After a Freedom of Information request revealed that 80 percent of the almost 1,000 motorists accused of close passing a cyclist in Surrey over the past 15 months were issued with warning letters, with only three being prosecuted, Surrey Police has claimed that “in the majority of cases, issuing a warning letter is the most appropriate course of action”, due to the “evidential viability” of the submitted videos and the “associated threat, harm, and risk” of the driving offence committed.
The force also told road.cc that it “regularly” receives video submissions of alleged driving offences “from the same people”, and called on those who frequently submit close pass clips to “engage with us further and work together to tackle” issues around road safety.
Earlier this month, we reported that an FOI request found that, in the 15 months up to March 2023, 3,898 videos of alleged driving offences – including close passes, using a mobile phone, or careless driving – were submitted to Surrey Police’s third-party reporting service.
At the time of the data’s publication, over 3,000 of these had achieved an outcome, with over half of the alleged offences resulting in a warning letter being issued, while only 10 led to a prosecution. 1,344 of the submissions, meanwhile, resulted in no further action being taken.
Of the 938 submissions related to alleged close passes on cyclists, only three resulted in a prosecution, four in a fixed penalty notice, and four saw the motorists offered a driver improvement course. 742 close pass cases, on the other hand, were resolved with a warning letter.
> Here’s what to do if you capture a near miss, close pass or collision on camera while cycling
Responding to a request for comment from road.cc regarding the recently published data, a spokesperson for Surrey Police said: “Every allegation and submission of footage (including photograph and video submissions) are viewed and reviewed in terms of evidential viability and the associated threat, harm, and risk.
“Any history of previous driving offences would also be taken into consideration when deciding the appropriate course of action to take.
“A number of options are available to us in dealing with these submissions outside of court prosecutions, including issuing a warning letter, a conditional offer, course, or proceeding with a prosecution.
“In addition to this, there are still a number of live cases within the 3,898 figure that are still outstanding where NIPs [Notice of Intended Prosecutions] have been issued and we are waiting for further information which may yet end in one of the above outcomes that may include court.”
> Cyclist run over by drink driver in shocking footage released by police after man jailed
The statement continued: “In the majority of cases, issuing a warning letter is the most appropriate course of action due to the evidential viability of the material submitted being taken in consideration with the other factors mentioned.
“We regularly receive submissions relating to allegations of driving offences from the same people and have invited a number of them to engage with us further and work together to tackle some of the issues involved.”
The active travel Twitter account, Cycling Surrey, which compiled the data from the FOI request, said last week that they were “grateful” that Surrey Police provides a third-party reporting service, but noted that the issue of reducing road danger “goes further than this”.
“If motorists (who are responsible for the vast majority of road danger) realise it’s more likely there will be meaningful consequence for dangerous behaviour, Surrey’s roads will become safer for everyone. And reduce demand on many public services,” the account wrote.
“My ask is that that Chief Constable Tim De Meyer takes his recent appointment as an opportunity to properly review current investment in third-party reporting, consult with road safety experts, and consider its potential benefits to Surrey Police in the widest possible context.”
Responding to the driving offence figures, one cyclist from Surrey wrote on Twitter: “It’s great that Surrey Police have online reporting but it’s a complete waste of resources if they are only going to send out slap on the wrist warning letters to drivers.”
Meanwhile, another said: “It is hardly surprising that I have seen driving standards decrease around here when the police are letting these bad drivers off with warnings or less. The data is very discouraging.”
The latest FOI request from Surrey comes a month after we reported that, of the 286 reports of careless, inconsiderate, or dangerous driving around cyclists considered in 2022 by West Midlands Police – the force which pioneered the award-winning Operation Close Pass – only one resulted in a prosecution, while 213 resulted in no further action being taken.
