Here's what to do if you capture a near miss, close pass or collision on camera while cycling

Or simply a trawl of whatdotheyknow.com for others FOI requests for the same info.

For instance as a starter for 10, and of note to Lancashire residents, we can then state Lancashire constabulary published stats between October 2021 to November 2022 are 2674 submissions received, 1550 led to action against the driver of which 1340 NIPs, 210 letters.

In a similar boat to you Roger. I only heard from one result and that was because it was potentially going to court (subsequently didn't as they were found guilty in absence). A couple of times I have been asked to resubmit due to a failure or mis-typed plate so I know they are at least reviewed. 

If I was getting feedback, it would keep me willing to submit (or to not submit certain items) and would actually improve chances of actions taken. For example, I live close to the border of Staffs Police. There was a couple of close passes / bad driving which I submitted to WMP without realising how close to the border I was (until I read a story on here which informed me). So did those drivers escape punishment because of that or were they processed by WMP or forwarded on to Staffs. (Although stories on here shows Staffs are worse at Road enforcement then most).

I submitted a video to West Midlands police too. A car close passed me and the front and back passengers tried to grab me and push me off my bike. The incident was clearly visible in the footage and the registration of the car was clear. I have still not had any response from the police after about 4 or 5 months. What more can we do to stop aggressive drivers who hate cyclists.

jmcc500 wrote:

"I confirm that I understand that dashcam footage falls under the Category of CCTV and as the footage is taken in the public domain, the Domestic Purposes Exemption under the Data Protection Act/UKGDPR does not apply and therefore all users are Data Controllers in their own right. As such you should be informing the public that they are being filmed and should have some form of notification on your mode of transport as you have responsibilities under the Data Protection Act /UKGDPR"

 

That's come up before with no real answer. As was pointed out back then, the I and You are not consistent and the para says the police should be informing the public.

I think only 2 or 3 forces use this.

This is a new addition to Operation Crackdown, which is now using a portal shared with Thames Valley, Hampshire, Surrey and Sussex, so that's 4 now at least

jmcc500 wrote:

I have noted that Operation Crackdown in Sussex now asks the submitter to check the following statement:

"I confirm that I understand that dashcam footage falls under the Category of CCTV and as the footage is taken in the public domain, the Domestic Purposes Exemption under the Data Protection Act/UKGDPR does not apply and therefore all users are Data Controllers in their own right. As such you should be informing the public that they are being filmed and should have some form of notification on your mode of transport as you have responsibilities under the Data Protection Act /UKGDPR"

Seems a very odd interpretation of the law, particularly when the submissions are surely subject to an exemption under the 'prevention and detection of crime'? Perhaps someone can enlighten me (and/or Sussex Police!)?

I'm pretty sure that's a bunch of horseshit.

As a private individual, you're fine taking video of public places without any notices (similar to how you can use your phone to take videos in public areas too) as GDPR does not cover that. You'd need to be more careful if you're acting in a professional capacity such as a taxi driver or in a fleet vehicle - that would count as a business purpose and is covered by GDPR, so you'd need to inform customers/employees that they're being taped and for what purpose.

There's the GDPR exemptions for crime prevention/detection, but again, GDPR does not come into play for a private individual, so dash-cams on private vehicles/handlebars/helmets are absolutely fine.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I'm pretty sure that's a bunch of horseshit.

Agree.

You are perfectly entitled to photograph/video anyone, without their consent, in any public space in the UK. There are certain restrictions around sensitive sites which might come under prevention of terrorism, but for the general public driving about with a dashcam/bikecam there are no laws against it, the GDPR does not apply and that police statement is incorrect.

The main reason the GDPR doesn't apply is because you are videoing what you can see with your own eyes, in a public space: it is not surveillance. A 3rd party can have no expectation of privacy in this environment.

Where things get a bit tricky, is if you have a 'parking mode' (sentry mode on Teslas), then you have turned your vehicle into a mobile CCTV station that can caputre images when you are not present. This constitues surveillance and the GDPR will apply if the level of surveillance is beyond what could reasonably be considered necessary to protect household property. There is no fixed rule about what would be reasonable household use, it would be determined by a court if it came to it. So in this case, the GDPR *might* apply.

