Motorists who are caught on camera carelessly close passing cyclists in South Wales will avoid receiving warning letters for the foreseeable future, the police have confirmed, due to the overwhelming amount of footage currently being submitted to its online reporting portal.
This week, road.cc reader Dave – who had submitted footage of what he described as a “bad” close pass to GoSafe Wales’ Operation SNAP portal – was told that the incident will result in no further action being taken.
According to South Wales Police, Operation SNAP, which is used across the UK, enabling members of the public to submit video and photographic evidence of driving offences to the police, is currently under review because, they said, it has “become so successful that the team is no longer able to manage the demand”.
As a result of the review, Dave was told that careless drivers who would have received an advisory notice from the police will now avoid any form of punishment “until further notice”, to allow officers to deal with the most serious cases of dangerous driving.
“I had noticed over the last few months that a lot of my normal submissions for close passes were now coming back ‘no further action’, where previously they would have done something,” cyclist Dave told road.cc.
After submitting footage of a “bad close pass in the rain”, Dave received an email from GoSafe Wales, which manages the Operation SNAP portal, advising him that they are “unable to take any further action”.
“Operation SNAP has become so successful that the team is no longer able to manage the demand submitted by the public,” the email, seen by road.cc, read.
“We are in the process of reviewing the operation to ensure that it remains efficient and effective. Therefore, until further notice, we will not be able to take any further action in cases that would previously have been dealt with by an advisory notice (warning letter), such as this case.
“This means the operation can continue, and that the teams can deal with the most serious cases submitted.”
Reflecting on the decision to review Operation SNAP, and temporarily scrap the use of warning letters in the process, Dave told road.cc: “It makes you wonder how many submissions showing bad driving were handed letters when they could have been given a harsher judgement.
“And what does this mean going forward for road safety? How severe does a close pass now need to be for further action to be taken?”
road.cc has contacted South Wales Police and GoSafe Wales for comment.
Of course, this isn’t the first time that a UK police force has adapted its approach to third-party footage of driving offences due to a combination of overwhelming demand and limited resources.
In February, we reported that the chief inspector at Avon and Somerset Police – the force which receives more third-party video reports of dangerous driving than any other in England and Wales – admitted that it is now forced to focus on the “most urgent cases first” thanks to the ever-increasing volume of slips submitted through Operation SNAP.
“It’s certainly something which we’ve had to adapt to,” Rob Cheeseman said of the recent rise in third-party video reporting, which saw 8,595 video reports from both cyclists and motorists of alleged road safety incidents submitted in 2024.
“It’s certainly a more relatively new version of reporting crime to the police. The community is speaking really loudly that these are dangers on the road.
“The goal is not to be targeting drivers unnecessarily – the ultimate goal is making the roads safer for everyone in Avon and Somerset.”

And last September, the Metropolitan Police issued new guidance to London road users submitting footage of careless or dangerous driving, informing them that officers are now “unable to deal” with instances of motorists driving in cycle or bus lanes, or the wrong way down one-way streets.
Responding to the guidance, cyclists in the capital claimed the Met was giving “errant drivers carte blanche to do what they like”.
The force was also questioned for advising people on bikes that their complaints will not be dealt with if they “actively” confront or engage with a motorist committing a driving offence, especially if their behaviour could be deemed to be “aggressive, unacceptable, or not conforming to the Met Police values”.
In May 2023, Surrey Police claimed 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.
This came after a Freedom of Information request revealed that 80 percent 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 being prosecuted.

Likewise, West Midlands Police, it emerged, had prosecuted just one driver from 286 close pass reports, the force admitting it needed to review how reports are managed. Last February, we reported that the force was now taking action of some kind in 97 per cent of cyclist submissions.
Thames Valley Police recently admitted, too, that there are “very valid concerns” about its handling of cyclists’ reports, the force recruiting to fill a “shortage in resources” and staff that has meant “Notice of Intended Prosecutions are not able to be sent to the offending driver within the legal timeframe of 14 days”.
And even where adequate resources have been available, the implementation of Operation SNAP hasn’t been without its teething problems.
In September, we reported that Gloucestershire Police would be joining in the adoption of Operation SNAP, although the force’s non-crime unit head attracted criticism by claiming “a close pass isn’t an offence and a lot of cyclists don’t realise that”.
