Graphic by Lukasz Marek Sielski

In my book reviews, I often urge supporters of Road Danger Reduction to read the book I comment on. This book is one which should not only be bought but used as a campaigning tool for engagement with your local “road safety” professionals and/or your UK Police Service. It’s nominally about a niche area of activity – 3^rd party reporting – but the reaction to it tells you a very great deal about driver law-breaking and how we can challenge it.

That’s the key issue here. While the way in which liaison with your local Police can help in cutting specific types of road danger (close passing of cyclists, phone use and in the future speeding) varies, what really counts for me is the massive and hysterical reaction from driver bigots to those involved with 3^rd party reporting.

I’ll be concentrating on these and other issues arising from 3^rd party reporting, rather than just describing Sielski’s history of the practice in the UK.

What is Third Party Reporting?

We have been reporting on this site about 3^rd party reporting for some time, e.g. this report and a minor criticism of this important book is that there is no reference to us. Basically it is nothing more than reporting law-breaking to the Police. You are likely to have been told by schoolteachers or childhood authority figures that if you witness a crime, you should report it to the Police.

That’s it.

Except of course, when it comes to driving, it’s different. Despite the fact that the forms of law-breaking being discussed are known to significantly increase a driver’s chances of hurting or killing one of their fellow road users, driver privilege and entitlement is massively entrenched. Accordingly the (tiny) prospect of being caught and receiving a minor penalty has led to hysterical reaction from bigoted drivers who won’t accept responsibility for their actions. Cue mass bloviating in the media from aforesaid bigots.

Among the wailing and gnashing of teeth from those whose driver privilege has been (ever so slightly) questioned have been two cries: 3^rd party is “informing” akin to that of secret police networks in dictatorships, and that it comes from cyclists. Let’s look at the bigots’ tropes here.

Choose your childish insult.

Snitch. Grass. Squealer. Rat. (p.17) Originally prison slang, now better known from a Guy Ritchie film (incidentally, Mr Ritchie received some additional publicity from being caught by 3^rd party reporter Cycling Mikey), otherwise non-criminal types like using these words to describe someone who may notify the Police of illegal driving threatening members of the public. So that such drivers will suffer from being “grassed up”/ “ratted out” / “snitched on” to the extent that they may get a small fine and penalty points. Or a short education course if they don’t want to pay. It’s not really James Cagney being dragged to the electric chair because of a gang member who “ratted him out”, but bigoted drivers do like to use these words.

(An aside: one word getting a lot of use is “nonce”, a slang term used in Britain for alleged or convicted sex offenders, especially ones involving children. Sielski refers to it commonly being used against 3^rd party reporters. It has been used on social media against the estimable Jeremy Vine who, happily successfully, sued for libel.)

So what is the fuss about informing all about?

As Sielski explains, the origin of 3^rd party reporting lies in the seventh Peelian Principle, which states (and it’s worth reading the whole description):

To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

The part of this that most are familiar with is the phrase: “the police are the public and that the public are the police”. It is central to the key idea behind the objective of Peel’s principles, that of policing by consent. I’ll come back to this later.

What I want to mention here is something less well commented on, namely these four words: “… incumbent (my emphasis) on every citizen…”. Put bluntly, this means that reporting to the police is not only something which is permitted, but which citizens ought to do.

Sielski correctly refers 3^rd party reporting to Peel’s principles as a reason why it has taken off in the UK in a way which would not have been possible in countries with other policing principles.

Choose your misnomer.

Sielski points out the way the media distortion of 3^rd party reporters uses the word “vigilante” – entirely inappropriately. Reporters are not “taking the law into their own hands” or trying to enforce it (do check the dictionary), they’re just acting as witnesses. If they had been acting as the victims of road danger with revenge in their hearts, such “vigilantes” would have caused a lot more pain to law-breaking drivers than actions resulting in small fines and a few penalty points.

Choose your minority group to persecute.

As Sielski says in the book, cycling is not his primary interest. 3^rd party reporting can be done with any kind of “travel cam”, and in most police services about half of reports come from car or van dashcams. Yet the people who have become noted by the media for 3^rd party reporting – Jeremy Vine and “Cycling Mikey” – have been cyclists, and driver bigots have added violent prejudice against cyclists to their affront at being (potentially) caught out in their law-breaking.

