Avon and Somerset Police received a record number of ‘journey-cam’ submissions in 2025, the vast majority of which came from cyclists, the latest figures from the force show.
The force, also covering Bristol and South Gloucestershire, saw a 23 per cent increase in footage submitted by drivers, cyclists, motorcyclists, and passengers, with cyclists making up more than two thirds of all submissions last year.
According to the figures, 11,282 journey cam reports of dangerous or careless driving were submitted to Avon and Somerset Police in 2025, with 7,674 coming from cyclists.
And in promising news for camera cyclists disgruntled by the lack of response from their own local police force when it comes to close passes and dangerous driving, only 11 percent (870) of the 7,674 recorded submissions from cyclists resulted in no further action being taken, the same rate as 2024.
5,212 warning letters were also issued during 2025, whilst 1,541 incidents met the threshold of a ‘positive outcome’, namely a notice of intention to prosecute.
This time last year we reported that Avon and Somerset Police had received 8,595 video reports from both cyclists and motorists of alleged road safety incidents, such as close passes, phone driving, and road rage, in 2024, an increase of just over 300 compared to 2023.
2,539 of those resulted in notices of intended prosecution being sent to the drivers responsible, while 5,158 were dealt with through warning letters, meaning almost 90 per cent of all submissions led to “some form of action” being taken.
As we also reported in 2024, Avon and Somerset receives more third-party video reports of dangerous driving than any other police force in England and Wales. Between 2021 and 2024, the force was sent just shy of 20,000 submissions (19,949 in total), with 12,154 of those (61 per cent) coming from cyclists.
4,662 of those led to a Notice of Intended Prosecution being served, with 85 per cent of the reports made by cyclists leading to action being taken, compared to the quarter of submissions from motorists that were dismissed. Almost a third of the force’s reports came from Bristol.
Following the release of those figures last year, Avon and Somerset’s chief inspector Rob Cheeseman said the force is being sent more footage from cyclists and motorists than ever before.
“I think that’s due to just how more popular certain camera use is, particularly with dashcams in vehicles,” Cheeseman said.
“So more potential offences are being identified by other road users, which are then being submitted to us.”
However, due to the ever-increasing volume of clips being submitted through Operation SNAP, Avon and Somerset Police has admitted that it is forced to focus on the “most urgent cases first” – while noting that the third-party reporting tool is not a means to “target drivers unnecessary”.
“It’s certainly something which we’ve had to adapt to,” Cheeseman said of the recent rise in third-party video reporting.
“It’s certainly a more relatively new version of reporting crime to the police. The community is speaking really loudly that these are dangers on the road.
“The goal is not to be targeting drivers unnecessarily – the ultimate goal is making the roads safer for everyone in Avon and Somerset.”
Avon and Somerset Police are one of at least 26 police forces that take part in Operation SNAP an online portal, which enables people to upload and submit evidence of driving offences to the police. However, the rate of prosecution and inconsistency of action taken varies widely by region.
After an FOI request in 2023 found that Surrey Police issued warning letters in more than 80 percent of reported incidents, the force told road.cc that it was often “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.
And last September we reported that official police data revealed that hundreds of reports showing video footage of alleged dangerous and careless driving on the roads of the West Midlands are being missed by police struggling to process evidence in time.
Of the 2,017 Operation Snap reports made by the public to West Midlands Police in April 2025, 65 per cent failed to have any action taken before the 14-day window police forces have to issue a Notice of Intended Prosecution had passed.
26 thoughts on “Police receive record number of camera submissions in 2025… most of them from cyclists (again)”
This is encouraging. There’s still a bit too much reliance on warning letters, but a significant number of prosecutions is good to see.
Let’s hope Avon & Somerset Police decline their invitation to the Lancs Police efficiency training course
Let’s hope Avon & Somerset Police decline their invitation to the Lancs. Police efficiency training course
Doesn’t matter, because they’ve clearly already been on the Spinning and Bending Statistics course
They are more interested in dog shit.
https://www.lancasterguardian.co.uk/news/people/lancaster-police-launch-search-for-person-who-sprayed-dog-faeces-with-pink-paint-5605519
I did not want to click in so I’m assuming that Lancaster Police are more interested in catching the person who sprayed the dog faeces than the person who didn’t clear it up.
Spraying it makes it easier to spot so that someone else doesn’t tread in it, helps authorities identify it so that they can clear it up, and maybe, just maybe, the perpetrator will see it and feel a tiny bit ashamed.
Shame on you Lancaster Police, but then that is what others here have been saying for a long time.
Shame on you Lancaster Police, but then that is what others here have been saying for a long time
Rather unfair! I doubt if Lancaster police are any worse than the great mass of the rest of Lancashire Constabulary
Meanwhile in Kent, I’ve never had a single response to any of the reports I’ve filed. I know that the can have been no action as the report form does not allow the uploading of a video – and no one has ever contacted me from Kent Police asking for a video. So clearly there must be a policy of ignoring reports.
So clearly there must be a policy of ignoring reports…
Kent obviously has been on the Lancashire Constabulary courses
Yes, that matches my experience with reporting to Kent Police over the last 4 years (they were more responsive before that, during a period when video could be uploaded as part of the initial report). In email communication I had with them in 2022, they confirmed that they deprioritise any report that does not state that a collision occurred. In other words, they aren’t interested in preventative policing.
In other words, they aren’t interested in preventative policing
In other, other words: Get yourself KSI’d and we’ll see what we can do
Disclaimer: …unless any motorist objects on the grounds of ‘war against the motorist’, or the cyclist swears while being hit etc. etc.
