- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Overtaking distance for drivers (Surrey Police)Surrey Police says warning letters “most appropriate course of action” for majority of driving offences, and calls on cyclists who submit multiple near miss clips to “engage with us further” to improve road safety
After a Freedom of Information request revealed that 80 percent of the almost 1,000 motorists accused of close passing a cyclist in Surrey over the past 15 months were issued with warning letters, with only three being prosecuted, Surrey Police has claimed that “in the majority of cases, issuing a warning letter is the most appropriate course of action”, due to the “evidential viability” of the submitted videos and the “associated threat, harm, and risk” of the driving offence committed.
The force also told road.cc that it “regularly” receives video submissions of alleged driving offences “from the same people”, and called on those who frequently submit close pass clips to “engage with us further and work together to tackle” issues around road safety.
Earlier this month, we reported that an FOI request found that, in the 15 months up to March 2023, 3,898 videos of alleged driving offences – including close passes, using a mobile phone, or careless driving – were submitted to Surrey Police’s third-party reporting service.
At the time of the data’s publication, over 3,000 of these had achieved an outcome, with over half of the alleged offences resulting in a warning letter being issued, while only 10 led to a prosecution. 1,344 of the submissions, meanwhile, resulted in no further action being taken.
Of the 938 submissions related to alleged close passes on cyclists, only three resulted in a prosecution, four in a fixed penalty notice, and four saw the motorists offered a driver improvement course. 742 close pass cases, on the other hand, were resolved with a warning letter.
> Here's what to do if you capture a near miss, close pass or collision on camera while cycling
Responding to a request for comment from road.cc regarding the recently published data, a spokesperson for Surrey Police said: “Every allegation and submission of footage (including photograph and video submissions) are viewed and reviewed in terms of evidential viability and the associated threat, harm, and risk.
“Any history of previous driving offences would also be taken into consideration when deciding the appropriate course of action to take.
“A number of options are available to us in dealing with these submissions outside of court prosecutions, including issuing a warning letter, a conditional offer, course, or proceeding with a prosecution.
“In addition to this, there are still a number of live cases within the 3,898 figure that are still outstanding where NIPs [Notice of Intended Prosecutions] have been issued and we are waiting for further information which may yet end in one of the above outcomes that may include court.”
> Cyclist run over by drink driver in shocking footage released by police after man jailed
The statement continued: “In the majority of cases, issuing a warning letter is the most appropriate course of action due to the evidential viability of the material submitted being taken in consideration with the other factors mentioned.
“We regularly receive submissions relating to allegations of driving offences from the same people and have invited a number of them to engage with us further and work together to tackle some of the issues involved.”
The active travel Twitter account, Cycling Surrey, which compiled the data from the FOI request, said last week that they were “grateful” that Surrey Police provides a third-party reporting service, but noted that the issue of reducing road danger “goes further than this”.
“If motorists (who are responsible for the vast majority of road danger) realise it’s more likely there will be meaningful consequence for dangerous behaviour, Surrey’s roads will become safer for everyone. And reduce demand on many public services,” the account wrote.
"My ask is that that Chief Constable Tim De Meyer takes his recent appointment as an opportunity to properly review current investment in third-party reporting, consult with road safety experts, and consider its potential benefits to Surrey Police in the widest possible context.”
Responding to the driving offence figures, one cyclist from Surrey wrote on Twitter: “It’s great that Surrey Police have online reporting but it’s a complete waste of resources if they are only going to send out slap on the wrist warning letters to drivers.”
Meanwhile, another said: “It is hardly surprising that I have seen driving standards decrease around here when the police are letting these bad drivers off with warnings or less. The data is very discouraging.”
The latest FOI request from Surrey comes a month after we reported that, of the 286 reports of careless, inconsiderate, or dangerous driving around cyclists considered in 2022 by West Midlands Police – the force which pioneered the award-winning Operation Close Pass – only one resulted in a prosecution, while 213 resulted in no further action being taken.
Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
Latest Comments
- quiff 17 min 56 sec ago
Of course, this is the better argument to lead with. Just flagging that the "VED is a pollution tax" / "some drivers don't pay VED" argument is...
- mdavidford 32 min 20 sec ago
Though they could have made it a 2-in-1 tool by just adding the extra knobble to a chain checker tool.
- quiff 56 min 15 sec ago
Brass, aluminium and leather / cork, hand made in France. If that's not important to you, fine, but it has an impact on cost. Perhaps not £50 of...
- I love my bike 57 min 56 sec ago
You can also play bingo here, with the use of 'traffic' & 'accidents' & visually with clothing shown on people/mannequins standing with...
- quiff 1 hour 19 min ago
Albeit a Chopper which has been "scaled up" (custom built?) with modified wheels, brakes and contact points. But still, I wouldn't fancy it.
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 22 min ago
It's not often I get a chance to show off the tattered remnants of Old English still knocking around in my head from my studies many years ago, so...
- Rat West 1 hour 25 min ago
I'm sure this is a national problem. Here in Milton Keynes, we have an excellent cycleway network throughout the city, but with so many illegal...
- OnYerBike 2 hours 28 min ago
Definitely an improvement. Although the section on the "Potential law changes" makes no sense given the context. Illegal e-bikes (i.e. electric...
