Cyclists submitted 15,779 close pass videos to police in 2024 — more than double the 7,249 reported in 2021 — as police forces across England and Wales faced a surge in helmet and bike camera footage uploaded through Operation Snap.
IAM RoadSmart, a road safety charity, submitted a series of Freedom of Information requests to 43 forces throughout the country. Only 20 forces responded with usable data, but among them, the proportion of reports resulting in a notice of intended prosecution increased from 38 per cent in 2021 to 54 per cent in 2024.
IAM RoadSmart’s active travel spokesperson, Harriet Hernando, said: “It is extremely concerning that more than half of motorists don’t know how much space to give a cyclist when overtaking. Passing too closely to a cyclist can be intimidating and dangerous, especially if they need to move out to avoid a pothole.
“It is small wonder, then, that record numbers of cyclists are installing cameras and submitting footage of dangerous or careless drivers to the police. While it is heartening to see that prosecution rates have increased, it would be better if it didn’t reach that stage and motorists weren’t doing it in the first place.”
> Over 600 cases of dangerous driving in Warwickshire submitted by cyclists in 2025 already, as police share footage of incidents “putting lives at risk” — including a motorcyclist close passing cyclist at 120mph
A survey conducted by the road safety charity found that 58 per cent of drivers were unaware that the Highway Code recommends a minimum passing distance of 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph — and greater at higher speeds.
The organisation also claimed that many cyclists now view camera use as essential for self-protection and accountability, with basic models widely available for under £50.
Cycling UK’s head of campaigns, Duncan Dollimore, said the impact of changes to the Highway Code introduced in 2022 has so far been limited. “The majority of people who drive simply aren’t aware how much distance to give to people who cycle when overtaking,” he said. “This is why it’s crucial to educate all road users of their responsibility to protect those most vulnerable.”

Provisional figures from the Department for Transport show 85 cyclists were killed on Britain’s roads in 2024. Between 2019 and 2023, most cyclist deaths involved a collision with a car.
A Department for Transport spokesperson said: “We take road safety extremely seriously, and there are already strict penalties in place for those who put the safety of cyclists at risk. Our roads are among the safest in the world, but we are always looking to improve.”
IAM RoadSmart has launched a No More Close Calls campaign to encourage safe overtaking and better driver awareness. The charity advises drivers to leave at least 1.5 metres when passing cyclists, to hang back by two or three car lengths when assessing whether it’s safe to overtake, and to never attempt a pass if visibility or road conditions are poor.
The surge in footage submissions is part of a wider trend. Between January 2021 and April 2024, 30 police forces across England and Wales received over 200,000 Operation Snap reports, according to figures compiled by Accident Claims Advice. Reports increased by 90 per cent over that period, with 85,114 cases logged in 2023/24.

As we reported in October, Avon and Somerset Police received the highest number of submissions of any force that year, with 8,595 videos sent in — over 60 per cent of them from cyclists. Almost 90 per cent of those reports resulted in some form of action, including 2,539 notices of intended prosecution and more than 5,000 warning letters. Between 2021 and 2024, the force received just under 20,000 submissions.
Chief Inspector Rob Cheeseman said: “It’s certainly something which we’ve had to adapt to. The community is speaking really loudly that these are dangers on the road. The goal is not to be targeting drivers unnecessarily — the ultimate goal is making the roads safer for everyone in Avon and Somerset.”
West Yorkshire Police also saw a high volume of reporting, receiving 3,500 video submissions in the 12 months prior to June 2025, with 71 per cent leading to action such as fines, remedial courses, or court proceedings.
Speaking to the BBC last week, Huddersfield rider Frankie Leveton said: “It’s very rare that I go out on a bike ride and don’t have a close pass or a quite scary experience. It doesn’t stop the close passes, but it’s just a bit of a comfort blanket that yes, that was terrifying, but I’ve been empowered to be able to do something about it.”
