- 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
“Absolutely vile” – Cyclist slams Staffordshire Police after it tells him no prosecution of drivers based on video footage if no injury or damage involved
A cyclist who regularly submits videos of close passes to Staffordshire Police has described the force’s attitude towards such footage as “absolutely vile” after he was told in an email that it would only consider referring drivers filmed endangering cyclists for prosecution when injury or damage had happened – and then, only where there is “concrete evidence and that the matter is in the public interest.” The police force has since said that “often education is the most suitable option.”
Twitter user Pompey Cyclist, who lives in Staffordshire, tweeted an image of part of an email he had received from Staffordshire Police in response to the above close pass that he had sent them.
@StaffsPolice have pulled a new policy out of their arse. pic.twitter.com/m9s8RA4UD8
— Pompey Cyclist (@PompeyCyclist) June 18, 2021
“If no one is injured and the vehicle is lawfully on the road, then a warning letter is suffice [sic], highlighting the incident and their obligations whilst overtaking a cyclist,” he was told.
“If there is injury and or damage then a course or prosecution is considered again depending whether we have concrete evidence and that the matter is in the public interest.”
He told road.cc that “the comment in the email was said as a general statement as I asked what has to happen for someone to be dealt with properly if not be a foot away from them at about 40mph.”
He also highlighted an earlier video (see below) that he had sent to the force of a very close pass by a lorry driver, saying that police “refused to do anything except send a letter. I exhausted the complaint and appeals process with this one and I think four or five different people were all involved and all agreed that not bothering to do anything was the right thing to do.”
He continued: “It's just failure after failure and incompetent cop after incompetent cop with this police force.
“They were awful, then sorted themselves out a bit after I reported drivers and raised about 15 complaints in a year.
“Now they've reverted back to being completely useless and it's just frightening that they have cops who literally say ‘we won't do anything unless you're hurt or killed’. “Absolutely vile attitude,” he added.
We contacted Staffordshire Police to ascertain whether the comments in the email reflected the force’s official policy, as well as requesting details of their submission guidelines and asking when they last conducted an operation targeting close-passing drivers and what the outcome was. At the time of writing, we have not received a reply.
Keir Gallagher, Cycling UK’s campaigns manager said: “Close passing is not only incredibly dangerous, but it’s also hugely intimidating – which is why Cycling UK has campaigned for the Highway Code to include minimum safe passing distances, changes we hope to see introduced shortly.
“However, education and guidance must be backed up by police enforcement, and just as they would not turn a blind eye to a speeding driver because there was no collision, police should not be waiting for an injury or fatality before taking action against dangerous close passing.
“If this is indeed the policy of Staffordshire Police, it risks sending a dangerous message that drivers who put cyclists and other vulnerable road users at risk will be treated with impunity.”
He added: “Cycling UK will be writing to Staffordshire police to seek the details of their policy – and the reasoning behind it – and to raise concerns about the serious implications it could have on road safety within the region.”
We heard back from Staffordshire Police the day after this article was published, with a spokesperson telling us: “With regards to ‘close pass’ incidents, this is not a specific offence and in reviewing the evidence we have to decide whether the offence of driving without due care and attention is met, when the standards of driving fall below that of a competent and careful driver.
“Each case is assessed on its individual circumstances and an injury will not ultimately be the deciding factor.
“The key aim for the police is to reduce these incidents and keep all road users safe, often education is the most suitable option. A warning letter may be appropriate dependent upon the circumstances, where this doesn’t apply we consider education through driver awareness courses and prosecution if the previous two options are not suitable.”
The spokesperson added: “We will raise awareness of the process with officers across the force.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- ktache 3 hours 28 min ago
The small frame, the aggressive posture, lots of standover height.
- mctrials23 4 hours 24 min ago
As i've said before, the police should be sued for a lot of money when someone they have knowingly ignored has gone on to commit a serious crime....
- David9694 4 hours 31 min ago
'Bad parking' blocks firefighters multiple times on same emergency call-out...
