A cyclist who regularly submits videos of close passes to Staffordshire Police has described the force’s attitude towards such footage as “absolutely vile” after he was told in an email that it would only consider referring drivers filmed endangering cyclists for prosecution when injury or damage had happened – and then, only where there is “concrete evidence and that the matter is in the public interest.” The police force has since said that “often education is the most suitable option.”
Twitter user Pompey Cyclist, who lives in Staffordshire, tweeted an image of part of an email he had received from Staffordshire Police in response to the above close pass that he had sent them.
@StaffsPolice have pulled a new policy out of their arse. pic.twitter.com/m9s8RA4UD8
— Pompey Cyclist (@PompeyCyclist) June 18, 2021
“If no one is injured and the vehicle is lawfully on the road, then a warning letter is suffice [sic], highlighting the incident and their obligations whilst overtaking a cyclist,” he was told.
“If there is injury and or damage then a course or prosecution is considered again depending whether we have concrete evidence and that the matter is in the public interest.”
He told road.cc that “the comment in the email was said as a general statement as I asked what has to happen for someone to be dealt with properly if not be a foot away from them at about 40mph.”
He also highlighted an earlier video (see below) that he had sent to the force of a very close pass by a lorry driver, saying that police “refused to do anything except send a letter. I exhausted the complaint and appeals process with this one and I think four or five different people were all involved and all agreed that not bothering to do anything was the right thing to do.”
He continued: “It’s just failure after failure and incompetent cop after incompetent cop with this police force.
“They were awful, then sorted themselves out a bit after I reported drivers and raised about 15 complaints in a year.
“Now they’ve reverted back to being completely useless and it’s just frightening that they have cops who literally say ‘we won’t do anything unless you’re hurt or killed’. “Absolutely vile attitude,” he added.
We contacted Staffordshire Police to ascertain whether the comments in the email reflected the force’s official policy, as well as requesting details of their submission guidelines and asking when they last conducted an operation targeting close-passing drivers and what the outcome was. At the time of writing, we have not received a reply.
Keir Gallagher, Cycling UK’s campaigns manager said: “Close passing is not only incredibly dangerous, but it’s also hugely intimidating – which is why Cycling UK has campaigned for the Highway Code to include minimum safe passing distances, changes we hope to see introduced shortly.
“However, education and guidance must be backed up by police enforcement, and just as they would not turn a blind eye to a speeding driver because there was no collision, police should not be waiting for an injury or fatality before taking action against dangerous close passing.
“If this is indeed the policy of Staffordshire Police, it risks sending a dangerous message that drivers who put cyclists and other vulnerable road users at risk will be treated with impunity.”
He added: “Cycling UK will be writing to Staffordshire police to seek the details of their policy – and the reasoning behind it – and to raise concerns about the serious implications it could have on road safety within the region.”
We heard back from Staffordshire Police the day after this article was published, with a spokesperson telling us: “With regards to ‘close pass’ incidents, this is not a specific offence and in reviewing the evidence we have to decide whether the offence of driving without due care and attention is met, when the standards of driving fall below that of a competent and careful driver.
“Each case is assessed on its individual circumstances and an injury will not ultimately be the deciding factor.
“The key aim for the police is to reduce these incidents and keep all road users safe, often education is the most suitable option. A warning letter may be appropriate dependent upon the circumstances, where this doesn’t apply we consider education through driver awareness courses and prosecution if the previous two options are not suitable.”
The spokesperson added: “We will raise awareness of the process with officers across the force.”
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
83 thoughts on ““Absolutely vile” – Cyclist slams Staffordshire Police after it tells him no prosecution of drivers based on video footage if no injury or damage involved”
So carte blanche to do
So carte blanche to do anything you want on Staffordshire roads as long as no one is killed. Jump a red light, get a letter, drive on the wrong side of the road, get some kindling, do 70mph in a 30, get some materials to use to test aerodynamic shapes in the air.
I’m actually assuming they will class the above under not lawfully on the road (also assuming that bit of crapness wording means not breaching other laws and not just meaning tax, mot or insured) but being as they seem to be ignoring DWDCaA on the clips sent, I might be right the first time.
Something to take up with the new Policing Commisioner for the area or the MP?
Yep, that’s modern policing
Yep, that’s modern policing for you. A set of lazy twunts the lot of em.
I’m assuming evidence would be a screenshot of the offending tweet/message because all they seem to care about is catching name callers on social media, not actual criminals.
