Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

"Road safety is everyone's business": 90% increase in video footage of dangerous driving reported to police with almost 20,000 reports from Avon & Somerset over 3 years

More than 200,000 incidents were reported to police since 2021, with Avon and Somerset road users the most prolific, followed by West Yorkshire; though some forces are still reluctant to deal with all reports from cyclists or drivers

More than 200,000 video submissions of dangerous driving and other incidents on the roads of England and Wales have been made through Operation SNAP's online reporting portal since the start of 2021, new figures have revealed.

Research undertaken by Accident Claims Advice suggests that video reports submitted to police forces of dangerous driving or other alleged offences are up 90 per cent in 2023/24 compared with two years earlier in 2021/22. The research saw data from 30 police forces collected, showing that 201,630 Operation SNAP cases were logged between January 2021 and April 2024.

Operation SNAP research graphic

A combined 44,791 were logged in 2021/22, followed by 66,515 in 2022/23, the number rising again to 85,114 in 2023/24. Of the 30 forces, all saw an increase in the number of reports over the three-year period, while just two (Norfolk and Suffolk's police forces) saw a decrease between 2022/23 and 2023/24.

> Everything you need to know about bike cameras — how to choose, tips for recording quality footage and what to do if you capture a near miss, close pass or collision

The huge increase in reports was seen elsewhere, Lancashire Police receiving 4,120 in 2023/24 up 695 per cent from 518 reports in 2021/22.

Topping the table for most reports received were Avon & Somerset Police and West Yorkshire Police whose 2023/24 totals (8,498 and 8,291 respectively) were more than what all but six of the other forces received across the entire three-year period.

In total, Avon & Somerset Police received just shy of 20,000 submissions between 2021 and 2024 (19,949 in total), with 12,154 of those (61 per cent) coming from cyclists. The research also suggested that 4,662 of the total 19,949 led to a Notice of Intended Prosecution being served, with 85 per cent of the reports made by cyclists leading to "some form of action" (in comparison to a quarter of submissions from motorists that were dismissed). Almost a third of the force's reports came from Bristol.

While the topic of third-party reporting is largely dominated in the press and on social media by a small number of camera cyclists, including the road safety campaigner CyclingMikey, West Yorkshire Police's figures show that roughly half of all reports came from vehicle drivers.

The force recommended 10,628 of the 19,729 cases be dealt with via an educational course, while 2,483 resulted in a fixed penalty notice.

Avon & Somerset, West Yorkshire, Essex, Greater Manchester and West Mercia’s police forces all supplied Accident Claims Advice with the offence spotted in the submitted footage.

The general manner of driving was the biggest issue, with a total of 43,742 reports logged by the five under 'Close pass', 'driving without due care', 'careless driving' or 'driving without reasonable consideration to others'. They made up more than half of the total recorded cases.

Last month, we reported that Gloucestershire Police would be joining in the adoption of Operation SNAP, although the force's non-crime unit head attracted criticism by claiming "a close pass isn't an offence and a lot of cyclists don't realise that".

> "A close pass isn't an offence and a lot of cyclists don't realise that": Police chief's "odd" claim that cyclists need education on driving offences highlighted as evidence of UK's current road safety "mess"

Just this morning, we were contacted by a reader who told us Thames Valley Police had instructed her to stop reporting close passes unless there is evidence of careless driving, creating some confusion about whether the act of close-passing a cyclist itself is not actually sufficient evidence of careless or dangerous driving.

The Metropolitan Police have also, in recent times, issued advice to road users submitting footage, the latest comments suggesting the force is "unable to deal" with motorists driving in bike lanes or the wrong way down one-way streets.

Operation SNAP figures have made headlines before, last year it was revealed that from almost 4,000 submissions of alleged driving offences to Surrey Police, just 10 led to prosecutions.

Likewise, West Midlands Police, it emerged, had prosecuted one driver from 286 close pass reports, the force admitting it needed to review how reports are managed. In February, we reported that the force was now taking action of some kind in 97 per cent of cyclist submissions.

> Cyclists in Scotland finally set to be able to submit dangerous driving footage to online police portal… by autumn 2025 – two years after road safety tool scrapped amid claims police inaction was making Scotland's roads "less safe"

Thames Valley Police recently admitted, too, that there are "very valid concerns" about its dealing with cyclists' reports, the force recruiting to fill a "shortage in resources" and staff that has meant "Notice of Intended Prosecutions are not able to be sent to the offending driver within the legal timeframe of 14 days".

"Road safety is everyone's business"

Following the publication of the latest three-year Operation SNAP figures, Inspector Jason Baxter of Lincolnshire Police told Lincolnshire World "road safety is everyone's business" and added that the force is "thankful" for the public's use of the online reporting portal.

