Police have told a cyclist who submitted a video to them that we featured in our Near Miss of the Day series back in August that they will take no action, despite the registered keeper of the vehicle refusing to disclose the identity of the driver filmed making a very close punishment pass on a pair of cyclists riding two abreast.
While failure to disclose the identity of the driver is in itself an offence, Surrey Police explained to Andy, the cyclist who sent the footage to them, that it is the force’s policy, “during the pandemic, not to prosecute persons for this, if this is a first offence, and there is no evidence to suggest that the keeper has failed to notify previously.”
Here is their response to him in full.
The investigation has concluded.
The registered keeper of the vehicle was issued with a Notice of Intended prosecution and a s172 notice requiring them to disclose the driver at the time of the of the offence. This was sent to them on the 27th August 2020. They had 28 days in which to respond. Unfortunately, in this case the registered keeper has failed to respond. Whilst this is an offence, it is Surrey Police policy, during the pandemic, not to prosecute persons for this, if this is a first offence, and there is no evidence to suggest that the keeper has failed to notify previously.
There is no Crime Report to review, and as a member of the public, you are not entitled to review our investigation in to this incident.
Whilst we understand that this will be disappointing, because the registered keeper has been served with a Notice of Intended Prosecution, there is nothing preventing you from taking out a private prosecution. The statutory time limit for this incident runs out on the 25th February 2021.
Below is our original article, which first appeared on the site on 27 August 2020 but was subsequently unpublished at the request of police while they conducted their investigation.
The latest video in our Near Miss of the Day feature shows a driver carrying out a punishment pass on a pair of cyclists riding two abreast – the latter being something many motorists consider against the law, although it is entirely legal.
The clip was shot yesterday on Lingfield Common Road in Surrey by road.cc reader Andy while he was on a group ride.
He told us: “Absolutely no excuse for this behaviour which was almost certainly a punishment close pass against two cyclists legitimately riding two abreast and will be reported to Surrey Police.”
The version of the video above has no sound – if you want the other version, which includes some perfectly understandable high-decibel swearing, you’ll find it below.
> 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">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
67 thoughts on “UPDATED: Near Miss of the Day 464: Police take no action on punishment pass – despite vehicle’s registered keeper refusing to disclose who was driving”
Is anyone up for a game of
Is anyone up for a game of Socrati Bingo?
I like socrati’s comments.
I like socrati’s comments. Otherwise the place is an echo chamber. It’s sad that he’s a “troll” just because his views are different to the group think…
Define “echo chamber”.
Define “echo chamber”.
road.cc is full of people who cycle regularly but for various reasons (‘proper’ roadies, commuters like me, etc).
Is it surprising that – because we have all encountered various forms of bad behaviour on the roads – that we (in many cases, but not all, illustrated by your good self and by Socrati) tend to approach things from a similar point of view?
I’m afraid he has presented
I’m afraid he has presented very objectionable views early on which is why many ignore him now.
I think there are enough people (albeit a handful) willing to put a different line on here to avoid the echo issue.
When _every comment you post_
When _every comment he posts_ is both a) provocative and b) massively against consensus, he’s probably a troll. One or the other, fine, but not both, and not all the time.
I assume you are aware that good trolling involves appearing to be as reasonable as you can while still inducing maximum aggravation?
P3t3 wrote:
If you like socrati’s contributions, you will absolutely love the daily mail comments section! The group think there is very different to what you will find here (more of a ‘safe space’ than an echo chamber imo).
you will absolutely love the
you will absolutely love the daily mail comments section!
I will not be taking up your tongue-in-cheek invitation, and would rather pull off my own head. The hyper-junk press should be ignored in the same way as a couple of nutters on here should be. Equally, I feel no inclination to read ‘Mein Kampf’ in order to ascertain the Nazi group-think- I already know what it is.
See above P3t3
See above P3t3
But it’s not an echo chamber
But it’s not an echo chamber – granted, many agree on close pass issues, but sometimes quite a few people will offer opinions on how the cyclist might have ridden better, or more defensively (sad that we have to but that’s the way it is).
