Motorists who are caught on camera overtaking cyclists, pedestrians, and horse riders too closely in Wales will avoid punishment for the foreseeable future after GoSafe, the country’s road casualty reduction partnership, revealed that it has temporarily suspended taking action on close passes.
That decision, GoSafe says, is based on “national guidance” issued by the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and the Forensic Science Regulator, which advises that distance measurement in videos submitted to Operation SNAP – including the distance between a cyclist and an overtaking driver – must be carried out by trained forensic specialists.

However, the Forensic Science Regulator, which regulates the application of scientific principles and methods in legal decision-making in England and Wales, has insisted that it has not issued any guidance “that would suggest forces suspend taking action on evidence submitted to Operation SNAP”.
Is this the end for third-party close pass reporting?
Earlier this month, we reported that South Wales Police will no longer issue warning letters to motorists caught on helmet or bike cameras driving carelessly, due to the overwhelming amount of footage currently being submitted to its online reporting portal.
The change in policy came to light after cyclist and road.cc reader Dave – who had submitted footage of what he described as a “bad” close pass to GoSafe Wales’ Operation SNAP portal – was told that the incident will result in no further action being taken.
According to South Wales Police, Operation SNAP, which is used across the UK, enabling members of the public to submit video and photographic evidence of driving offences to the police, is currently under review because, they said, it has “become so successful that the team is no longer able to manage the demand”.
When approached by road.cc, GoSafe Wales – the Welsh road safety partnership which manages the Operation SNAP portal on behalf of the police – later confirmed that the third-party reporting initiative will not result in warning letters being issued for the foreseeable future “due to the unprecedented increase in submissions”.
“Since its inception in 2017 Operation SNAP has proved a valuable tool for road safety in Wales,” a spokesperson for GoSafe told road.cc.
“It allows member of the public to submit footage of potential road traffic offences, directly to the police, via an internet portal, and where appropriate suitable action can be taken against offenders, as part of the overall Welsh road safety effort.
“However, the scheme has become so successful that the team is no longer able to manage the demand submitted by the public. We are in the process of reviewing the operation, in order to ensure that it remains efficient and effective.
“Therefore, until further notice, we will not be able to take any further action in cases which would previously be dealt with by warning letter. This change will mean that the operation can continue, and that the teams will be able to deal with the most serious cases submitted.”
GoSafe did, however, noted that “positive action” can still be taken in some cases and may include a conditional offer of a diversionary course, a conditional offer of a fixed penalty, or, in the most serious instances, a date in court.
Shortly after we first contacted GoSafe about their change in policy when it comes to Operation SNAP, another road.cc reader, Ian, told us that he had experienced a dangerous close pass while cycling earlier this month, before submitting the footage “as usual” to the reporting portal.
However, this time, Ian was told that no action will be taken due to “new guidance stating we are not to deal with incidents involving distances”.
When asked about this, GoSafe confirmed that they will no longer take action against motorists who commit close passes following, the spokesperson said, “national guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator”.
“A decision has been made to temporarily suspend taking action on evidence submitted to Operation Snap whereby pedal cyclists, horse riders, and pedestrians feel that the subject vehicle has passed them too closely,” the spokesperson told road.cc.
“This decision has been made following national guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator. Operation SNAP remains in service for witnesses of driving offences and will evaluate each incident on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration aggravating factors present.”
What is the Forensic Science Regulator’s guidance and how does it affect close pass submissions?
So, what exactly is this guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator, which effectively means close passing drivers can’t currently be punished in Wales?
Based on the guidance issued by the FSR over the past 18 months, which covers everything from drug driving to suspected data manipulation at Randox, it appears GoSafe were referring to a notification, published in August 2024, relating to the estimation of speed from video footage in the criminal justice system.
According to the FSR, a post appointed by the Home Secretary and currently held by former Met Police forensic science director Gary Pugh, the estimation of vehicle speed from video footage – like the clips submitted by camera cyclists and dash cam-using drivers – is a forensic science activity subject to the regulator’s statutory Code of Practice, which came into force in 2023.

