New guidance issued to road users submitting footage of careless or dangerous driving to the Metropolitan Police, which notes that officers are “unable to deal” with instances of motorists driving in cycle or bus lanes, or the wrong way down one-way streets, will give “errant drivers carte blanche to do what they like”, cyclists have said.
The Met has also been criticised for advising cyclists in London that their complaints will not be dealt with if they “actively” confront or engage with a motorist committing a driving offence, especially if their behaviour could be deemed to be “aggressive, unacceptable, or not conforming to the Met Police values”.
Faced with an apparent surge in submissions of footage of alleged driving offences, this week the Met Police issued updated guidance to Londoners submitting camera footage, seemingly with the aim of narrowing the breadth of road offences featured in these complaints.
The correspondence, seen by road.cc, reads: “Due to the high volume of reports received in this office we will be unable to provide any further updates, and the only time you will be contacted further is if we need to check your availability to attend court. It is anticipated that in the near future we will be able to provide a link which will publish case status updates.”
The email continued that “in order for the Police to secure the best evidence from you and enhance opportunities to progress these cases, we would like to draw your attention to the below when considering reporting cases to us in the future”.
The new guidelines include warnings that complaints will not be accepted where footage has been “lifted directly from social media”, that footage should not be uploaded to social media until the case is concluded, that the footage cannot be edited in any way, and that the clips will be shared with the offending driver.
The guidelines also advise that a maximum of two pieces of footage no longer than three minutes will be considered, that the offending vehicle’s number plate must be clearly visible, that the date and time stamp on the video must be correct, and that officers will not seek or request footage from third parties on the complainant’s behalf, with decisions “purely based on the evidence submitted”.
Notably, the guidelines also stipulate the following:
Due to the decriminalisation of a large number of traffic offences we are unable to deal with any parking allegations except those relating to white zigzag lines.
We are also unable to deal with any offences relating to driving/riding in bus/cycle lanes and the majority of offences relating to contravention of road traffic signs. This includes, but is not limited to, ‘keep left’, ‘no motor vehicle’, ‘one-way street’ and ‘no left/right turn’ signs.
We are unable to deal with allegations relating to vehicle document offences such as driving without a licence, insurance, or tax.
Do not seek to actively confront, reprimand, or engage with drivers/riders in any way. If your conduct is deemed to be aggressive, unacceptable, or does not conform to the Met Police values, cases will not be proceeded with.
Our decision in these cases is final and we will not engage in further communication.
“Something’s got to give”
These guidelines, especially those concerning the reporting of motorists driving in cycle lanes and the success of a report hinging on the victim’s reaction to a close pass or instance of careless driving, has been the subject of criticism from cyclists since the updated email was first issued this week.
One London cyclist who received the email, after submitting footage of careless driving to the Met this week, told road.cc that the new advice appears intent on “putting people off” reporting close passes or poor driving.
The cyclist also said the Met’s inability to deal with footage of motorists driving in bike lanes – which since 2003 has been designated as a ‘civil’ contravention – will give drivers “carte blanche to do what they like”.
“This guidance raises a few interesting points, like not acting on footage of drivers going the wrong way up a one-way street, or driving along cycle lanes,” the cyclist – known by as Chaponabike on social media, and who was the subject of criticism this week after posting a video of a taxi driver moving into a cycle lane to allow an emergency vehicle to pass – told road.cc.
“I fear this just gives errant drivers carte blanche to do what they like, without fear of prosecution. I understand there has been a huge increase in journey cam footage being submitted, as road users get sick and tired of witnessing bad driving, and decide to take matters into their own hands, video it, and submit the footage to the Met Police.
“It’s clear they’re lacking capacity to deal with it, as the number of positive actions I’ve received following journey cam footage submission has dwindled since the start of 2024.
“We understand the police have got far more serious matters to deal with, but whilst the government pumps money into road infrastructure projects, to the tune of £8bn a year, why can’t some of that budget be used to fund better enforcement and encourage more road safety initiatives?”
