Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Not the worst but... Warkwickshire Police Analysis

I mentioned I was a bit miffed at this bit of driving. We've all had worse, but the aggressive pass at the end combined with the unsettling left turn signal next to me while closing was enough that I thought this driver had crossed a threshold. 

https://youtu.be/jpqSWBzvdFU

This is how Warwickshire Police analysed it:

"Thank you for the above submission to Operation Snap.  It has been reviewed and there will be no further action taken.  The rationale for this decision is the initial pass appears to provide sufficient safety room and is conducted at low speed.  The only aggravating factor being the junction was relatively close by and the sensible option would have been to wait until after the junction to pass.  The subject vehicle indicates to let you know it is turning left the cyclist behind you appears to recognise this and brakes accordingly.  You continue passed the subject vehicle and at this point you are within 1.5 metres but the vehicle is almost stationary so the risk of harm is very low.  The final pass was conducted at speed but it is not possible to verify what speed that was.  The cyclist beside you senses the the subject vehicle and moves to the nearside and the pass ultimately provides sufficient safety room.  The emission of black smoke is normal for some vehicles when they accelerate and whether this occurred to annoy or assault you or others can’t be proven."

While we are aware of the standard that the police appear work to, I would have thought that it was an display of driving below the standard of a competent and careful driver - I wonder how low their bar is?

For reference, my speed was about 16mph, slowing to about 9mph for the corners.

If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.

Add new comment

34 comments

Avatar
Bungle_52 | 1 year ago
2 likes

Just like to say thanks to Ian for all his efforts on our behalf.

I know some people think warning letters are a waste of time but I disagree and it is probably a necessary step on the road to more serious sanctions for repeat offenders. It also seems to me to show that trainng of officers is more likely to be the issue rather than laziness or a hatred of cyclists. I will take it as a sign that things are improving, even if progress is slow and patchy, and hope that one day I will be able to set off on a bike without a camera and just enjoy my ride.

I think it's a pity that Cycling UK, British Cycling and even road.cc haven't been fighting for us like this given all the evidence that has built up in NMOTD over the years.

Thanks again Ian.

Avatar
IanMSpencer replied to Bungle_52 | 1 year ago
1 like

One of the unfortunate things about the submissions system is limited space.

At the start, I decided the approach was to make the case for the assessor but to fit in the form I had to cut it back too much. My complaint built a case based on about 10 points of driving structured around their response.

I also was lucky that Warwickshire has an effective complaints system. If you've tried complaining as much as I have you get to learn which organisations are serious about complaints. For example, I made a formal complaint to Solihull council about their bike lane which simply disappeared into a black hole, and the BBC system is designed to fend off criticism rather than to learn.

I also made it clear what I wanted and why. It was easier for a reasonable person to accept than reject! It was also a significant effort, and I have the time and motivation.

I think it's also recognising that like with CyclingMickey, you have to learn what works. I've not submitted many obvious infractions because it is not possible to tell whether they were malicious - I suspect that many incompetent passes frighten the drivers as much as us as they realise how stupid they've been and we have to be realistic about the capacity of the police to deal with incidents.

This incident triggered me because of the yobbish aspect to the driving, a hint of temper, sustained over a couple of minutes.

Avatar
stonojnr replied to Bungle_52 | 1 year ago
0 likes

My issue with warning letters as an outcome is I don't see what positive impact they have, they arent decreasing the levels of close passes, or creating a sense that cyclists with cameras are just as effective as speed cameras or traffic police at nabbing bad driving behavior.

Even with prosecutions we saw yesterday with CyclingMikeys latest mobile catch, the driver doesn't think they did anything wrong and blames "Batman" for getting caught, but at least they get financially penalised for it.

What difference is a letter in the post going to make these types of people ?

Avatar
wtjs replied to stonojnr | 1 year ago
1 like

What difference is a letter in the post going to make these types of people ?

None, unless it comes in handy if there's another pandemic and toilet paper crisis. You can't even be sure that a warning letter goes 'on their police record' to stop them getting a series of them to no effect- when the authorities are vague about this, I suspect that no record of warning letters is kept. On the other hand, the points on the licence system is also failing when the real villains retain their licences for 'hardship', so what's the alternative? In Lancashire the joke driving course is even more of a joke because it's online- or was, the last time I looked into it.

