Police Advisory on Close Passing a Cyclist
Discussion
This morning I received a letter from the Metropolitan Police about a 'report' of a 'road traffic incident' concerning a motor vehicle registered to my company.
They are issuing an advisory for the offence: "Drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road / in a public place without due care and attention".
After advice to remind all drivers of the vehicle of the importance of safe and responsible driving, etc, the letter ends with, "We will not be taking any further action in relation to this incident"
Does this mean someone - a cyclist - has reported this allegation of a close pass? Obvious question is obvious but as opposed to 'you were seen on cctv' or someone sent us dashcam footage for example.
There's also an 'allegation correspondence' email address; would there be any evidence of this if I contacted them?
They are issuing an advisory for the offence: "Drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road / in a public place without due care and attention".
The letter also said:
In that your vehcile drove in a way that falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, an example may include, but are not limited to: failed to give the recommended 1.5 metres of space as advised by the Highway Code when passing cyclists on the road. Close passing cyclists puts cyclists in significant danger and increases the likelihood of collisions resulting in injury or even death.
After advice to remind all drivers of the vehicle of the importance of safe and responsible driving, etc, the letter ends with, "We will not be taking any further action in relation to this incident"
Does this mean someone - a cyclist - has reported this allegation of a close pass? Obvious question is obvious but as opposed to 'you were seen on cctv' or someone sent us dashcam footage for example.
There's also an 'allegation correspondence' email address; would there be any evidence of this if I contacted them?
The most likely reason is a cyclist sending in a video, and the police agreeing it was poor driving, but not serious enough to warrant further action. I know a few cyclists who submit videos of dangerous passes, and they sometimes result in the driver being given a course, or occasionally points. Most often, no action.
zarjaz1991 said:
Yet report a burglary or muggging and they’re not interested.
Same old, same old.
I'm told that being knocked off a bike by a careless or stupid (or sometimes aggressive) driver is quite a bad experience..sometimes fatal.Same old, same old.
It is a good thing that drivers get prosecuted. A warning letter should be considered as an opportunity to learn.
Tommo87 said:
I know you like to write something/anything wherever possible in a failed attempt to look important, but you should try putting your brain in gear on occasion.
Muggings and burglaries are also crimes you moron and the point was about police of priorities. Nothing else.
But muggings and burglaries don't usually endanger life whereas an habitual close passer may do so.Muggings and burglaries are also crimes you moron and the point was about police of priorities. Nothing else.
Both of you are being a bit t
ttish here and I would suggest growing up is a good option.911hope said:
zarjaz1991 said:
Yet report a burglary or muggging and they’re not interested.
Same old, same old.
I'm told that being knocked off a bike by a careless or stupid (or sometimes aggressive) driver is quite a bad experience..sometimes fatal.Same old, same old.
It is a good thing that drivers get prosecuted. A warning letter should be considered as an opportunity to learn.
I was astonished recently to be negotiating traffic-light regulated roadworks on a single-carriageway road to see a cyclist heading towards me halfway along. I can only assume he thought a bicycle was narrow so it didn't matter.
Simpo Two said:
I would hope that cyclists that jump red lights etc get equally prosecuted
You deflect from the original issue, but yes, they do.https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/news/city-of-lo...
zarjaz1991 said:
Yet report a burglary or muggging and they’re not interested.
Same old, same old.
Some people seem to confuse 'there's nothing we can do to be able to take any further action' with 'we refuse to do anything'. Same old, same old.
There are lots of occasions when there simply isn't anything that can be done.
Rear cycle cams are getting cheaper and more common. You don't need a very good quality one, as by definition if the motorist is dangerously close to you, the front number plate is easily ledgible.
As a motorist it's easy, stay back, treat the bike as if it were a car, 1.5 meters if you are passing under 30mph, 2 metres if your are over 30 mph. That's the distance between the rightmost extremity of the cyclist and the left most extremity of your vehicle.
As a motorist it's easy, stay back, treat the bike as if it were a car, 1.5 meters if you are passing under 30mph, 2 metres if your are over 30 mph. That's the distance between the rightmost extremity of the cyclist and the left most extremity of your vehicle.
Simpo Two said:
I would hope that cyclists that jump red lights etc get equally prosecuted, because being flattened by a bus is also quite a bad experience.
I was astonished recently to be negotiating traffic-light regulated roadworks on a single-carriageway road to see a cyclist heading towards me halfway along. I can only assume he thought a bicycle was narrow so it didn't matter.
Maybe when he went through the lights they were green. I was astonished recently to be negotiating traffic-light regulated roadworks on a single-carriageway road to see a cyclist heading towards me halfway along. I can only assume he thought a bicycle was narrow so it didn't matter.
CheesecakeRunner said:
Take heed of it, and be a better driver.
I'd like to see the evidence because I'm not that guy. There has been no close pass which might fit the bill. I think I will ask for more details. It'll be interesting if there is something so I can see what they deemed valid for the letter. I don't have any issue with cyclists. This may even come down to opinion where I might have passed a cyclist thinking it was good space between the two vehicles but the cyclist disagreed and thus reported the reg. I honestly have no memory of squeezing past a cyclist to warrant a talking to.
rlw said:
But muggings and burglaries don't usually endanger life whereas an habitual close passer may do so.
