In terms of follow-up information, today’s video in our Near Miss of the Day series may well be the most comprehensive we’ve ever had – which is in large part down to the fact that the motorist involved was driving a police van.
Footage of the incident, which happened in Hertfordshire last July, was sent in by road.cc reader Moray, who told us: “I have been working through the appropriate complaints processes which took quite a while.
“I have now exhausted those processes after various increasingly worrying responses. I have been keeping Keir Gallagher of Cycling UK abreast of my progress and he has not been impressed.
“What I have found quite disturbing about this saga is that even though it has proved to be very difficult to get the Hertfordshire PCC and Police to acknowledge that this incident was a problem; other similar incidents I have reported about ‘normal’ motorists while this was going on have resulted in ‘appropriate positive action’ (at least once Herts Police started actually giving useful feedback in September).”
Moray also provided us with a full write-up of how issues progressed, and given the Kafkaesque nature of it, we’d be failing him if we did not repeat it in full.
Strap in. Here’s the whole story, in Moray’s words.
The basic incident, which occurred in July 2020, was a large police ‘crew-style’ Transit van which came charging past me pretty close – not the worst I have ever experienced, or reported – by you do expect better from a Police driver.
What made the incident worse was that I then caught up with the Police van while it was parking at the public car park outside the local Police office 600 metres further up the road, and – having waited for bit while it parked – I then spoke to the driver about it:
Me: ‘Excuse me. You were a little close as you passed me coming up the hill there’
Officer: "Was it? I do apologise, but I thought I'd left you quite a lot of room’.
Me: ‘1.5 metres is the recommended distance"
Officer: ‘I thought I'd left you good enough room. But, you know … ‘
Me: ‘It was quite worrying’.
Officer: ‘Ah, do apologise’.
Moray describes it as “A sort of grudging apology ruined by a justification of the distance as ‘quite a lot’ and poor judgment about what is ‘good enough’.
He says: “I felt that he obviously didn't appreciate enough about the close-pass issue and how scary his big van can be charging up behind cyclists and overtaking them at about half of the best-practice ‘Operation Close-Pass’ recommended clearance! I also thought the overtake was a classic impatient must-get-in-front given the relaxed parking at the office.”
He continued: “This is not the first time that officers from this small local office have shown a disinterest in a close-pass – some time ago I was sent away because ‘an officer had not seen the incident’ for one (video evidence wasn't good enough for them) and ‘no-one was injured/not interested in no MoT’ for another. I've used online reporting (or 999 in one instance) since.
“I submitted a report to the Hertfordshire Police web-site as a video-evidenced ‘Careless or Inconsiderate Driving’ plus 'Cyclist or Pedestrian near miss', which resulted in the usual (at the time) 'black-hole' response:
‘Thank you for the submission of your footage, we will now review the footage and investigate any offences disclosed.
‘Please be aware that you may not hear anything further from us in relation to this matter.
Should we need any further information we will contact you. Unfortunately due to the data protection Act 2018 we are unable to disclose the outcome of the case with you’.
“I have never been impressed with this response – but for a police vehicle it seems to be definitely the wrong answer," Moray said.
“More recently, Herts Police have started responding more positively, saying that they would take ‘appropriate positive action’. The Herts PCC had also previously acknowledged to me that the black-hole response was a very lazy interpretation of the DPA and poor feedback on the public's efforts to help the Police.
“The black-holing of my report left me no alternative but to use the complaints process to find out what the actual answer was and also complain (yet again) about being treated like a mushroom (kept in the dark etc ...). Having to start the complaints process also prompted me to look more closely at my original subjective assessment that the vehicle was going ‘quite quickly’ and work out that it was actually speeding (35.6 in a 30mph limit). I used video frame counts and 1m resolution OS map reference points at junctions >200m apart either side of the incident, and also calculated that I'd have to be implausibly inaccurate with these to be wrong about the excess speed (more about this later).