Bristol-based camera cyclist Guy Buckland said earlier this year that he had submitted more than 1,300 clips to Avon and Somerset Police. “People have to realise the impact that bad driving has on people’s lives and communities,” he said. Buckland claimed that around 90 per cent of his reports had resulted in warning letters, fixed penalties, or prosecutions.
South Wales Police, however, recently confirmed that due to high demand, it has temporarily stopped issuing warning letters for non-urgent close pass reports. As road.cc reported on 10 June, cyclists like Dave, who submitted what he described as a “bad close pass in the rain” to the Operation Snap portal, have been told no further action would be taken.

In an email seen by road.cc, the GoSafe Wales team said: “Operation SNAP has become so successful that the team is no longer able to manage the demand submitted by the public. Therefore, until further notice, we will not be able to take any further action in cases that would previously have been dealt with by an advisory notice.”
Similar capacity issues were reported earlier this year in other forces, including Surrey, Thames Valley and the Metropolitan Police, where cyclists have been told some offences — such as motorists driving in bike lanes or down one-way streets — no longer fall within enforcement priorities or processing capacity.






















40 thoughts on “Cyclists submit record number of close pass videos, as road safety charities warn over half of drivers still don’t know the Highway Code’s minimum passing distance”
I am sure that most motorists
I am sure that most motorists are aware of leaving a 1.5 metre gap when overtaking cyclists. However, in many cases this translates as leaving a 1.5 metre wide space between the curb/edge of the road for the cyclist to ride in.
However, in many cases this
However, in many cases this translates as leaving a 1.5 metre wide space between the curb/edge of the road for the cyclist to ride in
Well, that’s certainly the Lancashire Constabulary interpretation of the ‘rules’
I thought the image from West
I thought the image from West Mercia Close Pass showing the police car and bicycle was incorrect. I thought the 1.5m space was from the vehicle to the bike handle, not the centre of the bike?
TBH I wouldn’t mind if that
TBH I wouldn’t mind if that ~20cm difference was the worst we had to deal with.
I suspect a lot of drivers
I suspect a lot of drivers know about 1.5m but choose to forget it. It never ceases to amaze me the amount that bring it up when a cyclist filters past completely ignoring pyhsics :-/
Surely not – it’s 1.5 metres
Surely not – it’s 1.5 metres from the centre-line of the driver, isn’t it?
This. There’s something about
This. There’s something about human nature that results in people “not knowing” the things they don’t want to hear. Or seeing the things they don’t wish to be told – like parking tariffs or speed limits.
Put an A4 sign on a traffic light post saying “petrol – £1.20/ litre – this way” and they’ll see it all right.
Written badly in biro…
Written badly in biro…
Quote:
That’s like a 4700% response rate – did they get the Russian Electoral Commision to administer it or something?
No, you’ve misunderstood –
No, you’ve misunderstood – only those with perfect eyesight responded.
Quote:
You mean, bus drivers ought not to be following cyclists (or e-scooterists) at four or five feet, as happens in Bristol more often than not?
15,779 reports…let’s say a
15,779 reports…let’s say a team of five workers dealing with 3,155 reports a year each. Allowing for holidays, each worker will work approximately 2000 hours per year, so they would have to deal with a report every forty minutes (and that’s not taking into account the probably significant proportion that can be written off almost immediately on first viewing, no numberplate visible etc). Pretty doable, one would imagine. Give the workers the average wage of £35,000 a year so the unit’s wages as a whole will be £175,000 p.a. With 54% of reports resulting in an NIP that’s 8520 reports, add a £25 administration charge on top of any fines or courses issued and the unit pays for itself. I’m sure the maths can be tweaked a little bit here and there but I don’t see why that would be outwith the bounds of practical possibilities.
ETA Actually I realise that 2000 hours per year per worker is an overestimate, it’s more like 1840 hours a year which leaves 800 hours in total to be accounted for – add in a couple of part-time workers and increase the administration charge to £30, that should cover it.
Imagine the uproar though….