This is the same with Thames
This is the same with Thames Valley Police, warning letter, reg/driver noted, if the car/driver commits again, then they may taken further action.
TVP are fucking awful. As
TVP are fucking awful. As are Hampshire, Derbyshire, Merseyside and Cheshire. I’ve never dealt with a force that isn’t useless.
I doubt Staffordshire are the
I doubt Staffordshire are the only ones applying this at the moment, but I dont think youll ever get an official confirmation that this is the current policy.
I think this is still part of the covid response rules some forces are following, and some admitted to publically last year they were doing, where motoring offences are being handled in the main just with warning letters, not prosecutions even if in normal circumstances theyd warrant a NIP, unless the incident resulted in injury, simply to alleviate case backlogs in the courts system.
This is ultimately a
This is ultimately a reflection on the lack of resources available nowadays through both funding and political direction with establishment of the pcc position. Enforcement is impossible after 10+ years of austerity contributing to a dramatic reduction in police numbers, all whilst the population had increased and politicians add layer upon layer of new laws. There is simply not enough mention of funding, if we’re to have a police force that can genuinely allot time to enforcement, we need to pay for it. The same applies to the legal system more broadly, starved of funding, demonisation of legal aid and ‘ambulance chasers’…t the list goes on.
It’s a very sad state of affairs but the police themselves are not the source of the problem. I recall learning to drive in the 90s, and subsequently getting pulled over by police at least two or three times a year, air was routine to see police cars out on the road. Now I seem to be able to travel huge distances on country roads, urban roads, motorways etc without even seeing a marked car.
What a load of rubbish –
What a load of rubbish – there’s another story in today’s blog about Surrey police having so little to do that they roam Twitter all day looking for errant Tweets to reply to. It’s just a question of (or lack of) priorities.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Is everything such an extreme in your little world?
Surrey Police will have hundreds of staff, officers and civilians. If part of the job of a couple of those staff is to operate the force’s social media accounts and get involved in appropriate threads that in no way equates to Surrey Police “having so little to do that they roam Twitter all day”.
Let me try to break this down
Let me try to break this down for you in a simplified manner.
– The previous poster claimed that there wasn’t the resource in the police force to check submitted videos “due to austerity”
– I pointed out police have ample resources to patrol Twitter all day
– You then agree with me (while posting irrelevant personal abuse) that there are indeed police resources that patrol twitter all day
– if these resources were redeployed to analysing and responding to traffic submissions, there would be no issue here
– therefore this is a resource allocation issue not a funding issue
I follow this account and I
I follow this account and I imagine it’s the passenger of a car while they’re just knocking about and it’s a bit quiet.
Staffordshire police for
Staffordshire police for whatever reason did get reduced in a disporportionate manner compared with other forces, probably as it had lower historic crime rates. It is now undertaking a recruitment drive but this will take some time to build up trained police officers. This may be reflected in the desire to send a letter out as this takes far less resource, it is an incorrect attitude and as cycling UK states sends the wrong message. It is a very unsatisfactory direction that police forces wish to go towards as it is much harder to be consistent and be respected.
G-bitch wrote:
Except that all police forces have had the same cuts, but most follow up these cases and achieve significant numbers of convictions; why can’t Staffordshire?
I’ve got an idea. The people
I’ve got an idea. The people submitting the videos are the ones catching the criminals in the act, for free. Have a very low paid admin type person with a clear set of rules reviewing the copious amount of footage they will receive. Points and fines handed out electronically. Gold mine! Use the funds to pay for more Police.
At no point have I been told
At no point have I been told it’s a lack of resources. I’m dealing with these cops and they repeatedly prove to me that they’re ignorant of what they’re looking at and bad at their jobs. They have plenty of time to argue against prosecuting drivers which other forces would have no issue with prosecuting.
It beggars belief; I don’t
It beggars belief; I don’t understand it. It’s as clear as anything; that is a close pass. In an alternative world, that should 3 points and a re-test.
Look Dad, I got a letter from
Look Dad, I got a letter from the police moaning about my awesome driving. You know that cyclist I almost took out. Nearly killed the tit and all I got is this letter.
Well done son, carry on.
Yep, this is how I think of
Yep, this is how I think of them. It’s a “you got away with it” letter or a “what you did is acceptable” letter.
