- 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
Overtaking distance for drivers (Surrey Police)Surrey Police says warning letters “most appropriate course of action” for majority of driving offences, and calls on cyclists who submit multiple near miss clips to “engage with us further” to improve road safety
After a Freedom of Information request revealed that 80 percent of the almost 1,000 motorists accused of close passing a cyclist in Surrey over the past 15 months were issued with warning letters, with only three being prosecuted, Surrey Police has claimed that “in the majority of cases, issuing a warning letter is the most appropriate course of action”, due to the “evidential viability” of the submitted videos and the “associated threat, harm, and risk” of the driving offence committed.
The force also told road.cc that it “regularly” receives video submissions of alleged driving offences “from the same people”, and called on those who frequently submit close pass clips to “engage with us further and work together to tackle” issues around road safety.
Earlier this month, we reported that an FOI request found that, in the 15 months up to March 2023, 3,898 videos of alleged driving offences – including close passes, using a mobile phone, or careless driving – were submitted to Surrey Police’s third-party reporting service.
At the time of the data’s publication, over 3,000 of these had achieved an outcome, with over half of the alleged offences resulting in a warning letter being issued, while only 10 led to a prosecution. 1,344 of the submissions, meanwhile, resulted in no further action being taken.
Of the 938 submissions related to alleged close passes on cyclists, only three resulted in a prosecution, four in a fixed penalty notice, and four saw the motorists offered a driver improvement course. 742 close pass cases, on the other hand, were resolved with a warning letter.
> Here's what to do if you capture a near miss, close pass or collision on camera while cycling
Responding to a request for comment from road.cc regarding the recently published data, a spokesperson for Surrey Police said: “Every allegation and submission of footage (including photograph and video submissions) are viewed and reviewed in terms of evidential viability and the associated threat, harm, and risk.
“Any history of previous driving offences would also be taken into consideration when deciding the appropriate course of action to take.
“A number of options are available to us in dealing with these submissions outside of court prosecutions, including issuing a warning letter, a conditional offer, course, or proceeding with a prosecution.
“In addition to this, there are still a number of live cases within the 3,898 figure that are still outstanding where NIPs [Notice of Intended Prosecutions] have been issued and we are waiting for further information which may yet end in one of the above outcomes that may include court.”
> Cyclist run over by drink driver in shocking footage released by police after man jailed
The statement continued: “In the majority of cases, issuing a warning letter is the most appropriate course of action due to the evidential viability of the material submitted being taken in consideration with the other factors mentioned.
“We regularly receive submissions relating to allegations of driving offences from the same people and have invited a number of them to engage with us further and work together to tackle some of the issues involved.”
The active travel Twitter account, Cycling Surrey, which compiled the data from the FOI request, said last week that they were “grateful” that Surrey Police provides a third-party reporting service, but noted that the issue of reducing road danger “goes further than this”.
“If motorists (who are responsible for the vast majority of road danger) realise it’s more likely there will be meaningful consequence for dangerous behaviour, Surrey’s roads will become safer for everyone. And reduce demand on many public services,” the account wrote.
"My ask is that that Chief Constable Tim De Meyer takes his recent appointment as an opportunity to properly review current investment in third-party reporting, consult with road safety experts, and consider its potential benefits to Surrey Police in the widest possible context.”
Responding to the driving offence figures, one cyclist from Surrey wrote on Twitter: “It’s great that Surrey Police have online reporting but it’s a complete waste of resources if they are only going to send out slap on the wrist warning letters to drivers.”
Meanwhile, another said: “It is hardly surprising that I have seen driving standards decrease around here when the police are letting these bad drivers off with warnings or less. The data is very discouraging.”
The latest FOI request from Surrey comes a month after we reported that, of the 286 reports of careless, inconsiderate, or dangerous driving around cyclists considered in 2022 by West Midlands Police – the force which pioneered the award-winning Operation Close Pass – only one resulted in a prosecution, while 213 resulted in no further action being taken.
After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
Latest Comments
- galibiervelo 21 min 40 sec ago
That is class news. Super bikes and vision. Bet there will be no stand at the Taiwan bike show next year! Big luck to all the team
- Hirsute 44 min 3 sec ago
"However, he said that by moving his head around Wilkinson, who was driving at around 20mph, could and should have been in a position to have seen...
- Destroyer666 1 hour 3 min ago
Pretty clearly stated several times in the text that the issue was not related just to his son. And besides, everybody watching the races could see...
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 19 min ago
All Fizik and Selle Italia saddles (though not all their other products) are made in Italy I believe, and their 3D printed models definitely are.
- chrisonabike 1 hour 45 min ago
If you're not on the road with a car, I bet its driver is much less likely to swerve into your space *. Because you're not "in the way"! (Any...
