- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Near Miss of the Day 830 revisited: Police apologise for not requesting clearer footage sooner, meaning it was too late to prosecute close pass driver
Thames Valley Police have apologised for not requesting clearer footage sooner of a close pass in which a driver overtook three cyclists then immediately turned right – with the force explaining in a detailed reply to road.cc that the delay in asking the cyclist who had submitted the video to them to provide a copy in which the registration plate of the vehicle could be identified meant it was too late to issue a Notice of Intended Prosecution within the 14-day period required by law.
A Thames Valley Police spokesperson told us: “On 14 August, we received a report of a road-related incident on Finchampstead Road, Finchampstead, the previous day (13/8).
“A cyclist, a man in his fifties, alleged to have been passed too closely by a black Mercedes Benz car and provided video footage of the incident.
“Upon initial review, the registration number of the vehicle could not be clearly seen despite our attempts to clarify it.
“To pursue allegations of careless/inconsiderate driving, we are required by law to send a written Notice of Intended Prosecution (NoIP) to the registered keeper of the vehicle within 14 days of the incident.
“This is usually accompanied by a request for them to provide details of the identity of the driver at the time.
“When determining what action to take we use the Full Code Test contained within the Code for Crown Prosecutors. This has two stages and both stages of the Full Code Test must be met before we can take action:
1. We must have sufficient reliable evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction; and
2. Any action we take must be in the public interest.
“When considering whether a matter meets the public interest test, a number of factors are taken into consideration. One of those factors is whether or not prosecution is a proportionate response to the offending behaviour.
“In determining what the most appropriate response may be, we have a range of outcomes we can apply ranging from no further action to a written warning letter, a driver education course and prosecution. Each case is considered on its’ own merits.
“In this case, we did not initially have sufficiently clear enough evidence to satisfy stage one. A request was made for clearer footage on 2 September and this was provided on the same day.
“However, as the time limit for prosecution had expired, we were unable to pursue a prosecution or request that the offending driver attend a driver education course on this occasion.
“Had the request for clearer footage been done sooner, there is a possibility we could have considered sending the driver on an educational course,” the spokesperson added. “For this, we apologise.”
Below is our original article, published on 29 October 2022.
One of those ones in our Near Miss of the Day series today ... a driver who simply had to make a close pass on three cyclists to get ahead of them, before then turning right a hundred metres or so down the road.
Jim, the road.cc reader filmed the clip told us: “The cyclists have to move out into the centre of the carriageway due to a Royal Mail van being parked half on the footway, half on the carriageway.
“My partner and I were cycling through Wokingham, singe file and another cyclist was catching us from behind.
“The driver elected to overtake all three of us straight into oncoming traffic, causing a driver on the opposite carriageway to react by braking, altering course and flashing their lights.
“I estimate the speed of the driver to be 40mph+ and the distance between us no more than 30cms,” Jim continued.
“The driver then immediately braked, indicated and turned right, making the overtake even more poorly judged (and maybe even deliberate intimidation) and unnecessary,” he added.
> Near Miss of the Day turns 100 - Why do we do the feature and what have we learnt from it?
Over the years road.cc has reported on literally hundreds of close passes and near misses involving badly driven vehicles from every corner of the country – so many, in fact, that we’ve decided to turn the phenomenon into a regular feature on the site. One day hopefully we will run out of close passes and near misses to report on, but until that happy day arrives, Near Miss of the Day will keep rolling on.
If you’ve caught on camera a close encounter of the uncomfortable kind with another road user that you’d like to share with the wider cycling community please send it to us at info [at] road.cc or send us a message via the road.cc Facebook page.
If the video is on YouTube, please send us a link, if not we can add any footage you supply to our YouTube channel as an unlisted video (so it won't show up on searches).
Please also let us know whether you contacted the police and if so what their reaction was, as well as the reaction of the vehicle operator if it was a bus, lorry or van with company markings etc.
> What to do if you capture a near miss or close pass (or worse) on camera while cycling
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 15 min 47 sec ago
Tier scooters - When visiting Keynsham I found several apparently dumped (not all at once - could have been the same ones? )...
