Thames Valley Police seem to have a new requirement for assessing close pass submissions by cyclists: the bike needs to be visible in the footage, or else they won’t be able to judge if the pass by the driver is a legitimate one or not.
The above close pass was made on cyclist Andrew Edwards on Hambridge Road in Newbury on 13th January this year. However, when he submitted the footage to Thames Valley Police (TVP), the force emailed him saying, “You need to show some part of your bike to assist us with calculating the distance of the vehicle and you in relation to it being close.”
“The easiest way for us to prove this is have a part of your handle bar showing and then we are able to make a decision on the course of action, if we could see your bike I would have been happy to offer the driver a driver education course.
“But as I couldn’t I asked two court presentation officers who prosecute these sort of offences in court and also my senior manager, all were in agreement that as there was no reference to your bike we would not offer a course as this is only an alternative to a court case, therefore on this occasion I will send the driver a written warning.
“You may wish to view the camera when it on your bike to make sure there is a point of your bike showing, if you wish to alter the camera position and send me a screen shot I would be happy to see if it helps our decisions in future.”
Obviously, Andrew wasn’t the most chuffed at this response. He tried to point out the discrepency in TVP’s threshold of taking action by using another submission of his which didn’t have his bike visible, as a reference.
Now, this near miss (we know, two NMotDs in one) was recorded by Andrew on 3rd July last year on Kiln Hill in Newbury. He told road.cc: “I got a letter just after the New Year saying that I had reported it in good time, they had sent out a NIP within the necessary time period.
“But then they had failed to proceed with it before it was too late so the driver could not be sent on a training course or have the case go to court so they got a warning letter.”
When he pointed this incident to TVP and accused them of being “inconsistent and incompetent”, they were swift to reject the matter out of hand, saying: “Going forward if we cannot see any part of the reporting parties bike we will now not proceed with these cases. This will make us more consistent going forward.”
Andrew said: “The police said they couldn’t tell if it was a close pass as no part of my bike was visible and my camera could be zoomed 10 metres up the road. The fact that my hand comes into shot doesn’t matter, maybe they think I have 10m long arms!”
road.cc reached out to Thames Valley Police for a comment about them requiring a part of a bike being visible in the footage, to which they sent us the following reply:
When determining what action to take on close passes against cyclists, we use the Full Code Test contained within the Code for Crown Prosecutors. This has two stages and both stages of the Full Code Test must be met before we can take action:
1. We must have sufficient reliable evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.
2. Any action we take must be in the public interest.
When considering whether a matter meets the public interest test, a number of factors are taken into consideration. One of those factors is whether or not prosecution is a proportionate response to the offending behaviour.
In determining what the most appropriate response may be, we have a range of outcomes we can apply ranging from no further action to a written warning letter, a driver education course and prosecution. Each case is considered on its’ own merits.
In this case, a written warning letter was delivered.
On the matter of close passes we have been conducting an operation in Oxford City Centre over the last two days (31/01 and 01/02) where we have been stopping anyone who was seen to be driving too close to cyclists or in a dangerous manner. In addition to this, we worked alongside Oxfordshire Fire & Rescue to hand out bike lights in the City to cyclists who were not displaying them in the dark evenings. We hope to put out a video regarding our operation over the next week alongside our results.
> Near Miss of the Day turns 100 — Why do we do the feature and what have we learnt from it?
Over the years road.cc has reported on literally hundreds of close passes and near misses involving badly driven vehicles from every corner of the country – so many, in fact, that we’ve decided to turn the phenomenon into a regular feature on the site. One day hopefully we will run out of close passes and near misses to report on, but until that happy day arrives, Near Miss of the Day will keep rolling on.
If you’ve caught on camera a close encounter of the uncomfortable kind with another road user that you’d like to share with the wider cycling community please send it to us at info@road.cc or send us a message via the road.cc Facebook page.
If the video is on YouTube, please send us a link, if not we can add any footage you supply to our YouTube channel as an unlisted video (so it won’t show up on searches).
Please also let us know whether you contacted the police and if so what their reaction was, as well as the reaction of the vehicle operator if it was a bus, lorry or van with company markings etc.