I don’t think anyone would mind someone writing about how a situation could have looked from the driver’s point of view so that we cyclists can understand behaviour better and know if we might need to change our riding. But SocratiCyclist seems to have chosen unsubtle confrontation as a debating technique and it’s not really persuading anyone.
His views are not ‘different’
His views are not ‘different’ they are provocative. Trolls deliberately make provocative statements that are not based on evidence, fact or reason. Stuff like ‘she wound him up so deserved a slap’ – which is the equivalent of what he posted here about the two cyclists. If the troll wants to engage in educated, reasoned debate that’s fine. But not provocation based on cliches, stereotypes, ignorance and pure stupidity.
Imagine being a Troll. This
Imagine being a Troll. This is their life. So sad.
88 – cyclists riding two
88 – cyclists riding two abreast
13 – driver in the ‘phone – unlucky for some
93 – (mph) Maserati!
30 – blind thirty – Mr Loophole!
6 – on its own: penalty points
15 E bike!
Drivers have no business
Drivers have no business talking on their cellphones while driving.
At the same time, when two cyclists ride abreast, the cyclist on the outside is obligated to fall back when s/he sees a car coming up behind them.
They had no chance to fall
They had no chance to fall back, car came speeding up (over the speed limit?) and then tailgated the cyclist before forcing himself past in brush past distance.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
That is where rearview mirrors on the left side of the handlebars come in handy. The purpose of rear-view mirrors for bicyclists is so that a cyclist can periodically glance into his/her rearview mirror, and, if s/he sees a car coming behind them in the distance, s/he will have the chance to move over, in order to protect him/herself. One doesn’t have to underestimate the number of really bad drivers out and around in their cars to realize that.
mplo wrote:
In the UK and (AFAIK) in Europe, the belief is that the person driving the motor vehicle has an obligation to not run into things in front of them on the road.
There is no obligation (at present) for a cyclist or any other road-user to move out of the way of a faster vehicle coming up behind them unless that vehicle has flashing blue lights and a siren.
I’m sorry, but I disagree
I’m sorry, but I disagree with you here, brooksby. Sure, drivers have an obligation not to run into things in front of them on the road, but I’m also of the opinion that cyclists should also take some responsibility for protecting him/herself in order to reduce his/her chances of being hit by an oncoming motor vehicle (i. e. not running red lights or STOP signs, weaving in and out of traffic, riding 2 or more abreast during the height of motor vehicular traffic, and not disregarding Yield right of way signs, going the wrong way down one-way streets, or riding on the wrong side of the road, either). A bicycle is also a vehicle, and the cyclists, too, are subject to the rules of the road.
I’ll also add that I’ve also seen cyclists not move out of the way of a vehicle with flashing lights such as an ambulance, fire engine, or a police car. That, too, is incredibly stupid.
So is riding at night, especially when wearing dark colors, which make it almost, if not totally impossible to be seen.
If you were driving a car,
If you were driving a car, and you saw in your rear view mirror another car coming up at speed behind you (a normal car, not police or anything) then what would you do? Would you pull over and let them past, or would you expect them to overtake you?
Just curious.
mplo wrote:
you know when you’re running out of arguments when you go full-on ‘but cyclists…’
I stand by everything I’ve
I stand by everything I’ve said, HoarseMann. A bicycle is also a vehicle, and therefore, bicyclists, too, are subject to the rules of the road. Running red lights and STOP signs or YIELD signs, weaving in and out of traffic, riding 2 or more abreast during the height of rush-hour traffic, going the wrong way down one-way streets, riding on the wrong side of the road, and not moving out of the way of a vehicle with flashing lights such as a fire engine, ambulance, or a police car, are all at the height of stupidity. A lot of cyclists have lost their lives and/or been seriously injured as a result of engaging in all of the above stupid things.
mplo wrote:
And yet many, many more cyclists have lost their lives or ended up with serious life changing injuries and mental issues while following the Highway Code
They’ve been T-Boned, shunted, left or right hooked at junctions.
They’ve been clipped by close passes and left to die alone on the side of the road (3 recent cases here in Scotland.
