Near Miss of the Day 604: Driver makes two close passes in succession into oncoming traffic

Malice is not a prerequisite for a charge of "Careless, or inconsiderate, driving" or even for "Dangerous driving". It is enough that the standard falls below that expected.

Sorry I disagree, it is is just police being lazy or double standards in a lot of cases.

The video evidence and corroborating statement from the cyclist should be adequate evidence to have a reasonable chance of conviction.  Because the bar is a straightforward one "the standard of driving falls below that expected of a competent and careful driver".

You do not need to provide evidence that the driving had malice simply that it was below the standard of a competent driver.  And to quote the CPS some examples of careless driving "misusing lanes to gain advantage over other drivers" and "driving too close to another vehicle" both of those are pretty much the exact definition of a close pass.

Then they try and use the "you never caught the driver's face on camera/you couldn't identify the driver" so there is no reasonable chance of prosecution...... I'm sure if you were caught speeding by a static camera that only photographed your rear number plate there is still a reasonable chance of prosecution either of the driver or for failure to nominate.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

It is pleasing that the police have reiterated what I've been writing about many of the incidents that are reported on road.cc: "to bring a prosecution for any offence in the Magistrates' Court there has to be sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction".

It is true in isolation, but many forces seem to be prepared to push the matter, rather than giving up because it's a bit tricky.  Any case is likely to fail if you don't bother making it in the first place.  I'm not sure that aligning oneself with a force that is frequently described as uninspiring in its protection of cyclists is the best way to make one's argument.

As you say, in this case, it seemed a worthwhile candidate for prosecution for crossing the line.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

It's no good to just assume malice like commentators here often do ...

Whether they do that or not is irrelevant. The law is that drivers should not cross the soid white line to overtake a slower moving vehicle unless that vehicle is travelling at less than 10mph. There is no requirement for malicious intent. 

Speed cameras are used on the basis that the law is clear ... go faster than the limit and you are liable for a fine and 3 points (except in the case of significant mitigating factors). Again no requirement for any kind of malicious intent. 

Personally, I would tend to always go with Hanlon's Razor ... Don't ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity (or incompetence in this case). 

Problem is, my own experience demonstrates that multiple drivers will almost inevitably overtake me on the half mile stretch of double solid white lines on my commute ... unless one of the vehicles close by is a police car, in which case no one does. Perhaps not malice, but definitely a case of knowing the law and choosing to ignore it as long as they think they will get away with it. 

definitely a case of knowing the law and choosing to ignore it as long as they think they will get away with it

You will get away with almost all road traffic offences in North Lancashire- could be different in South Lancashire, I suppose. F2 YNY did indeed crash through that red light- no 'words of advice', no warning letter, no FPN, no joke driving course- nothing

Mungecrundle wrote:

There really should be an option of attending further training or something similar to a speed awareness course. Personally I'd rather have better trained drivers on the road than more drivers with points on their licences.

Indeed. That option is available on the spot when the police conduct their own operations, of course. Otherwise, the problem is that, until the NIP and s172 are issued, you don't know who to actually send on the course.

It was a poor overtake, but there were mitigating factors in that they did slow and wait to pass - so did demonstrate some care, just badly misjudged the distance they gave the cyclist and how much clear road ahead needed to complete the overtake (twice!).

And the double white lines? I will give them the benefit of the doubt that the second cyclist was closer to 10mph then 20 but those are a major factor in them endandgering themselves, the cyclists and the oncoming drivers and are normally on the road to indicate dangerous areas to decide to overtake any vehicle. 

Even if you allow for 'reasonably doubt' on the speed, and you can't be bothered measuring the passing distance, crossing the solid white lane is an offence unless it's safe to do so (oncoming traffic on a bend?) and it's necessary to overtake a cyclist (or a couple of others) doing less than 10mph.  The white Audi didn't have a problem waiting behind, and didn't lose any time in doing so, so it hardly seems necessary to have overtaken.