They continued: “Something’s got to give here. Thousands of road users (drivers, horse riders, and cyclists alike), are now regularly submitting footage of careless driving to the Met Police.
“This surely highlights that careless driving is a huge problem, but that we lack the capacity to deal with it, as the police are being defunded, road safety statutes are being decriminalised, and guidance like this from the Met Police just seems to put people off from submitting incidents in the first place.
“The mountain of recorded careless driving incidents is going to get bigger and bigger. People aren’t going to stop buying dash cams, and any driver anywhere is guaranteed to witness some form of careless road use, whenever they leave the house.”
> Transport for London to begin fining motorists caught driving in mandatory cycle lanes
Meanwhile, PC Mark Hodson, one of the pioneers behind police close pass operations and an advocate for third-party reporting from cyclists, criticised the Met’s claim that they are unable to deal with cycle lane infractions, arguing that “a dangerous position is endorsable [subject to a Fixed Penalty Notice], so only the police can action”.
He continued: “Although a local authority can make an order to decriminalise enforcement in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions Act 2002, and retain the funds received from penalties, including parking regulations on yellow/red lines and parking spaces, ‘they do not include endorsable offences and offences related to obstruction, which the police will continue to be responsible for on a road/public place’.”
When contacted by road.cc, a spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police said they will look into the matter, but that it will “take some time to confirm”.
62 thoughts on ““This gives errant drivers carte blanche to do what they like”: Police tell camera cyclists they are “unable to deal” with motorists driving in bike lanes or the wrong way down one-way streets, while warning cyclists to “not confront” dangerous drivers”
So what exactly does The Met
So what exactly does The Met do?
Doesn’t do rape, assault, road rage, burglary, cyber crime, shop lifting, vehicle theft.
It does seem that they’re quite good at running around at high speed in expensive cars and attempting to prosecute people with placards whilst all the while calling for greater powers.
Yup, looks like a chocolate
Yup, looks like a chocolate teapot will be more useful than a police force. These cowards are wasting tax-payer money.
Corrupt, corrupt from the bottom to the top.
Huw Watkins wrote:
THey’ll be quite happy to prosecute you for swearing at the driver that has just close passed you
Huw Watkins wrote:
Oh I think in recent years they’ve proved that they do all those things. They don’t investigate them, but they do them.
I now know why The Met failed
I now know why The Met failed to pursue the guy who drove me off the road and attacked me with a hammer. It’s clearly because I hit him back. Whatever was I thinking?
“Do not seek to actively confront, reprimand, or engage with drivers/riders in any way. If your conduct is deemed to be aggressive, unacceptable, or does not conform to the Met Police values, cases will not be proceeded with.”
Maybe it’s time to disband
Maybe it’s time to disband the Met and start over. Given how little crime they actually deal with, and seem to be more content to lock up protestors.
So let me just confirm. If I
So let me just confirm. If I have a police car behind me and I ignore ‘keep left’, ‘no motor vehicle’, ‘one-way street’ and ‘no left/right turn’ signs, he wont stop me?
Good to know.
“The Met has also been
“The Met has also been criticised for advising cyclists in London that their complaints will not be dealt with if………not conforming to the Met Police values”
If they conformed to Met Police values, they wouldn’t be reporting it in the first place.
As stated in the article, inconsiderate, bad and dangerous driving are so common that they hardly excite a response, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore them like the Met does. Such driving kills, and it cannot be ignored: except by the police.
Has road.cc asked the Commissioner of Police and the Mayor what they think?
their complaints will not be
their complaints will not be dealt with if not conforming to the Met Police values
Not the police’s point! They’re not at all concerned about the actions or attitudes of the offending motorist- the ‘values’ they’re on about is just a dodge to bin the complaint if they don’t like the complainant and can think of some reason to cite- doesn’t much matter what it is.
eburtthebike wrote:
It’s the behaviour of the person reporting the infraction which needs to conform to Met Police values. It’s not clear if this means you need to film yourself being racist, mysgonistic AND homophobic to successfully submit a video of a driving infraction, or if only one of those is sufficient.