"I confirm that I understand that dashcam footage falls under the Category of CCTV and as the footage is taken in the public domain, the Domestic Purposes Exemption under the Data Protection Act/UKGDPR does not apply and therefore all users are Data Controllers in their own right. As such you should be informing the public that they are being filmed and should have some form of notification on your mode of transport as you have responsibilities under the Data Protection Act /UKGDPR"

Sussex has been taking dodging lessons from the Master Idlers at Lancashire Constabulary. I have commented on this nonsense before, several times. This identical tripe has been on OpSnapLancs for almost a year:

I confirm that I understand that dashcam footage falls under the Category of CCTV and as the footage is taken in the public domain, the Domestic Purposes Exemption under the Data Protection Act/UKGDPR does not apply and therefore all users are Data Controllers in their own right. As such you should be informing the public that they are being filmed and should have some form of notification on your mode of transport as you have responsibilities under the Data Protection Act /UKGDPR 

The dodge is that they can later claim you lied when you accepted the statement- which you have to do. It just gives them another reason to bin your report. My solution is to declare the opposite in my statement, along with the true comment that I have never seen any such notification on any motorised vehicle or bike- I certainly don't have one on the bike, or stuck on my legs! (sometimes I film when walking along beside the road)

wtjs wrote:

My solution is to declare the opposite in my statement, along with the true comment that I have never seen any such notification on any motorised vehicle or bike- I certainly don't have one on the bike, or stuck on my legs! (sometimes I film when walking along beside the road)

Taxis usually have a notice inside that they're recording and possibly buses too.

Use a passpixi ? Though frankly if that became a condition I'd actually never submit any video to the police ever again.

The situation regarding CCTV isn't very clear. The ICO says:

Quote:

The use of recording equipment, such as CCTV or smart door bells, to capture video or sound recordings outside the user’s property boundary is not a breach of data protection law.

However the ECJ ruled the opposite:

Quote:

The Court concluded that personal data collected from a public space by a home CCTV system (e.g. from the road outside the home) does not qualify for the domestic purpose exemption.

Tom_77 wrote:

The situation regarding CCTV isn't very clear. The ICO says:

Quote:

The use of recording equipment, such as CCTV or smart door bells, to capture video or sound recordings outside the user’s property boundary is not a breach of data protection law.

However the ECJ ruled the opposite:

Quote:

The Court concluded that personal data collected from a public space by a home CCTV system (e.g. from the road outside the home) does not qualify for the domestic purpose exemption.

I believe the ECJ ruling is from before the GDPR, so I'd go along with the ICO's interpretation as that appears to be current. Further down the ICO's page there's also this section: 

Quote:

What are the rules about domestic CCTV?

Data protection law says that people who capture images or audio recordings from outside their property boundary using a fixed camera, such as a CCTV camera or smart doorbell, should:

• tell people that they are using recording equipment;
• in most circumstances, provide some of the recording if asked by a person whose images have been captured;
• regularly or automatically delete footage;
• in most circumstances, delete recordings of people if they ask; and
• stop recording a person if they object to being recorded, but only if it is possible to do so. For example, if they can point the camera in a different direction but still use it for the same purposes, eg keeping their property safe.

These rules only apply to fixed cameras. They do not cover roaming cameras, such as drones or dashboard cameras (dashcams).

I think this is a great idea. I really agree with point 1 you make especially. I see no reason a central portal shouldn't deal with advisory letters, and think there could be significant benefit of sending letters along the lines of 'on [day] and at [location] you passed a more vulnerable road user at a distance that may have been unsafe, and was considered unsafe by that road user. Please be advised that safe passing distances are detailed in the highway code and are..... Please consider overtaking other road users, especially those who are more vulnerable such as cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians with greater care (i.e. with a larger passing) in future.'

There's no suggestion at that stage that a crime has been committed, so I don't see any reason for a police service to be involved.

I'm going to write to my MP to suggest it.

The answer to your issue number 2, is because their guidelines actually forbid them from issuing a FPN based on 3rd party submitted video footage:

HoarseMann wrote:

The answer to your issue number 2, is because their guidelines actually forbid them from issuing a FPN based on 3rd party submitted video footage:

Thats not my read of that paragraph.  My interpretation of that paragraph is in the abscence of independent evidence (like footage) they wont issue a FPN - which is fair enough.  Based on your interpretation people like Mikey wouldnt have had half their FPN's issued.

Now if you are saying some forces are intepreting things your way (wtjs incoming :D) thats probably fairer than blanket saying they all do.

It's the 'no public complaint' bit that is the problem. If you are a 3rd party reporting an incident, that is a public complaint. It's only guidance, so some forces can ignore it and take a different view, but I know for sure (because they told me on the phone) that Thames Valley follow this guidance and will not consider issuing FPN's for 3rd party video submissions.

Additionally, if you are a cyclist being close passed, I'd class you as a victim of a road crime. So the 'no victims' caveat applies too.

I believe you are correct, the paragraph means they won't give out FPNs on word-of-mouth evidence (which seems perfectly reasonable). When a video has been submitted and viewed by the police then that presumably becomes one of the "situations that are observed by police officers" and so they can proceed on that basis. I have certainly had a significant number of fine + points outcomes based on my videos.

Rendel Harris wrote:

I have certainly had a significant number of fine + points outcomes based on my videos.

Were these FPN's or a court summons?

