A cyclist has claimed that people riding bikes on Cheshire’s roads are “at the mercy of dangerous drivers”, after the police deemed footage he submitted of several drivers’ close passes “insufficient” – due to the incidents “not being witnessed at the time by a police officer”.

In April, road.cc reader Martin lodged a formal complaint with Cheshire Constabulary and the county’s police and crime commissioner over the force’s treatment of his bike camera submissions, following a close pass incident with a motorist on Sunday 20 April.

Martin claimed that Cheshire Constabulary’s argument that his bike camera footage “wouldn’t be enough evidentially” to pursue a case against the driver on its own indicates that the force will not act on Operation Snap submissions, leaving cyclists with “no recourse” for submitting footage of road crime – a stance, he says, which has led to him avoiding cycling on the road.

“I have a camera on my bike and have submitted footage to Cheshire Police which have resulted in letters and a couple taken further,” Martin told road.cc.

However, the cyclist says he noted a “change in approach” from police this spring, after he was told that no further action would be taken concerning his close pass submission in April.

> The end of bike camera reporting? Police in Wales stop taking action on cyclists’ close pass videos, claiming decision based on “national guidance” advising forces to avoid “dealing with incidents involving distances”

The police’s response to his Operation Snap submission, seen by road.cc, reads: “In this case having reviewed the footage you had provided I’m afraid there wouldn’t be enough evidentially from what can be seen to pursue any offences on this occasion.

“Due to the incident not being witnessed at the time by a police officer your footage is the only independent means we have available to review that incident and must be able to provide the following.

“If offences were pursued, for various reasons, the matter could potentially go to court, therefore it’s essential footage shows enough of an incident to a degree it is clear what has occurred in order that any offences can be evidenced from that footage, with all of the relevant points to prove for that offence clearly visible being committed ‘beyond any reasonable doubt’.

“Any offending vehicles registration plates at the time offences are committed must also be clearly identifiable to prevent legal argument over the identity of those vehicles.”

The email continued: “Please bear in mind that your footage is the only independent evidence I have to review, and I can only go from the perspective that gives which isn’t always a true reflection on what occurred.

“Without knowing the equipment that you use or how this is fitted, would you able to adjust your camera so that a part of your bike or wheel would be visible during future rides? This may assist in future should you have cause to submit any further footage to us.”

Close pass submission, Cheshire
Close pass submission, Cheshire (Image Credit: road.cc reader)

Reflecting on the force’s response, which he believes was largely a “standard, copy/paste email”, Martin told road.cc: “The implication of this is basically saying that any cyclist on their own has no recourse for submitting any dashcam footage for close passes or any other offences.

“We are fair game for the crazy drivers out there as we need a witness, and they don’t take dashcam footage alone as sufficient evidence.

“If this approach is being taken for cyclists, then the same should apply to dashcams in cars with no witnesses.

“It looks like I need to cycle with a police officer from now on to be a witness in case I get close passed. It is just very poor. If they don’t have the resources, then just say so.”

Martin then lodged a formal complaint about Cheshire Constabulary’s response, prompting the force to admit that the wording of their email could be “misleading”.

“But nothing has changed, I still get the same response from submissions in the last couple of weeks,” Martin said.

> “We would encourage members of the public to continue to submit their footage to Operation Snap, since we are still likely to be able to take action…”

Another response seen by road.cc, this time related to a close pass from earlier this month and sent to Martin by the force’s journeycam reviewer, is broadly similar to the one the cyclist received in April.

“Please bear in mind that your footage is the only independent evidence I have to review and I can only go from the perspective that gives, which isn’t always a true reflection on what occurred,” the traffic police officer said.

“Obviously, you were there at the time and experienced the incident and may feel it occurred differently, but I have to be able to evidence using your footage that any offences can be clearly seen to any other party to have been fully made out beyond any reasonable doubt.”

“My personal view is that they are not interested in any cycling video submissions that do not have an independent witness,” Martin says.

“They say ‘insufficient evidence’ to pursue a prosecution. That very much puts us cyclists at the mercy of dangerous drivers. It’s very disappointing and I am now mainly gravel cycling away from main roads.

“I am very much of the opinion that basically unless an incident has an independent witness or secondary witness then Cheshire Police will not do anything about it. As a cyclist it is virtually impossible to have a second witness, especially if you cycle alone which I do. No incidents are witnessed by police officers.

“I just think this makes Operation SNAP virtually pointless and leaves me very vulnerable to dangerous drivers. Every time I cycle on the roads, I get close passed and it has scared me enough to force me to ride gravel more often.”

road.cc contacted Cheshire Constabulary earlier this year, but the force declined to comment due to the ongoing nature of Martin’s complaint. We contacted them again last week but are yet to receive a response.

> National Police Chiefs’ Council insists there’s no reason for police in Wales to stop taking action on cyclists’ close pass videos

Martin’s claim that bike camera submissions are being ignored comes a month after the National Police Chiefs’ Council was forced to respond to the revelation, first reported by road.cc, that police in Wales are to stop taking action on cyclists’ close pass videos by insisting that it simply is not the case that there is anything in its guidance to warrant such a controversial decision.

Cyclists were alarmed to hear at the start of June that motorists who are caught on camera overtaking cyclists, pedestrians, and horse riders too closely in Wales will avoid punishment for the foreseeable future because GoSafe Wales, the country’s road casualty reduction partnership, has chosen to temporarily suspend taking action on close passes – a decision it said was based on “national guidance” advising forces to avoid “dealing with incidents involving distances”.

The “national guidance” in question was issued by the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and the Forensic Science Regulator, GoSafe Wales interpreting some parts as a reason to suspend taking action against drivers who pass cyclists, pedestrians, or horse riders too closely.

This is essentially, in GoSafe Wales’ interpretation, because it advises that what the NPCC calls “journeycam units” do not have the “capability to measure speed and distance from digital media submissions” and that such measurements would need to be carried out by trained forensic specialists.

However, the Forensic Science Regulator, which regulates the application of scientific principles and methods in legal decision-making in England and Wales, insisted that it has not issued any guidance “that would suggest forces suspend taking action on evidence submitted to Operation SNAP”.

Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the NPCC also confirmed that it is simply not the case that its guidance would mean that police forces cannot take action on the Operation SNAP submissions in question.