As Gloucestershire Constabulary announced that it was adopting Operation Snap, enabling road users to submit video evidence of dangerous or careless driving to the police through a dedicated online portal, the force’s non-crime unit head has come under fire from cyclists, after claiming that “a lot” of people who ride bikes “don’t realise that… a close pass itself isn’t an offence”.
The officer also said that the police “need to try and find a way of educating” people who submit footage to Operation Snap that the clips need “to show that the driver or rider is being inconvenienced in some way”, while bizarrely adding that “in the Highway Code you have something called a close pass, where you should allow cyclists 1.5m width”.
The muddled messaging from Gloucestershire Constabulary has been widely criticised on social media by cyclists, who have argued that the officer has failed to realise that close passes often constitute an example of careless driving, and that the officer’s comments misrepresent cyclists’ concerns about road safety and highlight “the mess in which we find ourselves as we seek to lower road crime against cyclists and encourage more people to cycle”.
This social media backlash followed Gloucestershire Constabulary’s announcement this week that it is the latest UK-based local police force to take part in Operation Snap, an online portal which allows road users to submit footage of instances of alleged dangerous or careless driving.
Across the UK, 24,000 clips have been submitted using Operation Snap over the last six months, with Gloucestershire’s dedicated officer currently dealing with over 140 submissions a month. According to Gloucestershire Constabulary, around 25 to 30 per cent of the footage so far has resulted in a Fixed Penalty Notice being issued, or an educational course being offered to the offending driver.
Speaking to the BBC, the head of Gloucestershire’s non-crime unit, Robert Vestey, said that dashcam and cycle camera footage has proved an “emerging way” of dealing with dangerous or careless driving “over the last three or four years”.
“It’s simple, it’s very effective, and it allows us to educate as well as prosecute where we need to,” Vestey said.
“Quite often they don’t even realise how bad their driving has been, so it allows us to work with them and just improve the safety on Gloucestershire’s roads.”
However, it was Vestey’s comments concerning the threshold at which the driving captured in the footage constitutes an offence – particularly when it concerns motorists’ actions around people on bikes – that have bemused and baffled cyclists on social media.
“The footage itself has got to prove the offence,” Vestey said. “There are some offences though that are so bad they would immediately go to court, and others that the public think are an offence but they’re not, so we need to try and find a way of educating people on that.”
The officer also insisted that the footage submitted has “to show that the driver or rider is being inconvenienced in some way”, and that he believes that one of the key solutions to increasing road safety is to send “advisory letters” to offending drivers detailing the Highway Code and the law.
He continued: “We get a lot of images sent in from cyclists, and in the Highway Code you have something called a close pass, where you should allow cyclists 1.5m width.
“But a close pass itself isn’t an offence and a lot of cyclists don’t realise that, so they get quite frustrated with us.”
“Most other forces reassure their communities that they do act against crime”
Since the Gloucestershire officer’s statement was published earlier this week, it has been met in particular with one, rather bemused question: What on earth does he actually mean?
“This statement, from the representative of a police force, shows us the mess in which we find ourselves as we seek to lower road crime against cyclists and encourage more people to cycle,” Tim, a cycling instructor and road safety campaigner, wrote on X (formerly Twitter) in response to Vestey’s comments.
“‘But a close pass itself isn’t an offence’ is an odd thing to say,” Tim said in a lengthy thread. “Close passing cyclists is an example of the offence of driving without care and consideration. Every week, hundreds of drivers face police action for close passing. The Metropolitan Police explain it clearly on their Driving Offences website: driving too close to another vehicle is an example of careless or inconsiderate driving.
“‘A lot of cyclists don’t realise that’ is equally odd. Cyclists who report close passes to their force are mostly aware that close passing cyclists is an example of the offence of driving without care and consideration leading to drivers facing police action every week.”
Tim continued: “The police force representative misrepresents the difference between laws on driving behaviour that are cited in the Highway Code – signalled by rules using MUST or MUST NOT – and the rules which set out the minimum standard for careful and considerate driving signalled by rules using SHOULD or SHOULD NOT.
“SHOULD or SHOULD NOT rules, which set out the minimum standard for careful and considerate driving, are (not unsurprisingly) the rules used to evidence the offence of Driving Without Care and Consideration.
“Could the statement be a ‘slight-of-hand’ attempt to justify why the police force they represent don’t take action to the same standards as other forces? If cyclists reporting close passes know that other forces take action to best practice, it’s not surprising that the force representative sees that these cyclists ‘get quite frustrated with us’.
“They just misrepresent why cyclists who report close passes get frustrated. The frustration is not a failure to understand the law, but a frustration with a force not applying the law for the purposes that it was introduced.”