On the subject of mag's court, I'd be interested to know how many NIPs actually end up there. How many just accept points/fine (or even a course) instead?

But having said that, I agree with your second para.  In all but the most egregious cases, I'm happy with a police warning/advice.  The more drivers that are made aware that poor driving may be recorded and reported (whether by cyclists, motorists, or even just CCTV) the better. 

I had a similar pass the other week, I got slightly more room and the oncoming traffic didn't, but I didn't report it because I knew it would only get a letter at best.

And I could ride that same section of road daily and it would be like shooting fish in a barrel in terms of repeat examples you could send to the police, except youd feel like you were the fish.

But letters are good! Letters advertise the fact that cameras exist. And repeat offenders stand more chance of getting more than a letter.

I agree that it was two really dodgy overtakes, and I hope that they get more than a letter.  As you said you can overtake on solid white lines only when the vehicle in front is doing less that 10mph and it is safe to do so.  In neither case was it safe to do so.

I had a similar incident a couple of months ago but the overtaking vehicle was a tipper lorry, overtaking on solid white lines into the face of oncoming traffic.  Northumbria police advised it would be dealt with under their fixed penalty process.

Just submitted another Video last night with a driver pulling out of a junction and I used some choice language during my emergency stop.  Wonder if I will get a warning for my language.......

But letters are good!

Letters are worthless junk, but not as worthless as the 'words of advice' the driver in the actual item gratefully received. Nobody knows what was actually said and nobody will consider this offence when he commits the next offence.

stonojnr wrote:

I had a similar pass the other week, I got slightly more room and the oncoming traffic didn't, but I didn't report it because I knew it would only get a letter at best. And I could ride that same section of road daily and it would be like shooting fish in a barrel in terms of repeat examples you could send to the police, except youd feel like you were the fish.

Have you thought of suggesting that the police run an undercover operation on that road?  One cop dressed in civies riding a bike and a few more waiting to have words with the transgressors; seems to have worked elsewhere.

eburtthebike wrote:

stonojnr wrote:

I had a similar pass the other week, I got slightly more room and the oncoming traffic didn't, but I didn't report it because I knew it would only get a letter at best. And I could ride that same section of road daily and it would be like shooting fish in a barrel in terms of repeat examples you could send to the police, except youd feel like you were the fish.

Have you thought of suggesting that the police run an undercover operation on that road?  One cop dressed in civies riding a bike and a few more waiting to have words with the transgressors; seems to have worked elsewhere.

Good Lord, burt!  You mean - "entrapment of the hard working motorist"?  Sounds like a war, to me...

Of course, but they say they cover alot of areas and don't commit to specific locations.

stonojnr wrote:

And I could ride that same section of road daily and it would be like shooting fish in a barrel in terms of repeat examples you could send to the police, except youd feel like you were the fish.

This is the point. We all know sections of road like this. If we know it, the police know it. One police officer cycling up and down for a couple of hours would catch dozens of drivers crossing a solid white line. But they don't. This suggests it's nothing to do with getting a conviction through the magistrates court, it's entirely because they have no interest in prosecuting these cases.

Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:

.

On the subject of mag's court, I'd be interested to know how many NIPs actually end up there. How many just accept points/fine (or even a course) instead?

I think a careless driving charge has to go to court, even if they plead guilty.

This is because it's not a fixed penalty, so it has to take up court time and be heard by a magistrate, as they have to determine the level of the fine/number of points.

That's why the police are keener to send a warning letter or offer a course.

I'm not defending the driver who overtook you, it was quite bad. I just know the trouble I had getting a case to court that the police judged to be lower end dangerous, upper end careless.

EDIT - that appears to be absolute rollocks. Since 2013, they can deal with careless driving via a FPN. It's a £100 and 3 points. Maybe as my incident was at the upper end, that's why it went to court? I know they pleaded guilty.

So why can't the police be a bit more liberal with issuing FPN's?

https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/legal/fixed-penalty

HoarseMann wrote:

I think a careless driving charge has to go to court, even if they plead guilty.

