Close Pass Incidents (536A/20)
Request
1.
The question below relates to ‘close pass operations’, by which we mean:
– any operation to target drivers who overtake a cyclist in a potentially careless / inconsiderate or dangerous manner. This may involve, for example, a police officer riding a bicycle and reporting (and filming) ‘close passes’, with drivers stopped by a separate officer for an appropriate intervention (e.g. roadside education or penalty). A number of police forces have been carrying out such operations since 2017.
– any operation of this nature, whether carried out exclusively by the police force, or by the force alongside other services, and whether they were called ‘close pass operations’ or given a different name (e.g. ‘safe’ pass).
For each of the past four years (2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, please provide answers for each year separately):
a. How many ‘close pass operations’ were carried out by the force?
b. As a result of these operations:
i. How many individuals were stopped by police and received an educational intervention and/or verbal warning, regardless of whether further action was taken?
ii. How many individuals were offered an NDORS course as an alternative to prosecution?
iii. How many individuals were prosecuted for careless / inconsiderate or dangerous driving, including any issued with an FPN?
iv. How many individuals were prosecuted, including any issued with an FPN, for offences other than careless / inconsiderate driving or dangerous driving?
2.
a. As part of its enforcement of driving offences, does the force accept the submission of video evidence by members of the public to report driving offences, whether the recording device is handheld or attached to a vehicle or rider (e.g. dash/handlebar/helmet cameras)?
For each of the past four years (2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, please provide answers for each year separately):
b. How many submissions of video evidence were received by the force relating to reports of driving offences?
c. How many of these reports:
i. Resulted in prosecution?
ii. Resulted in a driver being offered an NDORS course as an alternative to prosecution?
iii. Resulted in no further action being taken?
d. How many submissions of video evidence were received by the force relating to driving offences where the driver was reported to have overtaken a cyclist in a potentially careless / inconsiderate or dangerous manner (so called ‘close passes’)?
e. How many of these reports:
i. Resulted in prosecution?
ii. Resulted in a driver being offered an NDORS course as an alternative to prosecution?
iii. Resulted in no further action being taken?
f. How many full-time equivalent staff (whether officer or civilian) does the force employ to review the submission of video evidence relating to driving offences?
Response
Our data are not organised in such a way as to allow us to provide this information within the appropriate (cost) limit within the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. This is because not all of the data requested is centrally collated and would therefore require a manual review of our records to retrieve it.
This means that the cost of providing you with the information is above the amount to which we are legally required to respond i.e. the cost of locating and retrieving the information exceeds the ‘appropriate level’ as stated in the Freedom of Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit) Regulations 2004.
In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this letter acts as a Refusal Notice for this part of the request and if one part of a request exceeds the fees limit then S12 of the Act applies to the whole request.
Further information on section 12 of FOI is available here:
However, in accordance with Section 16 of the Act I have a duty to provide advice and assistance in relation to your request and can provide relevant information as this was retrieved before it was realised that the fees limit would be exceeded (see attached). I trust this is helpful, but it does not affect our legal right to rely on the fees regulations for the remainder of the request.