Both of you are being a bit tttish here and I would suggest growing up is a good option.
Don’t usually doesn’t mean ever, in 1985 in Wembley I was mugged by five nice young men of colour, I was still a teen and as it was a Thursday, I had £2 and a few fags so walked to save the tube fare so I could get my dinner Both of you are being a bit t
ttish here and I would suggest growing up is a good option.Upon being mugged, belittled for my lack of wealth one of the nice young men decided to slash a serrated knife at my face and to protect myself I put my hand up and got a serious wound that required over 2 dozen stitches
The Police were largely disinterested probably because the culprits were most likely from the Chalkhill Estate which was on the top 10 places list for risk of major disturbances
So whilst cars too close to cyclists can have serious consequences, I’m living proof that not all muggings are gentle affairs
Glassman said:
I'd like to see the evidence because I'm not that guy. There has been no close pass which might fit the bill. I think I will ask for more details.
Why bother? All they're saying is that 'something' might have happened but they aren't going to be doing anything about it. So why ask for proof that the 'something' happened?Glassman said:
I'd like to see the evidence because I'm not that guy. There has been no close pass which might fit the bill. I think I will ask for more details. It'll be interesting if there is something so I can see what they deemed valid for the letter. I don't have any issue with cyclists. This may even come down to opinion where I might have passed a cyclist thinking it was good space between the two vehicles but the cyclist disagreed and thus reported the reg.
I honestly have no memory of squeezing past a cyclist to warrant a talking to.
I've sent 4 videos in since 2020. Ive had plenty more "they are too close" moments but not close enough to warrant sending footage in. I honestly have no memory of squeezing past a cyclist to warrant a talking to.
Of those 4, 2 were no further action, one was a letter and one was a prosecution. Warwickshire police are quite lenient to the driver. Unsure of where your close pass was but they don't contact you without cause.
The Gauge said:
Glassman said:
I'd like to see the evidence because I'm not that guy. There has been no close pass which might fit the bill. I think I will ask for more details.
Why bother? All they're saying is that 'something' might have happened but they aren't going to be doing anything about it. So why ask for proof that the 'something' happened?Maybe it's just me but I'd be thinking "I'm an idiot! I need to start paying more attention/taking more care"..
If you look at it logically
1. The cyclist felt it was dangerous enough to submit to the Police. So either the Cyclist is super-nervous and a completely safe/legitimate overtake upset him (in which case he'll be sending hundreds of videos in to the Police) OR this one was indeed a close/dangerous overtake
2. The Police have looked at the video and have ALSO thought it merited a warning letter. My guess is they get lots of videos in which case either they're sending warning letters out by the thousand OR they're being selective and sending them out only to those that are obviously unsafe/dangerous.
If you look at it logically
1. The cyclist felt it was dangerous enough to submit to the Police. So either the Cyclist is super-nervous and a completely safe/legitimate overtake upset him (in which case he'll be sending hundreds of videos in to the Police) OR this one was indeed a close/dangerous overtake
2. The Police have looked at the video and have ALSO thought it merited a warning letter. My guess is they get lots of videos in which case either they're sending warning letters out by the thousand OR they're being selective and sending them out only to those that are obviously unsafe/dangerous.
Glassman said:
My thinking is that the VRN might be logged? I don't like the idea that someone could have your card marked, especially if it's something that can be challenged. For all I know it could have been an angry cyclist.
Having been on the receiving end of many, many close passes - most drivers completely oblivious to the fact that they've passed too closely - you can bet your boots the cyclist was angry. These opsnap schemes only work with video footage and it has to be painfully easy for the reviewer to make the registration out.
Source - i've submitted "a few" in my time, and mostly they just result in a letter as you've got, and I get a reply saying I don't need to retain the footage. A few, maybe 15% result in retain footage, it may go to court. I've not been to court yet.
FWIW, i got so fed up with aggressive drivers I ended up getting a cam. Before that, i used to shrug it off.
Countdown said:
Maybe it's just me but I'd be thinking "I'm an idiot! I need to start paying more attention/taking more care"..
If you look at it logically
1. The cyclist felt it was dangerous enough to submit to the Police. So either the Cyclist is super-nervous and a completely safe/legitimate overtake upset him (in which case he'll be sending hundreds of videos in to the Police) OR this one was indeed a close/dangerous overtake
2. The Police have looked at the video and have ALSO thought it merited a warning letter. My guess is they get lots of videos in which case either they're sending warning letters out by the thousand OR they're being selective and sending them out only to those that are obviously unsafe/dangerous.
Sensible post If you look at it logically
1. The cyclist felt it was dangerous enough to submit to the Police. So either the Cyclist is super-nervous and a completely safe/legitimate overtake upset him (in which case he'll be sending hundreds of videos in to the Police) OR this one was indeed a close/dangerous overtake
2. The Police have looked at the video and have ALSO thought it merited a warning letter. My guess is they get lots of videos in which case either they're sending warning letters out by the thousand OR they're being selective and sending them out only to those that are obviously unsafe/dangerous.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff