- 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
Operation SnapMotorist fined after being caught on camera driving at group of cyclists, causing one to fall off bike (+ video)
Helmet camera footage submitted to Northamptonshire Police under the force’s Operation Snap has helped secure the conviction of a motorist who drove towards a group of cyclists on a single-track country road without slowing down, causing one of them to come off her bike.
A driver who injured a cyclist has pleaded guilty at Northampton Magistrates’ Court after footage which captured his careless driving was submitted to @northants_SRT via #OpSnap.
Read more...https://t.co/rFfB5qpSnd pic.twitter.com/PPb50y3NAw— Northants Police (@NorthantsPolice) March 31, 2022
Land Rover Defender driver Paul Nigel Miley, aged 52 and from Ashby St Ledger, pleaded guilty at Northampton Magistrates’ Court earlier this month to driving without due care and attention in connection with the incident, which happened on 11 June last year.
PC Mo Allsopp-Clarke of Northamptonshire Police’s Safer Roads Team commented: “Miley initially pleaded not guilty to the offence, claiming he had driven extremely slowly past the group and was unable to move further across.
“The video evidence clearly showed that Miley had no consideration for the cyclists on that day, and when he appeared at Magistrates’ Court, he changed his plea to guilty.
“His driving fell below the standard of a competent and careful driver, which could have very easily ended in tragic consequences, and I’m pleased the courts have dealt with the driver positively.
“Drivers should always try to give cyclists and other vulnerable road users at least 1.5m of space and pass slowly. In this instance, on this road, that would not be possible.
“On this occasion, the correct thing to do would have been to come to a stop to allow the cyclists to pass safely. It takes a couple of seconds and then everyone can continue their journey in safety.”
Miley was fined £1,008 and ordered to pay £100 in costs and a £101 victim surcharge, and also had his driving licence endorsed with five penalty points.
“The success of Operation Snap is down to the continued support from the public, who enable us to take action against driving offences we otherwise wouldn’t see,” PC PC Allsopp-Clarke added.
“Hopefully this case demonstrates that we take all instances of poor driving very seriously and we will prosecute offenders accordingly, which can only be a good thing to help keep our roads safer.”
The Operation Snap portal enables members of the public to upload video evidence and complete a form that automatically generates a witness statement, with police staff then reviewing the footage to ensure it meets the scheme’s remit and the vehicle’s registration can be identified.
If so, the force’s Safer Roads Team then examines the footage and refers it for prosecution if they are satisfied that a motoring offence has been committed.
In the past, road.cc readers have shared with us their frustration at the force not acting upon the video evidence of poor driving that they have submitted to it, however.
As one example, in October 2018 we published a Near Miss of the Day video showing a motorist making a very close pass on a cyclist, but Northamptonshire Police took no action because they deemed that he was riding too far out in the road and the driver had given him sufficient space.
Five months earlier the cyclist, named Dave, had met with the force’s chief constable to express his concern over the safety of people riding bikes on the county’s roads.
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
- GMBasix 10 min 34 sec ago
Well, naturally: I thought that was a given
- HoarseMann 30 min 34 sec ago
just a general point on SD cards... whilst you probably can get a 128GB one for a tenner, I would spend a smidge more or go for less capacity, but...
- quiff 48 min 17 sec ago
It was only your comment in the carousel that first brought me here, and yet I still managed to read most of the page before remembering this isn't...
- brooksby 2 hours 10 min ago
Maybe Asos has launched a range of cycling clothing? Possible/potential confusion in the market there might set Assos off again?
- quiff 2 hours 16 min ago
That comparison might work in answer to the ill-considered "you can't bring your bike in, it's got dirty tyres" but not sure it's apposite here as...
- gazza_d 2 hours 55 min ago
Acts like this should be regarded as domestic terrorism, because that's what it is.
- eburtthebike 4 hours 20 min ago
The Daily Mail, Telegraph and GB News.........
- Benthic 4 hours 33 min ago
Not AB specifically, but that sort of thing. Focus Pocus is the most entertaining.
Add new comment
56 comments
If East Dorset, it's very normal, if West Dorset, it's not. Better drivers once you get away from Bournemouth, Poole, Christchurch, just avoid the New Forest
It has been suggested in previous NMOTDs that to get any action from the police you would need to throw yourself off your bike. I'm wondering if this is evidence for that position even though it was made with tongue in cheek at the time. It does seem to me we punish outcomes rather than actions.
I'm not saying that the rider threw themselves off in this case, it is pretty obvious they were genuinely terrified.
Secondly, as I've said before, I'd have been riding in the middle of the road until the driver slowed down. Once again I'd probably have beeen dead.
Good that driver was taken to court and proven to be guilty. The ignorance of all the anti-cyclist responses on Twitter actually increases the awareness that this driving behaviour is illegal. This happens so many times, I just wish my bike was a Transformer some days. Drivers might also behave better if the UK gun law was changed, because shooting someone who is attacking you with their car weapon might be considered self defence (that was a joke btw...no-one wants a gun law like the U.S)
On our Tuesday ride we were on a sunken single lane road and came upon a horse followed by a car. We chatted to the rider as we passed, all super friendly, but the car, which would not get past the horse for some time, having pulled across for the first bike, pulled out as more of us were passing, with only just enough room to scoot with a foot in the verge and one of our experienced riders got caught out in the melee and ended up in the verge.
