- 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
- Cross country mountain bikes
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Close pass operation “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”
As Gloucestershire Constabulary announced that it was adopting Operation Snap, enabling road users to submit video evidence of dangerous or careless driving to the police through a dedicated online portal, the force’s non-crime unit head has come under fire from cyclists, after claiming that “a lot” of people who ride bikes “don’t realise that… a close pass itself isn’t an offence”.
The officer also said that the police “need to try and find a way of educating” people who submit footage to Operation Snap that the clips need “to show that the driver or rider is being inconvenienced in some way”, while bizarrely adding that “in the Highway Code you have something called a close pass, where you should allow cyclists 1.5m width”.
The muddled messaging from Gloucestershire Constabulary has been widely criticised on social media by cyclists, who have argued that the officer has failed to realise that close passes often constitute an example of careless driving, and that the officer’s comments misrepresent cyclists’ concerns about road safety and highlight “the mess in which we find ourselves as we seek to lower road crime against cyclists and encourage more people to cycle”.
This social media backlash followed Gloucestershire Constabulary’s announcement this week that it is the latest UK-based local police force to take part in Operation Snap, an online portal which allows road users to submit footage of instances of alleged dangerous or careless driving.
Across the UK, 24,000 clips have been submitted using Operation Snap over the last six months, with Gloucestershire’s dedicated officer currently dealing with over 140 submissions a month. According to Gloucestershire Constabulary, around 25 to 30 per cent of the footage so far has resulted in a Fixed Penalty Notice being issued, or an educational course being offered to the offending driver.
Speaking to the BBC, the head of Gloucestershire’s non-crime unit, Robert Vestey, said that dashcam and cycle camera footage has proved an “emerging way” of dealing with dangerous or careless driving “over the last three or four years”.
“It’s simple, it’s very effective, and it allows us to educate as well as prosecute where we need to,” Vestey said.
“Quite often they don’t even realise how bad their driving has been, so it allows us to work with them and just improve the safety on Gloucestershire’s roads.”
However, it was Vestey’s comments concerning the threshold at which the driving captured in the footage constitutes an offence – particularly when it concerns motorists’ actions around people on bikes – that have bemused and baffled cyclists on social media.
“The footage itself has got to prove the offence,” Vestey said. “There are some offences though that are so bad they would immediately go to court, and others that the public think are an offence but they’re not, so we need to try and find a way of educating people on that.”
The officer also insisted that the footage submitted has “to show that the driver or rider is being inconvenienced in some way”, and that he believes that one of the key solutions to increasing road safety is to send “advisory letters” to offending drivers detailing the Highway Code and the law.
He continued: “We get a lot of images sent in from cyclists, and in the Highway Code you have something called a close pass, where you should allow cyclists 1.5m width.
“But a close pass itself isn’t an offence and a lot of cyclists don’t realise that, so they get quite frustrated with us.”
“Most other forces reassure their communities that they do act against crime”
Since the Gloucestershire officer’s statement was published earlier this week, it has been met in particular with one, rather bemused question: What on earth does he actually mean?
“This statement, from the representative of a police force, shows us the mess in which we find ourselves as we seek to lower road crime against cyclists and encourage more people to cycle,” Tim, a cycling instructor and road safety campaigner, wrote on X (formerly Twitter) in response to Vestey’s comments.
“‘But a close pass itself isn’t an offence’ is an odd thing to say,” Tim said in a lengthy thread. “Close passing cyclists is an example of the offence of driving without care and consideration. Every week, hundreds of drivers face police action for close passing. The Metropolitan Police explain it clearly on their Driving Offences website: driving too close to another vehicle is an example of careless or inconsiderate driving.
“‘A lot of cyclists don’t realise that’ is equally odd. Cyclists who report close passes to their force are mostly aware that close passing cyclists is an example of the offence of driving without care and consideration leading to drivers facing police action every week.”