Last year, the FSR notified police forces undertaking speed estimation from dash cam or bike camera videos that they must comply to the Code of Practice and ensure effective training, methods, checks are in place when examining third-party footage.
This guidance has led some forces to pause their speed estimation policies, though others have continued to examine speed from third-party footage while supplying evidence of their compliance to the Criminal Justice System, with the FSR noting that it is working closely with forces to ensure they “understand the risks that inaccurate or unreliable speed estimation” will be reported.
However, this speed-related guidance does not, as GoSafe suggested, refer to the police’s assessment of the distance between a vulnerable road user and an overtaking motorist.
And, when approached by road.cc, the FSR confirmed that they have not issued national guidance on close passes or “non-analytical” assessments of dangerous or careless driving.

“The Forensic Science Regulator requires forensic units estimating speed or distance from video footage to comply with the Code of Practice, and for forensic units to declare compliance or non-compliance in any reports made,” a spokesperson for the FSR told road.cc.
“This does not preclude the use of the evidence at all, and the declaration would only be required if an analytical test such as speed estimation was performed. The requirements do not cover non-analytical viewing to assess a road users’ actions or the consequence of their actions.
“The Forensic Science Regulator has not issued any national guidance on the topic, and certainly nothing that would suggest forces suspend taking action on evidence submitted to Operation Snap for the purposes you outline.”
As clear as mud?
road.cc then asked GoSafe to clarify why, in that case, action on close pass submissions had been suspended, despite the FSR failing to reference distance in its guidance, leaving the door open for the road safety partnership itself to determine whether a motorist’s overtake can be deemed careless or dangerous.
The organisation then pointed us to the recent Roads Policing Strategy issued by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, which, unlike the FSR’s guidelines, references both speed analysis and distance measurement.
According to GoSafe’s team, the NPCC’s “framework for video-based evidence” details the requirements and level of training required for assessing third-party videos.
When it comes to “investigative viewing”, the guidance states that for “journeycam practitioners”, footage can be viewed without any forensic analysis by level one trained personnel, “in order to consider the question of prosecution”.
However, to confuse matters even further, the NPCC – referencing the FSR’s guidance – notes that the forensic analysis of this footage, known as “image analysis”, must be carried out by level three trained forensic specialists, who must be “specifically competent in the Forensic Science Activities (FSAs) being undertaken”.

It is this forensic science-based guidance, then, that appears to have triggered GoSafe’s decision to suspend taking action on close passes after all, despite distance measurement not being included in the FSR guidance referenced by the National Police Chiefs’ Council.
And, in any case, does the level of careless or dangerous driving typically displayed in the close passes we’ve witnessed on hundreds of occasions over the years on road.cc really require a highly trained forensic specialist?
We contacted the National Police Chiefs’ Council with these questions, but are yet to receive a response.





















50 thoughts on “The end of bike camera reporting? Police in Wales stop taking action on cyclists’ close pass videos, claiming decision based on “national guidance” advising forces to avoid “dealing with incidents involving distances””
A few weeks ago I was close
A few weeks ago I was close passed twice by the same driver withing about 4 mins. I considered making an OpSnap report. However, when I viewed the video recorded on my Garmin RCT715 rear and the Insta360 X3 on the front, not even I was convinced by the video evidence that they were close passes. So, I can appreciate the difficulty in determining these reports the Police have.
HOWEVER, for about 2 years now, my gut instincts tell me there may be a ‘behind the scenes’ backlash against cyclists reporting motorists resulting in endorseable offences being actioned. Watching CyclingMikey’s videos, 2-3 yrs ago the vast majority resulted in points being awarded. Now, probably only half have any action whatsoever. As I commented about a year ago, if the Met were focused on enforcement being seen to be done, they would ensure ALL of Mikey’s reports were acted upon, and inform him of the results, due to his prominence.