> Here’s what to do if you capture a near miss, close pass or collision on camera while cycling
Tim also argued that Vestey made the “opposite misrepresentation” when he, somewhat bizarrely, stated that “in the Highway Code you have something called a close pass”.
“While the term ‘close pass’ isn’t used in the Highway Code, it clearly sets out a rule that we should ‘leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds’. Variability is classic excuse talk,” Tim wrote, before adding that, in any case, the 1.5m rule forms part of the code’s aim to “promote safety on the road”.
Responding to Tim’s thread, Henry Godwin noted the ‘postcode lottery’ aspect of road safety policing frequently cited by cyclists.
“If you dial 101 in the Avon and Somerset Constabulary area, one of the menu options is to report a close pass of a cyclist. So thankfully not all police jurisdictions are as ignorant of the Highway Code,” Henry said.
“All forces are moving in the right direction, and most forces make strong statements on road harm reduction but, as things change too many individuals are lagging behind,” added Tim. “Training is essential for improvements in forces.”
Responding to a post arguing that the officer’s statement was merely “clumsy” and nevertheless linked close passing to a potential careless driving offence, Tim said: “It is clumsy, and it does reference that relationship of behaviour to offence.
“However, it’s deployed to justify not taking action against those offending. Most other forces articulate this relationship to reassure their communities that they do act against crime.”
While Gloucestershire’s foray into the world of Operation Snap hasn’t been without its hiccups so far, they’re not the only force who have been criticised for their approach to the road safety portal.
In spring 2023, West Midlands Police came in for criticism after it emerged that the force had prosecuted just one driver from 286 videos of alleged close passes submitted by cyclists.
However, in February the force’s Operation Snap figures revealed a stark increase in third-party video footage leading to police action compared to the previous year, with a third of cyclists’ reports in January 2024 leading to a motorist receiving a fixed-penalty notice – and 97 per cent of cyclists’ reports being actioned in some way.
Meanwhile, a Freedom of Information request last year revealed that 80 per cent of the almost 1,000 motorists accused of close passing a cyclist in Surrey over the previous 15 months were issued with warning letters, with only three incidents resulting in a prosecution.
Responding to criticism of its inaction on close passes, Surrey Police told road.cc that “in the majority of cases, issuing a warning letter is the most appropriate course of action”, due to the “evidential viability” of the submitted videos and the “associated threat, harm, and risk” of the driving offence committed.
The force also claimed that it “regularly” receives video submissions of alleged driving offences “from the same people”, and called on those who frequently submit close pass clips to “engage with us further and work together to tackle” issues around road safety.
79 thoughts on ““A close pass isn’t an offence and a lot of cyclists don’t realise that”: Police chief’s “odd” claim that cyclists need education on driving offences highlighted as evidence of UK’s current road safety “mess””
“….the head of
“….the head of Gloucestershire’s non-crime unit, Robert Vestey…..”
I can’t be the only one wondering why the head of the non-crime unit is spending his valuable time commenting on crimes? He doesn’t appear to be expert in the subject, so why was he saying anything at all about it?
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt. — ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
Technically he’s correct a
Technically he’s correct a close pass isn’t an offence in itself, instead drivers are prosecuted for careless driving, which covers not leaving enough space for vulnerable road users.
It’s a distinction he should have made clearer, but maybe he didnt realise he would get quoted like that.
He is a PURE. A previously
He is a PURE. A previously undetected recruitment error.
The point he’s making is not
The point he’s making is not purely one of terminology though, he’s saying that a close pass alone is not an offence unless it causes inconvenience. Now I’d hope that’s a pretty low bar, and includes the shock/ fear a close pass induces, however fleeting. But I have no confidence that’s how his force will interpret it when he says the inconvenience has to be shown in the video. Of course, involuntary swearing might demonstrate the effect it had on you, but then they’ll prosecute you for a public order offence…
[EDIT – as OnYerBike has rightly pointed out elsewhere, actually ‘inconvenience’ is only required to prove the inconsiderate driving offence. A close pass alone is sufficient to constitute driving without due care and attention.]
quiff wrote:
They might threaten to prosecute you for swearing, but it’d never get past a jury. They’d have to demonstrate that the fruity language caused offense and that’d be difficult when swearing is common in public. It’d be even harder to get a conviction if the jury was persuaded that it was an involuntary outburst due to the shock, surprise and fear of a close-pass.
