While this latest instalment in our Near Miss of the Day series is far from the most dramatic incident we’ve had submitted to us over the years, the clip – thanks in so small part to the vitriol aimed in the cyclist’s direction by a motorist clearly unhappy at being forced to give way to someone on a bike – nonetheless highlights the often depressing reality of cycling on British roads.
Meanwhile, the cyclist’s experience of dealing with local police forces (spoiler – it’s not great) also emphasises the need for greater resources and will to tackle dangerous and careless driving around cyclists.
The incident, which took place on St Paul’s Hill in Winchester, Hampshire on Thursday evening, saw road.cc reader Nick approach a bin lorry as he made his way up the slope. After slowing to give way to a number of motorists, Nick eventually makes his way between the bin lorry and the row of parked cars on the other side of the road, just as another oncoming driver approaches.
Evidently irked by the need to brake to avoid hitting a person riding a bike, the driver leans out of his car window as Nick passes, telling the cyclist in no uncertain terms to “get off the f***ing road” – an unprompted diatribe that prompts the clearly startled rider to respond: “You’re on camera!”
Nick, who described the encounter as “typical for many cyclists”, has reported the incident to Hampshire Constabulary, through the force’s Hants SNAP reporting portal.
However, he told road.cc that, based on his previous experience of reporting incidents to Hampshire Constabulary, the chances of a follow up are “approaching zero” – despite the county frequently featuring high in the list of UK areas when it comes to the number of road incidents involving cyclists (in 2019, for example, ten percent of the country’s cycling incidents occurred in Hampshire).
“In all the years of close passes, I’ve never had one follow up, and I’ve had several incidents on this stretch of road,” Nick says.
“I cycle into town – around 10 mins – in Winchester to shop or go to the sports centre, several times each week, and I reckon I have an average of one close pass-type incident every 10 minutes, so two a journey.
“Rural roads are dangerous too, and there’s been lots of horrendous footage I’ve submitted, but never acted upon. I cycled daily in London for my commute for about 25 years, before all the bike lanes, but as per many friends, I feel Winchester is far more dangerous.”
> Hampshire Police stop 20 drivers and 185 cyclists during close pass operation
He continued: “We have an under-funded local group of cops, who obviously don’t have the resources to deal with this, unless it results in injury of fatality. of which there have been some recently.
“I’ve previously requested close pass data from Hants Road Police, who refused this – under a Freedom of Information request – on the basis of time, cost, and resources. I suspect very little action is taken.
“Do British police forces consider cyclists as legitimate road kill?”
> 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 Twitter or 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
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
75 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 876: Oncoming driver tells cyclist to “get off the f***ing road”, as rider blasts police inaction”
Well, at least it has a valid
Well, at least it has a valid MoT. Driver should be taken off the road and re-educated about other peoples’ rights to use the road. Prime gammon if ever I saw it.
Mercedes driver, along with
Mercedes driver, along with BMW and Audi drivers, what more do you expect? They own the road and everyone else is road lice.
Biker Phil wrote:
I drive a BMW…. my sixth one…. my previous car was a Merc and I would just like to say I resemble that remark!
I’m not at all clear whether
I’m not at all clear whether this was an autocorrect from “I resent that remark” or not.
Nope.
Nope.
Its a joke which worked very well over on the Guardian website.
And yes, I do like to recycle stuff.
The driver is clearly
The driver is clearly entitled and unpleasant, but I’m not sure that he committed a road traffic offence.
Agreed – best to just laugh
Agreed – best to just laugh at poor little saps like this and carry on
AidanR wrote:
I’ve seen something about the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which prohibits aggression at the wheel. Swearing at another road user is clearly not considerate driving and if you were to do that in a driving test, would it be an instant fail?
Where in the Crime and
Where in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is that? Happy to be corrected, but I can’t see it anywhere.
You can fail your driving test for all manner of things that aren’t road traffic offences.