But they aren’t!!
In recent years we have seen many anti-cycling headlines and articles in News papers, internet and even the BBC on National TV. I believe this is causing tangible harm and encouraging a small proportion of motorists to react adversely to cyclists. When the Highway Code was updated, it resulted in many anti-cycling articles focused on the 1.5m ‘rule’. Following this, the propensity I experience of CPs has doubled. Many times in the last few years, from ‘out of the blue’ I have been on the receiving end of angry verbal abuse from passing drivers, even ones approaching on the opposite side of the road. I have even had drivers deliberately drive at me.
What concerns me now, it will become general knowledge amongst those type of motorists, that OpSnap will not act on reports from cyclists and so they are free to drive as they please.
RIP – Road Safety
Yep, the word will get around
Yep, the word will get around very quickly that you won’t get in trouble any more and as we all know, the only thing that makes drivers think twice is the small change they will suffer for their dangerous driving.
Had someone drive straight at me the other day gesticulating wildly because I had overtaken parked cars on my side of the road and wasn’t quite clear of them before he wanted to overtake them. I entered the line of parked cars well before he was anywhere near them and was nearly past them but it was his side of the road and he just drove straight at me. Would have run me over if I hadn’t swerved into the dooring zone of the parked cars.
Was going to report but doesn’t seem worth it half the time.
Depressing, this did go to
Depressing, this did go to court and the Judge dismissed the case:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDqn2ckgPVw
mctrials23 wrote:
Well that presumes drivers were getting in trouble anyway, I think except for some notable hotspots they werent, the vast majority already believe nothing happens, largely because it doesn’t.
There’s usually a dozen or so stories per year in the tabloids disgruntled drivers getting parking tickets, about speeding, about points for careless driving offences like eating apples or taking a sip of water. Mostly all valid prosecutions too.
When was the last time you read a story about a disgruntled motorist complaining how they got done for a close pass on a cyclist ?
Is “too many to deal with”
Is “too many to deal with” the new standard??? What other activity will be ignored because there are “too many to deal with”? Drink driving? Knife assaults? Hit-and-run?
Well currently theft is
Well currently theft is almost entirely ignored. Dangerous driving is almost completely ignored. Littering. Anti-social behaviour. So yes, more and more things are being ignored because the police are underfunded and understaffed.
Whats truly stupid is that the police could make an absolute fortune (councils as well) if they were willing to monetise peoples bad behaviour. I could likely review 10+ incidents an hour and if each one of those was £150 fine I think I perhaps would cover my salary. Heck, you could even get people who are not police to do a very quick check and only pass on the relevant ones to the police for a final check to make it cheaper and quicker.
Let people take photos of illegal parking and send them in.
Peoples general behaviour and attitude towards everything is getting worse and part of that is because people know there are rarely consequences.
SHOCK HORROR! Police find
SHOCK HORROR! Police find another excuse not to prosecute crime.
Quote:
If there are overwhelming numbers of incidents being reported – to a level where the police are choosing not to look at them because they’ll interfere with their “real” police work – then doesn’t that mean that there is a real problem out there? And someone ought to do something about it. And by “someone”: going out on a limb here but how about our warranted law enforcement service??
I believe that the
I believe that the Departments are getting confused over the advice from the FSR.
For matters involving speed offences it takes a forensically trained person to establish speed over distance. This is the time it takes an object to move from one point of the video to another, normally between lamposts or white lines on the road surface etc. Thus speed is calculated and used as evidence at Courts.
On a closs pass, this calculation can not be used, as its the distance from the cyclist to the obect that needs to be measured and this can not be done as normally there is not a central line for the riders position on the road, included in the video.
We do not have a white pole infront of us to say this is where my wheel is and this is where my edge of shoulder is etc. Thus, it normally just goes on visual evidence and of course the descriptions given in the statement of the originator of the video. The better description of the pass, how scared it made you feel, the force of the draft hitting you and making you unstable on the bike etc all helps with the bonus points.
