- 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
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
UPDATED: Near Miss of the Day 464: Police take no action on punishment pass - despite vehicle's registered keeper refusing to disclose who was driving
Police have told a cyclist who submitted a video to them that we featured in our Near Miss of the Day series back in August that they will take no action, despite the registered keeper of the vehicle refusing to disclose the identity of the driver filmed making a very close punishment pass on a pair of cyclists riding two abreast.
While failure to disclose the identity of the driver is in itself an offence, Surrey Police explained to Andy, the cyclist who sent the footage to them, that it is the force's policy, "during the pandemic, not to prosecute persons for this, if this is a first offence, and there is no evidence to suggest that the keeper has failed to notify previously."
Here is their response to him in full.
The investigation has concluded.
The registered keeper of the vehicle was issued with a Notice of Intended prosecution and a s172 notice requiring them to disclose the driver at the time of the of the offence. This was sent to them on the 27th August 2020. They had 28 days in which to respond. Unfortunately, in this case the registered keeper has failed to respond. Whilst this is an offence, it is Surrey Police policy, during the pandemic, not to prosecute persons for this, if this is a first offence, and there is no evidence to suggest that the keeper has failed to notify previously.
There is no Crime Report to review, and as a member of the public, you are not entitled to review our investigation in to this incident.
Whilst we understand that this will be disappointing, because the registered keeper has been served with a Notice of Intended Prosecution, there is nothing preventing you from taking out a private prosecution. The statutory time limit for this incident runs out on the 25th February 2021.
Below is our original article, which first appeared on the site on 27 August 2020 but was subsequently unpublished at the request of police while they conducted their investigation.
The latest video in our Near Miss of the Day feature shows a driver carrying out a punishment pass on a pair of cyclists riding two abreast – the latter being something many motorists consider against the law, although it is entirely legal.
The clip was shot yesterday on Lingfield Common Road in Surrey by road.cc reader Andy while he was on a group ride.
He told us: “Absolutely no excuse for this behaviour which was almost certainly a punishment close pass against two cyclists legitimately riding two abreast and will be reported to Surrey Police.”
The version of the video above has no sound – if you want the other version, which includes some perfectly understandable high-decibel swearing, you’ll find it below.
> Near Miss of the Day turns 100 - Why do we do the feature and what have we learnt from it?
Over the years road.cc has reported on literally hundreds of close passes and near misses involving badly driven vehicles from every corner of the country – so many, in fact, that we’ve decided to turn the phenomenon into a regular feature on the site. One day hopefully we will run out of close passes and near misses to report on, but until that happy day arrives, Near Miss of the Day will keep rolling on.
If you’ve caught on camera a close encounter of the uncomfortable kind with another road user that you’d like to share with the wider cycling community please send it to us at info [at] road.cc or send us a message via the road.cc Facebook page.
If the video is on YouTube, please send us a link, if not we can add any footage you supply to our YouTube channel as an unlisted video (so it won't show up on searches).
Please also let us know whether you contacted the police and if so what their reaction was, as well as the reaction of the vehicle operator if it was a bus, lorry or van with company markings etc.
> What to do if you capture a near miss or close pass (or worse) on camera while cycling
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
- don simon fbpe 1 sec ago
What's wrong with dropping down on to the Millenium Bridge then the brief, but satisfying climb back up the hill? #training
- chrisonabike 39 min 32 sec ago
The relatives might of course disagree, but in general I'd countenance a relatively light sentence* if only we could fix it so that those who...
- ktache 1 hour 18 min ago
Id forgotten that I got a second hand set of project two's for my getting to work bike over twenty years back.
- eburtthebike 1 hour 43 min ago
I listened to the BBC R4 prog "Should cyclists stay in their lane" and it was pretty much what you'd expect from the BBC, a well-informed cyclist...
- Veganpotter 2 hours 15 min ago
My bet is that all these tires popping off are from people with bad pressure gauges or they're simply just putting too much air in on purpose. ...
- Hirsute 2 hours 38 min ago
You have to add images via a reply to yourself after the topic is created. One at a time too.
- Hirsute 2 hours 40 min ago
“Plus, riders who pair CarBack to their smartphone using the Trek Accessory app can enjoy even more features, including the ability to see the...
- chrisonabike 3 hours 31 min ago
David9694 - you were right! These new autonomous vehicles really are conspiring to run out of control!...
- HoarseMann 4 hours 2 min ago
Decathlon have the Garmin Varia RTL515 on offer at the moment for £129.99: https://www.decathlon.co.uk/p/rearview-radar-varia-rtl515-65-lumens/_/R-...
- Rendel Harris 5 hours 13 min ago
So when you said "all Jews" you didn't actually mean all Jews, just religious ones. However even that distinction is erroneous, as you must surely...
Add new comment
67 comments
Slowly progressing with this. After complaining and submitting a FoI request questioning their policy of not prosecuting for failure to respond to the NIP notice "if this is a first offence, and there is no evidence to suggest that the keeper has failed to notify previously" (a policy they now admit "does not exist"), Surrey Police have conceded that their initial response was badly worded and that they would indeed be proceeding. As such a second NIP/s172 notice has been issued and handed to the registered keeper in person.
