[the little onion]

So here’s an odd one. Just posting it here for any advice, though as a CyclingUK member, I’ll also contact them to hear their view.

 

I was close passed in a really bad way a while back – basically, nearly squeezed between a barrier and a badly driven car. During the process, I “dropped the f-bomb” four times. I submitted the footage to the police, including an apologetic note for my language in the footage. The police are taking it further with the driver, apparently, but the driver has now complained that I was using foul and abusive language, and thus a public order offence. I’m now going to be interviewed under caution for a public order offence!

 

I’ve sent some footage to the police before which has included some fruity language, but never had anything like this before. Frankly, the whole thing is embarrasing that this has been taken this far. Surely there is no public interest in pursuing someone who lets their language standards dropped when narrowly escaping a serious road incident?

 

Any thoughts or advice welcome.

Topic

[David9694]

what’s the latest on this? 

what’s the latest on this? 

[wtjs]

West Yorkshire actually

West Yorkshire actually publish quarterly stats on submissions to their video portal

Very interesting, but there’s no reference number on the Excel file for you to unequivocally identify ‘your’ offences and see the actual outcome. So, how do you get at your 90% of my submissions get some kind of action? Do you get an email to specify the registration of, for instance Row 2 Jan-March 25 spreadsheet, the white Range Rover who committed a ‘without due care’ offence ‘somewhere in North/ West Yorkshire sometime in January 25 and reportedly was awarded the joke educational course? – there must be about a thousand such offences committed every day in White Range RoverLand

[HoarseMann]

quiff wrote:

HoarseMann wrote:

…we will take no further action. The driver will be spoken to and he will be given a warning with words of advice and guidance.

Err, isn’t that further action (albeit of the lowest order)?

They were really tying themselves up in knots trying to excuse the driver in this case. I suspect because the driver was behind me for about a minute.

I only drive down there at 15mph as it’s narrow and there are parked cars – so a bit of a stretch the police saying ‘regardless of them being held up’. It’s almost like there’s a certain amount of time after which a driver can say ‘f*uk it, I’m going for it’, and that’s acceptable.

The ‘contradictory’ part of my statement, was simply my explanation of what happened – particularly, what cannot be seen on the rear view camera, such as the oncoming driver having to perform an emergency stop coming to a complete halt, whilst sounding the horn as I swerved to the left kerb to avoid being side-swiped – oh, and the _fact_ it was on a bend!

I do hope TLO gets some sense out his MP and PCC office. Although I suspect the old ‘can’t get involved in a specific case’ excuse will be readily deployed.

[Born_peddling]

Police are rather close
Police are rather close minded over this specific one they’re quite fond of using it as an excuse to arrest members of the public when it’s themselves and that one member of the public the other car brain logic is is doesn’t matter if a driver swears at you they’re in a car presumably with the windows rolled up. Where as you’re exposed and people just walking past can hear you and the automated police thought process is they’ve sworn and offended everyone else around them. The best thing to do is remind them they can’t take a verbal shock reaction out of context of the bigger incident in question. If this was the case the police themselves would be prosecuted for the abusive language they’re so fond of using too!

[quiff]

HoarseMann wrote:

…we will take no further action. The driver will be spoken to and he will be given a warning with words of advice and guidance.

Err, isn’t that further action (albeit of the lowest order)?

[the little onion]

Update – I’ve now spoken to

Update – I’ve now spoken to both my MP and to the Policing and Crime Commissioner’s office about the issues around victim blaming and professional standards. They are looking into it. I’ve shared the examples discussed here of the close pass when I was ‘incorrectly’ in the cycle lane, and a few others.

I don’t know about other forces, but West Yorkshire actually publish quarterly stats on submissions to their video portal.

https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/SaferRoadsSubmissions

It’s quite interesting for a data geek. Some points:

-they get around 700 submissions per month, of which around 65% result in some kind of action.

-90% of my submissions get some kind of action, even including for the dodgy refusals to prosecute, so I’m a pretty good judge of what counts as unsafe. Over the years I’ve submitted around 60 submissions, so assuming that each of these which result in prosecution each result in 3 points and £100 in fines, that’s a big shiny gold star for me in terms of catching dodgy drivers. Frankly, the police owe me their thanks!

-a greater proportion of cyclists’ submissions are prosecuted compared to drivers’ and passengers’ submissions

-you get to see date of submission, type of vehicle, locations etc, so it is quite easy to see the outcomes of your submissions

-the most common result is a educational course, followed by a conditional offer of points and fine. Actual court appearances are vanishingly rare.