And if you can honestly say that you’ve never sworn at another road user I’ll buy you a beer.
AidanR wrote:
I had a quick look and couldn’t find it in the Act, though I only looked very briefly as they’re not very thrilling.
I got that nugget from various articles:
https://www.allcarleasing.co.uk/blog/road-rage/
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/uk-news/driving-law-fine-points-license-24765345
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/19270139.drivers-uk-face-1-000-fine-swearing-road/
Driving in a manner that is below the minimum standard of passing a driving test, should be acted on, even if it’s not a specific traffic offence. e.g. if a driver was to fire a shotgun whilst driving, then I’d consider that to be something that the police should action even though it’s not a traffic offence – arguably it’s inconsiderate to other road users.
I’ve most definitely sworn at other road users, though in my defence it’s been mainly an autonomous reaction to having my life endangered and a sudden rush of adrenaline. I consider it vastly different for an armoured road user to create a situation and then abuse a vulnerable road user for no discernable reason other than being a self-entitled bully.
The swearing-whilst-driving
The swearing-whilst-driving thing seems to be disorderly conduct, which applies to anyone in a public place and is not specific to driving or roads. The CPS give an example of “Persistently shouting abuse or obscenities at passers-by.”
Discharging a shotgun is, I imagine, an offense in itself and so I’m not sure it’s the best example. I failed my first driving test for rolling slightly too far forwards when waiting for a break in order to turn right into a side road, resulting in me having to stop and reverse a little before carrying on. Poor driving certainly, but I wouldn’t expect to be prosecuted for it.
The point here is that, yes, the driver in question was undoubtedly unpleasant but I don’t think that he actually committed an offence (unless he was persistently shouting obscenities).
AidanR wrote:
Well, I wouldn’t want a driver to face prosecution for rolling slightly too far forwards, but shouting obscenities is clearly inconsiderate driving. There’s also the argument that if it causes the recipient to feel afraid for their safety (which is entirely reasonable when you have an unhinged individual in control of at least a tonne of metal), then it counts as an assault.
I would expect police to treat it seriously and turn up at the driver’s house to give them a warning that it’s unacceptable behaviour.
We’ve seen cyclists have
We’ve seen cyclists have their reports ignored because they shout nasty things like “You’re on camera!”, “Look out!” or “Please no, I have family!” but I’ve never heard of a report being ignored because the cyclist spat at them.
Food for thought.
Spitting might not get the
Spitting might not get the result you would hope for.
The person doing the spitting is likely to end up with an assault charge, which will probably trump any potential charge against the driver.
Q145 … https://www.askthe.police.uk/view-category/?id=e9fb8a15-6ad2-eb11-bacb-000d3ad57443#:~:text=In%20most%20cases%2C%20spitting%20at,spat%20at%20another%20person%20nearby.
Institutionally anti-cyclist
Institutionally anti-cyclist
Ugh, gammon.
Ugh, gammon.
BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP wrote:
Should we start carrying a tin of pineapple chunks for use when the occasion arises?
I prefer an egg on mine
I prefer an egg on mine
HoarseMann wrote:
Heretic.
They drive straight at you
They drive straight at you when the obstruction is on your side of the road.
They drive straight at you when the obstruction is on their side of the road.
True. But on this one, it
True. But on this one, it looked like Mr Gammon did slow – a bit late, so a bit close, and the verbalage was uncalled for, but IMO it wasn’t actually dangerous.
I read the article before watching the clip, and I had expected that the bin lorry was going to be on the other side of the road (doesn’t really matter for priority on this occasion, though, since the cyclist was “established” in the lane).
If I ran with a camera, I wouldn’t have reported this to the police. YMMV.
I wouldn’t have reported it,
I wouldn’t have reported it, because it happens so often. But you just know that had the cyclist been driving a silver mercedes, the oncoming driver would not have made a scene like that.
brooksby wrote:
I would definitely report that. There’s no need for aggression and bullying vulnerable road users. It’s behaviour like that that dissuades people from cycling and there’s simply no need for it.
