- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- 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
- 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
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Close Pass CheshireCyclist reports four close passes to police... and is told he could be prosecuted
A cyclist was passed dangerously by motorists four times on one stretch of road but was told he could be prosecuted when he reported the offences to police because he cycled on a shared use path.
> Gwent Police confirm cyclist submitting close pass footage could face prosecution for swearing
Alan Robertson was riding along the A5117 which, ironically, had roadworks on it because it was having the shared use path installed.
Mr Robertson experienced four close passes on the road (which had a 30mph limit) in relatively quick succession and subsequently reported the incidents to Cheshire Police.
30mph limit. Close pass at speed into oncoming traffic. Driver will get an advice letter only. @Suzie_AS @Pinarello_Pete @roadcc pic.twitter.com/38yU2r3iry
— ... (@thisisclickbait) July 23, 2021
Mr Robertson received three emails back from the Constabulary, the first stating that one driver would face no action.
The second said that the other three motorists would get an advisory letter.
And the final email seemed to accuse the cyclist of breaking the law himself.
Was threaten with prosecution for this though- take wrong turn, do uturn, join new shared path, it ends abruptly, move slowly into coned area on road, see pram so move outside cone into live traffic lane to pass before pulling into Elton. Utter bullshit from this force imo. https://t.co/q2b71E6vAJ pic.twitter.com/bj0hm3X8Xv
— ... (@thisisclickbait) July 23, 2021
The officer, who works in the Road and Crime Unit, said: "Please bear in mind that all offences seen committed could be dealt with and a court if on viewing footage of a car driver committing offences and other offences are viewed could ask if they were also dealt with.
"On reviewing the footage at the end it can be seen that you cycle up the pavement via a pedestrian crossing traffic light controlled junction and then further along re-enter the correct side of the road through a coned off area (I’m afraid that it doesn’t look great when we’re trying to hold a motorist to account and a lot of this is about perception, if I’m holding one party to account I should also be others)."
Mr Robertson responded and explained his confusion and anger at the lack of any stronger action being taken against the drivers, and the implication that he could be prosecuted.
He said: "These vehicles were passing me into oncoming traffic,clearly without giving anything near sufficient space, and I'm sure your experience will tell you that they were all way in excess of the 30mph limit, even if you're not able to put a precise number on it.
"This was a long straight road in good conditions and there simply is no excuse for not being able to plan a safe pass here. Surely."
He continued: "I also take exception to your suggestion of wrongdoing on my part and I don't think my decision to enter an open section of the new shared pathway is in any way relevant at all.
"The reason I moved back into the carriageway was the path was shut and I saw a woman with a pram heading towards me. I'd suggest I actually displayed a degree of caution and consideration that perhaps you might in fact like to recognise instead of suggesting I was somehow at fault."
Latest Comments
- brooksby 26 min 57 sec ago
I wonder whether, in Hall-world, a vehicle carrying multiple passengers is more important than one carrying just the driver...
- Cra5hed 32 min 3 sec ago
It depends on how big an impact it makes on that 971 people. I see a lot of cars and not a single cyclist. In my experience cycling in London I...
- ubercurmudgeon 36 min 38 sec ago
Also they adore the dough from the ads bought by oil and car companies who, being expert pushers of the drug of sedentariness, don't like the...
- Gbjbanjs 1 hour 41 min ago
Great to see so many women represented. Like most top of lists, being on it is the achievement. Although I dont see wiggins getting into the top 12.
- chrisonabike 1 hour 19 min ago
Eh? Is that the "City Region *Sustainable* Travel Settlement"? I know this is shouting into the void. And probably quite a few people would be keen...
- IanEdward 2 hours 53 min ago
My first thought was 'does the world really need more gadgets with lithium batteries and copper coils and motors'?...
- David9694 3 hours 35 min ago
And I asked the store clerk what is the one thing that every city resident wants?
- David9694 5 hours 35 min ago
Police name man charged after car smashes into wall outside barbers...
- David9694 5 hours 42 min ago
Teenager arrested after car flips over in crash on Rainham High Street near Otterham Quay Lane...
Add new comment
41 comments
I see a lot of apology / recognition of a contrary view in a lot of police road traffic tweets; they clearly get push back from drivers with the usual "innocent/persecuted motorist/ haven't you got anything better to do?" Schtick.
No doubt a frequent response from drivers who receive any sort of action is "and did you prosecute the cyclist who reported me because and I wasn't going to mention it, but he did nurney, nurney nuuh" i.e. at most, self-preservation or self-defence.
They're rightly taught to be even-handed which is often difficult - but heaven forfend police should ever take the side of victims!
The police are thick, this is by design like America.
I think the average bobby is rather better than the US one who just seem to want to rapidly escalate to a high level of force. So you are being rather harsh.
