The Metropolitan Police has encouraged cyclists to wear cameras and submit footage of traffic offences. Detective Superintendent Andy Cox, who is responsible for road safety, said the growing prevalence of helmet cams could serve as a deterrent.
Last week film director Guy Ritchie lost his driving licence after being filmed texting at the wheel by cyclist Mike van Erp (Cycling Mikey).
A number of media outlets took an interesting tack with their coverage. Van Erp was branded a “lycra-clad vigilante” by the Mail, while the Mirror decided to focus on why he had “snitched”.
Auto Evolution headlined its story: “Vigilante cyclist rats texting drivers out to the police, keeps roads safe.”
This tone was predictably echoed on social media, where van Erp faced a veritable deluge of opprobrium for having the temerity to report a law-breaker to the police. (It’s worth pointing out that Ritchie himself immediately pleaded guilty to the charge.)
Tweeting in response to the Daily Mail story, Cox said: “The story here should be one of a driver penalised for using a phone whilst driving which greatly increases the chance of a fatal crash and the devastation that follows. Cycling Mikey should be praised for vast public service and considerable help and support to Road Safety.”
Speaking to the London Evening Standard, he went further.
“There’s a really significant surge in public reports of traffic offences via our portal at the Met,” he said.
“This is a game-changing moment for road safety. I encourage cyclists to wear a camera, we encourage it being referred to us and we will take action when we can. In terms of head cam and dashcam, in 2017 it was about 4,000 referrals, in 2018 it was about 5,000 but in 2019 it was 9,000 and this month alone we’ve had comfortably over 3,000.
“We know that word is out there that we’re getting far more referrals and I think that’s going to continue. We enforce about two thirds, so what you are getting is that deterrent effect. The police can’t be everywhere all of the time, but the public can. So drivers will be mindful.”
Top tips on submitting good quality camera evidence to police
Expanding on this, Cox said: “There is evidence that when people are more aware of offences on headcam then they are more safety conscious around cyclists.
“In the past, the dangerous driver in London looked for ‘are the police there, is there a speed camera?’ and if not drove a certain way.
“But now it’s dramatically changed — we’re up about eightfold on our referrals from 2017 — and if you are now a dangerous driver you have to be mindful of the person driving next to you.
“More people died on our roads nationally than from terrorism and homicide last year, and every year, so you recognise that there’s a real need for safer roads.”
61 thoughts on “Met Police say they want cyclists to wear cameras and report traffic offences”
“More people died on our
“More people died on our roads nationally than from terrorism and homicide last year, and every year, so you recognise that there’s a real need for safer roads.”
I read somewhere that since terrorism in the UK was first recorded back in the 1970s c3,500 people have died. That equates to 2 years of death by motorists.
That should be shocking to everyone but some will always rabidly insist, “yeah but what about the cyclists?”.
I engaged quite a bit with
I engaged quite a bit with the Met when I lived inside their ‘catchment area’. I even got a call one day from their second-in-command, to invite me to a ’round table’ kind of thing, at Marlowe House in Sidcup. That never happened, and now that I live out in Kent, probably won’t happen.
Some of my reports were actioned, but a lot were not, and what was very frustrating was that they seemed to have a policy whereby even if a junior person decided ‘no further action’, they would NEVER change that decision, even if it were quite obviously fucked in the head. It was almost like they thought their reputation would be tarnished, if they changed their mind.
I’m not one to panic on the road, but when I submit a video in glorious HD, with time and date and the driver’s face as clear as day, with me slamming on the anchors, pulling a stoppie and only just avoiding being wiped out, I think that merits action.
The Met are c***s, IMHO.
Let’s hope the MET up their
Let’s hope the MET up their game on dealing with footage. Has anyone here submitted footage and had a good result from the MET?
Yes. I am others have had
Yes. I and others have had many. Though, from my own experience, this has only been over the last few years. Previously the Met would send a warning letter at best almost every time.
My own videos with details of outcomes: http://www.youtube.com/themitsky/videos
Excellent – my view of them
Excellent – my view of them as being cyclist-hating appears to be out of date.
Yeah, they seem to have
Yeah, they seem to have changed in the last few years. Apart from the one case of a crystal clear red light jump which they declined to take on saying that the driver was going to fast to stop safely.
mitsky wrote:
Well, that doesn’t make any sense to me. If you’re going too fast to be able to stop for traffic lights then surely that’s careless/dangerous driving as well as jumping the lights.
You’d think that they would
You’d think that they would apply that logic, which I also argued, but no.
Yes. I’ve submitted 5 or 6
Yes. I’ve submitted 5 or 6 close passes, all of which have had a NIP. And one actual collision, where no further action.
