Road traffic officers from Hampshire Police have stopped hundreds of cyclists in the past week in a road safety drive – even though they had done nothing wrong. Earlier this year, the same force told a cyclist it had insufficient resources to take action against a motorist filmed making a close pass on him.
Under its Be Bright Be Seen campaign, Hampshire Police has not only been fining cyclists riding illegally without lights – at least 34 to date – but has also stopped nearly 450 others who were doing nothing wrong to offer them safety advice and distribute high-visibility gear.
According to the Twitter feed of Hampshire Roads Policing, last week in Southampton, 130 riders were stopped, with four fined for having no lights. In Basingstoke, 100 were stopped, with five fined. And in Portsmouth, officers stopped 250 riders, of whom 25 received fines.
We engaged with 250 cyclists in #Portsmouth yesterday, gave out #freebies & issued 25 tickets for riding without lights #BeBrightBeSeen pic.twitter.com/quuSSDwPXR
— Hants Roads Policing (@HantsPolRoads) October 27, 2016
The initiative was strongly criticised by many on social media, however, with Twitter user @BezTweets highlighting a letter received by a cyclist from Hampshire Police earlier this year explaining why the force had not taken action on a video of a close pass that he had submitted to them.

The footage was shot on Bell Street, Whitchurch, by Mike Stead just after 2pm on the afternoon of 18 January, but following an exchange of telephone calls and correspondence with Hampshire Police, he was told that the force had insufficent resources to investigate such cases unless they met the legal definition of ‘dangerous driving,’ and that they “had to prioritise incidents which involve injuries or fatalities.”
Contrasting his experience with the operation the force has launched in recent days, Mr Stead told road.cc: “My experience is that Hants Police have no budget to take road policing seriously.
“Therefore their idea of making cyclists ‘safer’ is to get a few cops out on a commuter run for a few hours, get some trite photos snapped, hand out a few FPN’s, and job done, box ticked.”
He added that he believes there is “No chance of changing the culture where the driver of 1500kg of steel moving at 30+MPH gives a person on a bike mere inches of ‘space’.
“They know they won’t be caught, there won’t be any investigation, and no consequences.
“Therefore people on bikes will continue to be maimed or killed, while cops hand out tickets to the survivors for trivial, beaten-up ‘offences’.”
Speaking about its Be Bright Be Seen campaign last week, Sergeant Rob Heard of Hampshire Police said: “During this week we will be speaking to cyclists and other road users about safe riding and driving tips and about sharing the road together for the safety of all.
“Cycling is a great way to keep fit and healthy, however cyclists are one of our vulnerable road users and when they are involved in a collision the injuries can be serious.
“As the light reduces and visibility diminishes it is always good idea for all road users to be bright and as visible as they can.
“Despite the dangers, some cyclists take the risk of riding without lights, which as well as being illegal, increases their risk of being involved in a collision.
He added: “We hope that this week of action will remind both cyclists and motorists that a little extra consideration of each other will make our roads safer for everyone.”
The force’s approach is a stark contrast however from that adopted by road traffic police in the West Midlands, who in a widely-praised initiative are targeting and prosecuting motorists making close passes on cyclists, deploying plain clothes officers on bikes as well as using footage shot by cyclists.
> West Midlands police target close pass drivers
When the initiative was launched in September, receiving national media attention, West Midlands Police Road Traffic Unit said in a blog post that since cyclists were not to blame in most collisions that resulted in death or serious injury of a rider, “it would be a waste of our time, and thus public time and money to concentrate on cyclist behaviour. The figures speak for themselves … drivers don’t let your prejudices get in the way of the truth…”
On the subject of high-visibility clothing, they said: “Don’t think hi viz clothing will keep you seen, although hi viz has a place in some circumstances such as low light conditions, it is contrast that catches the attention of the driver who might pull out on you, that, and movements the human eye and brain are wired to detect.”
Police in the London Borough of Camden and in North Wales have said that they will follow the approach adopted by their colleagues in the West Midlands, with other forces also studying the initiative.





















60 thoughts on “Police stop 100s of law-abiding cyclists in ‘safety’ drive – after saying they don’t have manpower to investigate close passes”
Institutionally anti-cyclist.
