West Yorkshire Police have said it is “not appropriate” to release footage showing a motorist committing a close pass on a cyclist, after the force posted a now-viral video, clipped from the same rider’s Operation Snap submission, showing him squeezing between a parked car and an oncoming motorist.
On Friday, West Yorkshire Police released a video, which has since attracted hundreds of thousands of views and the attention of the national press, featuring a camera cyclist passing a parked car on a hill as a motorist travelled in the opposite direction in Menston, near the spa town of Ilkley.
The footage was submitted by the cyclist to the force’s Operation Snap portal for driving offences. The Leeds-based rider was wishing to alert police to an alleged close pass he was subject to at the start of the video, only for the force to prosecute him for his “poor cycling”, claiming his filtering distance was “significantly less than the car he reported earlier had given him”.
Last week in Bradford Magistrates’ Court, the cyclist was fined £1,200 for the manoeuvre, a hefty fine road.cc understands was the result of him disputing the matter in court, where the subsequent penalty may also have been means-tested.
The earlier close pass committed by the driver, which was not included in the police’s abridged social media post, resulted in the motorist being offered to take a driver retraining course.
According to West Yorkshire Police’s post, the unnamed cyclist “uploaded a video showing a car passing too close to his pedal cycle to our Op Snap portal”.
The post continued: “But later on in the same submission, he captured himself riding without due care and attention as he approached a parked car and an oncoming vehicle.
“Rather than slow down or have to unclip from his pedals, the rider chose to travel between the parked car and the vehicle heading directly towards him.
“This distance was significantly less than the car he reported earlier had given him. The driver was forced to hug the kerb to reduce the risk of contact.
“It is important that all road users are aware of the Highway Code, are considerate to other road users and understand their responsibility for the safety of other.”
The cyclist was ordered to pay over £1,200 in fines and costs for riding without due care and attention, a spokesperson for West Yorkshire Police indicating that the matter was dealt with by the courts due to the lack of suitable training courses or fixed penalties for the offence in question.
The fine was also means-tested by the court during last week’s sentencing. According to Section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, cycling carelessly without due care and attention can result in a maximum fine of £1,000. According to Bradford Magistrates’ Court, the cyclist was fined £819 and ordered to pay costs of £120, as well as a victim surcharge of £328.
In a statement provided to road.cc, West Yorkshire Police also said it was “not appropriate” to release footage of the earlier close pass, the spokesperson stating that it would be “unfair” to the driver and not “strictly relevant” to the offence posted online.
“The driver was dealt with by way of a National Driver Retraining Scheme (NDORS) course offer. It would not be appropriate to release the ‘close pass’ footage,” the spokesperson said.
“There is no suitable approved course for the cycling offence, nor is there a fixed penalty option (as there is no licence requirement for cycling). As such, the matter was dealt with through the courts.”
The spokesperson said the police chose not to name the cyclist in their social media post as they “didn’t feel it would be proportionate to do so”.
Nevertheless, last week’s social media post, and its focus on the cyclist’s ‘careless’ riding, has been widely criticised online for appearing to conflate the danger posed by close passing motorists to people on bikes with that of cyclists filtering past vehicles at slow speed.
West Yorkshire Police declined to comment when asked by road.cc why they chose to highlight the cyclist’s careless riding in a social media post, and why they pointed out that his filtering distance was “significantly less” than the previous unseen close pass, especially when the level of danger to other road users was also greatly reduced by comparison.
It also isn’t the first time this year that West Yorkshire Police have been questioned for their handling of incidents involving cyclists submitted to Operation Snap, the force responding to such criticism in January by insisting that all video footage sent to the portal is reviewed and two-thirds of submissions “have resulted in action being taken”.
That statement was provided to us following one instalment of our Near Miss of the Day series, which showed the moment a cyclist narrowly avoided a crash with a taxi driver who, the rider alleges, was “too busy checking their phone” to see them.
West Yorkshire Police disagreed with the cyclist’s assessment that it was “a cut-and-dried example of careless driving”, officers suggesting that “no crime had been committed”.
A spokesperson for the force told us: “In the past year more than 65 per cent of all submissions to Operation Snap resulted in further action being taken. All submissions are reviewed by officers and staff trained who are experienced in the application of road traffic law.
“For action to be taken submissions must meet the required evidential threshold to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. Operation Snap continues to offer an important opportunity for the public to work with the police to improve driver behaviour and help support our Vision Zero ambition to prevent road death and serious injury.”
110 thoughts on “Police say “not appropriate” to release close pass footage captured by cyclist fined £1,200 in viral clip”
I cycle around here regularly and also submit footage to WY Police from time to time through OpSnap. My experience has been generally good, almost all submissions result in “positive action” as they say. The stats for cyclist submissions are good – I think as a road user group the cyclist submissions have the highest “strike rate”. I do feel in this instance (the Menston incidents) that we are not getting the whole story. There is of course nothing to prevent the cyclist in question releasing all the footage from the whole of the incident. When I saw the headline costs / fine I did wonder if it had been dealt with in the Defendants absence. Overall there does seem to be an imbalance in disposals – the cyclist should be given the option of an out of court route as the driver was.