Theyve been bullied and abused for being rightfully on the road by the individuals who have been granted the privilege to drive on the same road.
Statistics of collisions here in the UK involving vulnerable road users and motorists place the the driver at 70% fault the vulnerable at 10% and the remaining 20% is a coin toss.
The motorist is usually found to be distracted by a mobile device, media centre or passenger. Excessive speed. Or just simply not paying attention to the road These are people allegedly trained, tested and licensed to operate over a tonne of metal with 100BHP on the public road.
The inattentive motorist causes over 150,000 injuries every year 20,000 serious injuries and roughly 1,800 deaths each year and nobody bats an eyelid Yet when a cyclist disregards any aspect of the HC there’s major fall out!
mplo wrote:
and all of that is completely irrelevant to this thread, try and stay on topic.
I don’t see any cyclist breaking UK law in this video.
HoarseMann wrote:
It would be like a UK citizen using British laws and precedent to criticise the US gun legislation…
You have to remember that mplo is using US laws and examples to criticise cycling in the UK.
Also they continue to ignore
Also they continue to ignore polite explanations and reiterate their irrelevant opinion.
Also they have not answered your question on what a driver of a slower vehicle should do when a faster vehicle approaches from the rear.
None of thiose things have
None of those things have anything to do with primary or two abreast
Here’s a diagram
You do realise that this is a UK site, so trying to impose how things are in your alien culture is a bit irrelevant. ‘Might is right’ and bullying may be how your culture works but I don’t think many are interested here.
BTW taking primary is a defensive measure against drivers who think it is ok to squeeze through with barely any room and no room for error.
mplo wrote:
Driving while on the phone can kill. Riding while two abreast can hold up another road user for a minute or two. I’m not seeing any sort of equivalence TBH.
TBH, it was a punishment pass
TBH, it was a punishment pass on all cyclists whether riding two abreast or not.
“Boohoo, you guys made me come under the speed limit….”
it was a punishment pass on
it was a punishment pass on all cyclists
Agreed. I’m always alone, and I get them exactly like that. This is a very bad man of the type we should all work hard to punish.
I actually meant on the video
I actually meant on the video as the person recording is not riding with someone else next to him otherwise they would have been on the bonnet of the car. However it works on your definition as well.
That was clearly dangerous
That was clearly dangerous aggressive overtake on both riders. What you see is dangerous driving, not careless
Track it down and set fire to
Track it down and set fire to it!
Oh please let us know where
Oh please let us know where this fucking dickhead lives.
Possibly boring but I’ve just
Possibly boring but I’ve just read the comments and realised people are up for it…change the language…”coward’s pass AKA punishment pass”…..it is definitely the former and describing it as the latter perpetuates the behaviour
As well as the usual pair of
As well as the usual pair of dimwits, we seem to be getting people commenting on the basis of what they think the situation is abroad. It’s very simple: the driver is guilty of dangerous driving without question, and ‘dangerous driving’ in my view. We already know that Wiltshire police have stated (according to an OP who I believe) that a close pass that doesn’t result in collision isn’t a ‘real’ close pass and they’re not interested. I would be writing to my MP if Lancashire Constabulary had stated that, but they’re more cunning and just ignore the reports. Clearly, Wiltshire must be forced to change this aberrant policy. None of the 3 cyclists we see are committing any sort of offence.
I despair that this, one of
I despair that this, one of the worst NMOTDs I have seen, can have generated this much debate. There is simply no equivalence between the possible minor annoyance of cyclists riding two abreast (and I say annoyance, because it wasn’t even an inconvenience given the empty second lane), and the deliberate decision of a driver to intimidate them with their car for daring to be on the road, rather than pass them safely in the vacant lane. Please pursue this with the police.
Are we in some danger of
Are we in some danger of agreeing with a prevailing attitude promulgated by the motoring lobby that cyclists actually hold up traffic at all? Even 2 abreast or in any other configuration?
I drive and motorcycle around 10,000 miles a year. I commute by bicycle and on Sunday mornings, which I guess would be the busy time for the “lycra louts” in groups, I am one of them.
