Police and Punishment Passes

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
Psamathe
Posts: 9353
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Police and Punishment Passes

Postby Psamathe » 9 Mar 2017, 6:07pm

atlas_shrugged wrote:I see cycling UK are kicking off a campaign where they specify 1.5m of clearance overtaking a bike. This seems very little and appears to conflict with guidance given here where rule 163 asks them to give as much room as overtaking a car and there is a helpful photo to make this clear:

http://ukcyclelaws.blogspot.co.uk/p/ove ... lists.html

I think a better way to tackle this is to use presumed liability as they do in France and other countries. When I cycled in Normandy the French drivers were excellent and appeared to be very careful overtaking bikes.

Apologies if I am kicking off an old storm but 1.5m seems very little safety margin.

If you look at the graphic the distance they are proposing is not 1.5m gap. It's 1.5m between the centreline of the bike and the car so probably closer to a 1.25m gap.
[img]https://www.cyclinguk.org/press-release/2016-09-16/cycling-uk-hails-west-midlands-police-“best-cyclist-road-safety-initiative-[/img]

Being discussed on another thread https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=112889

Ian

atlas_shrugged
Posts: 196
Joined: 8 Nov 2016, 7:50pm

Re: Police and Punishment Passes

Postby atlas_shrugged » 9 Mar 2017, 6:46pm

Ian

Thanks yes just noticed that too - sorry for the duplicate discussion and you are right about the 1.25m. Seems they do not like the idea either on that thread!

Alan D
Posts: 1665
Joined: 27 Mar 2008, 1:29pm
Location: South Oxfordshire

Re: Police and Punishment Passes

Postby Alan D » 9 Mar 2017, 8:04pm

I had one last week, caused the driver coming the other way to swerve into the raised road edge. This driver added insult to injury by giving a one-fingered salute.
Well phone-call and video clip to Thames Valley Police. Got a call back by a most understanding Officer who asked what my expectations were. I explained that I wanted someone to talk to this driver, make him understand how I felt at being put at risk.
He said that they would send this driver a 'Notice of Intended Prosecution', but it would really come down to just a talking to about his dangerous driving.
I'm happy with that :D

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 16800
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Police and Punishment Passes

Postby [XAP]Bob » 9 Mar 2017, 8:18pm

Alan D wrote:I had one last week, caused the driver coming the other way to swerve into the raised road edge. This driver added insult to injury by giving a one-fingered salute.
Well phone-call and video clip to Thames Valley Police. Got a call back by a most understanding Officer who asked what my expectations were. I explained that I wanted someone to talk to this driver, make him understand how I felt at being put at risk.
He said that they would send this driver a 'Notice of Intended Prosecution', but it would really come down to just a talking to about his dangerous driving.
I'm happy with that :D


That's a decent result... The threat is probably all that is needed, and I expect NIPs are recorded more accurately than 'caution'ary talks. Which probably means that repeated offences are easier to correlate
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

Alan D
Posts: 1665
Joined: 27 Mar 2008, 1:29pm
Location: South Oxfordshire

Re: Police and Punishment Passes

Postby Alan D » 12 Mar 2017, 6:17am

Here's the reply that I had from the Officer who took my statement, I have just sent him another e-mail asking if there's any news yet.

Many thanks for your time today. As spoken I shall arrange for a notice of intended prosecution to be sent out to the registered keeper of the vehicle with the aim of tracking down the driver, so that that suitable words of advice can be passed across, as well as giving them the opportunity to see the footage from your perspective.



Dash Cams and Helmet Cams are becoming increasingly popular and reports of this nature are more common. The main benefit to having a camera is for your safety and should a collision ever take place, then the evidence captured on a camera is extremely useful, as sometimes there may not be any witnesses.



In circumstances like this one, whilst we may not be looking to take the matter to court, this gives us the opportunity to speak to and educate drivers, in the hope that they can change their driving to avoid a collision happening in the future.

We are more than happy to receive reports, and will review each on its own merit, it may be in some cases that we decide not to take any action. All we ask is that common sense is applied and in some cases a lapse of concentration, or a minor error, may be just that, and not always worthy of a report to the police.



I shall ensure you are updated once the driver has been spoken to.

User avatar
Sum
Posts: 152
Joined: 17 Jul 2010, 9:13am

Re: Police and Punishment Passes

Postby Sum » 12 Mar 2017, 9:02am

Well done Alan for reporting this to TVP.

thirdcrank
Posts: 28062
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Police and Punishment Passes

Postby thirdcrank » 30 May 2017, 6:25pm

brynpoeth wrote:... Maybe you could get the media to investigate and inform the public that the police do nothing


It's made it onto the BBC www:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england ... us-drivers


roubaixtuesday
Posts: 1471
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: Police and Punishment Passes

Postby roubaixtuesday » 3 Jun 2017, 7:52pm

interestingly, a few weeks ago I had a follow up from the police who informed me today they have now spoken with the driver without requiring a formal statement from me.

I know not the content of the conversation, but I assume there was never any prospect of a prosecution given it was just my word in evidence.

So that's a result from my perspective, and whilst it took far too long, I'm very pleased there is at least one motorist out there who might think twice before bullying a cyclist in future.