Absolutely. But I’m sure
Absolutely. But I’m sure there have been news stories on here where it is still apparently used as a tactic to dissuade people reporting / persisting.
quiff wrote:
Yep. I reckon they just need their bluff called if they’re doing anything other than just warning you about the language. (i.e. Tell them to Fack Off)
I’m puzzled as to why they
I’m puzzled as to why they have a non-crime unit. Is he like alcohol-free beer or something?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Certainly seems to be making statements with 0% proof…
Anyway, when will the police start dealing with real crime such as:
That certainly is crime! I
That certainly is crime! I see fare dodging, likely assault, probably criminal damage and maybe there are some rules about failing to follow the directions of train staff …
Personally I feel that someone in the government should be asked some hard questions about the horrifying proliferation of squirrel attacks. And about tackling those pushing far-squirrel views and memes on the internet.
chrisonabike wrote:
Surely the Fur Right are allowed to post their opinions? It’s a free country isn’t it?
hawkinspeter wrote:
But these were immigrant grey squirrels, not native red squirrels, so you can’t expect the Telegraph to support them.
Rendel Harris wrote:
It sounds like whippets will be required on trains to protect passengers from errant squirrels. Perhaps police could take note and protect cyclists from bad drivers? Just a htought.
OldRidgeback wrote:
You’ll be wanting pine martens rather than whippets. Send in whippets and the squirrels will just climb onto something and laugh at them.
Rendel Harris wrote:
“Refused to leave”?
“Well, we asked them very politely to leave and they just threw acorns at us”
Rendel, strange that you are
Rendel, strange that you are using the telegraph’s version of this story, are you feeling alright?
It’s my secret I’ve been
The police should use some
The police should use some common sense – It’s much better to prevent accidents than dealing with death, injury and traffic jams caused by accidents.
I keep saying that stopping
I keep saying that stopping accidents from happening would help save lives and the NHS billions.
Accident prevention – TBF
Accident prevention – TBF that’s mostly a task beyond the police (though emergency forces are involved with this). They generally react when something has already happened (albeit we hope that might stop a recurrence).
We certainly need enforcement / social pressures to steer people to behave a certain way. Sometimes though evidence of people breaking rules / getting it wrong after they are “trained, tested and licenced” suggests we should look at changing the system too. In this case continuing to “tame the car” and gently pushing people away from using motor vehicles towards using other modes. Perhaps (wild thought) even other ways of achieving their goals which don’t need so much travel / transport (generational, this)?
Examples:
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2024/05/15/my-hometown-is-planning-to-ban-cars-from-the-ringroad/
Lowering speed limits in urban areas (as should be done they’re following up by altering the roads also): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRbnBc-97Ps
Not just bikes – banning overtaking completely on some classes of road: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtaking#Nationwide_ban_on_overtaking_as_road_safety_measure
I’ve had a similar
I’ve had a similar conversation with TVP. Oddly enough the conversation was instigated as a result of footage that I had submitted that was being prosecuted. His intention was to ensure my submissions were prosecutable and that they don’t have to waste valuable resources on footage that can’t be prosecuted. I obviously confirmed that nearly all my submissions showed multiple breaches of the HC. The most obvious one is trying to squeeze between a cyclist and oncoming traffic, which is driving without due care and attention.
The messaging is clearly poor because he telling us what he doesn’t want not what he does.
Rule 163 of the HC – ONLY
Rule 163 of the HC – ONLY overtake when it is safe AND legal to do so.
A close-pass is demonstrably not a safe overtake, therefore a contravention of the ACOP, and so a prosecutable offence unless the defendant can prove their actions were safe by other means
Agreed, but I think the issue
Agreed, but I think the issue is the specific distance. I’m not going to report every incident that’s not 1.5m, but I would report an incident that’s less than 1.5m when the car is doing 60mph.
Dear Surrey Police,
Dear Surrey Police,
They are engaging with you to improve road safety, they’re trying to work with you to identify and educate/penalise poor drivers.
Except they don’t do any
Except they don’t do any prosecuting or indeed take any action when presented with video evidence. They’re as bad if not worse than the rest.
Soshul meejah backlash. As if
Soshul meejah backlash. As if anyone in his right mind would care, or even notice.
Punching someone in the face
Punching someone in the face isn’t an offence, but it’s an example of the offences of common assault, ABH or GBH.
I was actually shunted from
I was actually shunted from behind, nearly making me fall off in the middle of the not so wide road as I pulled away behind a van, we had stopped for traffic passing parked cars at a school, a big Transite was behind my trailer and he hit as he moved forward too fast, made me look back at him, all the Wiltshire Police said at Swindon “he did not hit your bike” and refused to do any but drink more coffee! Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tl-b8XaReo
As an Engineer.. I dislike
As an Engineer.. I dislike these images of 1.5m clearance
To be 1.5m clear – you don’t measure from the wheels. Take the handlebars (or half a human) .. It’s about 0.3-0.35 too close..
And yet regardless of that
And yet regardless of that engineering point, it would still be more room than the majority of motorists give cyclists.
