- 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
SaferEssexRoads Extra Eyes campaign Road safety campaign slammed for claiming some cyclists "proactively seek out examples of poor driving", says it only accepts footage captured "in passing" from commutes
A road safety campaign aiming to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on Essex roads is under fire after claiming some cyclists "proactively seek out examples of poor driving" and stating reports of footage showing dangerous driving will only be accepted from riders who "record it in passing while on their commute".
The SaferEssexRoads Twitter account, representing the Safer Essex Roads Partnership (SERP) — a road safety group bringing together police, fire, highways, air ambulance and three local authority areas — shared its Extra Eyes campaign, asking people to report instances of poor and dangerous driving which will then be forwarded to Essex Police for consideration.
SERP replied to a question asking why one example of a cyclist's footage of a mobile phone-using driver would not be accepted, saying: "We accept these if they are reported by cyclists who record it in passing while on their commute but not from those who proactively seek out examples of poor driving."
This type of action is a meaningful deterrent. Shame @EPRoadsPolicing @SaferEssexRoads would no further action this type of footage.
— ComplyandBye (@ComplyandBye) April 25, 2023
We accept these if they are reported by cyclists who record it in passing while on their commute but not from those who proactively seek out examples of poor driving.https://t.co/LvJsiQE4Dm
— SaferEssexRoads (@SaferEssexRoads) April 25, 2023
The stance has drawn criticism, one cyclist calling it "shocking" and another saying it is a "completely unacceptable response". Others questioned how SERP would determine the difference between someone who recorded something "in passing" and other footage "proactively" sought out.
"In the real world, prevention is not waiting for bad things to happen, it's preventing things from happening in the first place. Completely unacceptable response," one rider replied.
Another added: "You don't need to 'seek out' bad driving, it usually finds us. That's just how prolific it is. This has big 'if I don't see it it doesn't happen' energy. Do better and maybe take a leaf out of West Yorkshire Police's book — a force that actually cares about reducing road danger."
Someone else asked for SERP's opinion on "those proactive speed cameras the police leave at the roadside to catch errant drivers?"
CyclingMikey — who has reported thousands of law-breaking drivers in London, often for using their phone behind the wheel in cases similar to the one SERP was displeased about — called the outlook a "disgrace" and said "you should accept all such reports".
One reply shared an FOI request which showed the outcome of all Operation SNAP reports in Essex last year, showing just two phone-using motorists reported by cyclists were prosecuted. In total, 252 reports of mobile phone use resulted in 33 prosecutions.
Of the 252 reports, 15 came from cyclists, resulting in three prosecutions, four warning letters, one passed to another team and seven cases of no further action.
SERP's website states its aim as reducing "death and serious injury on Essex roads to zero" and suggests enforcement is "far more beneficial" when "a driver attends an awareness/training course than simply paying a fine and accepting points on their licence".
"We are dedicated to reducing death and serious injury on the roads in Essex to zero," Nicola Foster, the body's chair said. "However, as with all safety issues, each road user has to take responsibility for themselves and their actions. We also urge you to take responsibility for others too; those who are more vulnerable than you because they have less protection or because they are less skilled, less aware or just being daft.
"If we all make a small change to our driving, think about what we are doing, and take care of each other we should all be able to use the roads safely and make it home."
Today's backlash comes just days after a road safety group from Warwickshire was slammed for advising cyclists to "stop and allow drivers to overtake".
Yesterday, the Warwickshire Road Safety Partnership, an equivalent body to SERP, told road.cc "one tweet cannot always explain the complex rules of the Highway Code" and clarified its stance.
road.cc has contacted SERP for comment.
Dan is the road.cc news editor and has spent the past four years writing stories and features, as well as (hopefully) keeping you entertained on the live blog. Having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for the Non-League Paper, Dan joined road.cc in 2020. Come the weekend you'll find him labouring up a hill, probably with a mouth full of jelly babies, or making a bonk-induced trip to a south of England petrol station... in search of more jelly babies.
Latest Comments
- Rendel Harris 3 sec ago
So if at the moment I get 30 km/h for 200W, with one of these I would get 45 km/h for the same effort? Take my money!
- levestane 15 min 38 sec ago
I find that autolights on cars have the head lights on when not needed. As soon as there is enough light to see the road surface ahead headlights...
- Hirsute 16 min 36 sec ago
Lights and reflective stuff on ankles and knees is the best way to go.
- mattw 25 min 58 sec ago
Yes we do. It's quite funny....
- hawkinspeter 1 hour 4 min ago
Well if there's a need for a graduated driving license (and it does look like there's a good case for it), then let's have a graduated driving...
