Surrey Police says warning letters “most appropriate course of action” for majority of driving offences, and calls on cyclists who submit multiple near miss clips to “engage with us further” to improve road safety

Found it - it's the "watching-eye effect".

The visible case on the helmet certainly seems to have a deterrent effect

Not in Lancashire it doesn't!  This is Blackburn with Darwen Citroen Picasso taxi No. 3356 NU62 MYH cutting right in on me and forcing (blameless!) oncoming Porsche Macan LN17 VBE right into the kerb and to almost stop. The Picasso overtook me on a blind right bend and, surprise-surprise encounters the Porsche- he then blasts me on the horn but doesn't slow down or hang back. In the taxi passenger seat is a Lancashire County Council employee- identified by Hi-Viz jacket. I will be bringing this one back when Upride displays the video. The point is that I have a big GoPro highly visible on the top of my helmet- but as a result of anti-cyclist b******s at Lancashire Constabulary, Lancashire drivers know there's no possibility of action being taken against them, no matter what the offence against a cyclist- appropriately, this all took place right next to Old Garstang Police Station

The end result of the complaint about the Blackburn taxi driver was that the council claimed that the taxi was actually licensed at the time of the offence despite his absence from the register- the public register is described as being 'not live'. After years of experience with Lancashire Constabulary, I would normally be highly sceptical of such a statement- however, in this case I am inclined to believe it. I also believe the statement of the council that the driver has been interviewed and warned etc. etc- especially as the only conceivable action by LC woud be none at all.

To see if you have a d lock, then they can arrest you on suspicion of potential to create a public nuisance.
Then you will be jailed and unable to make any submissions.

Hirsute wrote:

To see if you have a d lock, then they can arrest you on suspicion of potential to create a public nuisance. Then you will be jailed and unable to make any submissions.

The king was in the same county, so it was obvious that the police had to take action to prevent disruption

hawkinspeter wrote:

I don't understand what they mean by "evidential viability" as surely the vast majority is going to be video evidence and I can't think of anything more conclusive than a video of a driver passing too close to a cyclist.

"We can't prove the speed/distance" - the latter, of course, can be proven with a visit to the site but it then comes down to proportionality; the former is trickier without calibrating the individual recording device etc.

The strange thing is that inspector kev if this parish said his force does a still of your bike and camera setup with on of those mats ( think you can also go to specific bikes shops). Then they use the still as a reference point.
Surely a national standard for doing this should be mandated.

Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:

"We can't prove the speed/distance" - the latter, of course, can be proven with a visit to the site but it then comes down to proportionality; the former is trickier without calibrating the individual recording device etc.

It seems pretty obvious to me that a video shows a very good indication of speed and distance. The thing is that it's very rarely a borderline case of maybe a 1.495m passing distance instead of 1.5m, so I doubt that they're really being honest with us about that. You don't even need an accurate speed and/or distance as the criteria is to show "reasonable consideration" to other road users, so that's going to be a judgement call by the magistrate or jury, but the very fact that a cyclist felt themselves to be endangered is probably the most important criteria.

This is all true, but I have been told in the past by TVP that "the Highway Code is guidance only". They have been better over the last year, however, and the majority of my recent submissions have resulted in a course being offered.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:

"We can't prove the speed/distance" - the latter, of course, can be proven with a visit to the site but it then comes down to proportionality; the former is trickier without calibrating the individual recording device etc.

It seems pretty obvious to me that a video shows a very good indication of speed and distance. The thing is that it's very rarely a borderline case of maybe a 1.495m passing distance instead of 1.5m, so I doubt that they're really being honest with us about that. You don't even need an accurate speed and/or distance as the criteria is to show "reasonable consideration" to other road users, so that's going to be a judgement call by the magistrate or jury, but the very fact that a cyclist felt themselves to be endangered is probably the most important criteria.

Essex Police sent a warning letter for this one, as apparently it was impossible to properly judge the distance they passed at. That's what I was told after I lodged a complaint about the outcome.

https://youtu.be/F_7Dw--4p9k

TonyE-H wrote:

Essex Police sent a warning letter for this one, as apparently it was impossible to properly judge the distance they passed at. That's what I was told after I lodged a complaint about the outcome.

https://youtu.be/F_7Dw--4p9k

Again, that shouldn't be an issue as the driving was inconsiderate regardless of the exact distance, but you can certainly tell that it was way too close by watching where it is in relation to the white lines.

It really shouldn't, but that was the excuse given by the officer who phoned me, and he was a cyclist too don't you know.

Surreyrider wrote:

The FOI response supports what I've been saying here for a long time even though Road CC lauded Surrey Police because they have a Twitter account that provides them with easy copy. 

The trouble is that it's not the RPU who deals with third party reports.

Oh, so they're not part of Surrey Police then? Silly me.

That's like saying Mark Hodson doesn't have a clue what he's talking about because WMP have seemingly gone downhill recently, and Andy Cox is likewise clueless because of the Met's reputation. Just because Surrey RPU is on the ball doesn't mean the rest of the force is in any way decent (it may or may not be), even if it is seemingly working in the same field.

"engage with us further and work together to tackle” issues around road safety.

That'll be the people who ignore you. And that'll be the people who should be doing their job and punishing dangerous road users.

Well the feedback on that would be flimsy to say the least when they're provided with perfectly good/clear video footage. 

Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:

“In the majority of cases, issuing a warning letter is the most appropriate course of action due to the evidential viability of the material submitted"

Perhaps if the submitters were actually given feedback, then they'd be better able to provide more 'evidentially viable material' in the future? Just a thought.

More likely, they are clearly unable to eat doughnuts without spilling jam over everything.