So I’m happy with a broader brush approach, the day when we can quibble about where the gap should be will be a happy day
Just like saying that
Just like saying that stabbing someone with a 10″ zombie knife isn’t an offence. Correct, there isn’t a specific offence of stabbing someone with a 10″ zombie knife, but it is a covered in a general law that allows all such instances to be prosecuted. Dumb pedantic police officer trying to be clever but failing miserably.
Who the f*** is this clown
Who the f*** is this clown who is meant to be in charge? That is all.
I am a Gloucestershire
I am a Gloucestershire resident and I have been submitting videos of poor driving since August 2020 (https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-461-dangerous-overtake-rain-276751). As far as I know only one report has resulted in points and a fine. When I started they didn’t have a system for submitting videos and it had to be done with emails. They then developed their own online system before moving to OpSnap around Dec 2022.
I will just leave these observations here.
The following quote is from the FAQ section of the Gloucestershire OpSnap website : https://operationsnap.gloucestershire.police.uk/faqs
Yes. Operation Snap is designed to improve road safety and to prosecute those that place others at risk. We wish to support individuals choosing a sustainable form of transport such as cycling, and recognise they are one of our more vulnerable road users. We will hold drivers to account on every occasion it is identified that the standard of driving falls below that of a careful and competent driver.
From the above article.
However I would direct you to https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-674-driver-inconveniences-cyclist-288521 where the officer seems to admit that I was inconvenienced but still no action.
And finally I have uploaded a graph which shows the outcomes of reports by cyclists for 2023. As far as I am aware they haven’t published any figures since.
Sometimes whatdotheyknow.com
Sometimes whatdotheyknow.com will show an foi request for data though often theyll respond with speeding camera fines data, not dashcam reports data.
But it’s rubbish most forces don’t publish the data as a matter of course. I think most are trying to quietly ignore the problem, hope people get bored reporting it and they can drop pretending to be interested.
The above graph reflects the
The above graph reflects the data obtained through an FOI request but even that was a struggle. The FOI was submitted in Nov 23 and finally replied to in Jan 24. A couple of links with more info.
https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/cheltenham-news/gloucestershire-police-sorry-months-delays-9004358
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/operation_snap_submissions_and_o#incoming-2525931
They say they will publish data regularly so if we interpret this as yearly I thought I’d wait till the end of this year before asking for the 2024 data. If it’s not forthcoming I guess another FOI will be needed.
Quote:
So does that mean that Something Will Be Done if I submit clips showing me being inconvenienced and held up all the f-ing time by nose to tail motor traffic, all carrying only a sole person?
The weird and unfathomable
Post removed as I was talking rowlocks! Thanks to the more careful reader of the legislation who pointed out my error.
LeadenSkies wrote:
I can tell you what they weren’t thinking, and that is that they might need to consider anyone other than other motorists in any shape or form.
As a cyclist being close passed, I consider the surge in my adrenaline levels, the disruption to the airflow around me and the possibility that I don’t have enough room to manouevre around a pothole or piece of detritus lying in the road to be plenty inconvenient, thank you very much.
It is not that big a step from a police officer denying cyclists have been inconvenienced when a close pass occurs to the all too familiar “well, I didn’t hit you, did I?” that some drivers seem to think is the acceptable standard.
LeadenSkies wrote:
I wonder why more close passes aren’t prosecuted as assault as they typically leave the victim fearing for their safety.
I think making the police
I think making the police aware of the fear element is very important when submitting a video.
My hit rate is about 80% of submissions being progressed to some form of action (letter, course, points or court summons – they don’t say which). In hindsight, the failures are the ones where I just reported the scenario and assumed the careless/ inconsiderate/ dangerous driving in the video was self evident.
It takes a little bit longer to write my statement, but saying what I felt, and how I interpeted the driver’s actions seem to have an effect on the police response.
Obviously all of this is irrelevant if you are in Lancashire!
hawkinspeter wrote:
A while back I reported a close pass with threatening verbal abuse as an assault (I was actually scared by the encounter and I cycle in traffic a lot). The difference in the response was incredible. All reported online but ticked the box for assault/threatening behaviour rather than driving offence. Police got back to me in 2 hours, victim support rang me the following day.
Report a driving offence where I have had to slam my brakes on as somebody tries to pass me before a traffic island. Hear nothing for 6 months (so far…)
No, he’s not right.
No, he’s not correct.
The offence, under S3 of the RTA 1988, is “Careless, and inconsiderate, driving.
“If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence.” (emphasis added)
S3ZA goes on to define both “careless” and, separately, “inconsiderate” driving.
