Near Miss of the Day 889: Police refuse to act on cyclist’s submission and
claim they require the “bike to be visible in the footage” to determine a
close pass

“Going forward if we cannot see any part of the reporting parties bike we
will now not proceed with these cases,” said Thames Valley Police

by ADWITIYA PAL
FRI, FEB 02, 2024 18:48

Thames Valley Police seem to have a new requirement for assessing close
pass submissions by cyclists: the bike needs to be visible in the footage,
or else they won't be able to judge if the pass by the driver is a
legitimate one or not.

The above close pass was made on cyclist Andrew Edwards on Hambridge Road
in Newbury on 13th January this year. However, when he submitted the
footage to Thames Valley Police (TVP), the force emailed him saying, "You
need to show some part of your bike to assist us with calculating the
distance of the vehicle and you in relation to it being close."

"The easiest way for us to prove this is have a part of your handle bar
showing and then we are able to make a decision on the course of action, if
we could see your bike I would have been happy to offer the driver a driver
education course.

[Full story at]

<https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-889-306555>

--
Spike

On 06/02/2024 11:05 am, Spike wrote:
>
> Near Miss of the Day 889: Police refuse to act on cyclist’s submission and
> claim they require the “bike to be visible in the footage” to determine a
> close pass
>
> “Going forward if we cannot see any part of the reporting parties bike we
> will now not proceed with these cases,” said Thames Valley Police
>
> by ADWITIYA PAL
> FRI, FEB 02, 2024 18:48
>
> Thames Valley Police seem to have a new requirement for assessing close
> pass submissions by cyclists: the bike needs to be visible in the footage,
> or else they won't be able to judge if the pass by the driver is a
> legitimate one or not.
>
> The above close pass was made on cyclist Andrew Edwards on Hambridge Road
> in Newbury on 13th January this year. However, when he submitted the
> footage to Thames Valley Police (TVP), the force emailed him saying, "You
> need to show some part of your bike to assist us with calculating the
> distance of the vehicle and you in relation to it being close."
>
> "The easiest way for us to prove this is have a part of your handle bar
> showing and then we are able to make a decision on the course of action, if
> we could see your bike I would have been happy to offer the driver a driver
> education course.
>
> [Full story at]
>
> <https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-889-306555>

What "calculation" would they do if the conditions were satisfied?

JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
> On 06/02/2024 11:05 am, Spike wrote:
>>
>> Near Miss of the Day 889: Police refuse to act on cyclist’s submission and
>> claim they require the “bike to be visible in the footage” to determine a
>> close pass
>>
>> “Going forward if we cannot see any part of the reporting parties bike we
>> will now not proceed with these cases,” said Thames Valley Police
>>
>> by ADWITIYA PAL
>> FRI, FEB 02, 2024 18:48
>>
>> Thames Valley Police seem to have a new requirement for assessing close
>> pass submissions by cyclists: the bike needs to be visible in the footage,
>> or else they won't be able to judge if the pass by the driver is a
>> legitimate one or not.
>>
>> The above close pass was made on cyclist Andrew Edwards on Hambridge Road
>> in Newbury on 13th January this year. However, when he submitted the
>> footage to Thames Valley Police (TVP), the force emailed him saying, "You
>> need to show some part of your bike to assist us with calculating the
>> distance of the vehicle and you in relation to it being close."
>>
>> "The easiest way for us to prove this is have a part of your handle bar
>> showing and then we are able to make a decision on the course of action, if
>> we could see your bike I would have been happy to offer the driver a driver
>> education course.
>>
>> [Full story at]
>>
>> <https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-889-306555>

> What "calculation" would they do if the conditions were satisfied?

Don’t be picky! Just to get the police to the point where they realise that
some sort of distance measurement is necessary, has taken quite a time. At
present, it’s no different than judging speed by eye and if it looks as if
someone says a driver is speeding, sending them a NIP. It’s a very
unsatisfactory state of affairs :-(

We can start critiquing the unsatisfactory nature of the distance
calculation when they bring it in and start fining people…

--
Spike

On 06/02/2024 07:47 pm, Spike wrote:
> JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 06/02/2024 11:05 am, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> Near Miss of the Day 889: Police refuse to act on cyclist’s submission and
>>> claim they require the “bike to be visible in the footage” to determine a
>>> close pass
>>>
>>> “Going forward if we cannot see any part of the reporting parties bike we
>>> will now not proceed with these cases,” said Thames Valley Police
>>>
>>> by ADWITIYA PAL
>>> FRI, FEB 02, 2024 18:48
>>>
>>> Thames Valley Police seem to have a new requirement for assessing close
>>> pass submissions by cyclists: the bike needs to be visible in the footage,
>>> or else they won't be able to judge if the pass by the driver is a
>>> legitimate one or not.
>>>
>>> The above close pass was made on cyclist Andrew Edwards on Hambridge Road
>>> in Newbury on 13th January this year. However, when he submitted the
>>> footage to Thames Valley Police (TVP), the force emailed him saying, "You
>>> need to show some part of your bike to assist us with calculating the
>>> distance of the vehicle and you in relation to it being close."
>>>
>>> "The easiest way for us to prove this is have a part of your handle bar
>>> showing and then we are able to make a decision on the course of action, if
>>> we could see your bike I would have been happy to offer the driver a driver
>>> education course.
>>>
>>> [Full story at]
>>>
>>> <https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-889-306555>
>
>> What "calculation" would they do if the conditions were satisfied?
>
> Don’t be picky! Just to get the police to the point where they realise that
> some sort of distance measurement is necessary, has taken quite a time. At
> present, it’s no different than judging speed by eye and if it looks as if
> someone says a driver is speeding, sending them a NIP. It’s a very
> unsatisfactory state of affairs :-(
>
> We can start critiquing the unsatisfactory nature of the distance
> calculation when they bring it in and start fining people…

Too many people have ALREADY suffered injustice and hardship because of
this, though.

Let's hope that all such cases are going to be reviewed and overturned
where the evidence was illusory (or made up by a chav-cyclist).

And proper compensation paid.