Avatar
IanMSpencer replied to stonojnr | 1 year ago
5 likes

It's a difficult one. In my (not much) younger days I got stopped by the police a couple of times for some significant speeding, and neither time I got ticketed, but I got a talking to and I made sure they saw I was shaken up by the experience during it. The second time I took myself off onto an advanced driving course which finally made the difference because I recognised I was taking too many risks, I'm by no means perfect, but I've got rid of my list of excuses that we all have used to justify ourselves.

These letters do go on the police intellegence file for the driver, so what it does do is that if they get noticed again, it increases the chance of action. My hope though is that it has the chance that they think, yes, I was a bit silly and I've been let off, perhaps I need to be more careful.

There is an element where points and fines create that sense of injustice, whereas the warning letter has a lower level of antagonism. However, I do think we are seeing a split in behaviour generally, where a good number of people want to be well-behaved, but a minority feel that being constrained in their behaviour just isn't right anymore and they aren't going to respond well to any sanction, warning, or even the withdrawal of their licence (though that is more in the criminal fraternity than the neo-entitlement brigade).

A wider point is with the increasing prevalence of cameras, does it become more like average speed cameras, where people really aren't confident they will get away with speeding (after all, nobody knows whether they are switched on yet the compliance is very high), that people start to think that they might always get caught on someone's camera? The more driving nonsense is captured and noted, the more drivers (and cyclists!) will feel that they are risking an offence being captured. 

In the end, we need a culture change, and the culture change in part comes by example - if you drive at 30mph in a 30mph, the majority of cars behind quietly accept it. Do it often enough, it becomes the habitual speed for more and more people. Drive at 40, and people tend to follow and pick up the sense that that is the local speed, Demonstrate passing cyclists safely, more people get used to the idea that the consensus is to pass safely, take risks, and people follow the example.

Avatar
wtjs | 1 year ago
0 likes

Well, no sign of any reconsideration of NFA's at Lancashire Constabulary! 

The footage, including still, shows the HGV crossing the first solid white stop line whilst the traffic signal is amber.  The further solid white stop line is for bicycles, as is clearly marked.  There are no offences disclosed from this footage and therefore no further action will be taken

It's now a week since they came up with a radical new interpretation of the Highway Code (which, as usual gets the HGV driver off) and TSRGD schedule 14 part 1 -see Part 1 Section 30 and Part 2 Item 49, and they're sticking to it!

Avatar
IanMSpencer replied to wtjs | 1 year ago
1 like

How are you responding? Are you getting into a debate with the assessing officer or are you using a formal complaint which forces another person to look?

When you got that response, for example, did you respond with reference to the law to point out that they were wrong?

Do you give up when you get a response like that? What I would do is wait for a howler like that and then provide a pseudo-legalistic breakdown point by point that no reasonable person could argue with.

If you'd like to chat off line, you can email me at my Gmail account which is remarkably easy to construct from my username.

Avatar
wtjs replied to IanMSpencer | 1 year ago
0 likes

How are you responding?

It appears that, even after all this time, people are reluctant to believe how bad and how bent Lancashire Constabulary is. Their main tactic is to simply refuse to respond.

This is from the manager of the laughably named Lancashire Safer Roads Unit at 1pm on Thursday 24th March, copied to the Sgt. in charge of day to day running of OpSnapLancs and to the Inspector who seems to be actually in charge:

Insp Jones will be responding to you; he is currently on rest days but will be in touch.

A week later, and he still seems to be on 'rest days' and has not been in touch.  Neither has anyone else. I will write again today, and will receive no reply until the 14 day period has expired. This is a simple case, easily solved by HC Rule 178: If your vehicle has proceeded over the first white line at the time that the signal goes red, you should stop as soon as possible and MUST stop at the second white line.