@headingley almost all submissions result in “positive action” as they say
If you are actually reporting what the police said, they’re lying. Why not show us the most action – worthy video you have sent in to WYP, what the action was, and how they told you about ‘the action’? You clearly have a lot to choose from! Don’t forget, the force you have eulogised is the one where the malevolent dimwits tried to intimidate little onion with a prosecution for swearing that failed
ttps://upride.cc/incident/sc21zsx_niro_redlightpass/
Here’s one of mine, just add ‘h’ to the beginning of the link
Ah! I now see that little onion himself has made a similar point below
Right then….
It’s not appropriate? Why not? Is it because it shows that in fact the close pass received by the cyclist was not, in fact, significantly more than the distances shown in this (admittedly rather stupid) example of bad cycling? Are they covering their backsides after another blatant lie?
Is this the same force that didn’t prosecute a close pass on me because I wasn’t in the dead center of a cycle lane, but slightly to one side to avoid a drain grate, and therefore I was “inconsiderate” in my cycling?
Or who tried to prosecute me for swearing in distress when a driver deliberately tried to ram me off the road, whilst filming me? Or who actually wrote in a witness statement that I swear in the majority of the videos that I submit (a blatant lie which they know is false, but don’t care. Shame I couldn’t get that tested in court).
Is this the police force who have a written policy – and I kid you not – of dismissing OUT OF HAND any complaints about how they handle submissions from cyclists who have previously complained to them.
Is this the same force that can’t see anything wrong with a close pass UNDERTAKE at speed, and refused to prosecute this incident; https://vimeo.com/1079291114/f8d5ab5f41
Or whose road safety unit does not contain a SINGLE cyclist (my sample size is the 6 who I’ve had the ‘pleasure’ of dealing with) amongst their ranks?
Institutionally anti-cyclist!!!
@the little onion Institutionally anti a lot of things. Apparently.
So it’s appropriate to cite the offence for which the cyclist submitted the video as a comparative that “proves” the cyclist’s offence was far worse, but now it’s not only not appropriate to show the video but it’s not actually relevant to the cyclist’s offence either? Right. Shouldn’t you make a beeping noise when you back up like that, chaps?
Does the cyclist still have the original footage? Nothing to prevent them releasing it so we can see the validity or otherwise of the police claims.
@Rendel Harris I really hope the cyclist does publish it and let’s everyone know.
Um, which is it then?
Not an expert, but I don’t think they’re necessarily mutually exclusive – it’s conceivable that there was no other disposal method than court, but that the fine hit the max level because they didn’t enter a guilty plea?
Hmm – possible – but if that’s what was meant then the wording is misleading: “him disputing the matter in court, where the subsequent penalty may also have been means-tested” suggests he ‘chose to have his day in court’, rather than simply pleading not guilty having been forced to go there. Also, later on the article it suggests that the final amount was just driven by the means testing.
Hang on, are you implying a level of inconsistency of information, some kind of factual inexactitude on the part of the police? That would be most unusual for WYP!
[/sarcasm]
Well, what I was actually suggesting was a lack of clarity in road.cc’s reporting (I know – also highly unusual!), but quite possibly aided and abetted by obfuscatory answers from West Yorks’ finest.
Yes, not clear how the “road.cc understands” (based on what?) bits and the “police spokesperson” bits join up. Means testing of fines is still subject to the statutory maximum, so would only ever reduce the £1,000 fine. Same for a guilty plea – can get a third off the fine for guilty plea at first opportunity, reducing as you get closer to trial.
@mdavidford They may have offered him a caution ?
The second quoted line doesn’t appear to suggest that.
Plenty wrong here. If the police prosecuted just because they saw something illegal and not because they thought it would be funny to attack cyclists, why don’t they prosecute all the offenses in the video? The blue car is parked facing the wrong way for starters.
Peripheral to your point, but parking facing oncoming traffic is advised against at all times, but only an offence at night, I think?
“In a statement provided to road.cc, West Yorkshire Police also said it was “not appropriate” to release footage of the earlier close pass, the spokesperson stating that it would be “unfair” to the driver and not “strictly relevant” to the offence posted online.”
It may not be “strictly relevant” to the offence posted online. But the pertinent question is why they chose to post the cycling offence online, but not the motoring offence. That’s “unfair”. If they sincerely meant the message posted alongside the cycling clip (“It is important that all road users are aware of The Highway Code, are considerate to other road users and understand their responsibility for the safety of others”), then they should have posted both offences. To post only one looks very much like seeking to dissuade cyclists from making reports.
This is a really important precedent, because it confirms that an oncoming car in their own lane CAN be charged with a close pass, even if the cyclist and the car remain in their own lanes. A cyclist riding in primary position could probably rack up dozens, if not hundreds, of prosecutions in an hour or two of cycling.
Or, West Yorkshire Police are full of shit.
@sigirides based on my sadly all too large experience, there are many fine officers within West Yorkshire Police. And many who don’t fit into that category, particularly as it pertains to cyclists’ issues.
The key issue is that the prejudiced, incompetent ones dominate, and are not corrected, constrained or checked in any way, so that cyclists cannot expect anything close to a fair and consistent treatment by WYP. As such, they are institutionally anti-cyclist.
