Police told a cyclist who submitted footage of a very close pass in which not only did the driver give a long blast of the horn, but the car’s passenger also put their arm out of the vehicle’s window, possibly in an attempt to strike the rider, that they could not refer the footage for prosecution – because it was only taken from one camera.
It’s the first time we’ve heard of a force taking such an approach, and given we have now featured nearly 800 videos in our Near Miss of the Day series, and received countless other submissions, it’s one that’s left us a bit flummoxed to say the least.
The footage was shot by road.cc reader Kionne, who told us: “Not sure why the extended blast on the horn was required, I was not obstructing traffic, the road was wide enough to easily pass me, my position was good and my pace was good. You can see that all the motorists before were able to pass me without issue.
“As for the passenger, it was unclear whether he was trying to hit or push me but thankfully he missed.
“I reported it to South Staffordshire Police who sent out a warning letter, they told me there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the pass or possible attempted push as I only had footage from one camera.
“They went on to say I need to have at least two, possibly three cameras before they will even consider prosecution.
“In an attempt to appease me they said they see much worse than this and still do not prosecute,” he added.
> 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
54 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 781: Police claim they can’t prosecute close pass driver – because cyclist’s footage only came from one camera”
Quote:
You couldn’t make it up!
And something tells me that if you’d had three cameras they have needed at least four.
I’m convinced that some
I’m convinced that some Police forces have calculated that it is more cost effective for them to employ one or two extra Officers trained in breaking bad news to relatives than it is to undertake routine traffic enforcement and collision prevention work.
Edit: Having slept on it. I’m wondering if the issue is more to do with identification of the driver? With the suggestion that a rear facing camera and / or head mounted camera might be better placed to acquire that detail. It would be illuminating to see the full Police communication to Kionne.
I wish I had it, it was all
I wish I had it, it was all said in a phone call. They said they couldn’t prosecute as they couldn’t prove how close the car was or that there was any intention from the passenger to hit me. I offered to go back to the scene and take photos with measurements but they didn’t care.
Would be interesting to see what the warning letter said…
Inspector Kevin has some
Inspector Kevin has some suggestions for how to help the police prove the distance in NMOTD 779. May of use for your future submissssions.
Inspector Kevin has some
Inspector Kevin has some suggestions for how to help the police prove the distance in NMOTD 779
The problem is that the police, with possible honourable exceptions, are not the slightest bit interested in proving any distances. The default position is No Death or Serious Injury = No Offence, and the whingeing cyclists can get stuffed. The South Staffordshire ‘We Need More Cameras’ dodge was way behind Lancashire’s ‘We Need Confirmatory Video From the Vehicle’ of 3 years ago- not available, of course. I like to think Lancashire’s Finest will be the first force to demand overhead drone video ‘otherwise we can’t do anything’.
Just re-submit with three
Just re-submit with three separate crops from the same camera.
So, now we have Politards,
So, now we have Politards, too!
Well I now know what to say
Well I now know what to say if I ever receive a speeding ticket through the post ‘sorry, only one camera, not valid’
As a resident of
As a resident of Staffordshire, I can confirm our police service is utter shit in every regard.
South Staffordshire Police =
South Staffordshire Police = Bunch of useless cunts.
I’ve said it before and I’ll
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, all trust has been lost in our police. An absolute waste of money and resources. They’d rather police tweets than police streets.
Defund them all, make them scared for their jobs and let’s see what happens then. They might actually start doing something.
I’m convinced that during the lockdown they turned to social media because it’s an easy win and have never turned back. Crimes like street robbery and burglary are being reclassified as minor and tweets are being classed as violence. It’s a joke.
sparrowlegs wrote:
Oh please, this is nothing more than a hysterical myth.
Really? So if that’s a myth
Really? So if that’s a myth they are in fact just totally shit then? I can’t tell if that’s better or not.
This has to be challenged,
This has to be challenged, especially when other forces seem to have no problem prosecuting with a vid from a single camera. If I was Kionne, I’d be asking under what rule this three cameras decision was taken, why it only seems to apply in Staffordshire, and do they apply the same rule to drivers’ dash cams?
If, as I suspect, he gets a steaming pile of police crap in return, he then escalates it to the officer’s superiors and takes it to the PCC, and if he’s a member of CUK, taking it to them and asking their advice.
Shame on you SS Police.
Shame on you South Staffs Police.
