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

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.

grOg wrote:

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. 

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".

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.

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.

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.

Keykey1985 wrote:

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...

Secret_squirrel wrote:

They also neglect to mention that they could have fpn'd on the horn use alone.

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.