- 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
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Near Miss of the Day 781 update: Police say they couldn’t act against passenger who may have tried to push cyclist off bike – because it wasn’t captured on film
A video we published last week as part of our Near Miss of the Day series in which a cyclist received a close pass as well as the passenger of the vehicle sticking their arm out, possibly in an attempt to strike the rider, got plenty of comments here and on social media after the victim was told by police that they could not prosecute the driver, apparently because the footage only came from one camera.
We sought to clarify that with Staffordshire Police, and asked them whether that was indeed force policy, to which they replied that it is not – and the issue instead is that in this specific situation, no further action could be taken because the footage submitted to them did not capture the moment the passenger allegedly attempted to push the cyclist. Here’s what they told us:
We can confirm that this is not force policy and each case is assessed on its individual circumstances.
After looking into the report, we can see that that the informant was advised that further action could not be taken in relation to the allegation of the passenger attempting to push the cyclist, as the footage provided did not capture this.
The officer explained that a side camera may have recorded this, but it is not the case that two or three cameras are needed for a prosecution.
A warning letter was sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle in July 2021.
Unlike some other police forces, Staffordshire Police does not have a dedicated portal enabling members of the public to upload footage of incidents – whether from drivers using dashcams, cyclists running action cameras and the like – directly.
Instead, they told us:
It is possible to report road traffic incidents via our website and a reference number will be generated: Report a road traffic incident | Staffordshire Police
An officer will then make contact with instructions on how to submit the footage.
Kionne, the road.cc reader who submitted the footage of the July 2021 incident to us, told us when he sent the link to the video: “Not sure why the extended blast on the horn was required, I was not obstructing traffic, the road was wide enough to easily pass me, my position was good and my pace was good. You can see that all the motorists before were able to pass me without issue.
“As for the passenger, it was unclear whether he was trying to hit or push me but thankfully he missed.
“I reported it to South Staffordshire Police who sent out a warning letter, they told me there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the pass or possible attempted push as I only had footage from one camera.
“They went on to say I need to have at least two, possibly three cameras before they will even consider prosecution.
“In an attempt to appease me they said they see much worse than this and still do not prosecute,” he added.
Although the incident and submission to police happened nearly a year ago, Kionne seemed pretty certain of his recollection of what he was told and equally police are insistent on their version of how the chat went.
We shared the response from police with Kionne, who told us: “The officer that called me specifically said ‘we need two preferably three cameras’, he didn’t make the distinction that it would have been specifically for that incident.
“After we discussed the ‘attempted push’ and he said he wouldn’t take it further I asked what he was doing about the deliberate close pass and he said they couldn’t prosecute that because the camera evidence was insufficient to prove the distance or the intent. I even offered to do the work for them be going back to the spot with a tape measure and take photos but he said that would make no difference.
“If one camera angle is not enough to prosecute that close pass I can’t see how one camera angle would ever be enough for them to prosecute any close pass. You can see the car never even left it’s lane!
“It just sounds like as is often the case they just couldn’t be arsed to deal with it,” he added.
It’s an incident that does maybe underline a selling point of the type of 360-degree camera that the broadcaster Jeremy Vine, among others, uses while cycling – had the footage been shot on a device with that capability, it would have been possible in editing to ‘turn around’ as it were and see exactly what the vehicle’s passenger had attempted to do.
It also ties in with a longer-term project we are working on here at road.cc, namely how different police forces approach the issue of third-party submissions and how the results differ between them, and we’ll have more on that for you in the coming weeks.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- kingleo 11 min 58 sec ago
Cyclists have been riding in Bister for about 150 years, and now all of a sudden they are a great danger to pedestrians.
- the little onion 38 min 50 sec ago
I didn't remove the sound because I didn't think that it mattered - quite clearly the swearing was in reaction to an act of frankly horrid...
- Nigel_2003 1 hour 25 min ago
Know how the limiter screws on your derailleur work and use the right ones to keep chain on a manageable cog at the back and/or chainring at the...
- JMcL_Ireland 1 hour 44 min ago
May the poor man rest in peace....
- Freddy56 1 hour 49 min ago
Story one: "Here is all the deals at 50% off."...
- andystow 2 hours 2 min ago
Front wheel trued and tensioned last night. I think it took me well over an hour.
- andystow 2 hours 6 min ago
Definitions aside, that is a ridiculous amount of cardboard. Is the double wall really necessary to protect the product?