And it is indeed a violent prejudice. On pages 18–21 we get a snapshot of the dangers faced by cyclists – and pedestrians – as we move about, with the leniency of “punishment” for those responsible for hurting or killing others. But it goes further than that.

With some 2.3 million insurance claims a year settled, more made, and the proportion of drivers who break laws on speed, never mind everyday careless driving, it appears that driving is inherently dangerous to other road users. Indeed, the “road safety” industry has been building highways (with crash barriers, removal of roads side trees, anti-skid treatments, long sight lines etc.) and cars (with seat belts, airbags, crumple zones, Side Impact Protection Systems, collapsible steering wheels etc.) on the basis that drivers will crash their vehicles. I won’t go into how that accommodation of driver rule- and law-breaking exacerbates the problem now, just note the inherent danger to others of normal driving.

The point is that driving requires persistent and continual attention to carry out the duty to drive properly. I like to refer to the wording of the most common driving offence (under Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988) of “driving without due care and attention”. The point is that a level of care and attention is due. Drivers may claim that that crashing is “easily done” – in which case, a commitment to be positively avoiding danger to other road users is required. On top of this, driver education often mentions the need to “expect the unexpected”. All this points towards the need for a civilised society to oppose negative attitudes towards people walking or cycling: the consequences of these views or attitudes can be literally life or death for complete strangers.

Now, of course, cyclists or pedestrians are not members of groups with “protected characteristics” – by gender, ethnic minority, faith, disability or sexuality. They are members of self-selected groups (although one can argue that getting about is necessary for everybody, and that those forms of transport with fewer negative effects on public health and the local and global environments should have priority). The point is that neither is driving – although the pandering to a real or imagined motorist lobby by many politicians is all too real.

That’s the context for stating that the prejudice and bigotry displayed towards cyclists and others is actively dangerous to the health and safety of other road users, in a way which more common prejudices against minority groups will generally not be. In the Road Danger Reduction movement we see that as being central and critical: whataboutery about actual or alleged misbehaviour by people walking or cycling is just that – diversionary whataboutery.

Choose to be a bigot.

While prejudice around cars is commonplace – below is a display of various terms that are being used to analyse it – it is still a choice.

Anybody who can make it to becoming a tabloid journalist should be aware of basic history or the law. So when Liddle states that “Cars were there before cyclists” – er, no. You may need to present the bigots with the facts (when I was three years old there were more miles travelled by bicycle than by car, let alone journeys, in the UK), but what’s noticeable is the ease with which a sentient human being can slip into idiocy. Similarly the vile Clarkson stating “Roads. Are. For. Cars.” (Note the use of those full stops!) could do with an education about, how, as the book says: “Roads were not built for cars”.  And the view stated (but not enough) by police officers and others that all road users have a right to be on the road.  But that’s not the point. The point is the danger of wilful bigotry.

The History

How did it begin?

Sielski details the history of 3^rd party reporting: How we have the technology through various iterations of video cameras, and then the people who started using them like David Brennan (Magnatom) and several others (pp.42-43). Then there’s the legendary Cycling Mikey, a key contributor to our 30^th anniversary webinar , see him here on video at 49.51 minutes. Their activities were notable for attracting vile abuse from some journalists – abuse which, as I pointed out above, can actually have dangerous consequences for others.

Ant then along came Jeremy Vine. Check out pages 70–96 for the story of how the affable broadcaster became a celebrity cyclist. For me, the point is precisely not that he is some sort of attention-seeker with a special cause to promote. Basically, I see him as someone who is just trying to get to work using what would be seen in many European countries as a normal form of transport, and which was commonplace for commuting in the UK not many decades ago. He has noted that on more occasions than one should expect, his safety is compromised by illegal behaviour by other road users. So he reports it to the police and mentions it on his media outlets.

That’s it, really.

As he says: “I think the main way to get greater safety is through enforcement, but I’m not worried about the police workload because I think we’re saving them work, actually… when we prevent a person from killing somebody further down the line”. (p.89).

We like Jeremy.

