- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Tubeless valves
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
forum
Met Police - learning results of submissions
London camera cyclists may be interested to know that, according to a response I've just received from the traffic public reporting team (after I said that if they wouldn't tell me the outcome of a submission I would have to make an FOI request for it) that apparently "a project is underway and hopefully will be live in December 2024, where you will be able to view the results of Public Reporting traffic offences." That would be a definite step forward if it comes to pass!
If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.
Latest Forum Topics
Latest Comments
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 40 min ago
Not every freehub makes a noise, especially older ones manufactured before sounding like a Maxim gun apparently became a badge of honour.
- ubercurmudgeon 2 hours 11 min ago
Some quotes need to be put around the word "reciprocal" in the first paragraph.
- David9694 2 hours 47 min ago
this one is wide open for puns, come on people.
- BikingBud 2 hours 47 min ago
Do you mean this woman, who got out to marshall the truck through and is now walking back to said Wankpanzer which is blocking the road again as it...
- mark1a 3 hours 2 min ago
This simply isn't true. I've been running radar lights for 10 years now. I cycle mostly on rural roads, I get notified of approaching vehicles up...
- Rendel Harris 5 hours 32 min ago
Genuinely puzzled as to how you've extrapolated that from what I said. Care to explain?
- Pub bike 1 hour 15 min ago
He is up against the global trading system, which has obviously been in the news a lot lately. Framebuilders in other countries can undercut him,...
- Destroyer666 21 hours 6 min ago
Have you owned Bont shoes? In my experience even the widest Lake shoes have had a bizarre form of narrowing way too much in the toe area. But the...
Add new comment
68 comments
So: I'm still hoping that somebody who sent in a video to the Met. (or to any police force) and who then received the 'we're taking action but we're not going to tell you what it was' missive, and where the video of the offence is online, can send me the evidence of a proper penalty for an offence against a cyclist: either from this Met. (or the Northamptonshire web page which preceded it) spreadsheet, or from a letter from the police. Bungle_52 provided an exemplary case! One thing that struck me about the Met. speadsheet (apart from 'why not provide the case reference?' which suggests to me they're trying to make it as difficult as possible to put people off) was the number of people where the evidence was written off as not to the required standard. My experience is that my evidence is first rate and I think that this is just yet another police dodge to ditch cases they don't like. How do you get better than these? - I suspect most submissions are of comparable quality,and many of these Met write-offs were mobile phone offences which are easy to get when there are lots of traffic queues
https://upride.cc/incident/pe18ojj_insignia_redlightpass/
https://upride.cc/incident/dp14fym_insignia_closepassdwlcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/n7blh_rangerover_closepassuwlcross/
And this one was 'closed' by an un-named police officer as soon as it went in, you won't be surprised to see
https://upride.cc/incident/kn21axh_lancspolice_closepass/
Well, I finally got some response from my repeated requests as to what was happening with the alleged database and was supplied with a link which shows all reports and action taken from 1/23 to 11/24, which may be of interest to others who have reported incidents in London:
https://www.met.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/foi-media/metropolitan-police/pr...
Not exactly the publicly accessible database I was promised and hardly easy to use, no car registration numbers so you have to find the date of the incident and then scroll through all incidents recorded on that day to find the location. Most of my reports, I presume due to the backlog in the courts, are marked as "prosecution ongoing".
Thanks for the update. I've wondered about where this would end up.
When you say most of your reports are "prosecution ongoing" do you mean you get a response to most of yours? I've rarely received any acknowledgement of mine. But I'll be getting the laptop out to look at that link in a few hours.
I generally get a response saying that action will be taken in 90% of cases I submit (I do only submit ones that I believe are absolute certanties); from the data on the spreadsheet it looks as if, for that time period at least, it's about 40% advisory letters and 60% "ongoing/potential prosecution" which I assume, possibly optimisitcally, means course/points or court. I haven't been asked to court as a witness for nearly three years though so I have to assume they are mostly the former.
N.B. Sorry for the lack of clarity in my original post, I meant to say that they are marked as prosecution/ongoing, two different categories. It would help of course if the Met, in addition to the data, explained what those two things actually meant.
Thanks again for the link to the spread sheet. It is very cumbersome to filter by date and then try and find/guess the location you were riding! Would it have killed them to include their own reference number they provide after a submission?!
It should still be useful to see what offences are taken forward by the Met though. And it may help with being aware of what videos have been successful in the past.
Edit: did you find out what happened with the driver of the Zipcar?
Yes - warning letter! Outrageous considering the number of laws he broke and it makes me wonder whether it's worth submitting anything to the Met unless someone actually hits me. The only thing that keeps me bothering is the fact that quitting is obviously what they want us to do, or at least that's the message I'm getting from the total lack of cooperation and information from the traffic unit and the risible sanctions drivers are getting for offences that are absolutely open and shut points plus fine if not more.
