A cyclist who was close passed due to an oncoming vehicle and a driver’s impatience has been told by Welsh police they are “temporarily suspending taking action on evidence submitted by pedal cyclists” because they are “following national guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator”. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has reiterated that this position is incorrect, yet GoSafe – Wales’ ‘Road Casualty Reduction Partnership’ – is still refusing to take further action on close pass incidents captured on camera.
The latest instalment of our Near Miss of the Day series, highlighting driving standards and the lack of consideration for vulnerable road users on UK roads, comes from Flintshire where road.cc reader Andy Duffield was on the receiving end of this close pass back in June.
Andy received a response from GoSafe, Wales’ ‘Road Casualty Reduction Partnership’ operated on behalf of all four Welsh police forces. He was told that GoSafe were “following national guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator”.
Andy tells us “Roads were quiet. I think a lot of people have been getting [this response from Welsh police]. Not sure it takes a forensic genius to work out this is close.”
road.cc has previously reported that the National Police Chiefs’ Council say there’s “no reason for police in Wales to stop taking action on cycling videos” and that it “…wants to enocurage the submission of footage as it’s a really valuable tool.”
Following Andy’s experience, road.cc approached both North Wales Police and GoSafe, and were told: “[GoSafe] cannot forensically analyse speed or distance but we did not discourage people from submitting possible offences.
“We have worked closely with our teams to ensure a consistent approach is used nationally when reviewing alleged offences and any aggravating factors, or corroborating evidence present.
“We are confident that our teams will continue to deliver a high standard of service and review each incident on a case-by-case basis to reach the appropriate outcome.”
A further statement on GoSafe’s website added that “other aggravating factors or corroborating evidence” was required to act on the evidence submitted. In other words, submitting ‘journeycam’ footage of dangerous driving is not enough for the police to take action. As the National Police Chiefs’ Council has repeatedly clarified, this is not the case.
> 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


















24 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 936: “Not sure it takes a forensic genius to work out this is close”… but police force refuses action because it is “following national guidance””
That’s some amount of waffle
That’s some amount of waffle spewed to road.cc.
Reading between the lines, shame the driver didn’t kill that fkn cyclist.
Farceboke is troll infested
Farceboke is troll infested and I try to resist reading the comments 🙁
Are you really intelligent
Are you really intelligent enough to read and understand anything at other than face value?
I think that was meant to be
I think that was meant to be a sarcastic rendering of North Wales Police’ stance, rather than dubwise’ own view. Imagine some quote marks from “shame… to …cyclist.”
Yes, it was irony!
Yes, it was irony!
I hope so.
I hope so.
Institutionally anti-cyclist
Institutionally anti-cyclist
I contacted a number of
.
I contacted a number of
I contacted a number of Police forces in Wales through their local Police and Crime Commissioners about the recent changes and the situation we now find ourselves in here in Wales and the replies from senior officers all stated the same thing.
That is going forward, for them to take action, the cyclist must have had to be seen to have taken evasive action when being passed ‘closely’ or some other vehicle was forced to take evasive action when the cyclist was passed ‘closely’ for them to consider taking any action against the offending driver.
My camera is under the handlebars and I have been out on a quiet road practicing wiggling the handlebars and swerving to make it look like I am taking ‘evasive action’ on the video.
If you have a camera on your helmet, then I would suggest practising moving your head back and fore to make it look like you took taking evasive action and don’t forget to state in the statement when submitting to OPSNAP that you were forced to take evasive action.
Crazy that such things have to be done, but we are where we are.
This has been the case in
This has been the case in Gloucestershire for a long time now as confirmed in the article below.
https://road.cc/content/news/close-pass-isnt-offence-says-police-officer-310433
The problem with close passes is that you can’t predict them as they are behind you and by the time it has happened it is too late to swerve. Cycling UK have told me that this interpretation of the law is not correct in their view but more and more forces seem to be adopting it.
