you obsessed over a non-law about obstruction.

There is certainly statute law on obstruction of the highway.

>>> For this, road users have to develop defensive techniques. I expect
>>> you would not be here had you not done so. This is something to shrug
>>> off, rather than go snivelling to the police.
>
>> Well said.
>
> Unlike you, I try to be objective.

I am always objective. In any case reported here where there is
reasonable evidence, if a driver is at fault, I always say so.

It would be silly to take the line that all drivers are in the right,
everywhere, every time. That's the way that fairy-cyclists think about
themselves and each other.

On 10/12/2021 17:34, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 1:09:32 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote: . For
> this, road users have to develop defensive
>> techniques. I expect you would not be here had you not done so.
>> This is something to shrug off, rather than go snivelling to the
>> police.
>
> Compare and contrast with the next NMOTD in the series (nr 675) where
> the police acted in a more pro-active manner regarding road safety
> and not just pass it off as "one of those things", or the more
> sinister "this driver is going to have to crash with someone" tripe.

> https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-675-four-rules-broken-once-288533

Somewhat different. Rule 129 is a "must". This give Her Majesty's
representatives something solid to act on. If it is followed through,
the other actions might be taken into account.

Overtaking before a bend or brow is a judgement and impossible to define
with red lines. From the cyclist's POV there was nothing wrong with the
overtake and he was in a better position than the driver to see what was
coming. He might have have had a grandstand seat for a head on
collision, though.

Overtaking a cyclist and immediately turning left is unpredictable for a
cyclist. Unpredictability is the danger. But the driver kept the car in
a straight line, well out in the road while braking, clues to being
fully aware of the cyclist. From the moment the rear of the car passed
the cyclist to the start of the turn in took 4 seconds. In the absence
of the other factors, the go/no go decision might have been poorly
judged but the physical driving was done with skill.

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 1:12:47 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
From the moment the rear of the car passed
> the cyclist to the start of the turn in took 4 seconds. In the absence
> of the other factors, the go/no go decision might have been poorly
> judged but the physical driving was done with skill.

QUOTE:
In a single manoeuvre they were able to break FOUR separate road safety rules, an incredible feat which earned them a spot on a driver awareness course organised by Thames Valley police.
ENDS

Not very"skilful" after all, according to the police.

On 11/12/2021 15:11, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 1:12:47 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote: From
> the moment the rear of the car passed
>> the cyclist to the start of the turn in took 4 seconds. In the
>> absence of the other factors, the go/no go decision might have been
>> poorly judged but the physical driving was done with skill.
>
> QUOTE: In a single manoeuvre they were able to break FOUR separate
> road safety rules, an incredible feat which earned them a spot on a
> driver awareness course organised by Thames Valley police. ENDS

I wonder what punishment Her Majesty could hand out for crossing a solid
line. This is probably lenient.

> Not very "skilful" after all, according to the police.

Many drivers can and do make the same initial decision on a solid line.
I have seen few with the ability to complete the manouevre like that.

On 11/12/2021 09:41 pm, TMS320 wrote:

> On 11/12/2021 15:11, swldx...@gmail.com wrote: >> TMS320 wrote:

>>> From the moment the rear of the car passed
>>> the cyclist to the start of the turn in took 4 seconds. In the
>>> absence of the other factors, the go/no go decision might have been
>>> poorly judged but the physical driving was done with skill.
>
>> QUOTE: In a single manoeuvre they were able to break FOUR separate
>> road safety rules, an incredible feat which earned them a spot on a
>> driver awareness course organised by Thames Valley police. ENDS
>
> I wonder what punishment Her Majesty could hand out for crossing a solid
> line. This is probably lenient.
>
>> Not very "skilful" after all, according to the police.
>
> Many drivers can and do make the same initial decision on a solid line.
> I have seen few with the ability to complete the manouevre like that.

A brave attempt.