> What to do if you capture a near miss or close pass (or worse) on camera while cycling
57 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 889: Police refuse to act on cyclist’s submission and claim they require the “bike to be visible in the footage” to determine a close pass”
Institutionally anti-cyclist
Institutionally anti-cyclist
Ha, was just about to say
Ha, was just about to say exactly the same thing myself. They spend more time thinking up pathetic excuses and reasons not to follow up close passes than they do investigating them.
So if my hatchback is rear
So if my hatchback is rear-ended they won’t accept my tailgate camera footage of the culprit because my own car isn’t in the frame?
You need one of those 360
You need one of those 360 cameras on your car.
Ah, but this distorts the footage so no action can be taken.
Width of the road, white
Width of the road, white lines aren’t moving and I he width of the vehicle.
But….
They can gauge the distance
They can gauge the distance between the car and kerb, which I’d reckon at less than 1.5m. Unless they assume the cyclist does not in fact exist, then the motorist must be too close.
That’s twice I’ve heard
That’s twice I’ve heard recently that the police calculate the distance to the vehicle from a point of reference to the bike in frame of the video, first I’ve heard of a submission being rejected for it.
But is this some new ACPO style guideline ? None of mine would ever qualify if it became a new hurdle to jump.
ACPO = National Police Chiefs
ACPO = National Police Chiefs’ Council = NPCC nowadays.
I read the article before
I read the article before viewing the video of the incident. I was expecting to see a marginal close pass. I winced when I saw the footage. You don’t need a ruler to tell you that was an unsafe close pass. Not sure you even need a brain cell, it is literally a no brainer. I usually like to give the police the benefit of the doubt but this decision has me thinking is it gross incompetence or some kind of corruption.
Where the hell are the
Where the hell are the national standards?
South Yorkshire you have chief inspector Kevin Smith sometime of this parish with a set up for distances. They use a mat with lines on and a still from the camera and use that for close pass assessment.
It could be that they are
It could be that they are getting a lot of videos that are not obviously close passes like this one, so the prosecutors have decided a reference point on the bicycle is needed as policy.
IMO that needs a thorough
IMO that needs a thorough justification, which I have not seen.
FOI for conversations that lead to the decision may be revealing.
And this is why drivers will
And this is why drivers will continue to intimidate and bully cyclists using their vehicles as weapons. The fuckwitted useless c%%ts supposedly paid to protect society from thugs and criminals are actually supporting them. It is obvious to anyone watching the video how close the vehicle is to the kerb and that a cyclist will be in that gap regardless of wether you can see their handlebars or not. Useless, lazy, prejudiced w@nkers.
This is diabolical.
This is diabolical.
An effort to manage demand by ignoring road safety?
How good have TVP been previously?
mattw wrote:
I’ve had TVP take action on a few of the reports I’ve made. They’re better at this than they were a few years ago. I’d say they’ve actioned more than they’ve not actioned, but then I do ensure I have the bike in the video frame.
What I have noticed, is action is more likely if the vehicle passes both closely and at a high speed.
It’s almost impossible to bar
It’s almost impossible to bar mount on my flat bar commuter bike and have the bars visible although it’s pretty easy on drop bars.
I don’t have the bars in shot
I don’t have the bars in shot, but angle the front camera down so the front wheel is visible in the frame. I also have a rear camera, where the rear wheel (or rack) is visible in shot. I think as long as there is a reference point for the bike in view, then you’re good.
For even greater effect, after an incident like this, you could find a place to dismount the bike, prop it up and remove the camera to film the bike. If the footage is continously recording, then you’ve got reliable evidence of the width of the handlebars.
but the trade off is youve
but the trade off is youve then limited the scope of what you capture in front of the bike to fill part of the frame with tarmac and wheel just as a reference point, which could then be a crucial miss in some passes, or pull outs at junctions.
plus I find with a rear camera, like this example, the rack and pannier (with pass pixi displayed fwiw) completely wrecks your sense of where the vehicle actually is in relation to you.
