[the little onion]

So, here is video of what I thought was a cut and dry road traffic offense. As I was riding to work at about 30mph in a 30mph zone (because I was going downhill, not because I’m MvdP), I was being tailgated by this driver. I then signal and move right to go round the parked cars. This driver then cuts up the INSIDE of me, driving very close to me, and then has to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting the car in front

https://vimeo.com/1079291114/f8d5ab5f41?share=copy

I uploaded the file to the portal for West Yorkshire police within a few hours, providing all the necessary details. They are declining to prosecute, apparently because this doesn’t meet the necessary criteria for being considered as a crime.

This is an absolute disgrace. What exactly do you have to do in West Yorkshire to be considered as a dangerous driver? I wonder if the failure to prosecute is related to my previous run-ins with WYP?
 

 

Topic

[the little onion]

An update:

An update:

I passed my complaint onto the local Police and Crime Commissioner’s team. They agreed that the police had not provided enough information or done enough, as basically I had reported what I considered to be a crime, yet they were unable to explain why they didn’t take it further. However, they were also clear that their legal powers are only to ask the police to reconsider, and they can’t compel them to do anything. So whilst the PCC was in my corner with regards West Yorkshire Police’s communication of their decision, they don’t have the authority or power to make a decision about whether the original police decision to not prosecute was correct, not are they able to compel the police to do anything.

The police response was basically to say that my Right of Access request had already provided me with the explanation. They did not engage with my point about the officer’s complete lack of understanding of road traffic law or the highway code, but instead said that, and I quote in full

“Since accepting the recommendation and reviewing your complaint submissions I can confirm that any further recommendations of this nature made by the mayor’s office, if based on the same situation, will not be accepted by myself.

 

You have been advised of the process when making submissions on more than one occasion, the rationale as to why individual feedback is not given has also been provided.  A process is in place due to the high volume of submissions made and the relatively small team that deal with them. The role of the complaints officer is not to investigate any traffic/criminal allegations but to ensure that officers have acted within the duties and policies.

 

In relation to Operation Snap, the decision as to whether to prosecute is made by a dedicated decision maker who has the required skills and knowledge needed to perform such a role. Their decision is final and there is no right to appeal this decision.”

 

In summary, this means:

– we won’t consider any complaint you make, even if the Mayor’s office (i.e. the Police and Crime Comissioner) ask us to

-we are not going to ever explain our decisions (you have to use things like Right of Access requests to painfully extract information for us), nor are we ever going to reconsider them

-the officer’s decision is like Papal Infallability – it is correct because the officer says it is correct, irrespective of the facts or things like the Road Traffic Act.

Summarising the summary:

-F off and die under a lorry.

[DeelitedManchester]

What right-minded person

What right-minded person would think it’s okay to drive alongside a cyclist like that anyway?!  Would they have done that if it were a motorcyclist?  Or better still, a police officer on a motorcycle.  Totally beggars belief.

[Bungle_52]

768kb wrote:

Drivers caught passing cyclists too closely are being offered education instead of prosecution by West Yorkshire Police

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy85ylk27zgo

I think this just refers to the close pass operations.

The article also gives the following information :

Of the 3,561 cyclist close passes reviewed by the Op SNAP team between April 2024 and April 2025 they actioned 2,547 of those for process (course, fixed penalty or court).

In Gloucestershire we can only dream of such a proactive approach although we have progressed from NFA to advisory letters for close passes.

https://road.cc/content/news/close-pass-isnt-offence-says-police-officer-310433

[wtjs]

‘Education’ is just another
‘Education’ is just another name for doing nothing, rather like Community Resolution

[the little onion]

768kb wrote:

Drivers caught passing cyclists too closely are being offered education instead of prosecution by West Yorkshire Police

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy85ylk27zgo

 

 

“This is far more the preferable option – rather than either doing nothing or perhaps overzealously prosecuting in people’s eyes or worse still having to deal with the aftermath of a collision,” he said.

 

Yeah, overzealous prosecution, in the eyes of certain police officers…..