@sigirides as long as you dive for the kerb to demonstrate you were inconvenienced.
I totally agree. If the positions were reversed the magistrates have accepted that this meets the threshold for Driving without due care and attention. I will certainly be submitting footage to my local police force citing this case.
@sigirides I think you might be being a little silly here. The cyclist very clearly should have waited for the oncoming car to pass before overtaking the parked car. They intentionally put themselves in the position where they would rightly have been pissed off if it was the other way around and the car was pulling out from behind the parked car.
If this was the other way around of course the driver could be in trouble in precisely the same way the cyclist was here.
They very clearly treat intentional close passing by drivers differently to unintentional ones ie. when the two parties are coming towards each other with no decisions other than speed and whether you are trying to leave space for each other.
Yes it pisses me off when some twat rides at me on a barely single track country road at speed and I am forced into a tiny patch of road but I know they won’t give a crap about those sort of head on closes passes and will consider it unavoidable. Its shit but its how they see these interactions. They don’t take kindly to cyclists or drivers pulling out unnecessarily to pass obstacles when it causes a close pass.
No it perhaps doesn’t make sense but in plenty of cases, the close distance between driver and cyclist is unavoidable even if one party was to stop completely.
Personally I would love to see the rules changed to “encourage” drivers to reduce their speed considerably if they have to pass a cyclist within 1.5m. I still think its very dangerous and a massive blind spot in the rules. The issue would then be determining speed from a video and they seem to struggle enough with the concept that a 2m wide car that passes you entirely on your side of the road would require a 4m+ wide road to be able to do that legally.
@mctrials23 I’ve been to court over the exact same situation in reverse, and the driver was declared innocent. I’ve reported a bunch of these situations in reverse, drivers love to push through when there isn’t room, without any action other than the one time it made it to court. Obviously there’s a bit of two tiered policing going on here.
@sigirides Oh 100%. There is little to no consistency between police forces and little consistency within the same police force. That doesn’t removed the fact it should be actioned when it happens.
@mctrials23 But the thing is the cyclist is in his own lane (slightly outside to begin with but moves back in long before he gets parallel to the car) and the car driver is in theirs, so what offence has been committed (contrary to Nigel’s previous assertion, there is no obligation for a cyclist to leave a minimum distance when passing a parked car, and he can clearly see there is nobody in the parked car so no danger of it pulling away or a door opening)? He has not crossed into the oncoming traffic lane, clearly at low speed uphill he poses no threat of danger to the oncoming car, where is the offence in law? One could say it would be more courteous to let the oncoming car through (on the other hand one could say as the cyclist is labouring uphill it would be courteous for the oncoming car to wait for the cyclist) but what law or Highway Code rule has been broken? The whole thing smacks of police and magistrates being determined to teach the cyclist a lesson for having the temerity to report a separate incident and ignoring the law in order to do so.
@mctrials23 this is a great post and gets to the crux of the cyclist’s offence. Legislation states:
“Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling.
If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.”
I’m in agreement with the magistrate that the cyclist is guilty of the charge above for two reasons:
Firstly, he fails to yield priority to the car. This is already discussed eloquently by yourself. Secondly, he passes extremely close to the parked car, potentially putting a more vulnerable road user in danger.
While this is listed in the highway code rule 67 as “take care when passing parked vehicles, leaving enough room (a door’s width or 1 metre) to avoid being hit if a car door is opened, and watch out for pedestrians stepping into your path”, it’s also present in rule 68 under careless cycling generally.
The 1200 quid others are upset about will be due to means-adjusted fine in court. Cyclist would have had the option of paying a much smaller fixed penalty charge and declined.
It’s also disappointing that someone else on this thread has sought to minify the gravity of brushing past a parked car. It not only endangers the cyclist himself, but imagine if a small child or person had suddenly opened the door to get out and a collision had ensued. There’s simply no need to risk it.
It’s more disappointing that you lack the intelligence and/or perception to acknowledge that the cyclist can obviously see into the car (we can even see into it ourselves on the video) and know that there is nobody in it and so the question does not arise unless you’re a vexatious previously-many-times-banned troll, but there we go.
@Rendel Harris I can assure you I’m called “Jack”, hence the username “Jackcycles”. I thought it sounded cute because it reminds me of “popsicles”, a childhood favourite of mine.
Anyhow, I digress. I’m afraid I must dismiss your argument as both childish (due to personal attacks) and weak (due to a lack of logic).
You’ve claimed that the cyclist can see into the car, as if it’s a wholly transparent object and as if the cyclist isn’t distracted by the fact he’s passing a moving car unsafely. A person inside the car wearing black, a child, or someone of short stature (or indeed someone just looking for something on the floor) would be missed by the cyclist.
And also, what if a pedestrian stepped out from directly behind the car? Again, a scenario carelessly ignored by the cyclist.
And all this is incidental in any case because the cyclist is also riding carelessly due to a failure to ceed priority.
@Nigel Garage et al The cyclist is riding uphill at extremely low speed and so would have no problem stopping if the scenario you have made up, in a slightly hysterical “won’t someone think of the children” manner, were to occur.
Do please point to any section of the RTA or the Highway Code that mandates that somebody driving or riding in their own lane has to cede (note spelling) priority to someone who is entirely within their own separate lane. I’ll wait.