That was a gimme. His road
That was a gimme. His road position on approach to the cyclist was aggressive.
I would’ve emptied my right nostril all over his angry face. A sort of “money shot”. But better.
Always keep a bit in reserve.
OK here we go. It would have
OK here we go. It would have been better if the motorist hadn’t been rude to the cyclist and he probably could have been going a bit slower around a blind bend but it’s up to the cyclist to get past the lorry before any omcoming car arrives. I’m afraid I would have thanked the driver for slowing down and apologised. It really pisses me off when drivers do what the cyclist did here to me when I’m cycling.
As for the police, I agree 100% that their response to submitted video footage is not usually helpful but this is a poor example to use to demonstrate that.
Bungle_52 wrote:
That’s not quite true. What the highway code says about this scenario, is you should give way to oncoming vehicles before beginning the overtake. If there’s nobody immediately visible to give way to, then once you are passing, it’s just a narrow bit of road. If an oncoming vehicle appears, they have no more right to that space than you – even if they might think it’s ‘their side of the road’.
Now in this case, the vehicle looks to have turned out of a side road just as the cyclist begins to pass the lorry. When the cyclist began the move, the vehicle was travelling slowly and there was plenty of time. However, the merc driver puts his foot down and accelerates towards the cyclist. Should the cyclist have anticipated this acceleration? Well perhaps they should, but at the point when they made the overtake the vehicle was travelling at a speed that didn’t require them to give way. The acceleration of the car caused the issue.
Fair point. I hadn’t noticed
Fair point. I hadn’t noticed the acceleration but as far as I can see the car was visible as the cyclist sets off so I still think it’s not the best example to use for police inaction.
it’s not the best example to
it’s not the best example to use for police inaction
Doesn’t really matter if it’s not the best, as there is a virtually infinite supply of examples of police inaction which leads to the same offences being repeated over and over again at the same location
https://upride.cc/incident/po18osk_vwtransporter_closepass/ 5.9.23
https://upride.cc/incident/g6noope10zvf_vwaudi_veryclosepass/ 10.11.19
Bungle_52 wrote:
In terms of traffic law, then yep, it’s here-nor-there. It’s the bullying and abuse that’s worse. Imagine if you walked into a supermarket carrying a baseball bat and told someone to get the f* out of the way. It just seems acceptable behaviour on the roads, but it wouldn’t be tolerated anywhere else.
I’m the cyclist involved, and
I’m the cyclist involved, and your description is correct – and appreciate your response, above. I’d (properly) given way, and traffic was building behind behind me in that waiting position on the hill. I know, from experience, on this stretch of road that cars will shoot past, so I looked behind, then ahead and pulled out, just as the car came off the mini-roundabout ahead.
The reason I posted this was because it’s so *unexceptional* to get abuse and hassle even on short journeys. Or the rate of abuse/bad driving per metre is high and routine.
Even if I should have waited longer (moot point, didn’t see the car until I was moving forward, having checked behind), I still have priority on the hill, and there’s no excuse for the aggro. If the guy had slowed down, I’d have acknowledged this, but he accelerated. More to the point, there were two bin men behind that lorry. The angry driver’s brain is (as per using mobile phones), now not working properly for the next 30 secs. He could easily have accelerated off into those guys, emerging from behind the lorry!
I’d also make the point that whilst the comment you replied to and a couple of others are that we should accept and normalise this as ‘meh’, we wouldn’t if we were cycling in, say, Denmark. When events like this link below don’t even end in prosecution (a friend cycling in Yorkshire), when and where should the police start to act. Seems to me not from the worst (though that would be a start) but from the normalised that we cyclists accept, but shouldn’t… https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-806-driver-reverses-cyclist-and-runs-over-dog-294737
Here’s another close pass (common) on the same stretch of road, that the police didn’t act upon when I reported it via HantsWeb. Hants Police refuse to disclose how many close pass prosecutions they bring (or sucess of such): https://x.com/nicktweet/status/1549357228691529729?s=20
We all have these places
We all have these places where we regularly get close passed, bullied out the way or abuse shouted. There’s a short section of the A-road through our town that’s always a problem area for me.