You’ve forgotten
You’ve forgotten institutionally corrupt…
Take enforcing these
Take enforcing these misdmeanors off the police. Give it to the council or another civil body to enforce; like many already do for bus lane infringements, dog fouling, littering etc.
It is anticipated that in the
It is anticipated that in the near future we will be able to provide a link which will publish case status updates
I think it was HoarseMann who told me about this system being applied by Northampton Police- if you know the details, you can find the outcome. In contrast, Lancashire Constabulary claims that it is illegal for them to confirm that they even hold that information! That is obvious bollocks, just like Lancashire’s claim that you must be carrying a notice on your mode of transport (my legs in the case of the numerous red traffic light offences). It is this police practice of simply making up bollocks, different in different areas, without any supervision or comparison with other forces which further (if such a thing were possible) reduces confidence in the police.
Suspect alot of forces have
Suspect alot of forces have been following this guidance for some time, they’ve just not bothered to tell everyone like the Met have
I suspect that this may also
I suspect that this may also be the CPS not wanting to use their budget on prosecuting such cases.
Almost certainly.
Almost certainly.
Quote:
Dear Mr.Harris,
Thank you for your submission of the video showing a driver on the wrong side of the road hitting you head on at double the speed limit. We understand that this was distressing for you and we hope that your broken neck and brain damage clear up soon. Unfortunately we have noted that your camera footage does show that just before the oncoming vehicle struck you you did shout “What the fuck are you doing you fucking lunatic?”, something that we find aggressive, unacceptable and not conforming to Met Police values, so we cannot proceed with any action in this case.
Kind regards,
The Metropolitan Police Farce
Many contributors will have
Many contributors will have seen the recent coverage of the Norfolk Constabulary.
In Norfolk the police have decided under the leadership of a seemingly great Chief Constable to go back to “old fashioned” policing.
So they are now actively tracking down shop lifters, people doing anti social behaviour and all the sort of low level stuff other forces don’t bother with.
And they are getting results. Burglary down 20%, shop theft down etc etc. No more resources but they’ve understood that going after low level criminals including traffic offences shows everyone the police are in charge.
Obviously the Met won’t follow because they still believe “broken windows” type policing (focussed on low level crime) doesn’t work.
The police have lots of
The police have lots of police officers and time to be at football matches and protest marches in London, But very few police officers and very little time for everyday crime.
Brings the Met in line with
Brings the Met in line with Police Scotland.
[And Lancs …]
Oldfatgit wrote:
not the sort of enlightenment we ever wanted for ourselves, or for others to follow.
Met values : Sadiq Khan, ‘173
Met values : Sadiq Khan, ‘173 officers under investigation for domestic abuse allegations, 152 officers are subject to live criminal/misconduct investigations and a further 21 officers who have a case to answer for Gross Misconduct that are awaiting a hearing. 1.’ (from Google search) . Also from the Standard,’ Met Police officers ‘accessed Sarah Everard murder files without authorisation.’
The line in the Mets statement that they will not update unless a court appearance is necessary should be read as, your complaint will be binned.
Of course it’s all a matter of funding and political will.
I don’t understand this, on
I don’t understand this, on two grounds in particular
-this seems like a very clear and easy crime to investigate and prosecute. There is clear video footage of a clear crime, with clear identification of perpetrators. An open and shut case.
-my understanding, from a police officer friend, is that a good reason to prosecute road crime is that it often leads to other crimes being detected and solved. E.g. they stop someone for having no insurance or for driving through a red light, turns out the driver was wanted for some other jobs, or had some drugs in the car. Criminally bad drivers are often criminal in other ways.
I’m not sure about that. The
I’m not sure about that. The high level of speeding and red light jumping suggests that it is something that is so normalised that people don’t even think it’s illegal.
This effectively confirms
This effectively confirms what I have assumed for some while now, the majority of CyclingMikey’s submissions are now either ignored, or just a warning letter sent.