Will post updates on the response from the keeper or Surrey Police if and when it happens
Regarding police databases. I know first hand that some forces are using really old out of date information, which probably they rely on initially before contacting the DVLA for current information.
I had to report an accident to the police. I quoted my car registration, the operator , read out the vehicle they had listed, it was my old car from 3 years ago 😲. I had transferred my registration to the newer one.
Is videographer the original victim? In any case, someone should keep going on this! Surrey Police are guilty and should be made to suffer for failing to prosecute a highly deserving, proven case.
I believe so as one of the two who have now left was calling them that down in the original posts and they have decided to own it.
Not the "victim" at the front, but it's my video and we're certainly not letting this drop easily. Currently we're waiting for a FOI request from Surrey Police to clarify if the "ignore if first offence" policy exists or not and if so how many notices have been ignored with no futher action taken. A complaint has also been made to the Police Commissioner. Not letting this drop easily
Not letting this drop easily
Great stuff! Well done. Keep going on behalf of all cyclists. The police thrive on people thinking 'can't be bothered' when confromted with the police wall of dodges, delay and misinformation. It was the use of FoI requests that enable me to say yet again that Lancashire Constabulary have never prosecuted anyone for close-passing alone. They may have done for close-passing where the cyclist is hit, but even then they would go through the routine of 'he didn't mean to do it' and 'it was only a momentary loss of concentration' first, to see if they can get away with it.
Let us know!
UPDATE: Surrey Police have responded to a Freedom of Information request stating that (with regard to the policy of not proceding with a prosecution of the registered keeper for failing to respond to a NIP/s172 Notice), that "there is no such policy".
The plot thickens... No prosection based upon a policy that does not exist?
That there is a reason for an IOPC police complaint - failure to adhere their own process.
It's like a game of fob-off poker. If you play your IOPC hand, they might find the NIP response down the back of the sofa.
Some of the police dodges have a lot of life left in them yet. The 'it was only a momentary loss of concentration' one works for almost anything, but I think their greatest hope at present is assigning a zero priority to prosecutions that they don't want to reach court- admittedly they have to prepare and send off the statements to join in the massive queue at the courts as they continue a Permanent Covid Paid Holiday, but the police are hoping none of the prosecutions come to anything because they run into some Statute of Limitations, or the police officers have all left for new jobs, etc. etc.
Cops refusal to take action, despite the overwhelming evidence of criminal dangerous driving at their disposal, and their engineered excuses (appearing as intent to mislead the vitims, not a 1st, as we are aware), certainly needs examination by a lawer, and the potential cops are intentionally aiding and abetting criminal driver excape justice scot-free, becoming a common feature of cops.
Then, you ask, why are these cops using such underhanded tactics favourable towards such drivers?
The suspicion maybe that the driver has some links with cops or co.
Then, you ask, why are these cops using such underhanded tactics favourable towards such drivers?
The suspicion maybe that the driver has some links with cops or co.
It appears that people do not appreciate the widespread abuse of such police tricks. Only yesterday I received from the police the following excuse:
The notice of intended prosecution for the vehicle, Holdex Lorry, was addressed incorrectly and not rectified within the time period allowed.
You can see the address below, written in huge type alongside the phone number on the back of the lorry SP12 CWY. It's just the same on the Holdex Plywood website. The previous dodge from the same officer was (despite them being reported online the day after the offences:
Vehicles on LC-20200618-0650 & LC-20200622-0057 were too close to the time limitations to process
That dodge enabled driver of large black Range Rover F2 YNY to evade prosecution or anything else for crashing through red lights at 50-60 mph, over 1.4 seconds after the lights changed to red. Even those dodges look reputable compared to the absolute winner, where Lancashire Constabulary dreamed up the unbelievable excuse that they needed confirmatory video from the offending vehicle (this is Grade AA video (all these films and letters are still available!) of a really gross crossing of the unbroken white line on a humpback bridge and having to swerve sharply back in front of me to avoid colliding with an oncoming car) and as APC Overnight said their dashcam 'wasn't working' (dear me, what a surprise!) LC said they couldn't even issue a warning to the driver, never mind prosecute.
Unfortunately, what we need to do is to raise a complaint every time that the police don't do their job competently. Complaints get measured on their stats whereas unhappy cyclists/people don't. When senior officers see a large number of complaints being raised for what should be a simple task of sending out a letter, then they're going to be motivated to fix it.
what we need to do is to raise a complaint
Well, I'm doing my bit! The LC complaint response, from a Detective Sergeant, shows how completely worthless is the LC Complaints system. It's even better than the original dodge- it repeats the original drivel about needing the APC video but the DS thinks he's covering himself by phrasing it as 'PC XX felt that the APC video was necessary'. It's not- even the HEVC compressed video shows everything clearly and it's almost perfect although I say it myself- GPS data all there. The DS goes on, referring to the near collision with the oncoming car, saying that it couldn't be traced. It's Ford ST04 LJK. You may think tracing that in North Lancashire can't be that hard. The DS knows that too, because he doesn't actually say it couldn't be traced- he wrote, with what he imagines to be the utmost cunning designed to fool the dim-witted members of the public, "the car was not traced". LC is really bent!