I wonder if you could use the
I wonder if you could use the “no damage or injury” excuse for any driving offence the police stopped or reported you for while driving? (Speeding, no insurance, red light jumping)…
Just what I was thinking, all
Just what I was thinking, all those speed cameras generating all those warning letters…
No surprise there. I submit
No surprise there. I submit footage occasionally to Derbyshire Police, but only when I consider it dangerous, not just a bit close and have never even had a reply yet. I think they will only bother if their is bood or death. #can’tbearsed
I fully understand the
I fully understand the frustration that must be felt with dealing with a force with this attitude. But try dealing with Polis Scotland. They avoid all this controversy completely by not providing a conduit to upload videos in the first place.
Now that’s how to save money and resources.
Call them using 101 and get a
Call them using 101 and get a crime reference number, and an email address.
Make a low Res snap shot of the actual incident (not events leading to or after), and then email with the crime ref in the subject line, and brief statement and your contact details.
You’ll get a phone call a day or so later from a local officer who will make an appointment to review the video with you … Just remind them to bring a memory stick with them and they can take the evidence away with them, sealed and signed with your statement.
You’ll get a phone call a day
You’ll get a phone call a day or so later from a local officer who will make an appointment to review the video with you
Is this some sort of Shangri-La? In Lancashire you won’t get any calls or response from anybody no matter how serious the offence or how good the evidence. You can email who you like in Lancashire Constabulary and there will be no response. Whatever you send in on the online incident report system is immediately filed in the bin. I’m sure biker_phil would support me on this.
Staffordshire Police sound
Staffordshire Police sound like they’re a bunch of useless cunts.
0-0 wrote:
Come on 0-0, don’t beat about the bush. What’s really on your mind?
Many police are. Might be
Many police are. Might be worth uploading footage of people stealing donuts.
I also think it would be a good idea to have a force more Nazi like than the current police setup. The idea here is that instead of killing innocent people, the modern Nazi would go after hardened criminals or any person that goes out and harms innocent people via negligence or malice. You may say this is a bad idea, but how good is the current system? Mine is still better.
Jeez, I know commenters here
Jeez, I know commenters here often love the far right, but this is just plain vile. Where is the ‘report’ button?
Maybe its just cheaper to
Maybe its just cheaper to employ a few constables trained in breaking bad news to bereaved relatives than taking any active measures with regard to road safety.
So if someone is stabbed or
So if someone is stabbed or shot, they would apply the same principle that they would only seek to prosecute if it was in the public interest despite having evidence? It’s all well and good having a petition that requests the DoT to run a campaign to re-educate angry drivers, but this is like having a campaign to request knife and gun sellers to re-educate angry wife beaters and racists to be more considerate with these weapons. We need a change in the law that requires all police forces to recognise and take appropriate action against dangerous drivers identified in victim videos (and they are not bloody witnesses, they are victims of assault with a deadly weapon or of threatening behaviour). Can we get a section in this magazine to maintain a list every death of a cyclist on the road, that we can recognise and pay our respect to. And would highlight just how frequently this occurs. How can we encourage children to stay on their bikes once they reach 17yrs old and can switch to a car when they know the useless police have no interest in protecting them and the media are allowed to encourage stigma or hatred towards cyclists?
*Vaguely wishes we could
*Vaguely wishes we could force newspapers to publish a list of everyone motorists have killed in the last year every time they complain about cyclists/scooters/war on motorist* with the same priority (so if war on motorist article is front cover then next publication needs to list all deaths on front cover…)
Of course in reality they would struggle (as listing all deaths would probably take half the non-advert content of several tabloids…)
“So if someone is stabbed or
“So if someone is stabbed or shot, they would apply the same principle that they would only seek to prosecute if it was in the public interest despite having evidence?”
Yes. They, or rather the CPS, makes that decision in every single case. It’s a prerequisite for a case to be prosecuted.
Is it really the police’s
Is it really the police’s argument that dealing with careless or dangerous driving is not automatically in the public interest?
And that they officially care more about whether or not the vehicle is taxed than how it’s being driven?
rkemb wrote:
Probably, the public are doing it, so not in the public interest to stop it…
Re tax hat’ll be a case of which stakeholder wields the biggest stick. The Treasury wields a big stick. Individual vulnerable road users scared for their lives, not so much….
But “causing death/injury by
But “causing death/injury by careless driving” and “careless driving” are two separate offences. Better not tell Staffs police – their heads might explode…
I’m always surprised by that
I’m always surprised by that kind of response in relation to cycling issues by police forces.
