- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Drivers sent warning letters after cyclist submits close pass videos – but she is unconviced police even watched the footage (+ videos)
A cyclist who sent links of several YouTube videos showing near misses to police has said she is somewhat confused that warning letters were sent to the registered keepers of the vehicles involved – since her statistics on the video-sharing platform suggest that the footage had not been viewed at all. Sussex Police insist, however, that the videos “were each properly reviewed and assessed.”
The rider, road.cc reader M, got in touch with us last week to say: “I've had a suspicion that this has been going on for a while but I'm 100 per cent certain now that Sussex Police are not watching the submitted videos for ‘Operation Crackdown’.
“The last five out of six videos I've submitted have 0 views (I'm fairly confident that I was the 1 view of the 6th video but obviously cannot prove that) yet when I check the ‘progress’ of the report, they have sent ‘An advisory letter has been sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle’.”
In her email to us, she attached screenshots of the progress reports on each of those five cases – each confirming that such a video had been sent.
“I've submitted a lot of videos in the past and not one of them has had more than an advisory letter sent to the driver and some of the clips definitely deserved more than that,” M added. “It's purely lip service from Sussex Police to absolve themselves of any liability.”
We contacted the force to raise her concerns, providing them with the case numbers for all five incidents and asking them to confirm that “the individual submissions were each properly reviewed and assessed.”
Sussex Police replied: “We have reviewed and assessed each one of these submissions, and can confirm the action taken was considered sufficient in the circumstances.”
We’ve also asked the force to provide details of the number of submissions they have received under Operation Crackdown, including how many action has been taken on, broken down by advisory letter, FPN, referral for prosecution.
Sussex Police asked us to submit a Freedom of Information request for those statistics, which we are now doing.
As a postscript, when we got back to M, who had originally uploaded the videos to YouTube unlisted meaning they are not publicly searchable, to let her know the police response, she told us: “Funnily enough, they must have just watched each of the videos as it now shows 1 view.”
In addition to the video above which shows a left hook of two cyclists on a roundabout, M’s other videos, which she has now made public on her YouTube channel, show several instances of poor driving including van drivers making close passes into oncoming traffic, a close pass on a blind bend by the driver of a Mini,
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- ktache 5 sec ago
My thoughts and deepest sympathy to the family and friends of Alana.
- Simon E 13 min 57 sec ago
Given the eye-watering prices they were asking for those shoes and all the other Chpt3 clobber then it damned well be ought to be top quality. But...
- chrisonabike 22 min 12 sec ago
Oh! I know these ones! Is it "if they're going as fast as a car that's too fast" and "tabards"?
- biking59boomer 1 hour 30 min ago
What does it matter how much she cycles as long as she does what Labour promised they'd do?
- Robert Hardy 3 hours 12 min ago
Or the Cambridge case where the tanker driver admitted hanging his coat on the nearside camera monitor screen and still escaped a custodial...
- EddyBerckx 3 hours 15 min ago
Christ people are boring Looks fine to me. You have 20 trillion traditional looking bikes to choose from if you don't like this!
- OnYerBike 5 hours 12 min ago
Not sure it's entirely fair to infer how well this helmet would score based on other models from the same brand. Both the Imperial testing and VT's...
- Rendel Harris 5 hours 49 min ago
When for the same money (or half that on AliExpress) you can get a CooSpo CS500 with maps and GPS navigation I really can't see who's going to pay...
- Paul J 7 hours 38 min ago
CO rebreathing, altitude camps, and altitude/hypobaric tents are all trying to exploit the same effect: The body producing more red-blood cells in...
- levestane 8 hours 36 min ago
DOT4 is pretty aggresive stuff (nothing melted), mineral oil is probably OK on EPS hemets. I'm surprised this is allowed on planes.
Add new comment
51 comments
1) The highway code makes it quite clear cyclists can choose to remain in the left-hand lane for any exit (see Rules 77 and 187). Personally I wouldn't choose to do so but I can see why some riders might. It can be intimidating crossing lanes of traffic to get into the "correct" lane, and then, once on the actual roundabout, it can be very intimidating having drivers passing you on both sides.