53 thoughts on “Surrey Police says warning letters “most appropriate course of action” for majority of driving offences, and calls on cyclists who submit multiple near miss clips to “engage with us further” to improve road safety”
“In the majority of cases,
“In the majority of cases, issuing a warning letter is the most appropriate course of action due to the evidential viability of the material submitted”
Perhaps if the submitters were actually given feedback, then they’d be better able to provide more ‘evidentially viable material’ in the future? Just a thought.
Well the feedback on that
Well the feedback on that would be flimsy to say the least when they’re provided with perfectly good/clear video footage.
Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:
More likely, they are clearly unable to eat doughnuts without spilling jam over everything.
whenever i see a close pass
whenever i see a close pass story, where a police officer is involved then i’m pretty certain it always ends up with a NIP and court… just sayin like…
i’ve given up sending mine in. the amount of times they’ve been lost, or can’t find the video on the day of court, or failed to send a NIP in time, or laughingly didn’t even know they needed to send a NIP is frightening/baffling. currently waiting on a FOI for Sussex and prosecution numbers…
The FOI response supports
The FOI response supports what I’ve been saying here for a long time even though Road CC lauded Surrey Police because they have a Twitter account that provides them with easy copy.
Surreyrider wrote:
The trouble is that it’s not the RPU who deals with third party reports.
Oh, so they’re not part of
Oh, so they’re not part of Surrey Police then? Silly me.
That’s like saying Mark
That’s like saying Mark Hodson doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about because WMP have seemingly gone downhill recently, and Andy Cox is likewise clueless because of the Met’s reputation. Just because Surrey RPU is on the ball doesn’t mean the rest of the force is in any way decent (it may or may not be), even if it is seemingly working in the same field.
“engage with us further and
“engage with us further and work together to tackle” issues around road safety.
That’ll be the people who ignore you. And that’ll be the people who should be doing their job and punishing dangerous road users.
I don’t understand what they
I don’t understand what they mean by “evidential viability” as surely the vast majority is going to be video evidence and I can’t think of anything more conclusive than a video of a driver passing too close to a cyclist.
Also, it seems bizarre to claim to want to further engage with the frequent submitters – why don’t they just email those people considering they have their contact info? Personally, I’d be happy to engage further with A&S police (my hood) if they have questions or suggestions about my various video submissions – all they need to do is send an email.
hawkinspeter wrote:
“We can’t prove the speed/distance” – the latter, of course, can be proven with a visit to the site but it then comes down to proportionality; the former is trickier without calibrating the individual recording device etc.
The strange thing is that
The strange thing is that inspector kev if this parish said his force does a still of your bike and camera setup with on of those mats ( think you can also go to specific bikes shops). Then they use the still as a reference point.
Surely a national standard for doing this should be mandated.
Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:
It seems pretty obvious to me that a video shows a very good indication of speed and distance. The thing is that it’s very rarely a borderline case of maybe a 1.495m passing distance instead of 1.5m, so I doubt that they’re really being honest with us about that. You don’t even need an accurate speed and/or distance as the criteria is to show “reasonable consideration” to other road users, so that’s going to be a judgement call by the magistrate or jury, but the very fact that a cyclist felt themselves to be endangered is probably the most important criteria.
This is all true, but I have
This is all true, but I have been told in the past by TVP that “the Highway Code is guidance only”. They have been better over the last year, however, and the majority of my recent submissions have resulted in a course being offered.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Essex Police sent a warning letter for this one, as apparently it was impossible to properly judge the distance they passed at. That’s what I was told after I lodged a complaint about the outcome.
TonyE-H wrote:
Again, that shouldn’t be an issue as the driving was inconsiderate regardless of the exact distance, but you can certainly tell that it was way too close by watching where it is in relation to the white lines.
It really shouldn’t, but that
It really shouldn’t, but that was the excuse given by the officer who phoned me, and he was a cyclist too don’t you know.
Quote:
Do they mean more than the frequent video evidence of poor driving, along with the location that it happens, the vehicle being driven at the time and the date time, all while supplying contact information to an establishment who’s job consists of finding people?
Ahhh – they want us to submit the videos in person, along with an interpretative dance of the incident.