Tim continued: “The police force representative misrepresents the difference between laws on driving behaviour that are cited in the Highway Code – signalled by rules using MUST or MUST NOT – and the rules which set out the minimum standard for careful and considerate driving signalled by rules using SHOULD or SHOULD NOT.
“SHOULD or SHOULD NOT rules, which set out the minimum standard for careful and considerate driving, are (not unsurprisingly) the rules used to evidence the offence of Driving Without Care and Consideration.
“Could the statement be a ‘slight-of-hand’ attempt to justify why the police force they represent don’t take action to the same standards as other forces? If cyclists reporting close passes know that other forces take action to best practice, it’s not surprising that the force representative sees that these cyclists ‘get quite frustrated with us’.
“They just misrepresent why cyclists who report close passes get frustrated. The frustration is not a failure to understand the law, but a frustration with a force not applying the law for the purposes that it was introduced.”
> Here's what to do if you capture a near miss, close pass or collision on camera while cycling
Tim also argued that Vestey made the “opposite misrepresentation” when he, somewhat bizarrely, stated that “in the Highway Code you have something called a close pass”.
“While the term ‘close pass’ isn’t used in the Highway Code, it clearly sets out a rule that we should ‘leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds’. Variability is classic excuse talk,” Tim wrote, before adding that, in any case, the 1.5m rule forms part of the code’s aim to “promote safety on the road”.
Responding to Tim’s thread, Henry Godwin noted the ‘postcode lottery’ aspect of road safety policing frequently cited by cyclists.
“If you dial 101 in the Avon and Somerset Constabulary area, one of the menu options is to report a close pass of a cyclist. So thankfully not all police jurisdictions are as ignorant of the Highway Code,” Henry said.
“All forces are moving in the right direction, and most forces make strong statements on road harm reduction but, as things change too many individuals are lagging behind,” added Tim. “Training is essential for improvements in forces.”
Responding to a post arguing that the officer’s statement was merely “clumsy” and nevertheless linked close passing to a potential careless driving offence, Tim said: “It is clumsy, and it does reference that relationship of behaviour to offence.
“However, it’s deployed to justify not taking action against those offending. Most other forces articulate this relationship to reassure their communities that they do act against crime.”
While Gloucestershire’s foray into the world of Operation Snap hasn’t been without its hiccups so far, they’re not the only force who have been criticised for their approach to the road safety portal.
In spring 2023, West Midlands Police came in for criticism after it emerged that the force had prosecuted just one driver from 286 videos of alleged close passes submitted by cyclists.
However, in February the force’s Operation Snap figures revealed a stark increase in third-party video footage leading to police action compared to the previous year, with a third of cyclists’ reports in January 2024 leading to a motorist receiving a fixed-penalty notice – and 97 per cent of cyclists’ reports being actioned in some way.
Meanwhile, a Freedom of Information request last year revealed that 80 per cent of the almost 1,000 motorists accused of close passing a cyclist in Surrey over the previous 15 months were issued with warning letters, with only three incidents resulting in a prosecution.
Responding to criticism of its inaction on close passes, Surrey Police told road.cc that “in the majority of cases, issuing a warning letter is the most appropriate course of action”, due to the “evidential viability” of the submitted videos and the “associated threat, harm, and risk” of the driving offence committed.
The force also claimed that it “regularly” receives video submissions of alleged driving offences “from the same people”, and called on those who frequently submit close pass clips to “engage with us further and work together to tackle” issues around road safety.
After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
Latest Comments
- quiff 28 sec ago
That's going to life needlessly difficult when I want to (perfectly legitimately) filter through traffic or indeed get through my front door though...
- rct 19 min 4 sec ago
Also Bernard Hinault, although not in P-R, injuring his knee on the cobbles in the TdF that caused him to withdraw with tendonitis that affected...
- Car Delenda Est 30 min 58 sec ago
He's right: don't snitch
- Bmblbzzz 36 min 34 sec ago
Where are Zebedee and Ermintrude when you want them?
- Steve K 49 min 29 sec ago
Update on this: apparently it's all their Ti frames ever, except the HT Ti (no, no idea why). However, it's not transferable.