As a car driver I can count the total time I have been held up by cyclists over decades of driving in terms of several minutes. It is utterly trivial compared to the collective weeks if not months spent sat in traffic jams on motorways alone.
As a commuter, it is obvious that the cars are holding up the cyclists in central Cambridge and with reports of average traffic speeds of under 10mph in many UK cities it would appear that this is replicated elsewhere.
As a MAMIL, over several years of club rides I cannot recall many instances where we have temporarily collected more than 2 or 3 vehicles behind which had to wait for a clear overtake. I can certainly recall more instances where a driver has forced their way past on the approach into some village and then created havoc by getting blocked on the section of parked up road outside a newsagent where inevitably someone is coming the other way and there is not quite enough room to get 2 cars past each other.
We hear the mantra of drivers being held up by pelotons of unruly cyclists all over the road being trotted out as though it were fact, but my experience is that this is total myth. I am aware of cycling hotspots such as Box Hill which motorists really have no need to use but that really is an exception.
throw in some Welsh litter
throw in some Welsh litter and you’ve got thread drift here to all the ills in the world.
my first motorway drive in six months, to see my mother. Traffic “held up” by two cars making contact with each other and the crash barrier, plus everyone else easing-off to have a gawp. In the queue, a lane- changing reminder of how dog-eat-dog driving is.
Give people 4 lanes and they’re all over the shop. Motorway lane changes – I can see the long red arrows at a shallow angle on the b&w image in the old Highway Code – but everyone now “lurches” out of a lane.
PS one of My Ipad adverts on here turns into a ghastly Jeep – it comes with privacy glass – lovely – and 12 months’ job loss cover – so let me get this straight, you need your job to keep pace with the repayments but you think there’s a risk of losing said job and so your next move is..?
People who lane hop in nose
People who lane hop in nose to tail traffic always make me laugh – invariably you end up passing them a few minutes later as they tend to switch to the lane that *was* moving.
Hmm, looks like Andy needs to
Hmm, looks like Andy needs to raise this with the Crime Commisioner AND his MP. Apart from people being off ill, why is Covid stopping them following up on this for?
I thought the not telling the Police who was driving is more of an offence then the actual driving although this is pretty bad twice.
Quote:
Please explain how it wouldn’t be a first offence if there was evidence to to suggest that the keeper has failed to notify previously.
Rubbish response. Now using Covid to justify “We really just can’t be bothered with this”, too.
The Surrey PCC was quick to
The Surrey PCC was quick to claim credit for an uplift of 78 officers being funded this year to council tax payers in January. If they don’t prosecute some motoring offences it’s also telling that last week they got given a further £388k from Central Government to fund police overtime to enforce covid 19 guidelines in Surrey.
http://www.surrey-pcc.gov.uk/2020/10/pcc-welcomes-funding-boost-for-police-covid-19-enforcement/
It is time that the
It is time that the punishment for “failure to notify” was that the keeper was deemed to be the driver and faces the charges for the behaviour of whoever was driving. I know there are probably many legal implications to stop this but I like simple black and white rules
I am convinced that some folk deliberatly fail to notify because they know the driving charge is a more serious offence and opt out for minimum punishment
EK Spinner wrote:
Exactly.
I suspect a lot of the time it’s “I know Jim was driving; I also know that Jim has xx points and any more will get him a ban. But I don’t want the points either so I’ll just say I don’t know who was driving at the time…“.
How do you not know who was driving your car?
There’s also nothing stopping
There’s also nothing stopping the police sending out a second NIP (they only need to have sent the first within 14 days, whether it gets lost in the post or ignored doesn’t matter).
Just ignoring the first is a tactic a lot of people use – and you can see why!
Unfortunately, the police don’t have to uphold the law. They can choose whether or not to do so using their ‘discretion’. It’s a poor state of affairs.
MOT history looks pretty dire
MOT history looks pretty dire and there are outstanding recalls on this vehicle too.
Let’s hope no-one else is around if they get the triple whammy of ‘Loss of steering’, ‘Airbag fails to deploy’ and ‘Possible fuel leak’ :
https://www.regit.cars/recalls/mazda-rx8
I don’t know. I can live with
I don’t know. I can live with the airbag failing to deploy in this particular case…..
