Police enforcement against close passing drivers is a 'postcode lottery' says senior Met Officer - but video evidence is the future

Hertfordshire seem to have difficulty dealing with collisions, let alone close passes or other reporting of antisocial driving. They claim Data Protection and will not update you on any action, if any taken. How come this legislation is understood differently by the Met? How do they let you know the outcome?

I've had the same issue here on a recent submission - hiding behind data protection.  Which is strange as they shared a lot of detail on a previous incident I submitted over a year ago.  

They are now claiming you are a witness to an incident and therefore have no right to be kept informed.  This runs contrary to advice I've been given.

I'd certainly be interested to know why Herts Police seem to be taking this position - which appears out of step with other regions.

Not just your force. Avon & Somerset are also hiding behind the "data protection" excuse as a reason for not providing updates to people submitting video footage. Ridiculous.

Official Herts response to a recent video submission of a moped being ridden on the pavement.

"Thank you for the submission of your footage, we will now review the footage and investigate any offences disclosed.

Please be aware that you may not hear anything further from us in relation to this matter.

Should we need any further information we will contact you.

Unfortunately due to the data protection Act 2018 we are unable to disclose the outcome of the case with you."

Point is, I don't particularly want to know the specific outcome, but I would like to know that reporting stupid / dangerous / inconsiderate driving is not a waste of time, effectively filed into the round filing cabinet that gets emptied by the cleaners every night.

Maybe a broad FOI request, number of submissions and numbers followed up with NIP or warning letter is in order.

This is the view of the Northants Police, you can submit footage but will never hear back as to the outcome and whether or not you've wasted your time in submitting.

There was no bruising?  Even if I fall off when off road, through my own inabilities, there is at least a bruise or a little gravel rash.

A tiny bit sore on the hip the next day, but nothing visible and worth pushing the point. It just seems wrong to me that they'll punish a close pass, but if you go a step further and actually connect then suddenly there's a higher threshhold for action.      

Cycloid, you may be lucky enough to live in an area where the police give a sh*t. The response to my almost identical FoI request was to provide me with the numbers of reports (less than one per day, entirely consistent with their description of being "unable to cope" with the "deluge" of reports). As regards numbers processed or action taken "we do not hold that information"

Hi gavben

I would say that your response is unacceptable in itself.

The police may be digging a hole for themselves. I believe there is a complaints procedure available.

you now have two complaints 1) The police don't give a s**t about cyclists. 2) they are not fulfilling their duty under the foi act.

Send your complaints to the Police Commissioner, etc, etc

Cheers Cycloid

I sent an FOI request to CIty of London Police to see hwo they compared to the Met in terms of actioning reports. They replied saying it would be too expensive to break down how they responded to reports, as it would take more than 15 hours work?!?!

It's good to see I'm not the only anorak trying the foi route.

I would not have submitted my foi if I thought I was taking a Bobby off frontline duties for fifteen hours.

Video submissions and complaints are made online. Surely the information and actions are stored in a database in this day and age. So an foi request like ours should mean a civilian IT person writing a few lines of SQL script to interrogate the database.

Again carry on complaining

You would think so, but the ICO's guidance on making a FOI request says "don't make assumptions about how the authority organises its information or tell them how to search for the information you want". In a public service subject to funding cuts, it's not a given that they have an integrated cradle to grave system for submitting evidence and dealing with the offence.  

Sometimes I feel a letter would be more appropriate than NIP,a NIP you always risk being contested in the courts,so I end up filtering out submitting all but the really dangerous passes,because I dont have the energy, the time or need the extra stress of committing to the process for multiple reports, nearly every day.

I'm not sure a dedicated national team would help as much as just agreeing a set of national standards for each police force to use & adhere to. The problem will always be theres a subjective element to assessing these videos, even before you deal with variances of cameras, setups, expectations of road users, even on NMOTD it's rare everyone commenting is in agreement on what's happened.

eburtthebike wrote:

Good to hear that some police understand the problem, which is drivers not cyclists.  Rather peculiar use of "enforce" though; you can enforce a law, but you can't enforce a person.

The problem is not drivers - it's bad drivers. Please let's not be as bad as those who take about "cycists" as if we all jump red lights etc.