- David9694 4 hours 35 min ago
Cambridgeshire boy, 13, crashes Audi into garden wall after taking it from home...
- Adam Sutton 5 hours 21 min ago
Good stuff. Now do it on cycleway C9 through Hammersmith to Chiswick.
- mark1a 5 hours 30 min ago
It's technically allowed but it's not known as "London's Orbital Car Park" for nothing.
- Dogless 6 hours 38 min ago
You're defending bombing hospitals and refugee camps and starving children.
- mattw 9 hours 18 min ago
Used car salesman is a complete attention-seeking plank....
- tubasti 9 hours 35 min ago
I don't know if they're any better, but they's certainly become more boring.
- FionaJJ 10 hours 1 min ago
At risk of being cynical, and stereotyping the police, it's so they don't have to leave the comfort of their panda cars and pursue on foot when...
Add new comment
81 comments
I'm a former Police Officer and a cyclist (I ride a 50" Penny-Farthing), so I see the Police's difficulty here: they need to be able to nail somebody down to a specific offense and be confident that the evidence you've given them clearly illustrates the elements of the offense. Court is a lengthy process with a lot of paperwork and Police only charge if you feel justice will prevail. I just successfully had an aggressive driver enforced by Hertfordshire Police from my helmet cam footage. Motorist tried to pass on an insanely busy road and to avoid a head-on collision rammed back into the lane at the last second choosing to save his own neck while happy to sacrifice my life. When I slowed the video I could see the passenger in the Taxi he only just averted a head-on at my expense was a little girl. The video is fairly shocking and was an open net for the Police to score on. Anyhoo, I documented my experience successfully enforcing the aggressive motorist in very granular detail to help cyclist give the Police what they need: http://www.penny-farthing.org/enforcing-dangerous-drivers/
From the updated article : "We heard back from Staffordshire Police the day after this article was published, with a spokesperson telling us: “With regards to ‘close pass’ incidents, this is not a specific offence and in reviewing the evidence we have to decide whether the offence of driving without due care and attention is met, when the standards of driving fall below that of a competent and careful driver. "
So basically either Staffs police feel that the tanker driver is bahaving as a "competent and careful driver" or that they are not confident a jury would agree that it is not. It would be interesting to know which it is.
I found this on a legal web site : "You can defend careless driving allegations if you cast a reasonable doubt on that suggestion. Or, additionally, if you can show that in the specific circumstances of your case, any reasonable and prudent driver would have reacted/driven in the same way." Unfortunately I suspect that many drivers (jury members) would not see anything wrong with this driving and therein, I suspect, lies the problem. A warning letter may change driver behaviour and doesn't require convincing a jury. On the other hand the stress of going through a court case may have the same effect even if found innocent. The problem here is the cost of the case.
It seems to me that we need passing within 1.5m to be some sort of offence. Now what happened to that review I heard about?
Well said. We need a specific offence, not some wooly definition that a loophole lawyer can cast doubt upon, and passing within 1.5m could be proved and convicted with no argument.
It would be interesting how many people have actually contested a close pass charge and won though.
A few months ago when Laura posted an article on WMP's apparent withdrawal from Close Pass, I found a vodcast Mark Hodson did where he mentioned the history of the intial, well lauded, initiative. (Very interesting history for anyone interested.)
But the key part was they started using video footage to prosecute drivers and as most drivers accepted them without question they carried on. However they were worried on the first one that would plead not guilty as once it is before a judge, it might be dismissed as inadmissable. It finally happened, they went to court worried and the judge accepted both the video evidence supplied and the charges of careless driving for the close pass.
Of course, it doesn't stop Police not wanting to worry about resources of losing a Police man to court for a day for something they might see as "victimless" as Staffs and others seem to be doing nowadays. (and CPS etc)
Threatening somebody with a big lump of metal ( get off my road - this very close pass will teach you a lesson) must be a criminal offense.
For the successfl court case, do we know how close the close pass was and whether the rider had to swerve or brake?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ak_KTR5ZhsY&t=56m30s
Direct to 56mins for the start of Mark, another 10 mins or so before they start talking about "suck it and see" to see if they can do it. First ones were close passes on him.