Whatever it takes to make things safer.
To see if you have a d lock,
To see if you have a d lock, then they can arrest you on suspicion of potential to create a public nuisance.
Then you will be jailed and unable to make any submissions.
Hirsute wrote:
The king was in the same county, so it was obvious that the police had to take action to prevent disruption
I think I might fall into the
I think I might fall into the regular submitters category. I’ve submitted 16 so far this year, and those were the worst of the worst. I’ve got it down to about 10 minutes per submission now, but I do need to be selective. All have received a response saying a Written Warning / Passed on to specialist team / etc has been actioned. I try to think of it from a new cyclist point of view, would an overtake like that put me off riding. If yes, then it goes on the submit pile.
It’s disappointing though to find out that it was probably only a warning letter sent for some that were actually really dangerous. The 60mph pass within inches of my bars – avoiding the pot hole a little later on would have probably seen me seriously injured. The ones where they have squeezed past next to a central island. The builders van that came straight at my and my 6 year old riding to school. When I get a spare evening or two I’ll compile a few for nmotd.
I would be happy to liaise with SP over this. There are definite hot spots of terrible overtaking and I’m always wondering what will happen the next time I’m riding through.
I’ve noticed though that since changing from a camera mounted under the bike computer to one on my chest, with associated straps across my back, that passes have been slightly better. Maybe the realisation that I have a camera is making people think? Still get the terrible ones, but much more are wider and more considered…
Evidential viability. 1 min before incident, 1 min after. Low light video is pretty poor and it’s sometimes hard to make out the number plates – but they are visible in at least one frame of what I submit and I’ll often include that frame at the start as a screen grab. Now it’s sunny we’re in 5.3k super HD so there’s no question of being able to see what happens. Not sure what else they need!
As others have mentioned
As others have mentioned elsewhere on this site – perhaps a sign on our backs making it clear we are recording will help deter some?
Or as other others have mentioned, a large metal pike attached to the handlebars.
Sorry – I went on Twitter earlier and am in a bad headplace. Going to take myself outside and have a word.
HoldingOn wrote:
I don’t like the idea of advertising that we’re recording as that almost encourages drivers to only behave around the camera users. I’d rather have a subtle camera so that poor drivers will then never know which cyclists are the ones to be careful around. Of course, that implies that a driver will actually see a cyclist and be able to read a sign.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I entirely take your point but for me I have a PassPixi sign for my own safety primarily, to make it more likely that drivers will behave around me, my wife and or/cycling mates (and in my experience it works very well); catching and reporting bad drivers is very much a secondary consideration. I’d sooner come home having experienced no dangerous driving around me because they were behaving around the camera than with a hatful of bad behaviour to report. Hopefully some people advertising the fact that they’re filming will get drivers into a mindset of expecting cyclists to have cameras and behaving more cirumspectly around them…
Rendel Harris wrote:
Don’t get me wrong – I have no issue if people decide they want to advertise that they’re recording. It could also work as a reminder to drivers to be careful around cyclists too, so there’s more than one way to look at it.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Once we teach drivers to give space to cyclists with a sign on their back then we can get everyone to add the sign whether they hava a camera or not.
It’s called Batesian mimicry
It’s called Batesian mimicry when hover flies do it.
Backladder wrote:
You’ve not followed the wisdom of a few posters here – this is all just creating tribalism / encouraging snitching / because a few cam cyclists exist what can we expect but violence from drivers?
On a pleasant note the last month or so I’ve noticed some really excellent driving (or perhaps “just doing it as you should”) – people waiting until there’s plenty of space, stopping to let cyclists and walkers turn / cross roads etc. If I did run a camera a “do it like this” compilation would have been possible. “Good News” probably runs counter to most people’s entertainment tastes though.
Backladder wrote:
When all cyclists are wearing those signs (we can get everyone to agree at our AGM), drivers will become conditioned to behave considerately around cyclists and thus we won’t need to wear them.