You are right that S3ZA(4) states that “A person is to be regarded as driving without reasonable consideration [i.e. inconsiderate driving] for other persons only if those persons are inconvenienced by his driving.”
But you miss that 3ZA(2) states “A person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention [i.e. careless driving] if (and only if) the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.”
A close pass may not be “inconsiderate”, but it is “careless”.
You are right, I missed that.
You are right, I missed that.
“…the force’s non-crime
“…the force’s non-crime unit head…”
Careless driving is a criminal offence (it’s not a civil matter).
Certainly seems to be a bit
Certainly seems to be a bit of a post code lottery with different forces having different criteria. Gwent and south Wales Police which is my area, seem to be pretty good in my experience with some high profile cases resulting in some stiff penalties and all my submissions having some kind of action taken so far.
I find it useful to have my camera (front only at present) under the handlebars in such a way that it can see a section of the drops on the right hand side and angled down slightly to see my tyre, so as to give some perspective and make it much easier to see how close the pass was to my right hand side and to me rather than just from the kerb.
I also always make sure to state that the pass made me very frightened and fearful for my life/welfare and that i could not sleep that night due to the anxiety caused. I have even when necessary, used Google maps satellite view to measure the width of the lane and submitted the screenshot with a arrows and road sizes to make officers aware of the relative local dimensions.
There are other things I would recommend as well, but not got the time here to highlight them all. Just be as comprehensive as you can and make sure your statement conveys the fact that the close pass was an issue to you.
Don’t try and be brave about it, you must convince the reviewing officer that you were in great danger and that it effected your life/mental health or your journey in a way that would not have occurred, if it was not for the close pass, you must convince them that the offending vehicle/drivers actions were very dangerous, unneccesary and troubling, not just that they came closer than 1.5m.
The Police will be reluctant to take strong enforcement action if there is a chance that the driver will get off if they take it to court, so don’t rush your statement, take your time and cover absolutely everything.
All excellent advice but I
All excellent advice but I wonder how much time this takes per submission?
Of course there must be a police calculus too for reporting – presumably even forces which aren’t trying to say “just don’t bother” want there to be some barrier to climb as they’re aware that otherwise even just reviewing well- evidenced submissions would overwhelm their resources (this isn’t an uncommon offence sadly)?
A clear case for a national
A clear case for a national effort to collect the submitted and ajudged dangerous driving as training data for a video machine learning model that can reduce the police service workload and increase their capacity to process the deluge…
I think a simpler approach
I think a simpler approach (and probably more effective than current) would be a different kind of machine. Dust off ERNIE and set odds of something better than 100:1 – then if your submission passes some basic tests (e.g. you took pains to actually submit it…) “are you feeling lucky”?
Very true. You really have to
Very true. You really have to do the Plods job for them; providing the video evidence alone isn’t enough, you need to make the conviction as easy as possible for them, by providing lots of extra information. The same with everything these days; I’m still waiting for my staff-discount at the supermarket for scanning my own groccceries, and restraunt staff-discount for taking my own order with my own device. No different here sadly :/
alexuk wrote:
And when you get on a bus now (First Group Bristol, anyway) to find that you can’t buy anything other than a single ticket from the driver, and if you do try and buy it from the driver and aren’t paying with “cash” (the horror! the horror!) then they just mutter “Tap on, tap off” and don’t give you a ticket or even explain WTF that means
24000 clips in 6 Months.
24000 clips in 6 Months.
Let’s be generous – 5 day week so :-
24000 / (365 * 5 / (2 * 7)) = 184 clips / day.
45 police forces
184 / 45 = 4.09 clips per force per day.
They must be making their doughnuts soggy and crying in their coffee with all that work.
It’s nearly as soul destroying as being the indicator fitter at the BMW factory.
“Educating cyclist” rather
“Educating cyclist” rather than drivers seems to be a directive that has gone out to all forces – got a call from Thames Valley Police today that close passes aren’t illegal and to stop wasting my time and theirs reporting close passes where someone was “just driving”.
They have such a big backlog that they don’t even investigate some accidents.
They are working overtime to try and comply with the 14 day notice required by law to serve notices.
So rather than highlighting to their superiors and ministers that their processes and system needs reform, they’re taking the overtime and binning reports.
When I tried to argue that proactiveness would prevent deaths, I was told that it’s a different team that deals with deaths.
This country is Fd. I may trade in my bike for a small boat and seek refuge in fear of my life somewhere else.
xtrand wrote:
This is all very disappointing and yes processes aren’t working how they should … but unless you’re moving to somewhere that has mass cycling or is trying to get it (quite a bit of Europe now but outside of NL it’s still patchy and “city by city”) this wouldn’t (yet) be a good decision.