Imagine the uproar though….’war on motorists’, ‘cash cow’ etc etc etc…
a politely worded warning
a politely worded
warningadvice letterDoes this close pass apply
Does this close pass apply only when the driver passes on the right hand side of the cyclist? West Yorkshire police thought that this very close pass on the INSIDE wasn’t a crime….
(No subject)
The worst ones I get by a
The worst ones I get by a massive margin are oncoming vehicles on country lanes. Apparently when they aren’t overtaking you all bets are off. I’ve had people literally drive straight at me numerous times and so many of them don’t even slow down a little as they pass you.
I was on a tiny road where quite large stretches of it are not wide enough for a modern SUV and a cyclist to be side by side touching so there are passing spots, regular cars reversing etc. Some vans were waiting to let a car past and as soon as the car had passed they all agressively accellerated towards me and passed me within a few inches of my bars.
A Department for Transport
A Department for Transport spokesperson said: “We take road safety extremely seriously, and there are already strict penalties in place for those who put the safety of cyclists at risk
Oh yes?!
That’s the ‘no penalties at all‘ sense of ‘strict penalties‘ as deployed by our great, cyclist-empathetic police forces
wtjs wrote:
Yes: a politely worded warning letter.
Some councils are acting on
Some councils are acting on dashcam footage for offences they can prosecute, such as littering…
https://www.buckinghamshire.gov.uk/news/first-500-fixed-penalty-notice-issued-to-motorist-caught-littering-on-dashcam/
CyclingMikey and NFAs (No
CyclingMikey and NFAs (No Police Action). About a year ago, I posted a comment that I believe that all the reports CM posts where he states “No further information from the Police”, were because the Police were taking NO ACTION. Sadly, it appears I was right to take that view. Recent posts by CM now comment on the results spreadsheet the Met have provided by FOI. He is now realizing many of his reports of phone offences, in the vast majority of cases is supported by clear video evidence, are being ignored. I congratulate CM for honestly reporting this. This lack of action on potentially fatal driving behaviour, needs to be highlighted.
In summary, the Met Police will not act on OpSnap reports of driving on the wrong side of the road (Gandalf Cnr), driving on cycle lanes, ignoring “No Entry” signs, close passing cyclists, and even if you provide clear video evidence of phone driving where the driver threatens violence, that will be ignored too!
https://youtu.be/AOKrcobvUpM?feature=shared
In summary, the Met Police
In summary, the Met Police will not act on OpSnap reports of driving on the wrong side of the road (Gandalf Cnr), driving on cycle lanes, ignoring “No Entry” signs, close passing cyclists, and even if you provide clear video evidence of phone driving where the driver threatens violence, that will be ignored too!
We now have evidence on the Northamptonshire, Essex and Met. forces’ spreadsheets that they’re full of dodges- and this ‘unable to process’ is one of the most popular, being different words for ‘decided not to process’. Another one is that, as has been pointed out on here, the outcome remains as a stated original ‘intention’ to impose some sort of penalty even when they were determined to do nothing. The outcome column is never updated. As for ignoring clear evidence of HHMP use at the wheel: our Brave Lancashire Lads were ahead of the game, as ever
In summary – the police are
In summary – the police are much like other tradespeople and will manage their workload to suit themselves. Just because they invite you to contact them offering business doesn’t mean they will take it – or even respond. Even if you get them to give you a “quote” that doesn’t mean the work will be done…
But this is what doesn’t make
But this is what doesn’t make sense to me on the one hand this IAMs FOI suggesting numbers of reports and police action is increasing.
Whilst on the other hand there’s clear evidence from the police themselves the numbers and actions taken are in decline as they prioritise other crimes and actually make reporting close passes harder.
Ah – but isn’t this exactly
Ah – but isn’t this exactly what wtjs has written about? Reality and what is recorded are at best acquaintances!
