Driver fined £1,100 for passing Bridgend cyclist too closely

pete75
Posts: 14663
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Driver fined £1,100 for passing Bridgend cyclist too closely

Post by pete75 »

cycle tramp wrote: 22 Jun 2022, 6:23pm
pete75 wrote: 22 Jun 2022, 1:14pm
If the police put as much effort into catching and prosecuting close pass drivers as they do into catching and prosecuting burglars it means the 1.5 metre rule will be unenforced. Get burgled and it's a struggle to get a crime number for the insurance claim never mind any further action.
Clearly we can see that (in some cases) this is not true as the title of this thread and content suggest :-)
Sometimes they catch burglars too.
cycle tramp
Posts: 1835
Joined: 5 Aug 2009, 7:22pm

Re: Driver fined £1,100 for passing Bridgend cyclist too closely

Post by cycle tramp »

pete75 wrote: 22 Jun 2022, 5:40pm
What I'm saying is that close passes will always happen regardless of the law and cyclists will always have to deal with them.
I believe that close passes currently happen mostly out of habit and ignorance more than anything else - but thanks to the highway code changes and police enforcement, in my area, at least they are happening less and drivers on the whole seem to be more cyclist aware :-D
Me on my bike, means more petrol in the pumps for you. Please support your local utility cyclists :-)
pete75
Posts: 14663
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Driver fined £1,100 for passing Bridgend cyclist too closely

Post by pete75 »

cycle tramp wrote: 22 Jun 2022, 6:41pm
pete75 wrote: 22 Jun 2022, 5:40pm
What I'm saying is that close passes will always happen regardless of the law and cyclists will always have to deal with them.
I believe that close passes currently happen mostly out of habit and ignorance more than anything else - but thanks to the highway code changes and police enforcement, in my area, at least they are happening less and drivers on the whole seem to be more cyclist aware :-D
Police enforcement - where and how?. Rode 85 miles on Monday on a variety of roads. Several close passes and almost all under 1.5 metres apart from HGV drivers. Didn't see a single rozzer anywhere. If anything hatred of cyclists is on the increase.
cycle tramp
Posts: 1835
Joined: 5 Aug 2009, 7:22pm

Re: Driver fined £1,100 for passing Bridgend cyclist too closely

Post by cycle tramp »

pete75 wrote: 22 Jun 2022, 7:41pm
cycle tramp wrote: 22 Jun 2022, 6:41pm
pete75 wrote: 22 Jun 2022, 5:40pm
What I'm saying is that close passes will always happen regardless of the law and cyclists will always have to deal with them.
I believe that close passes currently happen mostly out of habit and ignorance more than anything else - but thanks to the highway code changes and police enforcement, in my area, at least they are happening less and drivers on the whole seem to be more cyclist aware :-D
Police enforcement - where and how?. Rode 85 miles on Monday on a variety of roads. Several close passes and almost all under 1.5 metres apart from HGV drivers. Didn't see a single rozzer anywhere. If anything hatred of cyclists is on the increase.
As previously stated, I've not had the same experiences, although to quote Bill Hicks, I could be living in Hobbiton where perhaps people are generally more considerate.

You are totally free to report any close passes, that you experience to the police, and you are free to fit cameras to your cycle for that purpose. Unlike previous years, because close passing has now been enshrined in the highway code, this makes it easier for the police to understand the failure of road craft.

However I'm really pleased yo hear that HGV drivers in your area do appear to be taking the close pass rule seriously.
Me on my bike, means more petrol in the pumps for you. Please support your local utility cyclists :-)
Stevek76
Posts: 1401
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Driver fined £1,100 for passing Bridgend cyclist too closely

Post by Stevek76 »

My entirely anecdotal impression in Bristol is that passing behaviour has been steadily improving for some years now since the local rozzers started being good with processing 3rd party video reporting (they were broadly treating 1.5m as the guide plenty before it was codified in the HC). In the same manner, the drop in phone use has been quite dramatic since the loophole was closed in march.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
pete75
Posts: 14663
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Driver fined £1,100 for passing Bridgend cyclist too closely

Post by pete75 »

cycle tramp wrote: 22 Jun 2022, 9:49pm
pete75 wrote: 22 Jun 2022, 7:41pm
cycle tramp wrote: 22 Jun 2022, 6:41pm

I believe that close passes currently happen mostly out of habit and ignorance more than anything else - but thanks to the highway code changes and police enforcement, in my area, at least they are happening less and drivers on the whole seem to be more cyclist aware :-D
Police enforcement - where and how?. Rode 85 miles on Monday on a variety of roads. Several close passes and almost all under 1.5 metres apart from HGV drivers. Didn't see a single rozzer anywhere. If anything hatred of cyclists is on the increase.
As previously stated, I've not had the same experiences, although to quote Bill Hicks, I could be living in Hobbiton where perhaps people are generally more considerate.

