Twitter user Aberdeen Cycle Cam said that when this incident was reported, Aberdeen police said they did not consider it to be too close.
The incident took place in Westhill in January 2016 and was reported via the 101 line.
However, while the Aberdeen police officer who took a statement did not consider the pass to be too close, Inverurie police decided to charge the driver.
Six more police forces looking to run close pass operation
In November 2016, Aberdeen Cycle Cam went to the Aberdeen Sheriff Court to testify against the person that was allegedly driving the car at the time of the incident.
After being interviewed by the Procurator Fiscal in Court, they were told that the trial could not continue as there was not sufficient evidence to establish who was driving that car at the time. Aberdeen Cycle Cam writes on YouTube that this was “regardless of the accused having responded to a Section 172, identifying himself as the driver.”
A letter from the Procurator Fiscal’s office subsequently explained that two sources of evidence are needed to identify the person responsible with a physical description often serving as supporting evidence.
Aberdeen Cycle Cam has since published this video of another close pass which was reported to police on January 26 of this year.
On this occasion, an Aberdeen police constable emailed to say: “I appreciate the overtake was slightly close however this was not dangerous or careless driving. I will however still trace the driver and advise them on leaving extra room when overtaking cyclists in the future.”
47 thoughts on “Video: Aberdeen police didn’t think this close pass footage was close enough to follow up on”
So he/she admits it was
So he/she admits it was themselves driving the car and they still get off without any punishment for driving far too close. Think I might break the law in the dark, admit it and get let off as no one else can say I was male/female or guess my age! The law needs a good kick up the ar*e here in the UK
Appalling
Appalling
I imagine some kind of funny
I imagine some kind of funny handshake was involved.
Unfortunately there are 2
Unfortunately there are 2 legal systems in the U.K. and under Scottish law you need corroboration for any given fact, if the video evidence had shown the driver or the rider been able to identify them that along with the confession that probably would have been fine.
Must make it difficult to
Must make it difficult to convict drivers for speeding especially in the dark
xbnm wrote:
Yes, which is why speeders are very rarely taken to court in Scotland unless they have been stopped by the Police at the time, have been extreme or have some other corroboration (sole person on insurance, witness, front-facing camera etc). Most people take the points and fine as a plea bargain rather than contest them because the cost of fighting it is higher (even if you win you have lawyers fees that will exceed the original fine).
As to the suggestion that the drivers phone GPS might be considered corroborating. It would be, but he would have to give it over freely and he can just refuse access.
kevinmorice wrote:
Yes, which is why speeders are very rarely taken to court in Scotland unless they have been stopped by the Police at the time, have been extreme or have some other corroboration (sole person on insurance, witness, front-facing camera etc). Most people take the points and fine as a plea bargain rather than contest them because the cost of fighting it is higher (even if you win you have lawyers fees that will exceed the original fine).
As to the suggestion that the drivers phone GPS might be considered corroborating. It would be, but he would have to give it over freely and he can just refuse access.
— xbnms
Not sure about this. The Safety Camera Partnership report drivers in large numbers and achieve many convictions for speeding.
People are convicted simply because they plead guilty. That is a confession.
As far as I am aware phones can be seized and the data obtained (although highly unlikely outwith a serious injury crash).
WiznaeMe wrote:
They achieve many plea deals from drivers willing to avoid court. Read the letter next time you get one.
The phone can be siezed. There is no onus on the individual to consent to unlock it or hand over the data on it. Bad driving is unlikely to breach the warrrant threshold to allow a forced breach of the phone to extract the GPS data without consent. (The Police have now resorted to undercover muggings of drug dealers whilst they are making calls in order to get around phone locks, if they can grab the unlocked phone they can keep it unlocked).
kevinmorice wrote:
Triangulation data is not stored on the handset, it is held by phone companies, hence no handset seizure is required. Getting hold of it involves quite a bit of hassle with paperwork/warrants hence it isn’t generally obtained for more trivial offences.
Unfortunately there are 2
accidental double post.
riddoch wrote:
Oh, I thought it was corroboration!
So, say if someone was to
So, say if someone was to find out where he lived and went round to his house and smashed all his car windows, as long as no one saw you, you could admit with pride it was you, say on social media, and the law cannot do anything about it?
Just wondering and not advocating this in any way.
ktache wrote:
Your social media post and any admission in court or to any other witness would be two. Also your social media post bragging about a crime would potentially be a separate crime.
You also have fingerprints on the tool you use, security camera evidence where your age/height/sex might be corroborating (as pointed out by the procurator fiscals letter), any witness that sees you nearby close to the time, and so on and so forth.