2) I think they were in the correct lane for the exit they took. If you look at the road markings just as the left-hook occurs, there is an arrow that indicates traffic can either leave at that exit OR continue on to the next exit (the one the cyclists wanted). There are two exit lanes on the road the cyclists took - the one the cyclists used and the one the white car used. As a cyclist, you wouldn't want to end up in the right-hand lane (i.e. where the white car was) so the lane they used was the correct one.
Quite it's about time that o'taking on junctions and roundabouts was made illegal. It conveys no benefit, and increases risk for slower or vulnerable users
can't argue with that, although it is at odds with road design which keeps bend radii high to allow vehicles to carry speed through the junction. The logic behind this is a mystery to me as roundabouts are recognised as being dangerous junctions in road design. (all dangerous junctions will have street lighting - all roundabouts have street lighting even when all roads meeting are unlit)
Indeed, especially on dual carriageways, where the roundabout is treated as little more than a deviation of thepath of the carriageway
At the point of being overtaken this is correct, but before entering the roundabout is the lane marked for turning right as well as straight on, it is not clear at the start of the video.
Personally I believe the advice to cyclists to negotiate roundabouts in this manner is flawed.
Either way you must cross a lane of traffic - is it better to do so when people are slowing to give way on entering a junction, or when traffic is accelerating while leaving the roundabout?
At this junction I would have either been towards the left of lane 2 (if lane 1 is not routinely used for 3rd exit by cars) or 3/4 of the way out in lane 1 positioned behind the van and directly in front of the driver of the blue car. (if cars in lane 1 do frequently take the third exit)
I think that's the roundabout for Devil Dykes rd at Dyke rd ave and the A27 in Brighton and for traffic congestion reasons both lanes are valid "straight on" options, but the straight on is the 4th exit, not the A27 exit which the car cutting them up took.
If you put yourself in the rhl, youd have cars to your left both from the Hove entry point and those taking the "straight on" option beside you and youd probably get stuck there by cars already thinking they are on the a27 dual carriageway, as it's already NSL speeds.
So I'd have taken the left lane, infact I think i did when I was down there on holiday and it looks sketchy, because it's just a sketchy roundabout for cycling in general on, they indicated right and were ahead of the car, the driver there needed to think more about what they were doing and not just MGIF.
Yep, I found it on google maps - and the riders were just going straight ahead...
Although that is the third exit, so plenty to think about before then.
It's not just about which lane you can be in but also where in the lane you need to be, so 3/4 out in L1 seems a good starting point.
Sorry I miscounted, yes its 3rd,not 4th.
But i feel its one of those bits of roads where its challenging to get positioning right as a cyclist there, because there are too many conflict points you are having to deal with,its like playing 4d chess with very high stakes,you've got to look left & right, front & back, you cant trust anyone to be looking out for you and only need to move off line by a small bit and a driver will see a gap and instantly take the space.
Yes the ideal position would be a bit more 3/4qtr aligned, but kudos to anyone who can do that repeatably there.
We don't see how they arrived at the give way, but I would never filter up to a junction like that with queueing traffic. I always try and merge with the traffic flow a good 3-4 cars back from the junction and take a central position in the lane - making eye contact with the driver and thanking them for letting me in.
Once you get a couple of cars from that line, the drivers are just looking right for a gap and are unlikely to notice a bike coming up the inside.
Still - it's obnoxious driving. I think it should be made law that you do not overtake anything on a roundabout. The number of times people get in the wrong lanes and it's only a problem because a faster vehicle is passing.
Their lane positioning could certainly have been more defensive, but they were at least in the correct lane, even before considering Rule 187. According to the road markings the two lanes approaching the roundabout are both for straight on, which is the third exit and is the one that they took. It's possible that they weren't famiiliar with the layout, so unwittingly made themselves more vulnerable, but they were within their rights to use that lane, and the left hooking vehicles should have waited and passed safely behind them instead. Having said all that I would have been right in the middle of the left hand lane approaching the roundabout and would have held that all the way to the exit. Who knows if it would've made any difference!