This guy was within touching distance at this point, wasnt going to cross the white line because of oncoming traffic and only backed out because I sensed the danger, turned round and gave him a good honest assessment of what I thought of his driving at this point, and maybe he finally spotted the big yellow square with a camera symbol on it.
I don’t think it limits the
I don’t think it limits the scope of what you can see. If anything, I think it helps get the exposure right as there’s much less sky in frame.
you will have traded that
you will have traded that reference point though for the point at which number plates, as an example, are still legible within the field of view,which may be an issue, maybe not, it could well depend on the light levels, or speed of the pass.
but that frame shows a classic example of barrel distortion caused by the wide angle fixed lens that you get with cycling action cameras, which shows what a complete nonsense it is to be even trying to “calculate” distance from any video submission like this.
Surely you just need to start
Surely you just need to start every ride with a testcard?
Mind you, is that a nearby small clown visually next to a giant child at a distance…?
In my experience, there’s no
In my experience, there’s no issue reading number plates with the camera angled down (see below, even at the periphery of the lens field of view and some distance away, this plate is still legible).
It would be perfectly possible to calculate distance from a video submission with wide angle lens distortion. But more likely, measurements of road features from the location and the known dimensions of the vehicle involved would be used, along with the reference point of the cycle in the frame.
It would be perfectly
It would be perfectly possible to calculate distance from a video submission with wide angle lens distortion
The ones we really want something doing about don’t require such calculations, but they still don’t do anything about them. The only things the police are interested in calculating are more ways to avoid doing anything
https://upride.cc/incident/yj60kgzar12way_brethertonsarchwaybuses_closepass/
“Any action we take must be
“Any action we take must be in the public interest”
As we all know, the (driving) public has very little interest in the safety of cyclists so I guess I can see their point.
Those are my videos, what I
Those are my videos, what I find especially frustrating is that I submit the videos as a way to close the incidents off in my mind and avoid getting angry at the time. The complete lack of any action by TVP doesn’t help this. Previously I’ve been actually hit and they still only sent a warning letter
That’s rubbish. I sent a
That’s rubbish. I sent a similar incident to North Wales Police on Monday and they’d taken action over it on Tuesday.
There’s clearly not 1.5 M between the kerb and the overtaking car so there’s no way it’s a safe pass.
Exactly. The police use
Exactly. The police use common sense every day in road traffic accidents to work out how fast people were going without being able to see their speedos etc.
This is just bullshit. If you are less than 1.5m from the curb then there is a 0% chance that when you overtake a cyclist you magically are.
Exactly this. But you need to
Exactly this. But you need to be fiurther. If my wheels are 50 cm from the kerb then 2m from the kerb is 1.5m from my wheels, which cannot be 1.5m from my offside.
Same in North Yorkshire.
Same in North Yorkshire.
Videos and reporting helps me stay calm, but North Yorkshire Police are hopelessly inconsistent. Most of the time they just don’t want to do the work.
OK this is terrible policing
OK this is terrible policing but now they have given you this guidance you can act on it. It’s not difficult to get the front wheel in the shot and it has been suggested in the past to include a still with a measured 1.5m visible in front of the bike for reference in your submission.
I suspect they’ve cocked up and are looking for excuses but it could be that the prosecutor has genuiniely experienced this defence in court. There seems to be no end to the gullibility of judges, magistrates and juries where motoring offences are concerned. No point in antagonising the police in my opinion, we need them on our side.
On the plus side they have given you feedback and a warning letter was sent. Some of us would call this a good result.
PS. Thanks for taking the time and trouble to submit on behalf of us all. I think things are improving but it will be a long uphill struggle to get to where we need to be.
they have given you feedback
they have given you feedback and a warning letter was sent
The OP called it a warning letter- I strongly suspect the police referred to it as an advice letter. That’s the way the police view it- advice which you can accept or reject
I’m seriously considering
I’m seriously considering strapping a laser distance measuring device to my rear rack, in camera shot, to give a fairly accurate measure of passing distance.
Would need be a unit (like this one) with a continous mode.
More out of curiosity than anything else, but it would surely help with evidencing.