Except, according to the police, as reported in the article, they weren’t.
Then that would be an offence on the part of that person, or the responsible adult with them, of opening a car door so as to endanger.
In the article it states that the fixed penalty option did not exist so the police decided to take it to court, not the cyclist.
I would agree with what you have said if it was not for the painfully slow speed that both the cyclist and the oncoming driver were going at. At that speed there was no danger to anyone and no inconvenience to the oncoming driver (at least no more than a pothole).
Do you mean a person opening the door of a car which it can clearly be seen in the video contained no people?
@spen Come on now, did you not read Nigel’s absolutely sane and completely not vexatious or stupid explanation? There could easily have been a six-year-old dwarf wearing an all black ninja outfit crouching in the passenger footwell ready to spring out at any time.
Do you mean drives at you on a single track road?
> Personally I would love to see the rules changed to “encourage” drivers to reduce their speed considerably if they have to pass a cyclist within 1.5m.
Have to pass? If I’m driving on a single track road and there’s a cyclist approaching, I can’t allow a 1.5m gap to pass them. This does not mean I have to pass them with less than a 1.5m gap. I simply don’t pass them. I pull over as far as I can to the left and stop. If there’s only a metre, or only half a metre or only 15cm, it doesn’t matter – I’m stationary, so no longer passing anyone.
The highway code talks about passing but most people seem to think it’s only about overtaking, when logically, passing in opposite directions increases the relative speed and requires a larger gap.
Which rule(s) are you thinking of? The 1.5m wording appears in rule 163, which is expressly about overtaking.
@mctrials23 It seems to me that the car moved closer to the kerb on his side of the road, and the cyclist was able to proceed entirely within his own lane – both at very slow speed.
So there is no ground for an offence.
The concerning point is that the copper thinks that the same “gap” should apply to the different types of vehicle. That’s peak carbrain.
@mattw Staying within your lane is besides the point. The very basic point is that the cyclist would have been well within their right to complain if this was the other way around. Your lane isn’t some magic gotcha when it comes to road rules. If I am overtaking parked cars on my bike and a car appears from the other direction they don’t magically have priority because they are in their lane. I’m frankly amazed at how many people are defending this.
@mctrials23 I can’t see from the video or the reporting of the Court proceedings that demonstrates cycling without due care etc. If the rider was still on their side of the road then what is the offence. Either they did not have appropriate legal defense or the court was making things up and an appeal could be launched on the basis of riding within your side of the road is now considered an offence?
@The Giblet So If I was driving a car and coming up to overtake a line of parked cars and a cyclist was overtaking them already on my side of the road I am fine to proceed because I am in my lane? Staying in your own lane doesn’t mean you didn’t do something stupid.
How can we expect drivers to behave well on the roads when most of the people in here seem to think there is no issue with a cyclist doing precisely the thing that we all hate when its done to us.
Not sure what you are referring, the close pass incident wasn’t in the video which is part of the issue with the Police. The video shows a bicycle rider passing parked cars on their side of the centre line with car going the other direction. That is the query with how the bicycle rider gets charge with riding without due care when they are still on their side of the road. The opposing car was not reported for close pass as it wasn’t. The close pass of the bicycle rider was earlier but the police have hidden that information probably because they didn’t enforce the law with the driver of the close passing car but then chose to publicise how they had charged the bicycle rider for something that on the face of it and the reporting of it makes no sense to have done. As others have mentioned it creates new issues for the legal system as you can now be charged for staying on your side of the centre line and continuing as normal? There maybe more to the story but the police and courts have not provided it and from what we have seen you would assume an appeal is incoming.
I can’t see anywhere if the driver of the silver Volvo was contacted for their opinion. It certainly looks like the cyclist slowed and moved to the left before considering their own speed and approaching vehicle and decided to proceed. I don’t think I’d have chosen to pass in those circumstances, but also don’t think it deserved that penalty.
If the police are confirming that painted lines don’t negate close pass distances, then I look forward to the many close pass videos of drivers passing cyclists travelling in painted cycle lanes without allowing the normal close pass criteria? With the double white centre lines and painted cycle lane in the attached image I should never be passed by a motor-vehicle on this short bridge?
@stiplady I agree, no evidence that the driver of the volvo was contacted/made a complaint about the cyclist’s behaviour. Which is odd, because I thought the “victim” needed to make a complaint in order for the police to prosecute someone*:
https://road.cc/news/cycling-live-blog-1-july-2026 (scroll down to “Cycle Sundays are back!”)
https://road.cc/content/news/phone-driver-caught-camera-cyclist-smashes-car-311171
*For the avoidance of doubt, I don’t actually think this; it’s clearly just another BS excuse police forces come up with to avoid doing their jobs. Although I do think it is highly relevant in this case – if the police’s argument is that the oncoming driver was inconvenienced by being “forced to hug the kerb” it would seem essential to have testimony from the driver to that effect. My reading of the video is that the volvo driver moved slightly to the left _before_ the cyclist started to pass the car, in order to give the cyclist space to do so. The cyclist only proceeded past the parked car once it was clear that there was sufficient space to do so without causing the driver to further alter their speed or direction of travel. There’s an important distinction between the driver being forced to hug the kerb because the cyclist was proceeding, versus the cyclist proceeding because the driver had already moved over to give them room to do so.
