A cyclist was passed dangerously by motorists four times on one stretch of road but was told he could be prosecuted when he reported the offences to police because he cycled on a shared use path.
> Gwent Police confirm cyclist submitting close pass footage could face prosecution for swearing
Alan Robertson was riding along the A5117 which, ironically, had roadworks on it because it was having the shared use path installed.
Mr Robertson experienced four close passes on the road (which had a 30mph limit) in relatively quick succession and subsequently reported the incidents to Cheshire Police.
30mph limit. Close pass at speed into oncoming traffic. Driver will get an advice letter only. @Suzie_AS @Pinarello_Pete @roadcc pic.twitter.com/38yU2r3iry
— … (@thisisclickbait) July 23, 2021
Mr Robertson received three emails back from the Constabulary, the first stating that one driver would face no action.
The second said that the other three motorists would get an advisory letter.
And the final email seemed to accuse the cyclist of breaking the law himself.
Was threaten with prosecution for this though- take wrong turn, do uturn, join new shared path, it ends abruptly, move slowly into coned area on road, see pram so move outside cone into live traffic lane to pass before pulling into Elton. Utter bullshit from this force imo. https://t.co/q2b71E6vAJ pic.twitter.com/bj0hm3X8Xv
— … (@thisisclickbait) July 23, 2021
The officer, who works in the Road and Crime Unit, said: “Please bear in mind that all offences seen committed could be dealt with and a court if on viewing footage of a car driver committing offences and other offences are viewed could ask if they were also dealt with.
“On reviewing the footage at the end it can be seen that you cycle up the pavement via a pedestrian crossing traffic light controlled junction and then further along re-enter the correct side of the road through a coned off area (I’m afraid that it doesn’t look great when we’re trying to hold a motorist to account and a lot of this is about perception, if I’m holding one party to account I should also be others).”
Mr Robertson responded and explained his confusion and anger at the lack of any stronger action being taken against the drivers, and the implication that he could be prosecuted.
He said: “These vehicles were passing me into oncoming traffic,clearly without giving anything near sufficient space, and I’m sure your experience will tell you that they were all way in excess of the 30mph limit, even if you’re not able to put a precise number on it.
“This was a long straight road in good conditions and there simply is no excuse for not being able to plan a safe pass here. Surely.”
He continued: “I also take exception to your suggestion of wrongdoing on my part and I don’t think my decision to enter an open section of the new shared pathway is in any way relevant at all.
“The reason I moved back into the carriageway was the path was shut and I saw a woman with a pram heading towards me. I’d suggest I actually displayed a degree of caution and consideration that perhaps you might in fact like to recognise instead of suggesting I was somehow at fault.”
41 thoughts on “Cyclist reports four close passes to police… and is told he could be prosecuted”
I’m wondering if these kinds
I’m wondering if these kinds of police responses are being mis-interpreted. They’re warning that a cyclist ‘may’ face prosecution, but in reality that’s never going to happen as there’s guidelines for not prosecuting considerate cycling along pavements etc.
When approaching known hot-spots for driver clownery, I try to ensure that I strictly follow the road laws for the two minutes approaching and leaving. I’ve previously been informally warned about taking a forbidden left turn, but again, it’s more of a police pointing out the technical infraction rather than any actual threat (they just pointed it out to me rather than stating that I may be prosecuted).
It’s the toxic mix of three
It’s the toxic mix of three things:
– police being under pressure because of a decade of cuts (thanks, Cameron/May/Johnson)
– police not being arsed to prosecute, and would rather NFA it (No Further Action)
– police prejudices, and institutionally anti-cyclist views embedded in our police and prosecution systems.
the little onion wrote:
To be fair to Avon & Somerset, when they replied to tell me that I’d turned left on a no-left-turn, they were also sending a warning letter to the driver (I think it was a slow-ish close pass on a roundabout so I thought that was fair enough). I haven’t noticed anti-cyclist views from A&S and the vast majority of my submissions have led to a positive result.
You may well be right… but
You may well be right… but it feels like the Police do actually focus on the wrong things when they hand out speeding tickets to cyclists in Richmond Park for doing 24mph in a 20 zone whilst a stream of prohibited trade vehicles and people drive past behind them exceeding the limit and using their phones at the same time.
Was just a talking to though.
Was just a talking to though.
open_roads wrote:
Totally agree with that being poor police-work – I was only sticking up for Avon & Somerset.
open_roads wrote:
not to mention those taking drugs whle driving.