So isn’t it perfectly possible for the police to record they’re receiving and “actioning” more reports from the public here – but the actual “crimes” they record don’t necessarily include those numbers. And when they say they’ve “actioned” something perhaps that is just “we sent a NIP” (doesn’t follow that a prosecution actually proceeds, I think) or even “letter with advice”. (And it’s often not possible to tell if they even did that, because “only a witness” / “GDPR mate” / “Those are internal police operational details”).
So it’s a double score for police stats – they’re more effective than ever at processing stuff AND at the same time crime is falling. And all without needing to leave the station!
I’ve submitted about 130
I’ve submitted about 130 videos to West Yorkshire’s OpSnap portal. Anything that isn’t specifically a “close pass” (e.g. failure to Give Way, parking on a mandatory cycle lane) gets an NFA.
For the close pass submissions, I’ve marked six as NFA.
I have also had two court summons, both of which I attended, both of which resulted in no further action against the driver.
Now the interesting part – there is a section of the OpSnap portal where you can download the results of the submissions in an Excel file. I have downloaded two years worth of files and being bored, trawled through looking for my specific submissions. I’ve tried hunting for the make and colour of car and the submission type. I’ve tried filtering to the road and date. I’ve tried being really ambiguous with the filtering – I have never been able to find a single submission of mine.
They are clearly doing something with the submissions!
I have also had two court
I have also had two court summons, both of which I attended, both of which resulted in no further action against the driver
Excellent work! I have achieved no action at all from Lancashire Constabulary in all the years I have been sending in impeccable video such as these
https://upride.cc/incident/ku71cuk_montgomery44tonner_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/yn67mvj_sainsburys44tonner_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/4148vz_travellerschoicecoach_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/du61vhj_stuartbraithwaitebuilders_dwlcrossclosepass/
Do you have online video of these 2 cases where WYP actually took the case to court but the result was acquittal?
I’m reluctant to put my
I’m reluctant to put my videos public – tried it once and got some scary comments to it.
This is from the first video
and the second
and the second
HoldingOn wrote:
And I’m beginning to realise that this is the problem the police face. They are reluctant to issue NIPs unless the offence is indisputable AND the evidence is 100%, because so many drivers get let off in court. This may be down to incompetent prosecutors, the fact the law doesn’t match the highway code in many areas that affect cyclists, the definition of driving without due care being so poorly defined or magistrates and juries being biased in favour of drivers. None of this is the fault of the police unless you feel that they should be lobbying parliament for changes in the law to make prosecutions easier. In my opinion that is the job CUK should be doing.
For the record, in Gloucestershire in 2024 I put in 31 reports 14 of which were NFA.
So far in 2025 I have put in 40 reports 8 of which were NFA.
I think I’m getting better at choosing what to report but I also think the police are getting better at dealing with them.
Bungle_52 wrote:
It’s a job they are doing (among others). Of course, whether parliament (beyond the APPCWG) actually pays any attention to them is another matter.
Recent posts by CM now
Recent posts by CM now comment on the results spreadsheet the Met have provided by FOI. He is now realizing many of his reports of phone offences, in the vast majority of cases is supported by clear video evidence, are being ignored. I congratulate CM for honestly reporting this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npiPqs8GgNg
This is another of CM’s cases, where the Met. is using the ‘unable to process’ dodge as a means of quickly binning the case for some reason. It’s about parking on the zig-zags at a crossing.
My wife has just had a letter
My wife has just had a letter from essex police to attend court as a witness, although it doesn’t seem to say the original submission reference anywhere.
I guess they are hoping she doesn’t turn up. Only submit the worst ones so I can’t see why else they would contest it.
In my experience with court
In my experience with court summons: I had to reply to say that I would attend (thankfully I could reply via email) – I took that opportunity to ask when the offence took place, so I was then able to track down the video.
the proportion of reports
the proportion of reports resulting in a notice of intended prosecution increased from 38 per cent in 2021 to 54 per cent in 2024
While it is heartening to see that prosecution rates have increased…
The police are systematically lying, by manipulating the data. They will be excluding the reports they don’t like (such as ones with indisputable evidence) by declaring them ‘inadmissible’ in some way. We all know that any action in cases of offences against cyclists is decreasing, and actual prosecutions (you will have noticed the dodge inherent in NIP) are amazingly rare. There are hardly any reported on here- except for all those minimal/ suspended sentences we hear about after cyclists being KSI’d. Tricks are facilitated by ‘proportions’!