Edit: 1h:18m or so, he mentions the first case in court.
Thanks for this link. Very informative. Could be the subject of a future road.cc article I would think. It raises many interesting points in relation to changing driver behaviour around cyclists which is what most of us would like I suspect.
Unfortunately it doesn't give details of the close pass that was successfully prosecuted but it is interesting that the cyclist was a police officer with a class 1 licence who was passed by a lorry driver with a class 1 licence and it also relied on testimony from Mark himself as an expert witness that the cyclist was cycling in a proper manner. It also seems it was dealt with in the magistrates court.
Genuine question (in no way venomous)
Do we need to worry about a jury? Many cases could be dealt with FPN and points. Or could be dealt with in the magistrates court. If it ever goes to crown court juries can be directed, indeed it is part of the prosecution's job to present the case in clear terms, but a CC case would be likely much more serious than a close pass in isolation.
It seems to me it's the Police's job to ensure that the offence is dealt with adequately in the framework of options they have at their disposal. I can't accept them throwing their hands in the air whilst claiming they can't take action cos juries.
I agree there's little point in sending to court with no chance of conviction, even considering the stress on the accused, but that's not the police's only option
I absolutely get your point, and I agree the police should be persuing the avenues they have where they believe it is appropriate.
However, I can see there is a legal principal that juries (with appropriate direction) are the ultimate test of whether or not a crime has been committed. If there's no prospect of a jury convicting someone, then arguably the ploice have no right to be issuing FPNs. FPNs are essentially plea deals - the driver has to admit to the offence. But if a jury wouldn't convict then in the eyes of the law the driver is innocent.
There's also the point that (for driving offenses specifically) the law relates directly to "a careful and competent driver" and therefore it is benchmarked against how other drivers behave.
Indeed, they can, the trouble is they are normally directed by the judge that
a) the highway code should be consided guidance and in no way mandatory
b) they should consider the actions aginst the benchmark of a careful and competent driver such as themselves.
Considering that half the jusy will be below average and 1 or 2 probabbly very poor, it's an uphill battle to convicne them that any action on the roads (other than involving drugs or drink) is far below the standard that all the jury members would consider perfectly reasonable driver behaviour.
Might as well get a jury of 12 mysogenists to decide a sexual harrassment case.
I have been talking to their social media team about this (see original correspondence below). Here is their official response ...
So they have acknowledged that an injury is not (ultimately) the deciding factor - a small realisation that the original response was incorrect I suppose.
Im going to play devils advocate here and its not going to be popular.
Instead of assuming this is policy lets consider that maybe - just maybe - that its a response to 1 individual sending them 15 complaints in a year, which lets face it - human nature being what it is - probably makes the submitter a bit of a pain in their arse.
It takes two to tango and unless this person is Staffordshire's answer to Cycling Mikey, with a reciprocal person on the other end - just maybe they should calm down the outrage a little and concentrate on (poor) quality passes over quantity. The reality we live in is that just because a law is being broken doesnt automatically mean that the police are going to be arsed to enforce it. Like everything in life its subject to prioritisation.
Don't get me wrong - maybe Staffordshire Police are so poor that they need to be forced into action - but maybe, just maybe - telling them they are crap isnt the best way to get something accomplished.
Having said all that - its great that CUK are involved and lets hope their involvement generates a positive outcome and doesn't result in Staff Constabulary entrenching more.
Then couldn't they just make some public announcement to that, if that was the case? "An anonymous person has been wasting police time"...
It wouldn't even have to be a public announcement - just let the person know that they're not interested in certain traffic violations (e.g. red light jumping in Lancashire).
As a close-pass submitter, I welcome feedback so I can get an idea of whether I'm wasting my time or not (and theirs). I've got no desire to splice videos and submit them if they're not going to be acted upon, so it's very much a partnership between cyclists and police.
Meanwhile, if you don't think the police are playing their part, then making complaints is part of the process of getting them to do their job. If senior police see large numbers of complaints all from a single person, then they might decide to ignore that, but if they're from lots of different people, then it's essential feedback that they need to do something different.