MikeF
Posts: 3683
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: Police and Punishment Passes

Postby MikeF » 3 Jun 2017, 8:56pm

Alan D wrote: All we ask is that common sense is applied and in some cases a lapse of concentration, or a minor error, may be just that, and not always worthy of a report to the police.
What? :shock: Oh I see - a lapse of concentration is OK. So what's driving without due care and attention??

And common sense does not exist.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master

brynpoeth
Posts: 9054
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: Police and Punishment Passes

Postby brynpoeth » 24 Jun 2018, 8:42pm

tykeboy2003 wrote:
landsurfer wrote:what the hell is a "Punishment Pass"


I've been cycling since I got my first bike for my 14th birthday (in 1970) and I only heard the term within the last few years. This is probably because I'd never joined a cycling club or done organised rides till about 2008, I became familiar with the term upon joining this forum. I've been a victim of these events many times but it has really only been common over the last 10 years. I don't remember any in South Yorkshire where I grew up nor in Cambridge where I worked from 1978 to 1982 when I cycled almost everywhere.

It may be 40 years old but to me it's a newish thing - or maybe it never used to bother me so I don't remember the incidents.

Ones memory deletes a lot of bad stuff, probably there were plenty of PPs back then
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras & STOP signs!

brynpoeth
Posts: 9054
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: Police and Punishment Passes

Postby brynpoeth » 24 Jun 2018, 8:45pm

atlas_shrugged wrote:I see cycling UK are kicking off a campaign where they specify 1.5m of clearance overtaking a bike. This seems very little and appears to conflict with guidance given here where rule 163 asks them to give as much room as overtaking a car and there is a helpful photo to make this clear:

http://ukcyclelaws.blogspot.co.uk/p/ove ... lists.html

I think a better way to tackle this is to use presumed liability as they do in France and other countries. When I cycled in Normandy the French drivers were excellent and appeared to be very careful overtaking bikes.

Apologies if I am kicking off an old storm but 1.5m seems very little safety margin.

"Minimum 1.5 m" is sometimes quoted
How much space does one leave when overtaking a car?
I find close passes by vehicles going the other way bad too, if there is too little room they do not slow down enough
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras & STOP signs!

PRL
Posts: 598
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 9:14pm
Location: Richmond upon Thames

Re: Police and Punishment Passes

Postby PRL » 24 Jun 2018, 10:19pm

brynpoeth wrote:
atlas_shrugged wrote:I see cycling UK are kicking off a campaign where they specify 1.5m of clearance overtaking a bike. This seems very little and appears to conflict with guidance given here where rule 163 asks them to give as much room as overtaking a car and there is a helpful photo to make this clear:

http://ukcyclelaws.blogspot.co.uk/p/ove ... lists.html

I think a better way to tackle this is to use presumed liability as they do in France and other countries. When I cycled in Normandy the French drivers were excellent and appeared to be very careful overtaking bikes.

Apologies if I am kicking off an old storm but 1.5m seems very little safety margin.

"Minimum 1.5 m" is sometimes quoted
How much space does one leave when overtaking a car?
I find close passes by vehicles going the other way bad too, if there is too little room they do not slow down enough


When overtaking a car the space has to be at least the width of the car and then some clearance. Min 2.5m say. For a cyclist 1m from the kerb that would be the same as 1.5m clearance.

Richard D
Posts: 218
Joined: 27 Sep 2011, 6:16pm

Re: Police and Punishment Passes

Postby Richard D » 26 Jun 2018, 8:28pm

atlas_shrugged wrote:Dear Mr xxxxxxxx

In relation to the concept of prosecution of minor traffic offences from video submissions or public witnesses, guidance has been sought Nationally from the Crown Prosecution Service and Policing leads.
It is the opinion of such experts that a prosecution for offences based solely upon this level of evidence is unlikely.
There are concerns from National Police Chiefs Council that this approach effectively removes the level of discretion and professional judgement used by officers when dealing with incidents or offences of this type, the value of which cannot be underplayed.

On this basis we will not engage in any prosecutions of such matters.
.

Having prosecuted for over twenty years, at pretty much every level and across a wide variety of charges, I can say with little fear of contradiction that the above "guidance" is horse ****. Not least because with most vehicle crime, there is nothing that the Magistrates like more than a video to tut and shake their heads at.

thirdcrank
Posts: 28062
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Police and Punishment Passes

Postby thirdcrank » 26 Jun 2018, 8:40pm

Richard D wrote:
atlas_shrugged wrote:Dear Mr xxxxxxxx

In relation to the concept of prosecution of minor traffic offences from video submissions or public witnesses, guidance has been sought Nationally from the Crown Prosecution Service and Policing leads.
It is the opinion of such experts that a prosecution for offences based solely upon this level of evidence is unlikely.
There are concerns from National Police Chiefs Council that this approach effectively removes the level of discretion and professional judgement used by officers when dealing with incidents or offences of this type, the value of which cannot be underplayed.

On this basis we will not engage in any prosecutions of such matters.
.

Having prosecuted for over twenty years, at pretty much every level and across a wide variety of charges, I can say with little fear of contradiction that the above "guidance" is horse ****. Not least because with most vehicle crime, there is nothing that the Magistrates like more than a video to tut and shake their heads at.


The basis of that letter is the crêpe Suzette (Davenport) came up with at the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Charade several years ago. FWIW, she has now retired but her words seem to have been widely used as justification for inaction in some forces. Others, eg WMP report having systems in place to process this type of evidence routinely.