[IanMSpencer]

I mentioned I was a bit miffed at this bit of driving. We’ve all had worse, but the aggressive pass at the end combined with the unsettling left turn signal next to me while closing was enough that I thought this driver had crossed a threshold. 

https://youtu.be/jpqSWBzvdFU

This is how Warwickshire Police analysed it:

“Thank you for the above submission to Operation Snap.  It has been reviewed and there will be no further action taken.  The rationale for this decision is the initial pass appears to provide sufficient safety room and is conducted at low speed.  The only aggravating factor being the junction was relatively close by and the sensible option would have been to wait until after the junction to pass.  The subject vehicle indicates to let you know it is turning left the cyclist behind you appears to recognise this and brakes accordingly.  You continue passed the subject vehicle and at this point you are within 1.5 metres but the vehicle is almost stationary so the risk of harm is very low.  The final pass was conducted at speed but it is not possible to verify what speed that was.  The cyclist beside you senses the the subject vehicle and moves to the nearside and the pass ultimately provides sufficient safety room.  The emission of black smoke is normal for some vehicles when they accelerate and whether this occurred to annoy or assault you or others can’t be proven.”

While we are aware of the standard that the police appear work to, I would have thought that it was an display of driving below the standard of a competent and careful driver – I wonder how low their bar is?

For reference, my speed was about 16mph, slowing to about 9mph for the corners.

Topic

[wtjs]

Well, no sign of any

Well, no sign of any reconsideration of NFA’s at Lancashire Constabulary! 

The footage, including still, shows the HGV crossing the first solid white stop line whilst the traffic signal is amber.  The further solid white stop line is for bicycles, as is clearly marked.  There are no offences disclosed from this footage and therefore no further action will be taken

It’s now a week since they came up with a radical new interpretation of the Highway Code (which, as usual gets the HGV driver off) and TSRGD schedule 14 part 1 -see Part 1 Section 30 and Part 2 Item 49, and they’re sticking to it!

[IanMSpencer]

Further response from the

Further response from the Operation Snap:

Following receipt of your email of dissatisfaction along with the unit supervisor we have conducted a re-review of your submission to Operation Snap.  We have noted your comments and re-assessed the evidence provided.  It is clear an error of judgement has been made on our part and we have rescinded the original decision to NFA.  The re-review decision is to issue a warning letter to the motorist concerned for inconsiderate driving.  Please accept our apologies for any concerns and or inconvenience this has caused you.

To be frank, I am pleasantly shocked by this open and frank reply, and I must give all credit to Warwickshire Police for being open to being challenged.

[JustTryingToGetFromAtoB]

IanMSpencer wrote:

IanMSpencer wrote:

That was quick:

 

Dear Mr Spencer,

 I have been asked to review your complaint about the decision relating to your Op Snap submission. Thank you for taking the time to reaffirm your perspective, which is welcomed.

 We process approximately 130-150 Op Snap submissions each month, of which 40-50% relate to submissions by cyclists. This initiative continues to grow, and how we respond is evolving and maturing as we look to find the right balance regarding the updates we provide to those who submit evidence of bad driving. Although each case is viewed and a decision made by an experienced Officer, we accept that not every outcome will be to the satisfaction of all parties, however we do listen to responses, and we are willing to review a decision if necessary.

 The original decision maker and I have conducted a further review of your submission, upon which we accept that the points you raise are reasonable and we have therefore reversed the original decision.

We are now sending a written Warning to the driver about their manner of driving, highlighting in particular how they were inconsiderate toward you as a road user.

I can assure you that in dealing with these matters I believe it is necessary to be open minded to the perspectives of others, especially with changes in rules and regulations, and how these impact on a range of road users. We welcome your feedback, I am confident that the points you make have been taken on board and will be reflected in our Op Snap decision making.

 I hope this addresses the issues you raise, and thank you for your support to make our roads safer.

 Regards

 

I think that’s as good a response as I might have hoped for so written back saying so. Now to decide how to progress this further with improved guidelines across the country.

Brilliant work on your part!

[IanMSpencer]

That was quick:

That was quick:

 

Dear Mr Spencer,

 I have been asked to review your complaint about the decision relating to your Op Snap submission. Thank you for taking the time to reaffirm your perspective, which is welcomed.

 We process approximately 130-150 Op Snap submissions each month, of which 40-50% relate to submissions by cyclists. This initiative continues to grow, and how we respond is evolving and maturing as we look to find the right balance regarding the updates we provide to those who submit evidence of bad driving. Although each case is viewed and a decision made by an experienced Officer, we accept that not every outcome will be to the satisfaction of all parties, however we do listen to responses, and we are willing to review a decision if necessary.

 The original decision maker and I have conducted a further review of your submission, upon which we accept that the points you raise are reasonable and we have therefore reversed the original decision.

We are now sending a written Warning to the driver about their manner of driving, highlighting in particular how they were inconsiderate toward you as a road user.

I can assure you that in dealing with these matters I believe it is necessary to be open minded to the perspectives of others, especially with changes in rules and regulations, and how these impact on a range of road users. We welcome your feedback, I am confident that the points you make have been taken on board and will be reflected in our Op Snap decision making.

 I hope this addresses the issues you raise, and thank you for your support to make our roads safer.

 Regards

 

I think that’s as good a response as I might have hoped for so written back saying so. Now to decide how to progress this further with improved guidelines across the country.

[IanMSpencer]

Useful. I will bear that in
Useful. I will bear that in mind for phase 2!