As earlier, I read this as advice not a threat.
Better, yes, but certainly lazier. This seems like a deterrent towards the cyclist for giving the police some work to do. Why investigate the crimes when they can threaten the victim into dropping it and not reporting future crimes. Corrupt police.
Thankfully he wasn't shot 6 times.
It is my view that smoking anything while driving any motorised vehicle should be illegal.
Then motorists also have a right to view eating snacks while cycling as illegal as it poses a risk of imbalance while reaching for the snack from the back pocket, opening up the wrapper, then chewing and holding the said snack while riding.
There are a lot of accidents by riders losing control this way, as there probably have been accidents with smokers dropping their cigarettes in the vehicle.
There are a lot of accidents by riders losing control this way[1]
1 citation required
Then motorists also have a right to view eating snacks while cycling as illegal
A two-post dimwit with an exceptionally stupid comment. It hasn't happened yet, but it is obvious to me that imbibing addictive psychoactive drugs should not be permitted while driving. It is not yet illegal.
Important to remember the police also seem to only want to send foolproof cases through to Magistrates (if the driver declines the FPN) as either a huge excuse or because they have a low opinion of Magistrates
An example is red light jumping, the met have told me they either need to have 2 clear seconds of red light before they will prosecute or the driver accelerating towards it, otherwise Magistrates are liable to just let drivers off
Frustrating
the met have told me they either need to have 2 clear seconds of red light before they will prosecute or the driver accelerating towards it, otherwise Magistrates are liable to just let drivers off
If they told you that, they're lying. My strong assumption is that you were 'told' verbally- even Lancashire doesn't tell me that because I don't communicate with them by phone on the grounds that there's no 'acceptable' record of what was said. Print only is my rule, and they don't like lying in print- Lancashire's solution to this is to refuse to communicate at all. This 30-tonner FX62 AYH went through the lights at 50+ mph 1.6 seconds after they turned red. I'll have to wait and see if the Magistrates just let the driver off, if the police don't conspire to keep it out of court by allowing the driver to accept the joke course after all.
At 50 MPH, 1.6 seconds is 116 feet. That vehicle can't stop in that distance. But...
Including the amber phase of at least 4 seconds, that's 406 feet. That's at least possible.
With a 6 second amber, it's 550 feet and there's no excuse for the driver.
This page estimates the stopping distance (including reaction time) as 120 m (394 ft) at 55 MPH.
https://mocktheorytest.com/resources/lorry-braking-distances/
This is why the amber phase exists, I don't see why anyone should be let off for going through on red at all, because the amber gave them ample warning it would happen.
In addition to the fact that when approaching traffic lights you should be prepared to stop.
Lights change. Who knew?
This is why the amber phase exists, I don't see why anyone should be let off for going through on red at all, because the amber gave them ample warning it would happen
The important number is that during an amber phase of exactly 3 seconds, the 50 mph vehicle travels 220 feet. They're certainly not going to stop if they spend those 3 seconds accelerating, which is what all the red light crashers do.
The police are of course correct, but their diplomatic approach to assuaging the complainent of the risk to his own life leaves alot to be desired!
The police of course choose to interprete the law to suit their own needs. In Belfast I see cyclists on the path on a daily basis passing police wo/men, with the police not considering the safety of pedestrians by completly ignoring them.
As with age immemorial, the Police are a law unto themselves!
"It's the toxic mix of three things:
- police being under pressure because of a decade of cuts (thanks, Cameron/May/Johnson)"
I'm not sure this is completely correct.
There's a lot of noise made about 20,000 less officers but many of the officers in that figure were not actually on front line duties. In many cases, long term sickness and injury meant that thousands of officers were actually sidelined and doing menial administrative duties that could be performed by lower paid (and more efficient) civilian staff.
If we then look at where the police do spend their time, there's pretty good evidence of significant waste. Despite claiming to be resource constrained, the police have literally invented a new category of crime (Non crime hate incidents) and have invested millions of FTE hours recording 120,000+ offences - even though it's clearly outside of their mandate and borders on policing freedom of speech.
https://www.thearticle.com/illiberal-policing-its-time-to-abolish-non-cr...
Additionally, there has been a massive investment in technology / "Digital Policing" - over the last decade - releasing hundreds of thousands of man days from form filling and such like - Thames Valley Police reported they had saved 200 FTE years annually in admin time from just one IT project.
So the actual number of available hours for front line officers hasn't gone down as much as is suggested had it not been diverted for things the police shouldn't be doing in the first place.
Additionally, my own experience of the Met Police over the last 25 years is they have been consistently useless irrespective of the peaks and troughs of staff numbers. When bendy buses were introduced they literally did nothing about the dangerous standard of bus drivers even after a number of cyclists were seriously injured. Likewise, they've always shirked enforcement of ASL offences that would serve to protect cyclists at junctions. Other members of London Cycling Campaign will no doubt attest the same.
