Near Miss of the Day 918: No further action taken for "pretty scary" close pass on cyclist

bensynnock wrote:

Guidance suggests that the right course of action when overtaking parked vehicles is not too weave in and out, but to maintain a line in the road. You might think that the cyclist had time to pull back in and then out again, but it doesn't actually matter. Whether a cyclist is in the correct position should make no difference to the decision made by a driver to overtake or to wait.

100 times this. 

How you drive should be entirely dependent on what other vehicles around you are doing. Not what they should be doing, or (as is usually the case with cyclists) what you THINK they should be doing. 

It does not matter a jot whether the rider here is genuinely too far out in the road, the driver is still expected to overtake in a way that is safe and in accordance with the highway code. Close passing by taking the line you would have taken if they were closer to the kerb and then complaining they were not closer to the kerb should not be an acceptable response. 

Especially not from the police.  

I have the same question.

I have shared with both Hertfordshire and Essex police. Hertfordshire will let me know whether it is positive (letter, court, points) or negative but not what the action was (e.g. they chose to just issue a letter). Essex police take the submission and never contact me again (I won't find out whether it was positive or negative action).

How do we find out the results ?

Simple you put your ref in here

https://saferessexroads.org/extra-eyes/results/

Although not worth the bother as Essex don't do anything for close passes as they cant be bothered but still cling to Vision Zero.

Thanks for that link.

Interesting that they do not include a Warning Letter in the possible outcomes.

There is a whole section on why they don't prosecute close passes on that page as well.

Quote:

The following information relates to ‘Close Pass’ incidents:
Close pass incidents form a large proportion of the total submissions to Extra Eyes. However there is no specific offence in road traffic legislation defined as a ‘close pass’. The Highway Code is a guidance document rather than a legal one, therefore Police Investigators must rely on the offences of ‘careless’ or ‘inconsiderate’ driving  under Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 when processing this type of incident.

Investigators’ decisions depend entirely on the video evidence supplied. Cameras of the type mounted on handlebars or cycle helmets typically have wide angle lenses that do not replicate exactly what the human eye sees. This can distort the view and does not always provide the context – what happened before or after the incident. This can make it difficult to estimate how closely a vehicle has passed a cyclist. Additionally, there are often no fixed reference points against which the exact distance between vehicles can be measured. It is impossible to capture the true experience and discomfort felt by a cyclist on a video and it is a subjective event – i.e. different people will interpret it in different ways. We acknowledge that this does not make the incident any less threatening to the rider but there must be sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a successful prosecution in a Magistrates’ Court. We will only take enforcement action where the evidential tests are met.

The assistance of a forensic collision investigator might be called upon to investigate fatal or very serious injury collisions by supplementing and taking measurements from video evidence. However this would not be considered a proportionate use of resources for near-miss cases.

No mention of having to be inconvenienced in the excuses for not taking action as in the case of Gloucestershire. There really is a great deal of inconsistency between forces.

The results for the last 12 months show 740 NIPs and only 54 advice letters for close passes for the previous 12 months. They don't include NFAs in that graph but that's a lot of NIPs considering they think it's so hard to prove.

Thank you Hirsute, this is a great link and I haven't seen it before.

Just been through my Essex cases, 15 over the last two years. Only 4 were "No further action" and 11 were "Course or conditional offer". The 11 positive actions included close passes, red light jumping and failure to give way. 2 of the 4 without action were where driver failed to give way and 2 were close passes.

I'm happy with this outcome and will continue to report the dangerous driving.

I don't suppose you have a similar link for Hertforshire police as well ?

Gloucestershire started using OpSnap Dec 22. I used to get a confirmation email for each report but then nothing. I waited a year after each submission (they requested you keep the original files for a year) and then I started asking for the outcome, so far I have always been told. Recently I am not getting the automatic cofirmation email but they have got back to me with the outcome of each report, either NFA or "We will take action" but the action is unpecified.

EK Spinner wrote:

a lot of discussion a=on whether the rider should have pulled in or not, surely the point is that they didn't, the driver should be driving based on what is actually in front of them, not what they or anyone else thinks should be in front of them. The rider didn't pull over, the driver chose to close pass them - careless driving

I'm not sure there has really been a lot of discussion.  One troll said the rider should have and then a number of sensible posters made the mistake of feeding said troll by pointing out he was wrong.

Driver probably works for Essex police. 

Never attribute to corruption that which can be adequately explained by motonormativity.

There is no conscious thought to it. I reckon I get about 20 - 30 completely pointless overtakes every ride out of a few hundred. Empty roads but still overtake on a blind corner. Overtake coming up to a line of traffic. Overtake coming up to traffic lights. Overtake when its not safe but will be a few seconds later. 

Obstacle in front of driver. Must get past it. 

Meanwhile the driver will carry on scaring vulnerable road users until they take someone out (or longer perhaps). That'll teach the rider not to move over quick enough!

DON'T FEED THE TROLL

(every time someone replies to them, they nip off and have a crafty wank)

Ooof! someone with a different opinion to you and your drone cohorts is instantly a troll eh?. We all know this site is an echo-chamber for drones. Don't worry, once you grow up, you'll understand. I promise 

The most incessant droning round here tends to come from those whinging about it being 'an echo chamber'.

Well, that and wjts going on about Lancs Police, but that's really more of a howling into the void.

wjts going on about Lancs Police, but that's really more of a howling into the void

No, it's collecting data. When you have a force as idle, inept and bent as Lancashire you must  have the data. The collective weight of the UK police has established that close-passing is a matter of opinion and 'inconvenience', but going through red traffic lights, driving around without MOT for months and years, and use of hand held mobile phones while driving are indisputable offences. Lancashire ignores these, partly because ignoring them keeps them out of force statistics- fixing these figures was one of the main reasons Greater Manchester Police went into special measures

alexuk wrote:

We all know this site is an echo-chamber for drones.

Echo Chamber and the Drones. Didn't they have a hit with The Killing Moon in 1984?