Therefore I feel that the Departments need to refered back to the FSR and the NPCC to confirm the meaning of the direction of the latest National Guidance.
For basic policing, Speeding, Carless driving, close passes, there is no need for the Forensic examinations of video footage. This would only come about if an offender was sent to the Crown Courts or placed an appeal or objection to prosecution. Then the video evidence would be forensicaly analysed by experts and then presented at the Courts. Of course if there was a serious colision and persons injured, then all evidence is forensically examined for presentation at Court.
Vlad the Impailer wrote:
It’s nothing more than an excuse to do nothing
Thanks Vlad.
Thanks Vlad.
That photo from “Police
That photo from “Police Scotland Greater Glasgow” once again only serves to illustrate the sheer idiocy which is still prevalent in some police forces. The “Passing distance” is NOT measured from the center of a “cyclist” but from their outer edge plus, i.e. at the least from the outer limit of the handlebar respective elbows but actually including a modifier for swerves etc. The “width” of any cyclist is not zero but physically at least 40cm, with wider handlebars considered and modifier it is assumed at 80cm. That means in the picture “Police Scotland Greater Glasgow” is showing an “overtaking Clearance” of 1.1m which is prosecutable/fineable by the letter of the law. “1.5m” is also the lower limit, so drivers should be educated to pass with “more than” 1.5m not “exactly” 1.5m because if they were targetting that distance 50% of passes would still be illegal…
It’s roughly 70cm from the
It’s roughly 70cm from the middle centre line of me to my outstretched arm & palm on a bike, plenty of drivers think this is enough space to give to overtake, more than a few think even that’s too much.
I’d be more than happy if we could get them to shift that extra 80cm away from me as a starting point, then we can debate about where the line should really be measured from.
I’m glad you mentioned this.
I’m glad you mentioned this. I’ve been pondering this one recently, and I do recall that Ashley Neil mentioned in one of his videos that the distance should be measured, as you say, from the outer edge (tip of handlebars).
BUT, is this specifically detailed anywhere? Can anyone here provide a good source for this?
Personally, when I report close passes, I do measure from the centre line of my bicycle, as it’s the one easily identifiable location within video evidence. And these days, I add a distance marker overlay to my footage for the police, so that they can clearly see the distance of the reported vehicle to me. Also, to “guarantee” a positive result, I only report those drivers that are 1.25m or closer on my markers. It saves both my time and theirs.
DeelitedManchester wrote:
It would be foolish for the police or anyone else to measure from the centreline of the bike, IMO. After all, there’s half a handlebar, one lung, an arm, and leg (and possibly a pannier) each side of the centreline, which kind of reduces the available passing space…
brooksby wrote:
And sometimes more than that – half a trailer, with children in it, for example.
It would be foolish for the
It would be foolish for the police or anyone else to measure from the centreline of the bike
Being foolish would not stop the police from doing anything! However, we now know of the increasing number of forces who have decided that no matter how close the pass was it’s a ‘NFA’. They just bin them. It’s looking like other forces are trying to catch-up the previously undisputed anti-cyclist, pro-close-passing forces of Lancashire and Scotland. You all know by now that these would both be immediately binned by Lancashire Constabulary, except I didn’t bother to report the Peugeot- there’ll be plenty more worse ones along soon. You may all think (apart from police apologist DeelitedManchester, who professed confidence in Lancashire Constabulary, but wasn’t able to provide any evidence that they’d ever taken action on his behalf) that your own areas can’t possibly become as anti-cyclist as Lancashire – but they will!
https://upride.cc/incident/wa12ezu_schooltrafic_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/kv61gda_peugeot308_closepass/
Remember the police view of correct passing clearance:
https://upride.cc/incident/kn21axh_lancspolice_closepass/
institutionally anti-cyclist
institutionally anti-cyclist
Surely being “overwhelmed” by
Surely being “overwhelmed” by how bad something is means you should do more to correct it, not less…?
eltel5150 wrote:
Exactly, “We’re overwhelmed by buglaries so we’re no longer investigating them or prosecuting the perps” wouldn’t go down well (yes I know in practice this seems to be about the attitude in some forces but just an example…)
That is what happens in
That is what happens in practice. A while ago shoplifting for £200 or less was effectively decriminalised.