Hope you weren’t hurt in the
Hope you weren’t hurt in the collision (and I’m surprised they didn’t at least send a warning for a collision unless it was unusual circumstances).
I’m glad the MET are taking road crime seriously and hope we get more forces joining the club (Avon & Somerset certainly respond quickly these days). To my mind, it’s hugely beneficial for police to act on video evidence as it drastically increases their resources and allows them to effectively be anywhere at anytime (for free!).
I wasn’t thanks, nor was
I wasn’t thanks, nor was there any damage. Apparently in those circumstances, the Met don’t take any further action as a matter of policy. So bizarrely, a driver who commits a close pass with no impact (intentionally or otherwise) gets a more stringent follow up than one who actually hits you. Seems illogical, but they’re dealt with by different teams within the force with different priorities and procedures. Go figure.
quiff wrote:
Odd – let’s hope they fix that loophole.
Apparently in those
Apparently in those circumstances, the Met don’t take any further action as a matter of policy
These matters of policy in the various forces around the country should be put together and published whenever the Government claims to be encouraging cycling or ‘holding a consultation’ on the Highway Code- then the potential new cyclists can see if they’re in an area where incidents involving cyclists are essentially filed in the bin.
quiff wrote:
Unfortunately, you have to keep at them after they claim to have sent a NIP, because they’re quite likely to then file them in the bin and assume they’ve ‘done enough’, and the driver draws the conclusion they have got away with it again. As a result of my evidence-heavy complaint to a ‘person of influence’ about Lancashire ignoring really gross red-light crashing, there was a sudden flurry of activity. Some poor old PC at Lancaster was detailed to keep me quiet with a corresponding flurry of NIPs. I have done the first witness statement by email/ post, and the PC may be thinking I am mollified and will forget all about it. If so, he’ll be wrong.
You’ve clearly had bad
You’ve clearly had bad experiences, but that’s not my experience of the Met. All of my complaints have resulted in NIPs followed by a driver awareness course, except one which is going to court
quiff wrote:
I suppose my dispute is that, whatever the offence, it’s the comedy course. If they fail to respond to the NIP, then there’s a load of fuss, statements, evidence compilation,followed by… the comedy course when they say they didn’t receive the NIP. Consequently, Game Theory indicates to these Chancer Drivers that the logical move is to ignore the NIP. A few points on the licence would induce a change in behaviour- it’s only 3 points for crashing a red light, but still a cause for concern with consequences.
It’s great that the Met are
It’s great that the Met are using the prevalence of cameras to encourage better/safer driving. I actually found myself driving more appropriately when I fitted my own dashcam – the sense that I was being recorded, even by my own dashcam, was salutary.
However it would be better if they did not frame this as cyclists v motorists and thereby stoke the enmity. Why not encourage all dash/helmet cam footage without any bias one way? Yes, I’ve heard it before, cars/motorists do more damage; but that’s not a reason for cyclists to get a free pass on the Highway Code.
I agree with this – when
I agree with this – when cycling with a camera I’m aware that if I want to make a complaint then I can’t be ignoring red lights or cycling over pavements.
As a driver I had a black box fitted by my insurer (it was the only affordable way to add a teenage learner) and it makes you hyperaware of speed limits.
I have to go through the 2
I have to go through the 2 mins after and before to make sure all is ok. Although when I’m just going up a long hill with no houses, it is very boring to watch !
A standardisation and
A standardisation and streamlining of the reporting process would be welcome here. There is massive variation between police forces in what you have to do to submit dash cam footage, with some forces not even accepting footage submitted by members of the public.
When I make a report I have to fill in an online form making a statement. A word document pro forma statement is emailed to me, which you have to fill in, print, sign, scan and then email back. You are sent a separate email containing a drop box link to then upload the footage (which doesn’t always work, or sometimes isn’t sent to you) and I have to keep copies of all the documents and the video footage. I have a long cycle commute, so pre lockdown I was making 2 or 3 complaints per week and probably spending the best part of 1 1/2 hours to do it.
without variation in practice
without variation in practice innovation is stultified. The time for standardisation is when things approach an optimum. I’d say we have a way to go until a region can claim they have found that.
The counter to that would be
The counter to that would be that without sharing of practice innovation is also stultified. At the moment, it doesn’t appear that there’s much sign of different forces learning from each other about what works and building on it.
Uh? If practice is
Uh? If practice is standardised then there is nothing to share. And sharing is in any case not innovation. You need the innovation first in order to have anything new to share.
