West Yorkshire Police has responded to criticism of its handling of incidents involving cyclists, the force insisting that all video footage sent to the force is reviewed and two-thirds of Operation Snap submissions “have resulted in action being taken”.
The statement provided to us this lunchtime comes following the latest edition of our Near Miss of the Day series, which this weekend showed the moment a cyclist narrowly avoided a crash with a taxi driver who, the rider alleges, was “too busy checking their phone” to see them.
West Yorkshire Police disagreed with the cyclist’s assessment that it was “a cut-and-dried example of careless driving”, officers suggesting that “no crime had been committed”.
A spokesperson for the force told us today: “In the past year more than 65 per cent of all submissions to Operation Snap resulted in further action being taken. All submissions are reviewed by officers and staff trained who are experienced in the application of road traffic law.
“For action to be taken submissions must meet the required evidential threshold to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. Operation Snap continues to offer an important opportunity for the public to work with the police to improve driver behaviour and help support our Vision Zero ambition to prevent road death and serious injury.”
The incident which sparked the response was shared by a road.cc reader, having happened last Wednesday (14 January) on Moorhead Lane in Shipley. The rider, who wished to remain anonymous, descended the road and angled out to filter past backed-up traffic when the taxi driver, abruptly and without indicating, made a right turn onto a side road across the cyclist’s path.
“A sudden stop — not an easy feat on wet, slimy, icy roads — prevented me from going into the side of their taxi,” the road.cc reader explained. “This seems to me like a cut-and-dried example of careless driving. Making a turn without indicating, without looking, and putting a vulnerable road user at risk.”
The reader did accept that the alleged mobile phone use was not visible on camera, but believed the video amounted to sufficient evidence for action to be taken. However, West Yorkshire Police told them and us “that no crime had been committed”.
West Yorkshire Police’s assertion that 65 per cent of all submissions result in further action being taken may raise some eyebrows. We asked for clarification about what ‘further action’ means in this case, as many forces include minor engagement, such as warning letters, as ‘action’. A West Yorkshire Police spokesperson explained it was any time a notice of intended prosecution is sent, meaning the 65 per cent figure includes retraining courses, as well as more severe punishment options.
Research for the 2021 to 2024 period found that West Yorkshire Police had received 19,729 Operation Snap reports, the second most of any police force in England and Wales, just 220 behind Avon & Somerset.
It is worth noting that those figures refer to submissions from all road users, not just the statistics repeatedly showing that the vast majority of Operation Snap submissions come from motorists, even if cyclists reporting footage regularly make headlines in the local and national press.
While West Yorkshire Police has expressed confidence in its handling of Operation Snap footage, we have reported several cases in recent times involving cyclists who were left unhappy by the treatment of their submissions.
Just last month, road.cc reader Rob McGibbon was cycling to work on the outskirts of Leeds when he was hit by a van driver. The driver was sent on an education course, something Rob told us “hardly seemed a deterrent at all” considering the nature of the incident.
“Operation Snap do that for just a close pass, not running into someone,” he said. “The weather was clear and dry. I had a front light and three rear lights, a fluorescent orange helmet, reflective gloves and a hi-vis cycle clip on the driver’s side. He still managed to drive into me.”
Likewise, in November 2024, another road.cc reader questioned West Yorkshire Police’s approach to investigating road incidents, concluding that he fears the force is “completely unwilling to prosecute drivers” who hit cyclists, after he was knocked off his bike in a collision. The elderly driver involved was referred for a Fitness to Drive Assessment as an alternative to proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court for driving without due care and attention or reasonable consideration for other road users.
Having made a complaint to West Yorkshire Police questioning if there is an “institutional lack of understanding, or perhaps even prejudice, towards cyclists” — the rider involved was told the force is “satisfied” with its initial decision.
