Near Miss of the Day 685: “I really thought the game was up with this one”

The driver needs to be penalised heavily

Except he almost certainly won't be, and he knows it. That's why they commit offences routinely

I understand the feeling but let's not allow these arseholes to bully us off the roads.

You're right. I won't be bullied off the roads, but it's flipping tiring sometimes. Callous driving like this is enough to put off all but the most confident of riders.

I know that I keep banging on about this, but a Notice of Intended Prosecution DOES NOT MEAN that the police WILL prosecute.

It is merely a legal requirement before any prosecution of certain offences under the Road Traffic Act can take place. 
 

Yes, it's a positive action, but it does not guarantee any further police action.

The only positive I could say is that presumably the video has been reviewed and not immediately binned; that the reviewer thought that the complaint had some merit.

Vinnie, please re-contact North Yorks Police and request a result, preferably in writing.

BTW that was a terrible overtake, worthy of prosecution (IMO).

It involves a level of admin that police are unlikely to undergo unless they at least intend to take it further. A step down from this, but above NFA is sending a warning letter.

As I understand it, NIP is mandatory before offer of driver improvement course - which can only be offered as an alternative to prosecution.

So NIP outcome can mean driver improvement course, points, fine or even prosecution for jail/ban - or it can mean NFA if on further review or after interviewing the driver/receiving further evidence (e.g. dashcam) the CPS deems insufficient prospect of successful prosecution.

But that's typically unusual.

A NIP is the first formal action police must take to allow all options to remain on the table, it also requires the registered keeper to identify the driver.

Definitely worth following up with the police for a final outcome.

Right, wrong, right!

Yes, it's the first formal action.

Nope, unless the design has changed since I retired, the requirement to identify the driver is a separate form (tho' usually sent out at the same time - as both forms are sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle)

Yes, defo worth following up.

So NIP outcome can mean driver improvement course, points, fine or even prosecution for jail/ban - or it can mean NFA

This is from an OpSnapLancs (new name for the same old do-nothing Lancashire traffic officers) email dated 23rd December referring to a close-pass at speed by a massive Mercedes Sprinter white van KV70 LVC on the 22nd):

Your footage has been viewed by members of the OpSnapLancs team and we are in agreement with you that the standard of driving shown by the other drivers fell below the minimum standard that should be shown on the roads today. 

We will write to the registered keeper of the vehicle involved, requiring them to identify the driver. 

 Once the driver has been identified then we will assess the most appropriate outcome, which could be; 

 1.            An advice letter  

2.            A Driver Educational Course. 

3.            A conditional offer of points and a fine. 

4.            A summons to court.

There's a lot of standard Lancashire Constabulary dodging here, but I think this is probably referring to a NIP. The main trick is: which could be... That leaves it open for them to actually do nothing at all, or just 'have a word with the driver', otherwise known as 'words of advice'. These are by far the most likely outcomes, and it never goes beyond the joke inconvenience-free online driving course. Lancashire has never prosecuted anyone for non-contact close passing. Other forces will be deploying the same tricks. My best guess in this case is nothing at all

Cyclist seemed to be going slow enough that the lorry could cross them "if clear and safe to do so". Obvioulsy he totally failed on the last two though. 

It's possible the cyclist was slower than 10 mph.