Highway Code changes: video submissions made to police rise as cyclists urged to report law-breaking drivers

On review, uploaded the first person to pull out on me, the speeder (although will see if they try to do me for also "speeding") and the mobile phone user. Although the latter had illegally spaced 3d plates but the plate i'm reading HO55EBS seems to be registered to a black jag and not a red Audi Knobsmobile. Any ideas?

Neither HO55EBS or HO55ERS return a red audi.  I'd flag it as potentially having cloned plates.

I did in the report I submitted. I also did try other letters that sometimes gets changed by the "screwhole" but still nothing. Hopefully it is just the DVLA to catch up so the Knob does get done for Mobile phone and illegal plates. Not holding my breath though. 

As I understand it, the only time you need to worry about GDPR with dashcams is if it's a shared vehicle (e.g. business van, taxi). As dashcams usually record sound you need to warn the driver and passengers.

Simple mistakes in a tonne or more, at speed can easily kill.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Quote:

He added that Nextbase is “really aimed at dangerous drivers, not drivers who made a simple mistake.”

I think there's value in highlighting the simple mistakes too as a simple warning letter can be enough to get a driver to be more careful. Plus it can make drivers more attentive of cyclists as they might be using a cam. (Like in 1984, the fear of being watched can make people moderate their behaviour)

Agreed.

I also don't think the distinction really matters after you've been seriously injured or killed.

If they really must be treated differently it's really easy to tell. Does the driver look shaken, acknowledge their 'one off' mistake and apologise profusely or do they blame you, tell you to f**k off and drive off at max revs still shouting?

NOtotheEU wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Quote:

He added that Nextbase is “really aimed at dangerous drivers, not drivers who made a simple mistake.”

I think there's value in highlighting the simple mistakes too as a simple warning letter can be enough to get a driver to be more careful. Plus it can make drivers more attentive of cyclists as they might be using a cam. (Like in 1984, the fear of being watched can make people moderate their behaviour)

Agreed.

I also don't think the distinction really matters after you've been seriously injured or killed.

If they really must be treated differently it's really easy to tell. Does the driver look shaken, acknowledge their 'one off' mistake and apologise profusely or do they blame you, tell you to f**k off and drive off at max revs still shouting?

I'm not so sure it as easy to tell whether it's a genuine mistake or a deliberate action in a lot of cases.

Is someone who is pulling out of a junction in front of a cyclist making a mistake that they haven't seen the cyclist or have they actually spotted the cyclist and made a deliberate choice to pull out in front of them.

The whole NMOTD 755 is a case in point.  From my point of view that was a deliberate action, but based on a lot of social media posts a significant number of people thought it was just a mistake.

And if you look at any close pass some people will see it as a mistake whereas some will see it as a deliberate action.  How do you tell that a driver has made an innocent mistake if they overtake you into the face of oncoming traffic and simply misjudged your speed or the speed of the oncoming traffic or space available.... as opposed to a deliberate MGIF overtake. 

Yes there will be some where it is relatively easy to spot a deliberate punishment pass, but they are few and far between in my experience.  And the default position which would be adopted by the police would be that unless the driver had form for repeated close passing then it was a 'mistake' unless there are aggrevating factors such as horn use swerving towards the cyclist.

I've only had a few cases where the driver has stopped to apologise and it was obvious they realised the possible consequences so I just asked them to look out for cyclists in future and wished them a pleasant day.

All the other times I've reported the incident if I've had time and the video was good enough. It may have only been a mistake but the next one could end the life of another cyclist or other vulnerable road user so they need to hear from the Police regardless. From my limited communication with the Police I understand a driver with a clean record will often just get a warning letter anyway if the incident wasn't too serious.

The issues I have with warning letters is that they will go to the registered keeper not necessarily the driver in question and, this is the bigger issue, do we know that a warning letter is then recorded somewhere on the police system against the car/driver in question?

Unless you have some record of the warning letters which have gone out to one car/household/driver how do police forces know that the driver has a history of close passing?