I too am always doubtful of my ability to remember the correct spelling
of "manoeuvre".

swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> "The driver is going to have to inconvenience someone," said the
> police worker who reviewed the poor driving featured in our Near Miss
> of the Day series - that "someone" was of course a cyclist, and we
> are glad it was just an "inconvenience" he suffered.
>
> Here is the reply that road.cc reader Richard got from
> Gloucestershire Constabulary when he sent the footage to them.
>
> Thought your readers may be interested in my latest submission to
> Gloucestershire Constabulary for your NMOTD. I have attached a copy
> of the video I sent in and below is the reply I received.
>
> "I'm not going to prosecute the driver.
>
> "Initially he has left plenty of room. The opposite carriageway is
> clear. The van then appears from the mini roundabout and the car is
> already quite far passed you. At this point the driver is going to
> have to inconvenience someone because of the situation has developed
> in a way the driver didn't foresee.
>
> "Because of this it wouldn't meet the threshold for careless driving
> as the driver hasn't been careless they have been the victim of
> unforeseen circumstances."
>
> An interesting take on a close pass that put the cyclist in danger,
> don't you think?

Have you ever had a fuck?
>
> https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-674-driver-inconveniences-cyclist-288521

On 13/12/21 09:00, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
> swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>> "The driver is going to have to inconvenience someone," said the
>> police worker who reviewed the poor driving featured in our Near Miss
>> of the Day series - that "someone" was of course a cyclist, and we
>> are glad it was just an "inconvenience" he suffered.
>>
>> Here is the reply that road.cc reader Richard got from
>> Gloucestershire Constabulary when he sent the footage to them.
>>
>> Thought your readers may be interested in my latest submission to
>> Gloucestershire Constabulary for your NMOTD. I have attached a copy
>> of the video I sent in and below is the reply I received.
>>
>> "I'm not going to prosecute the driver.
>>
>> "Initially he has left plenty of room. The opposite carriageway is
>> clear. The van then appears from the mini roundabout and the car is
>> already quite far passed you. At this point the driver is going to
>> have to inconvenience someone because of the situation has developed
>> in a way the driver didn't foresee.
>>
>> "Because of this it wouldn't meet the threshold for careless driving
>> as the driver hasn't been careless they have been the victim of
>> unforeseen circumstances."
>>
>> An interesting take on a close pass that put the cyclist in danger,
>> don't you think?
>
>
> Have you ever had a fuck?
>>
>> https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-674-driver-inconveniences-cyclist-288521
>
>
Pervert.

Peter Keller wrote:
> On 13/12/21 09:00, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
>> swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> "The driver is going to have to inconvenience someone," said the
>>> police worker who reviewed the poor driving featured in our Near
>>> Miss of the Day series - that "someone" was of course a cyclist,
>>> and we are glad it was just an "inconvenience" he suffered.
>>>
>>> Here is the reply that road.cc reader Richard got from
>>> Gloucestershire Constabulary when he sent the footage to them.
>>>
>>> Thought your readers may be interested in my latest submission to
>>> Gloucestershire Constabulary for your NMOTD. I have attached a copy
>>> of the video I sent in and below is the reply I received.
>>>
>>> "I'm not going to prosecute the driver.
>>>
>>> "Initially he has left plenty of room. The opposite carriageway is
>>> clear. The van then appears from the mini roundabout and the car is
>>> already quite far passed you. At this point the driver is going to
>>> have to inconvenience someone because of the situation has developed
>>> in a way the driver didn't foresee.
>>>
>>> "Because of this it wouldn't meet the threshold for careless driving
>>> as the driver hasn't been careless they have been the victim of
>>> unforeseen circumstances."
>>>
>>> An interesting take on a close pass that put the cyclist in danger,
>>> don't you think?
>>
>>
>> Have you ever had a fuck?
>>>
>>> https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-674-driver-inconveniences-cyclist-288521
>>
>>
> Pervert.

Lack of answer noted.
Not looking too good for you is that.

On 13/12/21 23:02, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
> Peter Keller wrote:
>> On 13/12/21 09:00, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

>>>
>>>
>>> Have you ever had a fuck?
>>>>

>>>
>>>
>> Pervert.
>
>
> Lack of answer noted.
> Not looking too good for you is that.
>
>

And glad of that. I have no wish whatever to look good in your eyes,
pervert.
After all I ride a bicycle, a very convenient delightful economical
viable means of transport.
And we all know what YOU think of bicyclists. You think they are the
fuckwitted pits of humanity.
And because it is YOU who think that, that is an extremely great
compliment.
We must be doing something right.