https://cdn.road.cc/sites/default/files/styles/main_width/public/nmotd-752.png

"If anyone thinks this is an acceptable manner of driving, let this be your warning," was how the police responded to the video which made our Near Miss of the Day 752.

But what about your comments?

carlosdsanchez said: "Problem is that there is no consistency to the action taken by police for dangerous driving around cyclists. Over the past four years of sending in video footage, the action taken has swung wildly from everything I sent being given a NIP, then to no further action, then back to NIP and now only warning letters. Apparently it's down to the discretion of the officer viewing the footage as to what action to take, so even if the footage falls within the standard the CPS would prosecute, you won't necessarily get a worthwhile result."

peted76 added: "Wow, for once a decent result!"

hirsute hoped this will "be a standard for the rest of the country", to which stonojnr replied: "It needs to be, because there will be other police forces who will think that was acceptable driving, and would not pursue it as South Yorkshire have."

As with any of our stories that attract a lot of eyeballs, there were plenty of Facebook (link is external)comments from presumably non-road.cc regulars saying they didn't see anything wrong. However, Jules Walker commented: "No need to be that far over their lane whilst the cyclists pass the parked car. Nice to see the correct action being taken."

Having said the disagreeing comments are mainly not from our regular readers, one came from our Facebook 'top fan' (now there's something to aspire to....) who said: "I'm going to be controversial here, it's the cars right of way and the cyclist can't pass the parked car safely (allowing space to avoid being doored) without going into the opposite carriageway. The cyclists should have stopped/slowed down/anticipated. The only issue with the car is the speed (and maybe that they're not keeping as far left as they could)."

What do you reckon?

https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-live-blog-22-april-2022-292145#live-blog-item-33499

On 22/04/2022 10:29, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> [One comment] came from our Facebook 'top fan' (now there's something to aspire to...) who said: "I'm going to be controversial here, it's the cars right of way and the cyclist can't pass the parked car safely (allowing space to avoid being doored) without going into the opposite carriageway. The cyclists should have stopped/slowed down/anticipated.

APPLAUSE

--
Spike

IanMK replied to Rendel Harris | 577 posts | 10 min ago
0 likes

I suspect that the driver came out of his lane as he wasn't confident driving at that speed close to the verge. That would be the very definition of dangerous driving.

SPOT ON!

On 22/04/2022 10:50, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> IanMK replied to Rendel Harris | 577 posts | 10 min ago
> 0 likes

> I suspect that the driver came out of his lane as he wasn't confident driving at that speed close to the verge. That would be the very definition of dangerous driving.

WHAT A RIDICULOUS THING TO SAY!

IT APPLIES EQUALLY TO THE CYCLIST - WHO IN ADDITION HAD A PARKED CAR TO
TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION - AND WHO SHOULD HAVE COME TO A STOP.

> SPOT ON!

IF YOU THINK THE POLICE ARE THE ARBITERS OF FAIRNESS AS APPLIED TO
EVIDENCE DIG UP TIMOTHY EVANS AND ASK HIM WHAT HE THINKS

--
Spike

It's not the car's right of way to drive in the oncoming carriageway, as this one did, with traffic coming the other way, and there's more than enough room for the cyclist to pass in her own lane without being doored, as can be seen from the still below, if we assume the parked car is average width of round 160cms there's virtually enough room for a whole extra car alongside it, even fully open the door from that car would only take up half the available space between the car and the dividing line. Other than that, spot on.

On 22/04/2022 14:56, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> It's not the car's right of way to drive in the oncoming carriageway, as this one did, with traffic coming the other way,

OH YES IT IS THE CAR'S RIGHT OF WAY

--
Spike

I used to be a defence lawyer. Did a great many motoring matters, because it was easy money (there's always someone well-off prepared to throw more at a speeding trial to save their precious licence than the state is prepared to spend on something less important, like a rape trial).

And I'd tell the client not to waste their money. "But the cyclists didn't signal!" is exactly the sort of whataboutery that would cause many District Judges (and plenty of lay Benches) to up the sentence.

INDEED.

On 23/04/2022 10:03, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> I used to be a defence lawyer. Did a great many motoring matters, because it was easy money (there's always someone well-off prepared to throw more at a speeding trial to save their precious licence than the state is prepared to spend on something less important, like a rape trial).

> And I'd tell the client not to waste their money. "But the cyclists didn't signal!" is exactly the sort of whataboutery that would cause many District Judges (and plenty of lay Benches) to up the sentence.

> INDEED.

WELL YOU ARE ON RECORD AS DENIGRATING JUDGES AND THEIR DECISIONS

--
Spike

Surreyrider replied to hirsute | 164 posts | 6 hours ago
1 like

They should be traced by a new online police division and have their licence suspended for a set period (2 weeks?) and be forced to retake a driving test. A second incident within a year should result in licence being withdrawn for a much longer period and a large fine. Ooops, I forgot - courts don't do that because of the 'hardship' it causes.