You are totally free to report any close passes, that you experience to the police, and you are free to fit cameras to your cycle for that purpose. Unlike previous years, because close passing has now been enshrined in the highway code, this makes it easier for the police to understand the failure of road craft.

However I'm really pleased yo hear that HGV drivers in your area do appear to be taking the close pass rule seriously.
I wasn't in my area and I've always found HGV drivers to be considerate when overtaking - don't think it's anything to do with the new rule. What the hell do I want to fit cameras to my bike for - there's already far too many many public and private surveillance cameras in this country. I've better things to do with my time than report people to the police for trivial offences.
awavey
Posts: 173
Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:04am

Re: Driver fined £1,100 for passing Bridgend cyclist too closely

Post by awavey »

Stevek76 wrote: 22 Jun 2022, 10:16pm My entirely anecdotal impression in Bristol is that passing behaviour has been steadily improving for some years now since the local rozzers started being good with processing 3rd party video reporting (they were broadly treating 1.5m as the guide plenty before it was codified in the HC). In the same manner, the drop in phone use has been quite dramatic since the loophole was closed in march.
just for balance, my anecdotal impression out in the wilds of Suffolk is...it aint making much difference, even less so when you reach centres of population, but then the police dont seem to be bothering processing close passes much anymore.

though theyve this really major thing going with farm trailer safety campaigns, which fine its a rural issue that needs to be addressed as much as close passing, because some of these trailers could be lethal how badly they are maintained and loads secured, but like they are literally running this Tilly Pass checking trailers are legal thing at least monthly, theyve done maybe 2 close pass ops in a year now.

and yeah probably the only regional media (be that tv,radio or print) in the country who didnt pick up this Bridgend story as a talking filler point or cue to run some other cycling topic for discussion as lots did.
thirdcrank
Posts: 35123
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Driver fined £1,100 for passing Bridgend cyclist too closely

Post by thirdcrank »

Amidst all the other "Operations" AFAIK the national name for the submission of thirty party footage from dashcams etc is Operation Snap. The growth in policing by media release seems inexorable.
ChrisP100
Posts: 270
Joined: 24 Sep 2020, 9:00am

Re: Driver fined £1,100 for passing Bridgend cyclist too closely

Post by ChrisP100 »

pete75 wrote: 22 Jun 2022, 7:41pm Police enforcement - where and how?. Rode 85 miles on Monday on a variety of roads. Several close passes and almost all under 1.5 metres apart from HGV drivers. Didn't see a single rozzer anywhere. If anything hatred of cyclists is on the increase.
I've notice a similar trend with HGV drivers.

I'm putting it down to the fact that a HGV driver has more to lose from being caught on camera than just getting a warning letter, or an awareness course, or points and a fine. If a cyclist decides to submit footage to their employer they could potentially be dismissed from their job. In this instance it appears that fear of consequence has modified behaviour.

Now if only we had an effective mechanism to get private vehicle owners to somehow modify their behaviour...
Psamathe
Posts: 15223
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Driver fined £1,100 for passing Bridgend cyclist too closely

Post by Psamathe »

pete75 wrote: 22 Jun 2022, 11:48pm ..... What the hell do I want to fit cameras to my bike for - there's already far too many many public and private surveillance cameras in this country....
I've considered one and never bothered but I did wonder about "Subject Access Requests" and information legislation and checked with The Information Commissioner and reply I got
E-mail from Information Commissioner’s Office wrote:In the case of surveillance systems the section 36 exemption will apply unless the cameras are capturing images beyond the boundaries of their property. If the individual is capturing images beyond the boundaries of their property they will be required to register as a data controller – this will also apply to those operating dashcams.
...
Similar to domestic CCTV, there will be circumstances in which dashcam use is unlikely to be for 'purely domestic purposes', for example, where they are used for the purpose(s) of insurance or where they are routinely used to record evidence to be provided to the Police to assist their investigations in the event of an incident. In such circumstances, the personal information captured should be processed in line with the obligations set out in the DPA. This includes, responding to subject access requests.
How many cyclists with such cameras make it known to those being recorded how to submit a Subject Access Request?

That said, I have no idea what happens about "inadmissible evidence" (beyond accidentally seen rubbish US TV series) e.g. when evidence is collected illegally or by breaking regulations (something Mr Loophole yet to exploit?