It can’t only be round here where the smell of canabis from vehicles is detectable on almost every ride.
wycombewheeler wrote:
I know people will say, “Bristol, eh?” but I smell weed wafting out of several vehicles on every single journey.
And bear in mind that I’m a commuter, not a recreational cyclist so I’m travelling at c.7.30 am and c.6pm.
Very worrying…
brooksby wrote:
Personally I’m not too worried about that. More drivers could do with relaxing a bit and not being so concerned about rushing to join the next queue of cars. I’ve not yet had any issue with a car/driver that smells of weed (and I can usually identify it from quite a distance).
hawkinspeter wrote:
Well, that’s just groovy for you, man.
Did you see the bats yet?
brooksby wrote:
Strangely, I’ve noticed more cars smelling of weed in Weston-super-Mare than I have in Bristol.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Its OK, he’s my lawyer.
You should be worried. You’re
You should be worried. You’re much more likely to be knocked off or run over by a driver who’s been smoking weed than by one who hasn’t.
It can also impair driver safety for days or weeks after use – with the consequence that it’s harder to predict when a driver is still impaired.
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/does-marijuana-use-affect-driving
and an example of the risk:
https://metro.co.uk/2021/06/24/liverpool-drug-driver-killed-two-cyclists-while-doing-70mph-in-a-40mph-zone-14824568/
One of the other issues in play is that it’s now very hard for the police to stop drivers where cannabis use is suspected – a number of high profile cases in London has put the police in a very difficult position of being criticised if they do act, and criticised if they don’t.
open_roads wrote:
Firstly, I don’t mean to condone people driving whilst intoxicated – I’d like all drivers to be alert, calm and considerate at all times.
That first link has an interesting bit at the end:
It’s difficult to evaluate the real risk due to the long time that cannabis (the term marijuana was invented to associate Mexico and immigrants with drug trafficking) stays in your system. It’s also complicated by the way that chronic (ab)users don’t tend to have the same loss of faculties as occasional (ab)users. In some cases it would be advisable for the user to have a quick smoke before driving to nullify any withdrawal effects, though it’d be better still if they didn’t drive at all.
I think that Liverpool driver has a lot more going on than just having a quick smoke and going for a drive (in a stolen vehicle no less). I’m wondering how much “twice the legal level” actually is as I thought the legal levels were close to zero.
I’m not sure what issue police have with stopping a vehicle that smells strongly of cannabis (and with skunk, that’s quite easy to detect).
My experience of cycling around Bristol (which has a large population of cannabis users) is that all the close passes and aggression has come from drivers that do not smell of weed. I’m not saying that it doesn’t happen, but I think the bigger issue is drivers using mobile phones and not paying attention or drivers that have very poor road skills and insist on overtaking when there isn’t enough room.
hawkinspeter wrote:
When I used to indulge, many years ago, it would frequently take me five or six goes to get the key in the lock of the front door, I’m certainly concerned about doped up drivers – and like Brooksby, I’m increasingly noticing people having a toke on their way to work in their cars. I’d go so far as to say that there is more bad driving round my neck of the woods (south London) caused by drugs than there is by alcohol, many people who wouldn’t dream of driving after four pints still think it’s okay to drive when they’ve had a smoke.
It does remind me of an excellent quote by Gaz Coombes of Supergrass though: “I say hats off to these cyclists taking drugs, they’re very skilful – I tried riding my bike on drugs and I went straight into a hedge.”
Rendel Harris wrote:
I think the reactions/coordination effects are drastically less than those caused by alcohol and probably similar to the effects of tiredness, though there’s some evidence that long-term smokers end up performing the same as non-smokers on co-ordination tests (though learning new tasks can be affected).
Again, I think that we need a bigger police prescence on the roads to prevent all types of bad driving. Once people get the idea that there’s a high(!) probability of them getting caught for bad driving, then they’ll take more care. Currently, drivers know that they can use their phone, have a smoke and not bother checking their mirrors – if they cause a collision, they’ll just get a fine if anything.
Where does the police
Where does the police response mention prosecution?
The keyword is ‘perception’.
I have read enough news items here to know the defence lawyer will come up with any old rubbish to try and shift blame. Like HP, I try and make sure I don’t do anything technically unlawful and try to remember to point the camera at the ground if I dismount.
Also in submissions, I make sure I point out if it is a shared pathway or cycling is permitted after that cyclist got sent a NIP from the MET for cycling on a clearly signed shared pathway !
As in “look, it looks like
As in “look, it looks like you have broken the law, and a jury/magistrate will believe that too, even though none of us can actually say what law it is that you’ve broken. But you are a cyclist, so it’s bound to be one”.