HoarseMann wrote:

 

Were these FPN's or a court summons?

Nearly all FPNs, the only times I've been to court (apart from one) were when the driver chose to contest the FPN. Having said that I haven't heard of (with the caveat that the Met will do their best not to tell you what's going on) any FPNs for a while though still had quite a number of courses, so I don't know if they've modified their policy.

Rendel Harris wrote:

HoarseMann wrote:

 

Were these FPN's or a court summons?

Nearly all FPNs, the only times I've been to court (apart from one) were when the driver chose to contest the FPN. Having said that I haven't heard of (with the caveat that the Met will do their best not to tell you what's going on) any FPNs for a while though still had quite a number of courses, so I don't know if they've modified their policy.

Interesting if the MET are choosing to interpret this guidance differently to TVP. Shows it can be done.

I didn't have to attend court for the incident I submitted. It was a court summons not a FPN, but as the driver pleaded guilty prior to the hearing, no witnesses were required and it was just a matter of sentencing for the magistrate.

CyclingMikey reports drivers mainly for mobile phone use. That is a different FPN to the Careless Driving FPN, so these guidelines don't apply. It's also a lot easier to prove mobile phone use than careless driving.

It's also a lot easier to prove mobile phone use than careless driving

True, but it's not difficult to prove 'No MOT' on SD68 YTO, which is why I have moved onto this offence. Lancashire Constabulary doesn't, of course, do anything about any of those either, which is why I have collected 100 such reports and am going through the complaints process with the laughable fiction that is LC Professional Standards as Ben Wallace MP asked me to do. You have all seen MV57 GXO from me many times- it still has no MOT/ insurance for over 2 years and no VED for over 19 months and used to be seen around Garstang all the time since I first reported it in May 22. I haven't seen it since 20th December- the complaint was issued with photos etc. on 21st December. We shall see- my guess is that LC will find itself completely correct because offences 'have to be personally witnessed by an officer'- this principle would declare the various OpSnaps to be the fictions they obviously are

wtjs wrote:

We shall see- my guess is that LC will find itself completely correct because offences 'have to be personally witnessed by an officer'- this principle would declare the various OpSnaps to be the fictions they obviously are

Not sure about MOT's, but the careless driving guidelines only prevent the police issuing Careless Driving FPN's for 3rd party submitted video footage, they can still issue a court summons (with or without an offer of a driver training course).

So you tend to find there are a lot of warning letters, quite a few courses, but very few court cases resulting in points and a fine for close passing a cyclist.

I think some of this comes from a viewpoint that FPN's might somehow lessen the severity of the offence, so that is why, if there is a victim or a member of the public has made a complaint, the preference is a court summons; as the court can impose more points and a harsher fine than a FPN. That was certainly the case in the incident I reported, where 5 points and a £300 fine were handed out.

If they would be prepared to be more liberal with FPN's, that would be a good thing in my book. I'd see a £100 fine and 3 points a valid deterrent for being close passed. I'm a firm believer that it is the chance of being caught, rather than the ultimate penalty, that changes behaviour.

IanMSpencer wrote:

3. As a helpful citizen trying to help make the country a safer place, I have to accept that drowning the police in minor infractions when they are understaffed and failing in dealing with far more serious crimes is unhelpful. I therefore think we have to set a high bar for submissions.

Absolutely agree with this; it would be rather helpful if the police would let us know where the bar is by making a quick response to unsuccessful submissions. At present it really does feel like a lottery and it's very hard to know what is worth submitting and what is not, when in the same week one can submit identical close passes to the same police force and one will get an NIP and the other NFA. I tend to err on the high side, i.e., I generally won't submit unless I feel that the driving put me or someone else in physical danger, but even so there seems to be massive variation between what is regarded as prosecutable one week and not the next, a simple email response, even if just a tick box form, would help submitters to cut down on NFA submissions.

Essex are poor at feedback and I have had basically the same incident progressed and given NFA, so there is a problem of consistency as to who gets the incident.

The local cycle campaign group have tried very hard and did get one meeting with the team but are left frustrated too at inaction and inconsistency. This all is despite Essex Police and Safer Roads banging on about vision zero.

Essex are incredibly frustrating.  had two near identical incidents of being passed at a pinch point and being forced to swerve, one ended with a warning letter the other a course or coniditional offer.  When you raise this inconsistency they just refuse to engage, provide any explanations.

In theory both your incidents were treated as the same, ie they passed the threshold for prosecution that Essex use.

it's only the resolution that differs and that maybe to do with all manner of things Essex dont want to discuss as it gives you more detail on the offender than they're happy to share with you. Like maybe 1st offenders get the letter and only a course if they repeat the offence, or the letter is used to alleviate the risk of court backlogs because the course/pts might be more likely challenged etc etc.