Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Cycling club wins police grant to buy action cameras for ride leaders

Portishead CC initiative is funded by Avon and Somerset Police Community Trust’s Road Safety Fund and other clubs are invited to apply

A leading cycling club in the west of England will be deploying front- and rear-facing cameras on all of its club rides after winning a grant for the initiative from Avon & Somerset Police Community Trust’s Road Safety Fund.

The funding has enabled North Somerset-based Portishead Cycling Club to buy multiple sets of cycle mounted cameras to capture footage of poor driving as well as ensuring that its members adhere to club rules.

Under the initiative, which is said to have the “clear support” of the club’s 190 members, ride leaders will also wear hi-viz bibs alerting motorists to the fact that they are being filmed, as well as highlighting that they should leave at least 1.5 metres of space when overtaking.

Club chairman Rob Ellis said: “The cameras will go out on each separate club ride and we will be producing a user guide for our ride leaders to follow to make certain the cameras are used correctly and only for the purpose intended, plus how to report and download any incidents to the police for investigation.

“Part of this guide will clearly outline that the cameras will not only be recording how motorists are driving, but also how we are riding as well.  This dual approach will give extra focus for our club riders to ride sensibly and by the rules too.”

Avon & Somerset Police & Crime Commissioner Mark Shelford invited other cycling clubs in the area to apply for similar support, saying: “I welcome this innovative use of Police Community Trust funding and actively encourage other cycling clubs to apply for similar projects or initiatives to ensure the safety of its members.

“We all need to ensure that our roads are safe for everyone who is using them and the Police Community Trust wants to say yes to as many local organisations as possible who are working towards the same aims. If you think your group has an idea of how you can help make roads safer, please apply!”

“Cycling remains a safe and efficient way to travel and we attend very few serious collisions involving cyclists but, we want to keep it that way. More and more people are choosing to ride for leisure or as an alternative to taking the car.

“However, despite all best practices being adopted there are still a number of unfortunate and unwelcomed incidents that can occur, often putting riders in danger of injury, such as dangerous and close overtakes from drivers, abuse and anger being directed at riders, or even items thrown at them from vehicles.”

Avon & Somerset Police says that it received 1,484 camera uploads with evidence of road related offences during the first six months of this year, resulting in 1,667 warning and prosecution letters being issued.

PC Dan Cox, road safety officer at Avon & Somerset Police, commented: “Cycling remains a safe and efficient way to travel and we attend very few serious collisions involving cyclists but, we want to keep it that way.

“More and more people are choosing to ride for leisure or as an alternative to taking the car.

“However, despite all best practices being adopted there are still a number of unfortunate and unwelcomed incidents that can occur, often putting riders in danger of injury, such as dangerous and close overtakes from drivers, abuse and anger being directed at riders, or even items thrown at them from vehicles,” he added.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

27 comments

Avatar
RoubaixCube | 3 years ago
2 likes

well, Its one thing to give people free cameras but its another thing if the police wont act on camera footage when submitted... A particular practise which we've all heard before that happens quite regularly across the nation when Mr Plod decides they cant be arsed to deal with it.

I wish Portishead CC the best of luck 

Avatar
Sriracha replied to Lance ꜱtrongarm | 3 years ago
1 like
Quote:

but honestly I think there are far better uses of public money.

and a third finger from your good self.

Avatar
mdavidford replied to Lance ꜱtrongarm | 3 years ago
6 likes

If you'd troubled to look a bit beyond the headline and the photo, you might have found that 

Quote:

Portishead Cycling Club was set up to promote cycling for all local people. The club has grown in the last five years to become one of the largest cycling clubs in the area with over 190 members cycling for exercise, sport or just to be part of riding in a social group.

...so not just road warriors on high-end bikes (and likely a lot of them are also commuters). The people in the photo are presumably club organisers, so not surprising if they're at the higher end of the enthusiast scale and prepared to invest a bit more in their bikes - it doesn't mean they're representative of the whole membership.

In any case, the cameras aren't being given to "people who could have just bought them themselves" - they're not being given to people at all - they're being given to the club, not for personal use.

Effectively, the police force has recruited an army of unpaid volunteers to carry out traffic policing operations for it for the minimal price of a few cameras and tabards, instead of paying expensive officers to do it - from their point of view, it seems like a clever money-saving move to me.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to mdavidford | 3 years ago
2 likes

mdavidford wrote:

Effectively, the police force has recruited an army of unpaid volunteers to carry out traffic policing operations for it for the minimal price of a few cameras and tabards, instead of paying expensive officers to do it - from their point of view, it seems like a clever money-saving move to me.

I couldn't agree more. For return on investment this has to be the smartest and easiest thing for police forces to do, providing that they've already sorted out their video reviewing procedures and resources.

They have more details on the cameras here: https://www.portisheadcycling.com/cameras

(Chilli bullet camera with replaceable lithium battery)

Avatar
brooksby replied to hawkinspeter | 3 years ago
2 likes

Maybe we could do like the Texans and deputise everyone as bounty hunters: put a bounty/reward on every mobile phone user, RLJer, or speeder reported to the police.

