After a Freedom of Information request revealed that 80 percent of the almost 1,000 motorists accused of close passing a cyclist in Surrey over the past 15 months were issued with warning letters, with only three being prosecuted, Surrey Police has claimed that “in the majority of cases, issuing a warning letter is the most appropriate course of action”, due to the “evidential viability” of the submitted videos and the “associated threat, harm, and risk” of the driving offence committed.

The force also told road.cc that it “regularly” receives video submissions of alleged driving offences “from the same people”, and called on those who frequently submit close pass clips to “engage with us further and work together to tackle” issues around road safety.

Earlier this month, we reported that an FOI request found that, in the 15 months up to March 2023, 3,898 videos of alleged driving offences – including close passes, using a mobile phone, or careless driving – were submitted to Surrey Police’s third-party reporting service.

At the time of the data’s publication, over 3,000 of these had achieved an outcome, with over half of the alleged offences resulting in a warning letter being issued, while only 10 led to a prosecution. 1,344 of the submissions, meanwhile, resulted in no further action being taken.

Of the 938 submissions related to alleged close passes on cyclists, only three resulted in a prosecution, four in a fixed penalty notice, and four saw the motorists offered a driver improvement course. 742 close pass cases, on the other hand, were resolved with a warning letter.

Responding to a request for comment from road.cc regarding the recently published data, a spokesperson for Surrey Police said: “Every allegation and submission of footage (including photograph and video submissions) are viewed and reviewed in terms of evidential viability and the associated threat, harm, and risk.

“Any history of previous driving offences would also be taken into consideration when deciding the appropriate course of action to take.

“A number of options are available to us in dealing with these submissions outside of court prosecutions, including issuing a warning letter, a conditional offer, course, or proceeding with a prosecution.

“In addition to this, there are still a number of live cases within the 3,898 figure that are still outstanding where NIPs [Notice of Intended Prosecutions] have been issued and we are waiting for further information which may yet end in one of the above outcomes that may include court.”

The statement continued: “In the majority of cases, issuing a warning letter is the most appropriate course of action due to the evidential viability of the material submitted being taken in consideration with the other factors mentioned.

“We regularly receive submissions relating to allegations of driving offences from the same people and have invited a number of them to engage with us further and work together to tackle some of the issues involved.”

The active travel Twitter account, Cycling Surrey, which compiled the data from the FOI request, said last week that they were “grateful” that Surrey Police provides a third-party reporting service, but noted that the issue of reducing road danger “goes further than this”.

“If motorists (who are responsible for the vast majority of road danger) realise it’s more likely there will be meaningful consequence for dangerous behaviour, Surrey’s roads will become safer for everyone. And reduce demand on many public services,” the account wrote..

"My ask is that that Chief Constable Tim De Meyer takes his recent appointment as an opportunity to properly review current investment in third-party reporting, consult with road safety experts, and consider its potential benefits to Surrey Police in the widest possible context.”

Responding to the driving offence figures, one cyclist from Surrey wrote on Twitter: “It’s great that Surrey Police have online reporting but it’s a complete waste of resources if they are only going to send out slap on the wrist warning letters to drivers.”

Meanwhile, another said: “It is hardly surprising that I have seen driving standards decrease around here when the police are letting these bad drivers off with warnings or less. The data is very discouraging.”

The latest FOI request from Surrey comes a month after we reported that, of the 286 reports of careless, inconsiderate, or dangerous driving around cyclists considered in 2022 by West Midlands Police – the force which pioneered the award-winning Operation Close Pass – only one resulted in a prosecution, while 213 resulted in no further action being taken.

https://road.cc/content/news/warning-letters-appropriate-most-driving-offences-301347

On 19/05/2023 12:50 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> After a Freedom of Information request revealed that 80 percent of the almost 1,000 motorists accused of close passing a chav in Surrey over the past 15 months were issued with warning letters, with only three being prosecuted, Surrey Police has claimed that “in the majority of cases, issuing a warning letter is the most appropriate course of action”, due to the “evidential viability” of the submitted videos and the “associated threat, harm, and risk” of the driving offence committed.
> The force also told road.cc that it “regularly” receives video submissions of alleged driving offences “from the same people”, and called on those who frequently submit close pass clips to “engage with us further and work together to tackle” issues around road safety.
>
In other words, the same nutter chavs every time (no names, no pack drill).