I recently submitted three reports to the police, just on this particular stretch, of the sort of dodgy driving I experience. The response to one of these was a bit of a snotty reply that the driver ‘did their best’, that it ‘wasn’t a bend’ (it is) and I’d held them up for a ‘considerable length of time’ (50 seconds – at 12mph, in a street I wouldn’t drive much faster in anyway). They said as it wasn’t a bend (it is), my evidence was not credible. The other reports I’ve heard nothing.
But even if all those reports were acted upon, I don’t think it would solve the problem. So, I’ve taken to being even more assertive with road positioning there and occassionally using the pavement and/or the pedestrian crossing lights to make things safer for me. Raising the issue with the council might be a better use of time than sending reports to the police in this particular instance.
As for the priority uphill, I don’t think this would apply in your case. It’s rule 155 and is particular to single track roads.
I’ve long copied the Council
I’ve long copied the Council in. And cycling on the pavement then becomes a ‘cyclists!’. Also, the bin men were there. I take your point about the letter of the law. My point is we accept too low a threshold for normal. The Police need to work on this from both ends, imho.
Hey Nick, like the photo. Are you Jason Wyngarde in disguise?
.
Flintshire Boy wrote:
That was my thought too when I saw it
Indeed!
Indeed!
HoarseMann wrote:
Ah. In which case perhaps I owe an apology to the driver I lambasted for steaming downhill towards me here.
quiff wrote:
Yes, it wouldn’t apply there either. If the obstruction was on your side, you would still have to yield before passing it, even though you are going uphill. If there’s obstructions on both sides then courtesy says you let the cyclist through (I’d do so whether going up or downhill in a car), but there’s no actual defined priority as such.
Bungle_52 wrote:
Utter garbage, you’re so wrong here I’ll suggest you’re a troll. I suggest you re-read the Highway Code and educate yourself. Particularly WRT to rule 167.
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example <snip> when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down
The cyclist had priority as its first come first serve. He started the overtake first – he gets to complete it without being abuses or a vehicle being used as a weapon.
Errr – Bungle is not a troll
Errr – Bungle is not a troll and has had provided a few NMOTD episodes too.
.
.
Jeeze, calm down. Bike Fascist has to spoil a reasonable discussion.
.
Flintshire Boy wrote:
.
You, of course
.
Being the exemplar
.
Of someone
.
Who never chucks crap
.
Into a reasonable discussion
.
In these parts.
I think I must have
I think I must have misunderstood the video. It seems to me that it is the cyclist who is overtaking, the car seems to be on their own side of the road at all times. It seems to me that the cyclist is forcing the driver to slow down not the other way round.
I fully accept that I missed the deliberate acceleration of the car prior to it’s braking, difficult to see from the video I think, and I am certainly not excusing the driver for their use of langauage. My point was simply that there are much better examples of poor driving around cyclists to demonstrate that the police are not doing their job than this one. If we want the police to act then it seems to me that we need to be obeying the highway code 100%, otherwise any half decent defence lawyer can make a case for dismissing any charge the police may bring if the driver chooses to go to court.
In this case I think that the cyclist is complainig about the driver accelerating at him and then braking and swearing at him when, obviously, the driver should have slowed to allow the cyclist to pass and kept quiet. A fair point and once again I hold my hands up for not realising that the driver accelerated first.
I also disagree with this concept of first come first served, or to put it another way, the cyclist was “established”. I can find no mention of this in the highway code other than it stating that any road user should avoid a collision if at all possible. That of course gives an excuse to the bullying behaviour which drivers exhibit when they overtake parked cars and force cyclists to slow down, sometimes quite sharply, or even to have to swerve, to avoid a collision.
