Near Miss of the Day 473: Nottinghamshire Police now treating close passes as ‘victimless crime’

So does that mean the DVLA are about to be prosecuted under GDPR regulations for sharing information related to MOT/Tax, or perhaps that won't happen as it used to be a Police job and they dont have the resources.

'Indeed by updating you, we are effectively telling you the outcome for the offending driver (another person), who could be traced via their registration plates, and consequently we would be breaking the law in terms of data protection and GDPR.' Drivers can't be identified via their registration plate - that can only be used to identify the registered owner; typical copper cop-out.

Particularly interested in this near miss as these clips are from very near where I live. The second one is on my own regular routes and I can testify to how often I've been passed too close here too.

In one particular example, there was a supermarket delivery truck parked in the opposite lane and someone still chose the same point as in this second clip to overtake, squeezing me right into the kerb. 100 yards ahead is a give way so I'm really not sure what the rush was...

I'm confused.

If someone hits me with a basebal bat am I a victim or a witness?

I would be interested to read the full report, but if it is published and publically available, my google-fu isn't good enough.

I have just ordered a camera after experiencing dangerous driving on a far too regular occurence. I don't know what Police Scotland's current policy is, but any time I feel like I have been personally endangered by another's driving, I expect to be treated as a victim and will escalate through the complaints system any such report where they try to fob my off as just a witness.

That said, there are crimes which I may feel like I would genuinely be a witness - e.g. mobile phone use, jumping a red light or deliberately encroaching an ASL. On the other hand, I doubt I would bother to report most of these crimes as if I make a report for every crime I witness, it would take up all day!

I find Nottingham Police's approach particularly disappointing. They even state "it has clearly affected you". Do they mean it has clearly caused you mental or emotional harm? If so, by their own admission, you are "strictly" a victim!

The GDPR line is also ludicrous. If you submitted the footage, then you already know their registration number! Not to mention the fact that by their very nature registration numbers are publically available information. Providing an update along the lines of "The driver of the vehicle has been identified and charged" does not reveal any more personal information than you already have.

Cambridgeshire police used the "not a victim"/"data protection" excuse last year on me after submitting a close pass video:

"When we receive your report you are a witness to a road traffic offence and as such you are not a victim. Therefore we are not in a position to disclose the outcome of any action we take."

"We appreciate that you were shaken by the incident but we also have to adhere to the rules around data protection."

Sadly, this does not surprise me at all. Up until last summer, Avon & Somerset used to keep a submitter of video footage updated on progress. Then they opted for the "GDPR" bullshit.

Working groups like this enable forces to share wheezes to minimise admin. Hopefully they also enable sharing best practice in some instances but, with a decade of Tory budget cuts, I know which is the more likely use of them.

I think the way to deal with this creeping problem of police forces not communicating their action to us is to raise a complaint each time they do it.

I'm going to wait until the next close pass that I consider worth submitting and if they give me the witness blurb again, I'll raise a complaint about them not treating me as a victim. That way, they'll end up with more complaints than if they just let us know what they're doing (which I think is a perfectly reasonable requirement).

Well this is a change.  A couple of years ago I reported a driver who almost knocked me off (with a witness) police sent me a letter a few weeks later telling me they didn't have enough evidence but with the drivers full name and address on; almost willing me to go and slash his tyres. 

So have we now passed into the Silver Age of cycling...?

It would appear the only way this is going to change is if people take the law into their own hands. The same thing always happens when police refuse to do their jobs. As bikes lack the implied destructive power and personal shielding provided by a motor vehicle, their riders are utterly reliant on the police and the law to provide the missing protection.

Not really interested in finding out the result of submitting a specific complaint. Exceedingly interested in knowing that video submissions in general are being followed up and that drivers are being dealt with appropriately. That surely is a freedom of information request along the lines of how many submissions are being made and the percentages of follow up options or non action.

It's just a dodge to save work by discouraging incident reports from the people the police really hate- people who report incidents. Hence the other dodges, like 'you must have X minutes of video before and after the offence', which they have simply made up!

The GDPR stuff is bullshit, number plates are public domain and merely identify a car, not a driver.  Updates can be provided without any leakage of personal data, all the cyclist needs to know is that the driver has been appropriately punished or the investigation is ongoing.

I'd like to know the name of the working group and the exact context of their advice, suspect someone is either accidentally or deliberately adding 2+2 and getting 27. 

So how do I identify somebody from the VIN? Only the police can do that.

A by-product of the approach seems likely to be a reduction of evidence submitted by cyclists - after all if they are going to receive no feedback then it seems more likely that they will think 'why bother' (perhaps assuming that nothing will be done about it anyway.  This is a win for the police who will then be rewarded to for the reduction in reported crime statistics for their area with less work to do. A great demonstration of efficient policing.🤔

I'm definitely not someone who is anti-police but this does seem to be a short-sighted policy decision.