I think the Police take the view that they are can’t be held responsible for the volume of crime if they aren’t given the resources to tackle it.
We’re very busy with errant
We’re very busy with errant drivers breaking the law and putting cyclists in danger so to counter this we will advertise that we won’t be punishing anyone ever .
What a great way to deal with it .Do you think they thought of saying nothing ,like they are going to do
No change in Kent then.
No change in Kent then. Anything reported goes into a void of no consequence. I’ve reported several close passes and on absolutely no occasion whatsoever, except where I was driving and the footage was from a dashcam, did Kent Police request to view the footage. Meanwhile, we cyclists are increasingly sworn at, close passed, brake checked and even having things thrown at us on Kent roads.
Cycling needs to come together to pressure government into ensuring there are consequences for people who abuse, injure and kill others on the roads. Proper consequences. Not these pathetic sentences handed out for terrible crimes on the roads.
According to the ONS as of
According to the ONS as of end of December 2024 there were 6.6m recorded crimes in England and Wales.
As of the end of March 2024 there were 147,746 police officers.
Assuming 180 productive work days per year that means each officer has 4 days to deal with each crime.
This seems like a reasonable amount of time which begs the question what else are the police doing that stops them dealing with crime? But clearly the work isn’t getting done.
Maybe we need to lobby for many more Police officers, and increase fines and ringfence revenue from fines to help fund more Police.
That also sounds like a good
That also sounds like a good idea to me. I’d scrap the utterly pointless Police and Crime Commissioners also. And enforce world peace lol.
Pub bike wrote:
Well obviously the vast majority of police officers aren’t investigating officers/detectives but ordinary patrol officers whose job is to apprehend suspects, make enquiries and generally keep the peace. There are only about 8000 detective officers of all ranks, and then you have to consider that for high-level crimes like murder and serious sexual offences officers may have to spend months focused on a single case you can see why they would have trouble with the workload.
Absolutely, either that or more trained civilian workers to assess things like dashcam/bikecam videos. If the revenues from fines et cetera were diverted back into crime investigation and prevention there would be no excuse for any of this “we’ve had too many submissions we can’t cope” nonsense. There was a force reported on this site recently (Essex, maybe?) that had something like 8000 camera reports and had sent NIPs to half of those. Even if all of those offenders only got the minimum £100 fine, that would be £400,000 revenue, enough to pay for a dedicated full-time staff of maybe fifteen workers to deal with reports, they would only have to look at three a day each so not only could all allegations be fully investigated but maybe they would even have time to have the courtesy to write back to the submitting cyclist/driver explaining the rationale behind their decisions.
Pub bike wrote:
In fairness, the police spend a fair amount of time preventing crime.
Consider a Premier League football match – hundreds of police officers deployed, usually not much crime committed, but in many cases if they weren’t there you’d risk a full on riot.
Pfffft – non story. I have
Pfffft – non story. I have never even seen a close pass, let alone experienced one, and find motorists unfailingly polite, considerate and friendly. I therefore applaud the Police’s decision to stop picking on them more than laudible, and I will personally fund a box of Dunkin’s for the next traffic officer I see. Said no one ever…
Except Nigel…..
Except Nigel…..
Not quite as dangerous, but I
Not quite as dangerous, but I’ve recently been told by a police officer that they will no longer accept or investigate photos showing motorists blocking the pavement. Apparently, because this is a non-endorsable offence (i.e., can only be dealt with through a fixed penalty notice) it can only be enforced if witnessed by a police officer. I live near a residential facility for severely disabled people, and several times I’ve seen people being forced to take their wheelchairs onto a busy road because the pavement was obstructed. Once, I had to step out into the road to stop oncoming traffic because this was happening on a blind corner. As several others have commented, motorists are just being given carte blanche to behave as they like no matter what the inconvenience or danger it causes pedestrians and cyclists.
kittybag wrote:
It’d be a shame if those cars got scratched as pedestrians attempt to navigate past them
In other words the police
In other words the police just can’t be arsed. Oh well hopefully I won’t die.