Ian
thirdcrank
Posts: 35123
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Driver fined £1,100 for passing Bridgend cyclist too closely

Post by thirdcrank »

Psamathe wrote: 23 Jun 2022, 10:07am
pete75 wrote: 22 Jun 2022, 11:48pm ..... What the hell do I want to fit cameras to my bike for - there's already far too many many public and private surveillance cameras in this country....
I've considered one and never bothered but I did wonder about "Subject Access Requests" and information legislation and checked with The Information Commissioner and reply I got
E-mail from Information Commissioner’s Office wrote:In the case of surveillance systems the section 36 exemption will apply unless the cameras are capturing images beyond the boundaries of their property. If the individual is capturing images beyond the boundaries of their property they will be required to register as a data controller – this will also apply to those operating dashcams.
...
Similar to domestic CCTV, there will be circumstances in which dashcam use is unlikely to be for 'purely domestic purposes', for example, where they are used for the purpose(s) of insurance or where they are routinely used to record evidence to be provided to the Police to assist their investigations in the event of an incident. In such circumstances, the personal information captured should be processed in line with the obligations set out in the DPA. This includes, responding to subject access requests.
How many cyclists with such cameras make it known to those being recorded how to submit a Subject Access Request?

That said, I have no idea what happens about "inadmissible evidence" (beyond accidentally seen rubbish US TV series) e.g. when evidence is collected illegally or by breaking regulations (something Mr Loophole yet to exploit?

Ian

A good start is to treat TV - especially US TV as being for entertainment only. In E&W, perhaps the biggest clue with "inadmissible evidence" is in the name: it cannot normally be admitted as evidence. The scope for exclusion is much stronger in terms of the prosecution but the rules are subject to change and exceptions. Evidence which weakens the prosecution is generally much more likely to be admitted (although AIUI, the Information Commissioner has stuck their paddle into this.) In a civil case - compo - the courts seem relaxed about admitting any credible evidence which helps reach a conclusion.

In a criminal case such as a prosecution for careless driving, video would corroborate the testimony of the witness eg the close-passed cyclist.

My limited experience of the Information Commissioner suggests they are still coming to terms with the invention of the silicone chip
Stevek76
Posts: 1401
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Driver fined £1,100 for passing Bridgend cyclist too closely

Post by Stevek76 »

awavey wrote: 23 Jun 2022, 1:19am just for balance, my anecdotal impression out in the wilds of Suffolk is...it aint making much difference,
Not sure what police force covers that area but for the most part I've not heard good things about Operation snap effectiveness from any of the home counties. Avon and Somerset are quite responsive and have actioned everything I've sent them (which typically needs to be more like 1m or closer for me to be bothered enough to do it). For it to be effective it does need action to be taken, not just a black hole into which videos are uploaded.

I'd like to see far more actual road policing (plenty that 3rd party reporting cannot deal with) but we are where we are with staffing levels so I'm happy to help improve the driving standards in this area until national gov gets its act together on the matter.

Current ICO website advice (I was looking a few things up yesterday for another reason) is that for domestic use (i.e. not a company) the bounds of the property isn't a consideration. However it seems to be clearer that dashcams in vehicles being used for any work purposes might qualify.

Regarding the rest of the UK GDPR. What I collect would struggle to qualify as 'personal data' for the most part since number plates fall into a bit of a grey zone in that regard. But even more than that, what I collect certainly doesn't qualify as a 'filing system' and thus I have no obligation regarding SARs etc. Indeed I'd struggle to satisfy any. I don't know who I'm recording as far as faces and I have no access to DVLA records to be able to inform owners of VRMs. Even if someone provided me with a VRM (which I'd have no way of verifying if that was actually theirs!), since those only exist within the footage I cannot retrieve them short of manually re-watching every video.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
awavey
Posts: 173
Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:04am

Re: Driver fined £1,100 for passing Bridgend cyclist too closely

Post by awavey »

Stevek76 wrote: 23 Jun 2022, 12:45pm
awavey wrote: 23 Jun 2022, 1:19am just for balance, my anecdotal impression out in the wilds of Suffolk is...it aint making much difference,
Not sure what police force covers that area but for the most part I've not heard good things about Operation snap effectiveness from any of the home counties. Avon and Somerset are quite responsive and have actioned everything I've sent them (which typically needs to be more like 1m or closer for me to be bothered enough to do it). For it to be effective it does need action to be taken, not just a black hole into which videos are uploaded.

I'd like to see far more actual road policing (plenty that 3rd party reporting cannot deal with) but we are where we are with staffing levels so I'm happy to help improve the driving standards in this area until national gov gets its act together on the matter.