Problem would perhaps be
Problem would perhaps be synchronisation.
Have you thought about emailing Dr Ian Walker about the setup he used when cycling around in his blonde wig measuring passing distances?
HoarseMann wrote:
I doubt the police would take account of any evidence provided in this way, they certainly don’t (at least the Met don’t, I’ve asked/offered) with indications of rider speed overlaid from a Garmin, on the basis that only certified calibrated devices (i.e. only police/speed camera company ones) are admissible legal evidence.
So the only sure measure
So the only sure measure would be a sharp-tipped calibrated length of piano wire projecting perpendicularly sideways. As a bonus, the length of the scratch in the car’s flank would indicate the duration of the motorists incursion. Just be careful whilst filtering…
Calibration is required for
Calibration is required for FPN speed offences, but if it goes to court, then other measures of speed can be used – such as time/distance calculations from video footage, even though the cameras frame rate is not calibrated.
Adding a Garmin overlay is considered editing of the video after the event, so would not be appropriate (tampering with evidence). However any overlay applied in real time during the recording would probably be ok (as the Garmin Varia camera does).
I could always get it calibrated by a 3rd party testing house!
Dr Adrian Walker used an
Dr Ian Walker used an ultrasonic measuring machine:
https://drianwalker.com/overtaking/
eburtthebike wrote:
Yes, an acoustic proximity sensor (as used for parking sensors) works well for these short distances. However, a home-brew Arduino based system is less likely to be useful for evidence than an unmodified commercially available device (especially if it’s been calibrated).
Quote:
The use of the atrocious footy-speak “going forward” (what’s wrong with “in the future”?), not once but twice in two sentences, is bad enough, when it’s coupled with the use of the plural of party instead of the singular possessive…well, hanging’s too good for ’em.
“Going forward if we cannot
“Going forward if we cannot see any part of the reporting parties bike we will now not proceed with these cases. This will make us more consistent going forward.”
No: going backwards.
If a police force would
If a police force would rather do nothing, it will never run out of excuses to justify its failure. See also North Yorkshire Police.
Or Police Scotland.
Or Police Scotland.
I can see TVP’s point. For
I can see TVP’s point. For all they know, the cyclist could be a visitor from Edwin Abbott Abbott’s satirical novella Flatland, a world with only two spatial dimensions that is populated by sentient geometric shapes. In which case, the driver would’ve been giving them plenty of space.
I would be making an offical
I would be making an offical complaint about this. That pass is so close that I would bet a lot of money on the driver not even being 1.5m from the curb, let alone the cyclist.
Well I suppose they could
Well I suppose they could claim that unless they can see the handlebars then they cannot tell how wide the bike is
I mean you could have a road bike with very narrow bars
or have a hybrid one with very wide bars
so the outside of the bike is not known so they can’t provide a proper measurement
which is rubbish because it is possible to assume a normal bike and work it out from that
most bars are actually narrower than the rider’s shoulders anyway or close to it
miekwidnes wrote:
I’m sure that’s exactly what their argument is – which is still bollocks, because even if the camera was fixed to the left-most tip of the widest downhill MTB flat bars you can get, that pass was still way within 1.5m of the camera. In reality, that would have probably brushed the rider’s shoulder.
Disgraceful response from the Police.
What a load of rubbish. You
What a load of rubbish. You have to be pretty thick not to be able to tell that’s way too close.
Sorry, that’s clear and
Sorry, that’s clear and sensible.
Approach it backwards from arguing in court where the camera is, and what the distance is.
So, mount it where part of the bike is visible. If you cared to put a distance gauge, a pair of dots even, on that part, that might help.
It may be worth noting that ultrasonic distance measures are cheap, and a future camera could have one looking sideways. It might cause car sensors to beep at the driver, but I expect everyone would get over that.