> Earlier this month, we reported that an FOI request found that, in the 15 months up to March 2023, 3,898 videos of alleged driving offences – including close passes [of chavs], using a mobile phone, or careless driving – were submitted to Surrey Police’s third-party reporting service.
>> At the time of the data’s publication, over 3,000 of these had achieved an outcome, with over half of the alleged offences resulting in a warning letter being issued, while only 10 led to a prosecution. 1,344 of the submissions, meanwhile, resulted in no further action being taken.
> Of the 938 submissions related to alleged close passes on chavs, only three resulted in a prosecution, four in a fixed penalty notice, and four saw the motorists offered a driver improvement course. 742 close pass cases, on the other hand, were resolved with a warning letter.
> Responding to a request for comment from road.cc regarding the recently published data, a spokesperson for Surrey Police said: “Every allegation and submission of footage (including photograph and video submissions) are viewed and reviewed in terms of evidential viability and the associated threat, harm, and risk.
> “Any history of previous driving offences would also be taken into consideration when deciding the appropriate course of action to take.
> “A number of options are available to us in dealing with these submissions outside of court prosecutions, including issuing a warning letter, a conditional offer, course, or proceeding with a prosecution.
> “In addition to this, there are still a number of live cases within the 3,898 figure that are still outstanding where NIPs [Notice of Intended Prosecutions] have been issued and we are waiting for further information which may yet end in one of the above outcomes that may include court.”
> The statement continued: “In the majority of cases, issuing a warning letter is the most appropriate course of action due to the evidential viability of the material submitted being taken in consideration with the other factors mentioned.
> “We regularly receive submissions relating to allegations of driving offences from the same [old] chavs and have invited a number of them to engage with us further and work together to tackle some of the issues involved.”
> The active travel Twitter account, Chav-Cycling Surrey, which compiled the data from the FOI request, said last week that they were “grateful” that Surrey Police provides a third-party reporting service, but noted that the issue of reducing road danger “goes further than this”.
> “If motorists (who are responsible for the vast majority of road danger) realise it’s more likely there will be meaningful consequence for dangerous behaviour, Surrey’s roads will become safer for everyone. And reduce demand on many public services,” the account wrote.
> "My ask is that that Chief Constable Tim De Meyer takes his recent appointment as an opportunity to properly review current investment in third-party reporting, consult with road safety experts, and consider its potential benefits to Surrey Police in the widest possible context.”
> Responding to the driving offence figures, one chav-cyclist from Surrey wrote on Twitter: “It’s great that Surrey Police have online reporting but it’s a complete waste of resources if they are only going to send out slap on the wrist warning letters to drivers.”
> Meanwhile, another said: “It is hardly surprising that I have seen driving standards decrease around here when the police are letting these bad drivers off with warnings or less. The data is very discouraging.”
> The latest FOI request from Surrey comes a month after we reported that, of the 286 reports of careless, inconsiderate, or dangerous driving around chavs-on-bikes considered in 2022 by West Midlands Police – the force which pioneered the award-winning Operation Close Pass – only one resulted in a prosecution, while 213 resulted in no further action being taken.
>
> https://road.cc/content/news/warning-letters-appropriate-most-driving-offences-301347

SurreyHiller | 35 posts | 1 hour ago
4 likes

I think I might fall into the regular submitters category. I’ve submitted 16 so far this year, and those were the worst of the worst. I’ve got it down to about 10 minutes per submission now, but I do need to be selective. All have received a response saying a Written Warning / Passed on to specialist team / etc has been actioned. I try to think of it from a new cyclist point of view, would an overtake like that put me off riding. If yes, then it goes on the submit pile.

It’s disappointing though to find out that it was probably only a warning letter sent for some that were actually really dangerous. The 60mph pass within inches of my bars – avoiding the pot hole a little later on would have probably seen me seriously injured. The ones where they have squeezed past next to a central island. The builders van that came straight at my and my 6 year old riding to school. When I get a spare evening or two I’ll compile a few for nmotd.

I would be happy to liaise with SP over this. There are definite hot spots of terrible overtaking and I’m always wondering what will happen the next time I’m riding through.

I’ve noticed though that since changing from a camera mounted under the bike computer to one on my chest, with associated straps across my back, that passes have been slightly better. Maybe the realisation that I have a camera is making people think? Still get the terrible ones, but much more are wider and more considered…

Evidential viability. 1 min before incident, 1 min after. Low light video is pretty poor and it’s sometimes hard to make out the number plates – but they are visible in at least one frame of what I submit and I’ll often include that frame at the start as a screen grab. Now it’s sunny we’re in 5.3k super HD so there’s no question of being able to see what happens. Not sure what else they need!