- quiff 2 hours 25 min ago
From the article above.
- quiff 2 hours 29 min ago
If you watch him climbing Shap, the gearing doesn't look great. From the linked article:...
Add new comment
25 comments
I live in South Staffs, when I took footage of a car passing me on the inside to the police, they refused to respond, I took my complaint to the Police and Crime Comissioner twice and was promised action and received nothing - South Staffs police would rather pester people in shopping centres than go after the real criminals.
'After looking into the report, we can see that that the informant was advised that further action could not be taken in relation to the allegation of the passenger attempting to push the cyclist, as the footage provided did not capture this.
The officer explained that a side camera may have recorded this, but it is not the case that two or three cameras are needed for a prosecution.'
There is zero evidence from the video the passenger attempted to push the cyclist; having carefully watched the video in slow speed, the passenger was using his hand to indicate displeasure with the cyclist. By reporting a possible push, the cyclist set himself up for the police to take no further action, whereas just reporting what is clear on video, being the use of horn to harass and the close pass, is the best tactic.
I reported every offence you see/hear in the video. When the police spoke to me they said there was not enough video evidence to prosecute the attempted 'push/hit' OR the deliberate close pass. They just conveniently did not mention why they didn't take action over the close pass when the evidence supplied is irrefutable.
Whether the video shows it of not, there was an attempt to make contact with me in some way.
I'm prepared to take the word of the cyclist that there was an attempt at contact; even if you are not, your analysis does not hold water. You can clearly see from the video that the passenger was reaching out with their arm before they got to the cyclist and withdrew as soon as they were past, there was no middle finger or "wanker" gesture that one might expect if the intent was simply to express displeasure. It's not absolutely clear but it's not true to say there is "zero evidence".
"the camera evidence was insufficient to prove the distance or the intent" of the close pass
Surely, the very definition of 'careless driving' is that there is no intent - otherwise it becomes 'dangerous driving' or attempted murder?
It reminds me of a NMOTD past where the police said "Well, they are going to have to inconvenience someone" without the thought occurring that the person who should be inconvenienced was themselves, not the vulnerable road user.
It does strike me that they have a flow diagram missing some arrows.
This has also been picked up by blackbeltbarrister with a legal opinion on it (and road.cc referenced). See here for another 770 comments on it to wade through.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8mPwqiOdrw
I'm pretty sure that if one body mounted camera captured a member of the public throwing a punch at a police officer they would be prosecuted.
Good on road.cc for pursuing this and on behalf of the safety of all cyclists in Staffordshire you should keep going because the police response is sending a clear message to motorists that it is ok to intimidate and endanger cyclists. A close pass, whilst sounding a horn and a passenger with arm out of the window...what exactly do the police think would constitute as being dangerous, if this isn't?
Thank you road.cc for following this up. I know the result isn't what we wanted but knowing that someone is chasing these decisions up will hopefully make them think more carefully before they decide on NFA in future.
I look forward to the results of the comparison of how different forces deal with footage. Cycling UK should be doing this already but I hope they will at least act on the results when available. Seems to me like a golden opportunity to discover whether there really is no such thing as a close pass and if the forces that use that as a reason for not taking action are correct. If they are then we need to lobby for a change in the law, if they are wrong they need to be made aware and retrain their officers.
This standard of driving around vulnerable road users is not acceptable and until those who drive like this are dealt with we we will never get more people on bikes.
But there is technically no such thing as 'close passing' just as there is techically no such thing as 'driving whilst holding a coffee cup', it all falls under the umbrella of careless driving, for which driving too close to another vehicle is a stated example of a qualifying offence.
Yet for whatever reasons, and I dont think we can overlook the impact Covid has had at court case backlogs and the prioritisation police forces currently place on certain offences to alleviate the backlog, some either dont recognise careless driving covers such things, or cant be bothered to use it.
Remember a big part of the reason we ended up with separate mobile phone use in cars laws was,not necessarily because of a perceived loophole being exploited, but purely the police/cps were reluctant to use careless driving instead to catch it,yet again being avoidably distracted is given as a qualifying example of an offence.
"It also ties in with a longer-term project we are working on here at road.cc, namely how different police forces approach the issue of third-party submissions and how the results differ between them, and we’ll have more on that for you in the coming weeks."
