Police Failure – an update

If you’ve not read the first Police Failure post, you really should go read that first, as it provides all the background for what follows here.

Since that incident, I raised a formal complaint about the manner in which police conducted themselves. Here’s the utterly bizarre part: when you make a formal complaint about police, the complaint is first reviewed by Professional Standards. If they consider it not serious enough for a totally independent investigation (and that would be the case with the vast majority of complaints) they will pass your complain to the very same cops you complained about. The expectation is for those cops to then investigate themselves, effectively marking their own homework. I am not aware of ANY other  setup where such a blatant conflict of interest is not only tolerated, but performed as bog-standard practice.

I had a response from the Section Supervisor at the Devon & Cornwall Police’s Op Snap team, and in line with what I wrote before, he simply tried to paper over the cracks, and deny any wrongdoing. Well, he did apologise for a poorly worded few sentences, but that’s it. Beyond that, he claimed they made no mistakes, and that he and his team were completely impeccable, at all times. Let’s examine that, shall we? Stand by for a huge dosage of victim-blaming from police – his reply is below, with bold highlights done by me:

“I am sending this as a response to your Complaint Ref <redacted>.

I aim to address the points you have raised in your complaint and respond to the preferred outcomes you subsequently submitted by email.

The salient points to note are:

You submitted a video clip and witness statement to Op Snap on 01/07/2026. In your witness statement you allege that a motor vehicle made a close pass whilst overtaking you on Glen Road.
On 07/07/2026 Op Snap sent you an email stating that the submission would not be progressed any further. There was also comment about your position on the road.
On 07/07/2026 you responded stating that Op Snap were fundamentally mistaken in the email response. Further that you had emailed Adrian Leisk (Head of Road Safety) and that you wished to formally complain.
On 07/07/2026 I responded to you regarding your wish to complain. I gave you the email address for Professional Standards to enable you to submit your complaint.
On 07/07/2026 you responded asking a number of questions.
On 07/07/2026 I responded to you stating that, as you had raised a formal complaint, I felt it inappropriate for me to answer informally.
On 07/07/2026 you responded requesting that the decision to not proceed with the offence be reversed.
On 08/07/2026 I responded stating that the decision would not be reversed and that, as there was an active complaint, I would not enter into any further correspondence regarding the submission or the wider Op Snap questions you had asked.
On 23/07/2026 I was tasked to deal with your complaint.
On 23/07/2026 I sent you an initial contact letter stating my understanding of your complaint and requesting you comment on your preferred outcome or resolution.
On 04/08/2026 you responded confirming your complaint and setting out 5 preferred outcomes.

Firstly, regarding your submission. The submitted footage is captured on a helmet mounted camera. The camera is therefore subject to the movements of your head. In the footage, you appear to be positioned slightly to the left of the central part of your lane. The footage is 1 min 14 sec in duration. There is at least one vehicle ahead of you travelling in the same direction and 11 approach on the other side of the road.

At approximately 45 seconds into the footage, once the traffic in the opposite lane had passed, a Mazda 5 is seen to overtake you. The vehicle is straddling the central lane markings with the left-hand wheels in the same lane as you. As the vehicle overtakes, you briefly move your head very slightly to the right and then return to looking directly ahead.
At approximately 48 seconds into the footage, once the traffic in the opposite lane had passed, an Audi is seen to overtake you. Immediately prior to the vehicle being in sight, you turn your head almost fully to the right thus changing the viewpoint of the camera. It is possible that the turn of the head is a reaction to the sound of the vehicle or what was being said or shouted by the driver of the Audi. This change of perspective of the camera viewpoint makes it difficult to judge the passing distance in comparison to the Mazda before it. However, the Audi driver is certainly further into your lane with the left-hand wheels further to the left of the central lane markings. The driver can be seen to be pointing his finger across to the left of you. Once past, there appears to be a shout of ‘camera’ from you. During the overtake, you do not appear to have altered your path or speed.

You may be aware that Highway Code rule 163 states drivers should (when overtaking)

As a guide:
leave at least 1.5 metres when overtaking cyclists at speeds of up to 30mph, and give them more space when overtaking at higher speeds.

The important words here are ‘should’ and ‘guide’. Any ‘should’ rule within the Highway Code is not backed up by legislation making it a specific offence not to follow it. Additionally, you may also be aware of guidance that distance and speed, for evidential purposes, can only be measured by someone who is forensically qualified and that therefore staff should not make a judgment of distance (or speed). We have therefore adopted a position that proximity, unless very clearly close, is a starting point for consideration of prosecution, but is not an end in itself. To prosecute a driver, we would be looking for further compounding factors alongside the distance (for example, oncoming traffic, proximity to traffic island, junction, high speed etc).

Due to the change in viewpoint of your camera as the Audi passes making proximity difficult to gauge, along with no compounding factors, formed our decision not to process your submission. You will be aware that, when making submissions, you agree to leaving the question of prosecution or other disposal in the hands of the Police. This is explicitly stated in the submission form.

Regarding your complaints about the information contained within the response email sent by Op Snap on 07/07/2026.