Yes very poor road positioning but I fear that like car drivers never seeing themselves as doing anything wrong, many here will see nothing wrong with the cyclists. Unfortunately we are a society of 'It's not my fault, it must be someone elses'.
Also had trouble with Operation Crackdown when I submitted footage of a van driver hooting and close passing me about half a mile up the road from the last clip. Their action was a letter, and after going through the Sussex Police & Crime Commissioner's office I managed to get the decision reviewed, though too late for them to change their action or deal with the motorist appropriately. This was the initial response:
"After viewing the footage, My judgment would have been to consider this for prosecution. Therefore I apologise that matter was dealt in way of a formal letter.
Unfortunately due to the timescale we are now unable to prosecute. I have spoken to the Operation Crackdown team and the member of the staff who reviewed the matter has been spoken to regarding this report and warned over future conduct.
I understand the frustration but hopefully this email has explained the situation. We would like to thank you again for submitting the original report on Operation Crackdown, your help has made a difference in making the roads of Sussex a safer place."
And when questioned about the appeal process and the fact that their failings had allowed someone to get away with a lesser punishment I was sent this response:
"There isn’t an appeal process however we are looking at how footage is approached so we can improve the outcome of reports.
This is why we advise all users of the Operation Crackdown that a decision in how we deal with the report is final. This decision will have been reached after reviewing different systems and there maybe Policing reasons which we are unable to share which have brought us to this conclusion.
If the officer in charge decides to prosecute the driver a Notice of Intended Prosecution/Section 172 is sent. The law states that the Notice of Intended Prosecution/ Section 172 must be sent and be received by the registered keeper of the vehicle within 14 days of the offence.
Although I mentioned we would be unable to send a Notice out due to the timescale, I failed to mention even if you had made us aware within the 14 days we still wouldn’t be able to prosecute as the matter had been dealt with in a way of a formal warning and this would fall under the double jeopardy law."
If anyone can comment on double jeopardy and how it relates to a letter precluding the issuing of a NIP I would be most interested - I thought it related to going to trial, but the above suggests otherwise?
I can't comment on double jeopardy but I would like to thank you for your hard work and persistence in challenging the decision of the reviewer in your submission. I hope that the police will be as good as their word. I also hope that they will also look at the training given in general to the officers assigned to viewing footage relating to inconsiderate driving around cyclists. There seems to be a view common to many police forces that close passing is not an offence and that they can only take action if the cyclist is forced to take drastic evasive action or there is an actual collision. I am not convinced this is the correct view point but it does hinge around the interpretation of what is a "competent and careful driver". I hope the changes in the highway code will help but actions like yours will also help to nudge the police into taking action which will help to protect cyclists from inconserate motorists.
Thank you again and thank you to road.cc for publishing close passes and for following up the actions of the police in relation to this article.
I think it could count as Abuse of Process:
"In, R v Croydon Justices ex parte Dean [1993] Q.B. 769, it was held that “the prosecution of a person who has received a promise, undertaking or representation from the police that he will not be prosecuted is capable of being an abuse of process”. It is not necessary for the accused to show that there was bad faith on the part of the police."
Is it possible they just plug the youtube URL into a site or system that auto downloads the video file, rather than browsing it like you or I while sitting on the couch?
That had also occurred to me. I've had a few from TVP who (claim to) have sent letters or called the driver with a warning/advice but where YouTube reports no views. Usually, however, it shows 1 view. I did have one recently where (having spoken to the nice police chappie) he said he'd watched it several times (as well as others having seen it) and yet the view count didn't tally.
I wonder what percentage of the video has to be watched to increase the view count. Maybe they stop ten seconds from the end.
I wondered that, as when the police have acted on my reports they usually notify me that they have 'downloaded the video'. But I checked my submissions and they do all have views against them.
So this is my video, they always go up as unlisted and usually have 1 or 2 views from, what I presume are the Police, but the most recent haven't had any views. I've tested it out and just watching a small amount of the video shows up at my end as a view.
Pages