There seems to be a fair bit
There seems to be a fair bit of negativity towards the police in these comments, which I don’t think is particularly helpful. I guess there may be a reasonable amount of variance in the “performance” of the various forces, which may contribute a skew in our viewpoints. For me, I’m satisfied with the GMP, which received the great majority of my submissions:
For 2025, I’ve submitted 35 submissions, of which three I only submitted in the last half-four, so we can ignore them. But here are my results for 2025 so far:
I don’t always agree with some of their responses. But I’ve done my bit, and the rest is up to them. Sometimes, they have been harsher than I thought they would be, such as a fine rather than a letter.
I’ve also reported to the Lancashire Police (mainly last year) and I’ve no complaints about them either, unlike a certain regular commenter on here. Maybe that’s just my good luck!
“There seems to be a fair bit
“There seems to be a fair bit of negativity towards the police in these comments, which I don’t think is particularly helpful.”
Sorry you are a serving officer.
I don’t follow the comment though. Who is it unhelpful for and why ?
I hope you aren’t trying to deny the experiences various posters have had.
I’ve also reported to the
I’ve also reported to the Lancashire Police (mainly last year) and I’ve no complaints about them either, unlike a certain regular commenter on here
Very good. How about an example with online video (nobody could claim that I haven’t provided more than enough examples of ignored offences myself) where Lancashire Constabulary action resulted in a significant penalty such as a fine and/ or points? Advice letters and words of advice don’t count. Driving course grudgingly accepted
I get your point. The
I get your point. The majority of my cases result in a NIP as well, I think.
I guess the problem that I, and many others have, is:
-inconsistency between forces, particularly noticeable when our rides cross the ‘borders’ between force areas.
-inconsistency within forces – so much depends on which officer reviews the footage, and not just for ‘borderline’ instances, but even some seemingly cut-and-dried offences get rejected.
-following from the previous point, a lack of knowledge of basic road law, the highway code, and a substantal dose of victim blaming and anti-cyclist prejudge amongst many officers, which is evident all too often.
-a police complaints system that doesn’t seek accountability and continuous improvement, but backside-covering and obfuscation.
-at times, as for Cycling Mikey, myself and others, outright lies from police about what action has been taken, which comes to light only with FoI requests and other means.
A lot of the process is good – but the process overall is nowhere good enough, for what should be a very easy win for the police in terms of crime detection and prosecution. And this is entirely a ‘cultural’ issue of too much anti-cyclist prejudice.
I live in Scotland.
I live in Scotland.
I see people reporting to their local police using the online portal and action being taken – whether it’s fines, points, course or even just a warning letter – and I’m jealous.
I’ve reported once. It was a driver with no insurance and a suspended licence. It took 3 hours in my local police station to report it. The officers were keen to take action but explained that altough they were the neares station to the incident it wasn’t in their area so they had to pass it to another station. I was given the details and told to phone. a few weeks later I phoned and was told the officer dealing with it wasn’t available right now and given his name – it was the name of one of the officers I’d reported the incident to. They’d done nothing.
My experience is fairly typical of Police Scotland.
The only was to report is in person at a police station or for them to visit you at home and take statement.
There are incidents where cyclist have been knocked off their bike and no action was taken. Or where drivers got out of their car and assaulted the cyclist – Police Scotland told the cyclist that his swearing was an offence.
I’m glad your experience is better.
I don’t entirely blame Police Scotland – and certanly not the officers who tried to help – apparently the law here is different and it’s harder to send out NIPs (and there’s no option for courses). So to some extent it’s the fault of politicians who have done nothing to change the law (that’s their job after all). Police Scotland were given funding to set up an online portal – they gave it back!
I do wonder how Scotland’s road safety compares to England.