- This topic has 32 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Topic
-
On 4th July I received the first Lancashire Constabulary response about a close pass incident report. The close pass, by a lorry carrying portable toilets (photo coming soon!) occurred on 21st June, and was reported on 22nd June. You will note that the response comes 13 days after the incident- Hey Presto! Now too late to process!! Result for LC!!! The report file begins with: Alarming close passing of cyclist by lorry MV17 SVK carrying 3 portable toilets. The response was solely to ‘advise’ me to report the ‘speeding incident’ (to someone else, please, anyone else!) to a joke organisation I hadn’t heard of before:
http://www.lancsroadsafety.co.uk/
The SpeedyLoo driver was undoubtedly speeding, but I am certainly not about to waste time reporting to an organisation even more dedicated to hopeless ineffectuality than LC, an organisation which will certainly be completely uninterested in ‘alarming close passing’. The other thing the response wanted to tell me was that the un-named officer couldn’t view the video. The LC online reporting site requires the public to compress files if they are above the 60 MB limit (this GoPro file was 300 MB), but they can’t even read a standard HEVC codec .mp4 file. I have come across this before, and I have had to tell other LC officers how to view it- they even all have posh Samsung phones which can, of course, display HEVC videos.
-
More funny business from
More funny business from Lancashire Constabulary: it was several months after the offence of 29.2.20 that LC decided to prosecute this driver- photo below. I made the formal statements and I eventually found out that the charge was about crossing the unbroken WL- no mention was made of the extremely close passing and the obvious 50-60 mph in a 50 limit (another clue- vehicle manufacturer?) or the almost identical offence by the same driver 2 days previously. All videos and stills are immaculate. I became more and more suspicious about dodgy dealings in this case- I was informed that there was a hearing at Preston on 1.10.21 and the driver was apparently pleading Not Guilty to the UWL offence, even though he is as guilty as sin. I decided I should attend as ‘a member of the public’ just to see what was going on. I enquired of the Court Presentation Officer on 20th August about the court details, and received a reply today that ‘the hearing details are under negotiation because the case may be moved out of area to be dealt with’. I think they’re trying to prevent me attending- and all for a relatively trivial open-and-shut case about an offence which is routine at this bridge and which LC almost invariably ignores completely.
… the driver was apparently pleading Not Guilty to the DWL offence …
This is the similar offence 2
This is the similar offence 2 days before
This offence of later in the
This offence of later in the day on 23.6.21, and reported on the 24th, was only acknowledged on 8.7.21 and allocated an 8th July log incident reference- 15 days after the offence. It’s obvious that they’re just ensuring the case is ‘too late to process’ before they officially look at it.
This is 2 minutes later
This is 2 minutes later
This offence of 23.6.21 was
This offence of 23.6.21 was acknowledged close to midnight on 7.7.21, and allocated a 7th July log incident reference- this is 14 days after the offence by VW Caddy van YE61 ZSY, which repeated the offence 2 minutes later
I am using this topic as a
I am using this topic as a storage depot, even if nobody else is reading it. Lancashire Constabulary is intent on keeping down to standard- today I received word of allocation of a log incident number with today’s date 6th July incorporated. As usual they don’t link this properly to the online incident report reference, because they don’t seem to know how to do that. I have to deduce that it’s the offence below by Avid Brewery’s VW Transporter AV10 BUS (the dirtiest vehicle on the roads, with a completely obscured rear window), dated 22.6.21- 14 days ago, reported on the 23rd. Once again, they claim the HEVC video ‘doesn’t work’. It does ‘work’. It doesn’t matter how often you tell them how to do it, they never learn and never pass on the information to other officers.
Well, that’s taking the piss!Wasting police time if you ask me
When pressed for a statement, the police declared that they couldn’t find the offending vehicle and as such had nothing to go on.
Oh-ho! very good sir, cha-poe
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.