This sounds like a harsh opinion but warning letters are not worth the paper they are written on.

As I understand it they keep a record though I can't remember where I heard or read that. If i've gone to the trouble to report an incident then i felt it was dangerous so while I agree that a letter isn't enough I've got to hope that the system works at least occasionally. Unfortunately we have to rely on the person who first views the video and then if they bump it up the chain, everyone else who deals with it. I have to believe that it works at least some of the time as the alternative is too depressing to think about.

I recieved this email from West Midlands Police last year;

This particular area of work is growing every year and hopefully in time we'll be given extra resources so we can provide regular updates.  Only time will tell I suppose but it's something which I've been involved in for the last three years so I try and feed this back to my supervision so they know how it's becoming a very useful way of prosecuting poor drivers.

Your reports tend to be very good.  I would estimate that the vast majority of your footage ends up with education being offered to the Driver or on several occasions the matter is referred to Court.  With the fact that you have not been called to give evidence as yet it shows when the Driver and the Defence are shown the footage in Disclosure, they plead Guilty in the First Hearing and take the punishment of Fine and Points.

All I can say is keep reporting poor driving incidents to us and thank you for helping us keep roads safer for everyone.

I'm willing to take this on face value as I have corresponded with this officer and another on a few occasions and they seem very genuine in their commitment to road safety, particularly for cyclists.

Wow. You're the man, and WMP is the force.

Are any of you submissions on NMOTD so we can learn what  is worth submitting. Also any advice on what makes a good submission. I tend to let the video speak for itself but that strategy has had very limited success. I realise that different forces will respond differently but it will still be a useful guideline.

Bungle_52 wrote:

Wow. You're the man, and WMP is the force.

Are any of you submissions on NMOTD so we can learn what  is worth submitting. Also any advice on what makes a good submission. I tend to let the video speak for itself but that strategy has had very limited success. I realise that different forces will respond differently but it will still be a useful guideline.

Thanks, but I can't take any credit. It's all down to the Police officers who actually care about their job. I've no idea what gets prosecuted and what doesn't as they rarely give feedback on individual cases.

Personally I've learnt from watching LOTS of Youtube cycle videos. I copy the good ones and try to avoid making mine like the bad ones. I run front, back and helmet cams in good positions to get the evidence. I spend FAR too long editing the footage to make sure it's good and usually only upload them if they are a slam dunk which I assume helps my credibility with the Police. Also to help credibility I always follow the rules of the road to the letter, try to always choose the safest option if i'm faced with a choice and try to not react too much, swear or abuse the driver. I try to say things like "wow that was scary close, and now they're undertaking that lorry on a blind bend with pedestrians waiting to cross, what a terrible driver" just to make sure whoever is watching gets the point.

I had an email today from WMP that they are prosecuting one driver for careless driving and driving without a license. I had to review the video to refresh which one it was and it was when i was cycling here. I had indicated to move lane and was aware of a car tailgating. A van was also coming down in the other lane so I waited and when I made my manouvre, the car behind decided they wanted to MGIF and just overtook me. Now that bit I'm fine with the prosecution, just not sure on the driving without a license as at no point can you see the driver. 
I also assume that because of the contact, they driver /owner is denying it and so it is a court case. 

Unusual for WMP to update you at all in my experience. In hundreds of reports they have only informed me of one case of Failing to inform police of driver details and one of driving without due care and attention, both of which were going to court. The latter was probably one of the least dangerous incidents I have reported so who knows why they informed me of just these two?

I think it is just the potential court case for this one as well as one line mentioned witness services will contact me. Did yours end up in court in the end?

They were both going to court. 

Nov 2020

A prosecution is being raised against the REGISTERED KEEPER  of the vehicle VOLVO, reg no: ******* for the offence of: Failing to inform police of driver details (Sec 172 RTA 1988), This person failed to comply with two requests for the information, which is an offence in its’ own right. If satisfied the court will ultimately prove in his absence if he continues to think that ignoring his legal obligation might make them go away.Thank you for your commitment to helping the police improve road safety.