“Submitting a complaint got me a review by the OPCC Complaints Team which told me that the Herts Police Digital Evidence Team (DET) had rejected it on the basis of Highway Code 163 (gave as much room as they would give a car) and that the 1.5m best-practice was only guidelines. That is reminiscent of the flexible view in the Pirates-of-the-Caribbean – ‘The code is more what you’d call “guidelines” than actual rules’ … !
“The OPCC then sent me some generic information about police driver training, and offered to close the case – having studiously ignored the time/distance calculation of speeding.
“So, I escalated it, which meant that this time it went to Professional Standards Department (PSD); in reality this meant that it got assigned to the PC's local station sergeant.
“While PSD were thinking about it for a couple more months I pointed out to them that several more recent reports had come back with the feedback of "appropriate positive action" (i.e. Warning letter, Course offer, Points and fine, or Court) – making it look like the close-pass guidelines were at least being applied to ordinary motorists, and that there was a danger of this looking like double standards.
“Then the response got worse.
“PSD came back saying that the driver had been provided with words of advice, had apologised and had been on a check drive; BUT this was countered, and completely ruined in my eyes, by MORE reasons why the close-pass was not really a problem!
“PSD acknowledged that the van "would have been an intimidating presence passing a cyclist" yet then countered with "I do however have to act on the evidence in front of me … “ which didn't make any sense given that the evidence in front of PSD was from a cycle-mounted camera which is precisely the view that the intimidated cyclist gets of a large vehicle whizzing past their elbow!
“The response then went on to suggest that 't is OK for a larger vehicle to have 'had to be closer than a normal car'.
“That looks like a worrying concept – moving the close-pass reference point to the FAR side of the vehicle to take account of the size of the vehicle!
“Certainly it is counter-intuitive – since it means, for example, that this large, 6-ton, Transit Van has to give cyclists a lot less room than an old Mini ....?
"It apparently 'may have needed to be closer if it was to stay within the confines of the carriageway', which is a horrible excuse for NOT actually using the whole of the other lane.
“The oncoming car would probably have been truly worried if it had used the WHOLE confines of the carriageway; as it was the van is just inside the
white line, and the oncoming car is hugging it's nearside kerb as they pass.
“Much better to keep closer to the cyclist, avoid worrying the oncoming car, all to avoid slowing down and therefore not get 'held up'!]. – it is OK if you can't see the cyclist taking evasive action (how-on-earth does a cyclist 'evade' an overtaking vehicle?) – it is OK if the cyclist isn't (obviously) buffeted off course;
“PSD also decided that I had agreed that my speed calculation was inaccurate, which was not true! What I actually provided as part of the detailed calculation was an estimate how implausibly large any measurement error would need to be for me to be wrong, and not that I'd actually made that error.
“I'd got the apologetic/words-of-advice part right at the start of the process then I probably wouldn't have taken this any further, so the PC involved can thank the responses from DET, OPCC and PSD for ensuring that I went through ALL of the escalations available.
“However,” Moray continued, “given this worrying list of ‘not really a problem’ counter-arguments, I felt compelled to challenge this rationale – which turned out to be a referral back to OPCC!
“That felt a bit like the old problem of ‘Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results’; but I had to try and work with the process.
“Some more time passed, and this review came back recently with the headline conclusion: ‘The reason I consider the outcome to be reasonable and proportionate for allegations [...] is due to the fact that the complaint handler has explained the rationale leading to the conclusions made’.
“So the final answer from OPCC is that as long as the ‘rationale’ was explained by PSD all is well; whatever that ‘rationale’ implies. Just to add to the insult, the final review responded to the speeding part [by saying] that PSD had dismissed it because:
(a) they don't trust my measurements and would have to do it themselves; and
(b) ACPO recommend that if this was a member of the public the police would not look to prosecute under 36mph in a 30mph limit.
“So a Police Van charging around at 35.6 mph (by my calculation) in a 30mph limit for no obvious reason is fine even if I am right,” Moray said.
“The officer was not in any hurry parking at the station further up the road, and as a result I had time to catch up with the van, wait while it parked, and then talk to him; plus he then had time to stand and glower at me as I rode away afterwards.
“It's a shame that local police, with no particular need to hurry, don't respect the speed limit on a road where the local council have installed a peed Indicator Device because of a problem with speeding on it.
