A cyclist who sent links of several YouTube videos showing near misses to police has said she is somewhat confused that warning letters were sent to the registered keepers of the vehicles involved – since her statistics on the video-sharing platform suggest that the footage had not been viewed at all. Sussex Police insist, however, that the videos “were each properly reviewed and assessed.”
The rider, road.cc reader M, got in touch with us last week to say: “I’ve had a suspicion that this has been going on for a while but I’m 100 per cent certain now that Sussex Police are not watching the submitted videos for ‘Operation Crackdown’.
“The last five out of six videos I’ve submitted have 0 views (I’m fairly confident that I was the 1 view of the 6th video but obviously cannot prove that) yet when I check the ‘progress’ of the report, they have sent ‘An advisory letter has been sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle’.”
In her email to us, she attached screenshots of the progress reports on each of those five cases – each confirming that such a video had been sent.
“I’ve submitted a lot of videos in the past and not one of them has had more than an advisory letter sent to the driver and some of the clips definitely deserved more than that,” M added. “It’s purely lip service from Sussex Police to absolve themselves of any liability.”
We contacted the force to raise her concerns, providing them with the case numbers for all five incidents and asking them to confirm that “the individual submissions were each properly reviewed and assessed.”
Sussex Police replied: “We have reviewed and assessed each one of these submissions, and can confirm the action taken was considered sufficient in the circumstances.”
We’ve also asked the force to provide details of the number of submissions they have received under Operation Crackdown, including how many action has been taken on, broken down by advisory letter, FPN, referral for prosecution.
Sussex Police asked us to submit a Freedom of Information request for those statistics, which we are now doing.
As a postscript, when we got back to M, who had originally uploaded the videos to YouTube unlisted meaning they are not publicly searchable, to let her know the police response, she told us: “Funnily enough, they must have just watched each of the videos as it now shows 1 view.”
In addition to the video above which shows a left hook of two cyclists on a roundabout, M’s other videos, which she has now made public on her YouTube channel, show several instances of poor driving including van drivers making close passes into oncoming traffic, a close pass on a blind bend by the driver of a Mini,
51 thoughts on “Drivers sent warning letters after cyclist submits close pass videos – but she is unconviced police even watched the footage (+ videos)”
Is it possible they just plug
Is it possible they just plug the youtube URL into a site or system that auto downloads the video file, rather than browsing it like you or I while sitting on the couch?
That had also occurred to me.
That had also occurred to me. I’ve had a few from TVP who (claim to) have sent letters or called the driver with a warning/advice but where YouTube reports no views. Usually, however, it shows 1 view. I did have one recently where (having spoken to the nice police chappie) he said he’d watched it several times (as well as others having seen it) and yet the view count didn’t tally.
I wonder what percentage of
I wonder what percentage of the video has to be watched to increase the view count. Maybe they stop ten seconds from the end.
I wondered that, as when the
I wondered that, as when the police have acted on my reports they usually notify me that they have ‘downloaded the video’. But I checked my submissions and they do all have views against them.
So this is my video, they
So this is my video, they always go up as unlisted and usually have 1 or 2 views from, what I presume are the Police, but the most recent haven’t had any views. I’ve tested it out and just watching a small amount of the video shows up at my end as a view.
Also had trouble with
Also had trouble with Operation Crackdown when I submitted footage of a van driver hooting and close passing me about half a mile up the road from the last clip. Their action was a letter, and after going through the Sussex Police & Crime Commissioner’s office I managed to get the decision reviewed, though too late for them to change their action or deal with the motorist appropriately. This was the initial response:
“After viewing the footage, My judgment would have been to consider this for prosecution. Therefore I apologise that matter was dealt in way of a formal letter.
Unfortunately due to the timescale we are now unable to prosecute. I have spoken to the Operation Crackdown team and the member of the staff who reviewed the matter has been spoken to regarding this report and warned over future conduct.
I understand the frustration but hopefully this email has explained the situation. We would like to thank you again for submitting the original report on Operation Crackdown, your help has made a difference in making the roads of Sussex a safer place.“
And when questioned about the appeal process and the fact that their failings had allowed someone to get away with a lesser punishment I was sent this response:
“There isn’t an appeal process however we are looking at how footage is approached so we can improve the outcome of reports.
