"Totally unacceptable": Cyclists react to concerning close pass prosecution figures; How much should hiring a bicycle cost?; Pedalling squares (literally); Cycling drops heart and cancer risks, study shows; Disc brake orchestra + more on the live blog

The article is confusing - I don't understand it either.

Presumably the 5,551 pieces of video evidence includes dashcams, CCTV and other videos which related to drivers but didn't involve cyclists.

AidanR wrote:

Presumably the 5,551 pieces of video evidence includes dashcams, CCTV and other videos which related to drivers but didn't involve cyclists.

That would be my interpreation. I accept that there are, of course, many more cars but this does seem to disprove the idea that the Militant Cycists are the ones submitting loads of footage that are putting the livelihood of hard working motorists at risk. In reality they seem far more likely to be reporting each other.

That was 213 reports from WM Police alone. That's not nationwide. The video evidence submissions number by comparison, though, is startling. I can't se an average of 25 or more clips being submitted per single incident. Several must be being discounted as not warranting action or investigation, pretty much either before watching, or from the first watch. Which means either someone who is poorly trained is performing the initial analysis on the videos, or they simply don't have time to look properly at them, if a near miss wasn't blatantly obvious, the clip will just be ignored.

In the separate article on this story I've linked to the actual FOI response which clarifies.

In 2022, there were 5,551 "submissions of video evidence were received by the force relating to reports of driving offences" (of which 872 were issued NIPs, 186 driver training courses and 3,445 no further action. They don't say what happened to the remaining 1,048!)

Of those 5,551, 286 were "where the driver was reported to have
overtaken a cyclist in a potentially careless / inconsiderate or dangerous
manner (so called ‘close passes’)". Of those, 1 NIP, 69 driver training and 213 NFA (and 3 lost in the ether). 

I am slightly suprised how many people are reporting offences other than close passes on cyclists. I know plenty of people run dashcams in their cars these days, but still suprised that so many bother submitting things - witnessing a driving offence from the safety of a car is very different from feeling mortally imperilled!

The 1048 won't have met submission criteria, so aren't processed, NFA means it was processed a police decision was made but judged as not prosecutable.

For Norfolk/Suffolk though they've stopped officially publishing the data
(But also get plenty of FOI requests on it) usually more than 2/3rds of all submissions don't meet submission criteria.

OnYerBike wrote:

witnessing a driving offence from the safety of a car is very different from feeling mortally imperilled!

Yes, but remember that the vast majority of people who are killed or seriously injured in road collisions are the occupants of cars, so still a desire to improve road safety, even if it is just for themselves and not more vulnerable road users.

NickSprink wrote:

OnYerBike wrote:

witnessing a driving offence from the safety of a car is very different from feeling mortally imperilled!

Yes, but remember that the vast majority of people who are killed or seriously injured in road collisions are the occupants of cars, so still a desire to improve road safety, even if it is just for themselves and not more vulnerable road users.

people think they are safe in their cars. That's why cyclists need helmets but car occupants do not. (in the public psyche)

Thanks for that.

Not to dismiss her prior poor driving and subsequent speeding, but when she was stationary she probably ignored you out of fear.

It's more likely the classic I know I did wrong but if I ignore you it didn't happen and you'll go away.

AidanR wrote:

Not to dismiss her prior poor driving and subsequent speeding, but when she was stationary she probably ignored you out of fear.

And yet I was the one who would have been knocked over and run down... 

(Mind you, people do sometimes say I can look a bit scary at times...).

(edit - it's been a while since my last haircut)

brooksby wrote:

And yet I was the one who would have been knocked over and run down... 

It is of course human nature, but I still find it disappointing that those that might be considered vulnerable in other circumstances do not perceive the vulnerability of others when protected by a 2t box. I guess if they did then they would be considered "Woke" and expelled from the bridge club.

A man shouting at a woman is likely to create fear, even though she was protected by 3 tons of metal and you were the one in actual danger.