Yeah, but I didn’t say it
Yeah, but I didn’t say it should be standardised. I’m saying that you need a middle way between one mandated way of doing things and everyone doing their own thing with no reference to each other.
Innovation ex nihilo is exceedingly rare, if it exists at all. It’s nearly always the novel synthesis of existing ideas.
I think it is more about a
I think it is more about a standardised base line. We read on here of some forces not accepting footage, others where you have no idea of the outcome, some forces claiming GDPR.
There needs to be a minimum standard agreed for the steps in the process, leaving forces to decide on the implementation of the steps.
For example, what is the reporting requirement in terms of days? Essex Police used to say 2 days, now on their online form you choose between less than 10 or 10 or more.
Honestly it sounds like you
Honestly it sounds like you have a relatively good process there. What force is that?
(In my experience,) in Scotland the process is normally:
Hence why I only report stuff when I have lots of free time and I’m feeling motivated, and the vast majority of stuff goes unreported.
That was almsot exactly my
That was almsot exactly my experience except:
15+ minutes2 hours after the time they told you till there’s actually officers to speak to you. (There often isn’t)till they call you (normally on a weekend when I’m trying to spend time with my family, cos they seem to think no one will answer their phone during 9-5 working week.)eventually you call them and are referred back to your local polcia station where you made the complaint, because the appropriate are team have ignored it.They seemed really keen to prosecute – because the vehicle had no VED, no MOT and no insurance. But then they seemed to lose interest.
But then they seemed to lose
But then they seemed to lose interest.
Unfortunately, the only way to make progress with a police force which is determined to file complaints about indisputable offences against cyclists straight into the bin, is dogged persistence. You have to make sure that it’s more work for them to ignore complaints than to act on them. If they can get away with it, they will lose interest. This leads the repeat offenders to realise that the best response to a NIP is to ignore it- then the police just can’t be bothered to follow that up and the dangerous drivers are encouraged.
I consider myself Deputised
I consider myself Deputised
On my 7 minute cycle to work,
On my 7 minute cycle to work, on an average day I see approxiately: 4 or 5 people in advanced stop zones, 1 or 2 red light jumping at speed, 2 or 3 speeding, 1 or 2 ploughing through zebra crossings either with pedestrians on them or clearly waiting to cross, 2 or 3 turning without indicating, 5 or 6 texting while driving and encounter 1 or 2 close passes and 1 car parked in the small section of cycle lane en route. Plus the occasional misuse of the horn. And similar but slightly less on the way home as the route is less busy at that time. I wouldn’t have to go looking for offences, they are commonplace. It wouldn’t take a vigilante – just showing what I see on a short journey on relatively quiet route every day during lockdown would make up quite a haul of offences for the Met. If they want to provide me with a camera, I can show them. But I wear my normal clothes – would I still quailify as a vigilante if I’m not lycra-clad?
I would suggest getting at
I would suggest getting at least one. The main reason I got my cameras is to prove that any collision was not my fault. Never had to use it for that, yet, but have lost count of the number of reports I’ve submitted to the Met for dangerous driving. And my commute has been relatively short compared to other cyclists who have submitted many more.
Meanwhile other forces are
Meanwhile other forces are not giving a single poo about the reports.
First and foremost, a camera
First and foremost, a camera could provide vital evidence if you are ever involved in an accident. I know my brother wished he’d had a camera after a driver who left him with a fractured spine (and admitted it was his fault) was subsequently trying to get out of paying for the damages.
I’ve submitted a few videos to the police over the years. Sometimes you hear something, sometimes you don’t. Last summer I submitted one of a taxi speeding through a red light. Six months later I got a really badly written email, that I initially thought must be a scam, from a guy in the police asking if I’d be willing to go to court because the driver was contesting it. I said yes and never heard anything again. So bear in mind the fact that you might not hear anything or get mixed communication if you do your civic duty.
Six months later I got a
Six months later I got a really badly written email, that I initially thought must be a scam, from a guy in the police asking if I’d be willing to go to court because the driver was contesting it. I said yes and never heard anything again.
That’s a standard police tactic in Lancashire, where they pretend there’s going to be a prosecution, you agree, send the video, go into the station to take hours making a statement, receive a letter saying the case is going to court and you never hear anything further. They’re just trying to wear down people who annoy them by reporting offences
Might it be that once you
Might it be that once you have done your bit, the criminal is told that there is video and a witness prepared to testify, then suddenly they decide they might have done something wrong and plead Guilty?
It’s pretty common across the criminal spectrum to plead Not Guilty and then see if the witnesses show up on the morning of the trial. If they do, change plea ASAP and get the sentence reduction.