This is why we advise all users of the Operation Crackdown that a decision in how we deal with the report is final. This decision will have been reached after reviewing different systems and there maybe Policing reasons which we are unable to share which have brought us to this conclusion.
If the officer in charge decides to prosecute the driver a Notice of Intended Prosecution/Section 172 is sent. The law states that the Notice of Intended Prosecution/ Section 172 must be sent and be received by the registered keeper of the vehicle within 14 days of the offence.
Although I mentioned we would be unable to send a Notice out due to the timescale, I failed to mention even if you had made us aware within the 14 days we still wouldn’t be able to prosecute as the matter had been dealt with in a way of a formal warning and this would fall under the double jeopardy law.“
If anyone can comment on double jeopardy and how it relates to a letter precluding the issuing of a NIP I would be most interested – I thought it related to going to trial, but the above suggests otherwise?
I can’t comment on double
I can’t comment on double jeopardy but I would like to thank you for your hard work and persistence in challenging the decision of the reviewer in your submission. I hope that the police will be as good as their word. I also hope that they will also look at the training given in general to the officers assigned to viewing footage relating to inconsiderate driving around cyclists. There seems to be a view common to many police forces that close passing is not an offence and that they can only take action if the cyclist is forced to take drastic evasive action or there is an actual collision. I am not convinced this is the correct view point but it does hinge around the interpretation of what is a “competent and careful driver”. I hope the changes in the highway code will help but actions like yours will also help to nudge the police into taking action which will help to protect cyclists from inconserate motorists.
Thank you again and thank you to road.cc for publishing close passes and for following up the actions of the police in relation to this article.
jmcc500 wrote:
I think it could count as Abuse of Process:
“In, R v Croydon Justices ex parte Dean [1993] Q.B. 769, it was held that “the prosecution of a person who has received a promise, undertaking or representation from the police that he will not be prosecuted is capable of being an abuse of process”. It is not necessary for the accused to show that there was bad faith on the part of the police.”
why on earth would cyclists
why on earth would cyclists turning right position themselves on the extreme left on entry to the roundabout?
At the start of the clip I assumed the cyclists would be going straight on and hooked by a driver turning left, not turning right and hooked by a driver going straight on.
Get in the lane you would be in if using a car to take your exit, make drivers slow on the roundabout, it’s not even a big roundabout. Cyclists will clear the roundabout in 20 seconds. While i have had impatient drivers on regular roads, narrow roads, and even pinch points. I’ve never had an issue on a roundabout. I think giving clear indication of intent at all times is the best approach.
Yes, that was bonkers.
Yes, that was bonkers. Usually on a 2 lane I am right by the centre line in l1 or occasionally in l2 by the centre line. If I try and use L2 I get undertaken or swapping to L1 on exit is rather tricky.
hirsute wrote:
A position 3/4 of the way out in lane 1 should be sufficient to prevent left hook while also avoiding getting undertaken. Makes it clear the cyclists aren’t taking the next exit, while not leaving a door open on the inside.
Rule 187. In all cases watch
Rule 187. In all cases watch out for and give plenty of room to ● cyclists and horse riders who may stay in the left-hand lane and signal right if they intend to continue round the roundabout. Allow them to do so.
I can’t see whether they were signalling or not but it’s not really an excuse for mowing someone down.
No but if you look at the
No but if you look at the sequence, they start off with putting themselves in play for a left hook, then are far too close to the next entry point, then skittle across the second exit. Not good roadcraft. There is a reason why primary is advocated in certain situations !
Bungle_52 wrote:
The rear cyclist of the two was definitely signalling right on approach to the first exit – the front is less clear, but I don’t think so.
I think anyone who knows about rule 187 would anticipate that any cyclist in the left lane may continue on the roundabout, regardless of whether they are signalling right. But a lot of people don’t seem to know about it (as evidenced in the comments here, and this isn’t even the DM).
Bungle_52 wrote:
They start signalling as the van passes them, there is no excuse for the driver, who is clearly aware they are not intending to take the exit (driver slows where normally they would accelreate off the roundabout) but it reaches a situaiton where both parties know they need to cross paths, but each waiting for the other to yield, until the cyclists are forced to yield.
I find by using the correct lane I have no issues with being hooked like this. What I find absolutely bonkers is there are roundabouts with a cycle lane marked around the entire circumference, putting cyclists into a position that implies they are taking the next exit and inviting left hooks.