I’ve got the 10×10 pass pixi
I’ve got the 10×10 pass pixi on a pannier its hit and miss, no pun intended, as to it’s effectiveness imo.
Plus couple of weeks back driver went completely road rage loopy over it when i pointed at it to warn him he was on camera, he had some serious anger management issues.
stonojnr wrote:
It’s always a risk I agree, I have the “PASS WIDE’ version and I am positive it generally encourages better passing; the difference between when I’m wearing it and when I’m not is really noticeable. But every so often you do get a drunk/drugged/showing off to his mates driver who takes it as a challenge to skin you as close as possible. My rationale is that the good passers (the great majority I must say) might not all have been as good without the sign while the deliberately bad ones would probably do it anyway, sign or no sign.
Then yes, there are the ones who are seriously unbalanced; I’ve been harangued more than once when just sitting quietly at the lights by drivers and once or twice by pedestrians who’ve seen the camera and start on with the usual “Fink you’re farkin’ old bill, doncha?”
I find the good passers give
I find the good passers give more room, apart from a couple of crazy drivers, usually when I point it out I get even more space, so it works up to a point.
Because then there’s stuff like this, and it’s not a one off, the irony being this road actually does lead to the “old bill” hq in Suffolk. Whether that says more about drivers observation skill or theyre distracted not sure.
Could always get one of these
Could always get one of these, depends if you want pay £75 to put a target on your back.
https://www.primaleurope.com/collections/mens-jerseys/products/camera-mens-evo-2-0-cycling-jersey
I have fitted a highly
I have fitted a highly visible empty Go-pro waterproof case to the top of my helmet whilst the actual camera recording is under the handlebars.
The visible case on the helmet certainly seems to have a deterrent effect, especially after the local (Bridgend) case where a driver (Mr Humphreys) was fined £1,100 for a close pass last summer in the South Wales Police area.
This case made headlines in all the local media and so a lot of local people have been talking about this incident and appears to have made some drivers very cautious when passing.
Might just be my imagination obviously but I have had no incidents to report for months and long may it continue.
Looks like you’ve stumbled on
Looks like you’ve stumbled on a novel idea here – the idea that meaningful punishment well advertised with a realistic chance of being caught could act as some sort of deterrence?
I wonder if there’s also a
I wonder if there’s also a subconscious aspect of ‘being seen’, regardless of any actual consequences? I do think my rather obvious rear camera makes a slight difference when I run it, but I’ve been aware for years – long before bikecams were a thing – that if I glance over my shoulder when the driver behind is tailgating or clearly contemplating a stupid manoeuvre, they surprisingly often drop back. It’s almost as if they think that if they pass quickly when you’re not looking, you won’t notice. (Cf the ‘If I don’t indicate and do it quickly my illegal turn/park/lane-change didn’t happen’ thing.) I’m not sure that’s a fear of getting caught and punished, more embarrassment at being seen doing something they know they shouldn’t really? Human behaviour is very odd!
If I’m right, maybe what’s needed is more old-fashioned public info clips with the general message ‘Don’t embarrass yourself by driving like a dick.’
Could be something there –
Could be something there – was cycling behind a motorbike yesterday and found my attention drawn to the “eye of Horus” designs on the back of their helmet.
Of course it’s an old idea, likely can’t patent it…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyespot_(mimicry)
Found it – it’s the “watching
Found it – it’s the “watching-eye effect“.