No, the defence lawyer will
No, the defence lawyer will act on her client’s instructions that’s the way it works. I’m sure you’d not confuse Robert Downey Jnr for Tony Stark so please don’t confuse what an advocate says for what he or she belives. As unpopular as it is to say it on this site but a cheap shot agaist lawyers is as unwarranted as a cheap shot against supposedly errant cylists.
You will be able to point out
You will be able to point out then where I conflate what they said with what they believe?
Knowing the defence tactics is an important part of your submission.
“It’s the toxic mix of three
“It’s the toxic mix of three things:
– police being under pressure because of a decade of cuts (thanks, Cameron/May/Johnson)”
I’m not sure this is completely correct.
There’s a lot of noise made about 20,000 less officers but many of the officers in that figure were not actually on front line duties. In many cases, long term sickness and injury meant that thousands of officers were actually sidelined and doing menial administrative duties that could be performed by lower paid (and more efficient) civilian staff.
If we then look at where the police do spend their time, there’s pretty good evidence of significant waste. Despite claiming to be resource constrained, the police have literally invented a new category of crime (Non crime hate incidents) and have invested millions of FTE hours recording 120,000+ offences – even though it’s clearly outside of their mandate and borders on policing freedom of speech.
https://www.thearticle.com/illiberal-policing-its-time-to-abolish-non-crime-hate-incidents
Additionally, there has been a massive investment in technology / “Digital Policing” – over the last decade – releasing hundreds of thousands of man days from form filling and such like – Thames Valley Police reported they had saved 200 FTE years annually in admin time from just one IT project.
So the actual number of available hours for front line officers hasn’t gone down as much as is suggested had it not been diverted for things the police shouldn’t be doing in the first place.
Additionally, my own experience of the Met Police over the last 25 years is they have been consistently useless irrespective of the peaks and troughs of staff numbers. When bendy buses were introduced they literally did nothing about the dangerous standard of bus drivers even after a number of cyclists were seriously injured. Likewise, they’ve always shirked enforcement of ASL offences that would serve to protect cyclists at junctions. Other members of London Cycling Campaign will no doubt attest the same.
It’s undoubtedly a difficult job, not least with the time the police now have to spend of mental health related problems, but I’m personally of the opinion that better leadership, coordinaton, administration and prioritisation could have a significant impact on the effectiveness of policing.
As we’ve all seen in the great coverage on Road.cc that there are literally hundreds of examples where the police basically can’t be bothered to organise themselves to take action – even where we as cyclists give them all the evidence they need to do so. This is then compounded by behaviour that borders on dishonest when challenged about why they have failed to take action.
Nonsense. The cuts have had
Nonsense. The cuts have had huge consequences, and the 20,000 you quote is purely officers. There is another, higher figure, for police staff.
Yes but “officers” doesn’t
Yes but “officers” doesn’t translate to “front line officers”. So the “officer” that’s been on desk duties for 3 years is still counted as if they were front line even though they’ve spent years doing very low level admin work where little / no front line experience is required or useful. This has been widely covered for years – including by the National Audit Office so isn’t really contentious.
coverage on Road.cc that
coverage on Road.cc that there are literally hundreds of examples where the police basically can’t be bothered to organise themselves to take action – even where we as cyclists give them all the evidence they need to do so. This is then compounded by behaviour that borders on dishonest when challenged about why they have failed to take action
I object- it is dishonest, as they routinely are! The police are always trying this ‘we’ll prosecute you’ dodge- Lancashire has tried it once on me. Lancashire TacOps Sgt Lavin threatened to prosecute me for impeding traffic when trying to excuse this offence of crossing double white lines in a dangerous position in the RHS of a vehicle on the RHS of the road before a right-hand bend on 15.6.19. His position was that the cyclist must be so far on the LHS of the road when there’s a DWL that the motorist can get past without crossing the DWL. I challenged him to do it, which would have been ideal for me, but I never heard from him again. Challenge the b******s and they give way- how are they going to defend all the refusals to prosecute red light crashing, handheld phone use, really dangerous close passing and then prosecute the cyclist?
open_roads wrote:
The best figure I can find is that around 7000 of the axed officers were not in frontline duties, but I’m not sure that is desirable anyway; desk sergeants, for example, or custody officers, are an essential part of the police force as a whole. It’s also no good saying that their jobs could be taken over by civilian staff: even if that were true, 23,000 civilian staff have been axed along with the cuts to officer numbers. However you spin it, the cuts have been massive and have undoubtedly affected the capacity and willingness of the police to do their job.