Time now for the Cyclists’
Time now for the Cyclists’ Defence Fund to get on the offensive?
New one on me, this in the annals of police Regret letters : “there is nothing preventing you from taking out a private prosecution…”
Adds ‘Because Pandemic’ to
Adds ‘Because Pandemic’ to the burgeoning list of reasons that certain Police forces are utter wank…
post to twitter/facebook
post to twitter/facebook/local and national news whatever social platform. Make a formal complaint to the chief officer for the region asking why no further action when a driver fails to identify.
That offence is a slam dunk in the magistrates court.
Cops refusal to take action,
Cops refusal to take action, despite the overwhelming evidence of criminal dangerous driving at their disposal, and their engineered excuses (appearing as intent to mislead the vitims, not a 1st, as we are aware), certainly needs examination by a lawer, and the potential cops are intentionally aiding and abetting criminal driver excape justice scot-free, becoming a common feature of cops.
Then, you ask, why are these cops using such underhanded tactics favourable towards such drivers?
The suspicion maybe that the driver has some links with cops or co.
Then, you ask, why are these
Then, you ask, why are these cops using such underhanded tactics favourable towards such drivers?
The suspicion maybe that the driver has some links with cops or co.
It appears that people do not appreciate the widespread abuse of such police tricks. Only yesterday I received from the police the following excuse:
The notice of intended prosecution for the vehicle, Holdex Lorry, was addressed incorrectly and not rectified within the time period allowed.
You can see the address below, written in huge type alongside the phone number on the back of the lorry SP12 CWY. It’s just the same on the Holdex Plywood website. The previous dodge from the same officer was (despite them being reported online the day after the offences:
Vehicles on LC-20200618-0650 & LC-20200622-0057 were too close to the time limitations to process
That dodge enabled driver of large black Range Rover F2 YNY to evade prosecution or anything else for crashing through red lights at 50-60 mph, over 1.4 seconds after the lights changed to red. Even those dodges look reputable compared to the absolute winner, where Lancashire Constabulary dreamed up the unbelievable excuse that they needed confirmatory video from the offending vehicle (this is Grade AA video (all these films and letters are still available!) of a really gross crossing of the unbroken white line on a humpback bridge and having to swerve sharply back in front of me to avoid colliding with an oncoming car) and as APC Overnight said their dashcam ‘wasn’t working’ (dear me, what a surprise!) LC said they couldn’t even issue a warning to the driver, never mind prosecute.
Unfortunately, what we need
Unfortunately, what we need to do is to raise a complaint every time that the police don’t do their job competently. Complaints get measured on their stats whereas unhappy cyclists/people don’t. When senior officers see a large number of complaints being raised for what should be a simple task of sending out a letter, then they’re going to be motivated to fix it.
what we need to do is to
what we need to do is to raise a complaint
Well, I’m doing my bit! The LC complaint response, from a Detective Sergeant, shows how completely worthless is the LC Complaints system. It’s even better than the original dodge- it repeats the original drivel about needing the APC video but the DS thinks he’s covering himself by phrasing it as ‘PC XX felt that the APC video was necessary’. It’s not- even the HEVC compressed video shows everything clearly and it’s almost perfect although I say it myself- GPS data all there. The DS goes on, referring to the near collision with the oncoming car, saying that it couldn’t be traced. It’s Ford ST04 LJK. You may think tracing that in North Lancashire can’t be that hard. The DS knows that too, because he doesn’t actually say it couldn’t be traced- he wrote, with what he imagines to be the utmost cunning designed to fool the dim-witted members of the public, “the car was not traced”. LC is really bent!
Sorry to hear that your
Sorry to hear that your complaints aren’t being resolved to your satisfaction, but as long as we keep pushing, sooner or later they’re going to figure out that it’s easier and less work to just do their job properly first time round.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Or they’ll just do what West Midlands Police did: Classify you as a witness instead of a victim; so they can dump the issue in the bin without investigating, and not update you since witnesses aren’t entitled to crime updates under GDPR.