I have explained my view of the incident and apologised for not recognising the acceleration. If that makes me a troll so be it.
I am really confused as to
I am really confused as to where this Mercedes has come from. As the car in front moves past the cyclist and the cyclist pulls round the bin lorry, you can see the driver’s side of the Mercedes in the distance – suggesting it has turned right onto the road at the roundabout.
If I reverse the footage back a few frames and look between the car and the bin lorry – I don’t see the Mercedes moving from left to right – it just appears once the car moves past the cyclist.
I think the silver car comes
I think the silver car comes from the road which is the second exit to the mini roundabout from the cyclists point of view. It is just visible in the video as the cyclist sets off to overtake the bin lorry. If I am right it would have effectively been turning left or taking the first exit off the mini roundabout from their point of view. It would therefore not be going from left to right and would only appear as it rounds the bend and passes the parked cars. The car that follows the silver car comes from the same road.
Except we can see the drivers
Except we can see the drivers side of the car – not sure how we could see that side if it was coming from (to the cyclist) a right hand bend?
meh – i’m probably reading too much into it. First glance, I thought he had reversed onto the roundabout from another exit – but there is just solid wall there!
This one is pretty simple:
This one is pretty simple: the cyclist was not at fault, the driver is a standard nutter, the police will do nothing at all because his report was directed straight into the bin. As far as the police are concerned, the only value of recorded swearing is when it’s from the cyclist and they seize upon it as an excuse for doing nothing. If swearing as unjustified as this example issues from a motorist, it’s rather like passing traffic lights at red, crossing unbroken white lines, or not having MOT- unimportant because ‘everybody does it’.
The routine close-passing in North Lancashire has not lessened and is probably becoming more common and is at least as severe as ever. The campaigns against it are having no effect, and the main reason for that is hostility towards cyclists from the police at the same time as their determination that motorists must not be inconvenienced or penalised for offences. This is easily-traceable DX65 UCT with no MOT for 7 1/2 months. “You can be fined up to £1000 for driving without a valid MOT“! Ho! Ho! Not in Lancashire you can’t- as long as you make the requisite arrangement with your friendly and obliging local force (vehicle first detected and reported by me on 19th April- you can’t get more obliging than that)
I’d have blown him a kiss,
I’d have blown him a kiss, properly tipped him over the edge.
Unfortunately, the country seems to be inundated with a plethora of these gammony, middle class twits.
It seems to this middle class
It seems to this middle class twit that the angry man is a working class twit.
It seems to this middle class
It seems to this middle class twit that the angry man is a working class twit
I agree- I suspect him of being a loadsamoney Tory of working class origin
Pfft…..
Pfft…..
Up ‘ere in the Midlands, he’d definitely be middle class.
How on earth can you be working class, living in Winchester?
Isn’t it even more expensive than Cambridge to get a mortgage based upon local income?
Up ‘ere in the Midlands, he’d
Up ‘ere in the Midlands, he’d definitely be middle class
Well, way down there in t’ Midlands that may be true, depending on the definition of class, but the loadsamoney Tories in big cars have blurred that definition.
We all see plenty of angry
We all see plenty of angry men out on our rides. If only they realised cycling virtues. The endorphins. Scenery. Dopamine. They’d be right as rain.
Fignon’s ghost wrote:
Hmm… sure we get in our big cars (or on streamlined bikes / into sleek threads) to feel better about ourselves; but I think those raised on conflict also do so because they’re seeking to recreate familiar situations.
Take an aggressive motorist with a short fuse and put them on a bike – hey presto, an aggressive cyclist with a short fuse. While that’s welcome as “harm reduction” (if only they didn’t alternate with driving) it’s a recipe for those “TdF wannabes” and “entitled cyclists” we keep reading about.
Psychotherapy would be more effective than cycle-therapy. (Combining both of course would be ideal.)
chrisonatrike wrote:
I’m not so sure. Something seems to turn perfectly reasonable humans into raving lunatics when they get behind the steering wheel.