- mdavidford 20 min 20 sec ago
The answer to this is to have no friends.
- mdavidford 26 min 22 sec ago
To be fair to Attenborough, he doesn't appear to actually have any involvement in or have offered any particular support for the campaign. A child...
- hawkinspeter 1 hour 41 min ago
What's that? A mobile home for squirrels?
- Backladder 2 hours 13 min ago
While original sash windows are nice they make it very hard to keep the house warm, we eventually went for upvc double glazed sash window...
- Andrewbanshee 3 hours 37 min ago
As you said the pedals will be hidden anyway. My shoes, 3 pairs of them, have reflective strips on the heel and my winter trousers do too on the...
- Steve K 3 hours 38 min ago
Other drivers only care about disabled people when it gives them a way to object to cycling infrastructure.
- mark1a 11 hours 41 min ago
I'll put you down as a no then.
- chrisonabike 17 hours 7 min ago
Well if you *can* interview the original riders at all surely they worked, at least?...
Add new comment
48 comments
Cab anyone confirm why road crime seems to be the only one where Police have a limited time to do something.
14 days for a NIP?
6 Months to charge?
Several times people have got away with seriously bad driving or even causing death because of these time limits.
It's 14 days to notify the registered keeper I think. No time limit to send to driver. I think it's to give the registered keeper a fair chance to identify the driver, presumably the longer the delay the more difficult that becomes.
14 days only applies to the first one. If there ends up being a chain, e.g. to rental company onto hirer onto driver only the first applies. Also there is a get out if there are good reasons, e.g. if the car could only be identified 3 weeks later, then the clock starts then not from the incident. I am not sure whether the police properly use their get out clause. e.g. in this case they could not get a reg no. but someone else was able to supply one, are the police allowed extra time?
This - they have longer than 14 days to the RK but have to show cause. For whatever reason there is a blanket this doesn't apply for public submissions.
Poophole has used the 14 day to get Beckham off a speeding charge and seems to one of his first GoTo's. That one was recieved the day after apparently and was argued successfully that the Police should have anticpated a delay by the Post Office. So it seems to be an easy getout which other crimes don't have.
As for the 6 months one, I'm thinking of Sze-Ming Cheung killed by a drunk driver on the wrong side of the road. They took more then 6 months to actually charge him for the death so the driver got away scott-free.
it might have been as a result of that, but I believe they only have to show evidence now that it was sent within 14 days with a "reasonable" expectation of it arriving within time, so subsequent delays in the postal service are not an excuse anymore.
though we have had recently suggestions,backed by the same lawyer iirc, some forces would use postal strikes as a reason to time out pursuing a submission, but Ive not seen anyone who has reported theyve been affected by that, so it could just have been a rumour without basis.
6 months to begin proceedings applies to all summary offences (lower level crime that can only be tried in a magistrates' court). More serious road crime (dangerous driving, causing death by careless / dangerous / etc driving) can be tried in a Crown Court and the 6 month limit would not apply.
An NIP requires you to say who was driving a vehicle at a particular point in time. So I think there does need to be a fairly short time limit, but 14 days is perhaps a little short.
Surely Drunk Driving (2x the limit) is dangerous driving. However the killer of Sze-Ming Cheung wasn't even charged with that because it had been longer then 6 months. And the CPS decided that neither driver would be charged with Death By Dangerous Driving even thought both were on wrong sides of the carriageway and he was in the middle.
The issue in that particular case appears to be a lack of evidence (the police fucked up) rather than any time limit.
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/hellesdon-familys-heartache-after-cyc...
Just like to thank road.cc for following this up.
The error is disappointing but the fact they acknowledge the possibility of further action would encourage me to continue to report careless driving to them. Reporting can seem like a thankless task sometimes.
The simple answer is when sending in a video, don't leave it to plod. Tell them the reg no. - there are free deblur tools out there if you are desperate but normally running it through your editor frame by frame will allow you to pick out the letters, then add in a DVLA tax check to confirm you got it right.
Add to that, tell them what offence you think occurred and why. Then at least you know if they reject it, they've had to acknowledge the offence. West Mercia actually provide a box on their submissions for exactly that, including what action you think would be appropriate - again, at least you get your viewpoint considered, even if they don't agree.