I wonder what would happen if a driver who gets stopped for any reason not involving injury or damage in Staffordshire tried the “There was no injury or damage therefore you should not be considering prosecution” tactic.
Perhaps Pompey cyclist should jump in a car and try their hardest to get stopped by police for something….. and forward them their own e-mail to highlight their own hypocrisy.
I have tweeted Staffs police
I have tweeted Staffs police quoting their official response and asking if it was therefore OK for me to drive through red lights etc (obviously to highlight the contradiction). Seems their social media team knows nothing about this story, as they asked me for the source. I have sent them a link to this page. I’ll post an update when/if they reply.
One positive that I take from
One positive that I take from this is that Cycling UK are getting involved. It is good to know that at least one organisation is taking this issue seriously on our behalf. Much more likely to be listened to than lone voices. I have already contributed to their Cyclist Defence Fund and I will be joining as soon as my British Cycling membership runs out.
It’s also encouraging that road.cc have asked for a comment. This is the second time they’ve actually taken a proactive stance in my experience. I hope they chase it up and I look forward reading the update. I hope we see more of this in the future.
On the subject of prosecutions, as I’ve said before, I suspect it is difficult to get a conviction for “Driving without due care and attention” because it seems to boil down to how close is too close. I think if you have to brake or swerve in order to avoid a collision then you have a better chance. If this is the case, a warning letter, hopefully with the threat of action for a repeat performance, seems a good compromise. Hopefully the long awaited review of the highway code will change this.
But Cycling UK need to
But Cycling UK need to remember a warning letter still counts as action has been taken, just like in many ClosePass ops forces undertake, motorists are given educational interactions and NIPs are reserved for only the most serious cases, they always state the most appropriate action is the outcome they take.
And that’s the subtlety of this, the appropriate action line between a warning letter and a NIP i believe has shifted with some forces, so action is still being taken it’s just not as much action as you might have expected, and you’ll only see that if you FOI the stats on cases and outcomes,preferably a pre 2020 comparison to now.
Protect and Serve.
Protect and Serve.
Protect criminals and serve their own prejudices. Really rather shabby.
Those passes wouldn’t have
Those passes wouldn’t have been severe enough for me to bother with the time to take the videos off the cameras, edit them and submit them to the police.
A foot away in a HGV who also
A foot away in a HGV who also drove at a clearly visible oncoming car? You’re part of the problem then.
The first was pretty close,
The first was pretty close, for that speed. The second, I really am not sure isn’t 1.5m away. I agree with Shades. If you’re going to report those, you might as well just send in a video of your entire ride.
The HGV? Are you joking? Look
The HGV? Are you joking? Look at the distance from the rear wheels to the kerb as the wheels are next to me. Easily less than 1.5m. Then remember that I’m in that gap
That may be the case, but in
That may be the case, but in the video it looks pretty much OK. Not giving loads of room, but enough to be completely normal, fairly reasonable driving. There seems to be a car’s width for cyclist plus some room, which doesn’t seem too terrible. It’s hard to tell, though.
My point was that I can see why police wouldn’t take any action. It’s a video which doesn’t clearly show a terrible bit of driving.
“Now they’ve reverted back to
“Now they’ve reverted back to being completely useless and it’s just frightening that they have cops who literally say ‘we won’t do anything unless you’re hurt or killed’.
That’s the Blood On the Road policy so beloved of Lancashire Constabulary- except they won’t state it, or reply to anything
wtjs wrote:
I wonder if they have the same policy in relation to domestic violence.
“Sorry love, he’s only threatening to kill you. Come back to us when he’s actually assaulted you and we’ll maybe do something”.
Eton Rifle wrote:
I think we might already suspect the answer the answer to that…..
Im going to play devils
Im going to play devils advocate here and its not going to be popular.
Instead of assuming this is policy lets consider that maybe – just maybe – that its a response to 1 individual sending them 15 complaints in a year, which lets face it – human nature being what it is – probably makes the submitter a bit of a pain in their arse.
It takes two to tango and unless this person is Staffordshire’s answer to Cycling Mikey, with a reciprocal person on the other end – just maybe they should calm down the outrage a little and concentrate on (poor) quality passes over quantity. The reality we live in is that just because a law is being broken doesnt automatically mean that the police are going to be arsed to enforce it. Like everything in life its subject to prioritisation.