Dealing with passive resistance like this is difficult- there is essentially no Professional Standards Department and the Office of the Lancashire PCC is a comic-opera council do-nothing operation which simply advises complainers to seek independent legal advice. There is no supervision of Lancashire Constabulary, and no oversight. Almost all complaints to OpSnapLancs result in no action with the routine letter that 'action is not in the public interest'. Even the action letters are deliberately evasively written (even they are not that accidentally incompetent) to include the possibility that they might decide to do nothing at all or give 'words of advice'. However, I just keep collecting the evidence.

Avatar
IanMSpencer replied to wtjs | 1 year ago
0 likes

Perhaps a carefully constructed letter to your MP might help. Raise it as a general issue with simple examples (these are MPs we are talking about) and form something that the MP can use to write to the Home Office and get a reply from a minion to add to the file. Ideally, if you have something that is not actually cycling related (indeed many of your copious posts are not), the health and safety issue of non-MOT'd lorries sounds ideal, to avoid any problems with the anti-cycling lobby.

If that lorry firm has a poor reputation, then the local press might sniff a story, which in turn gives the police the embarrassment of having to explain why they haven't enforced a complaint about an unsafe vehicle.

It would be interesting to gather information about the varying standards around the country, and perhaps the end target should be enough evidence that updated guidance is produced to apply to all police forces.

Avatar
wtjs replied to IanMSpencer | 1 year ago
0 likes

All this has been done, years ago!

Avatar
IanMSpencer replied to wtjs | 1 year ago
1 like

I know it is frustrating, but there is currently a new opportunity with the change to the HWC that means that your lorry complaints should be held to a higher standard, as well as the cycling issues we are concerned about.

Some of my personal campaigns have taken years, and sometimes it is getting the right contact or the right reply, an enthusiastic councillor wanting to make their name. However, in the local area, I can see the marks of my doings, a footbridge that didn't exist, or a change to a cycle lane and so on.

You could also try a few other tactics, like getting a friend to make a submission - perhaps it has become too personal between you and the police - after all there aren't likely to be that many - are they being unprofessional and treating it as a game with you? I know I got too aggressive in frustration with Solihull Highways and they've gone from being cojouled into helpful responses into non-cooperation.

Also, perhaps we should do more to enlist the help of the campaigning organisations to sort out standards around the UK, which in part we do by gathering the evidence of differing standards, which requires cooperation across the country.

Avatar
quiff replied to wtjs | 1 year ago
0 likes

That's a dreadfully worded explanation but presumably the point they're trying to make in this case is that if the first stop line was passed on amber (and there was not time to stop safely - a judgement question) there is no offence. I recognise you can point to a whole catalogue of these and other failings, just taking this one example on its merits.       

Avatar
wtjs replied to quiff | 1 year ago
1 like

the point they're trying to make in this case is that if the first stop line was passed on amber (and there was not time to stop safely - a judgement question) there is no offence

An entertaining, but incorrect, attempt to adapt Aesop's Tortoise and Hare to distort Rules 175 and 178 by ignoring the 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 bit, and converting it to a more offender-patatable accelerate as rapidly as possible so that you can say you were unable to stop if the light turns red. This was the situation when the light turned amber

Avatar
quiff replied to wtjs | 1 year ago
1 like

Well yes, that does put a slightly different complexion on it! 

Avatar
IanMSpencer | 2 years ago
6 likes

That was quick:

 

Dear Mr Spencer,

 I have been asked to review your complaint about the decision relating to your Op Snap submission. Thank you for taking the time to reaffirm your perspective, which is welcomed.

 We process approximately 130-150 Op Snap submissions each month, of which 40-50% relate to submissions by cyclists. This initiative continues to grow, and how we respond is evolving and maturing as we look to find the right balance regarding the updates we provide to those who submit evidence of bad driving. Although each case is viewed and a decision made by an experienced Officer, we accept that not every outcome will be to the satisfaction of all parties, however we do listen to responses, and we are willing to review a decision if necessary.

 The original decision maker and I have conducted a further review of your submission, upon which we accept that the points you raise are reasonable and we have therefore reversed the original decision.

We are now sending a written Warning to the driver about their manner of driving, highlighting in particular how they were inconsiderate toward you as a road user.