Effectively yes (according to
Effectively yes (according to Wikipedia) a confession in itself is not enough to convict you. I think there are some specific crimes that will be different and I suspect speeding is one of them.
riddoch wrote:
Makes perfect sense… because exceeding an arbitrary speed limit is somehow worse than nearly hitting someone with a car?
Surely, if they are both traffic offences then the same rules apply in driver identification?!
GPS/Cellular triangulation
GPS/Cellular triangulation surely.
Sue him for distress in the civil courts? Kickstart the funds.
Amazing
Amazing
I did it. Totally got me bang to rights. It’s a fair cop guv.
No you didn’t.
I totally did. It’s my car and everything.
Nope. On your way son.
This individual reports
This individual reports multiple drivers every time he leaves the house. He is a menace to the police with his incessant time wasting and a danger to other cyclists as he gets the rest of us a terrible reputation. He also regularly shouts at drivers for perfectly acceptable driving.
If he didn’t cry wolf so much the rest of us wouldn’t have such difficulty getting reports heard. That he wasted two police forces worth of time and a court appearance for something that was always going to fail on a technicality has likely made this even worse for the rest of us to get responses to real offences.
kevinmorice wrote:
Not crying wolf here, that is dreadful driving full stop. The fact that he has illustrated such archaic, biased, and downright dangerous laws should be applauded.
You want to be overtaken like that, your mates perhaps, or your family? But the scottish legal system does nothing about it? Ah well, give up and roll over then, or highlight it?
grumpyoldcyclist wrote:
That one is dreadful, the other 5-20 he sends in every single day are not. Go on youtube and watch 5 minutes of the footage on his account. Every licence plate that he shouts out, he reports. The Police spend hours every week watching his footage of perfectly acceptable driving, which he send to both forces regardless of where the offences occur.
The Scottish system is perfectly reasonable, (btw it is also the English system, and the same in most of the developed world). Otherwise anyone with a grudge could report you for a crime and their word would be sufficient for your conviction. Some corroboration is ALWAYS required.
kevinmorice wrote:
Complete lie. In 2016 I’ve posted around 160 videos, and reported only 9 drivers.
Aberdeen Cycle Cam wrote:
Complete lie. In 2016 I’ve posted around 160 videos, and reported only 9 drivers.— kevinmorice
Ha, love it when someone gets called out on their alternative facts.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Fake news ;0)
kevinmorice wrote:
Not really HSU 223 will probably have learnt his lesson. Maybe the police should send those ‘you’ve been reported by a member of the public for……’ letters out and it might change a particular driving behaviour or make one think twice.
Excuse my ignorance, as they
Excuse my ignorance, as they need 2 witnesses does that mean the police need 2 independent cameras when targeting speeding cars?
LDR wrote:
One rear viewing camera is not enough, but the camera enforcement letters are worded in such a way that you are accepting a plea deal in order to avoid court. If you contest them they are generally dropped before court unless there is further corroboration, or it is an extreme offence (or where the fiscal feels that he can make you incur enough lawyers fees and loss of earnings that you are effectively getting the financial penalty even if you win in court) .
Any two of:
Front facing camera.
Witness identification.
Police statement.
Being the only person on the insurance.
Section 172 acceptance.
Admission in person to the offence.
Admission to the question ‘Is that you in the photograph?’.
A second camera (security footage from the drivers employers car park showing him stepping out of the vehicle a few moments later, or any of the other security cameras at the dozen offices along that road would have been enough).
Or half a dozen other options.
I don’t understand some of
I don’t understand some of these.
If this has a clear view of the driver’s face, why is an additional piece of evidence needed? Surely an image is proof enough, assuming the equipment has recent calibration certs etc.
I can drive other cars third party on my own car insurance; being the only person on the insurance does not prove you are the driver. That doesn’t seem to meet a reasonable standard of proof at all.
Do you genuinely know a lot about this subject, in which case colour me surprised about the above, or are you making it up?
Got close passed by a bus in
Got close passed by a bus in Ilkley recently
Clipped the handlbars and I came off into the path of the following traffic.
A witness phoned in a report to he police.
I attended a police station, where I got no response. It was a complete wast of time. I ended up sending the stats 19 form in through the post. The police told me to investigate it myself. I asked in writing, for the information from the witness. I have not had a reply.
Although I have GPS data I had no video. Reluctantly I have bought a head camera
Rob the Commuter wrote:
Most buses these days have onboard CCTV and often road-facing cameras. Did you raise this with the bus company as well as the Police for them to investigate? They won’t store this footage forever.