Too many times, I read various contributors call for more cycling infrastructure, to improve cycling safety and encourage more cycling.
I don’t agree with this approach. For many years, I have believed more infra is exacerbating the problem, not solving it. It emphasizes ‘the roads are not for cyclists’ mindset, because cyclists should be riding on cycle paths.
Fundamentally, if you want to make the roads safer, you need to POLICE THE ROADS.
Total nonsense, the one
Total nonsense, the one offence that you can rely on the Met to prosecute the vast majority of the time it’s reported is phone use. Mikey is probably running at a 80-90% conviction rate for his reporting
Please show me the evidence
Please show me the evidence to support that statistic of his reports in the last 12 months.
I can’t tell you his stats
I can’t tell you his stats but I can tell you that in the last two years my reports to the Met have generated five out of six 6 points and £200 fines, the one that didn’t was a foreign national in a hire car who had left the country and couldn’t be pursued. I’d imagine CM’s hit rate is something similar; the Met are delighted to prosecute as under the new(ish) laws it’s a slam dunk, no more arguing about whether a call was being made, if it’s in the hand and lit up you’re bang to rights.
On the question of infra, I totally disagree. Yes more policing is needed but not all incidents are caused by breaking road laws, you can’t police that moment’s inattention or misjudgement that can unfortunately happen to the best, most law abiding driver (or cyclist). Mixing unprotected cyclists and heavy traffic at speed is inherently dangerous and always will be, however strictly the law is policed. The best way to protect cyclists – and to encourage people to cycle – is to give them their own infrastructure. The Netherlands experience proves this, with ten cycling deaths per billion miles cycled compared to the UK’s twenty-eight.
Can you tell me how you know
Can you tell me how you know that the five reports (out of six) you know the result?
Mr Anderson wrote:
I always follow up with the Public Reporting Team about three months after they have told me an NIP has been sent and they are generally happy to provide the outcome. The odd person can be a bit obstructive but they tend to give in if one threatens to escalate the matter.
But in CyclingMikey’s reports
But in CyclingMikey’s reports of the last few months, the majority of them he has stated he has no further information, not even an email with a NIP reference.
Recently, he has realized, there is a difference between a NIP ref. and a Warning Letter ref., so some of his reports where he presumed the driver got a 6 pt penalty, they actually got a warning letter instead.
I have concluded, when the report is processed by the Police, it only takes another 30seconds to send Mikey an email with a NIP ref., but most of the time now (last year) he receives no responses.
As I have posted before, the staff at Marlowe Hse must be fully aware of CM’s notoriety, so if there is one person they should act on every report, and keep the complainent informed, it is CM. But that is not happening. This leads me to the conclusion many of CM’s reports are resulting in NFA.
I have no means of knowing
I have no means of knowing what CM’s hit rate is, I don’t even see his reports anymore because I’ve closed my Twitter account (and felt a lot better ever since). I can only tell you my experience that is as described above, which is that if you submit a clear video of a driver with a lit up phone in their hand the Met will fine and point them. I get plenty of no responses or warning letters for reports of close passes and other dangerous behaviour, but I have never had either of those from a report of mobile use. Actually, tell a lie, I had one three years ago where the driver got a warning letter because they had a case on their phone and the cover was obscuring the screen – even though they were holding it in one hand and clearly operating the screen with the other – so they said there was insufficient evidence for prosecution.
You can still keep up with
You can still keep up with CyclingMikey’s videos on Youtube.
Mr Anderson wrote:
Well luckily you can compare: the correlation between “policing the roads” and lots of people cycling vs. “a network of sufficiently safe, convenient and attractive routes for cycling”. I think you’ll find where the latter exist is where there are lots of people cycling *.
(I’m assuming you’re interested in more people cycling – of course you could be an elitist who just wants cycling for you and mates, or the 1-2% of journeys cycled nationally).
There are lots of reasons why this is needed. (The reasons why people mostly drive and very few cycle are complicated – more complicated that “more police!” or even “separate infra”). Another thought for you though – given that cycling in the UK is in fact extremely safe and the statistics are there for all to see, why isn’t everyone doing it?