- Oldfatgit 1 hour 22 min ago
Cough *plotaroute.com*
- lonpfrb 1 hour 32 min ago
Sympathy is the least we owe Sir Bradley for his high achievement representing Britain. It takes a bit more life experience to understand the peaks...
- David9694 1 hour 34 min ago
Anger over Cornwall Council decision to offload 19 busy car parks...
- SimoninSpalding 3 hours 29 min ago
I have a Ragley Trig, which is steel, has masses of clearance plus everything needed for racks, mudguards. I have it set up with a 2x10 Campag...
Add new comment
78 comments
Though it's possible to evidence distress when close passed with heart rate monitor data, there is a better, less risky, less expletive provoking way.
That is Avoidance of spacial errors by providing visual support to the negligent motorist. Specifically by showing them the 1.5m width separation that is the minimum acceptable.
This is easily achieved with about £2 of plumbing spares; 1.5m of 15mm plastic pipe, four tube fasteners, and two nut&bolt sets to attach two pairs of tube fasteners back to back. Other permutations may suit your bike depending on tube diameters. Thus it's easy to install the pipe perpendicular to the top tube on the rear A trame or seat post, on the offside.
This visual aid ensures that other road users are able to judge the minimum width and so make a safe pass. No need for personal risk, expensive cameras, time spent reviewing clips, reporting, or court appearance.
I've observed about equal positive or negative feedback, including positive feedback from my local police service.
I prefer a white plastic pipe, but it's up to you..
The image pipe is red for contrast.
That's going to life needlessly difficult when I want to (perfectly legitimately) filter through traffic or indeed get through my front door though.
Thank you for reviving this thread. It gives me an opportunity to add that I have had my first advisory letter for a close pass in Gloucestershire (always NFA up till then). It didn't happen straight away as I had to ask for a review but it was done in the end. Here is the text of the email I got and I've uploaded a still of the incident.
Small steps!
I have had my first advisory letter for a close pass in Gloucestershire (always NFA up till then)
How did you establish that you were 'inconvenienced', or have they abandoned that dodge now?
If you are inconvenienced then they will take action, yet to be ascertained what action though. The most recent report I checked on after a year where they said they would take action came back as "driver could not be traced so no further action". I'm not sure what that means.
It is close passes that are the problem in Gloucestershire. All my reports of close passes up to this one (some are in NMOTD) were NFA. The reason Rob Vestey gave the BBC interview was to publicise that they are going to use advisory letters rather than NFA from now on. Hence the advisory letter above, no inconvenience necessary.
The upride I let you know about earlier was points and a fine but I suspect that it was the fact that the oncoming driver had to pull in and stop (ie was inconvenienced) rather than the close pass that led to this outcome. It doesn't have to be the cyclist that is inconvenienced for action to be taken.
If we consider the overtake of a large unaccompanied slow moving vehicle, agricultural machine or construction equipment that occupies the road to or even beyond the centre line, a slow somewhat nerve wracking pass is necessary and it would not suite if such an overtake was illegal in the absence of on coming traffic. The current tendency of groups of road cyclists to assemble themselves into carriageway spanning or exceding peletons 3 or even four riders abreast puts drivers into the invidious position that they wish to overtake, they can only do so by inevitably performing a highly unsatisfactory close pass, despite their offside road wheels being in danger of catching the road verge on the opposite side of the road. No doubt some cyclists would argue that the following traffic should always stay behind until some point of the cyclists' choosing (the end of a Strava segment perhaps!). But such behaviour by cyclists is in breach of the Highway code advised road behaviour and is likely to deepen and widen the antipathy by motorists towards cyclists and ultimately further endanger the lives of those who cycle for other purposes.
Credit where it's due, you're really putting in the effort with your trolling, going back six months to find something about which you can write complete bollocks.
