Near Miss of the Day 808: Police force changes mind on warning letter to close pass driver (video includes swearing)

Was the incident pre or post new HC ?

You'd have thought "he claimed I should have been on the pavement" is an admission of guilt.

hirsute wrote:

Was the incident pre or post new HC ?

You'd have thought "he claimed I should have been on the pavement" is an admission of guilt.

Pre update. I was careful to quote the old rules in my evidence.

The prosecution asked "do you think you passed too closely and should you have waited until the van in the right lane had passed?" to which she replied "yes".

Slam dunk guilty.

Her passenger said "as a driver and a cyclist I believe the cyclist should not have wobbled pulling away, should not have cycled so slowly uphill, should have been on the pavement and there were no potholes to swerve around as claimed" (you can clearly see them in the video!). "Therefore I believe the cyclist is not safe and competent!" I struggled to stay silent at this point.

The prosecution couldn't apologise enough and were shocked that she admitted guilt but still got off.

I was gutted she didn't have representation as I was itching to be cross examined by the defence having memorised my statement and the relevent HC advice and wanted to shoot down all the points made by her passenger.

I don't suppose there is any way you can appeal this clear miscarriage of justice?

eburtthebike wrote:

I don't suppose there is any way you can appeal this clear miscarriage of justice?

hse.gov.uk says:

A party to proceedings before a magistrates' court may appeal the court's decision to the High Court 'by way of case stated' on the ground that a decision was wrong in law or in excess of the court's jurisdiction (but not, for example, on the ground that the decision was against the weight of the evidence).

My untrained guess is no.

eburtthebike wrote:

I don't suppose there is any way you can appeal this clear miscarriage of justice?

Rather than accepting the risk to the person, effort to record and report evidence, uncertainty of the enforcement process, there is another way: Avoidance.

Specifically, using a visual aid to spacially challenged drivers so that they become aware of the minimum safe passing distance (1.5m) and failing that you have evidence of a collision so that it can't be denied thus supporting prosecution.

The visual aid is simple and cheap: 1.5m of white plastic pipe 15mm from your local hardware shop affixed to the seat post perpendicular to the top tube on the off-site. Gaffer tape works well for sufficient stability yet no structural effect.

This is effective because it's not expected though less suitable for riding in groups unless it has been explained and adjusted for..

The Road Police feedback I have had was 'Good idea'.

Ride safe.

#VisionZero #TravelKind #WMPRPU

Any chance you could send in the video for NMOTD?

Can't blame the police for this one, it's down to poor prosecution, poor direction from the judge or the jury. Whichever it was something needs to change.

Bungle_52 wrote:

Any chance you could send in the video for NMOTD?

Can't blame the police for this one, it's down to poor prosecution, poor direction from the judge or the jury. Whichever it was something needs to change.

I certainly will.

In my opinion the prosecution did a great job in getting the accused to admit guilt. Sadly it was not a jury trial, just three Magistrates who probably all drove to work in their cars, close passing cyclists all the way!

EDIT: I have now submitted this for NMOTD.

someone I know (obviously not me) always does a pretty blatent wobble when ever he/she is closed passed for this very reason. 

mrchrispy wrote:

someone I know (obviously not me) always does a pretty blatent wobble when ever he/she is closed passed for this very reason. 

Standard Operating Procedure unless you practice Avoidance (see above) when you would have evidence of collision, non-structural.

they decided not guilty as I hadn't had to swerve or brake.

Essex Police has been recorded on here as using that dodge.

someone I know always does a pretty blatent wobble when ever he/she is close passed for this very reason

Doesn't make any difference, because that's just an excuse- they would just bring out another excuse if there was wobbling or braking, because the aim is no action by the police- and if that objective fails, the aim becomes no penalty for the offender. This 'wobble or brake' criterion is one of the most stupid around, used by police forces with a lot of stupid officers on traffic. They have no conception of cycling because they have not cycled since childhood. When some nutter in a BMW or Audi comes past you at 50, they're gone in an instant unless they've managed to finish you off- there is no time to 'wobble or brake'. If you 'wobble or brake' when this happens, you're going to be under those Sainsbury's 44-tonner wheels- Lancashire Constabulary doesn't bother with excuses now- they just never respond to anything sent in the OpSnapLancs

Conditional ofer is them admitting fault and accepting a fine and points instead of the driving course if one is offered.  Of course they can challenge the decision entirely and take it to court if they wish.

A conditional offer is a Fixed Penalty £100 & 3 points for careless driving. Or, most likely, they will attend the course; which they still have to pay for and will cost them some time. If they are really daft, they could plead not guilty and contest it in court; where the points and fine could be greater if found at fault.

This is about as good as it gets and I'm pleased to see the police change their view of this incident upon review. However, it just shows how the process needs improvement, so that there's less ambiguity when it comes to charging decisions.