We were also contacted last year by a reader who told us Thames Valley Police had instructed her to stop reporting close passes unless there is evidence of careless driving, creating some confusion about whether the act of close passing a cyclist itself is not actually sufficient evidence of careless or dangerous driving.

























28 thoughts on “Police say drivers who close pass cyclists will avoid punishment… because there are too many of them for cops to cope”
This is happening everywhere
This is happening everywhere and road.cc should investigate fully. There is no policing on the roads in London, it was all cut back and outsourced to the public, and now there aren’t enough office resources to deal with video reports and the portal is overwhelmed. And that’s not including the overwhelmed courts. Basically nothing is actioned unless it is a near death experience. It’s a full on scandal – a free pass to drive like you want
This is the wrong course of
This is the wrong course of action from S Wales Police.
If there is so much illegal behaviour on the roads that they can’t cope, they need to allocate more resources to Op Snap instead of giving up.
That’s a real shame about
That’s a real shame about Avon & Somerset. When I lived in Bristol, they were excellent; responsive and, on the rare occasions when I had an NFA from a reported incident, they took the trouble to explain why.
There are some truly shit drivers in South Wales – it’s even worse than the Bristol suburbs, something I thought I would never write. Loads of retirees in SUVs who shouldn’t be behind the wheel, chavs on unlicensed electric motorcycles with zero riding skills and trail bikes with no numberplates.
Just to be clear, plod are
Just to be clear, plod are not devolved in Wales. Direct funding and direct management from Westminster. There is a claim that devolved plod in Wales would have an extra 25 million GBP that would more than cover the cost of this.
One of my recent reports,
One of my recent reports, which previously have consistently had positive action, elicited the same response – no further action because we don’t have the resource. I am undecided – is there any utility in continuing to report non-serious offences (in full knowledge that they will be NFA until further notice) just so the statistics don’t indicate a drop in reports which can then be used as justification to de-fund the scheme further?
My suggestion is for cyclists
My suggestion is for cyclists to continue doing so on ones they themselves deem to be too close to avoid the argument to defund.
This helps the stats stay at a relatively high level indicating the need to allocate resource to it in the hope that management looks at the historic numbers in terms of reports v convictions.
If resource allocation improves then we can increase reporting accordingly for those that we feel are closer that they should have been (ie the 1.5m limit) but were previously ignored with NFAs.
If feels like a head & brick
If feels like a head & brick wall interface though.
For literally no gain, because road traffic offences will always be deemed lowest priority.
I can’t help feel that this
I can’t help feel that this is a good example where some efficiencies are warranted. We need a root and branch review of the law (which was written before things like dashcams existed), how it is applied and by which pay grade. This is bog standard in private industry but our public bodies higher management (especially police chiefs) need dragged kicking and screaming to the future.
i could swear a government
i could swear a government promised exactly that a while ago – but I can’t remember exactly when. Perhaps eburtthebike can remind us?
If only councils could create
If only councils could create a public space protection order and fine drivers who close-pass cyclists with the sort of rabid enthusiasm in which they enforce the ‘no-cycling’ zone in Grimsby. There’s a fortune to be made – that could be used to fix potholes etc.
(maybe they can?….)
If they did it like Grimsby
If they did it like Grimsby then some older careful and courteous drivers * would get harrassed while dozens of (insert least favourite brand of car)-driving cloned-plate nutters would be allowed to speed through because “they didn’t stop when signalled” / “cloned plates” (but presumably “we don’t want to tangle with them”).
* Possibly the likes of one or two posters here who claim that politeness and respect are their guiding principles?
well I suspect Avon &
well I suspect Avon & Somerset are just aligning themselves more with alot of other forces approach across the country to close passes now.
Certainly it was when my submissions which had previously all resulted in NIPs started becoming NFAs, that I figured it was a waste of time bothering anymore unless somebody actually drove into me.
and the last FOIA requests on stats I saw suggested I wasnt the only one as the numbers of submissions I think uniquely among all the UK forces had dropped locally.