The police…

All this requires positive and user-friendly responses from the UK’s 26 police services. We’re pleased that Road Danger Reduction Forum has organised training seminars such as this and summaries of the state of play on 3^rd party reporting and the associated enforcement of close passing of cyclists, with the publicity from police social media accounts. Here we get summaries of how different police services have operated, with references to our RDRF friends (now Detective Chief Superintendent) Andy Cox and former traffic PC Mark Hodson. (pp.97–115)

Here’s Andy Cox: “In any other crime – sexual assault, burglary, violence – we ask the public to come forward with information. The fact we weren’t doing that for road crime was wrong”. (p.115)

An aside: If I’m referencing the work that RDRF has done in this area, it’s not a criticism of this book that we don’t get mentioned. There have been a number of channels through which the messages about 3^rd party reporting and close pass policing have been mentioned, including the weekly webinar Active Travel Café and the national cyclists’ organisation Cycling UK. This book gives a detailed history in one place – one of the reasons you should buy it.

…and the justice system.

There’s a nice chapter here (p.117–129), although the “weapon of choice” trope (p.127) should be avoided – the whole point about road crime is that in the vast majority of cases, we’re concerned about types of negligence, carelessness or recklessness. They don’t have the high levels of intentionality required for deliberate murder: that doesn’t mean that sanctions such as (shorter) prison sentences and above all licence withdrawal shouldn’t be employed.

So where do we go now?

There’s a need for uniform approaches to be taken by police forces across the UK – at present the responses (including feedback to submitters) are highly variable. Hopefully work carried out by DCS Cox with the National Police Chief Council (NPCC) Road Crime Reporting Working Group will result in progress. Our friends at Action Vision Zero  https://actionvisionzero.org/  assist actual or potential 3^rd party reporters: see Paragraph 4 here https://actionvisionzero.org/action-vision-zero-roads-policing-campaign/ .(Also the report here https://actionvisionzero.org/2024/08/01/reporting-road-crime-police-hear-from-cycling-campaigners/ ).

A question of culture

For me the key issue has been about the reaction to 3^rd party reporters as discussed at the beginning of this post: it reveals the extent of fragility and panic amongst people who are just not prepared to accept responsibility when driving. It’s a deep-seated ideology which tends not to be discussed, let alone questioned. In this case it’s a panic about potential “punishment” which isn’t much of a punishment, but which might deter possible law-breakers from endangering other road users more than they already do. But it crops up throughout any discussion about transport policy or danger on the road, and it needs to be tackled.

One area where campaigners (I’m not happy about the word – I don’t see why people who would like some laws enforced should be seen as such) could get involved is with their local Road Safety Partnerships and with Council Road Safety Officers. There is already a history of community involvement with Community Roadwatch (formerly Community Speedwatch), and this should be part of that kind of work.

In fact, if Road Safety Officers were genuinely committed to reducing danger at source, it’s the kind of work they should welcome being involved with. Yet, although a former RSO (Teresa Healy) was involved in setting up Operation Snap, there doesn’t seem to be active promotion of 3^rd party reporting by RSOs.

As followers of www.rdrf.org.uk and @CHAIRRDRF know, I am critical of much of what passes for “road safety” culture. I noted this above the dedication at the beginning with some (clumsy) green highlighting:

The fact is that for highway engineers in the official “road safety” community, the correct response will indeed include felling the tree. (See the discussion here and also here).

What we’re up against is a culture of accomodating driver rule- and law-breaking which is embedded among all too many “road safety” professionals. That doesn’t mean that none will be interested in supporting initiatives like 3^rd party reporting (many are), and that you shouldn’t approach them.

So if you’re interested, why not approach your local RSO and ask for assistance with publicity (a key element of the success of 3^rd party reporting is that drivers are aware that they may be caught when breaking the law)? And do let us, Action Vision Zero and others know what response you get.

Ultimately, it’s a question of whether driving carelessly or dangerously is socially acceptable. The story of the pioneers described in this important book is a story of people for whom it is not. The bigoted reaction to them is an indicator of an area where our society remains uncivilised.

And as for that reaction? Let’s end with Sielski giving us a quote from Victor Hugo:

“Do you have enemies? That’s simply the fate of anyone who has done anything worthwhile or launched any new idea. It’s a necessary fog that clings to anything that shines. Fame must have enemies, as light must have gnats. Don’t worry about it; just have contempt. Keep your mid serene as you keep your life clear”.

Dr Robert Davis, Chair RDRF.

“Record; Retreat; Report” by Lukasz Marek Sielski. For more information on the book go to www.phonekills.com or www.sielay.com