In 56 years of cycling, motorcycling and being driven in cars and coaches for hundreds and hundreds of thousands of miles in the UK and on the continent – including some of the most popular cycling routes on Earth – I have never, not once, seen cyclists riding four abreast across the carriageway with traffic behind when not in an officially sanctioned race with appropriate road closure or police control. Never.
I was thinking the same. A popular open road sportive maybe, just maybe? But even then I don't think so.
Maybe, but only because that's what the Highway Code says to do…
Do you really think that someone should overtake unsafely/dangerously just because they don't want to have to wait?
Why are you here?
If this is sarcasm or satire (or a quote from e.g. the Mail), please consider adding some indication that it is!
Taking at face value (why?): 1) "unaccompanied" (presumably not by a driver then?) 2) silly "large heavy (but slow)" motor vehicle and cyclist equivalence 3) silly "so it'll be illegal to overtake then" idea 4) (skipping a lot else) "in breach of the Highway code advised road behaviour" - well we should be better etc. etc. but frankly even the actual laws (rather than "guidance") don't see to be particularly well adhered-to - nor in fact understood and enforced by the police...
UPDATE
As I'm local I looked up Robert Vestey and found his email address so I decided to ask him to comment on the points I made below. His first point was that the BBC story didn't give the full picture and the point he was trying to make was that from now on close pass reports would be dealt with using advisory letters rather than NFA if the evidence was not good enough for an NIP. This is an improvement on the current system. On the evidence needed he said :
This would explain why some of my submissions have been NFA while some have had action taken even though the risk of serious injury to me was less.
On the matter of NMOTD 674 he said that they didn't always get things right and that this was a pretty obvious mistake and that retraining would be given. This explains some of the other NFAs I've had but I did not feel it would be productive to go into individual cases at this point.
And finally he is going to look in to giving a summary of outcomes of OpSnap reports on the website whre they already have results of speeding prosecutions in the county.
In conclusion then it seems to me that this should have been a story about a police force trying to do the right thing for cyclists but hampered by the contraints they are working under.
Is being so shocked you shout an expletive considered being 'inconvenienced'?
If I take my car down to the local supermarket car park to practise handbrake turns and doughnuts, I guess as long as I don't inconvenience anyone else then that's not driving without due care?
I'm not sure I agree with their prosecution criteria.
That's absurd! By that criteria no action would've been taken against the Ferrari driver this summer who on a clear straight road, where he could've overtaken me completely in the oncoming traffic lane, quite deliberately "buzzed" me by about 50cm at a speed I would estimate as being about 80-90 mph, I didn't take avoiding action, wobble, brake or change direction because frankly it was all so fast it was over before I had a chance to react in any way, and there was no vehicle coming in the opposite direction. As it happens no action was taken because I was nearing the end of a 150km ride and my camera battery had run out and the driver was going so fast that I had no chance to note his numberplate, so I couldn't report it, but if the camera had been on and the police had taken no further action because my reactions didn't fit any of the criteria above I would certainly be making an official complaint.
It is the last point that is key with many Dashcam clips we receive where a cyclist is cycling along a road and a vehicle drives past too close. There needs to be some evidence of how the cyclist is inconvenienced e.g. wobbled, took avoiding action, had to brake or change direction or a vehicle coming in the opposite direction had to take avoiding action or brake
This provides conclusive proof, as if any were needed, that many police officers are not only malevolent, anti-cyclist b******s, but are exceedingly thick, malevolent, anti-cyclist b******s. I wonder what Chief Dimwit Vestey would say about this:
https://upride.cc/incident/ca70mkc_citroenvan_closepass/
I have made this point before, and Rendel makes it below-In the few milliseconds in which the Citroen passed me, I took no actions which would convince Vestey that I had been 'inconvenienced'. Anybody who starts wobbling or performs any other out-of-control manoeuvre in response to assaults like this is going to be KSI'd in the not too distant future. In fact, I was so frightened that I had to pull over to the side to recover- This is the only video evidence I have of the effect such a close-passing assault had on me from all my headcam years.
https://upride.cc/incident/yn67mvj_sainsburys44tonner_closepass/
I already know what early model Replicant Vestey, who would undoubtedly fail the Turing Test, would say about that: there is no evidence that the cyclist was inconvenienced as he just kept on cycling in the same manner. I recall desperately trying to remain upright on this slow uphill section, grimly concentrating on staying away from the container nearside while being thankful I didn't have wide flat bars with rubber grips on the end which could have been scooped up by the container wall, tipping me under the wheels- but it would all have been NFA'd by Vestey. It didn't even get that far with LancsFilth- they just ignored it like everything else.