- rookybiker 2 hours 37 min ago
I think you are being too harsh. With the right protocol you can get an extraordinary amount of information with limited means (search for Chung...
Add new comment
53 comments
Found it - it's the "watching-eye effect".
The visible case on the helmet certainly seems to have a deterrent effect
Not in Lancashire it doesn't! This is Blackburn with Darwen Citroen Picasso taxi No. 3356 NU62 MYH cutting right in on me and forcing (blameless!) oncoming Porsche Macan LN17 VBE right into the kerb and to almost stop. The Picasso overtook me on a blind right bend and, surprise-surprise encounters the Porsche- he then blasts me on the horn but doesn't slow down or hang back. In the taxi passenger seat is a Lancashire County Council employee- identified by Hi-Viz jacket. I will be bringing this one back when Upride displays the video. The point is that I have a big GoPro highly visible on the top of my helmet- but as a result of anti-cyclist b******s at Lancashire Constabulary, Lancashire drivers know there's no possibility of action being taken against them, no matter what the offence against a cyclist- appropriately, this all took place right next to Old Garstang Police Station
The end result of the complaint about the Blackburn taxi driver was that the council claimed that the taxi was actually licensed at the time of the offence despite his absence from the register- the public register is described as being 'not live'. After years of experience with Lancashire Constabulary, I would normally be highly sceptical of such a statement- however, in this case I am inclined to believe it. I also believe the statement of the council that the driver has been interviewed and warned etc. etc- especially as the only conceivable action by LC woud be none at all.
Do they mean more than the frequent video evidence of poor driving, along with the location that it happens, the vehicle being driven at the time and the date time, all while supplying contact information to an establishment who's job consists of finding people?
Ahhh - they want us to submit the videos in person, along with an interpretative dance of the incident.
Whatever it takes to make things safer.
To see if you have a d lock, then they can arrest you on suspicion of potential to create a public nuisance.
Then you will be jailed and unable to make any submissions.
The king was in the same county, so it was obvious that the police had to take action to prevent disruption
I don't understand what they mean by "evidential viability" as surely the vast majority is going to be video evidence and I can't think of anything more conclusive than a video of a driver passing too close to a cyclist.
Also, it seems bizarre to claim to want to further engage with the frequent submitters - why don't they just email those people considering they have their contact info? Personally, I'd be happy to engage further with A&S police (my hood) if they have questions or suggestions about my various video submissions - all they need to do is send an email.
"We can't prove the speed/distance" - the latter, of course, can be proven with a visit to the site but it then comes down to proportionality; the former is trickier without calibrating the individual recording device etc.
The strange thing is that inspector kev if this parish said his force does a still of your bike and camera setup with on of those mats ( think you can also go to specific bikes shops). Then they use the still as a reference point.
Surely a national standard for doing this should be mandated.
It seems pretty obvious to me that a video shows a very good indication of speed and distance. The thing is that it's very rarely a borderline case of maybe a 1.495m passing distance instead of 1.5m, so I doubt that they're really being honest with us about that. You don't even need an accurate speed and/or distance as the criteria is to show "reasonable consideration" to other road users, so that's going to be a judgement call by the magistrate or jury, but the very fact that a cyclist felt themselves to be endangered is probably the most important criteria.
This is all true, but I have been told in the past by TVP that "the Highway Code is guidance only". They have been better over the last year, however, and the majority of my recent submissions have resulted in a course being offered.
Essex Police sent a warning letter for this one, as apparently it was impossible to properly judge the distance they passed at. That's what I was told after I lodged a complaint about the outcome.
https://youtu.be/F_7Dw--4p9k
Again, that shouldn't be an issue as the driving was inconsiderate regardless of the exact distance, but you can certainly tell that it was way too close by watching where it is in relation to the white lines.
It really shouldn't, but that was the excuse given by the officer who phoned me, and he was a cyclist too don't you know.
The FOI response supports what I've been saying here for a long time even though Road CC lauded Surrey Police because they have a Twitter account that provides them with easy copy.
The trouble is that it's not the RPU who deals with third party reports.
Oh, so they're not part of Surrey Police then? Silly me.
That's like saying Mark Hodson doesn't have a clue what he's talking about because WMP have seemingly gone downhill recently, and Andy Cox is likewise clueless because of the Met's reputation. Just because Surrey RPU is on the ball doesn't mean the rest of the force is in any way decent (it may or may not be), even if it is seemingly working in the same field.
"engage with us further and work together to tackle” issues around road safety.
That'll be the people who ignore you. And that'll be the people who should be doing their job and punishing dangerous road users.
whenever i see a close pass story, where a police officer is involved then i'm pretty certain it always ends up with a NIP and court... just sayin like...
i've given up sending mine in. the amount of times they've been lost, or can't find the video on the day of court, or failed to send a NIP in time, or laughingly didn't even know they needed to send a NIP is frightening/baffling. currently waiting on a FOI for Sussex and prosecution numbers...
“In the majority of cases, issuing a warning letter is the most appropriate course of action due to the evidential viability of the material submitted"
Perhaps if the submitters were actually given feedback, then they'd be better able to provide more 'evidentially viable material' in the future? Just a thought.
Well the feedback on that would be flimsy to say the least when they're provided with perfectly good/clear video footage.
More likely, they are clearly unable to eat doughnuts without spilling jam over everything.
Pages