“This is why we ride in primary position”: “Impatient” driver tries to pass mum and daughter cycling with oncoming traffic; When Jeremy Vine met Greg James; Pidcock brushes off Ineos Tour de France rivalry as “Netflix drama” + more on the live blog

The driver approached them a bit quickly and moved out to pass when there was oncoming traffic, but backed off. Then the driver seemed to move out again to attempt a pass when the cyclists were indicating to turn.

No close pass or anything, but the cyclists were having to do a lot of work to manage this bad driving with road positioning (and shouting!). Pretty low down on the scale of things though, not sure I'd bother making a fuss about it.

Certainly nowhere near as bad as the white van man who drove up behind me revving his engine today, forcing me to swerve out of the way, only to pull in just up the road. The adrenaline had not worn off and I gave him some strong words of advice.

HoarseMann wrote:

No close pass or anything, but the cyclists were having to do a lot of work to manage this bad driving with road positioning (and shouting!). Pretty low down on the scale of things though, not sure I'd bother making a fuss about it.

Fair point. I guess I just meant that (apart from the vocal objections) the video didn't really convey it. But then I often have incidents on the road which feel bad at the time but which don't look nearly bad enough on the footage to bother reporting.       

andystow wrote:

Did he really crash his mountain bike? More likely he brushed against a small tree branch and instinctively dove for the ground.

Instinctively, doves tend to stay in the trees, not so much the ground.

We're talking footballers though, trained to trip over blades of grass, or from the briefest mere touch of their jersey fall over into a big heap on the ground.

They have the same parents...and the same surgeons...

I'd heard of them - obviously - but didn't know what they looked like. They look like androids.

Kloning as brooksby says.

chrisonabike wrote:

Kloning as brooksby says.

I see what you did there 

Davisian wrote:

So, the price for taking a human life by dangerous driving is only £240 and a bit of litter clearance. I despair for this country 😡

The price for taking a human life by driving into them is extremely variable (even when we exclude "obviously" bad drivers who were high / driving illegal vehicles / breaking speed limit / not licenced etc. or excused because "medical incident")

But ... it doesn't need to cost that much.

No visit to the court at all (another "hit at a junction").
No visit to the court at all, until a private prosecution (which failed)
I blacked out before the crash - did go to court but "not proven" verdict
I cannot remember the crash - also went to court, also "not proven"

In fact, arguably worse behaviour with a different outcome also doesn't necessarily cost that much either:

Drink driving, hit cyclist, attacked police - suspended sentence (but driving ban though)

On the other hand:

10 months in prison for another "failed to stop at junction"
"Almost inevitable" prison for driver who just rode through a cyclist on a straight road in clear conditions

Absolutely not a waste of time.

Resources "should" be allocated based on need.
If the volume of reports from CyclingMikey and others indicate a serious problem then the authorities should put the resource in place to deal with it.

I believe CyclingMikey is now concentrating on phone use as that is basically a slam dunk based on the tightening of the rules in the updated highway code.
If the evidence is clear then the police are likely to run with the report (NIP/FPN/court) as those are the cases that are most likely to result in a usefull outcome compared to other types of bad driving.

With regards to the lack of response from the Met police, it is a resource issue.
In the past we used to get a response/update on pretty much every report that the Met police actioned.
My assumption is they have been told to now only inform the reporting party if they are needed to attend court as a witness.
Though given what we can assume to be the arduous process for the staff members to deal with each report, I don't get why a short email update about NIP/FPN result has been removed given it will take a relatively short time.

Also, per a recent point made by CyclingMikey:
The majority of dangerous driving reports come from other drivers, not cyclists.

As you stated in your 2nd to last para., if the Police are pursuing a driver with an NIP, then emailing the witness/reporter is a quick and simple task, alerts the witness of possible further involvement, aswell as giving the witness the satisfaction that action is being taken.  But this isn't happening!

As Mikey is now nationally/internationally renowned, if there is one person the Police should keep FULLY informed to maximize publicity for road safety, it is him.

Why isn't this happening???

I honestly don't know.

True, if CyclingMikey can let His viewers (and especially His critics) know that the police are definitively taking action in each case, it would be massively helpfull to the cause.
And encourage others to do also start reporting.

My only assumed reasons for the police/authorities now not providing proper updates is to discourage us from reporting to ease their workload and to not take too many drivers off the roads.
Tax reciepts from private vehicle ownership and use are worth a lot to HMRC.
But thats just the cynic in me talking...