I can assure you that in dealing with these matters I believe it is necessary to be open minded to the perspectives of others, especially with changes in rules and regulations, and how these impact on a range of road users. We welcome your feedback, I am confident that the points you make have been taken on board and will be reflected in our Op Snap decision making.

 I hope this addresses the issues you raise, and thank you for your support to make our roads safer.

 Regards

 

I think that's as good a response as I might have hoped for so written back saying so. Now to decide how to progress this further with improved guidelines across the country.

Avatar
JustTryingToGet... replied to IanMSpencer | 2 years ago
7 likes
IanMSpencer wrote:

That was quick:

 

Dear Mr Spencer,

 I have been asked to review your complaint about the decision relating to your Op Snap submission. Thank you for taking the time to reaffirm your perspective, which is welcomed.

 We process approximately 130-150 Op Snap submissions each month, of which 40-50% relate to submissions by cyclists. This initiative continues to grow, and how we respond is evolving and maturing as we look to find the right balance regarding the updates we provide to those who submit evidence of bad driving. Although each case is viewed and a decision made by an experienced Officer, we accept that not every outcome will be to the satisfaction of all parties, however we do listen to responses, and we are willing to review a decision if necessary.

 The original decision maker and I have conducted a further review of your submission, upon which we accept that the points you raise are reasonable and we have therefore reversed the original decision.

We are now sending a written Warning to the driver about their manner of driving, highlighting in particular how they were inconsiderate toward you as a road user.

I can assure you that in dealing with these matters I believe it is necessary to be open minded to the perspectives of others, especially with changes in rules and regulations, and how these impact on a range of road users. We welcome your feedback, I am confident that the points you make have been taken on board and will be reflected in our Op Snap decision making.

 I hope this addresses the issues you raise, and thank you for your support to make our roads safer.

 Regards

 

I think that's as good a response as I might have hoped for so written back saying so. Now to decide how to progress this further with improved guidelines across the country.

Brilliant work on your part!

Avatar
IanMSpencer replied to JustTryingToGetFromAtoB | 1 year ago
6 likes

Further response from the Operation Snap:

Following receipt of your email of dissatisfaction along with the unit supervisor we have conducted a re-review of your submission to Operation Snap.  We have noted your comments and re-assessed the evidence provided.  It is clear an error of judgement has been made on our part and we have rescinded the original decision to NFA.  The re-review decision is to issue a warning letter to the motorist concerned for inconsiderate driving.  Please accept our apologies for any concerns and or inconvenience this has caused you.

To be frank, I am pleasantly shocked by this open and frank reply, and I must give all credit to Warwickshire Police for being open to being challenged.

Avatar
HoarseMann replied to IanMSpencer | 1 year ago
3 likes

Fair play to Warwickshire Police and thank you Ian for challenging their initial response.

Interesting that a large proportion of video submissions are from cyclists. Given the low percentage of road traffic that cyclists account for, that really does highlight the scale of the issue.

The decision making process for inconsiderate/careless is far more subjective than for a speeding offence or holding a mobile phone. It's good they're evolving their process with this feedback.

@wtjs just needs some help now up in Lancs!

Avatar
quiff replied to IanMSpencer | 1 year ago
2 likes

That's a great outcome. It's clear that some forces just have a better attitude to challenge and learning, but I think it's also definitely an art to present incidents and complaints to them in a way that engages, rather than entrenches them, so kudos for that. I always try to be as dispassionate and objective as possible when reporting an incident to seem reasonable. It is a balance though - I realised from discussion with someone on here that simply referring to the law and what happened dispassionately risks losing some of the victim impact - e.g. not saying how a close pass made me feel.       

Avatar
Velo-drone | 2 years ago
3 likes

First up, congratulations on getting a more than one line response.

I wouldn't be expending much more time on the individual report, as even if you do get the decision reversed, the Warks policy is to issue warning letter only for non-collision incidents.  And a "sterner" warning letter for a second incident.  

Consequently, close passes of the nature that the Met routinely issue points/fine/driver improvement course for, in Warks consistently receive only warning letter.  Even when there are aggravating factors such as children involved, or abusive and threatening language.  Whereas phone driving reports routinely result in points/fines even if nobody is immediately endangered in the footage.