I don’t understand why the justice system can’t provide outcome information to everyone involved – perhaps too much work or a misreading of gdpr or something.
The police, for some reason,
The police, for some reason, believe that the recoding cyclist is merely a witness and never a victim.
Was this to the Met police? I
Was this to the Met police? I usually have a response saying that they will take it forward or “no further action”. These days it is like 70-80% positive. If NFA, I make the clip public. Though I usually have to chase them for subsequent results on the others.
The court system in genea is
The court system in genea is underfunded, under resourced and reliant on extremely clunky bureaucracy and systems. This is why driver improvement courses are such a good thing, because it avoids having to go through the court system.
The one case of mine that actually went to court, despite front and rear video footage of him cutting across the lane and near swiping me off the bike, the cabbie was acquitted by the magistrate on the basis that because he had not *actually* hit me, then it was not a dangerous pass, and because I had carried on to my destination, my journey had not been inconvenienced … yes, really …
I was only informed the day before the trial that it was happening. Fortunately I was able to attend. The court security refused to let me bring the Brompton into the building as I might have been concealing a bomb or a knife in it (yes, really ..)
When I asked if they could inform reception that I would be delayed as I would have to go and find somewhere to buy a padlock, their response was to physically manhandle me off the frontage of the building.
In the event, the court was running so late it didn’t matter. They also had no record that I had been called as a witness and so weren’t expecting me.
The CPS lawyer was barely qualified and extremely nervous and clearly wasn’t familiar with the file in the five mins he had talking to me before going in.
The IT in the court was antiquated and struggled to play the videos. Also because I had followed the guidance to include 2 mins before and after the incident, the magistrate became clearly bored and impatient waiting for it to get to the relevant place (I now submit only the relevant section for this reason, and note that the 2 mins before and after has been retained and is available on request)
In Sussex we have ‘Operation
In Sussex we have ‘Operation Crackdown’ where you send in your video evidence and then they decide whether this should be handed on to the police for follow up.
However in most cases it would appear they NFA or do no more than send a letter and that’s it. Nothing happens.
If you look at their follow up figures no more than about 1 or 2 percent have any further action taken. Not fit for purpose.
Point them towards the Met
Point them towards the Met (and this article) and say “Why can’t you do this?”
Ho!Ho! to the tips about
Ho!Ho! to the tips about ‘submitting good quality images to the police’. That’s the last thing they want! I have been sending in Grade A indisputable stuff to them, so the response is almost invariably to not respond at all. When I film red-light crashing, they get the highly reliable 50 FPS timing displayed on the images, time and date, amber on time, red on time, vehicle stop line crossing time, crystal clear number plate- the lot, the day after the offence. The rather pathetic trick then is to ignore it for 2+ weeks and then say ‘too late to process’.
Thats interesting. They’ve
Thats interesting. They’ve only rejected two of mine. One because I wasn’t facing the driver’s direction so couldn’t see the light even though the junction was symmetrical and mine was red, the other because they argued the driver was going too fast to stop safely.
There’s something wrong when
There’s something wrong when the police WON’T take action because “the driver was going too fast to stop safely.”
It’s good that some police
It’s good that some police forces are starting to take road safety more seriously – however camera’s aren’t cheap, so expecting those more likely to be victims to pay up to be protected just doesn’t seem right.
Whilst I totally welcome
Whilst I totally welcome safer roads, I guess the cynic in me laments the fact that due to human nature it is “the deterent effect” of not wanting to be prosecuted/get points/fines/lose their licence that would motivate people to be safer drivers. Rather than doing it because it should be the norm.
I’ve used the Nextbase portal
I’ve used the Nextbase portal https://www.nextbase.com/en-gb/national-dash-cam-safety-portal/ to submit footage from my commute to both TVP and The Met with mixed results. TVP have never sent a NIP all they ever send is a letter to the registered keeper reminding them of their responsibilities when over taking a cyclist, although I’ve had a few NIPs sent by The Met
Pfff! TVP and the Met are
Pfff! TVP and the Met are offence-ignoring amateurs! They should join The Professionals- Lancashire simply refuses to join the Nextbase portal, and generally ignores offences against cyclists no matter how much and how good the evidence is. Hitting a cyclist (me, twice), illegally crossing double and single unbroken white lines, illegal use of handheld mobile phone while driving, crashing through red lights at speed up to 2 seconds after they turned red- all of these are nothing to LC. This is why the fashionable encouragement of cycling by the government is worthless, and therefore won’t work!
I think for your own
I think for your own wellbeing, you need to set this aside for a bit.
I use that portal for West
I use that portal for West Midlands Police. Their MO is to only contact you if it goes to court. They don’t even contact you to state a NIP or anything has been sent out.