“The net result of all these escalations is that this case is closed,” he added.
“Of 12 contemporary reports to Herts Police during the course of this process, he says:
5 fell during the ‘DPA black-hole period’; before the feedback got more informative – so absolutely no idea of the result.
7 resulted in ‘appropriate positive action’; including 5 'just' close-passes with no other aggravating factor than <<1.5m passing distance (the others also involved double-white lines or 86mph in a 40mph limit).
“These contemporary cases make it look like the 1.5m ‘guideline’ does get applied to members of the public, even if it is not appropriate to apply it in the case of a Police vehicle – until perhaps the new Highway Code comes out,” Moray said.
“Hertfordshire Police have also been happy to talk about the guideline on their web-site, under the banner of ‘Operation Velo’, even if it appears from FOI responses to Cycling UK that they don't actually run this operation.
https://www.herts.police.uk/news-and-appeals/New-safety-operation-to-red...'s-roads
Moray added: “I will continue reporting incidents to the police, because the evidence seems to show that I can at least take careless and inconsiderate driving by ‘ordinary’ motorists to task, and maybe by doing so I am helping – as the standard acknowledgement of a report says "May I take this opportunity to thank you for your assistance in making the roads a safer place."
> Near Miss of the Day turns 100 - Why do we do the feature and what have we learnt from it?
Over the years road.cc has reported on literally hundreds of close passes and near misses involving badly driven vehicles from every corner of the country – so many, in fact, that we’ve decided to turn the phenomenon into a regular feature on the site. One day hopefully we will run out of close passes and near misses to report on, but until that happy day arrives, Near Miss of the Day will keep rolling on.
If you’ve caught on camera a close encounter of the uncomfortable kind with another road user that you’d like to share with the wider cycling community please send it to us at info [at] road.cc or send us a message via the road.cc Facebook page.
If the video is on YouTube, please send us a link, if not we can add any footage you supply to our YouTube channel as an unlisted video (so it won't show up on searches).
Please also let us know whether you contacted the police and if so what their reaction was, as well as the reaction of the vehicle operator if it was a bus, lorry or van with company markings etc.
> What to do if you capture a near miss or close pass (or worse) on camera while cycling
Add new comment
38 comments
Oh come off it
This is hardly a close pass.
As stated "not the worst I have ever experienced" BUT Herts Police Website agree that it can be considered a close pass (see link in article) . . . and you should be able to expect Police drivers to be better/more aware drivers and set an example, not be part of the problem.
https://youtu.be/xI8i3FYMfXw
Heard the familiar noise or a driver too close to my rear wheel today in a 20 zone, figured they'd at least wait until the police car in the opposite lane had gone past before close passing me, but no, they went for it. I threw my arm up, gestured to the driver of the police car and got a blank stare in response.
I don't know if it's a uniquely north Yorkshire police thing but they honestly don't seem to care.
My wife and I were cycling home from work a few days ago on our tandem. Nasty conditions of dark and sleeting. We were in moving traffic and keeping up with the car in front, so I was holding primary position to discourage any car behind from attempting to overtake only to find that they can't actually get past and push us into the gutter (we've all been there). Anyway the car behind nonetheless attempted to overtake and so I look over my shoulder to give him the usual hard stare and shout at him and guess what, it's a police car! I held my position in the road and didn't move over as I suspect was expected and the police car dropped back. This is not uncommon but not what I would expect from a trained police driver.
Traffic Officers receive excellent training but police in ordinary patrol cars have no other training above joe public.
True, but you would hope they are all imbued with the spirit of protecting the public, leveraging their working knowledge of road safety and the highway code.
Quite. If they don't know and understand the highway code how are they supposed to police driving standards?
I know someone who gave up escalating a police complaint (not the same force) once they reached the point of lying to the local MP to excuse themselves.
The police complaints system, like the BBC's, is there for the sole purpose of exonerating themselves.