I can only reply from my
I can only reply from my point for view, but for me, its the BMW badge I have in the middle of my steering wheel.
I would have put my hand up
I would have put my hand up to protect myself from the oncoming wing mirror, and then invited the driver to call the police. Guaranteed to upset.
This has just dropped in my
This has just dropped in my inbox regarding a close pass incident reported in June. Sometimes action is taken, but this is quite rare. It’s also just one driver out of the many bad ones I encounter daily and I can’t report them all.
Is that suitable to the
Is that suitable to the offence ?
Yes, I think this is a good
Yes, I think this is a good outcome. It didn’t seem malicious, just completely oblivious, so a course is probably the best approach.
It might be NMOTD worthy, but what the police will take action over is a bit of a lottery. I’ve had what I would consider worse behaviour (excessive horn use and actually swerving to try and knock me off), dismissed as they were ‘just notifying me of their presence’ and were given ‘words of advice’. So nothing can really be used as a benchmark.
As for Lancs, their misuse/misinterpretation of GDPR is a scandal.
Brilliant. Well done and
Brilliant. Well done and thanks. I know how time consuming, energy sapping and demoralising making reports to the police can be. Hopefully the driver will learn from the course and spread the news to their family and friends.
Is there any chance of getting the video on NMOTD so we can see what the police (sorry, your particular police force) will take action over?
I have thought of putting
I have thought of putting together a compilation of my handful of successful reports. Only one of them went to court – hooting at cyclist, using wrong lane to make progress, intimidating another cyclist (me) but then (and personally I think this was the clincher for prosecution) distractedly rolled through a zebra crossing while a ped was crossing.
Bungle_52 wrote:
Well, I’d be quite up for reporting every single one, even given the time it takes. The reason I say ‘I can’t’ do so, is because I just don’t think the police could cope with the quantity of submissions.
I had a recent spate of bad passes, so I thought I’d report them too (about 4). Got a bit of a rebuttal letter back saying my evidence wasn’t good enough and contradictory regarding the first one. Haven’t heard anything about the others.
So, I’m now saving police reports for the absolute worst, butt clenching incidents. The rest I’m back to confronting the driver and shaming on social media. Not ideal, but doing nothing is not ideal either.
This has just dropped in my
This has just dropped in my inbox regarding a close pass incident reported in June. Sometimes action is taken, but this is quite rare
This is outrageous! According to Lancashire Constabulary and the Information Commissioner in a case at the Information Tribunal, it is illegal for [insert name of Localfilth here] to give out this information to you, as you know the vehicle registration of the offender and the outcome of the case is therefore Personal Information. I trust you will be reporting the Constabulary for prosecution by the Commissioner!
PS Please do us all a favour and put a still of the close-passer on here, with the registration clearly visible and the name of the offending force so that this lamentable breach of GDPR may be punished appropriately. As a reminder, this is the offence which Lancashire Constabulary promised would be punished, but later refused to disclose what the punishment was- probably because there wasn’t any
https://upride.cc/incident/4148vz_travellerschoicecoach_closepass/
Why might you want to bring
Why might you want to bring that to the attention of your insurers?
quiff wrote:
Standard template reply, it said RE: your incident/collision further up the page, didn’t apply in my case. I guess if it were a collision, it’s so that your insurers can argue no fault with the 3rd party insurers.
May I repeat my request below
May I repeat my request below?:
Please do us all a favour and put a still of the close-passer on here, with the registration clearly visible and the name of the offending force.
