View from the Handlebars: Lessons of a bike cam enforcer
In a previous blog, CycHull member Kevin P explained why he started to use a bike cam to record and submit footage of dangerous driving to Humberside Police’s Operation Snap. One year on, after uploading almost 40 videos and securing 23 NIPs, he shares his thoughts.
Sharing the road? Kevin P snaps a head-on encounter with his bike cam
Operation Snap has grown since I started using it. In January 2024 alone, 2,213 videos were submitted leading to 1,550 Notices of Intended Prosecution (NIPs). In February 2024, the Police secured £65,000 to give dash- and bike-cams to key road users, with 90 bike-cams given to cyclists.
I have continued to us my cheap Akaso EK7000 camera and I’m largely happy with it, although in low light levels the images have not been adequate to read number plates. The plastic handlebar camera mounts I originally used break easily and I now use a more robust metal SmallRig clamp mount, (ebay, £9). I check number plates against the national register before I complete a Snap submission. Checking plates against make and model ensures I have read the number plate correctly. You can also check the vehicle is taxed and has an MOT. On two occasions I have found vehicles without MOT and these have resulted in NIPs.
My impression is that standards of driving around me, have improved substantially, but other regular cyclists tell me they have not seen a change. I think the most improvement has been for offences that Snap takes action against e.g. very close passes (less than 1m), left hooks and driving through red into a Cyclist Advance Stop Zones (CASZ). However, I have not seen an improvement in stopping or parking in cycle lanes, close passes with greater than 1m separation, or buses pulling out from bus stops when it is not safe.
What gets NIPed and what doesn’t
About 7% of all Snap NIPs are for mobile phone use, although I have never uploaded video of this as forward-facing cameras are not good at collecting evidence of phone use.
Personally, I have had a 100% NIP rate for videos of motorists driving into CASZ, when the video shows them enter when the traffic light is red. However, although this is annoying, it is rarely dangerous.
By contrast, motorists driving at cyclists on the wrong side of the road is a major danger. It is particularly a problem where motorists park on both sides of the road, leaving a single car-width lane in the middle, for example in the Avenues in west Hull. Some motorists deliberately drive at cyclists, expecting them to intimidate them out of their way. The Highway Code is vague on this. It is only clearly an offence when there is a solid white line down the middle of the road [Rule 165]. Very few of my videos of motorists deliberately driving at me under these circumstances have resulted in NIPs.
The Highway Code also states that motorists should leave 1.5 m clearance when passing cyclists (Rule 163). I have taken to reporting vehicles driven at me on the wrong side of the road as ‘close passes’ but only extreme ones (<1m) have resulted in NIPs. There are many places in Hull where motorists physically cannot overtake cyclists with the required 1.5 m separation, e.g. where there is a central island, or where the footpath has been built out into the road. However, I have had no actions taken when motorists have passed me in these locations. This leads me to suspect that Snap enforces an unofficial ‘safe’ separation of 1m rather than the official 1.5 m.
I submitted an un-actioned video of a police car that was dangerously parked in the cycle lane just short of Chanterlands railway viaduct. While Police can claim exemption from some laws and regulations if their activities are for ‘policing purposes’, the driver ‘must be able to readily and proportionately justify their actions in the pursuance of their duty’. They did not do this.
Although I have secured NIPs for bus drivers close-passing, I have had no actions from reporting bus drivers for pulling-out from bus stops as I am overtaking. This is exceptionally dangerous and flouts the Highway Code (Rule 159) that drivers must only move off when it is safe to do so. In contrast, taxi drivers appear disproportionately often in my Snap reports and have a 100% NIP rate.
I have had no actions taken for motorists obstructing cycle lanes, despite this violating three Highway Code rules [240, 242 and 243].
In summary, I believe Snap is contributing to making our roads safer. Using my bike-cam has secured 23 NIPs in a year. The majority of these were when motorists deliberately risked my safety, often for little or no gain. However, Snap is inconsistent and seems to action minor offences while ignoring some of the most common and dangerous for cyclists. Snap also appears to allow a smaller close-pass distance than that specified in the Highway Code, and continues to treat cyclists as witnesses, rather than victims. This is an arbitrary distinction that, I believe, further disempowers cyclists.
Operation Snap submissions
You can submit your bike cam and dash cam footage to Operation Snap here. PLEASE NOTE: The service relates to Road Traffic offences only. It is NOT for submitting footage of Road Traffic Collisions or public order offences, any reports of parking offences should be referred to the relevant highway authority in the locality where it occurred. If you wish to report another matter please refer to the Humberside Police website for guidance. In emergency situations please call 999.