One answer might be “ah, but they don’t believe it’s safe.” OK, why not? I don’t believe that seeing a policeman on every corner (leaving aside that this would bankrupt us…) would make people feel safe mixing it on a road full of taxis, buses and lorries at 30mph.
To change things in the UK we definitely need road policing as part of the solution, but any amount of that we can actually afford ain’t going to get more people cycling.
* Exceptions – poor places where people struggle to afford motor vehicles (or this is restricted to “regime supporters”) or the infra which might be used by motor vehicles is very poor. Outliers: very small places which have restricted / don’t “need” cars (eg. Vatican, Sark) and Japan (worth researching this yourself but in short not something we’re going to replicate and the Japanese are going in the opposite direction where they can eg. more space for motoring! )
Further reading here:
Further reading here:
Better driving won’t get more people cycling: https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/16/higher-standards-of-driving-would-make-cycling-safe
The illusion of “safe” driving: https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2013/07/perfect-driving-will-never-happen.html
Japan: NotJustBikes on this (he likes their urban spaces but essentially they have a LOT of exttremely narrow streets https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jlwQ2Y4By0U&t=17s
On Japanese cycling – culture and history is important: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VFCz7G_jXeI
The reason why I have (all
The reason why I have (all but) given up road cycling is 100% due to the lack of LAW ENFORCEMENT on our roads, resulting in ever increasing hazards, most of which I can not mitigate against.
It started in the late 1990’s with the increasing number of drivers distracted by their Nokias. This has now developed to an extreme with “Smartphone” use and Infotainment systems.
I cannot believe cars now have lane assist technology. I have never needed this to drive in a straight line. But many drivers need this now, because there are too many distractions from looking at the road ahead.
The Labour Government capitulated on the “War on Motorists” argument about enforcing speed limits, so the number of drivers driving at dangerous, reckless speeds has increased.
I have read many posts on this website blaming the Tory cuts for the lack of Police. Here is a fact you will find in Hansard. Between May 1997 and May 2007, the number dedicated road traffic Police Officers fell from 12,440 to 7,501 (40% reduction), that had nothing to do with Austerity. There are now around 2,500 – 2,800. I could not find a definitive figure, different sources had slightly different values.
More and more, I have drivers pass me, who are followed by a waft of cannabis from their vehicle. Cycling Mikey has now caught two drivers inhaling NOx in central London. I spotted my first driver a few weeks ago.
And then there are the “Ninjas” on illegal bikes who either, kick you off your bike (as in the case near Boxhill recently), or rob you with machetes. I have experienced 3/4 attempts of the former, and managed to avoid 2 attempts of the latter.
In January 2022, I had my 6th lucky escape from a distracted texting driver who missed me by 2-3 inches. In May 2022 I suspect I came close to being robbed by the same thugs who robbed two cyclists of their bikes, one in Poverest Road, the other in Star Lane, around the same time.
ALL OF THE ABOVE IS THE RESULT OF DIMINISHING LAW ENFORCEMENT
I no longer enjoy road cycling, there are too many perils.
See you on ZWIFT!!!
Mr Anderson wrote:
Could you provide a link to that? I just tried searching for it on Hansard and found nothing. What I did find was that under Labour police numbers rose from 125,825 to 142,132; by your own figures there dedicated traffic officers seem to have fallen by 66% from 2007-2024, a period mainly governed by the Tories?
Illegal electric motorbikes –
Illegal electric motorbikes – so many are here because:
a) they can be legally sold here
b) clearly nobody’s fussed about getting police to nick folks for using them.
Politicians and politics at fault here IMHO. Probably at some point it’ll be “something must be done!”. We could have stopped things before they got going though…
Obviously regulating trade isn’t necessarily straightforward. You mention drugs – obviously they’re fully illegal to sell or possess but they’re more common than electric motorbikes! Although the two are now somewhat linked I believe…
Thanks for the reply. And
Thanks for the reply. And sorry to hear you feel it’s so unsafe you’re not going out on the bike.