The riders behind were amazed that the driver was frowning and shaking her head, when all she had to do was stay put for another 20 seconds and we would have been gone, and she could get back to another 5 minutes of admiring the horse's backside. Time saved: zero. Nuisance caused: pride, irritation and risk of injury due to an unnecessarily closed gap. Low speed falls are just as dangerous as high speed falls.
You're quite right, low speed falls are just as dangerous as those at higher speeds. A chap I cycled with was returning from a Sunday bimble around the local lanes and had pulled up outside his house, unbuckled his helmet and turned to wave farewell to rest of the group. Somehow he slipped, fell backwards, hit his head on the kerb and died.
Somehow he slipped, fell backwards, hit his head on the kerb and died
"And, you know, wearing a helmet would have made no difference to the outcome!"
Actually, no. This incident is precisely the sort of low speed incident in which a helmet is supposed to be of use. But let's not turn this into a helmet debate, he'd taken it off and he's dead. We'll never know and further speculation is pointless.
Quite- that's why I put it in quotes! It's what the anti-helmeteers always claim even when common sense indicates the opposite
In which case we're in agreement, the sadness remains and clearly still impairs my subtlty monitors!
Is that an 'I'm here' toot of the horn right at the beginning?!
I really think the highway code should have included guidance about this specific situation. By far the safest thing to do is for the motorised vehicle to stop and allow the cyclists to negotiate their way past. The landrover would have stopped if a car had been coming the other way.
Or as it is an "real" 4x4 and used to drive in fields and off road, he could have easily slowed and put two of those rugged tires on the grass verge on his side.
I never understand drivers in this situation. Just move over slightly & stop, few seconds later carry on. It is so much more hassle if the other road user is also in a car, one has to reverse to the last passing spot, then the other has to inch slowly around, taking minutes. One they hate, the other they just accept. Totally backwards thinking
Yep, some drivers do slow down, but it's far better for them too if they stop. When they just slow, I then slow, and we have to do a bit more of a wiggle past. If they just stopped, I would be happier carrying more speed past them and would clear in less time.
Isn't there something in the regs about displaying Learner plates when there isn't a learner in the car or driving?
Has there been some modding here ?
Weren't there more replies earlier and a few complaints?
Hopefully another ban.
I lose track of which threads Nige has posted on, but was pretty sure he'd posted on this one...
Seems just post removals as still around elsewhere. The cynic in me thinks it is because I accused Road.cc have allowing PBU back on the site for the "engagement factor".
Not as far as I know. But, as my lady says, I don't know much.
There is in the Highway Code, but it's a "should" not a "must", so not really a regulation but guidance.
"Plates should be removed or covered when not being driven by a learner (except on driving school vehicles)."
The police seemed to be up on this back when I was younger, but they were more on it with any faults with the car.
Easier to remove and replace when the L plate was attached with string rather than the stickers.
There is in the Highway Code, but it's a "should" not a "must", so not really a regulation but guidance
This is a false distinction- there are many things including 'MUST' which the police just ignore, so they're not regulations either:
Rule 175
You MUST stop behind the white ‘Stop’ line across your side of the road unless the light is green. If the amber light appears you may go on only if you have already crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to stop might cause a collision
This is not taken at all seriously in Lancashire and, I suspect, not in many other police jurisdictions either. I appreciate this is an annoying repetition, but you can just skip past! This WS Transport 44 tonne artic PN22 DTX is about to go through this light when it turns red at 50 mph. You can't see it when the light turns amber because it's so far away from the stop line- yet Lancashire Constabulary are still refusing to go back on OpSnapLancs' decision that it's not an offence because they have decided (wrongly, but that's not the point) that because the lorry had passed the advanced stop line when the light turned red, it was perfectly entitled to carry on across the stop line. When the police are this crap and this obstinate, the HC doesn't mean much and neither do 'should' and 'MUST'
That Twitter thread is awful, a lot of hatred for cyclists. I wonder if it were 3 runners or walkers who had slipped the same reaction would have occurred.
Very few understood the charge or even considered that slowing or stopping was the right course of action. A number glossed over the fact that the driver pleaded guilty.
Although the focus is on the second cyclist, the car was even closer to the first cyclist.
It would seem " I didn't hit them" makes it ok and the cyclists should have stopped because car or road tax or some other bollocks.
Thanks, I was going to look at that Twitter but I can't be bothered with that typical boring bile.
Sadly, It’s probably a fair sample of the kind of justifications for acquitting drivers in cycling-related prosecutions that juries which are predominantly made up of drivers come up with.
A lot of
motoristspeople seem to deny everything until the day of their court appearance, when they suddenly burst into tears, say "It's a fair cop", and change their plea to a desperately remorseful guilty.Isn't that just wasting the court's, and the police's, time?
I note that the Land Rover driver got points on their licence, which we now know means absolutely nothing at all...
Many solicitors routinely advise taking it to court even when the evidence quite clearly shows guilt in the hope that the witness(es) don't show, then plead guilty if they do. Surely time for the guilty party, if they do that, to have to pay compensation to the witness for their wasted time and also the costs incurred by the CPS and police in bringing the case (not just a token £100 as in this instance).
Pages