Or the motor vehicle moved as they didn’t anticipate the cyclist would yield as the obstruction was their side of the road and should have stopped like any other normal vehicle should have.
There is no defending this level of cycling as it just gives the decent ones a bad name.
It’s pretty simple- the police are, as a whole, quite prepared to lie and cover-up when it suits them, but are generally treated by the courts as ‘sea-green incorruptibles’. See, for instance, the conclusions of the most recent Hillsborough report in which all the police lying and altering of statements under senior officer pressure is described as ‘the police presenting their best case’. See these from the Black Belt Barrister for evidence that the police are as bent as a nine-pound note:
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQwDkKQhhc4
ttps://www.youtube.com/shorts/86n1iAa49jk
You will also recall ‘I’ve been stabbed!’ followed by PC Plod’s ‘I don’t think you have, mate’
and ‘raise that rear wheel off the ground, spin the pedals, and I’ll take a photo of the speedo to prove it’s an illegal electric motorbike so that we can destroy it (but if we get it wrong and have to pay compensation, it’s only public money and we can say ‘we don’t have enough resources’ ‘. You have to possess a high degree of stupidity to be able to bring yourself to say that.
Is this the same police that say that they cannot judge a close pass because no part of the bicycle is in the video?
@Geoff H Is this the same police that say that they cannot judge a close pass because no part of the bicycle is in the video?
Pretty much nothing is too stupid for the police to use as an excuse for ‘we can’t do anything’.
@wtjs And for those still looking for excuses for the police refusing to respond to this video
ttps://upride.cc/incident/px12dnv_stagecoach41_closepass/
@wtjs I noticed that the bus has a sticker that says “Cyclists pass with care”. I can’t read the fine print, but I think it says “Because we don’t”
No, your eyes are deceiving you because of the microscopic font! It says ‘cyclists can get stuffed – by order of Lancashire Constabulary’ and ‘if you can read this you’re a cyclist and I claim my £5’
Does the footage not belong to the cyclist who was fined, I think he can release it if he wants to
If the cyclist is so aggrieved then he can always release the footage himself.
There’s nothing to stop him from doing that, is there, and the fact that neither he nor the police have released the footage speaks to the likely triviality of the car’s own close pass (which – you will note – the police took action on by offering the driver a retraining course)
In fact, far from being “institutionally anti-cyclist” as is claimed elsewhere in the comments, it could conceivably be the case that the police are worried about being labelling *anti-motorist* in the court of public opinion if they release the footage and it shows a reasonable distance and expected level of courtesy by the car driver.
My suggestion would be for road cc to actively engage with the cyclist on this and see if they are prepared to release the footage themselves…. Otherwise it’s all just speculation really.
Edit – little onion below stop posting in ALL CAPS like an attention seeking baby. I read your comments and thought they were hyperbolic crap, but I didn’t reply out of politeness. Please feel free to ignore my comments if you disagree with me, or reply constructively, but otherwise you’re wrecking a perfectly civil conversation.
@jackcycles DON’T FEED THE FUNCTIONALLY ILLITERATE, BAD FAITH, TROLL.
I went away for a bit. While I was away it seems we got:
* post editing back – yay!
* Nigel back – boo!
Lots of (justified) criticism of the police, but let’s not forget there’s a magistrate out there who sided with the prosecution’s case.
I suspect the Police releasing his video to the public is also copyright infringement
Before you submit to WYorks OpSnap you have to tick a box that says:
I suspect they could claim that their sharing it is helping to raise awareness of safer road usage and therefore falls under that last bit (even if there was no real chance of any casualties in this particular case).
“The driver was forced to hug the kerb to reduce the risk of contact.”
If that is the standard then they need to apply it to all drivers that force cyclists into the same position.
The £1,200 fine, which is far in excess of what a motorists would pay in a similar situation, does, like the Charlie Alliston case (idiotic prat who was convicted of manslaughter for the death of Kim Briggs), show the inconsistency of the “judge cyclists like drivers” argument.
It assumes that the problem is that cyclists and drivers aren’t treated equally (true), that they should be treated equally (false, because they don’t provide the same level of danger, in the same way that knives aren’t regulated in the same way as machine guns, even though both can kill), but that there is a discursive assumption that cyclists are treated more lightly than drivers.
The point is that if Alliston was in a car, he would have been charged with death by careless driving, or possibly death by dangerous driving, with a distinct possibility of not being charged at all. Both of those offences had (at the time) a lower maximum tariff than the thing Alliston was charged with – manslaughter – and the average sentence for those driving offences is less than the average sentence for manslaughter.
Similarly, dangerous cycling gets hit with a £1,200 fine, whereas the most frequent (according to West Yorkshire Police’s own stats) punishment for close passing a cyclist (if punished at all) is a education course at the cost of approximately £100.
In other words – when someone says that dangerous cyclists should be treated the same as dangerous drivers, the response should be to ask them whether they intend to increase the punishment for drivers, or decrease it for cyclists.
