- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Video: Aberdeen police didn't think this close pass footage was close enough to follow up on
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.”
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- hawkinspeter 3 min 48 sec ago
If CO2 really matters to you, the best thing to do is kill a billionaire.
- SimoninSpalding 7 min 2 sec ago
Now I have put my glasses on I can see the bosses - they look quite close to the seat tube, is there enough clearance for a bottle cage?...
- bobbinogs 13 min 22 sec ago
Whoop dee doody...
- Zjtm231 46 min 30 sec ago
The standard is 40% in these types of cases
- eburtthebike 1 hour 7 min ago
I like the magazine.
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 23 min ago
A sitting duck is only under threat if somebody decides to shoot at it. The residents have unintentionally exemplified exactly the problem with...
- Barraob1 8 hours 48 min ago
"The cyber truck of brifters" so a vanity project designed by an idiot for sycophants
- Smoggysteve 11 hours 18 min ago
If a chain comes off and gets stuck. That has absolutely zero to do with the frame. ...
- Richbeck 12 hours 7 min ago
Take a look at spa cycles - plenty of choice and options.
- brooksby 14 hours 6 min ago
Asking the Bristol Post to do actual journalism? Ha! That's a good one!
Add new comment
47 comments
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.
Yo momma so fat she jumped in the air and got stuck.
Yo momma so fat the only letters in the alphabet she knows are KFC
Yo Momma so fat she's in the LTDA
Yo momma so fat, her waisteline is a Strava segment.
Yo Momma Thread!
Yo Momma so fat Hubble's only just got her in focus.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
WHOIS kevinmorice??
It would a shame if something happened to that beautiful car, in the dark.
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
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.
Excuse my ignorance, as they need 2 witnesses does that mean the police need 2 independent cameras when targeting speeding cars?
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 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?
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.
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?
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.
Complete lie. In 2016 I've posted around 160 videos, and reported only 9 drivers.
Ha, love it when someone gets called out on their alternative facts.
Fake news ;0)
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.
Pages