Institutionally anti-cyclist.
And the media will get hold
And the media will get hold of it and it’ll stir up a bunch of cyclist hatred. As does every single article about cyclists in the press.
If they’d have spent the time catching close passers and processing close pass footage, they’d actually have made the world a teeny tiny better place, instead of just a little bit worse.
unconstituted wrote:
They wouldn’t need to process many either. Pick a few, actually enforce the law and send drivers on training courses (at driver’s expense of course) or fine a few, and suddenly the number of people risking a close pass drops as they never know until later if there was a camera filming.
My camera / bike computer setup is quite distinctive and after a few of my clips were used in a local paper’s online edition about bad driving, I saw several cases of an attempted “faily-poor” pass that seemed to get aborted when the red of by bike computer wrap became visible to the driver . . . Wasn’t just once, happened quite a few times. (In one case the passenger window was down and I heard the passenger tell the driver “I think that’s the guy from the paper” )
meanwhile if you stopped the
meanwhile if you stopped the same number of drivers how many would have no tax, no insurance, bald tyres? Beyond belief….
stevio1967 wrote:
On my commute over the past 3 years I’ve seen 4 setups checking insurance etc., each with a short queue of cars (and associated miserable drivers) to be towed away (perhaps to be scrapped), so they definitely do do them to car drivers, too.
DrJDog wrote:
I agree, 1st few days every month I see police at a lay-by checking for MOT / TAX
The rest of the month I wont see a police car unless
This kind of policing is (relativly) cheap and easy
Remember how the Dukes of
Remember how the Dukes of Hazzard would frustrate Boss Hogg and Sheriff Roscoe P. Coltrane by crossing the County line? Sometimes, it seems our county lines are just as inpenetrable. Policy should be nationwide, not open to the interpretation of individual forces.
dafyddp wrote:
Used to be a bit like that around Sherburn in Elmett area on motorbikes. North Yorks police were ok, West were complete dicks and into speed-goading on unmarked bikes, riding quite close and trying to encourage a break away and then the blues would come on. People would never get pulled for doing 80 though, they’d wait until the speed got higher which I found odd. Surely in the name of safety you’d pull people once they broke the speed limit rather than letting them go faster?
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Funnily enough I used to work with a guy who was the son of the ‘head mechanic’ of South Yorks Police…he always maintained that South Yorks police generally thought that the West Yorks police force were a bunch of wankers when it came to traffic enforcement
I really have no time for the
I really have no time for the police these days and if I was literally being stopped for no legal reason I’d be on my way and then on the phone to a mate, who’s a solicitor, if they physically tried to stop me going anywhere.
Meanwhile in Leeds, the Lord Humungus and Wes are burning around in the roads on motorbikes and quads with no immediate action taken.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
They’re entitled to stop you. But not entitled to keep you. They stopped me on the motorbike once for one of these TFL surveys looking into traffic patterns, etc., I was quite aggrieved but looked it up and they were well within their rights to be stopping people, but you could just carry on if you didn’t want to answer questions.
DrJDog wrote:
Police can stop any motor vehicle for any reason using powers under the Road Traffic Act.
Pedal cycle is not a motor vehicle so they would need a reason to stop you based on some othe police power.
Grumpy17 wrote:
Guess it’ll be be PACE then unless something else applies to bicycles..
unconstituted wrote:
They actually have no power to stop you on a pedal cycle if you are obeying the law. They can ask you to stop if they feel like it, but you don’t have to stop for them if you don’t feel like it either.
We are not living in a police state thankfully.
It seems that the police have
It seems that the police have become hamstrung by a focus on a technical version of “fairness”, in which if one week they stop car drivers then the next week they must stop cyclists, then the next motorbikers, and finally lorry drivers to round out the month. Even if cyclists are responsible for a tiny fraction of the number of incidents. Much like the media, which feels if they get one respected atmospheric scientist in for interview then they must also get one nutball climate change denier, and if they report what Hillary Clinton says as a debatable but rational policy position then they must report what Donald Trump says likewise, even if it is very easily proven to be utter horseshit.
No legal requirement to stop
No legal requirement to stop in these circumstances if you’re a law-abiding cyclist.
