A cyclist who raised a complaint with Kent Police after the force decided not to proceed against a van driver who cut across him at a junction has said he is “hugely disappointed” in their response which he believes sends the wrong message to vulnerable road users.
Kent Police contacted road.cc reader Adrian after we published details of the incident, including his video, on Tuesday.
In a statement sent to road.cc, the force said: “Kent Police received a report of an incident involving a cyclist and a van near Goodnestone, Canterbury on 16 June 2022. The report was reviewed and a decision was made that it would not be proportionate for any further action.
“The force endeavours to investigate proportionately and to take action where appropriate to do so. Decisions are based on the evidence available as well as the nature and severity of the potential offence. In instances when an allegation of this nature is not pursued the informant will not be contacted.
“We apologise for any confusion which may have arisen around the response to this particular incident and officers have since spoken to the informant to resolve the issue.”
Adrian told us: “I’m hugely disappointed that Kent Police have dismissed this incident despite clear video evidence of what I consider to be at best careless driving and at worst, dangerous driving.
“The van driver has attempted to overtake me going into a junction, close passing me within inches. If that doesn’t constitute an offence, I don’t know what does.
“The problem is the message this sends out to vulnerable road users,” he continued.
“The police should be doing everything they can to protect cyclists and pedestrians from the minority of drivers who see someone on a bike and have to get past them, regardless of the dangers.
“We need the police to protect us all, and uphold safety for everyone on our roads, if we’re going to encourage more people to travel actively.”
Below is the text of our story as published on Tuesday.
Kent Police weren’t interested in this Near Miss of the Day submission, according to the rider involved — who says he’s not even had an acknowledgement of the complaint.
road.cc has contacted the force to see if there’s a mystery excuse, but reader Adrian hasn’t heard anything back about this incident with the driver of a van one month on.
> Near Miss of the Day 800: Cyclist gets fourth close pass from same tipper truck firm
Adrian called the driving on display “appalling” and recalled the incident to us — and Kent Police in his complaint — which happened at the junction of Whitstable Road and Head Hill, near Goodnestone, at around 5.30pm on June 16.
“The van driver saw me indicate left and attempted to overtake me going into the junction,” he said.
“Fortunately, I am an experienced cyclist and was able to avoid a collision, although the vehicle passed me by a matter of a few inches.
“Despite assurances that any road traffic reports would be addressed within five days, a month has now passed and I have heard nothing. I can only assume this is because Kent Police has little regard for cyclists’ safety.”
The rider has made a formal complaint about the way the case has been handled “or more accurately, not handled by Kent Police”.
“Specifically, I would like to know on what grounds, given I have provided video evidence of the incident, did the force decide not to investigate?”
> 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@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
31 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 801 revisited: Cyclist “hugely disappointed” with police response which he says sends the wrong message”
I feel a weird camera angle
I feel a weird camera angle excuse coming on…..
(Genuinely curious as to how the camera was mounted though.)
I assume it’s a 360° camera
I assume it’s a 360° camera mounted under an out-front mount with a GoPro style adapter?
But I would tend to agree that the camera angle(s) doesn’t make it look “that” bad (not saying it wasn’t bad btw).
Had to look it up on street
Had to look it up on street view as the camera angle makes the road look massively wide, unsurprisingly it’s not…
https://goo.gl/maps/6PjBVJtv84Zs4AdZA
HoarseMann wrote:
Since 360° cameras are transforming the field of view of two back to back camera to achieve the 360° field, in the knowledge of that field of view, there must be some error at the extremes. The side view must be that extreme for front/rear camera orientation.
I wonder how many 360° camera prototypes are tested for distortion of the image?
Obviously any quantity camera lens is expected not to distort the image…
Presumably that becomes a mandatory requirement for evidence gathering. I don’t recall any mention of that within any action camera specifications.
lonpfrb wrote:
I wonder how many 360° camera prototypes are tested for distortion of the image?
Obviously any quantity camera lens is expected not to distort the image…
Presumably that becomes a mandatory requirement for evidence gathering. I don’t recall any mention of that within any action camera specifications.— lonpfrb
It’s likely a question of how much distortion.
Most cam footage is a bit lop-sided, shaky and or blurry, but it suffices to show that a close pass has happened and identify the number plate. As long as you can get a couple of decent selections of footage from the 360 cams, then I don’t see that a bit of distortion at the edges is going to matter. It’d be more important for camera stills, but with video it’s much easier to spot.
If you cast an eye over the various NMOTD videos, I doubt that there’s any of those where distortion would call the evidence into doubt.