It's undoubtedly a difficult job, not least with the time the police now have to spend of mental health related problems, but I'm personally of the opinion that better leadership, coordinaton, administration and prioritisation could have a significant impact on the effectiveness of policing.
As we've all seen in the great coverage on Road.cc that there are literally hundreds of examples where the police basically can't be bothered to organise themselves to take action - even where we as cyclists give them all the evidence they need to do so. This is then compounded by behaviour that borders on dishonest when challenged about why they have failed to take action.
Nonsense. The cuts have had huge consequences, and the 20,000 you quote is purely officers. There is another, higher figure, for police staff.
Yes but "officers" doesn't translate to "front line officers". So the "officer" that's been on desk duties for 3 years is still counted as if they were front line even though they've spent years doing very low level admin work where little / no front line experience is required or useful. This has been widely covered for years - including by the National Audit Office so isn't really contentious.
coverage on Road.cc that there are literally hundreds of examples where the police basically can't be bothered to organise themselves to take action - even where we as cyclists give them all the evidence they need to do so. This is then compounded by behaviour that borders on dishonest when challenged about why they have failed to take action
I object- it is dishonest, as they routinely are! The police are always trying this 'we'll prosecute you' dodge- Lancashire has tried it once on me. Lancashire TacOps Sgt Lavin threatened to prosecute me for impeding traffic when trying to excuse this offence of crossing double white lines in a dangerous position in the RHS of a vehicle on the RHS of the road before a right-hand bend on 15.6.19. His position was that the cyclist must be so far on the LHS of the road when there's a DWL that the motorist can get past without crossing the DWL. I challenged him to do it, which would have been ideal for me, but I never heard from him again. Challenge the b******s and they give way- how are they going to defend all the refusals to prosecute red light crashing, handheld phone use, really dangerous close passing and then prosecute the cyclist?
The best figure I can find is that around 7000 of the axed officers were not in frontline duties, but I'm not sure that is desirable anyway; desk sergeants, for example, or custody officers, are an essential part of the police force as a whole. It's also no good saying that their jobs could be taken over by civilian staff: even if that were true, 23,000 civilian staff have been axed along with the cuts to officer numbers. However you spin it, the cuts have been massive and have undoubtedly affected the capacity and willingness of the police to do their job.
Where does the police response mention prosecution?
The keyword is 'perception'.
I have read enough news items here to know the defence lawyer will come up with any old rubbish to try and shift blame. Like HP, I try and make sure I don't do anything technically unlawful and try to remember to point the camera at the ground if I dismount.
Also in submissions, I make sure I point out if it is a shared pathway or cycling is permitted after that cyclist got sent a NIP from the MET for cycling on a clearly signed shared pathway !
As in "look, it looks like you have broken the law, and a jury/magistrate will believe that too, even though none of us can actually say what law it is that you've broken. But you are a cyclist, so it's bound to be one".
No, the defence lawyer will act on her client's instructions that's the way it works. I'm sure you'd not confuse Robert Downey Jnr for Tony Stark so please don't confuse what an advocate says for what he or she belives. As unpopular as it is to say it on this site but a cheap shot agaist lawyers is as unwarranted as a cheap shot against supposedly errant cylists.
You will be able to point out then where I conflate what they said with what they believe?
Knowing the defence tactics is an important part of your submission.
I'm wondering if these kinds of police responses are being mis-interpreted. They're warning that a cyclist 'may' face prosecution, but in reality that's never going to happen as there's guidelines for not prosecuting considerate cycling along pavements etc.
When approaching known hot-spots for driver clownery, I try to ensure that I strictly follow the road laws for the two minutes approaching and leaving. I've previously been informally warned about taking a forbidden left turn, but again, it's more of a police pointing out the technical infraction rather than any actual threat (they just pointed it out to me rather than stating that I may be prosecuted).
It's the toxic mix of three things:
- police being under pressure because of a decade of cuts (thanks, Cameron/May/Johnson)
- police not being arsed to prosecute, and would rather NFA it (No Further Action)
- police prejudices, and institutionally anti-cyclist views embedded in our police and prosecution systems.
To be fair to Avon & Somerset, when they replied to tell me that I'd turned left on a no-left-turn, they were also sending a warning letter to the driver (I think it was a slow-ish close pass on a roundabout so I thought that was fair enough). I haven't noticed anti-cyclist views from A&S and the vast majority of my submissions have led to a positive result.
You may well be right... but it feels like the Police do actually focus on the wrong things when they hand out speeding tickets to cyclists in Richmond Park for doing 24mph in a 20 zone whilst a stream of prohibited trade vehicles and people drive past behind them exceeding the limit and using their phones at the same time.
Was just a talking to though.
Pages