Had a similarly bizarre experience with reporting a dangerously parked vehicle which nearly caused a collision which the attending officer said wasn't dangerously parked. When I produced their own guidance on dangerous parking which confirmed that it was dangerously parked, they still did nothing, and the only way to proceed was to raise a complaint against the officer; the van was still parked there and still dangerous, so I wanted action. I got a phone call from a senior officer, sort of admitting their mistake, which went on for about half an hour; not really best use of a senior officer's time I thought, and I did drop the complaint.
Using an organisation’s own standards to hold it to account is a useful technique; even if you need to use an FoI to liberate the standard from them (e.g. Herts CC and their policy about what makes large pot-holes “safe” for cyclists).
In this case, apart from the Operation Velo reference, it turns out that Herts Police have not yet written their criteria or policy for evaluating and actioning a Cyclist or pedestrian near miss – The FoI response said they don’t have one and are are still in the process of devising it!
Not just the BBC. Look at the SRA (Solicitors Regulation Authority) which can't decide if its a regulatory authority or a trade union, or Private Eye's favourite, the FSA (Fundamentally Spineless Authority).
The van wasnt that close . It was well over the white line when it passed the bike.
thanks for using up valuable police time and resource with an unnecessary complaint IMO.
The van was about two-thirds over the white line as it passed (and then had to cut back in dangerously quickly because it was heading straight at oncoming traffic, which should have prevented the pass in the first place). You can see from the van after it has passed that the lane is roughly 2.5m wide (Ford Transit width 2.15m). Cyclists for safety have to ride a minimum 50cms out from the kerb. Cyclists are about 60cms wide. That leaves 1.4m of lane. The van should pass a minimum of 1.5m from the cyclist, so should be completely over the white line to comply with the Highway Code. You can clearly see the front of the van is a good 70cms into the lane as it passes (and the back passes closer). This means the van is passing around 70cm away, too close, especially considering the backdraught from a van that size at that speed. Add to that the fact that it was dangerous to make the overtake when the oncoming carriageway was most definitely not clear, plus probable speeding, and it's a perfectly legitimate and indeed necessary complaint. If the pass was legitimate, why did the police apologise, say they'd spoken to the driver and sent him on a check drive?
It was too close, compounded by the fact that the manoeuvre was made whilst speeding, in the face of oncoming traffic.
The "valuable time" was wasted by the police, starting with the officer's poor driving, followed by the failure to deal promptly with the issue, capped off by the long drawn-out obfuscation.
Is taking the Police to task for being part of the problem a waste of time ?
As stated, not the worst close-pass I have ever experienced, or reported – by you do expect better from a Police driver - and for him to understand the problem. Add fact that it was a completely unnecessary overtake for no obvious reason – I even had to wait while he manoeuvred into a parking space once I caught up with him.
Was only going half -way across the centre line actually a “close-pass” or just having to “stay within the confines of the carriageway”?
Widespread practice that says it is - so why can’t we expect Police drivers to understand and follow that ? I even I got a reference from the Chief Inspector of the Bed, Herts and Bucks Roads Unit that says it is (see link in article). Also note that the oncoming vehicle moved closer to it’s nearside kerb, and that the van is only just inside the white line when they pass – so it wasn’t very friendly to the oncoming car either.
I think it is also significant that ALL of the other reports I’ve done (since feedback became meaningful) were actionable – so my judgment about what is actionable/reportable probably isn’t that bad.
Some time ago local officers were not interested in close-pass, and, on the second instance a complaint to the OPCC got the case transferred to a different station! The number of incidents I’ve experienced on local roads has gone up considerably this year; so there is a local problem that the local police are apparently still not mindful of.
As well as one Officer's failings, that looks like a policy, education and leadership problem, hopefully only at that particular station.
Then when you try and report it you get black-holed, so you have to “follow the process”, or just give up and let the same-old continue.
The series of increasingly poor answers causes the waste of time.
Is your day job writing for the Sun, nic?
Yes I moved over there after my News of the World gig got cancelled
I think the relevant question here is whether the police would have treated the incident differently if it hadn't been a police vehicle and judging from Moray's experience, they were treating it more leniently.