The real battle with Warks is to get the policy changed to one that actually takes into account the risk to life of the standard of driving. 

The force is on a journey, I believe - and giving any feedback at all on reports has been a significant step forward.  But the overall approach still has severe inadequacies - and  effectively tolerates deadly driving in favour of only prosecuting the "easy target" phone driving offences.  

Avatar
IanMSpencer replied to Velo-drone | 2 years ago
5 likes

I'm an old hand at complaining to official bodies, and my target is typically process rather than individual outcome. So although I made a reference to suggesting it was not too late for words of advice, my main request was for a review, and if they agreed I was not being unreasonable, asking what training and support they would put in place. I won't pursue the individual further, but I might ask my MP to ask the Home Office what national guidelines are in place and should be in place. Always best to have an actual complaint to hang these general queries around.

Some years ago I got excited about local planning decisions. Got the usual tosh about writing objections, and I asked the question whether the councillors read the planning file. The answer was no. So, I asked, how can the planning committee make a reasoned decision based on objections if they never read them. Ah! Penny dropped, and now my council always provides a summary of the objections in the report they produce... all a bit pointless now that planners are obliged to approve most developments, but it made a difference at the time.

Avatar
Bungle_52 | 2 years ago
1 like

"The driver is going to have to inconveniemce someone"

https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-674-driver-inconveniences-cyclist-288521

Avatar
IanMSpencer replied to Bungle_52 | 2 years ago
1 like

I remembered that one and put in a special paragraph:

"The subject vehicle indicates to let you know it is turning left the cyclist behind you appears to recognise this and brakes accordingly.

"2. A test for whether driving is without due consideration or careless is causing another road user to slow or alter course. This acknowledges that the second cyclist was impeded by the overtaking car. And further has put the onus on the following cyclist to take appropriate action to avoid the result of the poor assessment of the overtake. The fact that another road user mitigated the consequences of a poor decision does not alter the fact that the driving was of a poor standard."

The author got another couple of paragraphs of similar length and the picture below just for that one sentence!

As a connoisseur you might appreciate this sentence too:

You will note that the second motorcyclist takes an unusual position in the centre of the road, slowing well short of the junction with no indication. As I was momentarily distracted by the car, looking across at it trying to assess what it was doing, when I looked back, I felt that I had not properly accounted for the motorcyclist.

Avatar
IanMSpencer | 2 years ago
4 likes

Complaint submitted, about a page per sentence.

Basically asking why the response justifies the driving as acceptable rather than simply agreeing but saying not worth their effort. Most pleased finding that picture in the HWC to match up with the lack of criticism. Asked them to review why the response justified a slam dunk example as illustrated in the Highway Code. Asked whether there was a culture issue with a lack of cycling experience in the team. Asked them to review by an officer with cycling experience.

My theory is to make it more effort to reject than process! All they had to do was send a letter saying "Must try harder."

Avatar
IanMSpencer | 2 years ago
4 likes

"The subject vehicle indicates to let you know it is turning left"

 

Turning left

182
Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle. Cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users in particular may be hidden from your view.
 

Avatar
wtjs | 2 years ago
1 like

Coming from Lancashire, I'm not surprised by the brush-off from the police. They simply decide at the outset that they're not going to do anything because nobody has been killed or injured, and then make up complete tripe to justify the decision. They then have to waste more time rejecting the complaint, and because they're pretty dim they trap themselves into continuing. They're insisting that YA67 HMU had a valid MOT at the time of an offence on 4.2.22, even though DVLA and DVSA keep insisting that it didn't. The Police know they're wrong because they resort to rubbishing the DVSA, and saying the Police National Computer is the only source to trust, when the DVSA get the MOT result as soon as it's finished and actually give the dates of the MOT tests when the police refuse. Lying by the police is now routine!

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 2 years ago
4 likes

The driver hadn't allowed enough room for a successful overtake and was way too close - any pothole or similar would have ended badly.

I'd expect a warning letter or similar from Avon & Somerset if I'd have submitted something like this.