I completely accept that the wording used could have been better and for that I apologise. However, some of the points made in the response were valid. You may be aware that Highway Code rule 72 states (regarding cyclist positioning on a road):

Ride in the centre of your lane, to make yourself as clearly visible as possible, in the following situations:
On quiet roads or streets – if a faster vehicle comes up behind you, move to the left to enable them to overtake, if you can do so safely
In slower-moving traffic – when the traffic around you starts to flow more freely, move over to the left if you can do so safely so that faster vehicles behind you can overtake
At the approach to junctions or road narrowings where it would be unsafe for drivers to overtake you

Glen Road is not a quiet road – in your short clip there are an additional 12 vehicles not including the two that overtake you. There was no road narrowing or junction necessitating taking the ‘primary’ position. You stated, in your witness statement, that you were riding in the middle of the lane ‘as per DfT advice’. The Department for Transport publishes the Highway Code which, as referenced above, gives specific occasions when to ride in the centre of the lane. None of those occasions were present in the footage you submitted. We were incorrect to interpret your witness statement as suggesting you were putting yourself in charge of traffic control and, for that, I apologise. In your response, also on the 07/07/2026 you have suggested we have engaged in ‘victim-blaming’. I would point out that submissions to Op Snap are those of a witness to an alleged road traffic offence rather than as a victim of a crime. If you feel you are a victim, you should report that crime to the Police on either 101 or, in an emergency, 999. Op Snap is not able to deal with crime.

Regarding your wider questions posed again on 07/07/2026:

Adrian Leisk is Head of Road Safety
The wider Road Safety Team receives training from Road Safety Support. This covers a wide range of road safety topics. In addition, the Op Snap team consists of 4 ex-Police officers with a combined 82 years’ experience and 2 Police staff who have never served, but have been with the Road Safety Team for 6 years. Their collective experience and understanding of the requirements of evidential standards for a successful prosecution is impressive.
There were no lies in the response to you. As above, the DfT advice/Highway Code are clear on occasions where the primary position is appropriate. As supervisor I set and expect high standards from my team. I am therefore happy to apologise for the assumption that was made that you were putting yourself in charge of traffic control.
The reference you have given regarding cycling in the mid-lane position is entirely valid. It mirrors that referenced in the Highway Code.
As referenced above, distance can only be accepted when measured by an appropriately qualified person. Neither you or any of my staff are qualified to make any such measurement.

Regarding your reasonable, preferred outcomes:

I expect acknowledgement that Op Snap made a series of serious mistakes, and I need commitment towards addressing such failings. No mistakes were made with the processing of the alleged offence. Reasons have been stated above. I do however accept that the email response was not well worded and I offer my apology for that.
2) I expect a full apology, made in person, in front of the Op Snap team. No mistakes were made with the processing of the submission. I have apologised for the wording of the response. An ‘in person’ apology does not seem to be justified or proportionate for a poorly worded email.
3) I expect Op Snap to re-engage with the group of cyclists and horse riders you used to regularly meet with. I am not against this as an ongoing proposal. However, the Op Snap team does consist of two cyclists, a previous horse owner/rider and two motorcyclists.
4) I expect fresh training to be urgently delivered to the entire Op Snap team, as the team – yourself included – have shown remarkable lack of knowledge, and in cases, blatant ignorance of facts, and the law. I have shown above that there was sound reasoning and judgment around the decision not to process the submission. Indeed, the combined experience of the team means that they have a thorough knowledge of the law. When convenient, continuation training will be delivered by Road Safety Support.
5) I expect Op Snap to involve the group of cyclists and horse riders in that training. As stated above, those groups are already represented within the current Op Snap team. Additionally, if we were to involve cyclists and horse riders, for balance, and to prevent accusations of bias, we would also have to involve pedestrians, motorcyclists and drivers. Training by Road Safety Support staff is the preferred method of training delivery.

I hope that you consider the above to be a suitable response/resolution to your concerns.

Kind Regards”

And there you have it! The Section Supervisor is adamant they made no mistakes, that )according to them) I was a witness, not a victim, and therefore they feel it’s impossible to victim-blame. He contradicts himself, referring to Highway Code advice for when cycling on quiet roads, then acknowledges that Glen Road is not a quiet road. He doubles down that there were no lies in their original response, despite that response clearly claiming “You have stated that you have chosen to ride in the centre of the lane “to try and discourage unsafe close passes. This would suggest that you are putting yourself in charge of traffic control. This is a practice that is not encouraged and could potentially put you and other road users at risk.” Riding in primary position, in the centre of the lane, absolutely IS encouraged, including on D&C Police’s own website, yet the intrepid Section Supervisor insists there were no lies.

I am extremely concerned about several points he raised, starting with the fact he appears to say proximity of an overtake by itself isn’t enough of a factor for them to act. He also stated none of the Op Snap team are able to judge distance. Here’s the thing: almost all adults are able to judge distance. Close-passing drivers are prosecuted under Section 3 or the Road Traffic Act, for driving without due care and attention towards other road users. The law considers “inappropriately close” to meet Section3, and it does not require down-to-the-millimetre measurements. Because I’m an old hand with making Op Snap reports, I include a bunch of information, such as the road width, the car’s width, and more. You can read my original report in the first Police Failure post, and you are more than welcome to double-check my maths. I remain satisfied it more than meets the requirements of Section3.

Obviously, I’m not accepting a nonpology, more victim-blaming, and doubling-down on lying, and responded as such. My reply is below.

“Dear <redacted>,