Don’t get me wrong – maybe Staffordshire Police are so poor that they need to be forced into action – but maybe, just maybe – telling them they are crap isnt the best way to get something accomplished.
Having said all that – its great that CUK are involved and lets hope their involvement generates a positive outcome and doesn’t result in Staff Constabulary entrenching more.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Then couldn’t they just make some public announcement to that, if that was the case? “An anonymous person has been wasting police time”…
brooksby wrote:
It wouldn’t even have to be a public announcement – just let the person know that they’re not interested in certain traffic violations (e.g. red light jumping in Lancashire).
As a close-pass submitter, I welcome feedback so I can get an idea of whether I’m wasting my time or not (and theirs). I’ve got no desire to splice videos and submit them if they’re not going to be acted upon, so it’s very much a partnership between cyclists and police.
Meanwhile, if you don’t think the police are playing their part, then making complaints is part of the process of getting them to do their job. If senior police see large numbers of complaints all from a single person, then they might decide to ignore that, but if they’re from lots of different people, then it’s essential feedback that they need to do something different.
It wouldn’t even have to be a
It wouldn’t even have to be a public announcement – just let the person know that they’re not interested in certain traffic violations (e.g. red light jumping in Lancashire)
I resent this! Lancashire Constabulary is the best there is at being uninterested in a whole range of offences. There will be no response to this, for instance
The centre brake light isn’t
The centre brake light isn’t working properly, and Avid Brewery’s AV10 BUS driver clearly isn’t interested in ever seeing out of the back window. Lancashire Constabulary has the capacity to ignore dozens of offences a day: school bus illegally crossing an unbroken white line illegally in a dangerous position, crossing of double unbroken white lines, 3 large dogs loose in the front passenger department, handheld mobile phone use at the wheel etc. etc. It’s an offending motorist’s paradise up here!
Apparently, Lancashire police
Apparently, Lancashire police now allow video uploads. Got this response from them a couple of days ago, which was news to me.
https://twitter.com/LancsPolice/status/1407961988584689666?s=20
Calm down, calm down. People
Calm down, calm down. People like you eh?
Happy to be corrected, to the best of my knowledge there is no legal requirement for a high level or central brake light. They are sold as safety features that have become standard.
As for the rear window, it is a box van and there doesn’t seem to be any attachments for a wiper. There is no legal requirement for visibility through rear windows, think HGVs and box lorries. The vehicle looks like it was not designed to have such a feature.
All lights fitted must work
All lights fitted must work or an offence is committed.
WiznaeMe wrote:
Not entirely true, although it is true of brake lights and so is applicable in this case. Some lights are redundant spares, and not required to be working.
Depends if the response is to
Depends if the response is to one individual sending them video of every car that passes them a bit too close or all video submissions by all cyclists of close pass incidents.
Maybe some young investigative reporter with a bit of time might submit FOI requests to all forces asking for a breakdown of how many closs pass submissions were made by their various portals and what percentage of those were followed up and if so in what way. I think that would be more informative of the policies being adopted by different forces.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Not sure about that. It also suggests that this submitter is consistently providing quality usable evidence.
It also suggets that if the submitter is that prolific there could be a real issue on the roads, they are just the one that’s publicising it.
I can certainly see that if the particular officer has no desire to deal with the issues it could be a bit of a pain in the arse to have work put on their desk – that tea doesn’t drink itself after all… I had a similar issue on a project I was leading. The ITPM insisting on deleting or downgrading bugs that had been registered after being found during testing – these were show-stopper level faults. Apparently, it was making their figures look bad….. I suggested they fixed the bugs, so that I could stop registering them. They didn’t really get my logic. WITA?
Clearly it would be a mild annoyance should consistently bad evidence be submitted frequently, but that is case by case. A response along the lines of “in this instance we will not take action” is sufficient. However, it seems here that there is a policy of “no blood no issue”, which is clearly bollx, and not acceptable.
Is 15 that prolific? I’ve had
Is 15 that prolific? I’ve had weeks where I could have submitted that many and still not counted the just within the 1.5m close pass ones.
I had a good half dozen that I’d feel were valid submissions,just on one ride yesterday.
stonojnr wrote:
Apparently that would make you a nuisance. Or an asset. It could be either depending on the receiving officer and the culture in their dept.
Captain Badger wrote:
Unfortunately thats sad but true. I dont like it, but in the grand scheme of things Im not sure pillorying the police for it is the most productive form of action, tbh I’m not sure what is the right action, but for a large chunk of the population, telling them they are shit doesnt motivate them.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
If you’re leading a team, you’re right. Tell people they’re crap and they are crap.