It is just too varied throughout the country.
I had a extreme close pass at speed from a 4x4. Captured very well by my helmet cam. I requested feedback 3 weeks after submission, itself not an easy process. Apparently the police were trying to confirm who the driver was.
Another two weeks I again chased up on my submission. The owner failed to reply so my submission was closed and a 'failure to declare' penalty was being forwarded.
1. Why drop my submission? This should become part of the failure to declare prosecution.
The process is too slow and bulky to work properly when it should be made easier and quicker.
I would argue that the majority of crime in the UK is vehicular crime so upping the prosecution rate would have a greater improvement on more people's lives.

Once the owner is being prosecuted for a failure to declare the driver the original offence is effectively irrelevant. They are not being prosecuted for the original offence so the evidence you have supplied doesn't make any difference to the offence they have committed in refusing to identify the driver.

Personally I think this loophole should be closed once and for all by introducing draconian penalties, e.g. the vehicle used for the offence should be impounded until the owner identifies the driver, and the fine and points imposed for refusing to identify should be doubled for every week that the owner refuses to identify from the date of the deadline to do so. However with the law as it stands at present the police were correct to close your submission and open a prosecution on the new offence.

The owner failed to reply so my submission was closed and a 'failure to declare' penalty was being forwarded

Most likely, they just binned it, either before or after the registered keeper failed to reply. 

I believe CyclingMikey is now concentrating on phone use as that is basically a slam dunk based on the tightening of the rules in the updated highway code

I'm a great fan of CM, but he has it easy compared to us in Lancashire! There aren't any traffic queues here so handheld phone filming is not easy. Even so, it can be done, but Lancashire Constabulary still refuses to take action. I moved largely onto No MOT/ Failed MOT detection because it's rife in Lancashire as a result of the police refusal to take action and can hardly ever be disputed- if police supervising authorities were ever to question the police (no sign of this happening yet) they would have to resort to 'has to be witnessed on the road by a police officer' or other such lies. They just ignore all reports from cyclists, and possibly from motorists too but I haven't sent any of those, but we now have a Labour PCC and likely a Labour MP soon, so we'll see if they continue to support the police pro-motorist/ anti-cyclist stance

I have seen a report that suggested Lancashire do not have a dedicated full time traffic division, is that true?  My thought is this cannot be possible.

I am currently searching for a location in the UK I can move to, where I don't have to deal with all the crap of deliberate closs passes, avoiding being flattened by distracted drivers, kicked off my cycle (as per Box Hill incident recently), and can cycle on an expensive cycle (ORCA or Pinny) without having to worry about being violently robbed, any suggestions?

BTW - I have experienced all of the above

So far, the only place I can think of, where this cyling utopia may exist, is the Outer Hebrides, but then for 50% of the year, I would be indoors on the KickR due to the weather.

Regions of the UK I know to avoid is Scotland (mainland), Lancashire, and Essex, because the Police Forces, according to the reports on this webspace, are sh*te when it comes protecting cyclists.

I wouldn't bother moving to Scotland either as Police Scotland aren't bothered either.

I have seen a report that suggested Lancashire do not have a dedicated full time traffic division, is that true?  My thought is this cannot be possible

There were a few years when they didn't, but they do now. It hasn't made any difference- they still ignore all reports on offences such as these:

https://upride.cc/incident/ld71uom_amazonprime_handheldmobilephone/

https://upride.cc/incident/px12dnd_stagecoach42_closepass/

https://upride.cc/incident/rx17mxlpn66kna_2lorriestogether_closepass/

'Ignore' in the sense of no response whatsoever- they go straight in the bin. This is not the Utopia you seek, unless you want to drive in whatever vehicle you like, in whatever manner towards cyclists you like, with no fear of any investigation or consequences. MF17 EFX was reported in May 23, during the last period he decided to drive around with no MOT

a report that suggested Lancashire do not have a dedicated full time traffic division

I suppose the question is: now that Lancashire Constabulary does have a 'full time traffic division', how do they manage to fail to catch these vehicles with up to (WU59 UMH) 6 1/2 years without VED and which also managed 6 3/4 years without MOT and 6 months after an MOT was failed with 'do not drive until repaired' dangerous defects? By making diligent efforts to not detect these offences 'officially', that's how. I have shown WU59 many times, so I'm putting up NA11 VWH for variety- no VED for 18 months. First detected 14 months ago. So if you have motorist friends seeking unrestricted driving freedoms at the NW Frontier, Lancashire is the place!

I do get the feeling that the police are not actioning the vast majority of Op Snap submissions.

Sorry to say, that is the impression I get.

Is it just a resource issue?  Or is there a Political/Public Opinion issue dimension?

Allowing members of the Public to submit evidence of offending, causing drivers to be fined, points added or DQ, well that is just a plain "war on motorists!"  [Tongue-in-cheek emoji]