Bungle_52 wrote:
I actually didnt know of that one – thanks. Must spend some time on HC site.
1) The highway code makes it
1) The highway code makes it quite clear cyclists can choose to remain in the left-hand lane for any exit (see Rules 77 and 187). Personally I wouldn’t choose to do so but I can see why some riders might. It can be intimidating crossing lanes of traffic to get into the “correct” lane, and then, once on the actual roundabout, it can be very intimidating having drivers passing you on both sides.
2) I think they were in the correct lane for the exit they took. If you look at the road markings just as the left-hook occurs, there is an arrow that indicates traffic can either leave at that exit OR continue on to the next exit (the one the cyclists wanted). There are two exit lanes on the road the cyclists took – the one the cyclists used and the one the white car used. As a cyclist, you wouldn’t want to end up in the right-hand lane (i.e. where the white car was) so the lane they used was the correct one.
OnYerBike wrote:
Quite it’s about time that o’taking on junctions and roundabouts was made illegal. It conveys no benefit, and increases risk for slower or vulnerable users
Captain Badger wrote:
can’t argue with that, although it is at odds with road design which keeps bend radii high to allow vehicles to carry speed through the junction. The logic behind this is a mystery to me as roundabouts are recognised as being dangerous junctions in road design. (all dangerous junctions will have street lighting – all roundabouts have street lighting even when all roads meeting are unlit)
wycombewheeler wrote:
Indeed, especially on dual carriageways, where the roundabout is treated as little more than a deviation of thepath of the carriageway
OnYerBike wrote:
At the point of being overtaken this is correct, but before entering the roundabout is the lane marked for turning right as well as straight on, it is not clear at the start of the video.
OnYerBike wrote:
Personally I believe the advice to cyclists to negotiate roundabouts in this manner is flawed.
Either way you must cross a lane of traffic – is it better to do so when people are slowing to give way on entering a junction, or when traffic is accelerating while leaving the roundabout?
At this junction I would have either been towards the left of lane 2 (if lane 1 is not routinely used for 3rd exit by cars) or 3/4 of the way out in lane 1 positioned behind the van and directly in front of the driver of the blue car. (if cars in lane 1 do frequently take the third exit)
I think that’s the roundabout
I think that’s the roundabout for Devil Dykes rd at Dyke rd ave and the A27 in Brighton and for traffic congestion reasons both lanes are valid “straight on” options, but the straight on is the 4th exit, not the A27 exit which the car cutting them up took.
If you put yourself in the rhl, youd have cars to your left both from the Hove entry point and those taking the “straight on” option beside you and youd probably get stuck there by cars already thinking they are on the a27 dual carriageway, as it’s already NSL speeds.
So I’d have taken the left lane, infact I think i did when I was down there on holiday and it looks sketchy, because it’s just a sketchy roundabout for cycling in general on, they indicated right and were ahead of the car, the driver there needed to think more about what they were doing and not just MGIF.
Yep, I found it on google
Yep, I found it on google maps – and the riders were just going straight ahead…
Although that is the third
Although that is the third exit, so plenty to think about before then.
It’s not just about which lane you can be in but also where in the lane you need to be, so 3/4 out in L1 seems a good starting point.
Sorry I miscounted, yes its
Sorry I miscounted, yes its 3rd,not 4th.
But i feel its one of those bits of roads where its challenging to get positioning right as a cyclist there, because there are too many conflict points you are having to deal with,its like playing 4d chess with very high stakes,you’ve got to look left & right, front & back, you cant trust anyone to be looking out for you and only need to move off line by a small bit and a driver will see a gap and instantly take the space.
Yes the ideal position would be a bit more 3/4qtr aligned, but kudos to anyone who can do that repeatably there.
hirsute wrote:
We don’t see how they arrived at the give way, but I would never filter up to a junction like that with queueing traffic. I always try and merge with the traffic flow a good 3-4 cars back from the junction and take a central position in the lane – making eye contact with the driver and thanking them for letting me in.
Once you get a couple of cars from that line, the drivers are just looking right for a gap and are unlikely to notice a bike coming up the inside.
Still – it’s obnoxious driving. I think it should be made law that you do not overtake anything on a roundabout. The number of times people get in the wrong lanes and it’s only a problem because a faster vehicle is passing.