- mdavidford 2 hours 1 min ago
The problem with this argument, though, is that it's just not true....
- Legin 3 hours 56 min ago
The tory party will oppose anything that might restrict their tanks rolling at the next election.
- mdavidford 4 hours 26 min ago
Especially since the similarly priced Tickr X did have that functionality.
Add new comment
53 comments
projecting myself for a moment as Surrey Man, I would be mortified if a warning letter from the police arrived about something I'd done.
Me too!
And given that many close passes etc. are probably just thoughtless or incompetent, it may be that a letter would be enough to make a reasonable person think, and change their driving. Of course that does require there to be a system where escalation will definitely happen if behaviour doesn't improve.
'Work together' One half of that equation seems to be already putting the effort in, it's the other half that is being lazy bastards. Making the roads safer happens when you prosecute dangerous drivers who think their activity is not dangerous. Sending them letters just gives them something to joke about in the pub.
"Work together" makes it sound like we're the problem for overloading their system with evidence of shit driving.
At least you lot have somewhere to send them.
Us, up North, have to try to squeeze the video down *to fit on an email*.
I shit you not.
Thanks for that Police Scotland ... and thanks for allowing the "can't remember" defense, even when there is high quality video evidence.
I'd sooner share the road with more careful drivers than poorer drivers.
For the standard close pass act of stupidity I'd be quite content for a; warning letter, driver improvement course route of escalation before resorting to licence sanctions.
I don't submit huge quantities (probably in the teens this year), based on my chats with TVP I think they believe I'm a regular. It seems a bit of an in joke that I submit so many from one stretch of the A509. I have engaged with them, I offered to send them a copy of the TRO, they now agree that it's a no overtaking zone and seem to understand that many drivers don't know this. I don't think they've actually done anything to educate them (other than those that have ended up on courses).
Where on earth did you find the TRO? I've looked for those on the MK website and could only find temporary ones.
Thames Valley are equally poor in this regard (if not worse in my experience). It was an absolute battle to get them to take a close pass case to court a few years ago.
The good news is some forces are doing better. I've recently been impressed with Northamptonshire Police. I submitted online and a few weeks later, can see that they are recommending the driver is prosecuted for points, as they publish all the submission decisions on their website. I will have to wait a few months to see the actual outcome when that spreadsheet is published.
They've improved recently. Out of the last 13 outcomes, 9 have been courses, 1 court, 1 NFA, 1 warning letter, and 1 'untraceable'.
Prior to that, it was pretty much all warnings or NFAs.
It does look like their use of NFA's / warning letters has reduced slightly. It's good that you're seeing a bit more action from them.
I would agree I haven't kept the stats but I would say two thirds of my submissions result in courses. I haven't had any result in anything higher.
Interestingly, a few years ago they tried to explain that they would send a letter in the case of most first offences but a second offence would result in further action. I had to point out that this statement was incorrect, as they didn't share data with other forces and that was only true if the second offence was in the TVP region and as I live and ride on the border with two other counties that wasn't a consolation.
They also missed out the bit from their decision matrix where that second offence needs to be reported within 3 months of the first.
I think I might fall into the regular submitters category. I’ve submitted 16 so far this year, and those were the worst of the worst. I’ve got it down to about 10 minutes per submission now, but I do need to be selective. All have received a response saying a Written Warning / Passed on to specialist team / etc has been actioned. I try to think of it from a new cyclist point of view, would an overtake like that put me off riding. If yes, then it goes on the submit pile.
It’s disappointing though to find out that it was probably only a warning letter sent for some that were actually really dangerous. The 60mph pass within inches of my bars – avoiding the pot hole a little later on would have probably seen me seriously injured. The ones where they have squeezed past next to a central island. The builders van that came straight at my and my 6 year old riding to school. When I get a spare evening or two I’ll compile a few for nmotd.
I would be happy to liaise with SP over this. There are definite hot spots of terrible overtaking and I’m always wondering what will happen the next time I’m riding through.
I’ve noticed though that since changing from a camera mounted under the bike computer to one on my chest, with associated straps across my back, that passes have been slightly better. Maybe the realisation that I have a camera is making people think? Still get the terrible ones, but much more are wider and more considered…
Evidential viability. 1 min before incident, 1 min after. Low light video is pretty poor and it’s sometimes hard to make out the number plates – but they are visible in at least one frame of what I submit and I’ll often include that frame at the start as a screen grab. Now it’s sunny we’re in 5.3k super HD so there’s no question of being able to see what happens. Not sure what else they need!
As others have mentioned elsewhere on this site - perhaps a sign on our backs making it clear we are recording will help deter some?
Or as other others have mentioned, a large metal pike attached to the handlebars.
