Not the worst but... Warkwickshire Police Analysis

One of the unfortunate things about the submissions system is limited space.

At the start, I decided the approach was to make the case for the assessor but to fit in the form I had to cut it back too much. My complaint built a case based on about 10 points of driving structured around their response.

I also was lucky that Warwickshire has an effective complaints system. If you've tried complaining as much as I have you get to learn which organisations are serious about complaints. For example, I made a formal complaint to Solihull council about their bike lane which simply disappeared into a black hole, and the BBC system is designed to fend off criticism rather than to learn.

I also made it clear what I wanted and why. It was easier for a reasonable person to accept than reject! It was also a significant effort, and I have the time and motivation.

I think it's also recognising that like with CyclingMickey, you have to learn what works. I've not submitted many obvious infractions because it is not possible to tell whether they were malicious - I suspect that many incompetent passes frighten the drivers as much as us as they realise how stupid they've been and we have to be realistic about the capacity of the police to deal with incidents.

This incident triggered me because of the yobbish aspect to the driving, a hint of temper, sustained over a couple of minutes.

It's a difficult one. In my (not much) younger days I got stopped by the police a couple of times for some significant speeding, and neither time I got ticketed, but I got a talking to and I made sure they saw I was shaken up by the experience during it. The second time I took myself off onto an advanced driving course which finally made the difference because I recognised I was taking too many risks, I'm by no means perfect, but I've got rid of my list of excuses that we all have used to justify ourselves.

These letters do go on the police intellegence file for the driver, so what it does do is that if they get noticed again, it increases the chance of action. My hope though is that it has the chance that they think, yes, I was a bit silly and I've been let off, perhaps I need to be more careful.

There is an element where points and fines create that sense of injustice, whereas the warning letter has a lower level of antagonism. However, I do think we are seeing a split in behaviour generally, where a good number of people want to be well-behaved, but a minority feel that being constrained in their behaviour just isn't right anymore and they aren't going to respond well to any sanction, warning, or even the withdrawal of their licence (though that is more in the criminal fraternity than the neo-entitlement brigade).

A wider point is with the increasing prevalence of cameras, does it become more like average speed cameras, where people really aren't confident they will get away with speeding (after all, nobody knows whether they are switched on yet the compliance is very high), that people start to think that they might always get caught on someone's camera? The more driving nonsense is captured and noted, the more drivers (and cyclists!) will feel that they are risking an offence being captured. 

In the end, we need a culture change, and the culture change in part comes by example - if you drive at 30mph in a 30mph, the majority of cars behind quietly accept it. Do it often enough, it becomes the habitual speed for more and more people. Drive at 40, and people tend to follow and pick up the sense that that is the local speed, Demonstrate passing cyclists safely, more people get used to the idea that the consensus is to pass safely, take risks, and people follow the example.

How are you responding? Are you getting into a debate with the assessing officer or are you using a formal complaint which forces another person to look?

When you got that response, for example, did you respond with reference to the law to point out that they were wrong?

Do you give up when you get a response like that? What I would do is wait for a howler like that and then provide a pseudo-legalistic breakdown point by point that no reasonable person could argue with.

If you'd like to chat off line, you can email me at my Gmail account which is remarkably easy to construct from my username.

Perhaps a carefully constructed letter to your MP might help. Raise it as a general issue with simple examples (these are MPs we are talking about) and form something that the MP can use to write to the Home Office and get a reply from a minion to add to the file. Ideally, if you have something that is not actually cycling related (indeed many of your copious posts are not), the health and safety issue of non-MOT'd lorries sounds ideal, to avoid any problems with the anti-cycling lobby.

If that lorry firm has a poor reputation, then the local press might sniff a story, which in turn gives the police the embarrassment of having to explain why they haven't enforced a complaint about an unsafe vehicle.

It would be interesting to gather information about the varying standards around the country, and perhaps the end target should be enough evidence that updated guidance is produced to apply to all police forces.

I know it is frustrating, but there is currently a new opportunity with the change to the HWC that means that your lorry complaints should be held to a higher standard, as well as the cycling issues we are concerned about.

Some of my personal campaigns have taken years, and sometimes it is getting the right contact or the right reply, an enthusiastic councillor wanting to make their name. However, in the local area, I can see the marks of my doings, a footbridge that didn't exist, or a change to a cycle lane and so on.

You could also try a few other tactics, like getting a friend to make a submission - perhaps it has become too personal between you and the police - after all there aren't likely to be that many - are they being unprofessional and treating it as a game with you? I know I got too aggressive in frustration with Solihull Highways and they've gone from being cojouled into helpful responses into non-cooperation.

Also, perhaps we should do more to enlist the help of the campaigning organisations to sort out standards around the UK, which in part we do by gathering the evidence of differing standards, which requires cooperation across the country.