Midgex wrote:
No it’s not, many tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of submissions have been accepted by police forces around the country where the bike isn’t visible; these have led to many drivers being given a course or points and a fine without them disputing the evidence. “Sensible” would be saying that most people mount their camera in the middle of the bars, so even with the widest bars the furthest away from the point of the bicycle nearest the car the camera will be is about 30cm. If in doubt the police could just ask for a picture of the camera setup to accompany the video. In a pass like the one above the position of the camera is totally irrelevant anyway, it can clearly be seen that the van is entirely within the lane at all times (otherwise it would hit the oncoming traffic), the van is a Ford Transit which is a minimum of 210 cm wide (240 cm including mirrors), the cyclist will be at least 60 cm wide, so unless the lane is 450 cm wide it is physically impossible for the pass to have been outside 150cm. Furthermore it can be seen fom the video, regardless of where the camera is, that the van is never more than a metre off the kerb, meaning it must have passed the cyclist within 50cm at most.
The only thing “clear” is that TVP are making ridiculous excuses to avoid taking action when an obvious offence has been committed.
I think the Ford Transit is
I think the Ford Transit is the example that TVP did prosecute. It’s the Saab that they wouldn’t prosecute, due to no part of the bike being visible.
TVP are being overly cautious with the evidential burden of proof. All the court needs is evidence that is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.
It is possible that a longer lens would show a pass to be closer than it was in reality. An example below of two views of the same pass (that wasn’t close, but the driver did cut in a bit too soon as they chose to overtake on a bend over double whites with an oncoming van). Having part of the bike in the frame takes away that marginal doubt, but it does seem like a bit of an excuse not to prosecute in this case.
What the problem seems to be, is the amount of resources put into these prosecutions costs more than the fine. I think this is unreasonable, these things need to pay for themselves. The police should be able to cover the cost of prosecutions with funds generated by fines (with any excess going to fund improvements in road safety). If parking enforcement companies can make the maths work for a civil claim, then surely the same can be done for criminal activity.
Ah my mistake – though
Ah my mistake – though everything I said applies to both, really.
Guess I might go back to
Guess I might go back to mounting the front camera back on the offside fork then.
You get a the front leading edge of the wheel in shot, plus the view through your spokes to the nearside.
Hangon … I’m in Scotland, so it doesn’t matter what I do as it won’t get followed up on anyway.
Clearly there is no way of
Clearly there is no way of knowing whether the camera is attached to the bike frame / hamndlebars or whether it is mounted on the end of a 1.5m trailing arm attached to a bracket…
Any excuse not to act. I
Any excuse not to act. I suspect that is less an anti-cycling issue and more a lack of resources. But come on, it is clear that is a close pass. Clearly highlighted by the distance the next car passes at. This provides a relative guide by which to judge the distance.
I got a letter just after the New Year saying that I had reported it in good time, they had sent out a NIP within the necessary time period. But then they had failed to proceed with it before it was too late so the driver could not be sent on a training course or have the case go to court so they got a warning letter
A NIP is not an outcome- it’s just a dodge to convince people that action has been taken. I think this is how most NIPs end up. Different forces, different dodges. TVP has just invented a new one, and when people comply with the new rule they will just think of another dodge, such as ‘we must have rear facing footage as well’ and eventually ‘we must have overhead drone footage’. They would bin this immediately, then, just like Lancashire Constabulary did:
https://upride.cc/incident/yn67mvj_sainsburys44tonner_closepass/
I sympathise with the police
I sympathise with the police here. They do need high-quality evidence.
The camera mounted at a wobbly angle at a mysterious location on the bike is not good enough.
Cyclists need to think like a ‘competent’ police officer when positioning their camera.
They might want high quality
They might want high quality evidence and certainly courts seem to have a very high standard for proof here. Police don’t seem keen to get it themselves though.
See investigating methods from eg. Police Scotland which a cynic would say are designed to reduce additional workload from these by making them hard to report (no portal, basically you have to book an appointment and provide a statement) and having lots of routes to “no further action”. Eg. if a driver is identified closing the case if they say they don’t know anything about it.
I might understand that they can be overstretched but it looks like this is one of those areas (like bike theft – well, most theft) where the lowest possible resource and priority is assigned.
As noted in the article level of response seems random – perhaps if you’re lucky your force has an officer or two who cares? Otherwise…