Some police forces treating close passes of cyclists as a "victimless crime"

How about making cycling for a week a compulsory part of police training. Lets see if they still think its a victimless crime.

That's like treating the target of an attempted murder as a bystander. It's ridiculous.

I was on the end of a punishment pass earlier this evening. What was worse was it was also an undertake. At the next set of traffic lights thirty metres forward, we were level. Maybe this submission will be successful.

Add Cheshire Police to the list.  I have very recently begun a complaint against them because they will not tell me the outcome of an extremely dangerous close pass I reported, with video evidence.

I am not a witness - I am a victim.  I have a right to know what they did.

You would be a victim if “A person . . . uses threatening . . . behaviour . . . within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby“ [see Public Order Act 1986, section 5]. – although apparently using a motor vehicle to threaten and distress vulnerable cyclists with is a victimless offence.

You lot don't know you're born! Try North Lancashire where the police really hate cyclists, and won't take any action unless you're splattered all over the tarmac- if you are splattered over the tarmac they would just say 'no witnesses- the driver said "the cyclist hurled himself in front of me, I didn't stand a chance" '

Isn't the term victimless crime oxymoronic?

A close pass that turns into a hit and run is a hit and run, nothing else

It's depressing how quickly someone with a different outlook or experience is condemned as a troll, almost starts to take on an air similar to racism (and duck for cover)

Re the headline - also wildlife update, naturists claim bears "crap in woods".

socrati - are you a troll? I think cyclists turn the other cheek an awful lot and for scant reward - the assailants will keep on coming.
I always say we shouldn't knock the police on here - we've had since the last crash (remember that?) 12 years of austerity, swingeing cuts to police and courts - really un-Conservative policies pursued by a Conservative government. My sense is that what we're left with is pretty threadbare and stretched. The tweet from Surrey police is a good example of their approach, which is based around the laws of the land.
The car actively kills-off All other forms of transport - I think many people in this country are longing to cycle, but are off-put by among many other things close passes and other abuse/ violence from drivers. Roads that are "too dangerous" for kids to walk to school, dog owners to take Fido out from the house - just two examples forced to join in with this madness. If 100 years ago we could have seen what we were heading for, would we choose or accept it? And that's before you get all the motorist angst in letters to the editor, etc wanting to take away the little bits of road space cyclists (horses, peds) want to use. There are plenty of roads and times that I avoid cycling - not everyone has as much choice. 
Your approach works for you - long may it (safely) continue. I'm not drawn to it, we have to keep pressing for change and keep pushing back on the brain-washed attitude that ever more cars is the answer to travel needs. But then I'm not drawn to the approach of installed front and rear camera - checking batteries, checking aim, extracting editing and uploading to Police websites approach either. Again, I accept that I am fortunate, in where and when I cycle compared to some. 

We should all remember this explanation from the police next time there is an attempted stabbing I.e. unless the person was actually stabbed there is no victim and ergo no crime.

It's patently clear that many of the police forces are led by prize winning wallies and many of the individual officers seemingly lack any common sense.
 

This must be very frustrating to the many committed and capable officers who joined to serve their communities and fight crime.

West Midlands Police are another. Submissions could be tossed for all I know as their policy is to only tell you if you are needed in court. You do not even know if there is a NIP or anything. And that included when I got knocked off my bike by a hit and run driver and I had to chase that one up to find out the outcome which they said was 6 point and fine for careless driving. At least with that one I did fill in an official report at a Police Station after the hospital checkup showed bruised or maybe cracked ribs so I had a crime number to use.

I've had very variable experiences, even within the same force.

The best explanation I've heard, which was from an actually copper, was that the officers who view the footage are generally not dedicated traffic or cycle officers. Instead, it's a job that tends to be given to temporarily assigned to officers who need to be employed, but for whatever reason can't be deployed elsewhere. A typical situation is that it is given to a beat bobby who is injured, so can't go out on regular duties. They aren't given any training or refresher on road law, and they may only be given the task for a matter of days, so limiting opportunity to build up experience

Until we have a situation where footage is analysed by dedicated road safety coppers, I think we can't expect to make big stride in this area.

The usual Herts Police  "Unfortunately due to the data protection Act 2018 we are unable to disclose the outcome of the case with you" is a lazy interpretation of the DPA that doesn't hold water, even within that Force. I have discovered that with 'normal' crime reports the outcomes are recorded in the downloadable National Crime Statistics, so, unless you are in a hot-spot for a given offence, anyone can generally work out the outcome for any specific crime report. The DPA excuse is just supressing feedback for one class of offence.

10 reports to Hertfordshire police last month. Obviously same response every time - can't tell me the outcome because of data protection act.
I wonder if they'd reply under FOI request. Probably not.

Essex is the same.

This article made me more aware that my reports are worth absolute crap.
Think it's time to start posting my reports on YouTube.

My experience with the Met and Surrey is that if they issue a NIP and get a not guilty plea, then you'll be asked if you would attend court, and then you're kept up to date.  If they plead guilty, you don't hear any more.  My policy is to wait for over 6 months and then present the evidence to the Court of road.cc.  The road.cc jury is usually comprised of sane, right-thinking individuals and a few who like to chew chair-legs and bang their heads on cupboard doors when they're not at a keyboard