This is because it's not a fixed penalty, so it has to take up court time and be heard by a magistrate, as they have to determine the level of the fine/number of points.

That's why the police are keener to send a warning letter or offer a course.

Nope. Careless driving can be dealt with via FPN or triable summarily (mag's court).

Dangerous driving cannot be dealt with via FPN and is triable either-way (mag's court or crown court). Perhaps this is why they include that paragraph, because their matrix says they don't take further action unless it meets the dangerous threshold at which point a FPN isn't an option.

BTW, a course is an alternative to the FPN, offered if there are no previous courses in the last 3 years. So you can't have one for dangerous driving.

HoarseMann wrote:

So why can't the police be a bit more liberal with issuing FPN's?

That is the question. Along with: why can't they be consistent; both with themselves, and nationally?

I think the FPN can only be issued if the issuing officer saw it.  I can't find anything regulatory, but it seems to be the case accoridng to the NPCC:

https://www.npcc.police.uk/Publication/NPCC%20FOI/Operations/069%2015%20...

Quote:

"When would the fixed penalty and summons routes be used?
... fixed penalties... will be issued in situations that are observed by police officers where there are no victims, no collisions and no public complaint, and not those which are only witnessed by other drivers or road users or after collisions (these being summonsed before a Magistrate as now)."

(original emphasis)

GMBasix wrote:

I think the FPN can only be issued if the issuing officer saw it.

This is demonstrably not the case (it is 8 years old, after all) unless "saw it" includes "on a video".  There are many examples of FPNs and courses being issued on video evidence, including one of my own (course accepted for a RLJ) 3 weeks ago.

Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:

GMBasix wrote:

I think the FPN can only be issued if the issuing officer saw it.

This is demonstrably not the case (it is 8 years old, after all) unless "saw it" includes "on a video".  There are many examples of FPNs and courses being issued on video evidence, including one of my own (course accepted for a RLJ) 3 weeks ago.

That's an interesting link from GMBasix. The wording 'and no public complaint' would suggest that if you submit video evidence as a member of the public (i.e. make a public complaint) then a FPN would not be a viable route. It seems to be backed up a few lines down by talking about 'the officer at the scene' (but could that scene be a video screen?!).

However, CyclingMikey seems to get FPN's issued for mobile phone use. On the other hand, police trained community speed watch volunteers using a calibrated speed gun can't get FPN's sent out (lack of video?).

It seems a bit open to interpretation and as GMBasix says, might just be guidance anyway.

they're typically reluctant to progress prosecutions unless it's a real 'shocker'

How much more shocking do you want? No prosecution of this by my Champion Crappy Constabulary nominee: Lancashire

Yep, I'd class that a shocker. It's rare in the UK to get a road that's wide enough for a safe pass with oncoming traffic. There are a few - like those horrendous three lane single carriageways from the early '80's, which have now been converted to two lane in most places - but this isn't one of those.

I've done a bit more digging around this FPN malarkey; it does appear to be a difference in the interpretation of the guidance between forces (and even among officers). Interesting article in WhatCar? about it...

https://www.whatcar.com/news/motorists-submit-35-dash-cam-videos-to-uk-p...

I was not given a FPN as an option with the incident I submitted, only no action / awareness course / summons.

Hopefully there won't be another incident that I feel the need to submit, but if there is, I may push Thames Valley to take the FPN route and see what they say.

Interesting stats on page 2 of that article 

My force for example is a 1 in 4 of action taken with 6000 dash and bike cam submissions. And remember the West Midlands Police are the leaders in road safety (?)

Looking at our near neighbours West Mercia, the stats aren't on page 2 but on page one they reckon they have "intervened" on 91% of submissions. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Interesting stats on page 2 of that article 

Yep, that small table with the percentage of action taken is hugely telling. Across a handful of forces the rate varies from 81% to 18%, even with a similar volume of submissions.

I can't believe that video submissions in Wales are much more worthy of action than those submitted in Dorset. It must be down to an inconsistency in the standards applied between the forces.