The police are of course
The police are of course correct, but their diplomatic approach to assuaging the complainent of the risk to his own life leaves alot to be desired!
The police of course choose to interprete the law to suit their own needs. In Belfast I see cyclists on the path on a daily basis passing police wo/men, with the police not considering the safety of pedestrians by completly ignoring them.
As with age immemorial, the Police are a law unto themselves!
Important to remember the
Important to remember the police also seem to only want to send foolproof cases through to Magistrates (if the driver declines the FPN) as either a huge excuse or because they have a low opinion of Magistrates
An example is red light jumping, the met have told me they either need to have 2 clear seconds of red light before they will prosecute or the driver accelerating towards it, otherwise Magistrates are liable to just let drivers off
Frustrating
the met have told me they
the met have told me they either need to have 2 clear seconds of red light before they will prosecute or the driver accelerating towards it, otherwise Magistrates are liable to just let drivers off
If they told you that, they’re lying. My strong assumption is that you were ‘told’ verbally- even Lancashire doesn’t tell me that because I don’t communicate with them by phone on the grounds that there’s no ‘acceptable’ record of what was said. Print only is my rule, and they don’t like lying in print- Lancashire’s solution to this is to refuse to communicate at all. This 30-tonner FX62 AYH went through the lights at 50+ mph 1.6 seconds after they turned red. I’ll have to wait and see if the Magistrates just let the driver off, if the police don’t conspire to keep it out of court by allowing the driver to accept the joke course after all.
wtjs wrote:
At 50 MPH, 1.6 seconds is 116 feet. That vehicle can’t stop in that distance. But…
Including the amber phase of at least 4 seconds, that’s 406 feet. That’s at least possible.
With a 6 second amber, it’s 550 feet and there’s no excuse for the driver.
This page estimates the stopping distance (including reaction time) as 120 m (394 ft) at 55 MPH.
https://mocktheorytest.com/resources/lorry-braking-distances/
andystow wrote:
This is why the amber phase exists, I don’t see why anyone should be let off for going through on red at all, because the amber gave them ample warning it would happen.
wycombewheeler wrote:
In addition to the fact that when approaching traffic lights you should be prepared to stop.
Lights change. Who knew?
This is why the amber phase
This is why the amber phase exists, I don’t see why anyone should be let off for going through on red at all, because the amber gave them ample warning it would happen
The important number is that during an amber phase of exactly 3 seconds, the 50 mph vehicle travels 220 feet. They’re certainly not going to stop if they spend those 3 seconds accelerating, which is what all the red light crashers do.
It is my view that smoking
It is my view that smoking anything while driving any motorised vehicle should be illegal.
Then motorists also have a
Then motorists also have a right to view eating snacks while cycling as illegal as it poses a risk of imbalance while reaching for the snack from the back pocket, opening up the wrapper, then chewing and holding the said snack while riding.
There are a lot of accidents by riders losing control this way, as there probably have been accidents with smokers dropping their cigarettes in the vehicle.
There are a lot of accidents
There are a lot of accidents by riders losing control this way[1]
1 citation required
Then motorists also have a
Then motorists also have a right to view eating snacks while cycling as illegal
A two-post dimwit with an exceptionally stupid comment. It hasn’t happened yet, but it is obvious to me that imbibing addictive psychoactive drugs should not be permitted while driving. It is not yet illegal.
The police are thick, this is
The police are thick, this is by design like America.
I think the average bobby is
I think the average bobby is rather better than the US one who just seem to want to rapidly escalate to a high level of force. So you are being rather harsh.
As earlier, I read this as advice not a threat.
hirsute wrote:
Better, yes, but certainly lazier. This seems like a deterrent towards the cyclist for giving the police some work to do. Why investigate the crimes when they can threaten the victim into dropping it and not reporting future crimes. Corrupt police.
Rick_Rude wrote:
Thankfully he wasn’t shot 6 times.
I see a lot of apology /
I see a lot of apology / recognition of a contrary view in a lot of police road traffic tweets; they clearly get push back from drivers with the usual “innocent/persecuted motorist/ haven’t you got anything better to do?” Schtick.
No doubt a frequent response from drivers who receive any sort of action is “and did you prosecute the cyclist who reported me because and I wasn’t going to mention it, but he did nurney, nurney nuuh” i.e. at most, self-preservation or self-defence.
They’re rightly taught to be even-handed which is often difficult – but heaven forfend police should ever take the side of victims!