Police Force Admits Lenient Stance on Cyclist Close Passes, Citing "Exceptional Circumstances" for Enforcement

Derbyshire Constabulary has recently confirmed a shift in its policy regarding close pass incidents involving cyclists, stating that only in "exceptional circumstances" will drivers be penalized. This change has led to a dramatic decrease in the number of warning letters issued to motorists, plummeting from an average of 65 per month to just two. The force attributes this to a perceived inability of officers to precisely measure speed and distance from video evidence submitted by the public.

Derbyshire Police's Stricter Enforcement Criteria for Cyclist Close Passes

On a crisp Friday, November 6, 2026, Derbyshire Constabulary publicly acknowledged a significant revision to its policy concerning dangerous overtakes of cyclists. The force declared that, moving forward, action would only be taken against drivers in instances of close passes under "exceptional circumstances." This statement came after criticism that national guidelines were hindering police from addressing such dangerous maneuvers. The department also specified that video evidence submitted through its Derbyshire Capture portal, part of Operation Snap, would only receive a response if a positive outcome was assured.

This policy adjustment stems from an interpretation of guidance from the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC), which some forces understood to require forensic specialists for speed and distance measurements in Operation SNAP videos. However, the Forensic Science Regulator clarified that no such national guidance was issued to prevent action based on submitted evidence. Despite this, Derbyshire Constabulary updated its website on May 28, stating its adherence to national guidance on video evidence analysis for speed and distance, limiting action to exceptional cases.

Daniel Ward, a YouTuber known as TriathlonDan, utilized a Freedom of Information request to uncover these changes. His investigation revealed that while all close pass reports would be reviewed, positive action would be reserved for truly exceptional situations to maintain efficiency and focus on more serious incidents. Data obtained by Ward highlighted the impact of this policy shift: in April, prior to the change, 63 warning letters were dispatched, with 18 passes requiring no further action. By August, this number had dwindled to merely two letters, with no further investigations initiated.

This development mirrors actions taken by other forces, including two Welsh police departments that ceased acting on close pass footage unless precise speed and distance data were supplied. South Wales Police even cited the overwhelming success of Operation SNAP as a reason for their inability to manage the volume of submissions. Conversely, South Yorkshire Police maintains a different approach, with its Force Lead for Active Travel indicating that officers should not conduct forensic analysis but rather triage footage through investigative, non-analytical viewing alongside reporter-provided evidence. An inspector from the Met Police, involved in the NPCC's forensic guidance, noted the disparities across UK forces due to varying resource levels and thresholds for action, expressing a desire for a national, consistent approach.

Derbyshire Constabulary reiterated its commitment to NPCC guidance, which prohibits journeycam practitioners from conducting forensic analysis of footage, including speed and distance measurements. The force assured that every submission to Derbyshire Capture is consistently analyzed by experienced roads policing staff, with positive action taken only when evidential thresholds are met and circumstances are deemed exceptional. They affirmed their ongoing efforts to enhance road safety for vulnerable users within the county.

From a journalist's perspective, this situation highlights a crucial dilemma in modern policing: balancing technological evidence with practical enforcement. While the intent to streamline processes and focus resources on severe incidents is understandable, the drastic reduction in warning letters issued for close passes could inadvertently send a mixed message to motorists. It raises concerns about potential complacency among drivers if they perceive a reduced likelihood of consequences for unsafe overtaking maneuvers. The call for "exceptional circumstances" might be too ambiguous, potentially leading to inconsistencies and a lack of public trust in the enforcement mechanism designed to protect vulnerable road users like cyclists. A clearer, nationally unified standard, as suggested by the Met Police inspector, seems imperative to ensure equitable and effective road safety measures across the UK.