How do you put a person on an NDOR course if there isbt one available as you dont have to be tested or licensed to use a pushbike. The driver got the course as it was available. The cyclist couldn’t get the same as no such thing exists.
Remove personal feelings out of it and see it for what it is. If a motorist passed a cyclist this close they would be aggrieved and wpuld want charges being made. The cyclist was in the wrong and is rightfully punished. He put himself at risk knowing the obstruction was his side of the road and it was too small a gap to be in.
@es53xb0y Is that leafyessexboy? There really does seem to be something of a pattern emerging here.
No. I am new here.
I literally have no idea what you are referring to about a pattern?
@the little onion Just for the sake of accuracy, Alliston wasn’t convicted of manslaughter, he was charged with it but convicted of “wanton and furious cycling” for not having two brakes. I agree that he was a complete prat and also that if he’d been driving a car there’s no way he would have been charged, driving below the speed limit through a green light in your favour when a pedestrian steps out straight in front of you from a few yards away, I have never heard of a driver being convicted for such an incident.
I recently very slowly proceeded to overtake a parked car which was half on the kerb. I was doing about 10mph. Two cyclists were approaching one behind the other hence there was most of the opposite carriageway available for them ie a good 8ft. The rear cyclist saw me move out slightly to pass the parked vehicle then proceeded to deliberately double up with his mate, shaking a fist at me as he passed. This was a deliberate manoeuvre by the cyclist to orchestrate a close pass which I took a very dim view of, and so too would the police had I shared the dashcam footage with them. Whilst I empathise with cyclists affected by careless drivers, behavior of this kind is not acceptable.
Good, you have claimed you have the video which you say would undoubtedly convince the police. So show it, or it didn’t happen and you’re a sad troll git driver making things up. A still of the cyclist shaking his fist alongside another cyclist will suffice for a start!
signed: TrollFinder General
Well, there’s one definite troll in this topic and two probables. Let’s see how they respond!
@wtjs
I think it’s new intake time at Troll Academy.. Probably their first assignment.
@perce Rather like Police Academy, first time around it was mildly amusing albeit in a rather puerile and stupid fashion, when one gets to the 12th iteration the “joke”, if there ever was one, has worn rather thin.
@Rendel Harris Exactly. It’s like a bagpipe player turning up at an Irish music session. Annoying and irrelevant.
@perce pedantry but I think Séamus Ennis would be scunnered with that … had he not been Irish…
(Uilleann pipes are bagpipes of course, though personally I’d much rather those – or small pipes – than the GHB)
@courteousdriver The Highway Code does not differentiate between cars and bikes in this instance, it says that when overtaking parked cars you must give way to oncoming traffic. It’s not for you to decide whether or not they have sufficient space in your opinion, you should not drive in the oncoming traffic lane if there is any oncoming traffic, full stop. Not a difficult rule to understand and one that one would have thought a self-named courteousdriver would have no trouble obeying.
Hi Rendel. I looked at your Chelsea-London commute video in which you tried to usher back a tailgater then shouted F*** O** to the driver who subsequently overtook you, in a residential area as you passed by a pedestrian waiting to cross the road. Neither he nor the residents wanted to hear your profanity. My point is this. It’s not an ideal world and sadly there are far too many bad drivers (and indeed cyclists) out there. Busy, frustrated people in too much of a hurry. I’m 62 now, retired, and never in a hurry. I have time to slow down or pull over if I sense the driver behind wants to overtake. Gesticulating at any such driver is never going to end well. Just let the idiot pass. Pull in if necessary. Don’t try to usher them back which will inevitably infuriate the crazy driver. Take a look back at your video and think what you could have done differently. Safe riding
@courteousdriver sadly there are far too many bad drivers (and indeed cyclists) out there
There are also far too many pathetic lying trolls making up stories about cyclists shaking fists and perverting the course of justice by deliberately fabricating a false close-passing offence. All very reminiscent of the hilarious ‘I’ve lost count of the number of times cyclists have knocked over my wheelchair’ or whatever it was, so I declare you to be a PLT, and a PBU with slightly less certainty and therefore unworthy of any further consideration
@wtjs I can assure you my story was not fabricated. It’s not in my nature to do such a thing. I am sorry if you don’t believe me.
@courteousdriver And your pearl clutching, sanctimonious, holier than thou pompous lecturing gives a fairly good insight into your personality. I notice that you have completely failed to address the fact that by your own admission you were breaking the law by driving in the oncoming traffic lane when there was traffic present, choosing instead to whine once again about the fact that one of the cyclists towards whom you drove illegally shook their fist at you (oh the horror, thoughts and prayers with you and your family at this difficult time). Cheerio Nigel (if only).
@courteousdriver OK this looks a bit special – seems Nigel has opened two new accounts. Not just a random accusation, I’m sure old hands will remember how Nigel was always dribbling on about “courteous” behaviour (by which he invariably meant giving way to drivers at all times) and also how he has form on opening multiple accounts, remember when he was trying to pose as an Eastern European “Raika” and would occasionally forget to switch accounts so would answer a question addressed to one account with the name of the other? Also, how has this supposedly brand-new user come across details of one of my NMOTD videos from over a year ago – a video on which Nigel commented at length and in exactly the same lying fashion as here? One can’t help but feel a shudder of pity at the thought of how empty and sad his life must be to make such efforts to continue trolling a site from which he has been banned at least a dozen times; presumably the multiple account ploy is so that he can offer support to his ridiculous posts, as nobody else does, and so that he will still have an account open when he inevitably gets banned again.