If you're just trying to defend the police service, then yes, I can see how a close-pass complaint can be considered a waste of time, but surely the whole idea of policing by consent and dealing with complaints is to ensure that the police get feedback from the public when there's a gap between expectations and performance. If you consider complaints as an opportunity to learn (e.g. sending the driver on a course to refresh their skills) then the police should be welcoming them as useful feedback.
In my opinion, if the police don't have sufficient resources to deal with complaints, then we need to give them more resources, not stifle the complaints.
Or for the police to ensure that their behaviour generates fewer legitimate complaints....
It was too close and going too fast (I reckon at least 36mph from the road markings). But I think I would have left it at the apology from the driver.
The wide angle lens does make it look further away than it was, but it's not remarkable as far as close passes go - even with it being a police van.
The rules on close passing are so vague that securing a prosecution is very difficult - this really goes to show you need to pick your battles.
Of course the van was over the white line.. if the driver had stayed within the white line, he would have actually hit the cyclist. The driver should have held back until the road ahead was clear and overtaken properly, not cutting in close because of oncoming traffic.
Despite the title, this article is nothing to do with the 'close pass'.
It's everything to do with how the police police their own and (in this case) the farcical complaints/communications procedure.
As pointed out above, an efficient system would have prevented the police wasting their own time.
Well then?
I read the article, then I watched the footage. It's not the worst close pass, but it is a close pass.
However, it's the response(s) that's mind-blowing! I think that the OP nailed it with the one where the police have obviously done something about it, albeit eventually, (which is good); but then with a few very poorly chosen words ruin the response.
In my experience holding your hand up and saying sorry keeps you out of the shit. Now if the original officer had done this a bit more enthusiastically …
I'm about to repeat what I have written before, because it illustrates exactly what happened here: the 'failure' of the police complaints procedure as far as the victim of the incident is concerned, compared to the complete success of the procedure as far as the police are concerned- the police complaints procedure would be laughable were it not a laughing matter. I was the cyclist concerned when an APC delivery van crossed right over the unbroken white line to the wrong side of the road to overtake me in a very dangerous position on the uphill approach to an humpback bridge over a canal in Catterall, Lancashire- that's what the unbroken white lines in both directons are there for! The van then had to swerve back left in front of me to avoid colliding with an oncoming vehicle. My video was perfect with all GPS data acquired. I complained when it was a 'NFA', and the conclusion of the complaint process by a Lancashire Constabulary Detective Sergeant was that the original PC was completely correct to decline to do anything at all because there was no confirmatory video from the offending vehicle!
This abysmal and really, really stupid justification by the police is what provided me with the motivation for my present campaign to expose the routine Lancashire police acceptance of drivers crashing through red lights, and extreme reluctance to take genuine action to punish the offenders. This is one of them- this tipper lorry was so far back when the lights turned red that it wasn't even yet in view, and it proceeded to crash through the lights at well over the 50 mph limit.
That is mind boggling. So if I have a security camera in my home that catches clear footage of a burglar, they won't act unless the miscreant was wearing a bodycam and supplies the police with his footage?
Or, you get caught by a speed camera and you refuse to produce a video of your speedo!
That is mind boggling. So if I have a security camera in my home that catches clear footage of a burglar, they won't act unless the miscreant was wearing a bodycam and supplies the police with his footage?
Yes, that's it! In answer to the other question: yes, there was a camera in the APC van, according to APC, but 'it wasn't working'. This was a complete new avenue of excuses opened up for Lancashire Constabulary, because it allows them to ignore any complaints about vehicles without cameras, as well as ignoring the cases where 'the camera wasn't working'- I imagine the DS concerned is looking forward to an early promotion. The fact that the police show no shame about such tripe shows their confidence in the absolute powerlessness of the police complaint procedure.
A terrible problem in America, where many officers now have to wear mandatory bodycams but oh whoops, in a significant percentage of fatal shootings it was accidentally turned off, or covered, or not charged, or the footage was accidentally wiped, or yadda yadda yadda. Unless there are rigorously enforced sanctions against officers who fail to take every reasonable precaution that such equipment is working it's not worth the expense of providing them with it.
Pages