We aren’t leading a team. We need a level of service from these people for our safety, and unfortunately, that won’t be achieved by saying “you’re doing really well” when they aren’t. This takes noise, and being a pain. Being so much of a pain that it is harder not to do their jobs than to do it.
That’s the only way you can push change as an outsider.
I’ve tried all the official
I’ve tried all the official means of complaint. Appealed complaints and escalated complaints
also had a face to face meeting with them where we agreed how to move forward.
That’s now been ignored by them and we’re back to them being useless.
Telling them they’re useless wasn’t the first thing I tried. Obviously. This has been a process which has taken over two years. Give me some credit, Christ.
15 complaints, not 15 reports
15 complaints, not 15 reports. Way more than 15 reports. All but a couple of weren’t taken anywhere
stonojnr wrote:
I don’t think it’s that prolific for Staffs, my long ride last week I counted 15 close enough to touch, 70 mile ridden mainly on very quiet back roads, the 15 were in the other 20, it was a bad day for it but I can’t remeber the last day I didn’t get at least one close pass riding in Staffs
In fairness PompeyCyclist
In fairness PompeyCyclist clarified it was 15 complaints,not submissions. I’ve never raised a complaint, but maybe I should start as I’ve had no joy from the system the last 18months, to the point Id also feel unless I was hit, there was much use submitting anything.
I suggest you might want to
I suggest you might want to look into the stats published by @cyclingmikey
In 2019 he reported 360, so 1/day! IIRC he also has numbers for prosecution which are well above report:conviction ratios for most crimes!
I.e. 15 in a year is pocket change and probably means they are only reporting the worst incidents (which other forces are reliably managing to get a high rate of convictions for…)
It was about 50 in a year but
It was about 50 in a year but I rode 12,000 miles that year. Probably a lower reporting rate than a lot of other cyclists per mile.
15 was the number of complaints which also went nowhere.
Good on you, and I for one am
Good on you, and I for one am grateful for you. It does take effort and time to report and follow up, time that is yours and could be spent doing something more interesting for you. But in doing these reports you are helping to improve road safety for us all. Imagine if no-one reported the close passes and dangerous drivers, despite there being a means to do so. The logical conclusion would be drawn that cyclists are not in any danger from motorists because there are no reports from the cyclists. Keep at it.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Well I freely admit to being a pain in the arse (if that’s what refusing to tolerate arseholes trying to kill me makes me), I’ve submitted fourteen videos to the Met since September 2020, three rejected, seven courses, four going to court. Hats off to the Met I say!
I have been talking to their
I have been talking to their social media team about this (see original correspondence below). Here is their official response …
So they have acknowledged
So they have acknowledged that an injury is not (ultimately) the deciding factor – a small realisation that the original response was incorrect I suppose.
From the updated article :
From the updated article : “We heard back from Staffordshire Police the day after this article was published, with a spokesperson telling us: “With regards to ‘close pass’ incidents, this is not a specific offence and in reviewing the evidence we have to decide whether the offence of driving without due care and attention is met, when the standards of driving fall below that of a competent and careful driver. “
So basically either Staffs police feel that the tanker driver is bahaving as a “competent and careful driver” or that they are not confident a jury would agree that it is not. It would be interesting to know which it is.
I found this on a legal web site : “You can defend careless driving allegations if you cast a reasonable doubt on that suggestion. Or, additionally, if you can show that in the specific circumstances of your case, any reasonable and prudent driver would have reacted/driven in the same way.” Unfortunately I suspect that many drivers (jury members) would not see anything wrong with this driving and therein, I suspect, lies the problem. A warning letter may change driver behaviour and doesn’t require convincing a jury. On the other hand the stress of going through a court case may have the same effect even if found innocent. The problem here is the cost of the case.
It seems to me that we need passing within 1.5m to be some sort of offence. Now what happened to that review I heard about?
Bungle_52 wrote:
— Bungle_52Well said. We need a specific offence, not some wooly definition that a loophole lawyer can cast doubt upon, and passing within 1.5m could be proved and convicted with no argument.
It would be interesting how
It would be interesting how many people have actually contested a close pass charge and won though.
A few months ago when Laura posted an article on WMP’s apparent withdrawal from Close Pass, I found a vodcast Mark Hodson did where he mentioned the history of the intial, well lauded, initiative. (Very interesting history for anyone interested.)