48 thoughts on “Police force insists cyclists’ camera footage is taken seriously, after backlash to “no crime had been committed” response to near collision”
Ive had my fair share of
Ive had my fair share of moments with idiotic drivers. In this case the cyclist should learn a bit about the meanin of the word ‘anticipate’
The can see there is a line of cars ahead even if the cam doesnt show it immedietly the lens is far lower down than the cyclists eye level. Yes the car should have indicated, but thats not to say at the junction which is clear to turn right and a queue up ahead it isnt a likely move from any car that can avoid it will.
As I say, anticipation of this scenario would help.
Not defending the drivers actions but if the cyclist had been hit I would asked them why they thought filtering up that line of cars with little room was a sensible idea
The cyclist said they were
The cyclist said they were turning into the side road, not filtering.
I question if thats actually
I question if thats actually true. right at the end of the clip, after the car has well gone they make no move towards the right. We’re meant to just give them benefit of the doubt when nothing of their road position suggests they even did. Their next movement is forwrard not to the right, theyre running out of turning space as far as I can see.
Convieniently for them the clip stops so we will never know.
I agree, the end of the clip
I agree, the end of the clip doesn’t look like they’re turning.
Smoggysteve wrote:
But you feel that it is down to cyclists to anticipate poor driving rather than have the police try to improve the driving.
The car shouldn’t have indicated but the driver certainly should have. The driver should also check that the manouvre is safe to do before pulling out if I have understood the highway code correctly.
Most of us would have anticipated this as did the OP, the point is we shouldn’t have to and there are other less experienced cyclists who may have been caught out by this driving.
So I take it you agree that the police should have taken some sort of action. As it is the driver is possibly not even aware that they have pulled out in front of a cyclist causing them to brake sharply.
Sorry but never in a million
Sorry but never in a million years would I have passed that taxi on the right in that situation. The taxi stops at an angle to the centre line, nose towards the turn. There are several possible reasons for this including they were sizing up going down the outside of the queue of traffic for some reason or most likely they were preparing to turn right into the side road. I am sure there are other possibilities but with those two in play, I am protecting myself and staying behind them, even if it means waiting in a queue. That’s especially the case when you add in the fact that you see a van turn right just 3 seconds before the taxi moves so you know they have not been motionless for ages and could just be slow at pulling off ( WhatsApp gap anyone?).
Yes, it’s crap driving for not signalling and for not checking the mirror before pulling off but I would be questioning my roadcraft and hazard perception if I were that cyclist. Now I read some comments saying that they were apparently turning right too. In the article they are quoted as saying it was a wet and slippery road surface and that they had to anchor up hard to avoid the taxi. Definitely questioning the roadcraft if that’s true. Any cyclist with any experience has had that serious glute clenching moment trying to corner too fast in the wet, especially if you clip an drain cover or white line, and anyone with any road sense is in no rush to repeat the sensation.
LeadenSkies wrote:
I may have held back myself in that situation but I would always support the right of any cyclist to ride however they like provided that it is following the highway code. I would also question the response of a police force who take no action when a cyclist following the highway code is forced to stop to avoid a collision when a driver fails to obey the highway code.
I think we are in agreement on that.
In the past year more than 65
In the past year more than 65 per cent of all submissions to Operation Snap [West Yorkshire] resulted in further action being taken
They’re lying- I haven’t submitted any reports to WYP, but I do know a lot about LC’s response to cyclist reports- and that is no response at all. I don’t, of course, know how WYP is lying while covering themselves against retribution (however unlikely that is)- most likely by deleting from the denominator all those reports they don’t like. Help us out West Yorkshire correspondents! Show us cases with online video and evidence that they have taken significant action (words of advice and advice letters don’t count). You know from credible testimony on here that Kent Police have declared that non-collision close passes will be ignored, you know that no such thing as a pass that’s too close exists in Lancashire, you know that Gloucestershire Police insist that there must be evidence that the cyclist victim has been inconvenienced. There is a race to the bottom!
I report to WYP Operation
I report to WYP Operation Snap regularly. Sadly the driving on my commute to Leeds is terrible. Once you accept the driving must be truly dangerous and only send those clips in, the team act on most submissions. There are inexplicable times they don’t but it is great knowing that drivers are actually getting reminded of their duty to be safe and I hope word spreads and more care is taken.