[768kb]

Drivers caught passing

Drivers caught passing cyclists too closely are being offered education instead of prosecution by West Yorkshire Police

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy85ylk27zgo

 

[the little onion]

Here’s another full report of

Here’s another full report of another NFA incident

 

“Extremely poor quality footage, the vrm is not clearly visible and the reporting person cycles close to the rear of the offending vehicle. Also, the video cuts off just as the reporting cyclist moves to the centre of the road. Why has the reporting person cut the video off there?”

I can understand the point about registration not being visible – rain on camera lens. But the reason I was so close is that they overtook me then brake checked me. And what does the fact that I move to the middle of the lane (NOT road) have anythign to do with it? Further proof of the fact that they are actively looking for reasons to victim blame.

[the little onion]

There’s another gem in the

There’s another gem in the police notes on why another of my submissions was NFAd 

“The RP says in their statement that they are in the middle of the road so that they can move into the righthand lane at the next set of lights. However, if this was the case, why does the RP move to the left prior to the vehicle overtaking?”

What actually happened – as explained in my original submission – is that I was forced to swerve to the left to avoid the driver hitting me with his 3 tonne wank-panzer. So my case was undermined because i took evasive action, rather than being squished.

seriously, WTF is going on with WY Police?

[the little onion]

Ha! There is another one

Ha! There is another one where they accuse me of riding across a pedestrian crossing and riding on the pavement. You would have thought the sound of a freewheel and footsteps might indicate that I had actually got off the bike and pushed it because I was so scared of the driver and their actions…… thicker than a whale sandwich 

[wtjs]

There are also a few bits of

There are also a few bits of text which say that they NFAd because I swerved into the path of the car

Police officers are often surprisingly thick, and rather less surprisingly malevolent in pursuit of the ‘sod the cyclists’ agenda. I recall, before they realised I keep and record everything and hit on the ‘don’t respond at all’ dodge, them describing me as swerving in and out along the road. They had been informed that it’s a ‘headcam’, and that’s obvious to anybody with more than 2 neurones to synapse together that cyclists do not suddenly cycle over the kerb and up onto the grass verge at speed, and I think it’s mostly genuine stupidity that they can’t comprehend that looking right is not the same as ‘swerving right’.

Another suspicious oddity…

It’s just standard police behaviour, covering-up their mistakes and incompetence

 

[the little onion]

Yeah. Another suspicious

Yeah. Another suspicious oddity is that I asked for all the police notes on all of the incidents I reported, using a Right of Access request, but there is a LOT of redacted text, including every word that they wrote on some incidents. There are also a few bits of text which say that they NFAd because I swerved into the path of the car. Victim blaming and arse covering.

[chrisonabike]

What’s perhaps odd * is that

What’s perhaps odd * is that they are prepared to come up with all these things you appear to be doing wrong but somehow not give you any sanction (not even “wasting police time” – though the tone sounds one of frustration, you might think they’d apply that to get you to go away, but then they’d have to spend time there…).

* Not really odd if the aim is to avoid spending time on any road-related offenses to concentrate on “real crime”.  (Presumably they’d be prepared to take the odd open-and-shut vehicular killing case / someone repeatedly cycling over a pedestrian)?

[wtjs]

I also contacted my local
I also contacted my local Police and Crime Commissioner
I predict that the response from the PCC will be: this is an operational decision of the police – we can’t be involved, in practice, if not in exactly those words. That was the invariable response of the (disappointingly, both Tory and Labour incarnations. See the final lines of Orwell’s Animal Farm) Lancashire PCC

[Bungle_52]

Thanks for the info. Can you

Thanks for the info. Can you let us know if they actually do anything after you get the reply from your PCC.

[the little onion]

Bungle_52 wrote:

Have you contacted CUK about this? If yes what did they say?

yes. They agree it is terrible. I also contacted my local Police and Crime Commissioner, as I think there is a broader issue of anti-cyclist prejudice and culture, and CUK are awaiting their response.

[Author]

Replies