But the key part was they started using video footage to prosecute drivers and as most drivers accepted them without question they carried on. However they were worried on the first one that would plead not guilty as once it is before a judge, it might be dismissed as inadmissable. It finally happened, they went to court worried and the judge accepted both the video evidence supplied and the charges of careless driving for the close pass.
Of course, it doesn’t stop Police not wanting to worry about resources of losing a Police man to court for a day for something they might see as “victimless” as Staffs and others seem to be doing nowadays. (and CPS etc)
Threatening somebody with a
Threatening somebody with a big lump of metal ( get off my road – this very close pass will teach you a lesson) must be a criminal offense.
For the successfl court case,
For the successfl court case, do we know how close the close pass was and whether the rider had to swerve or brake?
https://www.youtube.com/watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ak_KTR5ZhsY&t=56m30s
Direct to 56mins for the start of Mark, another 10 mins or so before they start talking about “suck it and see” to see if they can do it. First ones were close passes on him.
Edit: 1h:18m or so, he mentions the first case in court.
Thanks for this link. Very
Thanks for this link. Very informative. Could be the subject of a future road.cc article I would think. It raises many interesting points in relation to changing driver behaviour around cyclists which is what most of us would like I suspect.
Unfortunately it doesn’t give details of the close pass that was successfully prosecuted but it is interesting that the cyclist was a police officer with a class 1 licence who was passed by a lorry driver with a class 1 licence and it also relied on testimony from Mark himself as an expert witness that the cyclist was cycling in a proper manner. It also seems it was dealt with in the magistrates court.
Bungle_52 wrote:
Genuine question (in no way venomous)
Do we need to worry about a jury? Many cases could be dealt with FPN and points. Or could be dealt with in the magistrates court. If it ever goes to crown court juries can be directed, indeed it is part of the prosecution’s job to present the case in clear terms, but a CC case would be likely much more serious than a close pass in isolation.
It seems to me it’s the Police’s job to ensure that the offence is dealt with adequately in the framework of options they have at their disposal. I can’t accept them throwing their hands in the air whilst claiming they can’t take action cos juries.
I agree there’s little point in sending to court with no chance of conviction, even considering the stress on the accused, but that’s not the police’s only option
Captain Badger wrote:
I absolutely get your point, and I agree the police should be persuing the avenues they have where they believe it is appropriate.
However, I can see there is a legal principal that juries (with appropriate direction) are the ultimate test of whether or not a crime has been committed. If there’s no prospect of a jury convicting someone, then arguably the ploice have no right to be issuing FPNs. FPNs are essentially plea deals – the driver has to admit to the offence. But if a jury wouldn’t convict then in the eyes of the law the driver is innocent.
There’s also the point that (for driving offenses specifically) the law relates directly to “a careful and competent driver” and therefore it is benchmarked against how other drivers behave.
Captain Badger wrote:
Indeed, they can, the trouble is they are normally directed by the judge that
a) the highway code should be consided guidance and in no way mandatory
b) they should consider the actions aginst the benchmark of a careful and competent driver such as themselves.
Considering that half the jusy will be below average and 1 or 2 probabbly very poor, it’s an uphill battle to convicne them that any action on the roads (other than involving drugs or drink) is far below the standard that all the jury members would consider perfectly reasonable driver behaviour.
Might as well get a jury of 12 mysogenists to decide a sexual harrassment case.
I’m a former Police Officer
I’m a former Police Officer and a cyclist (I ride a 50″ Penny-Farthing), so I see the Police’s difficulty here: they need to be able to nail somebody down to a specific offense and be confident that the evidence you’ve given them clearly illustrates the elements of the offense. Court is a lengthy process with a lot of paperwork and Police only charge if you feel justice will prevail. I just successfully had an aggressive driver enforced by Hertfordshire Police from my helmet cam footage. Motorist tried to pass on an insanely busy road and to avoid a head-on collision rammed back into the lane at the last second choosing to save his own neck while happy to sacrifice my life. When I slowed the video I could see the passenger in the Taxi he only just averted a head-on at my expense was a little girl. The video is fairly shocking and was an open net for the Police to score on. Anyhoo, I documented my experience successfully enforcing the aggressive motorist in very granular detail to help cyclist give the Police what they need: http://www.penny-farthing.org/enforcing-dangerous-drivers/