I certainly agree that a) where people think there are no consequences to doing a thing, over time more and more will do it (* see important caveat) b) as always it seems we have the wrong level of technology – too much or too little… (not a great believer in the latter but humanity disagrees with me).
* The important caveat about “consequences” and “feedback” – is that for a very long time in the UK the police and courts are not the most important part. That’s social pressures and opinions. (Police are quite reliant on information from / cooperation of the public).
That’s a problem as it’s not as simple as “just add more police, or tell them to focus on policing x or y”!
One way to get better behaviour from motorists is by changing the infra for them. Lots of ways e.g. fewer lanes, narrower roads and tighter turns to encourage lower speeds. Of course this is the exact opposite of what we’ve done over time…
Another is to give them “skin in the game”. If they, or their relatives or friends regularly cycled I suspect driving around cyclists would be a lot more careful. How on earth do we break into that virtuous circle? That’s where the “space that’s largely separate from motorists AND pedestrians” comes in.
Of course (as the London modal share trends show) it’s complex. Don’t build it (cycle infra) and you’ll only ever have the quick and the brave. Build it and some will come – but what you build needs to be good enough (safe, direct, social, with secure parking). That’s not all though – it also has to be relatively attractive – in this case relative to driving. Milton Keynes and Stevenage show that.
Removing the specialisation
Removing the specialisation for traffic policing was one mistake made by the Blair Government. OTOH they set a goal to reduce road deaths by 50% in 10 years and achieved it in 9.
Since 2010 road deaths have gone back up a little, and the Conservative lead Governments since have done far less than the Blair / Brown administrations. Most recently they have weaponised road safety as a wedge issue to try and save the 2024 Election; they now have their answer to that question.
I agree that we need the specialisation restored, and significantly more resources devoted to policing overall – recalling that Mr Cameron cut the numbers by 20k (~15%) between coming to power and 2016 or so, which lost decades of accumulated expertise in thousands of officers. That helped create a wild west culture around both road behaviour, and ASB, made worse since by people who forgot how to drive properly during Covid.
Unfortunately it will take at least a decade to recover, even if the new Govt gets things right.
On infra, we need both separated and use of the road. The requirement is that people “from 8 to 80” need to be able to cycle anywhere, for any journey. Primary kids going to school, or my mum on her electric handcycle, need separated infra to feel safe. I may not, but when I’m 75 I may. It’s a huge issue.
A good post.
A good post.
Laura Kuenssberg did an article at the BBC on “saying the unsayable” e.g. tackling issues like number of prisoners and capacity where most politicians know that a situation is unsustainable but politically just can’t tackle it.
That definitely applies to prisons, but even more to road safety (never mind the whole question of what transport systems we design for and how we carve up public space).
In the latter case there isn’t even agreement on what the issue really is – at least with prisons “we don’t have enough places” is obvious, although how to address supply (number of people entering the system) is definitely not agreed.
My own take is that separate cycle infra is necessary but not sufficient. Necessary because most people (and their older relatives / young children…) simply won’t cycle in the same space as motor vehicles where there are many, or they are much faster or more massive (e.g. buses and lorries). There are example showing that adding (the right kind of) cycle infra can genuinely “create” mass cycling (see Seville). The “not sufficient” part – this ONLY happens where cycling is convenient for some trips relative to driving. (For counter-examples see Milton Keynes and Stevenage – OK-ish cycle infra – good for UK – but excellent roads and marketed as aspirational places which included car ownership and driving).
Since cyclists will still need to interact with motor traffic at some point (and we want to limit the amount of cycle infra built) we also need measures to “tame the car”. That is to improve driver behaviour AND reduce motor traffic speed and volume. Policing is a part of that, as is street redesign (including speed reduction – which also helps safety). Here’s where limiting through traffic (modal filters) can make it so in large areas people feel safe cycling on the streets, and this can also improve cycling convenience relative to driving (via more direct cycle routes – “unbundling” or effectively separate networks).
