A cycling campaign has blasted the police force and declared that they have “no confidence” in their ability to protect cyclists after they judged a driver to be “showing consideration” just because they moved slightly to their right across the white line in what appears to be a shocking close pass.
Colchester Cycling Campaign, sharing pictures of the incident, wrote on social media: “According to Essex Police, ‘The driver is clearly showing consideration by moving out, across the centre white line.’
“Sadly, we have no confidence in Essex Police or Safer Essex Roads in protecting cyclists from careless and dangerous drivers. Extra Eyes has no vision.”
According to @essexpoliceuk.bsky.social "The driver is clearly showing consideration by moving out, across the centre white line". Sadly, we have no confidence in @essexpoliceuk.bsky.social or Safer Essex Roads Partnership in protecting cyclists from careless and dangerous drivers.
[image or embed]
— Colchester Cycling Campaign (@colchestercycling.bsky.social) 2 March 2025 at 20:23
Extra Eyes is a road safety campaign launched by Safer Essex Roads Partnership (SERP), a joint initiative between various departments within the county, aimed at encouraging road users to capture footage and submit it to the team.
> “We must avoid encouraging risk taking or deliberate incitement for others to offend”: Heavily criticised road safety campaign stands by message to cyclists “proactively” seeking bad driving
On its website, the team says: “The increasing availability of mass market ‘on the go’ cameras mean more irresponsible, dangerous, and illegal road behaviour is being recorded in video form than ever before. Through ‘Extra Eyes’, this footage can be sent to us for review by an investigator within Road Policing at Essex Police.
“In appropriate cases, we will have no hesitation in taking positive action against offenders, using the evidence that you supply, providing it meets the criteria.
“Where appropriate, offenders will be offered a driver improvement course at their expense to educate them and ultimately improve their attitude towards driving. Where the criteria for one of these courses is not met, a fixed penalty notice or escalation to court proceedings may follow.”
Colchester Cycling Campaign shared another picture of a close passing driver and wrote: “Apparently the Mercedes driver is showing consideration but the driver of the Ford merited a course or conditional offer. Does this make sense to anyone?”
The news hasn’t been taken well by cyclists on social media, who have condemned the police’s actions. One person wrote: “Essex is my least favourite place to cycle. Roads are totally lawless and Essex Police are completely ineffectual. The Met area or Herts is better.”
Another person said: “It’s Essex. Neither Essex Highways nor Essex Police really give a shite about the safety of anyone cycling on their roads.”
> Near Miss of the Day 910: Cyclist "let down" by police response to shocking close pass by speeding driver
Yet another Bluesky user added: “That's not good enough, moving out slightly is not a consideration. Whoever makes these decisions and supports them is not fit to do the job and should resign. I’ve not reported anything for months, they are only interested in making excuses for dangerous drivers.”
The cyclist who goes by the online persona of ‘Chaponabike’ replied: “It’s a resource issue. Cheaper to send out a warning letter and hope the offending driver behaves themselves in future. The police don’t have the resource to pass all of this to the CPS,” to which Colchester Cycling Campaign responded saying: “We don't accept that. Changing the behaviour of drivers is far cheaper than dealing with the consequences.”
This isn’t the first time cyclists have been left disappointed with Essex Police’s decision-making in judging a close pass. In June last year, we featured one such rider on our Near Miss of the Day series, who was left “shaken” when a speeding driver overtook him before a traffic island.
He criticised the police for offering the offending driver the choice of points or a fine as punishment, saying: “I reported it to Essex Police as soon as I got home. After chasing for the result, they stated the driver will be offered the choice of a driving course or points and fine.
“I felt let down by this and did write to them to complain about the outcome, but to date have not received a response.”
The Extra Eyes initiative also came under heavy criticism in April 2023, when SERP’s Twitter account replying to a question asking why one example of a cyclist's footage of a mobile phone-using driver would not be accepted, saying: “We accept these if they are reported by cyclists who record it in passing while on their commute but not from those who proactively seek out examples of poor driving.”
Add new comment
8 comments
The Groves penalty looks fair enough to me - he doesn't swing far enough over before sitting up, and obstructs other riders (primarily the Trek rider) still trying to sprint behind him. The celebration is neither here nor there.
Seems to me Essex Police are completely correct - the driver has seen the cyclist and considered how far over they need to move to avoid scratching their car.
"close-passing driver is judged to be “showing consideration” by moving across white line" - and yet is still waaay closer than 1.5 metres, I think. Are Essex police basically saying, "Well, there was no collision so it's all good"?data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3f24b/3f24bbca800a9441d0e4033b255946e9364649a5" alt="no no"
I've lost count of the number of times close passers with whom I've remonstrated have shouted, "I was over the line, I was over the line!" There is a huge lack of understanding of the fact that the average UK lane width is around 300 cm, a cyclist will be about 60 cm wide and riding to Highway Code recommendations 50 cm off the kerb/verge, leaving roughly 190 cm between their offside and the white line, meaning that to leave them the required 150 cm passing distance all but 40 cm of the car width must be in the oncoming lane, i.e. at an absolute minimum the nearside tyres should be touching the centreline. In my experience the majority of drivers appear to believe that if their offside wheels are over the centre line they must, by definition, have left enough space. Perhaps it's time safety campaigns stopped using well-intentioned illustrations of what 1.5 m looks like and simply start saying that if your left hand tyres aren't on the centreline then you are too close to the cyclist.
I wonder if the advice should change so that the overtaking driver should be entirely in the other lane.
Are Essex police basically saying, "Well, there was no collision so it's all good"?
Yes- that's exactly what they, along with most UK forces, are saying. If there is a collision (a police way of saying that the driver ploughed into the cyclist) then there's insufficient evidence to contradict the uninjured party's statement that the cyclist came out of nowhere, I didn't stand a chance, I'm a cyclist myself...
I think thats exactly what they are saying. "What are you whinging about, I didn't hit you" basically.
whereas the whole point is that they didn't hit you this time