SS Police are NOT performing consistently with peer forces. Many of who are prosecuting drivers from one camera angle. Typically, a forward facing position.
If one of these idiot fucks wants to go out there tomorrow and kill a cyclist with their souped up roller skate. SS police will do nothing but criticise the dead rider for employing one fucking camera.
SS POLICE. You are actively encouraging criminal behaviour with immunity from effective prosecution.
WAKE UP SS POLICE!
What surprises me is the
What surprises me is the surprise that the police will make up and clutch at any excuse to not do anything about anything, no matter how stupid. Exposing this lamentable attitude has been my focus for quite a while- I moved onto offences which are indisputable, like vehicles crashing through red lights, or without MOT and insurance. The Hyper-Crap forces like Lancashire still do nothing. I have many of the latter, including a BMW driving around Garstang without MOT and VED for over a year where the driver either lives or visits for days at a time at the appropriately named Old Police Station. It’s a month since it was reported to the pastmasters at Ultra-Indolence, and it’s still driving around with no MOT or insurance
Submitted this to West Mercia
Submitted this to West Mercia a few months ago. The pass wasn’t great but not terrible (by current standards) so not sure which offence they’re prosecuting, video to follow soon…
Disgraceful response from
Disgraceful response from police. This is where Road.cc can help, perhaps. Do us all a favour and shake this one about if you can.
Pure speculation on my part
Pure speculation on my part but I suspect that they are concentrating on the passenger behaviour where more evidence would be needed to show they tried to push the cyclist. However there is no doubt about the aggressive use of the horn which, I believe, is an offence in itself, not to mention the close pass. Road.cc and Cycling UK need to get together to get police action on cyclist submitted video sorted out. It won’t happen without pressure and CUK should know who to put this pressure on and how to do it. Thanks to NMOTD, road.cc have collected the evidence base which will be needed.
As a final observation a warning letter is not doing nothing. I think one of the examples given in the CPS guidelines for prosecuting carless driving is repeated behaviour and a previous warning letter would help establish this if the driver did it again.
You’ve given me an idea.
You’ve given me an idea.
Perhaps collectively we could divide and conquer. We could analyse the collection and divide up the responses to highlight the inconsistency of handling video evidence.
We could assess quality of evidence, likely severity of incident, police response.
We could them submit it to our MPs, police forces and local councils in a coordinated fashion.
IanMSpencer wrote:
Your error here is in assuming that they could care less.
brooksby wrote:
While I share your pessimism that change can be achieved, throw enough stones and one might hit a target.
I could see the police being quite keen to get rid of what is essentially an admin task of limited interest to most officers it appears, and Johnson can’t think of any big ideas so he is welcome to have our little idea instead, and you never know what MP decides they want to put their name to something.
IanMSpencer wrote:
After a recent incident I decided that this was a possible way forward. Your post has now strengthened my resolve.
The drivers is still
The drivers is still ultimately responsible for the vehicle and its occupants, If a passenger does anything that endangers other road users, they driver is still culpable for their actions. same as the driver is responible for ensuring all passengers wear their seatbelts. They can still be held accountable. And if the passenger is close enough to nearly touch the cyclist they are also driving too close to pass safely.
Smoggysteve wrote:
But that’s just not true. With regards to seatbelts, the driver isn’t responsible for what other adults (>14 years) do – that is even spelt out in the legislation: “no person other than the person actually committing the contravention [not wearing a seatbelt] is guilty of an offence by reason of the contravention” (source). Even with children <14 years, the driver isn’t strictly responsible for what the child does; the driver is only responsible for their own actions, but the driver “must not without reasonable excuse drive the vehicle on a road unless the child is wearing a seat belt” (S15 ibid.)
If the car is close enough for the passenger to nearly touch the cyclist, then I agree the driver is at fault for being too close (regardless of what the passenger does), and if the driver deliberately drove close in order to allow the passenger to assault the cyclist, then that is another matter (albeit one that is hard to prove). But if the driver is too close purely due to careless/dangerous driving, and the passenger then decides to assault the cyclist, I don’t see that the driver has any responsibility in law for the assault.