Their lane positioning could
Their lane positioning could certainly have been more defensive, but they were at least in the correct lane, even before considering Rule 187. According to the road markings the two lanes approaching the roundabout are both for straight on, which is the third exit and is the one that they took. It’s possible that they weren’t famiiliar with the layout, so unwittingly made themselves more vulnerable, but they were within their rights to use that lane, and the left hooking vehicles should have waited and passed safely behind them instead. Having said all that I would have been right in the middle of the left hand lane approaching the roundabout and would have held that all the way to the exit. Who knows if it would’ve made any difference!
Yes very poor road
Yes very poor road positioning but I fear that like car drivers never seeing themselves as doing anything wrong, many here will see nothing wrong with the cyclists. Unfortunately we are a society of ‘It’s not my fault, it must be someone elses’.
Frankly wouldn’t be surprised
Frankly wouldn’t be surprised, suspect Essex Police don’t really do anything either. For reference, last incident I reported to them had an outcome notified two days later of the driver being given choice of a conditional offer or driver awareness course, two days, really! How is that enough time for them to have sent out a NIP to the owner, for the owner to respond identifying the driver at the time and then for them to send the driver details of what action is being taken against them!
A conditional offer is a
A conditional offer is a fixed penalty where you don’t go to court whereas a NIP should end up in court. I think they must decide from the outset that they won’t go to court.
I just get NFA now from EPA ! NSL and the oncoming range rover crossed the nearside white line to avoid a collision.
A NIP can end with just a
A NIP can end with just a conditional offer:
If the police receive an admission from the person to whom the NIP has been issued that they were driving at the time of the offence there are three ways the matter can be progressed:
Offer of speed awareness course
Fixed penalty offer of 3 points and £100.00 fine
Court proceedings by way of Single Justice Procedure (SJPN) or postal requisition
The point I was highlighting though was how can the police have sent out anything requesting the identity of the driver and confirm the intended punishment all within two days of receiving video of an incident.
On a related note of drivers
On a related note of drivers left hooking at roundabouts, here’s a fine example. In this particular case, the driver clearly made an effort to give me as much room as they could, yet still felt the need to get in front and turn left despite it being clear that I was going to be proceeding straight on. It would have cost them literally a few seconds to wait and pass behind me. I suspect the reason they gave me room is because they themselves may be a cyclist, as they had a bike in the back of the car when this incident occurred!
https://youtu.be/YeoIswunFwc
Dicklexic wrote:
It wouldn’t have even cost them that when viewed over their entire journey, unless of course they were driving in a car advert where traffic lights are always green, and other vehicles don’t exist.
Blatantly disregarding rule 167 too….
I’ve had this exact same
I’ve had this exact same issue with Sussex Police.
I’ve done over 50 reports to them via their “op crackdown”, sharing unlisted youtube videos with them. All of my reports have “letter sent to owner” or something like that (even really bad offences like overtaking where banned and then going through a red light followed by wrong side of traffic island in a matter of seconds).
Some of videos on youtube show as zero view on the video manager, even when the report is marked as “letter sent to owner”.
Escalate, to PCC and MP if
Escalate, to PCC and MP if necessary?
The rider is far too close to
The rider is far too close to the parked vehicles. Ride at least 1 yard away from the side of the car ideally 1.5yds. Take control of the lane, stop opportunistic passes. Calm the speed of the vehicles behind
Close pass by van CK17
Close pass by van CK17
I really hope it is an optical illusion but the cyclist in front looked like their clothing was going to be caught in the rear wheel any second.
I think you’re seeing things.
I think you’re seeing things. The van doesn’t even look particularly close to me.
Umm..that’s the title of the
Umm..that’s the title of the video…
I spent more time trying to
I spent more time trying to work out what the billowing piece of clothing was than looking at the Van 😀
I’d suggest Road reader M
Having reviewed all the videos I’d suggest Road reader M rides too close to parked cars and invites close passes, and possibly dooring at some point.
Harsh but true.
Harsh but true.
This is sussex, where the
This is sussex, where the anger and vitriol of local residents stopped the Velo South from happening in 2018 (the storm was the given reason for cancellation, but it was getting close to being cancelled anyway) and no sign of it ever being considered again. The police know that their inaction will not be unpopular. These residents would prefer to speed their 4x4s down single track roads screaming abuse at any cyclist who happens to be in front of them.