If the matter has to be dealt with by a different team because of a collision, standards drop terribly. But for close passes, West Yorks is well served.
I report to WYP Operation
I report to WYP Operation Snap regularly…Once you accept the driving must be truly dangerous and only send those clips in, the team act on most submissions. …for close passes, West Yorks is well served
From this we know that you have sent many videos in to WYP concerning truly serious close passing offences, and they have acted on most of them. Would you kindly show us an online video of an offence where you have positive evidence that the penalty was not words of advice, an advice letter, the joke driving course or the even more joke online driving course?
This is the sort of thing I mean:
This result is very
This result is very disappointing. I make most of my OpSnap submissions to West Yorkshire Police, around one or two a week. Most (I’d guess 95%)resulted in positive action being taken as opposed to to no further action. It’s a shame that you don’t get to know the actual outcome but then if they spend more time on enforcement I’m happy.
The car is in a queue of
The car is in a queue of traffic. there is zero room. You cannot see past the line of cars any empty space. |Where was the cyclist going? what if the next vehicle to appear coming towards them was a truck? where do they go? crs are nose to tail. Again, not defending the driver at all , but there was nowhere to go. not safely anyway.
On the original NMOTD piece,
On the original NMOTD piece, the rider says they were turning into the same side-road the taxi turned into.
I question this further down
I question this further down the comments list. I call bs on that one. easy to say they were but positions suggests otherwise right at the end of the clip
Smoggysteve wrote:
How do you know they weren’t shaken up by the incident and were just going to pull onto the pavement to collect their thoughts and save the clip on their camera?
Have a word, shaken up my ass
Have a word, shaken up? my ass. They slowed before the car turned anyway, Stop finding petty bs reasons
Smoggysteve wrote:
What you get up to in private is up to you, but we don’t need to hear about it here.
Smoggysteve wrote:
You really seem to be getting a lot more angry about this than is justifiable, you weren’t driving the taxi by any chance?
There are so many incidents
There are so many incidents that create dangerous conditions for cyclists. We have to contend with so many bad drivers yet when a cyclist does themselves no favours it has ad adverse effect on all of us who try to just keep safe and avoid incidents and confrontation. Its like those cyclists who do gert caught RLJing who give all cyclists a bad name. we know they are the tiny minority but the anti cycling brigade dont need more ammunition. face it, this guy isnt totally in the right either .
Its like those cyclists who
Its like those cyclists who do get caught RLJing who give all cyclists a bad name
This ‘bad name’ principle never applies to drivers, though, does it? The police, Lancashire Constabulary in these cases, forgive drivers because ‘everybody does it’!
etc. etc. There are loads of these by drivers of motor vehicles at these traffic lights – the only permanent ones round here. I don’t have any videos of cyclists crossing traffic lights at red- not because I am operating a selection bias, but because there aren’t any here. Admittedly, there are hardly any cyclists, because road conditions in Lancashire are very hostile for cyclists.
If they were going straight
If they were going straight on you can see that the traffic is queued for at least ten cars ahead and there is nothing coming in the opposite direction, filtering down the outside of this line of traffic is perfectly justifiable and safe. Would you really have stayed behind the last car and said I’m going to wait here until all the cars move?
There are car brake lights as
There are car brake lights as far as you can see then it bends to the right. So you have no idea what coming, And if you think there is enough space to squeeze between the sationary queuing cars and potentially a truck then yoiure no better.
I would suggest there is something ahead like maybe temp lights making that queue of cars. You have no idea what could be coming aroind that corner, trucks or busses would be too wide and leave the cyclist nowhere to go. So dont come out with dumb suggestions.
As I said all along ANTICIPATE
You could filter back into
You could filter back into the queue. No need to squeeze yourself between it and an oncoming truck. As for ANTICIPATE, that’s what the cyclist did – hence not crashing into the side of the taxi.
When would anticipation of
When would anticipation of potential events become reaction to actual events?