So these close passes must be
So these close passes must be the easiest thing to prosecute:
-most submissions are judged to be a crime. From the stats I’ve seen for various forces, the lowest percentage of submissions from cyclists that were taken further with a NIP was 70-something percent. Some were in the 90s
-the clips are probably on average a minute long.
-the cyclists actually have to state the reg number on the submissions. No hard work
-the reg number easily links to a registered keeper.
apart from speeding tickets, this must be some of the easiest crimes to solve.
my only conclusion is that someone somewhere decided that dangerous driving isn’t a crime
Close passes breed an
Close passes breed an atmosphere of collisions..
In future, speeding drivers
In future, speeding drivers will no longer be punished because there are just so many of them.
If this was also to be true there would be a public outcry.
Arguably that state of
Arguably that state of affairs already exists, note it says logged not prosecuted
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/25229024.suffolk-police-logged-nearly-5-000-speeding-offences-may/
More on speeding being
More on speeding being normalised as motornormivity, albeit it actually involved people being prosecuted for a change. Channel 5 showed a program yesterday called “Speed Cameras: Are They Out to Get You?” Catch up on streaming if you can stomach it
“The force was also
“The force was also questioned for advising people on bikes that their complaints will not be dealt with if they “actively” confront or engage with a motorist committing a driving offence, especially if their behaviour could be deemed to be “aggressive, unacceptable, or not conforming to the Met Police values”.
Does that mean they have to be institutionally racist then?
True success of police
True success of police efforts should be measured by the lack of reports sent to Operation SNAP.
Unless that lack of reports
Unless that lack of reports is because they’ve actively said they won’t act on them.
If someone would like to
If someone would like to conduct some analysis:
https://www.northantspas.com/PAWeb/Public/Content/23
If someone would like to
If someone would like to conduct some analysis:
https://www.northantspas.com/PAWeb/Public/Content/23(link is external)
Worthless junk, not worthy of analysis. The dodge is: outcome measure is ‘recommended disposal’ not what actually happened
For my most recent report to
For my most recent report to South Wales Police about two weeks ago, I got a reply to say that positive action had been taken. I guess I must’ve been lucky. Either that or the fact that on this occasion the footage was recorded by the dashcam in my van rather than the camera on my helmet! Prior to this I’ve had what feels like way too many NFAs from helmet camera footage, even for cases that I thought should be a slam dunk. I wonder if the fact that this time I was driving (aka a witness) and not cycling (aka a victim) had any influence. I really hope that’s not the case!
I doubt it. I think you’re
I doubt it. I think you’re classed as a witness in either case, unless you’re actually knocked off. Probably just means your one was serious enough – they’re still reviewing them, they’ve just decided not to bother taking action on anything that would previously only have prompted a warning letter.
For my most recent report to
For my most recent report to South Wales Police about two weeks ago, I got a reply to say that positive action had been taken
The self-delusion continues: the most that ‘positive action’ would be is the joke advice letter which is so effective that the incidence of close-passing continues to increase
Although I’ve never reported
Although I’ve never reported a close pass (I don’t have a camera on me or the bike – yet), I got so annoyed at frequent close passes on my Sunday ride routes that my company created a website and app to track location, date and time of close passes called, well, close pass https://closepass.cc/
The initial hope is that it might help people plan different routes that could be safer. Longer term, maybe the data could be used by police or councils to make roads safer.
I do get that we shouldn’t need this, and that drivers are the problem, but hoped this may help in the meantime.
I told you that they would
I told you that they would all be moving to the Lancashire Constabulary method: no action on any offence against cyclists! So now we know the effect of the near 1000 NMotD topics- legalisation of close passing. The perfect police dodge- if the driver hits you, you’re in no fit state to report it
It would have been more
Edit – I have contacted Operation Snap in Wales directly and they have stated that this decision covers the whole of Wales and so is applicable to all four Police forces in Wales.
Here is part of the e-mail reply:
A decision has been made to temporarily suspend taking action on evidence submitted to Operation Snap whereby pedal cyclists, horse riders & pedestrians feel that the subject vehicle has passed them too closely. This decision has been made following national guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator.
Operation Snap remains in service for witnesses of driving offences and will evaluate each incident on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration aggravating factors present.
Additional info: Positive action can still be taken and may include;
• Conditional offer of a diversionary course
• Conditional offer of fixed penalty
• Proceed to court.