AidanR wrote:

A man shouting at a woman is likely to create fear, even though she was protected by 3 tons of metal and you were the one in actual danger.

The only time I actually shouted was "Oi!" when she was about to clip my handlebars.

I didn't shout at her once we'd stopped, just used my 'normal' voice and sadly shook my head.

I do take serious exception to your belief that I can't shout at someone sitting in three tonnes of electrified Porsche who's driven close enough to nearly make contact and/or push me off the road... You know, in case I scare them... 

I didn't say you can't do it! If I was in your position I'd have done the same thing. I was just offering an explanation of why she didn't acknowledge you.

AidanR wrote:

I didn't say you can't do it! If I was in your position I'd have done the same thing. I was just offering an explanation of why she didn't acknowledge you.

OK, fair enough: I misunderstood.

Had a similar one, well I've had lots of the move left shoulder barge but this one was different few weeks back.

I'd used prime to block an overtake going into a mini roundabout, but in the next section of road the driver overtook with only at most 4-6 inches gap, really at minimal speed difference, and then started to move left once alongside

And it's an old boy in a Volvo, and he had a dash cam too, shows how close I was I could see it, I didn't react in case I decided to submit, had a friend whose submission got downgraded from a nip to a warning letter because they raised an arm at the vehicle.

But I thought well wtf was the driver thinking anyway, but would he have countered with his dashcam footage that obviously doesn't then show how close he gets.

With hindsight, I think I might have an incident where the driver had dashcam footage. I was told by the police officer that the driver had pointed out that he had waited behind me for at least half a mile along the high street (it's slow moving anyway and average speed during the day is probably only 20mph) and only overtook me after we turned off and he had decided it was safe to do so. TBF, when we turned off I was going to give way to him before we entered an up hill stretch with parked cars on the left but he had actually dropped back, because it's a funny junction, so I just kept going. He then squeezed between me and a brick wall as I was passing the parked cars. I wondered how he had such a good recollection of the incident but then realised with hindsight that he probably had his own dashcam evidence. Regardless, it didn't make any difference and he was invited on a driver awareness course.

I think I was surprised that someone with a dashcam, though Ive encountered it driving too so maybe its not that unusual, would drive like that, knowing theres a record of it that shows theyre guilty, were I to report them, comes back to my view most people dont expect cyclists still to be carrying cameras.

I certainly hadnt kept this driver behind for long, and I had every right to take prime through the roundabout, which stopped them overtaking, but I didnt report it because as per everyone elses conclusions and the point that triggered the discussion, actually the police arent taking most of these seriously anymore.

Awavey wrote:

I didn't react in case I decided to submit, had a friend whose submission got downgraded from a nip to a warning letter because they raised an arm at the vehicle.

This indicates a broken system. Offence committed but the subsequent (and trivial) behaviour of the victim causes the police to change their action against the offender.

They should deal with the crime, and if the victim in reacting commits another crime, prosecute if appropriate. Jeez, this country.

had a friend whose submission got downgraded from a nip to a warning letter because they raised an arm at the vehicle

He shouldn't feel bad about it- the police demonstrate that they would have thought of another way to bin the NIP anyway, by making such a ridiculous judgement. They use whatever's handy as an excuse.

I don't actually submit that much but I recently submitted 3 close passes in just over a minute of footage*. 2 of the driver got courses, which to be honest, I consider a result. The third (in reality the first of the passes) TVP described as an elderly genleman driver and just had a chat with him. I must be missing something because I suspect that the elderly gentleman may be the biggest risk. 

* what a pain, I did 3 seperate submissions which even if you're really going for it take at least 20mins each.

Surely this must be classed as age discrimination and therefore illegal?  Although I admit some Police forces may have previous for discriminatory behaviour.

I accept that it's not as simple as I describe and there would of course be mitigation they could easily use. The most obvious one in this case is that his overtake was just before the no overtaking zone. The other two were close passes in a no overtaking zone. I also accept that it's always at the discretion of the officer. So if the officer in question is more lenient then there's no individual discrimination.