Most (I’d guess 95%)resulted
Most (I’d guess 95%)resulted in positive action being taken as opposed to to no further action
That means ‘words of advice’. Pretty much what I expected
https://road.cc/content/forum
https://road.cc/content/forum/disgraceful-failure-prosecute-under-take-and-close-pass-west-yorkshire-313725
this is nothing. See my experiences of WYP failing to prosecute a close-pass-with-undertake-and-brakecheck combo!
institutionally anti cyclist
I didn’t think that was a
I didn’t think that was a brake test (the driver didn’t slow down much only peppered them) but WYP definitely should have done something about that wreckless undertake IMO!
If a similar incident is
If a similar incident is brought before the court, this can be used as eveidence that the police consider this a legal maneuver and the case can be dismissed.
Geoff H wrote:
No it couldn’t, neither police interpretations of the law nor CPS charging decisions can set legal precedents, thank goodness. Precedents can only be set by the courts.
It was meant to be more
It was meant to be more snarky sarcasm about the police, enforcement, and the courts. AND where the interpretation is vague, it can be used as an example (rather than a precedent).
“Operation Snap continues to
From the article.
Well the public has done their bit!
help support our Vision Zero
help support our Vision Zero ambition to prevent road death and serious injury
our Vision Zero ambition for cyclists on the roads, more like! When police forces refuse to take action against the dangerous and careless drivers endangering cyclists, deploying the dodges they get away with time after time, reinforced and encouraged by these trivial penalties for KSI-ing cyclists imposed by cyclist-hostile courts when the police can’t get away with binning the case, we know where the sympathies of the legal system really lie.
Irrespective of what you
Irrespective of what you might think about the cyclist’s decision making, and the severity of this action, the fact remains that the driver neither looked in their mirrors nor used their indicators in this instance, yet WYP decided that this does not constitute driving without due care and attention.
Exactly! However much some
Exactly! However much some people on here wish to focus on the cyclist’s behaviour (which, considering he broke no laws whatsoever, seems to me analogous to the infamous “short skirt, asking for trouble” trope) it doesn’t change the fact that the driver made a turn without a proper check and without indicating, which is as textbook a case of careless driving as one could wish for.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Indeed.
In my opinion, that would be an immediate fail if they did that during a driving test. However, having never taken one myself, it’s a bit of a guess. I suppose I really want an expert driving test examiner to rubber stamp these kinds of incidents with “Immediate Fail” or “points deducted” so that we have a reasonable baseline with which to evaluate driving “standards”.
There is a massive difference
There is a massive difference between saying that I wouldn’t have personally filtered to the right of that vehicle since it showed plenty of signs of being about to move to the right and saying that was asking for trouble in the way you allege with your short skirt analogy comment. There are plenty of things that I would be legally quite within my rights to do but don’t because my personal risk assessment says they are too great a risk to my safety. I guess it’s about not relying on others to have to do something to keep me safe when experience over the last 5 decades has taught me that they often won’t do so. My safety comes first each and every time I cycle on the road.
And yes, I can say that I wouldn’t have done what this cyclist did whilst still supporting the view that this was careless driving, the two are not mutually exclusive. What amazes me here is how few people seem to pick up on the very obvious clue of what was about to happen from the angled stopping position of the vehicle or are simply willing to put themselves in danger after spotting the clue.
I think this is anageous to
I think this is anageous to so many of the dashcam videos posted. The incident can be seen developing for some time before the “innocent party” takes violent evasive action and says “didn’t I do well”.
That said, I am definitely of the opinon that the standard of driving has fallen over the last few decades, along with the level of enforcement.
I kept reporting cars and
I kept reporting cars and sending footage to Gloucestershire police. Cars would go up a narrow lane then ignore the “Left Turn Only” sign at the dual carriage way and turn right or go straight over. This happened 4 times in a row while I as on my bike approaching the junciton, it MUST be really common. Heard nothing back, so stopped sending the footage.
Avoiding the narrow lane makes a whole few seconds difference in a car.
