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

It's an outright dodge to bin more reports by thinking up a spurious reason. Essex is one of the more dodgy forces, having come up with it's not a real close pass because the cyclist didn't brake or wobble. This is, of course a dodge of special benefit to the worst offenders who come past fast and very close so they're gone before you know and all you're left with is the fear that the police couldn't care less about. Essex may be bad, but they're just beginners compared to Lancashire: it's years since they began simply ignoring videos of blatant RLJ offences which I began filming after being almost killed at the same junction. I certainly was going out looking for offences- with a very good reason, which the police also couldn't care less about. It's difficult to fail to despise the police for these blatantly anti-cyclist policies.

Pretty standard, police and councils [ those in authority ] often choose to ignore stuff they as individuals may be guilty of.   Close passes, phone use, speeding, pavement blocking, parking on crossings etc but locally are getting all excited about kids on mopeds being marginally iritating rather than outright dangerous. West Mids,,,, yes you , you ignorant close pass condoning tossrags get your priorities sorted.

So a criminal act being stopped by policemen, proactively patrolling a high-crime area, is NOT valid either? What do they do instead, just wander around and hope that someone does a crime right in front of them?

Ludicrous advice. 

These folk seem a bit dim - how do you get proper footage of mobile use without getting close up ?
Any footage you submit from commuting will be of the same content type as ones where you are proactive.

I must be hard of understanding today, as I don't understand it, a crime isn't a crime if it is witnessed by a cyclist who didn't see it accidentally.  I'm sure the criminals will be using this defence in court when the police actively seek out dangerous drivers.

It isn't even as if this is entrapment: the cyclist isn't in any way encouraging the crime, they are merely reporting it when they see it.  Quite how seeking it out and accidentally witnessing it in any way change the crime is beyond my understanding.  Do they use the same approach for all crimes, or just those reported by cyclists?

A crime is a crime is a crime, no matter the motivation of the person reporting it.  This is just a blatant abnegation of SERP's responsibilities to vulnerable road users.

If this was in my patch, the PCC would get no rest, and the members of SERP would be sent reminders of their responsibilities every time a driver was involved in a collision.

They should be commending the cyclists for their pro-active citizenship and helping the police keep the roads safe.

EDIT: Sorry, but the more I think about this the angrier I get.  This organisation, whose sole purpose is to make the roads safer, is allowing criminals to go unpunished, and therefore unreformed, to carry on putting innocent people's lives at risk.  Anyone in SERP who didn't vehemently disagree with this policy should resign immediately, or if they won't go, should be sacked for failing to carry out the only objective of the organisation: and be banned from any public post as being lacking in morals. 

Maybe they should go to every inquest of a road death and explain to the relatives how they would like to have helped prevent it, but the footage was submitted by a cyclist, so they had to let the driver go free to kill their son/daughter/husband/wife.

2nd EDIT: I wonder if any member of SERP has been reported by a cyclist for phone driving?

Sounds odd, and possibly in conflict with the stated aims of the Extra Eyes initiative.

Quote:

The number of video cameras being used on the roads is constantly increasing as is the level of recorded incidents. This creates the opportunity to utilise this increased level of technology as a deterrent to poor driving and influence driver behaviour where a road user is aware that their actions may be recorded by another road user and submitted to the Police for investigation.

All groups of road users are now using camera technology including private motorists, commercial vehicle drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders and this creates a huge resource which is monitoring the activities of other road users and submitting recorded incidents to the Police for investigation. In addition to influencing driver behaviour this also creates massive opportunities and cost benefits in relation to the investigation of recorded collisions and further supports the Force plan by providing significant intelligence opportunities to address the priority of tackling crime on the roads.

The evidence received must be dealt with professionally to maintain public confidence in the scheme and where offences are identified this should lead to a proportional investigation and disposal. Where the offence is so serious that it is referred for prosecution then the evidential file submitted should be of the highest standard.

One might also raise questions about evidence for what other types of criminal offence might be judged invalid and inadmissable because the witness wasn't on the way to or from work at the time.

Perverting the course of justice

Interesting and revealing that there is one group who are supporting SERs tweet, yes, it's the taxi drivers of course!

It's no surprise that the police consider that making any effort whatsoever to catch criminals* should be outlawed. They are professionals at making f-all effort to catch criminals*.

* And yes, using ones phone while driving is a criminal offence and anyone doing so should rightly be branded a 'criminal'.

In other news: CPS refuse all cases referred by Police, after all, they proactively investigate crime. Can't be having that, can we?

Can you still report directly to the Police, or will they only accept reports from this organisation?
How much delay will this organisation place on passing reports on to the Police ... after all, they state that reports have to be submitted within 48 hours but do not state how this affects the 14 day time limit.

Isn't this just a boys club / quango developed to reduce the amount of complaints that the Police actually see, and thus make the Police stats look better?