"We view every piece of footage submitted and where offences are identified and the evidence is clear we will take action. Where the prosecution threshold isn't quite met, we will consider sending a warning letter to those drivers, advising them of their poor manner of driving," he said.

"There is no doubt that video footage of offences can be very useful in changing driver behaviour. We often hear that drivers take fewer risks and are more patient and courteous as they fear being caught on dashcam and facing prosecution. In road safety terms, this change of driving behaviour is invaluable in reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured on our roads. We believe the increase in submissions is due to drivers becoming more aware of the scheme and having confidence that their footage will be reviewed and where substantive offences are identified action will be taken."

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.

Add new comment

16 comments

Avatar
bikes | 7 hours ago
3 likes

Got dangerously tailgated twice today, once by an angry driver, gesticulating as he overtook. I must have held him up for all of 30 metres. Then a bit later by a bus driver. Both around 1m away from my back wheel, which feels like nothing. Would they drive like this around someone they cared about? What would happen if the police witnessed this or I sent footage in? Absolutely nothing.

Avatar
mattw | 9 hours ago
0 likes

This is good to see, but we still seem to be at the cottage industry stage.

Based on the numbers it looks one report per 300 to 500 drivers per annum, which is not imo a sufficient level of deterrence.

There's a long way to go still.

Avatar
mitsky | 8 hours ago
0 likes

Will the authorities (meaning those in power who can approve allocation of funds/resources) take note of this issue?
To make sure that there are enough staff to deal with the reports so that even relatively minor (ie non-contact but still dangerous/illegal incidents) are dealt with?
Depending on the incidents, if they were to incur minor faults on a driving test then the driver should recieve at least a warning if not a fine and points.
If the incident is a dangerous one that would result in a test fail then a higher level points and fine should apply, if not a driving ban as the driver has implicitly shown they cannot drive to the safe level that would be required on a test.

Or are they admitting that they simply don't care because... cyclists?
Or could it be that having so many dangerous drivers off the road would lead to a significant loss to HMRC...?

Taking illegal/dangerous drivers off the roads is in everyone's interests not least because of actual road safety but they will be the ones causing the damage that leads to higher insurance premiums for everyone else.

This is based on my own, and many others', recent experience with the Met police.
They used to action (with NIP/FPN) the vast majority of my reports and kept me up to date with progress, but in recent years I'd be lucky to get 10% for the same issues/incidents.

Avatar
lonpfrb | 19 hours ago
2 likes

Road safety is everyone's business
There's significant business in selling cameras, providing legal representation, medical care too. However the risk of uncertain outcomes including enforcement and restitution means that the superior choice is Avoidance.
Not Avoidance of cycling rather of close passes by reckless motorists.

A solution is to take the Highway Code provision of a minimum safe passing distance (1.5m) and make that obvious for even the most spacially challenged motorist in a cheap and practical way.

1.5m of white plastic plumbing pipe (15mm) attached to your seat post, perpendicular to the top tube on the off side will provide a clear indication of a safe passing distance. Using the seat tube means that it may rotate if struck, not enable any force to be transmitted to bike or rider. This costs a few pounds in the local hardware store rather than hundreds for a camera.

More importantly there is no impact or fright to interrupt your ride.

Obviously this is not compatible with cycling in cycle paths or narrow spaces but then neither are close passes likely.

The pipe is meant to look odd and be noticed. Riding in the nearside car wheel track means that you fully occupy the lane while visibility of the other lane is good for safe overtaking. This has proven effective and low impact (pun intended) over several years. The local police service are comfortable with it and prefer less enforcement too.

Avatar
stonojnr | 1 day ago
2 likes

shame they cant publish the actual table and stats, or ask why only 30 out of the 43 police forces in England & Wales responded.

but not the least surprised the numbers of submissions have dropped in Norfolk/Suffolk, the standard of driving hasnt got any better for sure, but around April 2023 they changed their submission system so its harder, imo, to submit dashcam reports, and introduced a 7 day limit on submissions.

Ive not bothered to submit anything for about 18months now.

Avatar
mattw replied to stonojnr | 8 hours ago
0 likes

Since (I assume) it is FOIs, they can publish it !

Avatar
stonojnr replied to mattw | 6 hours ago
1 like

How hard is it to just copy & paste all the numbers from this research in the article ? equally how hard is it for police forces to just publish it themselves.?

I check Op Snap FOI submissions occasionally, it's surprising how often the police invoke the this will cost too much to respond to response.

Avatar
NOtotheEU | 1 day ago
8 likes

The huge increase in reports was seen elsewhere, Lancashire Police receiving 4,120 in 2023/24 up 695 per cent from 518 reports in 2021/22.