 

(to be clear, I massively disagree with what the Texans have actually deputised everyone to do, but bounty hunting might be a cost-saving exercise.  And I always wanted to wear Mandalorian armour...).

Avatar
OnYerBike replied to hawkinspeter | 3 years ago
0 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

mdavidford wrote:

Effectively, the police force has recruited an army of unpaid volunteers to carry out traffic policing operations for it for the minimal price of a few cameras and tabards, instead of paying expensive officers to do it - from their point of view, it seems like a clever money-saving move to me.

I couldn't agree more. For return on investment this has to be the smartest and easiest thing for police forces to do, providing that they've already sorted out their video reviewing procedures and resources.

Alternatively, it's a complete waste of money as not only have they forked out on the cameras, it will also take up valuable police time filing all the reports straight into the bin.

Avatar
mdavidford replied to OnYerBike | 3 years ago
4 likes

OnYerBike wrote:

Alternatively, it's a complete waste of money as not only have they forked out on the cameras, it will also take up valuable police time filing all the reports straight into the bin.

Remains to be seen, but seems like that would be something of an own goal. Unlike unsolicited individual submissions, where it's relatively easy to explain away lack of action case by case without the wider world taking much interest, they're going to look very silly if, at the end of this, Portishead CC are issuing press releases complaining about how they've failed to act on the results of their own initiative, which they've spent money on.

Avatar
Awavey replied to mdavidford | 3 years ago
0 likes

Though Avon & Somersets stats at least suggest they are more likely to act on submissions than some forces and seem to be dealing with large enough volumes they dont need to deputise club cyclists to get any more, have the police reached out to other clubs in their area to do similar ?

But it's an interesting point as to why the club went the route of the police grant, and not self fund it even just via their own club funds.

When I think I could have bought a decent n+1 for the amount I've spent on cameras in the last 5 years, and the best outcome thesedays amounts to some words on headed note paper, I've pretty much chucked my deputy badge in the sea.

Avatar
mdavidford replied to Awavey | 3 years ago
4 likes

Well, everyone's focussing on the supplying of the cameras, but that's only part of the scheme - it seems to be as much about the club and the police working together on how to produce quality submissions, so you'd hope that there'd be an improved 'strike rate' in terms of action being taken off the back of them.

Awavey wrote:

have the police reached out to other clubs in their area to do similar ?

PCC Mark Shelford wrote:

...the Police Community Trust wants to say yes to as many local organisations as possible who are working towards the same aims. If you think your group has an idea of how you can help make roads safer, please apply!

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to OnYerBike | 3 years ago
2 likes

OnYerBike wrote:

Alternatively, it's a complete waste of money as not only have they forked out on the cameras, it will also take up valuable police time filing all the reports straight into the bin.

Just as well that they're not doing that, then.

Avatar
Eton Rifle replied to OnYerBike | 3 years ago
3 likes

No, that's not fair. Avon & Somerset is one of the better forces for acting on video submissions. Judging by their first Half Year stats, less than 10% of all reports result in no further action.

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to hawkinspeter | 3 years ago
2 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

I couldn't agree more. For return on investment this has to be the smartest and easiest thing for police forces to do, providing that they've already sorted out their video reviewing procedures and resources.

They have more details on the cameras here: https://www.portisheadcycling.com/cameras

(Chilli bullet camera with replaceable lithium battery)

That depends really, because it seems many police forces are recieving more video submissions than they are interested in actioning for free.

On the other hand the cost of a few cameras is small, and the costs to society of dealing with KSIs is relatively high

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to wycombewheeler | 3 years ago
3 likes

wycombewheeler wrote:

That depends really, because it seems many police forces are recieving more video submissions than they are interested in actioning for free.

On the other hand the cost of a few cameras is small, and the costs to society of dealing with KSIs is relatively high

Police forces should prioritise dealing with video submissions as it's such a good, cheap way of getting more police 'eyes' out on the roads and collecting good quality evidence of bad and dangerous driving. It's also convenient as it's an easy desk job that isn't time critical (as long as they don't leave it for a week). If they really wanted to they could even set it up as work-from-home if an officer has mobility issues.

Avatar
mdavidford replied to Lance ꜱtrongarm | 3 years ago
4 likes

Repeating your unsubstatiated assumptions about the financial werewithal of those involved, and misleading characterisations of giving people 'freebies' doesn't make them any more true.

Do you actually read anything you respond to?

Avatar
mdavidford replied to Lance ꜱtrongarm | 3 years ago
4 likes

A photo of three people. Out of a club of 190+.

And you have no idea of whether the cost of their gear represents small change or many years of hard saving to them.

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to Lance ꜱtrongarm | 3 years ago
3 likes

Nigel Garrage wrote:

They now face the ignomity of not only paying for safety cameras that the police often ignore, but are also funding Sophie and Hugo de Snootsville's freebie out of their own hard-earned wages. I hope the camera doesn't damage their carbon handlebars.

"Ignomity" is not a word. Wouldn't usually pull people up on such a thing but as you're so snotty towards everyone else it's a pleasure to do so.