Thank you for your comments. Just a couple of points.
I wonder whether this would count as being inconvenienced. Yupiteru makes the point that they always include the fact that they were so affected by the close pass they couldn't sleep at night and this seems to have met with positive action in those cases.
I have obviously not explained this very well above. The whole point of what the interview was about was to say that if there was no evidence of inconvenience then close passes would be dealt with by sending Advisory Letters rather than NFA. I know you will see this as not helpful but in my opinion it is a step in the right direction for Gloucestershire.
I do believe they are trying to improve here and I am much happier with the outcomes of my reports in 2024 than I am for the 2023 ones.
Your experience in Lancashire does sound pretty awful from what you tell us and I fully understand your disillusionment with the police there.
if there was no evidence of inconvenience then close passes would be dealt with by sending Advisory Letters rather than NFA
You know I'm going to say this: Advisory letter = NFA. Letters are worthless junk, just like words of advice and 'community resolution'
Yupiteru makes the point that they always include the fact that they were so affected by the close pass they couldn't sleep at night and this seems to have met with positive action in those cases
Yupiteru means: you have to lie about it to make the story sound good- which I'm not going to do. Close passes do not have that effect on me because I'm not a nutter. Inventing PTSD does not help, and the only thing affecting my sleep is what is loosely described as 'prostatism'
I have to say, you don't often give the impression of being very pro the current state.
Thanks for following up. But as per my post below, his response continues to demonstrate a fundamental error in his understanding the law. Drivers can be charged if they drive carelessly or if they drive inconsiderately. Driving carelessly only requires the driving to be below the standard of a careful and competent driver - no-one else need be inconvenienced.
Yep. s.3 RTA 1988:
If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence.
s.3(ZA)(2):
A person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.
s.3(ZA)(4):
A person is to be regarded as driving without reasonable consideration for other persons only if those persons are inconvenienced by his driving
This police guidance also conflates the two offences. But the CPS prosecution guidance makes clear they are separate offences and prosecution has to decide which to charge.
Drivers can be charged if they drive carelessly or if they drive inconsiderately
But they aren't, because of the situation which has developed where the police essentially make the law by being permitted or even encouraged to enforce laws entirely by their own choice. They choose to enforce them against people they don't like, which for our present purposes means cyclists (Duncan Dimwit's Crusade against Terror Cyclists, Blackpool Police's Tough on Pavement Cycling but Lax on the Causes of Pavement Cycling: if you don't like the roads, find another mode of transport etc.), and conspicuously don't enforce them against people they do like which means motorists.
I moved onto MOT and VED evasion and mobile phone use while driving and red light offences etc. because there's no argument about whether they're offences whereas close passing is never significant as far as police officers are concerned- in Lancashire they don't pay any attention to those offences by motorists because 'everybody does it'. They won't do anything about PK17 XHR's MOT evasion, for instance. He will likely move on to VED evasion tomorrow because there are no consequences in Lancashire. That's what lawmaking by the police does for you!
They won't do anything about PK17 XHR's MOT evasion, for instance. He will likely move on to VED evasion tomorrow because there are no consequences in Lancashire
Well, it appears that he didn't, altthough he did manage almost 11 months without MOT. This illustrates the failings of DVLA- he managed to renew his VED on or around 1.10.24, despite his MOT having expired on 5.4.24. DVLA really is a hopeless mess where they positively discourage reports of vehicles on the road without VED, whereas DVSA seems to be working pretty well. He did get an MOT on 27.2.25- the first since it expired.