Now being as I have submitted punishment passes at speed, two where only my fast reactions stopped me coming off with one of me brushing a wing mirror as a car cut into my lane to beat the traffic for 20 yards, one where someone’s passenger attempted to push me off (at the same time and area where several Cyclists actually did get pushed off as reported by Road CC) and one where a cement lorry decided to cut across me when he wanted to leave an island, I actually suspect that nothing has ever gone to court and no letters have ever been sent out.
I have no problem with Essex
I have no problem with Essex Police. It takes around 10 minutes to report a potential issue and then you’re invited a day or two later to submit the footage. Every one I’ve reported has led to a driver awareness course for the culprit although sometimes I’ve thought the driver has got off lightly.
You don’t need to wait to
You don’t need to wait to submit footage, you submit it as soon as you have your URN which you get when you submit the report.
Wow, that’s pretty amazing. I
Wow, that’s pretty amazing. I sent a couple of reports to Essex police – all I got is standard “we don’t share the outcome”. When I queried that I was told that “driver could have moved a bit further but that evidence will not stand in court”.
Pretty amazing you get some result and that you get to know it.
We also shouldn’t
We also shouldn’t underestimate the deterrent effect.
Some days I’m out cycling and I think, “oh this is lovely, everyone coming up behind me is driving calmly and is giving me a wide overtake today”
And then I realise it’s because I have my GoPros on. I mount them very visibly to the sides of my helmet ( yep I know not good in an impact to the head )
So sitting at home this evening I’m wondering why I don’t wear them every day. TBH it’s the faff of constantly charging them, or running them on usb cable. And the keeping on top of the admin of clearing space.
Maybe first base is to make a self-commitment to always wear them even if battery is flat. Perhaps the benefit comes from helping to keep nearby traffic calm. I wonder if every cyclist and motorist did have visible cameras, whether the roads would suddenly become so much calmer that we wouldn’t have anything much to actually record or submit. And perhaps in that situation the cases that do get submitted would be followed through because they would be a lot rarer.
I’ve found that pointing to
I’ve found that pointing to my lid and saying “camera” has a surprising effect. Whether or not there’s a camera there.
i hate going anywhere without
i hate going anywhere without a camera running. I’ve even worn my drift into a shop whilst out walking. I’ve got a dashcam from wilko, 30 quid, all i do is charge the usb power bank sellotaped to it, plug it in, cam comes on and records for 5/6 hours. No buttons to push. Its a dashcam so records automaticlally as soon as power goes to it. I’ve also got a kaiser bass on my backpack, used for motorbike rides and cycle rides. Ive got a drift ghost on my baseball cap for cycling, a kaiser bass x2 on my motorbike helmet and another kaiser bass x2 spare. I woulnt call cameras expensive. 50 quid for the camera, micro sd and a powerbank all in. so my ride to work today, kaiser bass on the helmet, and the chest cam on my back pack. If one fails youve got the chance of the second. Best thing with a dashcam is they come with the chunk usb cable type, not the micro, so its less likely to bend or break when you plug cables in and out of it a lot.
The Met Police don’t always
The Met Police don’t always act (or even reply) to the footage I’ve submitted. I get a reference number and then nothing – despite repeated emails for updates.
I’ve never had this
I’ve never had this experience. They don’t provide updates by default but whenever I’ve sent a polite email with ref no.s asking what the outcome was they’ve always obliged.
That said I don’t tend to pester for individual updates every week or anything, I tend to wait a few months to give time for the system to work through and then ask for updates on a bunch of referrals at the same time.
Police are stretched. They
Police are stretched. They don’t respond to shoplifting unless it’s over £200 that’s nicked. They cannot enforce every traffic misdemeanour.
But they need to enforce some, so that drivers think there is at least a possibility of them being caught. It is this perception of the risk getting caught that acts as a deterrent.
So be selective in submitting footage that shows clear endangerment and with a good chance of providing the required level of evidence for a conviction. Then be prepared to engage with the process fully, learning the steps the police should be taking and making sure they have done so. If they don’t follow their own process, then put in a complaint.
If at least 2 shopworkers
If at least 2 shopworkers were being killed by shoplifters every week one might hope that they would be taking a little more notice of the low level stealing.
Or indeed 5 members of the general public every day…
GMP have ‘operation
GMP have ‘operation considerate’ which allows you to report and upload footage. I had a close call with a driver back in March and after sending them the gopro footage he was sent on a driver improvement course to avoid points.
And I thought the Old Bill
And I thought the Old Bill didn’t have a sense of humour……