Calling HoarseMann!
If you look back to the links in my post below with the Travellers Choice coach photo, you'll know what this refusal letter from Lancashire Constabulary dated 9.2.23 is about
Lancashire Constabulary can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any information relevant to this request as the duty in Section1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemption:
Section 40(5) Personal Information
To confirm or deny whether we hold any information would in itself reveal the personal data of the subject(s). It is important to note that disclosures under the FOIA are considered as disclosures “to the world” and as such, to confirm or deny whether or not any information is held would be unfair on the data subject(s).
This exemption is engaged therefore as it satisfies the following two conditions:
1. To confirm whether or not the information is held would reveal the personal data of a data subject as defined by Article 4 (1) of GDPR and Part 1 Section (3)(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018.
2. That to confirm whether or not the information is held would contravene one of the data protection principles contained within GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 respectively, namely the first one, which states that personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully (and in the case of GDPR in a transparent manner).
Section 40(5) is an absolute class-based exemption therefore neither the public interest test nor evidence of harm in disclosure needs to be outlined.
This letter serves to act as a refusal notice for this request, as per S.17 (1) of the FOI Act. As per Section 40(5) of the FOI Act, this letter should not be taken as a confirmation or denial that Lancashire Constabulary holds any information pertinent to this request.
I'm going to resubmit the FoI request again, just to see how much time, expense and effort they're prepared to waste on the cover-up. What I would like from HoarseMann, and from Rendel in the event that the Met does eventually fulfil their promise is a case with a description of the original offence and a piece of the evidence submitted with the registration number of the vehicle, along with the outcome. Thanks
The vehicle registration plate is not personal data of the subject since only DVLA can reference that to a Registered Keeper for Police purposes, thus failing the 'public' test.
So I concur that they are attempting to BS you with this response...
But the Information Commissioner (who is really the Information Restriction Commissioner, see below for his Decision Notice) agreed with Lancashire Constabulary, and will do again when the police refuse my '2 years later' repeat request!
IC confirmation bias at it's finest, and not the facts of the matter IMHO.
I was pleased this week that, although Operation Snap can't tell you the outcome of individual reports (beyond "positive action taken") they did proactively respond to some of my reports to tell me how I can better evidence the offence so they can take further action. Turns out they prefer video evidence to prove beyond doubt a car is parked on zig zag lines; a still won't do.
Turns out they prefer video evidence to prove beyond doubt a car is parked on zig zag lines; a still won't do
They 'prefer' what you haven't got! When you give them that they simply don't respond.
We'll see. Positive action taken on every report I've made so far, but my guess is it's just warning letters so far for the zig zag line offence.
Positive action taken on every report I've made so far...
Your cynicism may be well founded in Lancashire, but since I have been to court on one of my reports, I do actually believe them.
Bungle_52 below says: Gloucestershire will now only send an advisory letter for a close pass no matter how close. That shows how much progress is being made on close-passing: none. Some force, may have been Gloucestershire, recently demanded that cyclist have to demonstrate that they have been 'inconvenienced' by a close pass, and Essex (I think) came up with the idea years ago that there had to be evidence that the cyclist had braked or changed course before they would take close-passing seriously. Lancashire, as far as it's possible to tell, has never taken anybody to court over close passing a cyclist, and it's doubtful if Gloucestershire has. WU59 UMH is outside the Eagle and Child pub in Garstang right now, with no VED for over 7 years and previously, before his business insurance must have forced him to get one, had no MOT for 6 years and a badly failed MOT for 6 months. Police Officers and their attitudes are the problem badly affecting cycling safety on UK roads, and it's not only Lancashire and Scotland
Latest update from my contact at the Met: "The database has been sent back to development, therefore we are waiting for an update from IT." Hmm. FOI request submitted.
Yep! True to form. Surely, they can't be dim enough to sit on it for as long as possible and then claim 'something...something..GDPR..etc'? Can they?
Disappointing to hear that.
If I can ask, what was the format of your FOI request? Was it just a list of reference numbers you provided and you asked for the outcomes for each? How many cases did you ask for? Thanks!
Sorry for the late reply, only just seen this: I was just asking for information on one particular case, with the reference number. It was one I specifically wanted to check on because the offender was driving a Zipcar and I wanted to see if that would be used as a "too difficult to identify the driver" excuse for NFA.
Ah right, that would be an interesting case to find the result of.
And don't mind the tardy reply or lack of a reply! Its always a bit of guesswork on whether any comment will get a response or whether I'll even remember what I've written where!