I googled you. It comes straight up in the search results for ‘Rendel Harris Cyclist’. Behaviors such as your swearing in public, the cyclist who unnecessarily shook a fist and me, and you and @wtjs ‘ insults on this thread are insights into your personalities.
Best wishes to all of you.
Take it easy.
Kind regards.
Robert (not Nigel whoever he is!)
There you go again
If he had slowed down any more, he could have fallen off!
Surely as the BMW that caused the close pass was on the cyclists side of the road he should have give way to the car driving on the clear side of the road
@mac f 1896 If you look closely at the video you will see that the cyclist remains entirely in his own lane on his side of the white lines as he passes the oncoming vehicle, which also stays entirely within its lane. There is therefore no need for either road user to give way to the other and as they are both travelling at low speeds there is no danger to themselves or to any other road users. I would love to see a transcript of the magistrates’ court proceedings as prima facie there is no justification in law for the guilty finding or for the penalty imposed.
“nor is there a fixed penalty option (as there is no licence requirement for cycling)”
What does that mean? There is definitely a fixed penalty option for careless cycling. It was created by the Fixed Penalty Offences Order 2025 and came into force on 24 February 2025. Obviously, there are no points on your licence for it, since that would make no sense, but what does that have to do with anything?
Do they mean that they think the penalty is too small without points as well? If so, that’s not no fixed penalty option, that’s a fixed penalty option that they don’t think is adequate. Or was this offence committed before 24 February 2025 and took this long to get to court? They need to say what they actually mean…
Of course, as frustrating as it is to interested readers, they don’t *need* to say what they mean to the general public at all, but thank you for this detail – I was slightly surprised it was all or nothing. I wonder if the cyclist declined a FPN, or if it was never offered.
@quiff I would expect the police had not been trained with the change, perhaps.
@thomas.dalton@gmail.com
Link:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2025/68/made/data.xht?view=snippet&wrap=true
Section 3e .
The offence the cyclist supposedly committed is ‘due care and attention’, the definition of which is: “If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.”
Looking at that definition and the footage, I am struggling to see how either of the two ‘tests’ would apply:
Firstly, the video demonstrates that the cyclist is paying attention, you can see they move back to their lane when they see the oncoming car and you can hear that they stop pedalling. Only when they are happy that the car driver’s speed and position are ok and there’s a gap, do they continue.
Secondly, the video demonstrates that nobody was inconvenienced. The driver didn’t need to change speed or direction at all.
Is it that this fits into the common perception (clearly shared by police and magistrates here) about cyclists “undertaking”? Even if the cyclist is within their own lane a motorist couldn’t have got down there ergo it’s an offence?
(Is it *wise* to go through every gap? Probably not…)
Anyway, it’s the motor-centric viewpoint – if cyclists are on the road we think of them as being mini-cars. And “fairness” – they should follow all the same requirements. Even where laws simply don’t apply to them or the “what they should do” doesn’t make sense.
I can only guess the police / magistrates were thinking “they’re bang to rights, instant karma, they need to pay up, put up and shut up. Or get off the road / get a car”.
Although you could ask why the driver heading down hill didn’t slow to allow the cyclist to pass safely, but then again no need really
I think the prosecution have just persuaded tthe magistrate that the driver had to move towards the kerb to accommodate the cyclist. That movement is visible in the video, though I accept there’s a chicken and egg question whether the cyclist forced the move, or only proceeded when it was clear the driver had moved over for them.
@quiff I think you are probably right here – but – is that _really_ being inconsiderate to the oncoming driver? Looking again at the video, the oncoming driver appears to be over the centre line when approaching the parked vehicle and just seems to be straightening the bend a little, so you would expect them to be moving towards the kerb anyway.
As driving interactions go, it’s about as benign as it gets. I expect the magistrate has never ridden a bicycle, but I also wonder if they’ve ever driven a car?!
@HoarseMann, exactly. It was a nothingburger.
If that cycling qualifies as riding without due care then there are a million motorcyclists on YouTube who need to start worrying. Also, since when is it legal to park a BMW with all four wheels on the road? Get it on the path where everyone knows it belongs
@spen
Agreed.
And as per my own comment:
“The driver was forced to hug the kerb to reduce the risk of contact.”
If that is the standard then they need to apply it to all drivers that force cyclists into the same position.
@spen It occurred to me that the parked car was obstructing the highway anyway. Was he prosecuted for this? As an ex-driving instructor (now retired) I was taught during training to advise pupils that you should not park on narrow roads where it would not be possible for vehicles to safely pass in both directions. If the road is so narrow that a cyclist and an oncoming vehicle cannot safely pass your parked car. Then you have parked obstructively.
@mitsky will be along in a moment to point out that you can’t prosecute a car.
@mitsky will be along in a moment to point out that you can’t prosecute a car.