In fact the UK has one of the better road safety stats in Europe. Albeit this has in large part come about via discouraging road use without a motor vehicle and “moving the vulnerable road users out of the way of the motor traffic” eg. making it *most* convenient for drivers…
You can’t beat the Danish
You can’t beat the Danish cycling approach in my personal experience….
Not so far to row your boat, though SAS will fly your bike in oversize luggage for free.
Viking Power 🇩🇰
UPDATE
UPDATE
As I’m local I looked up Robert Vestey and found his email address so I decided to ask him to comment on the points I made below. His first point was that the BBC story didn’t give the full picture and the point he was trying to make was that from now on close pass reports would be dealt with using advisory letters rather than NFA if the evidence was not good enough for an NIP. This is an improvement on the current system. On the evidence needed he said :
To prove the offense of driving without due care and attention, the prosecution must demonstrate that:
· Your driving fell below the standard expected of a competent driver and
· You did not show reasonable consideration for other pedestrians and vehicles on the road and
· Other road users were inconvenienced by your driving.
It is the last point that is key with many Dashcam clips we receive where a cyclist is cycling along a road and a vehicle drives past too close. There needs to be some evidence of how the cyclist is inconvenienced e.g. wobbled, took avoiding action, had to brake or change direction or a vehicle coming in the opposite direction had to take avoiding action or brake.
This is the point when a prosecution needs to be considered and I’m quite happy for this to be shared.
This would explain why some of my submissions have been NFA while some have had action taken even though the risk of serious injury to me was less.
On the matter of NMOTD 674 he said that they didn’t always get things right and that this was a pretty obvious mistake and that retraining would be given. This explains some of the other NFAs I’ve had but I did not feel it would be productive to go into individual cases at this point.
And finally he is going to look in to giving a summary of outcomes of OpSnap reports on the website whre they already have results of speeding prosecutions in the county.
In conclusion then it seems to me that this should have been a story about a police force trying to do the right thing for cyclists but hampered by the contraints they are working under.
Is being so shocked you shout
Is being so shocked you shout an expletive considered being ‘inconvenienced’?
If I take my car down to the local supermarket car park to practise handbrake turns and doughnuts, I guess as long as I don’t inconvenience anyone else then that’s not driving without due care?
I’m not sure I agree with their prosecution criteria.
Quote:
That’s absurd! By that criteria no action would’ve been taken against the Ferrari driver this summer who on a clear straight road, where he could’ve overtaken me completely in the oncoming traffic lane, quite deliberately “buzzed” me by about 50cm at a speed I would estimate as being about 80-90 mph, I didn’t take avoiding action, wobble, brake or change direction because frankly it was all so fast it was over before I had a chance to react in any way, and there was no vehicle coming in the opposite direction. As it happens no action was taken because I was nearing the end of a 150km ride and my camera battery had run out and the driver was going so fast that I had no chance to note his numberplate, so I couldn’t report it, but if the camera had been on and the police had taken no further action because my reactions didn’t fit any of the criteria above I would certainly be making an official complaint.
It is the last point that is
It is the last point that is key with many Dashcam clips we receive where a cyclist is cycling along a road and a vehicle drives past too close. There needs to be some evidence of how the cyclist is inconvenienced e.g. wobbled, took avoiding action, had to brake or change direction or a vehicle coming in the opposite direction had to take avoiding action or brake
This provides conclusive proof, as if any were needed, that many police officers are not only malevolent, anti-cyclist b******s, but are exceedingly thick, malevolent, anti-cyclist b******s. I wonder what Chief Dimwit Vestey would say about this:
https://upride.cc/incident/ca70mkc_citroenvan_closepass/
I have made this point before, and Rendel makes it below-In the few milliseconds in which the Citroen passed me, I took no actions which would convince Vestey that I had been ‘inconvenienced’. Anybody who starts wobbling or performs any other out-of-control manoeuvre in response to assaults like this is going to be KSI’d in the not too distant future. In fact, I was so frightened that I had to pull over to the side to recover- This is the only video evidence I have of the effect such a close-passing assault had on me from all my headcam years.
https://upride.cc/incident/yn67mvj_sainsburys44tonner_closepass/
I already know what early model Replicant Vestey, who would undoubtedly fail the Turing Test, would say about that: there is no evidence that the cyclist was inconvenienced as he just kept on cycling in the same manner. I recall desperately trying to remain upright on this slow uphill section, grimly concentrating on staying away from the container nearside while being thankful I didn’t have wide flat bars with rubber grips on the end which could have been scooped up by the container wall, tipping me under the wheels- but it would all have been NFA’d by Vestey. It didn’t even get that far with LancsFilth- they just ignored it like everything else.
Thank you for your comments.