In Gloucestershire if a driver forced me to move in, even if it was slow, they would take further action but the last 2 reports I have put in where this has happened have been dealt with advisory letters so they won’t even take action where the cyclist has been inconvenienced now. The one situation where they have always taken action is where on oncoming driver is forced to pull in to avoid the overtaking driver. It seems to me that inconveniencing a driver is taken more seriously than inconveniencing a cyclist here.
Maybe slowing/braking is
Maybe slowing/braking is ‘evasive action’? HC rule 167:
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example …
… when you would force another road user to swerve or *slow down*
So, after a dangerous pass, come to a complete halt, just to make it obvious?
Sad to hear it is the same in
Sad to hear it is the same in Gloucestershire.
However I can see them coming in my rear view mirror, so I can predict them and that is why I have been practicing my swerves and evasive action and have become quite good at it.
I have no other option if I want action taken against a moron that comes too close.
Crazy thing is, the Welsh Police have stated to me that the evasive action criteria applies to close passed horse riders and pedestrians as well!
Obviously the last thing you want is for a horse to take evasive action when close passed as you and horse may find yourself under the wheels of a vehicle!
I can only assume that walkers will have to practice diving into hedges (avoid the brambles).
I feel it is obviously all fueled by the car lobby trying to claw back some ground after the highway code changes for passing distances that annoyed them so much.
I just think its the police
I just think its the police de prioritising it so they dont have to deal with it, careless driving doesn’t need forensic analysis of speed, its simply behaviour that falls below the standard of a competent driver, every police officer in the country should be able to judge that.
stonojnr wrote:
Exactly.
On the other hand the definition …”below the standard of a competent driver” is a) hopelessly subjective b) not only means different things to different people, but apparently admits of interpretation (in court also) that driving contrary to much guidance in the Highway code and perhaps even breaking the law doing so is *not* below the standard of a competent driver…
yupiteru wrote:
I would be very interested to hear if it works. If you could put the video up for NMOTD or upride so I can learn how to do it I would be very grateful.
Bungle_52 wrote:
Too true. And so I predict that even if you do swerve, it will be (correctly) interpreted as a reaction after the event rather than as an evasive manoeuvre in anticipation of the close pass, and so dismissed.
My camera is under the
My camera is under the handlebars and I have been out on a quiet road practicing wiggling the handlebars and swerving to make it look like I am taking ‘evasive action’ on the video
You’re wasting your time- they will then simply make up another terminally stupid ‘rule’ to avoid taking any action. Even the police are not stupid enough to actually believe their own statement otherwise they wouldn’t be able to walk and breathe at the same time, it’s simply a sequence of cyclist-hostile dodges. You would have to be a lot worse than the half-wits they actually are to believe a cyclist could ‘initiate evasive action’ here: I have shown this one before- it is my only example where I was so disturbed by this close pass at speed that I had to pull over
https://upride.cc/incident/ca70mkc_citroenvan_closepass/
What a ridiculous situation
What a ridiculous situation to have to face.
Don’t forget to make a sound
Don’t forget to make a sound of alarm, but not to swear.
“Aaaaah! My goodness that frightened me!”
“We have worked closely with
“We have worked closely with our teams to ensure a consistent approach is used…”
We consistently ignore complaints by cyclists.
“We are confident that our teams will continue to deliver a high standard of service…”
If they’re confident of that, their delusion is monumental.
In order to continue
In order to continue delivering something, don’t you have to be delivering it to start with?
The con is they just don’t
The con is they just don’t say what the service is and who it’s delivered for…
They are being competent honest – they review each case as they say and when the case involves a cyclist / close pass it goes in the bin!
They are being competent,
They are being competent, honest – they review each case as they say and when the case involves a cyclist / close pass it goes [immediately] in the bin!
Almost 100% correct- just one minor alteration. The police bin was indeed the destination for these
https://upride.cc/incident/pe23zzl_interstar_uwlcrossclosepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/bd18kzt_transitlorry_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/hd59opm_mercedese350_uwlcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/t555rac_ducato_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/p10hnr_golf_closepass/
I didn’t even bother to report the last two- anybody think they could have managed some ‘evasive action’ with that Golf?
I wonder whether these
I wonder whether these officers are the sort of people who’d rely on a weather man to tell that it’s raining?