Then today I nearly fell off my chair when this landed:
https://www.stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk/news/25777939.public-consultation-launched-plans-enfor/
*******
Gloucestershire County Council is seeking feedback on proposals to deploy Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras at 16 locations across the county to improve road safety, cut congestion, and promote public transport use.
This is including at the A430 in Quedgeley and the A38 in Whitminster.
*******
I will certainly be adding in my bit to the consultation!!!!
At last someone else from
At last someone else from Gloucestershire. While they may not do anything I have always had feed back for my reports. Can I ask if you used OpSnap and whether you got a confirmation email giving a BD number following the reports?
Can I ask if you used OpSnap
Can I ask if you used OpSnap and whether you got a confirmation email giving a BD number following the reports?
I see you didn’t get a reply. Neither did I from the WYP enthusiast. Lancashire uses a central type of OpSnap, which then sends the videos etc. out to individual forces who ‘subscribe’ to that system. I get an APL number displayed on screen,which is now up to 184500, but no email. I send an email to myself with the case details and APL number
The answer, of course, is
The answer, of course, is ‘Yes!’ to the introduction of ‘more cameras that someone pays attention to’ and the removal of the prosecution of traffic-offending drivers from the hands of the police. It’s just that neither of them is going to happen. The ANPR bit is irrelevant- and AI will have to improve a lot beyond where I think it is now before it’s any use beyond highly specific cases such as white line and traffic light offences. I’m hoping Bungle and Pedal keep us informed on what happens. My opinion is that the police will ensure that nothing changes.
Does the ‘shouldn’t overtake
Does the ‘shouldn’t overtake within the zigzag lines’ rule apply to us too? I’m questioning because I think filtering is overtaking, just we can do it within the lane. I’m not quite sure because we don’t present the same hazard
Does the ‘shouldn’t overtake
Does the ‘shouldn’t overtake within the zigzag lines’ rule apply to us too?
Who cares, when they don’t enforce anything else in the Highway Code/ Road Traffic legislation?
This Transit HN21 VXB has been stationary by this ‘2 hours- No return within 2 hours’ for almost 24 hours now. Also, and this should come as no surprise for a business vehicle in Lancashire, has been without VED for 1 year 10 months, without MOT for 6 months. The Garstang Neighbourhood Policing Team, who recently publicised their email address with a ‘please bring us your offences!’ plea, were informed about the presence of the vehicle in this spot at about 13:00 yesterday. It’s outside the Leisure Centre, 100 yards from Garstang Police Station.
And for the police apologists
HN21 VXB
And for the police apologists among us:
I should be shocked but being
I should be shocked but being Lancs, I’m not.
Only applies to motor on
Only applies to motor on motor (except where lights are red or someone is crossing a zebra). Hence ok to overtake a moving cyclist in the zig zag area (ok, legal but not necessarily wise).
15.—(1) Without prejudice to paragraph 14, a zig-zag line in a signal-controlled crossing facility controlled area conveys the requirement that, whilst any motor vehicle (“the approaching vehicle”), or any part of it, is within the limits of the controlled area and is proceeding towards the signal-controlled crossing facility to which the controlled area relates, the driver of the vehicle must not cause it or any part of it to pass ahead of the foremost part of—
(a)any other motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction
(b)a vehicle which is stationary for the purpose of complying with a traffic light signal for controlling vehicular traffic.
Sorry cyclist but you are in
Sorry cyclist but you are in the wrong as you are overtaking at a junction. You should have stayed behind the vehicle until it manoeuvred turning right or the vehicle went across the junction. Your only option was to slow down and carefully move past the vehicle on the inside and then wait behind the cars on the zigzags. I suspect you wanted to overtake at the junction and overtake on the zigzags (if you cause an accident not being a motor vehicle would not matter). Go straight to jail and do not pass go, you are rolling the dice.
It would be super if one-shot
It would be super if the one-shot trolls could read the Highway Code before popping one off. Cyclists are permitted to filter past traffic at junctions and also to filter past cars on zigzags. No mention of the driver not indicating and clearly pulling out without making the necessary mirror and shoulder checks?