Near Miss of the Day 157: Very close pass - but police only warn driver

dafyddp wrote:

As a legal simpetlon, I don't understand how the the inconsistency across the country is tollerated and not in itself challenged in court. The behaviour and evidence described here wouldn't be acceptable within the jurisdiction of West Midlands Police so so how come Thames Valley get interpret the rules differently? The Highway Code sets out national standards, so surely after 100 years or so we've got the way with all to have one set of standards?

The problem is the police are virtually unaccountable and do not take complaints seriously. No one has ever successfully challenged them in court as far as I am aware. Look at the Hillsborough disaster in the eighties with officers only now being brought to account.

We have the law and CPS Guidelines but officers are able to interpret them as they see fit and no one officer would be allowed to challenge the system so it has to come from the top.

Fifth Gear wrote:

dafyddp wrote:

As a legal simpetlon, I don't understand how the the inconsistency across the country is tollerated and not in itself challenged in court. The behaviour and evidence described here wouldn't be acceptable within the jurisdiction of West Midlands Police so so how come Thames Valley get interpret the rules differently? The Highway Code sets out national standards, so surely after 100 years or so we've got the way with all to have one set of standards?

The problem is the police are virtually unaccountable and do not take complaints seriously. No one has ever successfully challenged them in court as far as I am aware. Look at the Hillsborough disaster in the eighties with officers only now being brought to account.

We have the law and CPS Guidelines but officers are able to interpret them as they see fit and no one officer would be allowed to challenge the system so it has to come from the top.

And yet at the end of it all to make it 'go away' the final Hillsborough investigation that found no case against Liverpool supporters was a complete whitewash and an utter digrace to those who died and for finding the absolute truth of why this happened. There's been plenty of criticism of the whitewashing and the questions that were not asked of the jury that should have been asked at the final reckoning. 

Many there that day will have absolved themselves from blame for the deaths and yet there was plenty of evidence of what was accused (Of LFC fans). I read plenty of first accounts from SHEFFIELD people that day, including an on call doctor who tried getting to the ground with a police escort only to be attacked by LFC animals coming away from the ground. There WAS evidence of fake tickets, this most notably came from an LFC fan who was talking to the BBC at the time it was still unfolding and is still on YT. of the LFC fan directly saying that fans had fake tickets, again ignored by the final investigation.

There are always some that will avoid punishment for years but in the end get theirs and rightly so, cover ups to absolve blame particularly by those with authority and responsibility for safety are horrific, yet some will get away with murder/killing through reckless actions. Please don't bring Hillsborough up because the whole thing from both sides of the coin is an utter fucking disgrace and those that were a massive part as to why people were unlawfully killed will never be brought to justice!

[quote=Bob's bikes

He added: "Contrary to CPS Guidelines and the law, Thames Valley Police never prosecute a driving offence on independent cycle camera video evidence if a collision has not occurred."

Some quite worrying stuff right there. Imagine if some some nutter with a shotgun was pointing it at people but Plod declined to investigate because no-one had got shot? In fact, this is pretty much what happened with Thomas Hamilton at Dunblane and we all know how that ended...

Bob's bikes wrote:

The Process Officer reviewed the report, statements and video footage and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the driver. The driver was formally warned.

He added: "Contrary to CPS Guidelines and the law, Thames Valley Police never prosecute a driving offence on independent cycle camera video evidence if a collision has not occurred."

The second part of the process officer's statement gives rise to all sorts of concerns, the biggest of which is that TVP are operating outside of the guidelines and the law. How is this possible they are supposed to uphold the law not ignore it!

AKA perverting the course of justice and breaking their sworn oath's. Bunch of crunts not fit for office!

Bob's bikes wrote:

The Process Officer reviewed the report, statements and video footage and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the driver. The driver was formally warned.

He added: "Contrary to CPS Guidelines and the law, Thames Valley Police never prosecute a driving offence on independent cycle camera video evidence if a collision has not occurred."

The second part of the process officer's statement gives rise to all sorts of concerns, the biggest of which is that TVP are operating outside of the guidelines and the law. How is this possible they are supposed to uphold the law not ignore it!

When the story says ' He added: "Contrary to CPS Guidelines........"'  that was what the video uploader stated. Those are not the words of the police officer. It is a true statement of fact but not something the police actually admit to for the very reasons you have suggested.

Mungecrundle wrote:

And will the driver in question be grousing about: A. Vehicles driving in the opposite direction? B. Cars parked in the carriageway? C. Bloody cyclists all over the road, 4 abreast, holding up the traffic and paying no road tax?

Oooh, is it C?  Nothing  is ever the motor car’s fault, despite it, one way or another, making or setting up most of the problems we all encounter, such as this incident.  And the motor car wants it all : A roads, B roads and minor/unclassified that we all love, even at times RUPPs. 

I know, as we all do from our own experience, that these are nasty, unnecessary, dangerous, and unfortunately common-place  incidents.  That’s not to say it’s OK -  I’m very clear that need to invest more in policing and stop closing down local magistrates’ courts - the effects of austerity always fall most on the weak and the vulnerable.  I’d don’t think it helps to knock the police  as we frequently do on here.