It would a shame if something
It would a shame if something happened to that beautiful car, in the dark.
WHOIS kevin morice??
WHOIS kevinmorice??
This is very interesting. I
This is very interesting. I have been fined for speeding in Scotland. Before I get jumped on, I was caught doing 68mph on a single carriageway NSL road, while completing an overtake on a lorry doing ~50mph.
My defence, which included suitable levels of grovelling remorse, was that I was completing an overtake on a lorry and that it is sensible to do so as quickly as conditions allow. Obviously, this defence failed, because 68 > 60 and that’s that. I now realise that I should have gone for the old “sorry, can’t remember who was driving” defence. What a mug.
It’s a complete joke that the driver of this Audi wasn’t punished, not only because the driver deserves it, but also because it gives similarly reckless twats a ready defence when they endanger others by their selfish driving at night, unable to be identified.
Dear Sir or Madam,
Dear Sir or Madam,
While I do agree that the passing was very close and could had eneded in a very bad accident. My question to you sir/madam is why where you be riding in the middle of the lane?
I would never ride in the a middle of the lane, in a 2 way street. On top of that is night time when people are tired, drunk and do not see too well. Thats just asking for trouble.
fabriciomrtnz wrote:
Dear Miss or Master,
I think you can assume that he judges it easier, safer and more comfortable.
Let’s be honest about this…. you only ride two things: 1) your high horse… and you have trouble keeping your balance even on that lowly steed; 2) your momma.
Ush wrote:
All of what Ush says, also if you look at the time stamp it’s 7.30 am – NOT night time. And anyway the incident was in Aberdeen/Inverurie so hours of darkness are much longer. The rider was in the correct position simple as. To be further in would have invited a collision with the Audi as the motorist committed to an overtake with an oncoming vehicle. They could have held back as it is a straight road, good visibility and then passed safely.
fabriciomrtnz wrote:
Probably because, unlike you, he understands the importance of being highly visible, and because most drivers do not, in fact, behave as psychopathic idiots.
I sincerely hope that even in Aberdeen most drivers are not exhausted, drunk or blind. But if you’re really worried about such things either don’t ride, or ride where even an exhausted, partially sighted drunkard might spot you.
fabriciomrtnz wrote:
Aside from what everyone else has already rightly said – if the above is true and as absolute as you say, it suggests that sooner-or-later you are going to be doored. You ought to reconsider your policy.
@fabriciomrtnz and @hagi
@fabriciomrtnz and @hagi
This is from the Department of Transport’s “Safety Tips” campaign. The same advice would be given by Bikeability instructors, the Police training manual etc etc.
Simon E wrote:
Thanks for clearing that up, for me the best tips come from the road and the road has tought me that drivers dont give an ass hat about you so if you ride on the middle of the lane you are going to get hit.
The cyclist in question seems
The cyclist in question seems to be cycling quite far out in the lane, something that should be considered? Not really the safest place to be when cycling on a main road.
He could easily have moved in 1 or 2 feet without any detriment to his journey.
hagi wrote:
It should definitely be considered. If you become a gutter-sneak, scuttling along at the side of the road then you will inevitably reach a pothole, or road debris which causes you to swerve out into the unfortunate speeding motorist.
On the other hand, if you keep a reasonable distance out then law-abiding, competent motorists will be able to take the steps recommended by the highway code which entitle them to share the public highways with other users.
And enticed a close pass from a normal motorist.
There is no problem with the cyclist’s position here, the problem is with the person that was driving like a child.
Yo Momma Thread!
Yo Momma Thread!
Yo Momma so fat Hubble’s only just got her in focus.
Yo momma so fat, her
Yo momma so fat, her waisteline is a Strava segment.
Yo Momma so fat she’s in the
Yo Momma so fat she’s in the LTDA
Yo momma so fat the only
Yo momma so fat the only letters in the alphabet she knows are KFC
Yo momma so fat she jumped in
Yo momma so fat she jumped in the air and got stuck.
In relation to Scottish and
In relation to Scottish and English law, they are different in many ways. If we have to do work for Scotland, such as reporting someone or arresting them, we need 2 cops who both put in statements otherwise Scotland wont accept it.
Its quite archaic in some ways but in others its bang on with no one going down the line of “there was only you and me so prove it”.
Admissions of guilt at an early stage are not proof someone did something. We have had punters during interview saying it was them just to get out of custody quicker and then coming up with an excuse later at court.