I’ve not sent in a couple of
I’ve not sent in a couple of close passes because they were cars turning right out from a side road onto me. The trouble is that all the action is between the seat post and the handlebars. As an example, yesterday, on a return, 5 of us were 2 abreast on a road where there is adequate passing space and we thought nothing of a van passing us, until it slowed, the window came down and it was clear that words of wisdom were going to follow. I did my usual trick of yelling “On camera” and after a few seconds, the van retreated, then repassed without problem. I continued to shout on camera and point at my camera and no further issues ensued. My mate said “It does work, doesn’t it.” However, the point is I have no useful footage of the van alongside or the window being wound down (which I think is the critical evidence of inappropriate driving).
As other commenters have noted, you can’t see what the passenger was doing at the vital moment and I have to accept the police are correct about not being able to extrapolate the passenger’s arm waving into something more serious (although we all know that being pushed off and physically threatened is not an unusual occurrence).
In the grand scheme of things, the actual close pass is more in warning letter territory, not a lot different from the red Kia Sportage(?) shortly before.
Well, I know where to go next
Well, I know where to go next time I’m feeling a bit light fingered, just pop up to South Staffordshire and find shops that only have one security camera.
Another example of lazy,
Another example of lazy, useless coppers. And they wonder why they dont have the publics respect anymore.
Get back to Twitter you useless 6g78s
How bad does it have to be
How bad does it have to be for a conviction in Staffordshire? I’m glad I live in one of the force area’s who will at least prosecute people on the basis of video evidence.
I would not accept the outcome in this case, the fact that the driver saw fit to blast the horn for several seconds during a deliberate close pass was intimidation of a road user.
Perhaps someone needs to send staffordshire police a copy of the Highway code to refresh themeselves on the rules.
I had video of a driver
I had video of a driver admitting a collision (but blaming me) and the response from Staffordshire police was “As there is no evidence of a collision I cannot take this matter any further.”
JustNickoli wrote:
They must be competing with West Mids Police to take the crown as the most useless force in the country. I’ve moved to the East Midlands and so far reported one incident – there was a response from Nottinghamshire Police within just a few days, and it says they intend to take action. Very impressed. Never had a single response from 150 police reports to WMP.
They must be competing with
They must be competing with West Mids Police to take the crown as the most useless force in the country
I resent this! Lancashire Constabulary is the most useless force in the country!! Which of the contenders can boast a complete lack of response to an immaculate report of a No MOT, No VED, No Insurance vehicle which lives at The Old Police Station and has been filmed several times on the road 18 months after the MOT expired, and a year after the VED expired? Pfff! These other forces demonstrate only amateurish Ultra-Indolence and Incompetence.
Jenova20 wrote:
They must be competing with West Mids Police to take the crown as the most useless force in the country. I’ve moved to the East Midlands and so far reported one incident – there was a response from Nottinghamshire Police within just a few days, and it says they intend to take action. Very impressed. Never had a single response from 150 police reports to WMP.— JustNickoli
The scary part is at one point WMP were very good; Though the main two officers known to be behind it have moved on; Something to do with getting offered senior roles elsewhere due to how successful they were in terms of prosecutions/man hour and correlations to measurable improvements to road safety… Yet the stuff they set up seems to have all been stopped by new management/replacement officers.
The police say they can’t
The police say they can’t prosecute driver because there’s an R in the month.
And if you check the MoT
And if you check the MoT history…
I’m surprised they saw the rider to intimidate them.
And if you check the MoT
And if you check the MoT history…
MOT?! You were lucky! In Lancashire we dream of the police exiting Ultra-Indolence Mode long enough to even consider whether vehicles have MOT, insurance or VED, and they’re certainly not going to stir themselves into actual action even when the evidence is forced down their unwilling throats. This was first noted by me on 19th May and reported 23rd May- here it is appropriately parked on 9th June at the Old Police Station, Garstang, but it’s frequently not there because it’s out (I’m belabouring the point, without MOT, VED or insurance) on the public roads
I wonder if the driver has
I wonder if the driver has informed the insurance company that the car has been modified? I doubt that wing is original spec. (though happy to be corrected).
The twin exhaust looks like a
The twin exhaust looks like a mod too. Speaks volumes about the driver’s attitude, and could indicate engine performance tweaks, so definitely of interest to insurers.
IanMSpencer wrote:
Do you mean the rear spoiler? Because everyone knows the wings are at the front and they are what you bolt the mirrors to! ?
NOtotheEU wrote:
Well technically there are also rear wings under the C pillar and above the rear wheels, it’s the front wings that have the mirrors in the case of no door mirrors but…?