Just ride on by.
Reserve some ire for the
Reserve some ire for the muppets who have made this an issue that the Police, for whatever misguided reason, have decided to waste their resources on addressing.
Get some lights and put on some appropriate clothing. Jeez, it’s not rocket science.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Sorry but I don’t do appropriate clothing. Lights, yes.
There is no legal requirement. People cycling have no obligation to wear hi-vis.
My view is that if a driver can’t see me on a bike, they shouldn’t be operating such machinery
And – yes I’ve been told after asking a police van driver about the behaviour of a deliberately aggrssive close passing vehicle. The first response – ‘you really should be wearing a helmet and hi-vis’
Your comment veers a bit too close to victim-blaming for me…which is what the police doing.
From West Midlands Police to use cycling officer to target close-passing motorists road.cc
– Tips for cyclists
The third point relates to hi-vis clothing. “Don’t think hi viz clothing will keep you seen, although hi viz has a place in some circumstances such as low light conditions, it is contrast that catches the attention of the driver who might pull out on you, that, and movements the human eye and brain are wired to detect.”
emishi55 wrote:
Sorry but I don’t do appropriate clothing. Lights, yes.
There is no legal requirement. People cycling have no obligation to wear hi-vis.
My view is that if a driver can’t see me on a bike, they shouldn’t be operating such machinery
And – yes I’ve been told after asking a police van driver about the behaviour of a deliberately aggrssive close passing vehicle. The first response – ‘you really should be wearing a helmet and hi-vis’
Your comment veers a bit too close to victim-blaming for me…which is what the police doing.
From West Midlands Police to use cycling officer to target close-passing motorists road.cc
– Tips for cyclists
The third point relates to hi-vis clothing. “Don’t think hi viz clothing will keep you seen, although hi viz has a place in some circumstances such as low light conditions, it is contrast that catches the attention of the driver who might pull out on you, that, and movements the human eye and brain are wired to detect.”
— Mungecrundle
That is one of the most stupid posts I’ve ever read on here…
PaulBox wrote:
For me, that would be your post itself. Of course pushing high-viz is a kind of victim-blaming. Worse thing about it is it even happens for pedestrians.
I might occasionally use it if I’m left with no choice but to cycle on really badly designed roads full of crap drivers. Just as I know women who deliberately dress-down in baggy shapeless outfits in an attempt to avoid harassment. its an individual’s choice, but promoting it as if its an obligation or morally-wrong to not use it is a morally reprehensible thing to do.
The most striking difference
The most striking difference between this and the West Midlands Police, is that while West Midlands are basing their policy on an analysis evidence, Hampshire are using blind ignorance. Too much public money is wasted on un-evidenced nonsense and prejudiced, this should stop.
“We hope that this week of
“We hope that this week of action clearly demonstrates that we really couldn’t care less. People just don’t like cyclists, you know.”
Quote:
Quote:
“He added: “We hope that this week of action will remind both cyclists and motorists that a little extra consideration of each other will make our roads safer for everyone.””
So how many motorists did they stop as part of this campaign? Just asking!
Something smelling of fish
Something smelling of fish here…
Why are they giving lights or hi viz out and fining people. It’s either an awareness campaign in which they are increasing safety (best to give the lights to those with none), or it’s punishment.
The stupidest outcome is to use the fines for those without lights to pay for more lights or hi viz to those that do!
they were issuing lights to
they were issuing lights to those without so they could get home. Also issues with £50 FPN that would not be actioned if they could provide proof of a set of lights being bought within 28 days of FPN being issued. Presume temp lights had to be returned at same time?
alansmurphy wrote:
How about we (society/police) fine those with lights to pay for lights for those without
I had the immense pleasure of
I had the immense pleasure of tapping on the window of a police car outside Liverpool Street station on Monday night. Personally, I was ablaze with lights, as is my wont, but the police car wasn’t. Little victories!
:o)
nniff wrote:
Wow. Did they respond well?
I’ve seen police vehicles drive into ASLs on red, but never dared mention it to them for fear they wouldn’t take it well.