Regarding your remarks, there are many things the police and other public agencies supply or have supplied free, for example rape alarms, self-defence classes, smoke alarms, home security consultations. The point is to encourage people to have such items because in the long term they are a very worthwhile investment as by cutting incidences of crime, accidents, fires etc they save the huge costs these entail.

Of course the trouble with Tories like yourself is that you go as pink as sizzling gammon at the idea of anyone getting anything for free (except tax breaks for those who don't need them, of course) - that's why you're always trying to dismantle the NHS and the welfare state and moaning about civil servants' pensions.

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to Lance ꜱtrongarm | 3 years ago
6 likes

Nigel Garrage wrote:

It does irk me when freebies are handed out seemingly arbitrarily to people can easily afford to buy themselves 

But they're not being arbitrarily handed out, they're being handed out in a planned initiative to reduce dangerous driving and injuries and deaths on the road which cost far more than a handful of cheap cameras. One fatal road accident costs the exchequer in excess of £2M, each serious injury around £200,000, and each slight injury around £25,000. So if having camera-equipped cyclists prevented just one fatal injury accident because a driver made a better decision due to being worried about being nabbed, that would pay for 40,000 cameras. It's not a "freebie giveaway" but a serious investment in road safety.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

 when they could go to better things - for example local libraries, communities, youth centres, social care, the list goes on and on. But that's because Tories like myself know there isn't an infinite amount of money available or a tree that it grows on, but that costs should be carefully and efficiently managed.

It's your party, that has been in power since 2010, that has systematically slashed funds for all those amenities you mention! Hypocrisy, thy name is Nigel.

 

Avatar
TheBillder replied to Lance ꜱtrongarm | 3 years ago
2 likes
Nigel Garrage wrote:

I'm actually surprised you don't agree with this... I mean to take your smoke alarm example, I'm assuming that you'd rather low income families received grants for smoke alarms that the Windsors?

The alternative is means testing, the cost of which dwarves the cost of the cameras.

Perhaps there's a parallel with covid testing. I could afford to pay for mine, but I'd be far less likely to get tested and hence might wander about Lancashire villages spewing virus over innocent nimbies. There's a public benefit in providing them free of charge, to you, me and our own dear Queen for whom we pray every Sunday.

So often we see police asking if anyone has CCTV or dashcam footage. Here, the police community trust (a charity) is doing something to make sure there's more of it.

I agree that the police need the resources to process the evidence, and ultra-amazing Priti Patel, empowered by world king (if we had a true meritocracy) Boris have nearly succeeded in planning to put police numbers up to what they used to be.

And all the other things you mention also need money. But infrastructure, potholes and prosecution cost a lot more than giving out cameras to people who will definitely be on the road, are well engaged with the safety campaign and now have good contacts within the police. Makes perfect sense to me.

Avatar
mdavidford replied to TheBillder | 3 years ago
0 likes

TheBillder wrote:

...might wander about Lancashire villages spewing virus over innocent nimbies.

I believe the accepted phrasing is 'panting plumes of virus'.

Avatar
mdavidford replied to Lance ꜱtrongarm | 3 years ago
3 likes

Nigel Garrage wrote:

"I've never seen so many [rich and middle aged] white people in one place".

S'funny - I don't see anywhere where it tells you anything about their wealth or income.

How many times are you going to try this unsubstantiated claim about how rich they all are?

Avatar
OnTheRopes replied to Lance ꜱtrongarm | 3 years ago
1 like

Nigel Garrage wrote:

if these went anywhere they should have been provided to commuters rather than people who could have just bought them themselves,

So are commuters less able to buy their own than someone on a nice carbon road bike?

Avatar
growingvegtables | 3 years ago
6 likes

Kudos to Avon and Somerset Police Community Trust, and to Portishead Cycling Club, for the initiative.

But there is summat hugely dispiriting about it

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to growingvegtables | 3 years ago
2 likes

Indeed, I would rather not have to spend money on a decent camera, time making sure it is charged and has enough memory space, and especially time making submissions to the police. Unfortunately until there is a sea change in both cycle infrastructure provision and driver attitudes in this country they are going to be a regrettable necessity.

Avatar
open_roads | 3 years ago
1 like

It would be interesting to see the split between warning and prosecution letters. My bet's it's 99% of the former and less than 1% of the latter.

Avatar
Awavey replied to open_roads | 3 years ago
7 likes

747 NIPs vs 920 warning letters apparently, with only 179 no further actions. which means they prosecuted over half of all the submissions. Roughly 2/3rds of the submissions came from cyclists the rest came from cars,motorcyclists,horse riders and even pedestrians.

Maybe if more forces started publishing this data we'd start to get a picture of how they compared across the country.

Avatar
open_roads replied to Awavey | 3 years ago
1 like

That's really great to see - thanks for sharing the additional data.

Avatar
Arjimlad replied to open_roads | 3 years ago
1 like

You may be interested to know that the warning letters were drafted in collaboration with Dr Ian Walker, ultradistance cyclist & leading academic. Examples of the letters can be seen here: - 

https://bristolcycling.org.uk/cycling-with-video-cameras-a-cyclists-pers...

Latest Comments