Avatar
HoarseMann | 2 years ago
3 likes

You are right to feel a bit miffed about this. The driver initiated an overtake that could not be completed safely. They were also far too close up behind the motorcycle. Those two things should at least have got a warning, ideally a course or FPN.

The comments about what the cyclist should do just show ignorance from the police. You can't just slam the brakes on when riding in a group. That could have been even more dangerous.

I think the smoke is incidental to accelerating. It's possible they've had the particulate filter illegally removed to increase performance, but it doesn't look like a rolling coal modification. I used to have an old diesel before the days of particulate filters and it did exactly the same.

As for how low the bar is, this is the minimum Thames Valley will consider https://road.cc/content/news/266729-near-miss-day-309-perhaps-quickest-c...

Avatar
IanMSpencer replied to HoarseMann | 2 years ago
5 likes

It's picking through the police response - which reads to me that as a cyclist I should be avoiding the motorist and predicting what they are doing, the subtle suggestion that the motorist only made one error in an ill-judged pass approaching a junction but they made that all right by signalling next to me so I could take action to avoid them. The response also hints I undertook the car ("You continued past the subject vehicle") and implies it was my choice to ride closely to the car ("You continue passed the subject vehicle and at this point you are within 1.5 metres"), but the car never cleared me, I kept a steady pace. Also, the policeman clearly doesn't understand that most broken hips end up being from low speed falls from clipped in cyclists at junctions - speed is rarely a factor in injuries caused by a fall from a bike.

The policeman also acknowledges that the overtake was incomplete and causes the following cyclist to have to take avoiding action. There is no suggestion in that response that the driver was failing to account for the unpredictable actions of the cyclists, instead his driving was deemed acceptable because of the precautionary approach of the other rider. The following rider chose to squeeze through, but he was pretty quickly cut off and probably could not have stopped as the car pulls across without consideration of the effect he might have on the cyclist following.

You'll notice the wobble - or rather the swinging out to turn. What that was was being distracted by a car indicating AND pulling in, although the police obviously think he judged it nicely by avoiding clipping me, it meant I was distracted - in the short space of time from having "sufficient safety room" to swinging in next to my rear wheel was a very short time and I could not tell whether it was going to be OK, I was anxious. As I looked back forwards, I realised the second motorcyclist had chosen an odd position to stop - well short of the junction, no signal (I thought they were riding together) and I felt I hadn't judged the situation well and had to swerve between the kerb and the biker.

I thought the second pass was equally dangerous. My mate was riding without a mirror and only pulled in as an instinctive reaction to the fast approaching car, when he was originally intending to form up two abreast (not an ideal section of road for it, but we travel along there often and have a feel for how it works). That car was totally committed to a pass, clearly at more than 30mph at a point where there was no safe passing distance due to the position of the other cyclist. The police again think it was alright because of the cyclist's reaction, not because of the driver's due care and attention. That particular section of road is deeply rutted on the left.

As discussed before, I think, in terms of the smoke, it's on older car,  2008, around the the time of Euro 4 so probably would expect it to have a DPF but not certainly. My point was more that the driver, having owned the car for a year or more (judging by when documents were last issued) would be aware of producing smoke under heavy acceleration; secondly, why is heavy acceleration to pass cyclists acceptable; and thirdly it clearly was far in excess of 30, so although they might not be able to prove a particular speed accurately, they could tie together approaching on open road, hard acceleration, and braking immediately after the pass, together with estimates form the video to assert it was a deliberate exceeding of the speed limit by a reasonably significant amount, not passing the cyclists slowly and carefully. The classic case is splashing going through a puddle - that does not have to be deliberate to be an offence, so passing a cyclist in an aggressive manner that produced significant harmful fumes seems to me to fall into the same category.

Avatar
HoarseMann replied to IanMSpencer | 2 years ago
6 likes

All good points. This driver was impatient and incompetent. The problem is the police officer reviewing this is probably just as bad at driving around cyclists. They also demonstrate a total lack of understanding as to the actions you could reasonably expect to make here as a cyclist. To insinuate you 'undertook' the car is appalling. The second motorbike made a poor overtake too.

The question is what to do about it?

Pages

Latest Comments