 

[Rendel Harris]

Is the police officer who

Is the police officer who compiled this report actually the person who was involved in the incident? It’s hard to see how they could be any more ridiculously biased! Definitely do everything in your power to publicise this and have the police explain what they actually mean when they say someone is inconsiderate for “cycling on the limit of the cycle lane” – if you were on the limit you were presumably still within the confines of the cycle lane; if you were over the limit, then you were in the road, where you are also perfectly entitled to be. Mind-boggling stupidity and ignorance of the law as well.

[Hirsute]

They never update it beyond

They never update it beyond the initial assessment.

It’s mostly warning letters now, so tending towards doing not a lot.

[wtjs]

I hope you aren’t going as
I hope you aren’t going as far as to suggest that this results page is fabricated too
No, I’m stating rather than suggesting that Lancashire Constabulary fabricates the statistics by the simple means of not including indisputable evidence cases that they don’t like. I know from personal experience that they ignore those cases that I show all the time on here. I suspect that they lie about cases where they have taken action, but I can’t prove that as they’re not my cases. Sending a NIP is NOT an outcome because the police frequently bin these for made-up reasons. That’s why I asked you: you showed a left hook where they claimed to have sent a NIP. It’s 3 years ago, so the case must have finished. So what does the wonderful Safer Essex case reference say was the actual outcome? Leaving it at ‘evidential file presented’ would be worthless – I know from personal experience how the police bin cases for the stupidest of reasons

[bikes]

That is a tough read. A
That is a tough read. A “considerate” driver who close passes people? A “clear” close pass but no one is inconvenienced?

An embarrassment.

[Hirsute]

You put your reference in to

You put your reference in to the results page and it tells you the outcome.

I hope you aren’t going as far as to suggest that this results page is fabricated too.

Results

Anyway, here’s Lancs* police showing us all how to leave a motorway safely.

* well, probably is, after all they don’t care much for driving standards.

 

[wtjs]

This is 3 years ago and did

This is 3 years ago and did get a NIP for the left hook

Is that one online, and did you follow-up and find out whether the NIP actually came to anything or was it just quietly binned by the police?

[wtjs]

if you were on the limit you

if you were on the limit you were presumably still within the confines of the cycle line; if you were over the limit, then you were in the road, where you are also perfectly entitled to be. Mind-boggling stupidity and ignorance of the law

Many people find it difficult to believe not only how malevolent and anti-cyclist police officers are, but also how thick and ignorant. They should surmount this difficulty- they really are!

[Bungle_52]

HoarseMann wrote:

Having watched your dashcam footage and read your report we found that your statement was inconsistent with the footage and therefore could not be relied on in court. You stated the vehicle overtook you on a bend, the footage show otherwise. And as far as we can see on your footage nobody was inconvenienced. We see the car followed you for a great distance and was respectful and held back and simply followed in the narrow streets and only over took when on a wider road.

Just so you know you are not on your own with this here is one from Gloucestershire. The driver was behind a few seconds and the driver started off in front! Didn’t wait for a wide road. No one was inconvenienced. Not even words of advice.

At least the building company said they would have a word.

https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-786-293709

[HoarseMann]

This is really of no help,

This is really of no help, but just some solidarity with the absurdity of the police sometimes…

After careful consideration of the available evidence and surrounding circumstances it has been decided that the driver will receive words of advice and guidance.

Having watched your dashcam footage and read your report we found that your statement was inconsistent with the footage and therefore could not be relied on in court. You stated the vehicle overtook you on a bend, the footage show otherwise. And as far as we can see on your footage nobody was inconvenienced. We see the car followed you for a great distance and was respectful and held back and simply followed in the narrow streets and only over took when on a wider road.

Your footage was from a rear mounted camera and your claim he overtook on a bend with oncoming traffic and you had to swerve to avoid a collision was not evidenced.

In the early part of your video it shows the car following you. Considering the road conditions (Parked cars on narrow residential street) the driver was considerate and gave as much room as he deemed safe to do so. This wasn’t a pass at excess speed however was very close to the back of you regardless of the length of time he followed you and was held up.

You have clearly shown in your footage that this did result in a close pass, but considering the clear inaccuracies we will take no further action. The driver will be spoken to and he will be given a warning with words of advice and guidance.

[Author]

Replies