OK I’ll get my coat
It would be nice if Road cc
It would be nice if Road cc actually asked Staffordshire police for a comment to clarify the rule of law they are enforcing.l by not prosecuting the driver. So typical of this site, it’s all about showing the video, the drama and very little about affecting real change to making cyclist’s safer on the roads.
Here here!
Here here!
Lazy bullshit by South Staffs
Lazy bullshit by South Staffs. The aggressive use of the horn is enough to issue a FPN.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Agree, this is police service specific variation whilst the law and HWC are national. Some might say that it’s democratic to set priorities locally, though I don’t agree as the harm is national, global really.
Kionne should lodge a formal
Kionne should lodge a formal complaint and just keep moving up the complaint heirachy. It may not lead to the any action taken against this particular driver but it will mean that the next time a video is lodged those involved will take more care. Doing nothing will acheive even less. I must also say that I second the idea of asking the constabulary in question for an explanation.
Fully agree with the anger
Fully agree with the anger and frustration expressed. Looking from a slightly different perspective I believe it is the result of poor police management. In any modern company looking to eliminate accidents “near miss” investigation is a vital tool. As actual accidents are few not much is learned from them (and it’s too late). Process, equipment and behaviour defects are spotted and corrected from “near miss” investigation.
In Scotland where the the polis robustly obstruct camera submission it’s a clear case of incompetence at a high level.
A suitable trained person reviewing submissions (not just from cyclists) would be far more cost effective and efficient than any number of officers in cars. It would not take long for the effect of this to be known and change behaviours.
Why can’t the Police management see and understand this?
No doubt our forthcoming road
No doubt our forthcoming road safety review will recommend a “bigger picture” view where we look to examine safety at a system level. Rather than just the “each crash (‘accident’) is unique” “individual responsibility” level we now work at. Albeit they’re rather different from the roads but we already have this for air, rail and marine incidents.
Such a framework likely wouldn’t immediately be applicable to close passes but with such a system in place there’d be a conceptual framework wherein we could consider preventative safety rather than the largely reactive system we have. Once we’ve got our collective heads round that we’d likely find the investment in e.g. a national reporting portal would improve safety further. And be cheaper overall than the current system.
chrisonatrike wrote:
I really think that road junctions need to be closed after serious incidents and a proper examination made before they can be considered safe to be re-opened. If the junction requires changes to be made safe, then so be it – keep it closed to motor traffic for however long it takes.
Until cyclists start holding
Until cyclists start holding the police more accountable then there will be a huge disparity between forces and how they deal with this stuff. Seems like it more of a lottery as to where the incident happens than how severe it is that dictates the response.
Its pretty clear that some forces simply don’t like cyclists and will protect bad drivers. Its nothing to do with not being able to prosecute and everything to do with being unwilling. The police force should be all over this sort of thing if for no other reason than to bring in some extra cash.
We should be escalating these incidents and referring the police to whichever body they are beholden to until they start taking safety seriously.
Unfortunately the police are
Unfortunately the police are beholden to no-one for an individual incident unless actual negligence can be shown.
Also the political theatre that are PCC’s are also shown up to be worth SFA.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Whilst the PCC is supposed to have oversight and set the democratic priorities, the professional standards sit with https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/about-us/what-we-do/
I agree with your sentiments
I agree with your sentiments and understand your anger.
But…
It costs the police a lot to investigate anything, those small fpns costs more to the police than the fine itself. I’m guessing this, I would be perfectly prepared to be corrected, but it does seem reasonable. The cash then goes to the treasury, not the police. Stick in the cost of the magistrate court, and police officer’s time it they are sent there to mostly wait around.
The fines should be based more on earnings, but then you have cries of “war on the motorist” always hard working of course, and those motorists, they shout very loudly.
ktache wrote:
However, we shouldn’t be thinking of the police as just a cost centre. When money is spent for police to do some part of their job, then we’re just paying for a bit of justice and hopefully safer roads. I’d wager that their return on investment is much greater when they’re handed video footage and merely have to watch and action it.
The actual problem is how successive governments have reduced the police resources.
I would be happy for all
I would be happy for all videos that are not to be used in a prosecution to be forwarded to the car insurance industry. If insurance premiums go up for a year because of such notification then that might start changing behaviour. I appreciate that doesn’t address uninsured drivers but it might be a start?