Further response from the Operation Snap:

Following receipt of your email of dissatisfaction along with the unit supervisor we have conducted a re-review of your submission to Operation Snap.  We have noted your comments and re-assessed the evidence provided.  It is clear an error of judgement has been made on our part and we have rescinded the original decision to NFA.  The re-review decision is to issue a warning letter to the motorist concerned for inconsiderate driving.  Please accept our apologies for any concerns and or inconvenience this has caused you.

To be frank, I am pleasantly shocked by this open and frank reply, and I must give all credit to Warwickshire Police for being open to being challenged.

I'm an old hand at complaining to official bodies, and my target is typically process rather than individual outcome. So although I made a reference to suggesting it was not too late for words of advice, my main request was for a review, and if they agreed I was not being unreasonable, asking what training and support they would put in place. I won't pursue the individual further, but I might ask my MP to ask the Home Office what national guidelines are in place and should be in place. Always best to have an actual complaint to hang these general queries around.

Some years ago I got excited about local planning decisions. Got the usual tosh about writing objections, and I asked the question whether the councillors read the planning file. The answer was no. So, I asked, how can the planning committee make a reasoned decision based on objections if they never read them. Ah! Penny dropped, and now my council always provides a summary of the objections in the report they produce... all a bit pointless now that planners are obliged to approve most developments, but it made a difference at the time.

I remembered that one and put in a special paragraph:

"The subject vehicle indicates to let you know it is turning left the cyclist behind you appears to recognise this and brakes accordingly.

"2. A test for whether driving is without due consideration or careless is causing another road user to slow or alter course. This acknowledges that the second cyclist was impeded by the overtaking car. And further has put the onus on the following cyclist to take appropriate action to avoid the result of the poor assessment of the overtake. The fact that another road user mitigated the consequences of a poor decision does not alter the fact that the driving was of a poor standard."

The author got another couple of paragraphs of similar length and the picture below just for that one sentence!

As a connoisseur you might appreciate this sentence too:

You will note that the second motorcyclist takes an unusual position in the centre of the road, slowing well short of the junction with no indication. As I was momentarily distracted by the car, looking across at it trying to assess what it was doing, when I looked back, I felt that I had not properly accounted for the motorcyclist.

It's picking through the police response - which reads to me that as a cyclist I should be avoiding the motorist and predicting what they are doing, the subtle suggestion that the motorist only made one error in an ill-judged pass approaching a junction but they made that all right by signalling next to me so I could take action to avoid them. The response also hints I undertook the car ("You continued past the subject vehicle") and implies it was my choice to ride closely to the car ("You continue passed the subject vehicle and at this point you are within 1.5 metres"), but the car never cleared me, I kept a steady pace. Also, the policeman clearly doesn't understand that most broken hips end up being from low speed falls from clipped in cyclists at junctions - speed is rarely a factor in injuries caused by a fall from a bike.

The policeman also acknowledges that the overtake was incomplete and causes the following cyclist to have to take avoiding action. There is no suggestion in that response that the driver was failing to account for the unpredictable actions of the cyclists, instead his driving was deemed acceptable because of the precautionary approach of the other rider. The following rider chose to squeeze through, but he was pretty quickly cut off and probably could not have stopped as the car pulls across without consideration of the effect he might have on the cyclist following.

You'll notice the wobble - or rather the swinging out to turn. What that was was being distracted by a car indicating AND pulling in, although the police obviously think he judged it nicely by avoiding clipping me, it meant I was distracted - in the short space of time from having "sufficient safety room" to swinging in next to my rear wheel was a very short time and I could not tell whether it was going to be OK, I was anxious. As I looked back forwards, I realised the second motorcyclist had chosen an odd position to stop - well short of the junction, no signal (I thought they were riding together) and I felt I hadn't judged the situation well and had to swerve between the kerb and the biker.

I thought the second pass was equally dangerous. My mate was riding without a mirror and only pulled in as an instinctive reaction to the fast approaching car, when he was originally intending to form up two abreast (not an ideal section of road for it, but we travel along there often and have a feel for how it works). That car was totally committed to a pass, clearly at more than 30mph at a point where there was no safe passing distance due to the position of the other cyclist. The police again think it was alright because of the cyclist's reaction, not because of the driver's due care and attention. That particular section of road is deeply rutted on the left.

As discussed before, I think, in terms of the smoke, it's on older car,  2008, around the the time of Euro 4 so probably would expect it to have a DPF but not certainly. My point was more that the driver, having owned the car for a year or more (judging by when documents were last issued) would be aware of producing smoke under heavy acceleration; secondly, why is heavy acceleration to pass cyclists acceptable; and thirdly it clearly was far in excess of 30, so although they might not be able to prove a particular speed accurately, they could tie together approaching on open road, hard acceleration, and braking immediately after the pass, together with estimates form the video to assert it was a deliberate exceeding of the speed limit by a reasonably significant amount, not passing the cyclists slowly and carefully. The classic case is splashing going through a puddle - that does not have to be deliberate to be an offence, so passing a cyclist in an aggressive manner that produced significant harmful fumes seems to me to fall into the same category.