Sorry - I went on Twitter earlier and am in a bad headplace. Going to take myself outside and have a word.
I don't like the idea of advertising that we're recording as that almost encourages drivers to only behave around the camera users. I'd rather have a subtle camera so that poor drivers will then never know which cyclists are the ones to be careful around. Of course, that implies that a driver will actually see a cyclist and be able to read a sign.
I entirely take your point but for me I have a PassPixi sign for my own safety primarily, to make it more likely that drivers will behave around me, my wife and or/cycling mates (and in my experience it works very well); catching and reporting bad drivers is very much a secondary consideration. I'd sooner come home having experienced no dangerous driving around me because they were behaving around the camera than with a hatful of bad behaviour to report. Hopefully some people advertising the fact that they're filming will get drivers into a mindset of expecting cyclists to have cameras and behaving more cirumspectly around them...
Don't get me wrong - I have no issue if people decide they want to advertise that they're recording. It could also work as a reminder to drivers to be careful around cyclists too, so there's more than one way to look at it.
Once we teach drivers to give space to cyclists with a sign on their back then we can get everyone to add the sign whether they hava a camera or not.
It's called Batesian mimicry when hover flies do it.
You've not followed the wisdom of a few posters here - this is all just creating tribalism / encouraging snitching / because a few cam cyclists exist what can we expect but violence from drivers?
On a pleasant note the last month or so I've noticed some really excellent driving (or perhaps "just doing it as you should") - people waiting until there's plenty of space, stopping to let cyclists and walkers turn / cross roads etc. If I did run a camera a "do it like this" compilation would have been possible. "Good News" probably runs counter to most people's entertainment tastes though.
When all cyclists are wearing those signs (we can get everyone to agree at our AGM), drivers will become conditioned to behave considerately around cyclists and thus we won't need to wear them.
I've got the 10x10 pass pixi on a pannier its hit and miss, no pun intended, as to it's effectiveness imo.
Plus couple of weeks back driver went completely road rage loopy over it when i pointed at it to warn him he was on camera, he had some serious anger management issues.
It's always a risk I agree, I have the "PASS WIDE' version and I am positive it generally encourages better passing; the difference between when I'm wearing it and when I'm not is really noticeable. But every so often you do get a drunk/drugged/showing off to his mates driver who takes it as a challenge to skin you as close as possible. My rationale is that the good passers (the great majority I must say) might not all have been as good without the sign while the deliberately bad ones would probably do it anyway, sign or no sign.
Then yes, there are the ones who are seriously unbalanced; I've been harangued more than once when just sitting quietly at the lights by drivers and once or twice by pedestrians who've seen the camera and start on with the usual "Fink you're farkin' old bill, doncha?"
I find the good passers give more room, apart from a couple of crazy drivers, usually when I point it out I get even more space, so it works up to a point.
Because then there's stuff like this, and it's not a one off, the irony being this road actually does lead to the "old bill" hq in Suffolk. Whether that says more about drivers observation skill or theyre distracted not sure.
Could always get one of these, depends if you want pay £75 to put a target on your back.
https://www.primaleurope.com/collections/mens-jerseys/products/camera-me...
I have fitted a highly visible empty Go-pro waterproof case to the top of my helmet whilst the actual camera recording is under the handlebars.
The visible case on the helmet certainly seems to have a deterrent effect, especially after the local (Bridgend) case where a driver (Mr Humphreys) was fined £1,100 for a close pass last summer in the South Wales Police area.
This case made headlines in all the local media and so a lot of local people have been talking about this incident and appears to have made some drivers very cautious when passing.
Might just be my imagination obviously but I have had no incidents to report for months and long may it continue.
Looks like you've stumbled on a novel idea here - the idea that meaningful punishment well advertised with a realistic chance of being caught could act as some sort of deterrence?
I wonder if there's also a subconscious aspect of 'being seen', regardless of any actual consequences? I do think my rather obvious rear camera makes a slight difference when I run it, but I've been aware for years - long before bikecams were a thing - that if I glance over my shoulder when the driver behind is tailgating or clearly contemplating a stupid manoeuvre, they surprisingly often drop back. It's almost as if they think that if they pass quickly when you're not looking, you won't notice. (Cf the 'If I don't indicate and do it quickly my illegal turn/park/lane-change didn’t happen' thing.) I'm not sure that's a fear of getting caught and punished, more embarrassment at being seen doing something they know they shouldn't really? Human behaviour is very odd!
If I'm right, maybe what's needed is more old-fashioned public info clips with the general message 'Don't embarrass yourself by driving like a dick.'
Could be something there - was cycling behind a motorbike yesterday and found my attention drawn to the "eye of Horus" designs on the back of their helmet.
Of course it's an old idea, likely can't patent it...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyespot_(mimicry)
Pages