The idea is to use this, the registration and the email from your police force in my evidence to the Information Tribunal, along with all the declarations the Met. has made to Cycling Mikey about the actions taken against identifiable motorists following offences. The refusal from Lancashire Constabulary, to state which of the options they provided indicating the action they would take against the driver of the Travellers Choice coach, is very likely to cover up the embarrassing fact that they lied and did nothing at all. The support for the refusal from the Information Commissioner is simply his default position of trying to restrict the Freedom of Information
wtjs wrote:
I can do better than that. Here’s Northants system – they make all data public regarding prosecution outcomes. If you look at the ‘concluded offences’ spreadsheets, you will see under the ‘camera description’ column the occasional ‘dashcam’ – which are the public submitted offences via OpSnap. The time, date and location can be correlated with the outcome.
https://www.northantspas.com/PAWeb/Public/Content/16
Excellent- this is just the
Excellent HM- this is just the job, as it includes not only actual prosecutions, but people who went on courses etc. However, it would greatly help me if you could answer some short questions below! Thanks! Here is your special Bonus Content in return. Burning Desires is on the A6 about half a mile from Preston Police Station. F1 BDL has had no MOT since 14.4.23, and was first detected and reported in early August. However, Lancashire Constabulary is so busy fighting for the right to refuse to tell victims what they did about offences (=nothing, probably) to bother with unimportant matters like offences. I think we should all have the right to self-certify our MOTs, not just the habitual offenders.
Filtering on ‘Dashcam’ as you stated shows that 1-2% of listed offences arise from Dashcam reports. I note that Dashcam apparently only shows up on the ‘Completed Offence’ files. Is this correct? This suggests they’re maintaining a separate spreadsheet for Dashcam (annoying term!) Reports, and only amalgamating them at the ‘Completed Stage’. This interpretation is supported by the absence (as far as I can tell) of any ‘Advice Letter’ outcome, which suggests to me that anything which merits only an advice letter is not deemed to have been an offence. Is that how you see it? This is the sort of thing which might come up at court- LancsRozzer would say: look! Northants. doesn’t say anything about advice letters either etc.
In Lancashire, for the Dashcam type, nearly all admitted outcomes would be advice letters- excepting the outcome ‘we didn’t have sufficient time/ staff/ resources to even look at these’ which they would have to hide as something else. They wouldn’t want people filtering the sheet and seeing swathes of ‘out of time’., so they solve the problem by not telling anybody anything. Where do you think all the ‘advice letters’ are in Northamptonshire statistics?
wtjs wrote:
It’s all under the OpSnap tab. There you will find the inital triage of reported incidents.
I have an incident reported in April and the report number I was given on submission can be seen in the list, along with date and vehicle type etc. I can see the recommended outcome is ‘Prosecution’, but will need to wait a few more months before the concluded offences for April 23 report is published to find out the actual end result.
wtjs wrote:
[duplicate]
I’ve had 3 of my submissions
I’ve had 3 of my submissions to Hampshire Police go to court (2 from cycling, 1 from driving) and about 2 dozen more that I haven’t been told the outcome of. This can be quite frustrating, I’m told some police forces are much better at giving feedback.
The process for video submissions to Hampshire Police is to upload it to YouTube and then wait to see if they ask you for the original files. If they don’t ask then they’re not going to do anything. If they do ask then they might be doing something with it, but you’ll only find out if it goes to court.
The video showed a cyclist
The video showed a cyclist fail to give way to an oncoming vehicle; the cyclist was clearly at fault here; the driver was rude to the cyclist, but that’s what you get when you operate a vehicle on the wrong side of the ride, forcing an oncoming vehicle to stop to avoid a collision; the cyclist bleating ‘you’re on camera’, when he was in the wrong and then posting his law-breaking on social media, is astonishing.
Australian law is different,
Australian law is different, isn’t it? Or were you watching a different video?
grOg wrote:
The only thing that’s astonishing is that you claim to have been a UK police officer; if this is true you were presumably, and thankfully, dismissed for your near-total ignorance of the law. There is nothing illegal in the slightest about the cyclist’s behaviour.
BS.
BS.
The cyclist had almost completed the obstacle pass when the terwat appeared.
We all have brakes and must use them when we drive or ride.
The driver was in a perfect position for a right nostril load.