Finally we also need better public transport and to facilitate multi-modal transport using this.
Each of those changes will have effects that are likely to generate significant opposition as soon as mentioned in the UK. So… pretty simple for a new government to fix!
Thank you. Rather longer
Thank you. Rather longer than I would have put it, but exactly what I was going to say.
Looking at the cover photo
.
To the Met Police, please
To the Met Police, please just close all roads into London to SUVs, and other big cars from five miles out, and only let deliveries and other essential traffic into London for a week, let them walk. Then you should have less work and a shorter list from other users to sort out, then these SUV owner drivers might get a clear message and I mean all big cars even the school runs that could be done by mini-buses.
Met police gaslights cyclists
Met police gaslights cyclists who raise concerns about dangerous driving.
I don’t actually upload my
I don’t actually upload my clips to social media, but if I wanted to, how would I know when the case had been concluded if the only contact the police woulod have with me was if I were needed to give evidence?
I’ve submitted a few incidences to the Met. I would usually only do this if it was particularly dangerous, or, as in one case, a van deliberatly drove into me twice (although that was in response to me telling the driver not to “drive like a d**k”, having already driven at 2 pedestrians crossing the road, so maybe I just had it coming to me). I’d happily share the clip, but of course I have no idea whether it’s an ongoing case or not, so…..
David W wrote:
Cases tried by a Magistrates’ Court (which is most drivng offences) have to be brought within 6 months. So if you haven’t heard anything after 6 months it should be OK to upload it.
“… a van DRIVER deliberatly
“… a van DRIVER deliberatly drove into me…”
http://rc-rg.com
And 6 months is a reasonable time to wait.
I imagine it is because the Met police have to issue snail mail letters to the vehicle owner and allow 28 days for responses.
So I think 6 months is a reasonable timeframe for the police to get a response, confirmation of acceptance of any penalty or challenge & take to court.
I sort of get the don’t
I sort of get the don’t confront the perpetrator bit due to my own expereince in court. My video submission of a close pass just before I was turning right was taken up by the Met. The driver was notified and choose to go to court (obviously to string things out I thought as the video was very clear and was shockingly close).
At court the driver did not attend but I did. The video captued the event and also the 2mins afterwards where the driver stopped and an arguement took place. I readily admit I was not polite but having a car almost kill you tends to put my hackles up. The magistrates took along time discussing the arguement between myself and the driver than they did the actual close pass. They were interested into why I was so irate and why I was in their own words ‘so aggressive’. My explanation that the driver almost killed me and if somebody came at you with a sledgehammer and just missed you too would be slightly upset did not really seem to make any headway. Ultimately the driver was found not guilty.
So now I dont confront (its extremely difficult sometimes) but I fully understand and appreciate why some cyclists do. But clearly there is a prejudice within the Justice system and Met Police are aware otherwise they would not be making these guidelines (I’m not agreeing with it in anyway but can understand).
as others have said this a very easy and simple prosecution with video evidence being pretty solid – I would have thought that the penalities and fines would pay for a specific team to be set up and be ‘profitable’.
Obviously very much depends
Obviously very much depends on whether or not you get a pro-driver magistrate, last time I was in court we had the following exchange:
Magistrate: I didn’t quite catch what you shouted at the end there [of an incident where someone had switched lanes straight across me on a dark and rainy night, very nearly colliding].
Me: Yes, I’d probably rather not say.
Magistrate: We’re all adults here and I’m sure we’ve heard worse, what was it you shouted, please?
Me: “You fucking cunt”.
Magistrate: I see, thank you.
I assumed that my anger was going to be used as an excuse to let the driver off, in fact they were given six points and a £450 fine.
The big issue with not
The big issue with not reacting is then your maintaining any sort of calm is used to claim you weren’t actually scared so clearly it wasn’t really an incident.
qwerty360 wrote:
It’s a great catch, that catch 22, the best catch there is…
qwerty360 wrote:
However, you could dispute that as experienced cyclists don’t tend to wobble when they’ve just had a shock (e.g. close pass or a loud bang) as that can lead to loss of control. Just because we’ve learned to not wobble doesn’t mean that we’re not scared.