FOI request submitted
There is an almost infinite number of dodges which enable public authorities to refuse FoI requests, and they could do it here under 'intention to publish the information' followed by continuing 'technical difficulties' to prevent you knowing for as long as possible how little they did when they 'promised to take action but won't tell you what it is'. However, if they do refuse to tell you about a few specific cases you will know there's a lot of weaselling ahead. They're relying on many people not being organised enough to follow up on this 'action' or being satisfied that 'words of advice' and 'advice letter' really constitute a deterrent. They don't- and still less do all those NIPs the police couldn't be bothered to follow up themselves 'because vehicle not traceable' or because the offender refuses to admit the offence or 'has no recollection of it'.
FOI request submitted
We must now be very close to 4 weeks from your FoI request Rendel- at this time of year without public holidays that's all the time they're allowed to reply. The police have tried it on with me a couple of times and haven't replied within the specified time, claiming 'pressure of work'. Don't let them get away with it. Say you sent it in on a Wednesday, then be ready to send in your complaint to the Information Commissioner website at 8 am on the Thursday 4 weeks later, if they haven't replied by then. ICO has to issue a decision against them for failure to reply, and gets them off on the wrong foot. This doesn't matter if they then provide the information you want, but if they refuse you get straight back in with another complaint challenging their refusal, mentioning their failure to reply in the specified time. That teaches them a lesson!
Thanks for the advice, you're a man after my own heart in terms of keeping after them! I haven't been able to focus much on this over the last month because I've had my hands full looking after someone close to me who has been very ill but in any case I've hit rather a stumbling block: the police did respond in time to the FOI request but came back saying that they could not release the information because of GDPR but that I can apply for the information by making a Subject Access Request. To make such a request you need to supply a copy of your passport to prove identity and proof of address within the last three months, this being a driving licence or a copy of a utility bill with my name and address on that is less than three months old. I don't have a driving licence and all the bills I have are more than three months old, so somewhat stalled. The council tax bill should be coming in soon and I will renew my pursuit of them then.
Surely, they can't be dim enough to sit on it for as long as possible and then claim 'something...something..GDPR..etc'? Can they?
So, the conclusion is that they were planning for sometime in December a facility that provided the outcome of any reported offence to the person who reported it and was therefore in possession of the report reference, but that proposal has now disappeared into the long grass 'the database has been sent back to development, therefore we are waiting for an update from IT' and you ask for that very information and they're making it difficult ?!
A little pedantic point on this "after I said that if they wouldn't tell me the outcome of a submission I would have to make an FOI request for it".
If you had asked them for the information, then they were obliged to supply it under the terms on the Freedom of Information Act. You don't have to make "an FOI request".
The relevant section of the Act is below - as you'll see, no need to say "this is an FOI request". (To be clear, I'm not criticising Rendel, but public authorities who don't understand their duties.)
8 Request for information.
(1) In this Act any reference to a “request for information” is a reference to such a request which—
(a) is in writing,
(b) states the name of the applicant and an address for correspondence, and
(c) describes the information requested.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a request is to be treated as made in writing where the text of the request—
(a) is transmitted by electronic means,
(b) is received in legible form, and
(c) is capable of being used for subsequent reference.
If you had asked them for the information, then they were obliged to supply it under the terms on the Freedom of Information Act
A little pedantic point on this: except they're not. There are numerous tricks to evade the responsibility to provide the information requested, and the agent who helps them to do that is, unfortunately, the Information Commissioner. See my post below by the big picture of the white coach. There are few cyclists, but many police officers and drivers, who would deny that I was the victim of the offence - and I still await official confirmation of what the police did about it (which, obviously, was nothing)
That's interesting information, thanks. I told them I would make a freedom of information act a request and along with the information about a new portal (which doesn't seem to have materialised, currently chasing up) they sent me a link to an official form for making such a request. A bit cheeky if they know that because I have asked they should answer anyway.
I'm loving this thread - no road tax (VED), but lots of Roman taxonomy(Vedi)
(Yes, I'm also mentally scarred from having to study latin at school, but this did mean that I laughed louder than most, at the scene in Life of Brian.)
We're approaching half way through December 24 now- any progress on the Met's hopefully will be live in December 2024, where you will be able to view the results of Public Reporting traffic offences?
I'm compiling my evidence to APPGCW, and pointing out the great lengths the police go to in covering-up that they didn't do anything about offences against cyclists. Lancashire refused to tell me, citing the usual GDPR distortion, while Northampton puts out huge lists of what happened in all their cases- you just have to know the reference number to find the relevant case on the published spreadsheet. So is the Carrick-Couzens Memorial Police Force going to come up with the promised counterpart to the Northampton scheme?
Pages