- danvanspam 1 hour 38 min ago
This whole situation is a big problem in the UK. It's not singly drivers, cyclists, landowners, pubs, business owners, council money etc. It's...
- hawkinspeter 1 hour 50 min ago
...and now residents have been 'let down' by traffic scheme before it even starts: https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/residents-let...
- David9694 2 hours 16 min ago
Repeat offender jailed after drink driving crash https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crezj5lqxpzo
- stonojnr 2 hours 17 min ago
but thats my point its not like ITVs reliable same time early evening every day, even on rest days, 1hr highlights slot guaranteed. Eurosports...
Add new comment
57 comments
It's some catch, that Catch 22! You can report an incident to Safer Essex Roads Partnership, but they won't pay any attention to it unless there's video before, during and after the incident. But if you have a headcam or bikecam it means you were proactively seeking examples of bad driving so the video is inadmissible.
I am concerned about how this will go. It's already been a lottery on who reviews the case as to whether it goes anywhere and now this.
New rules:
Take primary - deliberately setting out to cause conflict so you could film it
Used the road instead of the cycle lane - ditto
Filtered through traffic - ditto
Filtered to an ASL box where a driver was encroaching in the box - ditto
Used a dual carriageway instead of a quieter, parallel road - ditto
Hi Clem, I can't find our comments. Am I on the wrong thread? Do I even exist? It's all very worrying.
I think another Spinal Tap drummer has spontaneously combusted. Or met their end in a bizarre gardening accident...
Mark Hodson writes:
"One of them, the most prolific... was a driver...the great thing is roadcc have asked me to do a podcast about this with them and I will expand fully on the issues and solutions in that podcast, because as everyone knows... large amounts of typing doesn't sit well with me "
Looking forward to this.
I would rather we found a way to adequately resource the prosecution of all offences that reach the threshold. Just increase the fines until it pays for itself.
But in the absence of that, they really should be upfront about the lack of resources. Maybe every submission that meets the bar gets a NIP, then there's a random draw each month where they choose as many as resources allow to be issued with FPN/courses/summons.
At least every offender would feel there's at least a chance of prosecution and every victim/witness a chance their efforts in reporting will be acted on.
It's becoming increasingly clear that there's a culture problem across a huge array of public services.
The public is increasingly paying towards services that have record funding (nhs) and staff numbers (police) yet receive abysmal service.
The examples of the "Safety Partnerships" over the last few days are more of the same - services that are well resourced wasting their effort on collaborating around pointless initiatives and endless communications that often run counter to the core mission of the service.
I'm not sure how well Safety Partnerships are resourced, but you're wrong about the NHS and Police numbers. Both of those services, and plenty of others, are victims of 13 years of tory austerity, and any spending now is just trying to look as if they're being generous when the new spending doesn't even make up for what has been cut.
Lying Tory shill with weasle words alert.
Any raise in budget (even if its under inflation) pretty much guarantees "record funding". Doesnt mean its an appropriate level of funding for the need though.
In fact the record shows both the Police and NHS have both been underfunded and underresourced for the last 13 years.
NHS has been systematically underfunded for the last 13 years.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-64190440
Police headcount peaked in 2010 (strange coming from the "Party of Law and Order")
https://www.statista.com/statistics/303963/uk-police-officer-numbers/
https://twitter.com/CFCTom99/status/1651157236457111555
"This was an example of them NFA. Becuase I dared to stand on the pavement and record distracted drivers on the phone.
Not even a warning letter for this woman, NFA.
(I also clearly recorded the registration of the car)"
(Footage of 2 handed mobile phone use)
Tom has now added
https://twitter.com/CFCTom99/status/1651159710689644550
"This is an email from the manager of extra eyes, when I made a complaint. Absolutely shocking."
Best to wait until someone is dead, killed by a phone using driver, then deal with them. That way we can be sure that they are a danger.
Vision Zero - I now see that this is no offences prosecuted.
Vision Zero snitches. We need more respect...
What a load of nonsense from Essex Police. I'd rather they just fessed up and said, yep, we can't be bothered/haven't got the resources to police the roads.
Surely the police failing to deliver justice is going to encourage vigilantism?
It would be interesting to know what part of the legal and regulatory frameworks Essex police believe gives them the right to ignore criminal offences if they believe that the person reporting said offences was "actively trying to catch people committing offences". I'm by no means au fait with all aspects of the law but I'd be surprised if there's anything that permits this sort of selectivity.
I've advised them to get in touch with the Police and Crime Commissioner and their MP. This kind of bizarre, stupid, counterproductive policy, which goes against their stated aim of making the roads safer, needs to be nipped in the bud before others adopt it.
