Near Miss of the Day 921: Cyclist suffers "aggressive" close pass by BMW driver, but left "very disappointed" by police response which suggests "you need to be physically injured for more serious action"

bikes wrote:

"perhaps unavoidable", as gently easing off on the accelerator pedal for 2 seconds would obviously be out of the question.

We probably don't have all the relevant information, perhaps there was a bomb in the car set to go off if the speed dropped below 50mph?

The UK police need to sit down with their counterparts in the DVLA and DVSA to sort out the discrepancy in their understanding of the Highway Code 

The DVSA seems to be pretty good and efficient, but DVLA is run by a bunch of duffers so is unlikely to rectify any police biases and misdeeds. Rather, they are likely to reinforce and validate each other's inactions. Both the police and DVLA refuse to take action over VED evasion even when informed and it lasts for several years. DVLA is especially culpable, because numerous vehicles without VED/ SORN are still listed on the DVLA database as passing MOT- such as A8 YXU

Or NA11 VWH

Or HY66 ZZB

This is the case which, when reported in March 2022, elicited the Lancashire Constabulary response: nothing to do with us, try the DVLA. I then discovered that DVLA is most definitely not interested- they don't provide a facility for uploading photos of untaxed vehicles on the road and demand a postcode for the unwanted untaxed vehicle report which is then ejected immediately into the bin

wtjs wrote:

DVLA is especially culpable, because numerous vehicles without VED/ SORN are still listed on the DVLA database as passing MOT- such as A8 YXU

A MOT is required to get car tax, but car tax is not required to get a MOT. The failure is not in allowing them to get a MOT, it's in failing to act on the lack of VED. I do sometimes see cars that have been clamped by the DVLA, and very satisfying it is too. 

Yes, that's quite obviously the point I was making. DVLA knows the vehicles getting MOT, and it knows which of them have no VED/ SORN. They still do nothing about it: see WU59 UMH. No VED for 7 years 2 months - reported several times to police and DVLA. Frequently parked outside the pub for many hours at a time, 150 yards from the police station

wtjs wrote:

Yes, that's quite obviously the point I was making. DVLA knows the vehicles getting MOT, and it knows which of them have no VED/ SORN. They still do nothing about it: see WU59 UMH. No VED for 7 years 2 months - reported several times to police and DVLA. Frequently parked outside the pub for many hours at a time, 150 yards from the police station

And there was me worrying my car sat on our drive for a week this month with no VED and me not having SORNed it (before it was picked up to be scrapped).

Well it wasn't obvious to me, or I wouldn't have commented. I thought you were suggesting it shouldn't be possible to get MOT without VED.

Sure, DVLA can tell from an office in Swansea which cars don't have VED and are not SORNed. But that knowledge is of limited utility because, to take effective action, they still need to physically locate and clamp them all, all over the country.

Sadly it's not realistic to do that based on individual reports that a vehicle is regularly parked at [x], so they do area enforcement. I did once report a car that had been apparently abandoned on our street as soon as its VED expired. I imagine all that happened is the DVLA sent a reminder / penalty notice, because the owner came to collect it / put it on the back of a tow truck pretty soon after.    

Just wondering - all these cars that are parked without tax with impunity 150 yds from the police station. Is it possible that they're not thumbing their nose at the rozzers, but are actually unmarked cars and therefore tax-exempt?

Is it possible that they're not thumbing their nose at the rozzers, but are actually unmarked cars and therefore tax-exempt?

No, because police cars are MOT 'exempt' not VED exempt. I convinced myself that this was the Lancashire Chief Constable in C11 BWN, partly because of this MOT problem- the stopping of MOT coincided with her arrival in Lancashire. However, a rethink was caused by the new MOT last December. My best guess now is that it was an MOT evader after all, but that leaves the question of how VED has been obtained throughout- could just indicate DVLA inefficiency?

I'm not sure that's right. I haven't dug into this exhaustively, but this suggests that police vehicles are VED exempt: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/22/schedule/2

this suggests that police vehicles are VED exempt:

This doesn't

I don't follow, why? Because that reg is listed on the DVLA as 'taxed'? Yes, perhaps it's taxed. Or perhaps the public-facing DVLA site doesn't have a separate category for 'exempt'. I don't know. I'm just saying that the legislation and other government sources say that emergency vehicles, including police, are exempt from VED. I concede unlikely to be relevant to the pick up truck pictured below though!  

I don't follow, why? 

You appear to be suffering from a logic warp- I show several vehicles with long term absence of VED (but valid MOT) as shown by DVLA, who ignore these VED-dodgers for years. You suggest that they're really unmarked police vehicles. I show that police vehicles are shown as taxed by DVLA, which is what I'm interested in- I don't care if there's some accounting arrangement between DVLA and the operators of emergency vehicles so that the latter don't actually have to hand over the cash. Are you now suggesting that unmarked police vehicles are specially listed by DVLA as untaxed to enhance their 'I'm a crim like you' ultra-deep cover credentials?

wtjs wrote:

You appear to be suffering from a logic warp

Fair point, I forgot where this started. My suggestion that untaxed cars you see are unmarked police cars was tongue in cheek; clearly they're not. Perhaps I should have terminated it with "?!" instead of "?" to make that clearer. 

However, you did seem to be unaware that police cars are VED exempt (like you were unaware that a taxi you complained about was probably MOT exempt).

Is it possible that they're not thumbing their nose at the rozzers, but are actually unmarked cars and therefore tax-exempt?

Police unmarked vehicle in Deep Cover outside the Eagle and Child

Worse - people at the Met at least show some emotional response (whether angry denial that they or the officers they know have any issues, misogyny, hate, letchery ...)

Polis Scotland appear not even to notice cyclists - apart from the odd press release.  Whatever they're moaning about it's not a matter for the police.

IanMK wrote:

The comment from the Police shows that they don't understand road design or the highway code. The Highway Code is absolutely clear. You should not be overtaking approaching a junction especially if you intend to turn left and you shouldn't be overtaking on the approach to a pinch point or a pedestrian crossing facility (I think there's a dropped kerb) . The road surroundings have been designed so drivers don't overtake at that point not to make it a bit awkward to get passed cyclists safely.

That's what concerns me the most. I'm not necessarily against the police deciding in some circumstances that instead of a formal penalty they'll have a word to educate the driver on the subject of their wrong-doing. But that latter option firmly relies on the police themselves understanding of why this kind of meneouvre is not just wrong, but is dangerous and readily avoidable combined with a willingness to communicate that meaningfully. As in not being sympathetic to their 'lack of choice'.

It also begs the question - how does the officer involved drive? Do they make similar 'unavoidable' choices?

There's a few of them still about. I've been fortunate enough to have one WPC who absolutely savaged a driver for a close pass as the Fiscal wouldn't progress it. I heard from a retired officer who I worked with that she didn't mince words and could be pretty scathing. As for road craft of officers it's pretty hit and miss. 

One of them may well be that there may be a perception that the police won't take those reports seriously. We absolutely do, we absolutely will

Hmmmm. CS Ratcliff need to get the word out to her subordinates and divisions then. Cause most of them haven't an inkling.