[IanMSpencer]

I’m an old hand at

I’m an old hand at complaining to official bodies, and my target is typically process rather than individual outcome. So although I made a reference to suggesting it was not too late for words of advice, my main request was for a review, and if they agreed I was not being unreasonable, asking what training and support they would put in place. I won’t pursue the individual further, but I might ask my MP to ask the Home Office what national guidelines are in place and should be in place. Always best to have an actual complaint to hang these general queries around.

Some years ago I got excited about local planning decisions. Got the usual tosh about writing objections, and I asked the question whether the councillors read the planning file. The answer was no. So, I asked, how can the planning committee make a reasoned decision based on objections if they never read them. Ah! Penny dropped, and now my council always provides a summary of the objections in the report they produce… all a bit pointless now that planners are obliged to approve most developments, but it made a difference at the time.

[HoarseMann]

I’ve been doing a bit more

I’ve been doing a bit more digging. I’ve found another document (pre-dates 2013), that discusses when a FPN for careless driving will be issued. Interestingly, it does stipulate that the offence should be witnessed by police directly, have no victims and not be reported by a member of the public. That seems to rule out all submitted dashcam footage from the FPN route.

The gist of it seems to be that if the offence has been reported by the public, or there is a victim, it is more serious and should be dealt with in court. The problem is, that just isn’t happening. Perhaps the NPCC need to review this advice to make it less restrictive. It’s clear that some forces are ignoring this guidance and successfully issuing FPN’s based on public submitted footage…

[Velo-drone]

First up, congratulations on

First up, congratulations on getting a more than one line response.

I wouldn’t be expending much more time on the individual report, as even if you do get the decision reversed, the Warks policy is to issue warning letter only for non-collision incidents.  And a “sterner” warning letter for a second incident.  

Consequently, close passes of the nature that the Met routinely issue points/fine/driver improvement course for, in Warks consistently receive only warning letter.  Even when there are aggravating factors such as children involved, or abusive and threatening language.  Whereas phone driving reports routinely result in points/fines even if nobody is immediately endangered in the footage.

The real battle with Warks is to get the policy changed to one that actually takes into account the risk to life of the standard of driving. 

The force is on a journey, I believe – and giving any feedback at all on reports has been a significant step forward.  But the overall approach still has severe inadequacies – and  effectively tolerates deadly driving in favour of only prosecuting the “easy target” phone driving offences.  

[IanMSpencer]

I remembered that one and put

I remembered that one and put in a special paragraph:

“The subject vehicle indicates to let you know it is turning left the cyclist behind you appears to recognise this and brakes accordingly.

“2. A test for whether driving is without due consideration or careless is causing another road user to slow or alter course. This acknowledges that the second cyclist was impeded by the overtaking car. And further has put the onus on the following cyclist to take appropriate action to avoid the result of the poor assessment of the overtake. The fact that another road user mitigated the consequences of a poor decision does not alter the fact that the driving was of a poor standard.”

The author got another couple of paragraphs of similar length and the picture below just for that one sentence!

As a connoisseur you might appreciate this sentence too:

You will note that the second motorcyclist takes an unusual position in the centre of the road, slowing well short of the junction with no indication. As I was momentarily distracted by the car, looking across at it trying to assess what it was doing, when I looked back, I felt that I had not properly accounted for the motorcyclist.

[Bungle_52]

“The driver is going to have

“The driver is going to have to inconveniemce someone”

https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-674-driver-inconveniences-cyclist-288521

[IanMSpencer]

Complaint submitted, about a
Complaint submitted, about a page per sentence.

Basically asking why the response justifies the driving as acceptable rather than simply agreeing but saying not worth their effort. Most pleased finding that picture in the HWC to match up with the lack of criticism. Asked them to review why the response justified a slam dunk example as illustrated in the Highway Code. Asked whether there was a culture issue with a lack of cycling experience in the team. Asked them to review by an officer with cycling experience.

My theory is to make it more effort to reject than process! All they had to do was send a letter saying “Must try harder.”

[IanMSpencer]

“The subject vehicle

“The subject vehicle indicates to let you know it is turning left”

 

Turning left

182
Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle. Cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users in particular may be hidden from your view.
 

[HoarseMann]

Yep, there’s little point

Yep, there’s little point introducing addtional rules in the highway code if the existing ones are not going to be enforced.

The problem is partly that road crime is way down on their priorities (just look at all the speed cameras that have been turned off). The other problem is a lack of consistency where there is enforcement.

There is a national standard, this is the best I’ve found so far (but still nearly 10 years old). It makes no reference to camera footage, nor are there any examples of transgressions against vulnerable road users. In fact, it seems to ignore them completely, talking only about actions committed against other drivers.

[wtjs]

Coming from Lancashire, I’m
Coming from Lancashire, I’m not surprised by the brush-off from the police. They simply decide at the outset that they’re not going to do anything because nobody has been killed or injured, and then make up complete tripe to justify the decision. They then have to waste more time rejecting the complaint, and because they’re pretty dim they trap themselves into continuing. They’re insisting that YA67 HMU had a valid MOT at the time of an offence on 4.2.22, even though DVLA and DVSA keep insisting that it didn’t. The Police know they’re wrong because they resort to rubbishing the DVSA, and saying the Police National Computer is the only source to trust, when the DVSA get the MOT result as soon as it’s finished and actually give the dates of the MOT tests when the police refuse. Lying by the police is now routine!

[hawkinspeter]

The driver hadn’t allowed

The driver hadn’t allowed enough room for a successful overtake and was way too close – any pothole or similar would have ended badly.

I’d expect a warning letter or similar from Avon & Somerset if I’d have submitted something like this.

[Author]

Replies