Has anyone asked why Essex Police and the road safety partnership have this policy, and how they justify it? I for one, would be intrigued to know the answer, and the lengths to which double-speak can be stretched.
I think we need a proper investigation of these road safety partnerships. I am gaining the impression that they are missing input from the two user groups most impacted by road safety issues - pedestrians and cyclists.
I've pondered before about the lack of a lobby group for pedestrians. Although there are groups like BRAKE, they seem to be anti-driver rather than pro-pedestrian. I suspect there is room for a pedestrian lobby group with a positive agenda such as:
- ban pavement parking
- treat pedestrians as at least equal priority at crossings - "ban the beg".
- ban pavement obstructions such as blocking pavements to direct traffic during roadworks.
- proper campaign for walker safety on rural roads on a par with "I slow down for horses" (but couldn't give a shit about ramblers).
While cyclists and pedestrians are ignored as user groups of our roads in these initiatives, it is not surprising that the outcomes are poor.
There's often "but I'm a pedestrian myself". Sometimes even "but I cycle" and rarely "I visited Copenhagen/Amsterdam once".
That's good but not enough. Bit like having eaten out a bit isn't the same as being a head chef / experienced at ensuring food hygiene standards are maintained.
There are some pedestrian groups - think the closest would be Living Streets.
https://www.livingstreets.org.uk/
I'd also say Sustrans is as much a pedestrian lobby group as a cycling one, certainly in terms of what is delivered...
I appreciate it's moving into tinfoil hat territory, but given the proliferation of these road safety partnerships which seem to only look at things from one perspective, I'm beginning to wonder how soon an explicit campaign for jaywalking or similar will arise in the UK...
Presumably it won't be long before Essex Police decide that the very act of carrying a camera on a bike is "proactively seek[ing] out examples of poor driving" and refuse to accept any submissions at all.
If that happened in, say, Lancs, how would anyone know?
wtjs would tell us!
But it is proactively seeking it, by going out recording things. Focus more on your own cycling than filming it. You'll enjoy it a lot more.
Thank you for that extraordinarily patronising comment, I think after 40+ years of cycling I know how to enjoy myself and I enjoy it exactly the same whether I am running a camera or not. I primarily have a camera in order to defend myself in the case of any incidents; I started using one after that guy ended up losing his house to pay compensation to the woman he collided with even though by her own admission she was looking at her phone and stepped out in front of him when he had a green light. If I catch illegal driving that is endangering the safety of myself or others then I will report it, however I have never once gone "proactively seeking" it. Despite the lies of a certain other poster on here (who seems sadly obsessed with me and desperate to mention me at every opportunity) I don't go out catching phone drivers, I have one camera which is fixed below my Garmin out-front mount and it's too low to film inside vehicles.
His problem wasn't a lack of a camera (there were lots of witnesses at the scene), but a lack of legal representation. Also, just riding at people and hoping they'll move out of your way is not really in line with the Highway Code, whether or not you have priority.
I take both those points. I'm not saying things would have been different for him if he'd had a camera, it's just that case made me particularly aware of what the consequences of an incident could be and how it could be advisable to have one's own evidence if the worst happens (something I'm pleased to say hasn't transpired (yet!)). I also joined British Cycling at the same time for the third-party cover and legal advice.
"We accept these if they are reported by cyclists who record it in passing while on their commute but not from those who proactively seek out examples of poor driving."
If they are seeking to discourage cyclists coming to a halt, tapping on car windows and verbally engaging/remonstrating with motorists using their phone, then that's not a bad thing; nothing wrong with reporting offences filmed inadvertently when passing, but speaking to motorists about breaking the law crosses over into vigilantism, an activity only authorised police should be doing.
The other day on Battersea Bridge I passed a woman holding her phone on the wheel and texting as she went. Massively distracted, she kept leaving huge gaps in the traffic and was weaving around when moving. Should I have just left her to it to carry on until she hit a pedestrian or cyclist? Or should I have done what I did, which was to tap on her window and tell her what I'd seen her doing, why she was dangerous and asking her to put the phone away (which she did)? Vigilantism is seeking out wrongdoers and imposing your own punishment, it's not telling people to stop breaking the law and endangering others.
You ought to be more careful - you could have been accused of a number of non-offenses there. Distracting a driver could lead to a crash. Then there's a real one - assault. "The man aggressively banging on my car put me in fear of my life".
No, better record it without comment or interaction and pass it on to this special portal where they have just declared a new reason for completely ignoring it.
As Lancs police and Police Scotland show there's no need for this new quango - police forces can efficiently ignore and/or deter this kind of crime reporting already!
Pages