Sorry to hear that your complaints aren't being resolved to your satisfaction, but as long as we keep pushing, sooner or later they're going to figure out that it's easier and less work to just do their job properly first time round.
Or they'll just do what West Midlands Police did: Classify you as a witness instead of a victim; so they can dump the issue in the bin without investigating, and not update you since witnesses aren't entitled to crime updates under GDPR.
Or they'll just do what West Midlands Police did: Classify you as a witness
Lancashire hasn't formally applied this dodge to me yet, although they mostly just ignore cases anyway so it comes to the same thing. The advantage of the red light crashing campaign is that they can't claim it's 'not really an offence' like they do with the double white line crossing, handheld mobile phone use, close-passing. They tried the standard 'ignore' algorithm initially, but that enabled me to hit back with the fully illustrated letter to my MP. That then forced them into these 15 or so supposed prosecutions with statements and the full rigmarole, but the evolutionary arms race escalated into the 'massive Covid Go-Slow' dodge. You just have to persist.
Because they couldn't be arsed.
Of course, but they're a bit more calculating than that- always thinking ahead to the next dodge that will lead them to the Killer Dodge that works for everything!
Avon & Somerset do that as well (the witness part, not necessarily the bin part) so the next time I get that response I'll be raising a complaint. Hopefully that should provide an incentive for them to deal with close-passes with a bit more transparency.
"The car was not traced"
Because they couldn't be arsed.
post to twitter/facebook/local and national news whatever social platform. Make a formal complaint to the chief officer for the region asking why no further action when a driver fails to identify.
That offence is a slam dunk in the magistrates court.
Adds 'Because Pandemic' to the burgeoning list of reasons that certain Police forces are utter wank...
Time now for the Cyclists' Defence Fund to get on the offensive?
New one on me, this in the annals of police Regret letters : "there is nothing preventing you from taking out a private prosecution..."
MOT history looks pretty dire and there are outstanding recalls on this vehicle too.
Let's hope no-one else is around if they get the triple whammy of 'Loss of steering', 'Airbag fails to deploy' and 'Possible fuel leak' :
https://www.regit.cars/recalls/mazda-rx8
I don't know. I can live with the airbag failing to deploy in this particular case.....
There's also nothing stopping the police sending out a second NIP (they only need to have sent the first within 14 days, whether it gets lost in the post or ignored doesn't matter).
Just ignoring the first is a tactic a lot of people use - and you can see why!
Unfortunately, the police don't have to uphold the law. They can choose whether or not to do so using their 'discretion'. It's a poor state of affairs.
It is time that the punishment for "failure to notify" was that the keeper was deemed to be the driver and faces the charges for the behaviour of whoever was driving. I know there are probably many legal implications to stop this but I like simple black and white rules
I am convinced that some folk deliberatly fail to notify because they know the driving charge is a more serious offence and opt out for minimum punishment
Exactly.
I suspect a lot of the time it's "I know Jim was driving; I also know that Jim has xx points and any more will get him a ban. But I don't want the points either so I'll just say I don't know who was driving at the time...".
How do you not know who was driving your car?
Please explain how it wouldn't be a first offence if there was evidence to to suggest that the keeper has failed to notify previously.
Rubbish response. Now using Covid to justify "We really just can't be bothered with this", too.
The Surrey PCC was quick to claim credit for an uplift of 78 officers being funded this year to council tax payers in January. If they don't prosecute some motoring offences it's also telling that last week they got given a further £388k from Central Government to fund police overtime to enforce covid 19 guidelines in Surrey.
http://www.surrey-pcc.gov.uk/2020/10/pcc-welcomes-funding-boost-for-poli...
Hmm, looks like Andy needs to raise this with the Crime Commisioner AND his MP. Apart from people being off ill, why is Covid stopping them following up on this for?
I thought the not telling the Police who was driving is more of an offence then the actual driving although this is pretty bad twice.
throw in some Welsh litter and you've got thread drift here to all the ills in the world.
my first motorway drive in six months, to see my mother. Traffic "held up" by two cars making contact with each other and the crash barrier, plus everyone else easing-off to have a gawp. In the queue, a lane- changing reminder of how dog-eat-dog driving is.
Give people 4 lanes and they're all over the shop. Motorway lane changes - I can see the long red arrows at a shallow angle on the b&w image in the old Highway Code - but everyone now "lurches" out of a lane.
PS one of My Ipad adverts on here turns into a ghastly Jeep - it comes with privacy glass - lovely - and 12 months' job loss cover - so let me get this straight, you need your job to keep pace with the repayments but you think there's a risk of losing said job and so your next move is..?
Pages