Near Miss of the Day 889: Police refuse to act on cyclist’s submission and claim they require the “bike to be visible in the footage” to determine a close pass

Midgex wrote:

Sorry, that's clear and sensible.

No it's not, many tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of submissions have been accepted by police forces around the country where the bike isn't visible; these have led to many drivers being given a course or points and a fine without them disputing the evidence. "Sensible" would be saying that most people mount their camera in the middle of the bars, so even with the widest bars the furthest away from the point of the bicycle nearest the car the camera will be is about 30cm. If in doubt the police could just ask for a picture of the camera setup to accompany the video. In a pass like the one above the position of the camera is totally irrelevant anyway, it can clearly be seen that the van is entirely within the lane at all times (otherwise it would hit the oncoming traffic), the van is a Ford Transit which is a minimum of 210 cm wide (240 cm including mirrors), the cyclist will be at least 60 cm wide, so unless the lane is 450 cm wide it is physically impossible for the pass to have been outside 150cm. Furthermore it can be seen fom the video, regardless of where the camera is, that the van is never more than a metre off the kerb, meaning it must have passed the cyclist within 50cm at most.

The only thing "clear" is that TVP are making ridiculous excuses to avoid taking action when an obvious offence has been committed.

I think the Ford Transit is the example that TVP did prosecute. It's the Saab that they wouldn't prosecute, due to no part of the bike being visible.

TVP are being overly cautious with the evidential burden of proof. All the court needs is evidence that is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

It is possible that a longer lens would show a pass to be closer than it was in reality. An example below of two views of the same pass (that wasn't close, but the driver did cut in a bit too soon as they chose to overtake on a bend over double whites with an oncoming van). Having part of the bike in the frame takes away that marginal doubt, but it does seem like a bit of an excuse not to prosecute in this case.

What the problem seems to be, is the amount of resources put into these prosecutions costs more than the fine. I think this is unreasonable, these things need to pay for themselves. The police should be able to cover the cost of prosecutions with funds generated by fines (with any excess going to fund improvements in road safety). If parking enforcement companies can make the maths work for a civil claim, then surely the same can be done for criminal activity.

Ah my mistake - though everything I said applies to both, really.

miekwidnes wrote:

Well I suppose they could claim that unless they can see the handlebars then they cannot tell how wide the bike is

I'm sure that's exactly what their argument is - which is still bollocks, because even if the camera was fixed to the left-most tip of the widest downhill MTB flat bars you can get, that pass was still way within 1.5m of the camera. In reality, that would have probably brushed the rider's shoulder. 
 

Disgraceful response from the Police. 

Or Police Scotland.

Problem would perhaps be synchronisation.

Have you thought about emailing Dr Ian Walker about the setup he used when cycling around in his blonde wig measuring passing distances?

HoarseMann wrote:

More out of curiosity than anything else, but it would surely help with evidencing.

I doubt the police would take account of any evidence provided in this way, they certainly don't (at least the Met don't, I've asked/offered) with indications of rider speed overlaid from a Garmin, on the basis that only certified calibrated devices (i.e. only police/speed camera company ones) are admissible legal evidence.

So the only sure measure would be a sharp-tipped calibrated length of piano wire projecting perpendicularly sideways. As a bonus, the length of the scratch in the car's flank would indicate the duration of the motorists incursion. Just be careful whilst filtering...

Calibration is required for FPN speed offences, but if it goes to court, then other measures of speed can be used - such as time/distance calculations from video footage, even though the cameras frame rate is not calibrated.

Adding a Garmin overlay is considered editing of the video after the event, so would not be appropriate (tampering with evidence). However any overlay applied in real time during the recording would probably be ok (as the Garmin Varia camera does).

I could always get it calibrated by a 3rd party testing house!

Dr Ian Walker used an ultrasonic measuring machine:

https://drianwalker.com/overtaking/

eburtthebike wrote:

Dr Ian Walker used an ultrasonic measuring machine:

https://drianwalker.com/overtaking/

Yes, an acoustic proximity sensor (as used for parking sensors) works well for these short distances. However, a home-brew Arduino based system is less likely to be useful for evidence than an unmodified commercially available device (especially if it's been calibrated).

That's rubbish. I sent a similar incident to North Wales Police on Monday and they'd taken action over it on Tuesday.

There's clearly not 1.5 M between the kerb and the overtaking car so there's no way it's a safe pass.

Exactly. The police use common sense every day in road traffic accidents to work out how fast people were going without being able to see their speedos etc. 

This is just bullshit. If you are less than 1.5m from the curb then there is a 0% chance that when you overtake a cyclist you magically are. 

Same in North Yorkshire.

Videos and reporting helps me stay calm, but North Yorkshire Police are hopelessly inconsistent. Most of the time they just don't want to do the work.

OK this is terrible policing but now they have given you this guidance you can act on it. It's not difficult to get the front wheel in the shot and it has been suggested in the past to include a still with a measured 1.5m visible in front of the bike for reference in your submission.

I suspect they've cocked up and are looking for excuses but it could be that the prosecutor has genuiniely experienced this defence in court. There seems to be no end to the gullibility of judges, magistrates and juries where motoring offences are concerned. No point in antagonising the police in my opinion, we need them on our side.

On the plus side they have given you feedback and a warning letter was sent. Some of us would call this a good result.

PS. Thanks for taking the time and trouble to submit on behalf of us all. I think things are improving but it will be a long uphill struggle to get to where we need to be.