Or they’ll just do what West
Or they’ll just do what West Midlands Police did: Classify you as a witness
Lancashire hasn’t formally applied this dodge to me yet, although they mostly just ignore cases anyway so it comes to the same thing. The advantage of the red light crashing campaign is that they can’t claim it’s ‘not really an offence’ like they do with the double white line crossing, handheld mobile phone use, close-passing. They tried the standard ‘ignore’ algorithm initially, but that enabled me to hit back with the fully illustrated letter to my MP. That then forced them into these 15 or so supposed prosecutions with statements and the full rigmarole, but the evolutionary arms race escalated into the ‘massive Covid Go-Slow’ dodge. You just have to persist.
Because they couldn’t be arsed.
Of course, but they’re a bit more calculating than that- always thinking ahead to the next dodge that will lead them to the Killer Dodge that works for everything!
Jenova20 wrote:
Avon & Somerset do that as well (the witness part, not necessarily the bin part) so the next time I get that response I’ll be raising a complaint. Hopefully that should provide an incentive for them to deal with close-passes with a bit more transparency.
“The car was not traced”
“The car was not traced”
Because they couldn’t be arsed.
Some of the police dodges
Some of the police dodges have a lot of life left in them yet. The ‘it was only a momentary loss of concentration’ one works for almost anything, but I think their greatest hope at present is assigning a zero priority to prosecutions that they don’t want to reach court- admittedly they have to prepare and send off the statements to join in the massive queue at the courts as they continue a Permanent Covid Paid Holiday, but the police are hoping none of the prosecutions come to anything because they run into some Statute of Limitations, or the police officers have all left for new jobs, etc. etc.
UPDATE: Surrey Police have
UPDATE: Surrey Police have responded to a Freedom of Information request stating that (with regard to the policy of not proceding with a prosecution of the registered keeper for failing to respond to a NIP/s172 Notice), that “there is no such policy”.
The plot thickens… No prosection based upon a policy that does not exist?
videographer wrote:
That there is a reason for an IOPC police complaint – failure to adhere their own process.
It’s like a game of fob-off poker. If you play your IOPC hand, they might find the NIP response down the back of the sofa.
Is videographer the original
Is videographer the original victim? In any case, someone should keep going on this! Surrey Police are guilty and should be made to suffer for failing to prosecute a highly deserving, proven case.
I believe so as one of the
I believe so as one of the two who have now left was calling them that down in the original posts and they have decided to own it.
Not the “victim” at the front
Not the “victim” at the front, but it’s my video and we’re certainly not letting this drop easily. Currently we’re waiting for a FOI request from Surrey Police to clarify if the “ignore if first offence” policy exists or not and if so how many notices have been ignored with no futher action taken. A complaint has also been made to the Police Commissioner. Not letting this drop easily
Not letting this drop easily
Not letting this drop easily
Great stuff! Well done. Keep going on behalf of all cyclists. The police thrive on people thinking ‘can’t be bothered’ when confromted with the police wall of dodges, delay and misinformation. It was the use of FoI requests that enable me to say yet again that Lancashire Constabulary have never prosecuted anyone for close-passing alone. They may have done for close-passing where the cyclist is hit, but even then they would go through the routine of ‘he didn’t mean to do it’ and ‘it was only a momentary loss of concentration’ first, to see if they can get away with it.
Let us know!
Regarding police databases.
Regarding police databases. I know first hand that some forces are using really old out of date information, which probably they rely on initially before contacting the DVLA for current information.
I had to report an accident to the police. I quoted my car registration, the operator , read out the vehicle they had listed, it was my old car from 3 years ago ?. I had transferred my registration to the newer one.
Slowly progressing with this.
Slowly progressing with this. After complaining and submitting a FoI request questioning their policy of not prosecuting for failure to respond to the NIP notice “if this is a first offence, and there is no evidence to suggest that the keeper has failed to notify previously” (a policy they now admit “does not exist”), Surrey Police have conceded that their initial response was badly worded and that they would indeed be proceeding. As such a second NIP/s172 notice has been issued and handed to the registered keeper in person.
Will post updates on the response from the keeper or Surrey Police if and when it happens