I feel sorry for the person who deletes the files and then sends the follow up NFA emails as they must be really busy!

Avatar
imajez | 2 days ago
2 likes

If we were to make dashcams mandatory for all motor vehicles. I'm sure incidents and deaths would be vastly reduced if drivers thought their misdeeds could be caught by anyone else nearby. 

Avatar
stonojnr replied to imajez | 1 day ago
7 likes

doesnt seem to go through their minds at the moment, got close passed by a lorry driver today, caught him up later, he was fiddling with his phone while sat in traffic, outside a police station.

Avatar
ktache replied to imajez | 1 day ago
3 likes

I saw a documentary about "distracted" driving, probably on PBS, cameras recording every action of the driver, initially very cautious, after a couple of weeks back to normal. The driving became shocking. And they knew that all the footage would be viewed.

Avatar
NotNigel | 2 days ago
13 likes

We often hear that drivers take fewer risks and are more patient and courteous as they fear being caught on dashcam and facing prosecution.

It would be nice if drivers would take fewer risks because they give a shit about other road users rather than just the fear of being caught.

Avatar
imajez replied to NotNigel | 2 days ago
6 likes

So much this. ⬆️

Avatar
Cugel replied to NotNigel | 9 hours ago
1 like

NotNigel wrote:

We often hear that drivers take fewer risks and are more patient and courteous as they fear being caught on dashcam and facing prosecution.

It would be nice if drivers would take fewer risks because they give a shit about other road users rather than just the fear of being caught.

The question, then, is: why don't they give a shit; and correspeondingly: how can they be induced to do so?

Or, stand the question on its head and ask why many drivists are content, happy or even eager to disregard the safety of others when they drive.

In our individualistic culture, the usual answers will be that its a matter of personal choice and a fix would be a similar matter. In fact, this is puppycack. Humans are instructed how to behave by their social and cultural milieu(s) not by a some moral or amoral inner homunculus.

Many in Blightedland are instructed by the cultural mileau of the gutter press, rabid anto-social media and similar toxic islands of intolerance and outright hatred for their various pariahs and scapegoats-of-the-day. Many call these toxic cesspits of social plagues "freedom of speech". But to keep the body politic healthy perhaps such cesspits require an eradication, not an eager crowd of attendants growing as many new cultural plagues as they can.

I'm tired, personally, of loons demanding freedumb to wreak social wrack and ruin of every physical and metaphysical kind they can. It seems time for a Big Censor to be appointed and given a large bottle of toxic-meme disinfectant. Such an approach is authoritarian and, until the minds and behaviours of infected loons have been purged of various hatreds and intolerances, a Big Policeman seems to be the only practical anwer.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Cugel | 7 hours ago
1 like

Not convinced that a Big Policeman, Big Censor or indeed (as it's likely they would quickly become) a Big Dictator is the answer at all.

But if you think so there are many countries to pick from - whether nominally theocracies, police- or military-states or simply strongman states where the biggest, most ruthless types have been legitimised.

OTOH without sufficient negative feedback we will always have problems.

Unfortunately many of our "temporary measures to fix a problem once and for all" turn out to be "swallowed a spider to catch a fly"-type issues.

It's a balance but "more police" or "tougher police" can quickly lead to other problems.  You don't even need to picture China, Russia, Saudi Arabia etc. - the Met illustrate the "who watches the watchmen" problem.

In fact many of our current problems are effectively problems of success or magnified by it. (e.g. far more of us all living far longer, a superabundance of resources - energy, mobility, even food etc.)

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to chrisonabike | 6 hours ago
0 likes

The gambit I bet on is "empathy" and "skin in the game".  How on earth would we find this "empathy" from where we are now?  That involves everyone's friends and relatives being vulnerable road users and then "just enough policing".

But how the heck would that happen?  Well ... there is a self-sustaining path to doing so - which has been shown to work, in numerous places (here's Chris Boardman on this).  But ... it's not quick or easy.  It's not just "fix one thing" (only "encourage active travel", or "build cycle infra" *, or "fix the police" or "tax motorists" etc.).  It involves changing our decision-maker's priorities and indeed our organisational culture (e.g. how we currently measure success by the provision of roads and the throughput of motor traffic / faster driven journey times)...

* Some of these are necessary to some extent.  For example without separate space to cycle on roads (indeed a network of safe and efficient routes) most people won't cycle at all - because roads are the backbone of the transport network.  Without reducing motor traffic volume and speeds on the streets people won't mix with motor traffic (and streets are probably the bulk of our existing infra).  Without getting people cycling some journeys - especially cycling to connect to public transport - people won't leave their cars.

Latest Comments