One of the objectives of our Near Miss of the Day series is to hold police forces accountable for any close passes reported by cyclists. We’ve enquired about many cases to the police in the past, and not many of them have yielded that the initial decision taken by them was not only incorrect, but also “regrettable” given the severity of the incident, unlike Surrey Police.
Richard Hepburn had a work meeting to attend in Artington. Instead of taking his car on the 42-mile round trip, he decided to take his bike on the train and then cycle the final 1.7 miles to his destination.
As he was set off from the Guildford railway station, he was close passed twice in less than two miles. While the first one wasn’t “too bad”, the second was “scary”, he told road.cc.
He was cycling up an incline when a driver passed him “nice and wide”. However, seconds later, the driver of a Ford Transit van passed him with “inches to spare at speed”.
“Looking back at the footage, if I had wobbled, or had to swerve for a pothole or road imperfection, or a gust of wind, I would have been in their path and killed,” he said.
He added: “I submitted the footage of both to Surrey Police and received an email saying that action would be taken. However they say they cannot provide feedback on what specific action will be taken. Probably just a warning letter… I think it is a matter of public confidence in finding out what happened.”
“It seems inconceivable, that a competent driver (allegedly the van driver) would overtake in such a way, when the car preceding and the car succeeding were able to give excess space and performed a very nice overtake (despite the double whites). The van driver either deliberately drove close to me to intimidate, or is so incompetent that they don’t know how wide their vehicle is. Either way they should not be on the road.”
We reached out to Surrey Police asking for comment about this close pass, and they got back to us, confirming that a “prosecution would have been more suitable” and regretting that “more robust action was not taken”.
When allegations of driving offences are submitted to us, they are investigated by our Criminal Justice department, which assesses the information provided and decide how to proceed based off the available evidence.
Although there is no specific ‘close pass’ offence, and the 1.5 metres stated in the Highway Code is a recommendation and not a law, close pass incidents can include offences such as careless driving or dangerous driving.
The van driver in this instance received a warning letter and we acknowledge that a prosecution would have been more suitable on this occasion. Unfortunately, this is not something we can address retrospectively as the 14-day period for issuing a notice of intended prosecution has now passed. It is regrettable that more robust action was not taken at the time and we apologise to the cyclist involved in this incident.
In January this year, Surrey Police was in hot waters after it fined and issued fixed penalty notices to four cyclists, besides sharing the now-viral footage of the group ride not stopping at red lights on social media, leading to widespread debate and even questions about the legitimacy of the clip.
The force was then pressurised into sharing the full video, which indeed showed the cyclists jumping the lights. However, debate still ensued, with many, including cycling lawyer for Leigh Day law firm Rory McCarron, suggesting it would be “surely more dangerous for them to wait in the junction?”
Last year, Surrey Police were also the source of a controversy related to the this near miss, when a Freedom of Information request revealed that 80 per cent of the almost 1,000 motorists accused of close passing a cyclist in Surrey over the past 15 months were issued with warning letters, with only three being prosecuted.
The force later claimed “in the majority of cases, issuing a warning letter is the most appropriate course of action”, due to the “evidential viability” of the submitted videos and the “associated threat, harm, and risk” of the driving offence committed.
The force also told road.cc that it “regularly” receives video submissions of alleged driving offences “from the same people”, and called on those who frequently submit close pass clips to “engage with us further and work together to tackle” issues around road safety.
> 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
16 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 897: Police concede that “prosecution would have been more suitable” after close-passing van driver who could’ve “killed cyclist” let off with a warning letter”
Even knowing it was a video
Even knowing it was a video of a close pass it had me cursing the van with suprise of how close it was.
It would be interesting to know what the police advice to people who are frequently reporting is. I wonder if it’s to do things to protect themselves rather than dealing with the traffic issues.
I also wonder if the letters of advice are because they take longer than 15 days and therefore can not prosecute anyway.
Perhaps it is because they
Perhaps it is because they accept video reports to give the impression that they will do something so that they gain public trust when the reality is that they don’t care and have no intention of prosecuting hence why they don’t tell us what action they are going to take.
There’s also a suitable irony
There’s also a suitable irony that the close pass happened adjacent to the Guildford University of Law.
That was a ‘punishment pass’.
That was a ‘punishment pass’. Even on the video it looked frightenly close.
This is typical behaviour on
This is typical behaviour on British roads: a motorist cautiously and considerately passes you, and for a moment you think maybe driving standards might actually be improving. But, because they took a few extra seconds to do so, that so enrages one of the following motorists that they give you a punishment pass to prove some kind of infantile point.
Can someone explain this 14
Can someone explain this 14 day period please?
Other crimes are open until the culprits are caught.
dubwise wrote:
The logic (not saying it’s right) is that if people drive a lot it’s unfair to expect them to remember (and thus be able to mount a defence against) an alleged offence committed six or seven weeks previously of which they might not even be aware before they receive the NIP. It’s something that certainly should be reconsidered when video evidence is involved, can’t remember well here’s the video (except in Scotland where “can’t remember” appears to be a cast iron defence).
Good explanation. But the
Good explanation. But the more you think about it … does it work for “drunk and disorderly”? (“My client likes to drink – every night – but hithertofore has never been involved in the slightest disturbance…”) Or fiddling the books (“20 years otherwise law-abiding accounting… they obviously have no memory of that transaction…”)?
Good points, but I suppose
Good points, but I suppose the analogy those defending it would use would be something like a daily or at least regular task that you do so often that unless you are aware of having done something wrong you wouldn’t be able to remember it, e.g. I go to the supermarket maybe four times a week, if the rozzers turned up on my doorstep today and said someone thinks you took a bottle of scotch without paying on October 18, what could I remember about that particular day? Obviously nothing specific (particular if I drank the scotch when I got home…). However, as I said above, I shouldn’t have a leg to stand on in terms of avoiding prosecution if they had a video of me pocketing the bottle, however long ago it was.
I was about to comment ‘but
I was about to comment ‘but how could they possibly defend this driving?!’ before realising how stupid that was, as everything under the sun (and the sun itself) is accepted as a defence for shit driving!
Another expanation I’ve heard
Another expanation I’ve heard is that the NIP has to be issued within 14 days so that the registered keeper has a better chance of identfying the driver at the time of the incident. Don’t know whether this is correct or not.
Cheers
Cheers
Thanks
Thanks
None of those overtakes was
None of those overtakes was safe and in fact all may have been illegal as I would have thought the rider was over 10mph. Who in their right mind does that in a village with junctions, solid white lines, parked cars and poor sight lines?
Passes on video never look as
Passes on video never look as close as they feel in real life. And that looked damned close. Surely deliberate.
Punishment pass because
Punishment pass because middle of road.