Current ICO website advice (I was looking a few things up yesterday for another reason) is that for domestic use (i.e. not a company) the bounds of the property isn't a consideration. However it seems to be clearer that dashcams in vehicles being used for any work purposes might qualify.

Regarding the rest of the UK GDPR. What I collect would struggle to qualify as 'personal data' for the most part since number plates fall into a bit of a grey zone in that regard. But even more than that, what I collect certainly doesn't qualify as a 'filing system' and thus I have no obligation regarding SARs etc. Indeed I'd struggle to satisfy any. I don't know who I'm recording as far as faces and I have no access to DVLA records to be able to inform owners of VRMs. Even if someone provided me with a VRM (which I'd have no way of verifying if that was actually theirs!), since those only exist within the footage I cannot retrieve them short of manually re-watching every video.
well it would be Suffolk police :D though technically operation snap dashcam stuff is a joint Norfolk/Suffolk police setup because the traffic divisions operate as a merged team across both counties forces, along with the firearms squad...so you can see why they dont have much time to help out cyclists. In fact I think all the close pass operations theyve done, they actually rope in their fire service colleagues to provide the bulk of the resource to run it, and just have a traffic car in attendance.

as for the ICO and GDPR stuff, I agree with the suggestion the ICO are still coming to terms with the invention of the silicone chip, I really dont think they understand dash cams at all, and keep quoting this boiler plate answer about home security cctv, hoping people will be satisfied with it and go away and stop asking them anymore awkward questions.

but for as long as Ive been an amateur photographer in the UK taking photos of street scenes, if you are in a public area you can take as many photos as you want of whatever or whoever you like (albeit there are some exceptions/circumstances that are protected by law),but on the whole taking legitimate photos of people regardless of whether you have their permission or not is allowed without fear of the law or data protection, as there is no expectation in law or right to privacy in a public place in this country,note thats not the same across Europe though where alot of these examples get cited of GDPR being used to prevent people videoing things.

I mean the best example of this is I can go stand outside the perimeter of a runway at an airport or a military base in the UK and take photos of everything, make notes on airplane registrations, not an issue, go do that in Greece and youll be arrested for being a spy, because you arent allowed to take photos in those locations.

. But in the UK I can even take photos of private land/buildings etc, as long as Im on public land,not causing an obstruction and not being unnecessarily paparazzi about it, which Ive had to explain to a guy who was getting upset with me taking photos of a derelict building, I suspect because he was upto no good and didnt want to be seen photographed there, but it was perfectly within the law for me to stand there on public land and take those photos of the building,and of him whether he liked it or not. (which I probably wouldnt have done had he not started getting mouthy about it because I just wanted to take a photo of the building)

so I treat my dashcam the same way as my photography, its used in a public place where there can be no expectation of privacy, just the same as if I walk down the street and use my eyes to observe the same things and remember them, plus my dashcam is used solely for the purposes of detecting or preventing a crime, which has been accepted as reasonable fair use exemption, and I dont publish it or attempt to use it for commercial purposes.

why the ICO simply cant come up with a statement along those lines I dont know.
jimster99
Posts: 95
Joined: 18 Jun 2012, 7:00pm

Re: Driver fined £1,100 for passing Bridgend cyclist too closely

Post by jimster99 »

It's interesting the 1.5m rule ALSO applies to cyclists over- or undertaking other cyclists / pedestrians / other cars etc. Cycling in London would become utterly impractical if that rule was ever enforced given that at traffic lights etc. I regularly undertake 50 waiting cars in a row. Many cycle lanes don't allow for anything remotely close to 1.5m of space.

Perhaps in time we will see articles from cyclists complaining how they were fined for too closely undertaking a stationary police car in heavy traffic? I hope not! But I guess what's sauce for the goose may become sauce for the gander!
Stevek76
Posts: 1401
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Driver fined £1,100 for passing Bridgend cyclist too closely

Post by Stevek76 »

The 1.5m passing guidance does not apply to cyclists and motorcyclists passing motor vehicles.

The hierarchy of responsibility is key here. A cyclist poses no threat to occupants of a motor vehicle thus a cyclist filtering (reasonably) past cars is not considered to be cycling carelessly. Buzzing a pedestrian however is a different matter. There are limits, the hc advises cyclists to be careful filtering, both for their own safety but also because queues of cars can obscure crossing pedestrians. Filtering at high speeds such that the rider is at risk of being unable to react to such cases could fall under careless cycling, and any near misses could tip over to dangerous cycling.

There's a fair bit of 'it depends' here and that applies to the 1.5m 'rule' also. A small city car passing at 15mph might get away with a bit less, a large vehicle travelling at 40mph may be expected to leave more.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Post Reply