The visible case on the
The visible case on the helmet certainly seems to have a deterrent effect
Not in Lancashire it doesn’t! This is Blackburn with Darwen Citroen Picasso taxi No. 3356 NU62 MYH cutting right in on me and forcing (blameless!) oncoming Porsche Macan LN17 VBE right into the kerb and to almost stop. The Picasso overtook me on a blind right bend and, surprise-surprise encounters the Porsche- he then blasts me on the horn but doesn’t slow down or hang back. In the taxi passenger seat is a Lancashire County Council employee- identified by Hi-Viz jacket. I will be bringing this one back when Upride displays the video. The point is that I have a big GoPro highly visible on the top of my helmet- but as a result of anti-cyclist b******s at Lancashire Constabulary, Lancashire drivers know there’s no possibility of action being taken against them, no matter what the offence against a cyclist- appropriately, this all took place right next to Old Garstang Police Station
The end result of the
The end result of the complaint about the Blackburn taxi driver was that the council claimed that the taxi was actually licensed at the time of the offence despite his absence from the register- the public register is described as being ‘not live’. After years of experience with Lancashire Constabulary, I would normally be highly sceptical of such a statement- however, in this case I am inclined to believe it. I also believe the statement of the council that the driver has been interviewed and warned etc. etc- especially as the only conceivable action by LC woud be none at all.
Thames Valley are equally
Thames Valley are equally poor in this regard (if not worse in my experience). It was an absolute battle to get them to take a close pass case to court a few years ago.
The good news is some forces are doing better. I’ve recently been impressed with Northamptonshire Police. I submitted online and a few weeks later, can see that they are recommending the driver is prosecuted for points, as they publish all the submission decisions on their website. I will have to wait a few months to see the actual outcome when that spreadsheet is published.
HoarseMann wrote:
They’ve improved recently. Out of the last 13 outcomes, 9 have been courses, 1 court, 1 NFA, 1 warning letter, and 1 ‘untraceable’.
Prior to that, it was pretty much all warnings or NFAs.
It does look like their use
It does look like their use of NFA’s / warning letters has reduced slightly. It’s good that you’re seeing a bit more action from them.
I would agree I haven’t kept
I would agree I haven’t kept the stats but I would say two thirds of my submissions result in courses. I haven’t had any result in anything higher.
Interestingly, a few years ago they tried to explain that they would send a letter in the case of most first offences but a second offence would result in further action. I had to point out that this statement was incorrect, as they didn’t share data with other forces and that was only true if the second offence was in the TVP region and as I live and ride on the border with two other counties that wasn’t a consolation.
They also missed out the bit
They also missed out the bit from their decision matrix where that second offence needs to be reported within 3 months of the first.
I don’t submit huge
I don’t submit huge quantities (probably in the teens this year), based on my chats with TVP I think they believe I’m a regular. It seems a bit of an in joke that I submit so many from one stretch of the A509. I have engaged with them, I offered to send them a copy of the TRO, they now agree that it’s a no overtaking zone and seem to understand that many drivers don’t know this. I don’t think they’ve actually done anything to educate them (other than those that have ended up on courses).
Where on earth did you find
Where on earth did you find the TRO? I’ve looked for those on the MK website and could only find temporary ones.
I’d sooner share the road
I’d sooner share the road with more careful drivers than poorer drivers.
For the standard close pass act of stupidity I’d be quite content for a; warning letter, driver improvement course route of escalation before resorting to licence sanctions.
At least you lot have
At least you lot have somewhere to send them.
Us, up North, have to try to squeeze the video down *to fit on an email*.
I shit you not.
Thanks for that Police Scotland … and thanks for allowing the “can’t remember” defense, even when there is high quality video evidence.
‘Work together’ One half of
‘Work together’ One half of that equation seems to be already putting the effort in, it’s the other half that is being lazy bastards. Making the roads safer happens when you prosecute dangerous drivers who think their activity is not dangerous. Sending them letters just gives them something to joke about in the pub.
“Work together” makes it
“Work together” makes it sound like we’re the problem for overloading their system with evidence of shit driving.
projecting myself for a
projecting myself for a moment as Surrey Man, I would be mortified if a warning letter from the police arrived about something I’d done.
Me too!
Me too!
And given that many close passes etc. are probably just thoughtless or incompetent, it may be that a letter would be enough to make a reasonable person think, and change their driving. Of course that does require there to be a system where escalation will definitely happen if behaviour doesn’t improve.