On 23/04/2022 13:53, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> Surreyrider replied to hirsute | 164 posts | 6 hours ago
> 1 like

> They should be traced by a new online police division and have their licence suspended for a set period (2 weeks?) and be forced to retake a driving test. A second incident within a year should result in licence being withdrawn for a much longer period and a large fine. Ooops, I forgot - courts don't do that because of the 'hardship' it causes.

I thought this could equally apply to cyclists.

--
Spike

hirsute wrote:

Interesting how drivers are not allowed to touch phones but cyclists can control their drones while cycling, as usual with everything it's one rule for them and another for the rest of us.

Its not a drone, its a360 degree camera, he's trolling twitter for reactions like yours 1

hahaha - thicko driver.

On 23/04/2022 14:02, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> hirsute wrote:

> Interesting how drivers are not allowed to touch phones but cyclists can control their drones while cycling, as usual with everything it's one rule for them and another for the rest of us.

APPLAUSE

Or did he mean "...cyclists can control their bowels while cycling"?

--
Spike

a1white | 195 posts | 1 day ago
1 like

Sheffield Northwest NPT seem to be very pro-active with cyclists safety. So good to see. But yes, the incosistencies with Police forces in the country is shocking.

On 23/04/2022 14:11, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> I reckon our Facebook page is infested with mouth-breathing morons, some of whom happen to ride bike, and nobody who thinks there's such a thing as 'right of way' on the roads has anything valid or useful to say about road user behaviour.

Someone touch a nerve, did they?

--
Spike

Rendel Harris replied to Craig Prosser | 2231 posts | 1 day ago
9 likes

God it's getting predictable, as one scrolls down and a new single-figure poster comes into view one just knows it's 90% certain it's a pro-car troll. On the rare occasions I look at car websites or forums there aren't loads of cyclists trolling with pro-bike views, why is that? Probably because they're out having fun on their bikes, I suppose.

On 23/04/2022 14:17, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> Rendel Harris replied to Craig Prosser | 2231 posts | 1 day ago
> 9 likes

> God it's getting predictable, as one scrolls down and a new single-figure poster comes into view one just knows it's 90% certain it's a pro-car troll.

And these pro-car trolls are somehow 'worse' than the victim-culture
portrayed daily by the pro-cycling trolls?

There's a lack of consistency showing...

--
Spike

I concur. This is an absolute gem.....

"From what I can see is the reason the car may have strayed a bit wide is because the hedgerow on his side overhangs into the road past the white edging line. If the cyclist had been aware they may have held back on pulling out for the overtake of the parked car. Not only that. How many of the cyclists used a left hand signal turning at the junction? I'm sure if the driver could afford a defence lawyer and took it further, he may have had the decision reversed."

Somehow in their little mind the fact that the cyclists never signalled they were turning left is reason that conviction could be reversed ....

On 24/04/2022 10:16, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> I concur. This is an absolute gem.....

> "From what I can see is the reason the car may have strayed a bit wide is because the hedgerow on his side overhangs into the road past the white edging line. If the cyclist had been aware they may have held back on pulling out for the overtake of the parked car. Not only that. How many of the cyclists used a left hand signal turning at the junction? I'm sure if the driver could afford a defence lawyer and took it further, he may have had the decision reversed."

> Somehow in their little mind the fact that the cyclists never signalled they were turning left is reason that conviction could be reversed ....

In real life the road suffering overgrown hedgerow would be the basis of
an appeal, the fact that the cyclists failed to follow the Highway Code
in a number of ways being an aggravating factor.

--
Spike

Surreyrider replied to Surreyrider | 164 posts | 1 day ago
0 likes

There are also a number of drivers - not insubstantial - who actually believe they have priority over cyclists at all times regardless of what the law says.

On 24/04/2022 10:45, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> Surreyrider replied to Surreyrider | 164 posts | 1 day ago
> 0 likes

> There are also a number of drivers - not insubstantial - who actually believe they have priority over cyclists at all times regardless of what the law says.

Cite for this fairy story?

--
Spike

On 24/04/2022 12:03 pm, Spike wrote:

> On 24/04/2022 10:45, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Surreyrider replied to Surreyrider | 164 posts | 1 day ago
>
>> There are also a number of drivers - not insubstantial - who actually believe they have priority over fairy-cyclists at all times regardless of what the law says.
>
> Cite for this fairy story?

All cycling stories are fairy-stories.

Secret_squirrel replied to Rendel Harris | 1955 posts | 2 days ago
6 likes

I must admit the car is travelling too fast to notice that - the freeze frame makes it really obvious they are too far over.

I dont disagree that this was actionable. I am depressed however about the inconsistency from the different Rozzer forces. I've had worse that just had the "talking to" letter.