I'm looking forward to seeing the outcome of this. It's incredibly frustrating for those of us who live in areas where our police forces have no means of submitting footage of driving offences.
I'm resigned to the fact that when I speak to constables they'll tell me that they'll go and have 'words' with the offender and always they stick to the guidelines that I've not been injured or jumped off my bike so it doesn't involve them preparing a report to end up getting bounced. They also seem to have a reticence in issuing a FPN due to many not being trained in what pertains to be close passes, left hooks etc. I feel that if I talked to a member of Traffic Branch that particular officer would quite happily through the book at the miscreant.
Police Scotland recently received funding to set up a portal to allow submissions and to have trained staff to process and issue FPNs, warning letters or summons as appropriate. This is yet to be launched. Once it is live it will make the whole process much more seamless and less draining than the rather convoluted process that has to be currently followed.
Damn right I'm certain of my recollection, I was fuming at the time!
Interesting they didn't clarify why they didn't prosecute the deliberate close pass either...
The police comment that there doesn't appear to be camera evidence for the push looks fair, but even so, there was an attempt at harrassment. I'll assume the speed limit along that road is at least 40mph - there's no way that the requirement for 2m clearance was met - that much is clear from the footage.
Where do you get the "requirement for 2m clearance" from? The Highway Code specifies:
leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds
You're correct in what you say - it didn't make it into the final version of the HC. The 2m rule was in the earlier proposal but actually was opposed by Cycling UK who didn't want a minimum distance law - they felt that it was too difficult to provide measured distances that the law would otherwise require. The 1.5m rule made it in.
Thanks for posting though as I had forgotten that until you said.
Their comment about needing 2 or 3 cameras was in relation to the arm out and the pass.
I don't know how there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute the close pass when the footage shows the car didn't even leave it's lane! I said this to them repeatedly but they just said the footage wasn't good enough.
Arguably there is, a warning letter is supposed to meet the same evidential threshold as a prosecution, so it's how they chose to proceed on the outcome that differs.
and that could be down to a higher up steer given to them about prioritising which kinds of offences are prosecuted, theres nearly a 2 year backlog in the courts at the moment due to Covid delays and various issues, and traffic offences might not be seen as a priority, except in exceptional examples.
They also neglect to mention that they could have fpn'd on the horn use alone.
I thought these kinds of cases would be where they actually use their discretion.
They really couldn't give a toss, I'm surprised they could even be arsed to issue a warning letter.
Escalate to a Complaint, Escalate to the Professional Standards body, Escalate to the Chief Constable, Escalate to the PCC, Escalate to the Ministry of Justice i.e. make it easier to do the right thing than to deal with the escalations. The more of us that are not fobbed off the safer we will become, eventually...
Not to defend the lack of action but I should imagine illegal use of the horn is a nightmare to prove unless directly witnessed by an officer; the offender can easily claim it was used to warn another road user off camera, they thought the cyclist was moving out and were warning them they were there, etc etc. I can understand why the police would be reluctant to FPN something so easy to challenge and which only incurs a measly £30 fine and no points.
I dunno. I think 'beyond reasonable doubt' should mean just that. But when it comes to motoring offences against cyclists, it seems the police want 'absolute certainty'.
Anybody looking at this footage can see it's not the behaviour of a careful and competent driver. I suspect even master-blaster Ashley Neal would not agree with this use of the horn.
The fact the FPN for horn use is such a measly fine should mean they're less concerned with the burden of proof. It would at least have cost the motorist something. Instead they've sent them a warning letter they'll surely be proud of.
I absolutely agree that they should have been punished at least for the horn use and we all know that it was used illegally, but the police have to issue FPNs on the basis of there being a reasonable likelihood of conviction if challenged in court, I think a decent lawyer would easily be able to raise enough doubt to have it rejected. Ironically of course the much more serious charges of dangerous driving, threatening behaviour and close passing are all right there in plain view and they should have been brought.
It seems murderers can be convicted on circumstantial evidence, but for tooting your horn at a cyclist as you dangerously overtake them, you need cast iron proof.
I'm not sure whether the issue lies with the courts or the police. But the situation where you can be fined £100 for accidentally dropping some litter, yet get away with intimidating somebody and putting their life in danger, needs to change.
The police shrugging their shoulders and saying it won't get through court needs to stop. It's more than likely that the miscreant will pay up the £30 rather than risk a court case, especially as no points are involved.