It might be prudent to check
It might be prudent to check the MOT and tax status of a vehicle that you wish to report as I suspect there is a strong correlation between being lax with complying with such requirements and being beligerent generally.
They are easy to check on the DVLA website.
It is a shame that checking the insurance status of a vehicle is more convoluted and costs ten quid – but a cynic might argue that the government is more interested in people reporting evaders of tax than exposing the public to the consequences of encountering uninsured drivers.
Such considerations may ensure a stronger response from the police.
check the MOT and tax status
check the MOT and tax status of a vehicle that you wish to report
This suggestion should go into the Favourite Funny topic! The police refuse to act on vehicles with No MOT for years, even on vehicles with Failed MOT for serious safety defects. DVLA refuses to act on vehicles without VED for years (my record in Lancashire is 6 years)- I have written to my MP about this, and she has written to them, but she will get the brushoff as well
Yep, the moment i realised
Yep, the moment i realised things were getting more laissez-faire in the close pass department was when I reported a van close pass, well it was more of move over or I drive into you pass, which i was sure would result in a NIP, because the van was also not taxed, or had an MOT and wasn’t driving to a garage to get one at 5pm on a Sunday.
And the police response was merely to offer the driver some words of advice, not even a warning letter.
They don’t. I’ve only ever
They don’t. I’ve only ever done 3 reports for shitty driving, but as you say you might think that the fact that all of them were also variously out of MoT or VED might help.
They don’t.
They don’t.
They certainly don’t- take action against ‘No MOT’ or even ‘badly failed MOT’ or ‘years without VED’, that is. The police are determined to show what tough guys they are by refusing to act on information from the public, and the DVLA are just hopelessly inept and can’t even cope with all the millions of No VED vehicles on their own database. Take WT16 ATX, for just one instance- a repeat offender first detected by me with MOT 3 months out of date , and no VED for 8 months and reported to the police by me in October 22. Fortuitously spotted, still without MOT or VED, when I was out walking the same December, with a good view of the driver. The vehicle went over 6 months and over 8000 miles with a badly failed (twice) MOT in 2024/ A serial offender, but if he ever ploughed into anybody such as a cyclist, the police would turn up and state in court that he had ‘never committed any road traffic offences’, because they have an interest in covering-up and lying in court, just like MI5
Of course the police can’t
Of course the police can’t deal with actual crimes, they haven’t got the staff because they send 18 police vans to elderly people holding up placards protesting at the Palestine Action ban.
eburtthebike wrote:
Well, we rely on the police to keep us safe from the 83 year old terrorist vicars, don’t we?
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/bristol-vicar-83-taken-away-10322580
(By the way, if people construe your post as supporting Palestine Action, then that makes you a terrorist too)
Payed on the other thread but
Posted on another thread also but police manage to take action when someone comes close to crashing into them:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cly8qwx5e4lo
(Yeah, it’s not the same because police so immediately better value evidence and no doubt this focused their attention…)
Of course, they fudged the
Of course, they fudged the whole proscription vote by lumping PA in with some seriously nasty extremist groups so MPs had to vote for banning all of them or none of them, and very few MPs wanted to appear to support the genuine extremists… Allegedly there was also a great deal of lobbying by the arms companies who were being protested against by PA.
But we’ve got to stop these people who are affecting economic growth by complaining about arms sales to a genocide and spraying paint, haven’t we?