It wouldn't even have to be a public announcement - just let the person know that they're not interested in certain traffic violations (e.g. red light jumping in Lancashire)
I resent this! Lancashire Constabulary is the best there is at being uninterested in a whole range of offences. There will be no response to this, for instance
The centre brake light isn't working properly, and Avid Brewery's AV10 BUS driver clearly isn't interested in ever seeing out of the back window. Lancashire Constabulary has the capacity to ignore dozens of offences a day: school bus illegally crossing an unbroken white line illegally in a dangerous position, crossing of double unbroken white lines, 3 large dogs loose in the front passenger department, handheld mobile phone use at the wheel etc. etc. It's an offending motorist's paradise up here!
Apparently, Lancashire police now allow video uploads. Got this response from them a couple of days ago, which was news to me.
https://twitter.com/LancsPolice/status/1407961988584689666?s=20
Calm down, calm down. People like you eh?
Happy to be corrected, to the best of my knowledge there is no legal requirement for a high level or central brake light. They are sold as safety features that have become standard.
As for the rear window, it is a box van and there doesn't seem to be any attachments for a wiper. There is no legal requirement for visibility through rear windows, think HGVs and box lorries. The vehicle looks like it was not designed to have such a feature.
All lights fitted must work or an offence is committed.
Not entirely true, although it is true of brake lights and so is applicable in this case. Some lights are redundant spares, and not required to be working.
Depends if the response is to one individual sending them video of every car that passes them a bit too close or all video submissions by all cyclists of close pass incidents.
Maybe some young investigative reporter with a bit of time might submit FOI requests to all forces asking for a breakdown of how many closs pass submissions were made by their various portals and what percentage of those were followed up and if so in what way. I think that would be more informative of the policies being adopted by different forces.
Not sure about that. It also suggests that this submitter is consistently providing quality usable evidence.
It also suggets that if the submitter is that prolific there could be a real issue on the roads, they are just the one that's publicising it.
I can certainly see that if the particular officer has no desire to deal with the issues it could be a bit of a pain in the arse to have work put on their desk - that tea doesn't drink itself after all... I had a similar issue on a project I was leading. The ITPM insisting on deleting or downgrading bugs that had been registered after being found during testing - these were show-stopper level faults. Apparently, it was making their figures look bad..... I suggested they fixed the bugs, so that I could stop registering them. They didn't really get my logic. WITA?
Clearly it would be a mild annoyance should consistently bad evidence be submitted frequently, but that is case by case. A response along the lines of "in this instance we will not take action" is sufficient. However, it seems here that there is a policy of "no blood no issue", which is clearly bollx, and not acceptable.
Is 15 that prolific? I've had weeks where I could have submitted that many and still not counted the just within the 1.5m close pass ones.
I had a good half dozen that I'd feel were valid submissions,just on one ride yesterday.
Apparently that would make you a nuisance. Or an asset. It could be either depending on the receiving officer and the culture in their dept.
Unfortunately thats sad but true. I dont like it, but in the grand scheme of things Im not sure pillorying the police for it is the most productive form of action, tbh I'm not sure what is the right action, but for a large chunk of the population, telling them they are shit doesnt motivate them.
If you're leading a team, you're right. Tell people they're crap and they are crap.
We aren't leading a team. We need a level of service from these people for our safety, and unfortunately, that won't be achieved by saying "you're doing really well" when they aren't. This takes noise, and being a pain. Being so much of a pain that it is harder not to do their jobs than to do it.
That's the only way you can push change as an outsider.
I've tried all the official means of complaint. Appealed complaints and escalated complaints
also had a face to face meeting with them where we agreed how to move forward.
That's now been ignored by them and we're back to them being useless.
Telling them they're useless wasn't the first thing I tried. Obviously. This has been a process which has taken over two years. Give me some credit, Christ.
15 complaints, not 15 reports. Way more than 15 reports. All but a couple of weren't taken anywhere
Pages