Thank you for your comments. Just a couple of points.
I wonder whether this would count as being inconvenienced. Yupiteru makes the point that they always include the fact that they were so affected by the close pass they couldn’t sleep at night and this seems to have met with positive action in those cases.
I have obviously not explained this very well above. The whole point of what the interview was about was to say that if there was no evidence of inconvenience then close passes would be dealt with by sending Advisory Letters rather than NFA. I know you will see this as not helpful but in my opinion it is a step in the right direction for Gloucestershire.
I do believe they are trying to improve here and I am much happier with the outcomes of my reports in 2024 than I am for the 2023 ones.
Your experience in Lancashire does sound pretty awful from what you tell us and I fully understand your disillusionment with the police there.
if there was no evidence of
if there was no evidence of inconvenience then close passes would be dealt with by sending Advisory Letters rather than NFA
You know I’m going to say this: Advisory letter = NFA. Letters are worthless junk, just like words of advice and ‘community resolution’
Yupiteru makes the point that they always include the fact that they were so affected by the close pass they couldn’t sleep at night and this seems to have met with positive action in those cases
Yupiteru means: you have to lie about it to make the story sound good- which I’m not going to do. Close passes do not have that effect on me because I’m not a nutter. Inventing PTSD does not help, and the only thing affecting my sleep is what is loosely described as ‘prostatism’
wtjs wrote:
I have to say, you don’t often give the impression of being very pro the current state.
Thanks for following up. But
Thanks for following up. But as per my post below, his response continues to demonstrate a fundamental error in his understanding the law. Drivers can be charged if they drive carelessly or if they drive inconsiderately. Driving carelessly only requires the driving to be below the standard of a careful and competent driver – no-one else need be inconvenienced.
Yep. s.3 RTA 1988:
Yep. s.3 RTA 1988:
If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence.
s.3(ZA)(2):
A person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.
s.3(ZA)(4):
A person is to be regarded as driving without reasonable consideration for other persons only if those persons are inconvenienced by his driving
This police guidance also conflates the two offences. But the CPS prosecution guidance makes clear they are separate offences and prosecution has to decide which to charge.
Drivers can be charged if
Drivers can be charged if they drive carelessly or if they drive inconsiderately
But they aren’t, because of the situation which has developed where the police essentially make the law by being permitted or even encouraged to enforce laws entirely by their own choice. They choose to enforce them against people they don’t like, which for our present purposes means cyclists (Duncan Dimwit’s Crusade against Terror Cyclists, Blackpool Police’s Tough on Pavement Cycling but Lax on the Causes of Pavement Cycling: if you don’t like the roads, find another mode of transport etc.), and conspicuously don’t enforce them against people they do like which means motorists.
I moved onto MOT and VED evasion and mobile phone use while driving and red light offences etc. because there’s no argument about whether they’re offences whereas close passing is never significant as far as police officers are concerned- in Lancashire they don’t pay any attention to those offences by motorists because ‘everybody does it’. They won’t do anything about PK17 XHR‘s MOT evasion, for instance. He will likely move on to VED evasion tomorrow because there are no consequences in Lancashire. That’s what lawmaking by the police does for you!
They won’t do anything about
They won’t do anything about PK17 XHR’s MOT evasion, for instance. He will likely move on to VED evasion tomorrow because there are no consequences in Lancashire
Well, it appears that he didn’t, altthough he did manage almost 11 months without MOT. This illustrates the failings of DVLA- he managed to renew his VED on or around 1.10.24, despite his MOT having expired on 5.4.24. DVLA really is a hopeless mess where they positively discourage reports of vehicles on the road without VED, whereas DVSA seems to be working pretty well. He did get an MOT on 27.2.25- the first since it expired.
You are very welcome. It didn
You are very welcome. It didn’t look like any one esle was going to follow up. And thank you for the info.
I do not have enough knowledge to say who is right but internet searches would seem to indicate that what you are saying has some merit. What I don’t understand is how a police could get it wrong. Surely they have lawyers who have a lot more training, knowledge and experience than the rest of us. Surely they are just using national guidelines.
Anyway, I think that’s a battle for the future, unfortunately not one which I feel qualified to undertake. As far as the present is concerened, if you are reporting in Gloucestershire, it would seem be a good idea for the video and/or statement to indicate that you were inconvenienced.