Obviously, I wasn’t there so looking at the video, including the slo-mo, it just doesn’t look that bad.  Sorry, but there it is. Assuming that Mr Estate Car otherwise leads a blameless life, a visit ( I hope there’s more to it  than just a letter) seems like a decent result in this instance. If you’ve never had any direct contact with the police, one arriving on your doorstep can have an effect. 

I’ll say it again: people are longing to cycle - just give them a safe environment (such as New Forest woodland gravel tracks as I’ve been discovering this month) and watch ‘em go.  Incidents like this put off all but a few of us die-hards. 

David9694 wrote:

Obviously, I wasn’t there so looking at the video, including the slo-mo, it just doesn’t look that bad.  Sorry, but there it is. Assuming that Mr Estate Car otherwise leads a blameless life, a visit ( I hope there’s more to it  than just a letter) seems like a decent result in this instance. If you’ve never had any direct contact with the police, one arriving on your doorstep can have an effect. 

I’ll say it again: people are longing to cycle - just give them a safe environment (such as New Forest woodland gravel tracks as I’ve been discovering this month) and watch ‘em go.  Incidents like this put off all but a few of us die-hards. 

 

Try telling the cyclist who was passed with only inches to spare that it doesn't look that bad. Surely it is obvious from the video how close it was.

The driver was interviewed under caution and received a formal warning so you are right that it might well have the desired effect. However a day attending a Driver Awareness Course would be more appropriate particularly because he also caused an oncoming driver to have to stop to avoid a collision.

Obviously, I wasn’t there so looking at the video, including the slo-mo, it just doesn’t look that bad.  Sorry, but there it is. Assuming that Mr Estate Car otherwise leads a blameless life, a visit ( I hope there’s more to it  than just a letter) seems like a decent result in this instance. If you’ve never had any direct contact with the police, one arriving on your doorstep can have an effect. 

I’ll say it again: people are longing to cycle - just give them a safe environment (such as New Forest woodland gravel tracks as I’ve been discovering this month) and watch ‘em go.  Incidents like this put off all but a few of us die-hards. 

[/quote]

Don't normally comment but agree with this. Road conditions not great due to parked traffic and possibly blue nissan wasn't in sight when overtake started. The cyclist had left a lot of room to the parked car as is their right, but motorist may have expected them to tuck in a bit.
I am a car driver and would rather sit behind cyclists than risk a dodgy pass , but sometimes circumstances change when you are committed. Also as a cyclist I try to tuck in when being passed and so far never had what I would call a close pass incident on my commute or otherwise.

Re.cycledbyphil wrote:

Obviously, I wasn’t there so looking at the video, including the slo-mo, it just doesn’t look that bad.  Sorry, but there it is. Assuming that Mr Estate Car otherwise leads a blameless life, a visit ( I hope there’s more to it  than just a letter) seems like a decent result in this instance. If you’ve never had any direct contact with the police, one arriving on your doorstep can have an effect. 

I’ll say it again: people are longing to cycle - just give them a safe environment (such as New Forest woodland gravel tracks as I’ve been discovering this month) and watch ‘em go.  Incidents like this put off all but a few of us die-hards. 

 

Don't normally comment but agree with this. Road conditions not great due to parked traffic and possibly blue nissan wasn't in sight when overtake started. The cyclist had left a lot of room to the parked car as is their right, but motorist may have expected them to tuck in a bit. I am a car driver and would rather sit behind cyclists than risk a dodgy pass , but sometimes circumstances change when you are committed. Also as a cyclist I try to tuck in when being passed and so far never had what I would call a close pass incident on my commute or otherwise.[/quote]

There were parked vehicles but that is not an excuse at all. The driver should have waited behind until it was safe to overtake. The cyclist was correctly positioned. The blue Nissan was not in sight when the overtake on a large group of cyclists started because there was a bend ahead. Once again the driver should have waited until it was safe to overtake. I simply don't know what you mean by saying "I try to tuck in when being passed".

162
Before overtaking you should make sure
the road is sufficiently clear ahead
there is a suitable gap in front of the road user you plan to overtake.

166
DO NOT overtake if there is any doubt, or where you cannot see far enough ahead to be sure it is safe. For example, when you are approaching
a corner or bendbody

Paul_C wrote:

so because the Nissan driver doesn't remember it it didn't happen?

Wouldn’t matter if he did. TVP have previously taken no action when provided with video evidence.

Paul_C wrote:

so because the Nissan driver doesn't remember it it didn't happen?

Works for Team SKY.

kil0ran wrote:

Big blue Merc, probably friend of the Chief Cunstable.

You know, that was my first thought, too... 

(PS, you might possibly have mis-spelled the title of the person who leads the police force...).

brooksby wrote:

kil0ran wrote:

Big blue Merc, probably friend of the Chief Cunstable.

You know, that was my first thought, too... 

(PS, you might possibly have mis-spelled the title of the person who leads the police force...).

Can’t see any error.

Grahamd wrote:

brooksby wrote:

kil0ran wrote:

Big blue Merc, probably friend of the Chief Cunstable.

You know, that was my first thought, too... 

(PS, you might possibly have mis-spelled the title of the person who leads the police force...).

Can’t see any error.

Yup, there is: I think they missed a 't'