I entirely take your point but for me I have a PassPixi sign for my own safety primarily, to make it more likely that drivers will behave around me, my wife and or/cycling mates (and in my experience it works very well); catching and reporting bad drivers is very much a secondary consideration. I'd sooner come home having experienced no dangerous driving around me because they were behaving around the camera than with a hatful of bad behaviour to report. Hopefully some people advertising the fact that they're filming will get drivers into a mindset of expecting cyclists to have cameras and behaving more cirumspectly around them..

On 19/05/2023 03:06 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> SurreyHiller | 35 posts | 1 hour ago
> 4 likes
>
> I think I might fall into the regular submitters category. I’ve submitted 16 so far this year, and those were the worst of the worst. I’ve got it down to about 10 minutes per submission now, but I do need to be selective. All have received a response saying a Written Warning / Passed on to specialist team / etc has been actioned. I try to think of it from a new chav-cyclist point of view, would an overtake like that put me off riding. If yes, then it goes on the submit pile.
>
> It’s disappointing though to find out that it was probably only a warning letter sent for some that were actually really dangerous. The 60mph pass within inches of my bars – avoiding the pot hole a little later on would have probably seen me seriously injured. The ones where they have squeezed past next to a central island. The builders van that came straight at my and my 6 year old riding to school. When I get a spare evening or two I’ll compile a few for nmotd.
>
> I would be happy to liaise with SP over this. There are definite hot spots of terrible overtaking and I’m always wondering what will happen the next time I’m riding through.
>
> I’ve noticed though that since changing from a camera mounted under the bike computer to one on my chest, with associated straps across my back, that passes have been slightly better.

Obviously, drivers have X-Ray vision and can see the
front-of-chav-mounted camera from behind.

> Maybe the realisation that I have a camera is making people think? Still get the terrible ones, but much more are wider and more considered…
>
> Evidential viability. 1 min before incident, 1 min after. Low light video is pretty poor and it’s sometimes hard to make out the number plates – but they are visible in at least one frame of what I submit and I’ll often include that frame at the start as a screen grab. Now it’s sunny we’re in 5.3k super HD so there’s no question of being able to see what happens. Not sure what else they need!

Ah... one of the obsessive usual suspects referred to by the police!

"We can't prove the speed/distance" - the latter, of course, can be proven with a visit to the site but it then comes down to proportionality; the former is trickier without calibrating the individual recording device etc..

It seems pretty obvious to me that a video shows a very good indication of speed and distance. The thing is that it's very rarely a borderline case of maybe a 1.495m passing distance instead of 1.5m, so I doubt that they're really being honest with us about that. You don't even need an accurate speed and/or distance as the criteria is to show "reasonable consideration" to other road users, so that's going to be a judgement call by the magistrate or jury, but the very fact that a cyclist felt themselves to be endangered is probably the most important criteria. (sic)

That's like saying Mark Hodson doesn't have a clue what he's talking about because WMP have seemingly gone downhill recently, and Andy Cox is likewise clueless because of the Met's reputation. Just because Surrey RPU is on the ball doesn't mean the rest of the force is in any way decent (it may or may not be), even if it is seemingly working in the same field.

On 19/05/2023 03:08 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> I entirely take your point but for me I have a PassPixi sign for my own safety primarily, to make it more likely that drivers will behave around me, my wife and or/cycling mates (and in my experience it works very well); catching and reporting bad drivers is very much a secondary consideration. I'd sooner come home having experienced no dangerous driving around me because they were behaving around the camera than with a hatful of bad behaviour to report. Hopefully some people advertising the fact that they're filming will get drivers into a mindset of expecting chavs to have cameras and behaving more cirumspectly around them..

"...a hatful of bad behaviour..."!

I quite like that (and it doesn't seem to be a typo).

But chavs-on-bikes are usually dead against H^^^ts.

What is so difficult for drivers to understand?

https://road.cc/sites/default/files/styles/main_width/public/surrey-police-close-pass.jpeg

On 19/05/2023 03:17 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> What is so difficult for drivers to understand?
>
> https://road.cc/sites/default/files/styles/main_width/public/surrey-police-close-pass.jpeg

The non-existent law which specifies these non-existent rules?

Perhaps you can quote the relevant Act and Statutory Instrument, M'Lud?

HoarseMann | 2323 posts | 56 min ago
0 likes

Thames Valley are equally poor in this regard (if not worse in my experience). It was an absolute battle to get them to take a close pass case to court a few years ago.

The good news is some forces are doing better. I've recently been impressed with Northamptonshire Police. I submitted online and a few weeks later, can see that they are recommending the driver is prosecuted for points, as they publish all the submission decisions on their website (link is external).. I will have to wait a few months to see the actual outcome when that spreadsheet is published.