Seems like the officer took this one personally!

Oct 2021

The driver of the vehicle that you reported to us is to be prosecuted for the offence of: DRIVING WITHOUT DUE CARE AND ATTENTION. Any further case updates should be provided by our witness support department, including any requirement to attend court to give evidence. Thank you for your support in improving road safety.

I haven't heard anything else since.

Mine is the same as the second one although with the line 

"Drive otherwise than in accordance (no licence) "

I wonder if your cases were dropped or whether they admitted guilt to save court, or is it just massively delayed. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Mine is the same as the second one although with the line 

"Drive otherwise than in accordance (no licence) "

I wonder if your cases were dropped or whether they admitted guilt to save court, or is it just massively delayed. 

I asked why I had never been called to court after an officer told me the majority of my submissions are acted on with a few going to court;

on several occasions the matter is referred to Court.  With the fact that you have not been called to give evidence as yet it shows when the Driver and the Defence are shown the footage in Disclosure, they plead Guilty in the First Hearing and take the punishment of Fine and Points.

I choose to be positive and believe them but with some of the horror stories we hear about other forces, who knows? They also told me it's fine to delete the original video files from any report after 12 months so I imagine the cases are finished.

IanMSpencer wrote:

I don't see why there can't be a national department for dealing with these, with a clear set of standards, which could be published so we know not to waste our or their time (or get to argue about the criteria). A specialist team could rattle through them, filtering out exceptions like likely repeat offenders for special local police treatment.

And if they fined offenders the service could become self financing.

War on the motorist! Incentives to snitch!

chrisonatrike wrote:

War on the motorist! Incentives to snitch!

Or a disincentive to break the law...

Repeating a thought from Cycling Mikey, a "grass" moves in the criminal's circles and may be a trusted accomplice, a mate - CM makes the point that he is not the phone using driver's mate. 
 

IanMSpencer wrote:

...with a clear set of standards...

This is the biggest issue with the current "system" we have. I can submit a video of a really nasty/dangerous close-call to my local plod and have them laugh it off, only to come here and see something one tenth as bad on NMOTD that resulted in points/fine. There should be a set of comprehensive guidlines that allow no room for interpretation, which all police forces adhere to.

But what happens if it's wtjs's force that sets the standard?

Be like the MET coming up with the standards on racism, mysoginy and corruption...

Hopefully it wouldn't be a specific force that sets the national guidelines. We already have guidance on standards of driving, but many forces choose to ignore it when deciding on whether to act on dangerous drivers. That choice needs to be taken away from them.

BalladOfStruth wrote:

Hopefully it wouldn't be a specific force that sets the national guidelines. We already have guidance on standards of driving, but many forces choose to ignore it when deciding on whether to act on dangerous drivers. That choice needs to be taken away from them.

How can that not be the responsibility of the Department of Transport...

IanMSpencer wrote:

I don't see why there can't be a national department for dealing with these, with a clear set of standards, which could be published so we know not to waste our or their time (or get to argue about the criteria).

I entirely agree, and one of the standards should be that if a driver is filmed breaking the law, they get sanctioned, no ifs no buts. At the moment the Met has a ridiculously equivocal system where mitigation is introduced for no reason; for example, I was recently informed that with advance cyclist stop lines a driver will only get an NIP if they occupy the whole of the box up to the stop line on a single lane road. If they only occupy the rear half of the box on a single lane road, or go right up to the ASL on a two-lane road, they only get a warning letter. Similarly, apparently for red light jumpers to get an NIP one has to present clear evidence that the light was red for a whole two seconds before the car drove through - way over the time a driver within the speed limit who is paying attention should need to react to an amber. Obviously some offences, such as close passing, are more open to debate as to whether a video shows an offence, but it would help if black and white laws were enforced in a black and white manner, you break 'em, you pay the price.