It’s likely a question of how
It’s likely a question of how much distortion
Yes, those loveable, zany and incorruptible guys at Lancashire Constabulary were forced to reluctantly fail to respond at all or to take any action over this because of the distortion introduced by the extreme closeness of this Stagecoach Route 41 bus on the image, which looks suspiciously like all the other close pass images with Stagecoach buses on them
Such as this one- I admit
Such as this one- I admit this is a 40 bus, but it’s at the same bit of road travelling in the same direction, and received the same complete lack of attention from Lancashire Constabulary
hawkinspeter wrote:
“The force endeavours to investigate proportionately and to take action where appropriate to do so. Decisions are based on the evidence available as well as the nature and severity of the potential offence.”
Adrian told us: “I’m hugely disappointed that Kent Police have dismissed this incident despite clear video evidence of what I consider to be at best careless driving and at worst, dangerous driving.”
So Kent Police don’t see evidence of a close pass due to the spacial distortion of the field of view.
Adrian believes that he provided “clear video evidence”.
So quality of evidence is what they disagree on. Adrian has the real world experience to recognise the close pass, but Kent Police only have the evidence that doesn’t appear to show a close pass due to spacial distortion that is a potential feature of 360° cameras.
The quantity of those videos using a 360° camera is very small so that it is not a general problem. However as 360° cameras become more common it will be another reason for No Further Action, unless purchasers have the information to differentiate between the cameras on offer, and their spacial distortion of the field of view.
Like much innovation, new is not better until it is at least as capable as what came before, especially fit for purpose: evidence. Spacial distortion is not acceptable to the police.
Living in Kent but cycling
Living in Kent but cycling through Kent, London, Surrey etc. I have given up reporting anything to Kent Police. Generally no response (you cannot upload footage directly, they need to request it after a report…) and despite complaints they are uninterested in doing any more. Other surrounding councils (MET) have generally been better but in recent times actions seem to be dropping.
Generally no response … and
Generally no response … and despite complaints they are uninterested in doing any more
Standard tactic of the duff police forces
SouthEastCyclistDogma wrote:
Kent PCC has development of a camera upload application in the budget for 2022 so hopefully that will be along shortly..
Mind how you go..
I have a nice little snippet
I have a nice little snippet of a late pass on us by a jam sandwich and the oncoming lady driver in an Audi Q5 who was forced to a halt looking completely baffled by the experience.
Meanwhile, silence from WMP on my obnoxious van driver who was in such a hurry a “Whoa!’ of surprise was enough to bring them to a halt and get a foul-mouthed rant.
My other capture today was the driver who about 10 years ago shouted at me “I’ll run you off the f***ing road if I want to.” Not forgiven yet! Golden rule of being a nightmare driver – ditch the personalised plates, B3 WBA, white Disco.
IanMSpencer wrote:
I hope you are going to prove to him that Karma is a bitch? And Revenge is a dish best served cold?
Unfortunately this time he
Unfortunately this time he was just driving properly, but it fascinated me that it was recognisably the same driver – the interaction made quite an impression, if only because he was so busy being obnoxious he nearly collided with a combine harvester – indeed I’ve often wondered if I hadn’t looked at it in anticipation whether the driver would have turned and looked in time. I know roughly where he lives and unfortunately it is on our patch so I’ve seen him a handful of times over the years.
I sometimes wonder why
I sometimes wonder why indicating left has much purpose. It seems to invite this kind of thing from drivers of vehicles ahead for no apparent increase in safety for the cyclist.
Drivers behind might be more inclined to wait than risk a close pass – but they often seem to see a left turn signal as a green light to overtake, at whatever speed / distance they can get away with.
Anyone have thoughts on this?
Moved to Melbourne Aus’ and
Moved to Melbourne Aus’ and in this State road rules don’t require cyclists to signal a left turn and because it seems to encourage poorly thought out manoevres I now often don’t bother…I will if a driver is patiently waiting to pull out and would miss the opportunity…as to what would happen in this type of situation with a less experienced cyclist pretty sure the answer is they become just another KSI stat…
TheBillder wrote:
I don’t bother indicating left at certain junctions for this reason.
hawkinspeter wrote:
+1
Going to be hard to get any
Going to be hard to get any action on that. Looks like the van doesn’t come within a metre of the bike due to the camera being used.
mctrials23 wrote:
They also slowed down and kept their distance. I don’t think this qualifies as a near miss based on the video evidence alone.