Good for Road.cc for pushing
Good for Road.cc for pushing this. I am sussex based, too, and have submitted many crackdown reports. Nothing ever happens, the force is nigh on useless.
Defund the bloody police. When was the last time they did anything to help you?
Carax wrote:
Haven’t we already tried defunding the police?
I say we need to give them more resources, but ensure that road traffic policing is given a higher priority and make it more transparent and accountable along with national standards across forces. Also, give them the power to remove the worst drivers from the roads and thus do a little bit to reduce congestion and pollution.
I may be mistaken, but I
I may be mistaken, but I thought the point of defunding the police is that money is diverted from ineffective, anti-democratic or over-militarised arms of the police (like the SDS, SPG as was, and gangs of bent coppers fitting up innocent Jesuit theology students) and using the money to fund better housing and social care, youth services, mental health services etc. as a more effective means of reducing crime.
Well, they took the resources away from roads policing, burglary investigations, ‘coppers on the beat’ etc.etc. (which most of us are glad to rely on and support) and failed to divert the money to any useful purpose.
Don’t you just love ‘Austerity’, the biggest scam perpetrated on the British public since privatisation of publicly owned utilities,transport and housing… until another one comes along.
“Austerity is the idea that
“Austerity is the idea that the 2008 financial crash was caused by Wolverhampton having too many libraries.” – Alexei Sayle.
Well done on taking this
Well done on taking this further.
I have been submitting various poor driving to OC for at least 3 or 4 years, with never anything to show for it. From fairly poor close passes to almost head on collisions, the default response from Sussex Police is “we sent a letter”. That was until recently (actually the past couple of years I think) when they don’t actually send you any notification at all, just tell you that they will “act on it if necessary”. However, having never been contacted since, I must presume that letters are just what happens regardless. EDIT: I also started reporting under “Dangerous/Careless driving” instead of “close pass of cyclist”, to see if that made a difference, but no.
I have often checked back on my videos, and they do show as “viewed” though as some have pointed out, it wouldn’t be difficult for someone to just set up a macro or similar to go through every link and just play it in a browser while they do something else. Whether that would be someone slacking off or a directive from someone in charge, who knows, thats all speculation anyway.
EDIT2: It appears that the ability to check the status was returned at some point, though you don’t get an automatic notification any more. Sure enough, those that are not more than a year old are all “sent a letter” or for a lot of them “kept on record”, so most of it seems to come down to who is actually doing the work or how busy they are ? And yes a couple show “0 views”…
Ironically, their in person roads policing seems to be pretty active, at least from what you can see on Twitter. This is clearly an “office job” separate from the in person roads policing, and appears to have the same lackdasical attitude that your average desk jockey takes to monotonous work like this.
If I am to draw any conclusions from what I can see of other forces activity that they choose to share publicly, Sussex Police is amongst the poorest of them all. We know that prosecutions are both possible to bring and to win, as the evidence from other forces proves. Sussex Police are, I strongly suspect, more in the pocket of the majority political (read “land owning”) classes in the area, who are the exact people who couldn’t really give a s**t about anyone else but themselves, and will influence the chief inspector or whoever accordingly whilst they are off shooting animals with them or whatever.
I will await the FOI request with interest, something I have always meant to do but, alas with so many things, just did not have the time for. Though I must confess I have little confidence that it will actually materialise in the form you ask for or whether I even believe it isn’t just made up anyway. My confidence in Sussex Police is basically zero.
Now that some sort of momentum may actually happen, I think it’s time I got round to anonymising some of my submitted videos (I’m not into public shaming on the internet) and republishing them. It’s about time they were shown up in volume for the ineffective useless force that they are.
Stay tuned.
I’ve just been reading up on
I’ve just been reading up on NIP’s and the legislation relation to them is the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, in other words a law made before small video recorders were in general use.
Who thinks that it’s time to lobby our MP’s to update the law and allow ga greater timescale for video evidence to be submitted to the Police
Well it seems operation
Well it seems operation crackdown are already up to their old tricks.
Submitted a close pass with a driver on a mobile, ciggy hanging out the mouth and the rear seat and boot area filled with boxes so you couldn’t see out.
Letter sent but YouTube states 0 views on the video, great work there..