Does s.163 (2) of the 1988
Does s.163 (2) of the 1988 Road Traffic Act still apply? That does state you must stop ‘on being required to do so by a constable in uniform’ and now also ‘or a traffic officer’ as added by the 2004 Traffic Management Act which appears to cover Highways Agency employees.
muhasib wrote:
Yes
JUST looked it up 163 (1) covers mechanically propelled vehicles 163 (2) covers cycles. pedestrians and horses would appear to be free to ignore police.
wycombewheeler wrote:
This would only cover situations where they need to stop traffic because of an accident or some obstruction or danger or for traffic control purposes.
The legislation doesn’t mean they can stop anyone they like for no valid reason and subject them to a lecture or cross examination about the roadworthiness of their bicycle.Obviously you should stop but they can’t then keep you from immediately getting on your way again.
As DrJDog correctly stated earlier…
Grumpy17 wrote:
This would only cover situations where they need to stop traffic because of an accident or some obstruction or danger or for traffic control purposes.— muhasib
I don’t see anything in 163 (2) that suggests that, link ?
Edit : Although the Act does state “A person riding a cycle on a road” (em added)
Grumpy17 wrote:
This would only cover situations where they need to stop traffic because of an accident or some obstruction or danger or for traffic control purposes.
The legislation doesn’t mean they can stop anyone they like for no valid reason and subject them to a lecture or cross examination about the roadworthiness of their bicycle.Obviously you should stop but they can’t then keep you from immediately getting on your way again.
As DrJDog correctly stated earlier…
— muhasib
Agree with that, some other posts ere giving the impression you could just cruise past and not stop at all. Stop, then if no actual offence then go.
Could be worse, the Norfolk
Could be worse, the Norfolk PCCs response to a rise in cyclist deaths on the roads, is to demand a new helmet compulsion law !?
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politics/rise_in_cyclists_killed_and_seriously_injured_on_norfolk_s_roads_sparks_helmet_law_call_1_4758938
It’s a load of victim-blaming
It’s a load of victim-blaming nonsense and will do nothing for safety. They do it because it’s the lazy option, I imagine: people on bikes can’t go as fast as cars, so they’re easier to stop, and the police need less space to stock the cyclists they’ve stopped.
Surrey Police also useless at
Surrey Police also useless at prosecuting. Decided that close pass, squeeze and then nudge of my front wheel wasn’t grounds for a conviction depite high resolution video evidence. Have a look at;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4fLYhcF_2Q&feature=youtu.be
Well, you know “people don’t
Well, you know “people don’t like cyclists” so this should come as no surprise.
In a lifetime of cycling the
In a lifetime of cycling the worst incidents I’ve experienced have been deliberate acts.
Hi Viz just serves to make you a more visible target.
The problem as we know is ignorance and bigotry.
So despite all the logical reasons to increase non motorised traffic most people including the police(who are also a bit thick ime) judiciary, councillors, cps etc love their cars and see anyone on a bike as a nuisance.
Strong leadership is needed but we keeping voting for tories who are sponsored by car manufacturers, financiers, insurers, oil suppliers, road haulage firms etc so it wont happen.
Best hope was EU legislation but thats unlikely now.
IanW1968 wrote:
I’m sure london cyclists are rejoicing that Khan has taken over from Johnson.
Also councils of all colours have a poor record on implementing cycle provision. Mainly from fear of losing votes from the moton masses.
Why is this always turned into a party political issue, when it simply isn’t.
wycombewheeler wrote:
it is because the drive has to come from the top, they set the laws, they set the parameters and they set the cash available.
I think the actions of the
I think the actions of the police are a bit questionable, but only in so far as they were stopping people who had done nothing wrong.
It does my head in when I come accross cyclists who don’t have lights on, both on cycle paths and on roads, because they are not only a danger to themselves they are a danger to me and other cyclists/pedestrians/road users. Cyclists like them give the rest of us a bad name.
On the flip side…. 1 in 10 people being issued with FPN’s in Portsmouth, thats a pretty large percentage of cyclists disregarding the laws. What do you think as a group cyclists would say if 1 in 10 car drivers were driving without lights? Or 1 in 10 drivers were driving whilst on their mobile phones? we would be outraged. Just saying
craigstitt wrote:
It was 10% of the ones they stopped. We don’t know how many they didn’t stop.
craigstitt wrote:
Only in the tiny minds of those who assign collective responsibility for the behaviour of an individual to others using the same mode of transport. When you drive do you shoulder the blame for others’ bad driving?