@Christopher Clifton Most if not all police forces have now transferred responsibility for parking offences to local councils and will only prosecute, as far as I’m aware, parking on the zigzag lines of a crossing. Local councils won’t accept video evidence, they only prosecute when one of their own wardens discovers and documents the events themselves, so unfortunately, as usual, Mr Park-as-I-Please Beemer gets away with it.
I wonder how well advised the cyclist was in Court?
And in this case would cycling legal insurance cover the cost of a specialist solicitor?
The cyclist here needs to look into Section 142 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, firstly because there was no offence, and secondly because it appears that the police mislead the Court.
“A magistrates’ court may vary or rescind a sentence or other order imposed or made by it when dealing with an offender if it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to do so;] and it is hereby declared that this power extends to replacing a sentence or order which for any reason appears to be invalid by another which the court has power to impose or make.”
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/43/section/142
We have pretty much eliminated jackcycles and courteousdriver from consideration, but headingley is a little different as a representative of the Provisional Pro-Police wing, as opposed to the Official Anti-Cyclist agitators. He claims that almost all of his submissions ‘result in positive action’ but is unwilling, and probably unable, to provide a single submission with this verified ‘positive action by the police’. His function is Police Black Ops to endorse the police’s own distorted and manipulated statistics but is, appropriately for a police officer or associate, not very good and not at all credible. I urge you again, headingley, to Show Us the Goods! You should, at least, be able to come up with a worthless ‘advice letter’!
There is a legal framework for the driver of the hybrid vehicle turning right into a side road, suddenly, and without signal; https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/3
This is a textbook example of not paying attention or giving due care to other road users.
West Yorkshire Police need their heads sorting.
“not appropriate”
Translation: “do not like”
A couple of days ago I experienced a very clear cut case where I was riding in a narrow section of side road between parked cars and a car turned into the side road straddling the white line at the junction and entered the narrow section I was already in not leaving me any room to pass. I was forced to stop and yet the driver took umbrage.
I’m sure most readers on here have experienced this situation many times if not experienced it as a daily occurrence and had to take evasive action in order to avoid collisions.
I reported the incident to the police with very clear video evidence. It is a clear breach of Highway Code rules 213 and 183.
In light of the WYP prosecution one would expect that the police should also prosecute my case quite vigorously as this case was much more serious.
However I don’t expect they will take this up so this will be an interesting if predictable test.
I received a message from the Met this morning saying that they are taking action. I’m pleasantly surprised.
@Pub bike Well done. Excellent. Let us see the video!
As well as the generally ignored ‘rules’ of the Highway Code you cite, there’s the much-feted rule H3, dealing with the even more ignored ‘hierarchy’ which is universally deemed to not apply in Lancashire, where even being a cyclist already on a roundabout is not thought by the police to imply priority or an obligation on a driver to look or cease concentrating on her mobile phone:
ttps://upride.cc/incident/mf67vep_audi_hierarchydenial/
ttps://upride.cc/incident/lwa190_minicooper_hierarchy/
ttps://upride.cc/incident/hk21rxt_focus_dangerousdriving/
Cyclist should have waited for the car to pass. If it was two cars trying to get through then the car that is blocked by a parked car waits. He only had to wait a couple of seconds for the other car to pass. Very simple and the cyclist put himself in danger not the driver of the car.
@masterzenfoo Yes, but he wasn’t blocked, was he. He proceded on his side of the road. The danger is relative, he obviously believed the risk level, to himself, was low enough to proceded.
And if this had been two cars where one had to squeeze past a parked car (remaining on their side or not), you will find that a very large number will do so. In that case there is, obviously, no danger to either driver.
This seems vindictive on the part of the police.
Close pass by a car on a cyclist: cyclist is at risk and has no choice in the matter.
‘Close pass’ as in the current case: cyclist is at risk and chooses whether it is safe to pass the stationary car (or not, in which case they can stop and wait) whilst staying within the white lines of their lane. You can be sure that the cyclist was taking very great care and attention in making this manoeuvre not the reverse as stated by the police.
Should this be upheld, the implications for city cycling are huge. It will require cyclists to stop whenever there is a parked car on their side of a single carriageway road when there is an oncoming vehicle.
@iainf I run cameras and I always stop behind a parked car unless there is at least a bikes width between the car and the white line. The choice then depends on the likelihood of the car door opening and the speed of the approaching car. I do not want to give the police any grounds for prosecuting me when I submit my footage and it has the added benefit that drivers know they should do the same for me when the situation is reversed. Many drivers seem genuinely surprised that I am willing to stop.
I don’t know whether it’s down to this, the changes in the highway code or me riding primary but I am finding most local drivers are more and more willing to wait behind a parked car until I have passed. The main exception to this is the follow my leader situation which I find extremely annoying.
Of course when I do have to report drivers for doing what this cyclist did the results are very patchy to say the least. For a couple of reports I was told that the fact that I continued cycling towards the car before swerving into the gutter undermined my case (NFA). The fact that the driver continued to drive at the cyclist in this example didn’t seem to undermine their case.
@Bungle_52 You note “at least a bike’s width, and in this case there was. Interestingly, just yesterday I passed a couple of parked cars (no oncoming traffic) and two cars going the same direction as I was overtook me as I did so. There was plenty of room but would this be driving without due care and attention?