You are very welcome. It didn't look like any one esle was going to follow up. And thank you for the info.
I do not have enough knowledge to say who is right but internet searches would seem to indicate that what you are saying has some merit. What I don't understand is how a police could get it wrong. Surely they have lawyers who have a lot more training, knowledge and experience than the rest of us. Surely they are just using national guidelines.
Anyway, I think that's a battle for the future, unfortunately not one which I feel qualified to undertake. As far as the present is concerened, if you are reporting in Gloucestershire, it would seem be a good idea for the video and/or statement to indicate that you were inconvenienced.
The mandatory close pass wobbles and immediate return to the roadside for underwear inspection...
"Educating cyclist" rather than drivers seems to be a directive that has gone out to all forces – got a call from Thames Valley Police today that close passes aren't illegal and to stop wasting my time and theirs reporting close passes where someone was "just driving".
They have such a big backlog that they don't even investigate some accidents.
They are working overtime to try and comply with the 14 day notice required by law to serve notices.
So rather than highlighting to their superiors and ministers that their processes and system needs reform, they're taking the overtime and binning reports.
When I tried to argue that proactiveness would prevent deaths, I was told that it's a different team that deals with deaths.
This country is Fd. I may trade in my bike for a small boat and seek refuge in fear of my life somewhere else.
This is all very disappointing and yes processes aren't working how they should ... but unless you're moving to somewhere that has mass cycling or is trying to get it (quite a bit of Europe now but outside of NL it's still patchy and "city by city") this wouldn't (yet) be a good decision.
In fact the UK has one of the better road safety stats in Europe. Albeit this has in large part come about via discouraging road use without a motor vehicle and "moving the vulnerable road users out of the way of the motor traffic" eg. making it *most* convenient for drivers...
You can't beat the Danish cycling approach in my personal experience....
Not so far to row your boat, though SAS will fly your bike in oversize luggage for free.
Viking Power 🇩🇰
24000 clips in 6 Months.
Let's be generous - 5 day week so :-
24000 / (365 * 5 / (2 * 7)) = 184 clips / day.
45 police forces
184 / 45 = 4.09 clips per force per day.
They must be making their doughnuts soggy and crying in their coffee with all that work.
It's nearly as soul destroying as being the indicator fitter at the BMW factory.
Certainly seems to be a bit of a post code lottery with different forces having different criteria. Gwent and south Wales Police which is my area, seem to be pretty good in my experience with some high profile cases resulting in some stiff penalties and all my submissions having some kind of action taken so far.
I find it useful to have my camera (front only at present) under the handlebars in such a way that it can see a section of the drops on the right hand side and angled down slightly to see my tyre, so as to give some perspective and make it much easier to see how close the pass was to my right hand side and to me rather than just from the kerb.
I also always make sure to state that the pass made me very frightened and fearful for my life/welfare and that i could not sleep that night due to the anxiety caused. I have even when necessary, used Google maps satellite view to measure the width of the lane and submitted the screenshot with a arrows and road sizes to make officers aware of the relative local dimensions.
There are other things I would recommend as well, but not got the time here to highlight them all. Just be as comprehensive as you can and make sure your statement conveys the fact that the close pass was an issue to you.
Don't try and be brave about it, you must convince the reviewing officer that you were in great danger and that it effected your life/mental health or your journey in a way that would not have occurred, if it was not for the close pass, you must convince them that the offending vehicle/drivers actions were very dangerous, unneccesary and troubling, not just that they came closer than 1.5m.
The Police will be reluctant to take strong enforcement action if there is a chance that the driver will get off if they take it to court, so don't rush your statement, take your time and cover absolutely everything.
All excellent advice but I wonder how much time this takes per submission?
Of course there must be a police calculus too for reporting - presumably even forces which aren't trying to say "just don't bother" want there to be some barrier to climb as they're aware that otherwise even just reviewing well- evidenced submissions would overwhelm their resources (this isn't an uncommon offence sadly)?
Pages