Near Miss of the Day 889: Police refuse to act on cyclist’s submission and claim they require the “bike to be visible in the footage” to determine a close pass

Exactly this. But you need to be fiurther. If my wheels are 50 cm from the kerb then 2m from the kerb is 1.5m from my wheels, which cannot be 1.5m from my offside. 

Same in North Yorkshire.

Videos and reporting helps me stay calm, but North Yorkshire Police are hopelessly inconsistent. Most of the time they just don't want to do the work.

OK this is terrible policing but now they have given you this guidance you can act on it. It's not difficult to get the front wheel in the shot and it has been suggested in the past to include a still with a measured 1.5m visible in front of the bike for reference in your submission.

I suspect they've cocked up and are looking for excuses but it could be that the prosecutor has genuiniely experienced this defence in court. There seems to be no end to the gullibility of judges, magistrates and juries where motoring offences are concerned. No point in antagonising the police in my opinion, we need them on our side.

On the plus side they have given you feedback and a warning letter was sent. Some of us would call this a good result.

PS. Thanks for taking the time and trouble to submit on behalf of us all. I think things are improving but it will be a long uphill struggle to get to where we need to be.

they have given you feedback and a warning letter was sent

The OP called it a warning letter- I strongly suspect the police referred to it as an advice letter. That's the way the police view it- advice which you can accept or reject

mattw wrote:

How good have TVP been previously?

I've had TVP take action on a few of the reports I've made. They're better at this than they were a few years ago. I'd say they've actioned more than they've not actioned, but then I do ensure I have the bike in the video frame.

What I have noticed, is action is more likely if the vehicle passes both closely and at a high speed.

It's almost impossible to bar mount on my flat bar commuter bike and have the bars visible although it's pretty easy on drop bars.

I don't have the bars in shot, but angle the front camera down so the front wheel is visible in the frame. I also have a rear camera, where the rear wheel (or rack) is visible in shot. I think as long as there is a reference point for the bike in view, then you're good.

For even greater effect, after an incident like this, you could find a place to dismount the bike, prop it up and remove the camera to film the bike. If the footage is continously recording, then you've got reliable evidence of the width of the handlebars.

but the trade off is youve then limited the scope of what you capture in front of the bike to fill part of the frame with tarmac and wheel just as a reference point, which could then be a crucial miss in some passes, or pull outs at junctions.

plus I find with a rear camera, like this example, the rack and pannier (with pass pixi displayed fwiw) completely wrecks your sense of where the vehicle actually is in relation to you.

This guy was within touching distance at this point, wasnt going to cross the white line because of oncoming traffic and only backed out because I sensed the danger, turned round and gave him a good honest assessment of what I thought of his driving at this point, and maybe he finally spotted the big yellow square with a camera symbol on it.

I don't think it limits the scope of what you can see. If anything, I think it helps get the exposure right as there's much less sky in frame.

you will have traded that reference point though for the point at which number plates, as an example, are still legible within the field of view,which may be an issue, maybe not, it could well depend on the light levels, or speed of the pass.

but that frame shows a classic example of barrel distortion caused by the wide angle fixed lens that you get with cycling action cameras, which shows what a complete nonsense it is to be even trying to "calculate" distance from any video submission like this.

Surely you just need to start every ride with a testcard?

Mind you, is that a nearby small clown visually next to a giant child at a distance...?

In my experience, there's no issue reading number plates with the camera angled down (see below, even at the periphery of the lens field of view and some distance away, this plate is still legible).

It would be perfectly possible to calculate distance from a video submission with wide angle lens distortion. But more likely, measurements of road features from the location and the known dimensions of the vehicle involved would be used, along with the reference point of the cycle in the frame.

It would be perfectly possible to calculate distance from a video submission with wide angle lens distortion

The ones we really want something doing about don't require such calculations, but they still don't do anything about them. The only things the police are interested in calculating are more ways to avoid doing anything

https://upride.cc/incident/yj60kgzar12way_brethertonsarchwaybuses_closepass/

IMO that needs a thorough justification, which I have not seen.

FOI for conversations that lead to the decision may be revealing.

ACPO = National Police Chiefs' Council = NPCC nowadays.

They can gauge the distance between the car and kerb, which I'd reckon at less than 1.5m. Unless they assume the cyclist does not in fact exist, then the motorist must be too close.

You need one of those 360 cameras on your car.
Ah, but this distorts the footage so no action can be taken.

Ha, was just about to say exactly the same thing myself. They spend more time thinking up pathetic excuses and reasons not to follow up close passes than they do investigating them.