Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Cyclist reports four close passes to police... and is told he could be prosecuted

The incidents all happened on a stretch of road that had a 30mph speed limit in place while a shared use path was being installed

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. 

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. 

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)."

> Updated – Near Miss of the Day 549: Cyclist “flabbergasted” as magistrates acquit close pass driver

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."

Add new comment

41 comments

Avatar
David9694 | 2 years ago
0 likes

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!

Avatar
Rick_Rude | 2 years ago
0 likes

The police are thick, this is by design like America.

Avatar
Hirsute replied to Rick_Rude | 2 years ago
4 likes

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.

Avatar
Jenova20 replied to Hirsute | 2 years ago
0 likes
hirsute wrote:

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.

 

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.

Avatar
Jenova20 replied to Rick_Rude | 2 years ago
0 likes
Rick_Rude wrote:

The police are thick, this is by design like America.

Thankfully he wasn't shot 6 times.

Avatar
wtjs | 2 years ago
2 likes

It is my view that smoking anything while driving any motorised vehicle should be illegal.

Avatar
PB-Lockerbie replied to wtjs | 2 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
Hirsute replied to PB-Lockerbie | 2 years ago
1 like

There are a lot of accidents by riders losing control this way[1]

1 citation required

Avatar
wtjs replied to PB-Lockerbie | 2 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
lukei1 | 2 years ago
1 like

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

Avatar
wtjs replied to lukei1 | 2 years ago
4 likes

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.

Avatar
andystow replied to wtjs | 2 years ago
0 likes
wtjs wrote:

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.

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/

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to andystow | 2 years ago
1 like
andystow 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.

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.

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to wycombewheeler | 2 years ago
4 likes
wycombewheeler wrote:
andystow 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.

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.

In addition to the fact that when approaching traffic lights you should be prepared to stop. 

Lights change. Who knew?

Avatar
wtjs replied to wycombewheeler | 2 years ago
2 likes

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.

Avatar
didsthewinegeek | 2 years ago
0 likes

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! 

 

Avatar
open_roads | 2 years ago
2 likes

"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-cr...

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. 

 

Avatar
Mountainboy replied to open_roads | 2 years ago
3 likes

Nonsense. The cuts have had huge consequences, and the 20,000 you quote is purely officers. There is another, higher figure, for police staff.

Avatar
open_roads replied to Mountainboy | 2 years ago
2 likes

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.

Avatar
wtjs replied to open_roads | 2 years ago
1 like

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?

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to open_roads | 2 years ago
2 likes
open_roads wrote:

 

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.

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.

Avatar
Hirsute | 2 years ago
2 likes

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 !

Avatar
the little onion replied to Hirsute | 2 years ago
9 likes

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". 

Avatar
jaymack replied to Hirsute | 2 years ago
0 likes

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. 

Avatar
Hirsute replied to jaymack | 2 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 2 years ago
8 likes

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).

Avatar
the little onion replied to hawkinspeter | 2 years ago
6 likes

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.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to the little onion | 2 years ago
6 likes
the little onion wrote:

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.

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.

Avatar
open_roads replied to hawkinspeter | 2 years ago
5 likes

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.

Avatar
Hirsute replied to open_roads | 2 years ago
0 likes

Was just a talking to though.

Pages

Latest Comments