Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

forum
road.cc bike forum

Not the worst but... Warkwickshire Police Analysis

by IanMSpencer
Sat, Mar 26, 2022 19:16
34

I mentioned I was a bit miffed at this bit of driving. We've all had worse, but the aggressive pass at the end combined with the unsettling left turn signal next to me while closing was enough that I thought this driver had crossed a threshold. 

https://youtu.be/jpqSWBzvdFU

This is how Warwickshire Police analysed it:

"Thank you for the above submission to Operation Snap.  It has been reviewed and there will be no further action taken.  The rationale for this decision is the initial pass appears to provide sufficient safety room and is conducted at low speed.  The only aggravating factor being the junction was relatively close by and the sensible option would have been to wait until after the junction to pass.  The subject vehicle indicates to let you know it is turning left the cyclist behind you appears to recognise this and brakes accordingly.  You continue passed the subject vehicle and at this point you are within 1.5 metres but the vehicle is almost stationary so the risk of harm is very low.  The final pass was conducted at speed but it is not possible to verify what speed that was.  The cyclist beside you senses the the subject vehicle and moves to the nearside and the pass ultimately provides sufficient safety room.  The emission of black smoke is normal for some vehicles when they accelerate and whether this occurred to annoy or assault you or others can’t be proven."

While we are aware of the standard that the police appear work to, I would have thought that it was an display of driving below the standard of a competent and careful driver - I wonder how low their bar is?

For reference, my speed was about 16mph, slowing to about 9mph for the corners.

If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.

Add new comment

34 comments

Avatar
IanMSpencer replied to HoarseMann | 2 years ago
2 likes

I was looking at the timing roughly. I knew there was a car around and two bikes, but at the time of the pass, I didn't know the car was going to appear, partly because of the bike noise, and my mirror has a blind spot where cars are overtaking, so I reckon it was about 3 seconds between being aware that the car was committed to an overtake, and the car ending up back behind me somewhere - and less time realising that the car wasn't taking up a position to turn right but was intending to turn left. In that time, Plod expects me to be able to assess the road surface, noticeably potholed in the video, what the motorbike was doing (which as I say, I don't think I assessed it very well because of the distraction) whether the car was going to try and force its way in front, simply squeeze me or drop behind - and without knowing their intent, I cannot brake - if I had it would have actually created more conflict in this case (as is often the case if a car decides to abort an overtake of any vehicle).

What to do? I think a polite letter to someone in charge asking them to review the response from a cyclist perspective, and asking, when there is ample evidence of driving below the standard of a careful and competent driver, why is the officer going the extra mile to excuse it in the response.

I mean, I'd be happy with a letter, but I am not happy that the police around the country seem to have a policy of dismissing easy wins for at least a warning letter. I suspect that the CPS have a high bar for intended prosecutions which effectively sets the standard of acceptable driving at a very low point. What's the point of the new HWC if the police assessment is like that?

Avatar
HoarseMann replied to IanMSpencer | 2 years ago
3 likes

Yep, there's little point introducing addtional rules in the highway code if the existing ones are not going to be enforced.

The problem is partly that road crime is way down on their priorities (just look at all the speed cameras that have been turned off). The other problem is a lack of consistency where there is enforcement.

There is a national standard, this is the best I've found so far (but still nearly 10 years old). It makes no reference to camera footage, nor are there any examples of transgressions against vulnerable road users. In fact, it seems to ignore them completely, talking only about actions committed against other drivers.

Avatar
HoarseMann replied to HoarseMann | 2 years ago
2 likes

I've been doing a bit more digging. I've found another document (pre-dates 2013), that discusses when a FPN for careless driving will be issued. Interestingly, it does stipulate that the offence should be witnessed by police directly, have no victims and not be reported by a member of the public. That seems to rule out all submitted dashcam footage from the FPN route.

The gist of it seems to be that if the offence has been reported by the public, or there is a victim, it is more serious and should be dealt with in court. The problem is, that just isn't happening. Perhaps the NPCC need to review this advice to make it less restrictive. It's clear that some forces are ignoring this guidance and successfully issuing FPN's based on public submitted footage...

Avatar
IanMSpencer replied to HoarseMann | 2 years ago
1 like

Useful. I will bear that in mind for phase 2!

Pages

Latest Comments