The mandatory close pass
The mandatory close pass wobbles and immediate return to the roadside for underwear inspection…
If we consider the overtake
If we consider the overtake of a large unaccompanied slow moving vehicle, agricultural machine or construction equipment that occupies the road to or even beyond the centre line, a slow somewhat nerve wracking pass is necessary and it would not suite if such an overtake was illegal in the absence of on coming traffic. The current tendency of groups of road cyclists to assemble themselves into carriageway spanning or exceding peletons 3 or even four riders abreast puts drivers into the invidious position that they wish to overtake, they can only do so by inevitably performing a highly unsatisfactory close pass, despite their offside road wheels being in danger of catching the road verge on the opposite side of the road. No doubt some cyclists would argue that the following traffic should always stay behind until some point of the cyclists’ choosing (the end of a Strava segment perhaps!). But such behaviour by cyclists is in breach of the Highway code advised road behaviour and is likely to deepen and widen the antipathy by motorists towards cyclists and ultimately further endanger the lives of those who cycle for other purposes.
Credit where it’s due, you’re
Credit where it’s due, you’re really putting in the effort with your trolling, going back six months to find something about which you can write complete bollocks.
In 56 years of cycling, motorcycling and being driven in cars and coaches for hundreds and hundreds of thousands of miles in the UK and on the continent – including some of the most popular cycling routes on Earth – I have never, not once, seen cyclists riding four abreast across the carriageway with traffic behind when not in an officially sanctioned race with appropriate road closure or police control. Never.
I was thinking the same. A
I was thinking the same. A popular open road sportive maybe, just maybe? But even then I don’t think so.
Robert Hardy wrote:
Maybe, but only because that’s what the Highway Code says to do…
Do you really think that someone should overtake unsafely/dangerously just because they don’t want to have to wait?
Why are you here?
Why are you here?
If this is sarcasm or satire
If this is sarcasm or satire (or a quote from e.g. the Mail), please consider adding some indication that it is!
Taking at face value (why?): 1) “unaccompanied” (presumably not by a driver then?) 2) silly “large heavy (but slow)” motor vehicle and cyclist equivalence 3) silly “so it’ll be illegal to overtake then” idea 4) (skipping a lot else) “in breach of the Highway code advised road behaviour” – well we should be better etc. etc. but frankly even the actual laws (rather than “guidance”) don’t see to be particularly well adhered-to – nor in fact understood and enforced by the police…
Thank you for reviving this
Thank you for reviving this thread. It gives me an opportunity to add that I have had my first advisory letter for a close pass in Gloucestershire (always NFA up till then). It didn’t happen straight away as I had to ask for a review but it was done in the end. Here is the text of the email I got and I’ve uploaded a still of the incident.
The letter references this particular incident, and reminds the driver of their obligation to obey Highway Code rules in relation to the close passing of cyclists on a road, which are particularly vulnerable road users.
Small steps!
I have had my first advisory
I have had my first advisory letter for a close pass in Gloucestershire (always NFA up till then)
How did you establish that you were ‘inconvenienced’, or have they abandoned that dodge now?
If you are inconvenienced
If you are inconvenienced then they will take action, yet to be ascertained what action though. The most recent report I checked on after a year where they said they would take action came back as “driver could not be traced so no further action”. I’m not sure what that means.
It is close passes that are the problem in Gloucestershire. All my reports of close passes up to this one (some are in NMOTD) were NFA. The reason Rob Vestey gave the BBC interview was to publicise that they are going to use advisory letters rather than NFA from now on. Hence the advisory letter above, no inconvenience necessary.
The upride I let you know about earlier was points and a fine but I suspect that it was the fact that the oncoming driver had to pull in and stop (ie was inconvenienced) rather than the close pass that led to this outcome. It doesn’t have to be the cyclist that is inconvenienced for action to be taken.
Though it’s possible to
Though it’s possible to evidence distress when close passed with heart rate monitor data, there is a better, less risky, less expletive provoking way.
That is Avoidance of spacial errors by providing visual support to the negligent motorist. Specifically by showing them the 1.5m width separation that is the minimum acceptable.
This is easily achieved with about £2 of plumbing spares; 1.5m of 15mm plastic pipe, four tube fasteners, and two nut&bolt sets to attach two pairs of tube fasteners back to back. Other permutations may suit your bike depending on tube diameters. Thus it’s easy to install the pipe perpendicular to the top tube on the rear A trame or seat post, on the offside.
This visual aid ensures that other road users are able to judge the minimum width and so make a safe pass. No need for personal risk, expensive cameras, time spent reviewing clips, reporting, or court appearance.
I’ve observed about equal positive or negative feedback, including positive feedback from my local police service.
I prefer a white plastic pipe, but it’s up to you..
The image pipe is red for contrast.
That’s going to life
That’s going to make life needlessly difficult when I want to (perfectly legitimately) filter through traffic or indeed get through my front door though.
It’s easy to remove the pipe
It’s easy to remove the pipe from the fasteners which are C shaped so able to hold but not trap the pipe. Filtering through traffic is then possible at your greater risk.