Near Miss of the Day 794, updated: Police say driver should have been prosecuted after passing cyclists signalling right

Gloucester Police have a hell of a way to go

https://twitter.com/passwideandslow/status/1543938038845382656

“These cases often get sent out to area constables to deal with and, as a result, their response is inconsistent,” Vestey told road.cc.

As I have previously explained, these desk bound video review jobs get allocated to officers as 'punishments' in many cases and when this happens, the officer has no interest whatsoever in doing the job properly, only doing what means the least amount of work for them, before they get back out on the beat.

Believe me I have insider knowledge!.

It is good that they have set up a dashcam unit as the officers are more likely to have their decisions held to account and performance monitored.

As I said in my comment on the original story, the driver shouldn't have been overtaking on a junction. Any police officer should know this. But surely any video footage of a potential driving offence should be dealt with by a police officer with in depth knowledge of traffic regulations. Clearly whoever responded originally didn't even have the basic knowledge of traffice regs, in which case why on earth are they a police officer in the first place?

Thank you road.cc for asking the police for comment on this.

It's good to hear they've recognised the problem of inconsistent enforcement, the disillusion and worry this causes, and are improving their process as a result.

"the close pass allegation (bearing in mind a close pass itself is not an offence but due care is), not being clear enough to show how it affected the rider"

How exactly pray, when close passed at 40+ mph by a driver is anyone supposed to show how they were affected ?

Have Gloucester Police done extensive tests on speed and proximity to determine the expected reaction? Then they compare this with the actual reaction.

Am I supposed to fall off, wobble, swear, cry, or do a wout and put out 550+ watts, catch up and punch their lights out ?

It's such a weird response from Glos Police.

If the cyclists hadn't stopped to avoid being run over by the careless driver, it would have ended up with the driver pleading not guilty to careless driving and being let off becuase the sun was in her eyes.

Equally if it had been a car turning right and overtaken in the same circumstances would they have dismissed the footage saying "You slowed to a virtual stop to talk with your friend passenger after you had signalled rather than continuing to go round the corner."?

Surely the Police should be blaming the Sun.
It's clearly shining unprovoked into the driver's eyes.
Please ignore the fact the driver hasn't pulled down the visor to block the nasty Sun's light and aid their view of the road. They have chosen to wear fashionable sunglasses instead.
I'm sure if the case went to court. The Sun would be found guilty and ordered to be covered by cloud for at least one week.

Police response flowchart:
Did the motorist's dangerous driving give cause you to stop?
No: then there was no danger or else you would have had to stop or evade.
Yes: their driving was justified as you had come to a standstill in the middle of the road.

I have had this happen to me five times. On the fifth occasion I was brought off when I was hit by the wing (Pedant's Door) mirror.
It's right up there at the top of the scare scale, and one of the most dangerous incidents I can imagine.
This is a considered manoeuvre by the driver, who gains no advancement from it in terms of advancement along the road. It's pure aggression.
The police don't think there was enough evidence to prosecute : ergo the cyclist was resposible for his own predicament.
World turned upside down.

Clearly confected for YouTube clicks...

Only kidding, what sort of Alice-in-Wonderland world do the police live in, "you had slowed to a virtual stop to talk to your friend"? The riders had both signalled, the camera guy was making multiple checks, the only thing that made them come close to a stop was the tonne of metal crunching up the outside. I believe the HC says "DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users", IIRC there was no addendum in the new version to say "unless, like, you think they're being annoyingly slow or something."

As so often with these incidents, we can apply the car test: if instead of two cyclists it had been a car approaching that turn at that speed and signalling, would she have overtaken? Not in a month of Sundays.  

This is one of the stock responses from Gloucestershire Police.  They're completely flaccid when it comes to dealing with this sort of report, and it largely pro-motorist.

Oh, this is an easy one; the cyclists were two abreast.

Even so, whatever happened to rule 167:
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road.

It's almost as if the people who wrote the HWC had reasons for putting that one in.

I know that road very well. Classic MGIF from driver: "I'm going to get in front of those pesky (though he probably wouldn't the word pesky) cyclists just before the parked cars and narrow lanes in the middle of the village". The fact that the cyclists were signalling right and not going through the middle of the village doesn't seem to have registered.

In an ideal world the cyclists would have been a bit further to the right, but with a car behind who wasn't going to stop I can well appreciate why they weren't. This certainly isn't an excuse for the driver. If he is so blind as to miss the cyclists' signals you wonder why he is still allowed on the road.

So as I understand it the police are saying that the cyclist should have continued to make the right turn and get ploughed into by the car driver overtaking on a junction. The conclusion that I draw from this is that unless a car actually hits you (the result of which could be death) then there isn't a problem.