My one experience of going to
My one experience of going to court was similarly depressing.
I had objected (by means of an upturned palm-up “WTF?” sort of shrug, no swearing) to someone’s driving – they had hooted at another cyclist who had sensibly taken the lane approaching a junction. The driver then changed lanes at the last minute to go the same way as me, started swerving towards me and then (and I’m convinced this is the only reason it was actually prosecuted) distractedly rolled through a zebra crossing when a pedestrian was already crossing.
At the hearing the defendant (representing themself) was asked if they want to ask me any questions, and they say “why did you get involved, I wasn’t hooting my horn at you. None of us would be here if you hadn’t complained about my driving”. I was actually made to answer it. Wish I’d had the presence of mind to say “so are you conceding that you changed direction and followed me because I complained?”
“not conforming to the Met
“not conforming to the Met Police values”
Say no more… Integrity above all. Oh hang on, that’s not the Met…
Why not move the enforcement
Why not move the enforcement of this to local councils and turn it into a revenue stream for them. They handle parking tickets already. Anything requiring points on a licence then hand off to the police. That’ll reduce the police time and leave them to handle the worst offences.
bruxia wrote:
The police already only deal with endorsable offences, i.e. ones that require points. That’s the whole point of the Met’s explanation, they can’t deal with numerous decriminalised offences including driving in bus/cycle lanes. It’s already down to local councils to enforce and sanction these behaviours under civil law.
They suggest “keep lefts” are
They suggest “keep lefts” are part of this, but don’t they get involved at Gandalf Corner? Or is that a different force / laws because it’s in the Royal Parks?
quiff wrote:
The Met have been responsible for policing the Royal Parks since 2004 with the Royal Parks Constabulary abolished in 2005, so it’s the same force. They certainly have in the past acted on reports from the corner; this is obviously new guidance from the Met so maybe in future they won’t be acting on contraventions there, or maybe Royal Parks have not made an order as local councils have to have these offences decriminalised.
I’m not sure whether Gandalf
I’m not sure whether Gandalf corner is inside or outside the Royal Park.
But it’s an area to which the public normally has access, so motoring law applies – just as for example in a supermarket car park, or I think a private side road. There’s oodles of case law on this.
Because they won’t do it.
Because they won’t do it.
And a nation of voters who are in the main drivers who put others at risk will lean on Councillors to prevent our raods being made safe.
For some offences it might work, but this would risk it becoming a less extreme version of what happens in the USA.
Since the 2022 update of the
Since the 2022 update of the Highway code, particularly with regards to phone use, the Met police have basically given up on issuing NIPs on all other aspects of dangerous driving unless the evidence is rock solid and hasn’t been decriminalised (ie keep lefts, as we’ve seen with CyclingMikey no longer at Gandalf Corner).
Ultimately this is a resource issue and the government needs to fund the police/department adequately so they have enough staff to deal with the increasing numbers of reports.
Cameras are only going to get cheaper and more prolific so this is not going to go away.
It is also worth noting that a lot of the decriminlised incidents would still lead to a failure on a driving test so the fact that they are no longer actionable should be a disgrace.
With regards to phone use, it is basically a slam dunk with decent evidence.
A Met police team leader told me that those are the cases they now run with as they are far more likely to succeed if the defendent challenges it and goes to court.
The Met police asked the prosecution service which ones are most likely to succeed in courrt and thus all other cases with subjective/questionable evidence are now less likely to be actioned to avoid “wasting” their time.
Again, going by CyclingMikey;s experience of reporting phone use, his usual excellent evidence would normally be enough to issue an NIP/6 points and a fine and he can be confident that this happened even without a response.
Though with his recent update, depending on the reference provided by the Met police, they can be warning letters too.
CyclingMikey has also stated that the majority of dangerous driving reports to the police (I think the figure was over 60%) actually come from other drivers rather than cyclists.