I honestly think the camera
I honestly think the camera angle and field of view has made that look far less serious than it probably was, promting the lack of action. My local force have recently made comments on a couple of my submissions about finding it hard to judge distances with the helmet mounted camera I use. I can pretty much guarantee they wouldn’t proceed with footage like that either. They also insist on unedited footage, and having to process a 360 view into a ‘normal’ one that shows the incident would presumably count as editing.
Thing is the rozzers aren’t
Thing is the rozzers aren’t going to be clever enough to detect that kind of editing so I think you are ok.
Dicklexic wrote:
If I were you, I’d submit the 360 and the normal view so they can easily watch the “edited” view and can always verify it if there’s any discrepancy.
I’d interpret “editing” as changing the content or timeline of events. When I submit footage, I usually have to splice two files together and then cut at 2 minutes before and after and I don’t consider that to be editing even though I use a video editor to do it.
A scottish chap posted some
A scottish chap posted some 360 videos on here a couple of years ago and asked which view he should submit to the police. I felt the answer was none, as the view was too distorted and it would be an easy evidential out for the defence.
(I also recall within a few hours he was trolled by someone he’d had a run in with in a separate incident – how do they find these threads so quickly ?)
hirsute wrote:
Personally, I wouldn’t consider that removing distortion is necessarily editing (though technically it is). If a video is upside down, then inverting it doesn’t change the nature of the content but just makes it more convenient to watch. Similarly, selecting a couple of views (straight ahead and to the rear) from a 360 video is just making the content easier to consume without changing the nature of what is depicted.
The problem I recall was the
The problem I recall was the shape of the car was distorted so to claim a close pass was more difficult as you could argue the 360 view shows it closer than it is.
I’d hope that anyone watching a video upside down and whose job it is to assess it they would find the rotation setting ! Although under Northants (?) OpSnap it did say for one NFA – video upside down :facepalm:
The rider has made a formal
The rider has made a formal complaint about the way the case has been handled “or more accurately, not handled by Kent Police”. “Specifically, I would like to know on what grounds, given I have provided video evidence of the incident, did the force decide not to investigate?”
You are doomed to disappointment. This is a standard Bad Cops tactic- chances are, they simply won’t respond to your complaint
My local force have recently made comments on a couple of my submissions about finding it hard to judge distances with the helmet mounted camera I use
Another standard tactic. Whatever camera you have, whatever mounting point, whatever field of view- they will find the evidence insufficient. They insist on whatever it is you don’t have. If they had overhead drone footage, they would complain about the absence of verifiable absolutely accurate data on the height of the drone.
Kent Police weren’t
Kent Police weren’t interested in this Near Miss of the Day submission, according to the rider involved — who says he’s not even had an acknowledgement of the complaint
Kent Police are novices at this ‘cowardly cyclists can get stuffed- we’re not replying to any evidence they send’ game. Lancashire Constabulary is way ahead- I know 100% they won’t respond to this, and will take no action. I know Lancashire PCC won’t reply to complaints about LC inaction- however, all these incidents are being counted! This is Stagecoach Route 41 Preston to Lancaster overtaking in the Stagecoach approved manner
There must be someone within
There must be someone within Lancashire police who actually acts on video reports as this video shows red light jumpers, close passers, insurance dodgers and dangerous overtakers being prosecuted.
Dangerous Lancashire drivers caught on dashcam leading to hundreds of prosecutions
https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/dangerous-lancashire-drivers-caught-dashcam-24538844
Do you think it could be worth contacting one of the officers quoted in the article directly to call out the seeming hypocrisy in calling for submissions then consistently ignoring them?
Adrian’s experience with this
Adrian’s experience with this submission is similar to my own recent experiences of reporting bad driving to Kent Police. Up to March of this year, Kent Police did a reasonable job of following up my online reports, requesting video footage in 100% of cases (note: you can’t submit the video up front, so the initial report of the incident is written only). Most cases ultimately resulted in “written advice to the driver” (I’ve had only one case that resulted in a driver awareness course), but at least that’s better than no follow-up at all. But all four of the reports I’ve submitted since March have received no follow-up at all – i.e. no request to even see the video footage. This seemed odd, as the incidents weren’t of lesser seriousness than my previous reports, so I pressed for an explanation and received the following:
My conclusion is that their policy changed early this year, such that they are no longer interested in pursuing drivers who commit close-passes or other forms of dangerous driving, unless an injury-causing collision occurs.
I had one of these yesterday.
I had one of these yesterday. Instant Karma as the driver took the turn too fast and curbed his front left. Gave me a laugh.