[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

[IanMSpencer]

I was looking at the timing

I was looking at the timing roughly. I knew there was a car around and two bikes, but at the time of the pass, I didn’t know the car was going to appear, partly because of the bike noise, and my mirror has a blind spot where cars are overtaking, so I reckon it was about 3 seconds between being aware that the car was committed to an overtake, and the car ending up back behind me somewhere – and less time realising that the car wasn’t taking up a position to turn right but was intending to turn left. In that time, Plod expects me to be able to assess the road surface, noticeably potholed in the video, what the motorbike was doing (which as I say, I don’t think I assessed it very well because of the distraction) whether the car was going to try and force its way in front, simply squeeze me or drop behind – and without knowing their intent, I cannot brake – if I had it would have actually created more conflict in this case (as is often the case if a car decides to abort an overtake of any vehicle).

What to do? I think a polite letter to someone in charge asking them to review the response from a cyclist perspective, and asking, when there is ample evidence of driving below the standard of a careful and competent driver, why is the officer going the extra mile to excuse it in the response.

I mean, I’d be happy with a letter, but I am not happy that the police around the country seem to have a policy of dismissing easy wins for at least a warning letter. I suspect that the CPS have a high bar for intended prosecutions which effectively sets the standard of acceptable driving at a very low point. What’s the point of the new HWC if the police assessment is like that?

[HoarseMann]

All good points. This driver

All good points. This driver was impatient and incompetent. The problem is the police officer reviewing this is probably just as bad at driving around cyclists. They also demonstrate a total lack of understanding as to the actions you could reasonably expect to make here as a cyclist. To insinuate you ‘undertook’ the car is appalling. The second motorbike made a poor overtake too.

The question is what to do about it?

[IanMSpencer]

It’s picking through the

It’s picking through the police response – which reads to me that as a cyclist I should be avoiding the motorist and predicting what they are doing, the subtle suggestion that the motorist only made one error in an ill-judged pass approaching a junction but they made that all right by signalling next to me so I could take action to avoid them. The response also hints I undertook the car (“You continued past the subject vehicle”) and implies it was my choice to ride closely to the car (“You continue passed the subject vehicle and at this point you are within 1.5 metres”), but the car never cleared me, I kept a steady pace. Also, the policeman clearly doesn’t understand that most broken hips end up being from low speed falls from clipped in cyclists at junctions – speed is rarely a factor in injuries caused by a fall from a bike.

The policeman also acknowledges that the overtake was incomplete and causes the following cyclist to have to take avoiding action. There is no suggestion in that response that the driver was failing to account for the unpredictable actions of the cyclists, instead his driving was deemed acceptable because of the precautionary approach of the other rider. The following rider chose to squeeze through, but he was pretty quickly cut off and probably could not have stopped as the car pulls across without consideration of the effect he might have on the cyclist following.

You’ll notice the wobble – or rather the swinging out to turn. What that was was being distracted by a car indicating AND pulling in, although the police obviously think he judged it nicely by avoiding clipping me, it meant I was distracted – in the short space of time from having “sufficient safety room” to swinging in next to my rear wheel was a very short time and I could not tell whether it was going to be OK, I was anxious. As I looked back forwards, I realised the second motorcyclist had chosen an odd position to stop – well short of the junction, no signal (I thought they were riding together) and I felt I hadn’t judged the situation well and had to swerve between the kerb and the biker.

I thought the second pass was equally dangerous. My mate was riding without a mirror and only pulled in as an instinctive reaction to the fast approaching car, when he was originally intending to form up two abreast (not an ideal section of road for it, but we travel along there often and have a feel for how it works). That car was totally committed to a pass, clearly at more than 30mph at a point where there was no safe passing distance due to the position of the other cyclist. The police again think it was alright because of the cyclist’s reaction, not because of the driver’s due care and attention. That particular section of road is deeply rutted on the left.

As discussed before, I think, in terms of the smoke, it’s on older car,  2008, around the the time of Euro 4 so probably would expect it to have a DPF but not certainly. My point was more that the driver, having owned the car for a year or more (judging by when documents were last issued) would be aware of producing smoke under heavy acceleration; secondly, why is heavy acceleration to pass cyclists acceptable; and thirdly it clearly was far in excess of 30, so although they might not be able to prove a particular speed accurately, they could tie together approaching on open road, hard acceleration, and braking immediately after the pass, together with estimates form the video to assert it was a deliberate exceeding of the speed limit by a reasonably significant amount, not passing the cyclists slowly and carefully. The classic case is splashing going through a puddle – that does not have to be deliberate to be an offence, so passing a cyclist in an aggressive manner that produced significant harmful fumes seems to me to fall into the same category.

[HoarseMann]

You are right to feel a bit

You are right to feel a bit miffed about this. The driver initiated an overtake that could not be completed safely. They were also far too close up behind the motorcycle. Those two things should at least have got a warning, ideally a course or FPN.

The comments about what the cyclist should do just show ignorance from the police. You can’t just slam the brakes on when riding in a group. That could have been even more dangerous.

I think the smoke is incidental to accelerating. It’s possible they’ve had the particulate filter illegally removed to increase performance, but it doesn’t look like a rolling coal modification. I used to have an old diesel before the days of particulate filters and it did exactly the same.

As for how low the bar is, this is the minimum Thames Valley will consider https://road.cc/content/news/266729-near-miss-day-309-perhaps-quickest-close-pass-weve-seen-country-road-oncoming

[Author]

Replies