I generally submit a freeze frame image showing the reg along with the footage for exactly this reason
Read the number plate out at the time the incident happened is one of the best methods.
Better if you can do it phonetically.
Edited video can just give more reason to be rejected.
well back to theres no standardised process for this but you cant even report a submission on the Suffolk/Norfolk site without a valid plate to start the whole process off.
The simple answer is when sending in a video, don't leave it to plod. Tell them the reg no. -
Add to that, tell them what offence you think occurred and why
I generally submit a freeze frame image showing the reg along with the footage for exactly this reason
Well, back to there's no standardised process for this, but you can't even report a submission on the Suffolk/Norfolk site without a valid plate to start the whole process off
This is all very well for people who don't live in areas with dire or non-existent traffic policing like Lancashire. They simply don't respond to any submissions because OpSnapLancs is just a bin. They're prepared to send carefully worded 'action letters' to people who are only too pleased to deceive themselves , but as soon as they're exposed as not having taken any real action they cease to respond.
Surely the 14 day limit doesn't apply to warning letters, they could at least have a word and let him/her know they've been spotted so at least they might think twice about doing the same thing again?
They probably don't have a rule book for sending a NINP (notice of intended non-prosecution).
In most cases, this is probably all that's needed.
Pretty sure most people would react positively to someone in a percieved position of authority such as a Police Officer telling them that that their manner of driving is unacceptable and must not be repeated. Just like they would by being told by a driving test examiner.
What doesn't seem to work well with some is when someone riding a bike does that as ridng a bike garners no respect whatsoever!
Been past there plenty of times, the road is never busy and I'm usually doing ~25mph and it's a long straight stretch.
Only scumbags drive like that.
It could only have been a Mercedes, Audi or BMW driver.
Or a VW Golf GTi or Toerag, or a granny in a Nissan Micra (had that one - 6 cyclists signal right, overtakes as she "thought we were waving her past"), or a Kia, or an Astra...
Its quite astonishing how often intentionally bad driving comes from drivers of these 3 car makers. If you ever watch compilations of bad driving there is a range of brands on display when it comes to people not paying attention or driving poorly. When it comes to intentional dangerous driving like speeding, overtaking dangerously and behaving like a **** its very rarely not someone in one of these 3.
Could it just be that these are the most popular brands of car in the UK and you are experiencing selection bias.
They are popular, but not the most popular (Ford tops the list) and between them only make up about 15% of all cars https://www.comparethemarket.com/car-insurance/content/how-common-is-you...
There might be a degree of confirmation bias. But there might also be some truth: studies have found "unempathetic" and "narcissistic" people tend to favour high-status cars:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/20/study-luxury-car-owners-stubborn-self-ce...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886921005997
There might be a degree of confirmation bias
This tripe crops up every time someone dares to suggest that self-obsessed, sociopathic, deluded nutters are over-represented in the ranks of Audi, BMW and Golf drivers. They are. Black Audi A1 PK68 KSV's MOT expired on 26.9.22, it failed an MOT on 28.10.22 for a brake defect and there is still no MOT. Only a fellow nutter would doubt that the vehicle is on the road today and woud affect surprise that the VED is also expired. Idle wasters are also over-represented in the ranks of Lancashire Constabulary, so nothing whatsoever will be done about this and the offences could continue unchecked for years, as they have with BMW MV57 GXO and Audi PJ07 NFP
"Blows kisses at wtjs from his mercedes".
It's almost inevitably an Audi for me. You can't tell me that most cars on the road are Audis.
Not on the basis of the argument he makes, which is to draw a contrast between the broad spread of manufacturers represented in the "poor driving" category with the select group of brands which populate the "intentionally dangerous driving" category.
Given that brands target their marketing to particular segments, it should come as no surprise that there are statistically significant differences between people who are drawn to the various brands' marketing. It may be that Audi don't deliberately set out to attract cnuts, but there may yet be something in their brand that disproportionately attracts that element.
Someone else posted this here recently, but interesting that Audi used to define themselves quite differently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL8CoFqA0s0
Indeed, they have virtually become that parody.
Pages