When are Labour coming into power, again? It seems to me that the Tories haven’t left yet…
brooksby wrote:
BBC are running lots of “one year in to a Labour government elected with a large majority – how badly have they failed?” articles…
So it would seem the alternative Conservatives aren’t conservative enough OR should at least have fixed the world by now (or is Auntie just impartially reflecting the general public’s feelings?)
chrisonabike wrote:
Yeah, see quote below that concluded Nick Robinson’s (BBC political editor, formerly President of Oxford University Conservative Association, also formerly President of Conservative Party Youth Movement) feature on his interview with Starmer. No great fan of Starmer myself as I’m a socialist but “everyone other than him”? Like the 25%-30% of the population saying they’ll vote for him?
.
.
Of course the police can’t
Of course the police can’t deal with actual crimes, they haven’t got the staff…
You’right! It’s outrageous that people waste police time with trivialities like this, when the hard-working driver of BMW iX YG25 TSZ was only keeping the country moving
https://upride.cc/incident/yg25tsz_bmwix_closepass/
Or this, which will also be
Or this. Bloody cyclists are not trying hard enough to get themselves KSI’d, so we’ll have to do it for them- this is the female driver of Mitsubishi Barbarian W2 AGW crossing the unbroken white line then swerving towards me to avoid a collision with the oncoming Ford Fiesta
https://upride.cc/incident/w2agw_barbarian_closepass/
Well I know road.cc is well
Well I know road.cc is well known for its revenant accounts – but I’m betting you’re still alive – hence per traffic police logic in many places “no foul”.
Of course if you had been deaded that would be one less person to complain that some offence had been committed!
I know road.cc is well known
I know road.cc is well known for its revenant accounts
This may be one of them
The article linked below
The article linked below appeared in the latest CUK newsletter with regards to reporting in Wales.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/it-worth-submitting-video-footage-close-passes?
Some interesting points :
It seems that Wales now agree with Gloucestershire in that inconvenience needs to be shown
https://road.cc/content/news/close-pass-isnt-offence-says-police-officer-310433
by the following paragraph
Note the phrase ‘careless and inconsiderate’. Not ‘careless or inconsiderate’
And on estimating distances :
Chief Inspector Morgan asked us to encourage our members to keep making submissions including video footage, but recommends you bear in mind the following points when doing so:
If the footage shows that either you or another road user has been forced to alter your path or speed, due to the driving of the alleged offender, then they are highly likely to be able to take action.
If you can provide a statement along with your submission, describing how close the vehicle was in real terms and how it made you feel, the police are more likely to be able to take action. For instance: “On passing me the vehicle was within six inches of my leg. This caused me to panic and I had to stop to calm down, as I feared that a collision was imminent, as a result of which I could have sustained serious injuries”. That’s because in these circumstances they are making a decision on first hand evidence, corroborated by video, rather than having to make judgements of their own, in contravention of Forensic Science Regulator guidance.
While this is specific guidance from GoSafe about submissions in Wales, it is probably relevant for similar submissions to police forces outside Wales.
Would seem to imply that the cyclist can make an estimate of the distance but the police can’t!
I have given enough evidence
I have given enough evidence below, with actual measurements in some cases, and in (almost) countless other threads. People who think there is anything remotely sensible about this ‘must be inconvenienced’ dodge are as ignorant about cycling as the police, or are simply trolls making up stories. Lancashire has never prosecuted anybody for close passing a cyclist. They may have issued words of advice, advice letters, online driving courses and driving courses in person. The first three are absolutely worthless and the last is not much better. We get occasional trolls on here claiming that nearly all their videos are acted upon – I ask them to show the offence online, along with evidence that significant action has been taken by the police/ courts. They don’t reply, because they are deluding themselves and us- there was someone from Manchester and another from Leeds. I repeat the request to cyclists from Wales. Show us something like these, and the apologists for the police can explain how it was that no action was taken, and the proponents for the ‘inconvenience dodge’ can explain how this inconvenience could have been manifest in the fraction of a second while the offence was in process. The proponents for AI cameras and mirrors can explain how they would have made a difference!
https://upride.cc/incident/pe69ooc_clio_closepassspeed/
https://upride.cc/incident/yn67mvj_sainsburys44tonner_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/4148vz_travellerschoicecoach_closepass/