If ever a case summed up the inconsistencies in how police forces deal with close pass reports from cyclists, then it’s this one.
It’s often said that reporting third-party footage of incidents on the roads is something of a ‘postcode lottery’. In some areas, officers are hot on videos from the public, dishing out NIPs (notice of intended prosecution) and tackling offenders. In others, cyclists regularly get told there’ll be no further action or just a warning letter issued.
Today’s Near Miss of the Day takes the postcode lottery idea one step further, showing how differently seemingly identical incidents can be dealt with by the same police force.
In this case, it’s Gloucestershire Police, road.cc reader Richard explaining how he was surprised to hear one of his reports resulted in points and a fine for the driver of the red car seen in the video above.
“I always wait a year before asking for the outcome as I always get a response that way,” he explained. “The reply was points and a fine. Not what I was expecting in view of past experience and the interview with Robert Vestey of Gloucestershire Constabulary road.cc reported on,” he added, citing the piece here in which the head of Gloucestershire’s non-crime unit, Robert Vestey, controversially claimed “a close pass isn’t an offence and a lot of cyclists don’t realise that”.
“The gist of the article,” Richard recalled. “Is that in Gloucestershire a near miss cannot be prosecuted unless someone is inconvenienced, but they have now decided to send out advisory letters for reports of close passes instead of NFA (no further action). This is basically what has been happening for my close pass reports since the article was published, so the result was a surprise. This is the first and only points and fine I’ve had for a close pass and I’ve been reporting since August 2020.
“I think this alone should be interesting to cyclists in Gloucestershire but coincidentally I had had another almost identical close pass a few days later which only got an advisory. The closeness of the pass is shown in the still from the video I have included and it looked about the same to me.”
Richard was a bit “perplexed” by the difference in how the two near-identical cases were treated so contacted Vestey to ask that exact question.
“This was purely down to the officer’s view of the footage,” Vestey suggested. “The white vehicle was close, prompting an advisory letter. However, the video showed the red vehicle ridiculously close, giving no regard to you as the rider.”
> 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
9 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 931: Cyclist “perplexed” as two almost identical close passes treated very differently by police force”
Whim of the officer. Depends
Whim of the officer. Depends on who you get and whether they can actually ride a bike
Exactly; in life, so many
Exactly; in life, so many things depend upon whose desk your information/request/application lands on…
If the almost identical close
If the almost identical close pass by the white vehicle was only “a few days later” then why is the datestamp on the still image “2025/05/16” while the one on the video of the red car is “2024/05/11”?
Datestamps can be wrong. My
Datestamps can be wrong. My Cycliq datestamp is rarely accurate, but the covering report can explain that. Also looks like they’re from two different devices.
The close pass from the white
The close pass from the white car was a few days after I got the outcome of the report for the red car which was a year before. The date stamps are correct. I wait a year before asking for the outcomes of my reports because I always get a response doing it that way.
Couldn’t it just be a simple
Couldn’t it just be a simple as the driver of the red car was already on a prior warning and so got bumped up to points and a fine for this instance, whereas the other driver was a “first time offender”. Hence I tend towards subbing footage even if there might be some ambiguity because you never know how big a rap sheet the driver already has.
Perhaps, just perhaps, an
Perhaps, just perhaps, an advisory letter should be for when a driver has done something a little stupid but on the cusp and points and a fine should be for when they have very clearly broken the rules. Both of these easily fall into the second category.
I’m glad I put in a formal
I’m glad I put in a formal complaint about how often a certain Met police staffer rejected my reports.
I requested that his cases be reviewed and outcomes, lifecycles and closure rates be compared to his colleagues’ stats.
I cannot say for certain that this was the reason he moved departments…
But I like to think it was.
Well at least one of those
Well at least one of those drivers will be a little more careful infuture we hope.