Here in Devon and Cornwall, the police response seems pretty good. Several of us in my local club have been told that positive action resulted from our video submissions. Even if that’s just a letter, I am happy because I think that if word spreads that more and more cyclists have cameras, it just might make drivers think twice before attempting that dangerous overtake.
Likewise here in Dorset, I believe they share portal resources with Devon & Cornwall. My personal experience after what seemed like a not so positive start, once I’d nailed the “correct” way of writing the statement, vastly improved in terms of NIP/letter responses.
once I’d nailed the “correct” way of writing the statement, vastly improved in terms of NIP/letter responses
Ah! All Mouth, No Trousers Boy is back. After previously accusing me of numerous vexatious and inaccurate reports to the police, he failed to respond to my challenge to cite even one of them (there was no shortage of them on here!) and to display one of his own top class submissions on a link and evidence of the police action which resulted. He presumably has even more of those now, with his vastly improved ‘nailing’ of his superior technique. These are the last two which were resolutely ignored by Lancashire Constabulary
Get some help you tedious fool.
Get some help you tedious fool
This is how it’s done, All Mouth No Trousers Boy, by people who are actually out cycling and submitting cases for the benefit of the cycling community, as opposed to those sitting at home making up self-aggrandising stories about ‘nailing’ the correct way of submitting to achieve ‘vastly improved’ numbers of NIPs/ letters while being unable to display one video or any evidence of the police ‘action’.
You are Pathetic Trolling Toad and ICMFP
Link to the data:
https://media.aspolice.net/uploads/production/20260204103554/JourneyCam-Report-October-2020-December-2025.xlsx
I regularly submit reports to A&S Police, and keep detailed records of what I have submitted, and the responses.
I have been doing some cross-checking between my records and the police dataset. I’m afraid correlation is patchy at best. So, I am not confident in the dataset’s accuracy.
Further, where I can be fairly certain of a correlation, it’s been largely warning letters issued for very clear video evidence of hand-held mobile phone use whilst driving. No wonder I see so many doing so. They have nothing much to fear.
:o(
Should I keep bothering?
I have been doing some cross-checking between my records and the police dataset
How do you do that? The spreadsheet has been designed to ensure that you can’t. There’s no unique code for each incident, so why haven’t they included that? There are many incidents dated from the same location on the same day by the same despised reporter category (cyclist) for the same offender category (such as ‘car’). The great majority of intended (as usual in these misleading ‘databases’, it’s not the real outcome) outcomes is the entirely useless ‘warning letter’. Is there anybody out there who believes that the average police officer could rouse either the wit or the willingness to determine whether the offender has received a warning letter previously?! Some people will be receiving numerous such letters to throw in the bin, which encourages them to repeat the offence. As for the claimed ‘positive outcome’!- only the most deluded could believe that
The cross checking is limited but I do have the matching data fields on my own records which correspond with the police’s data fields: ‘Offence Date’, Offending Vehicle Type’, ‘Reporter’ (‘Cyclist’ for me), ‘Location Town or City’, ‘Primary Offence’.
If that isn’t replicated in the database for an incident I have reported it tells me something is wrong with the database.
If I have reported an incident and there are several matching possibilities then, yes, I cannot tell if they relate to my report or someone else’s.
I cannot tell if they relate to my report or someone else’s
Yes, that’s the point – the aim of the pseudo – database is to shut the punters up and deceive them about how little the police have done. They know the deception scheme has been successful when people report on here that they have achieved successful outcomes from most of their reports. They haven’t.
Victims, not witnesses, have the right to know.
Benthic wrote : “Victims, not witnesses, have the right to know.”
In Gloucestershire I am always given the outcome of my reports if I ask quoting the incident number. The only problem is I have to wait a year to find out unless it’s NFA or an advisory letter in which case they tell me straight away when they give me the incident number for my report.
I’ve posted this information on here before but there doesn’t seem to be any one else who reports in Gloucestershire for me to know whether it’s just me or general policy.
It does seem that different forces have very different policies when it comes to how to deal with close passes and telling reporters the outcomes. I notice that some of the close pass reports in your data have got “positive outcome” whereas most have got “warning letter”. I have been told that they can’t send warning letters for close passes as there was no evidence of an offence but they are now sending advisory letters.
More details here but you will need to read the comments for the full story.
https://road.cc/content/news/close-pass-isnt-offence-says-police-officer-310433
Having said all that I have had one close pass which has resulted in points and a fine but if you read the text I assume that someone has made an error and it won’t happen again.
https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-931-314751
This is interesting (that most reports come from cyclists) as I thought CyclingMikey said that the majority of dangerous driving reports are from other drivers.
Not sure if he meant for the Met police (London) or country wide.
So it would be good to get countrywide stats and breakdowns.
This clip on Cycling Mikey’s channel states:
“The public made 150,000 video allegations across England and Wales in the last year, and most were prosecuted/ 2/3rds from drivers with dashcams, and 1/3rd from cyclists and pedestrians.”
“The public made 150,000 video allegations across England and Wales in the last year, and most were prosecuted/ 2/3rds from drivers with dashcams, and 1/3rd from cyclists and pedestrians”
This is obviously untrue- virtually none of a large number of submissions to Lancashire Constabulary are being ‘prosecuted’. If you look at Benthic’s A&S police ‘database’ above you will see that almost all of the claimed actions are ‘Warning letter’ and a lot of the rest are ‘Positive outcome’
As a regular reporter not in central Bristol, looking at this data, I have been reasonably sure that the worst close passes have not been met with warning letters. At the moment, though, they’re taking 3 months to action phone reports (!) and it seems they are only getting warning letters, principally due to this inordinate delay. It really detracts from the road safety messages A&S put out about how serious an issue phone distraction is.
The service appears to be very understaffed. I don’t know how they will cope with the surge of summer reports.