We should be, because they do.
Around 216,000 of London’s 3.9 million drivers are on the road without insurance. That’s a high level of criminality among people operating potentially lethal machinery in public spaces. The lack of insurance also suggests a tendency toward other law breaking activities such as illegal vehicles, unpaid VED, driving under the influence of drink/drugs, etc.
congokid wrote:
Perhas this problem could be a dressed by making them carry some sort of identification plate. :p
I have very little time for
I have very little time for Hampshire constabulary. I’ve reported two seperate cases of harrasment by particular motorists, with video footage, and they couldn’t be bothered. I’ve since had to change my commuting route to country roads, as I do not feel safe on the main roads and got sick of the abuse everyday.
I would welcome to police to pull me over, and have a “discussion” about road safety.
Wonder if they’re handing out
Wonder if they’re handing out long dresses to women in min skirts too.
Walking through leafy
Walking through leafy Leamington town on Tuesday night… deliveroo bikes everywhere, maybe half of them had no front light. Some no lights, some just a rear one. Helmets from all walks of life.
As a driver, it annoys me, there is no doubt it’s hard to see cyclists in low light or in the dark, as a cyclist I believe it’s down to us to edumacate our tribe. However saying that I don’t believe that ‘deliveroo’ cyclists are of our tribe. They are mostly maruaders passing through, here to give us a bad name, probably get us some uncomfortable laws or restrictions in place and then move on to driving once Uni’s over.
peted76 wrote:
I don’t believe there _is_ a ‘tribe’. Just random people who happen to be using a bike at any particular moment.
As an internet poster, do you feel obliged to educate everyone who decides to post on the internet on any site for any purpose, lest they give you a bad name?
Will they start stopping
Will they start stopping motorists with headlights out? I believe this is also illegal (correct me if I am wrong).
I see at least one to five per day with either a head or tail light out.
Hmm. Still not sure if I have
Hmm. Still not sure if I have to stop if the police wave me down when I’m on the bike, if I know I’m not doing anything wrong.
unconstituted wrote:
If you’re on the road, yes you do have to stop otherwise you are committing an offence.
fukawitribe wrote:
Balls
fukawitribe wrote:
You have to stop but it does not say you have to stay stopped or humour them with polite conversation. The legislation was not made so that the police could stop and detain anybody they like on a bike. The spirit of it is so that they can exercise control of traffic on the roads, not interfere with people’s civil liberties.
Grumpy17 wrote:
I highly doubt it’s that binary or that ‘spirit’ had much to do with it’s inception.
Hants police are a disgrace
Hants police are a disgrace but with a quote from WMP on here lets see what a good police force does
CMPG – Road Policing @Trafficwmp
7m
#OpClosePass results today,14 drivers given immediate educational input, 3 reported for due care, 4 phone offences 10 other #fatal4 offences
As this particular police
As this particular police force is obviously understaffed and reeling from budget cuts it may become more necessary for concerned citizens to help them out by tackling the problems of illegal parking on the pavement. Something like this Russian model perhaps?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO1t8RxgiMc
the police letter clearly
the police letter clearly says that they did not pursue the video footage because it was very obvious that nothing happened to the cyclist who became hysterical at a car giving him only a metre instead of two…
the letter was clearly a polite way of telling him to toughen up and stop whining, go do something more useful with your camera like filming two dogs shagging and post that on youtube!
beezus fufoon wrote:
Oh I see: so the police only do anything if something actually happened? Doesn’t bode well for any proposed close-pass legislation, does it. Does that apply to other road traffic offences? Speeding? Well, they didn’t hit anyone so that’s fine. Mobile phone use? Ditto.
brooksby wrote:
well, in my experience with riding on English roads (mainly due to the lack of space and the poor judgement of many road users – drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians – rather than any malice), this happens quite frequently and it would defeat the object for me to ride a bike in the first place…
what would it look like if I had to stop every 5 minutes to shake my fist at a driver, blow my top, call the old bill and fill out a complaint form? It would turn a 60 minute ride into a full day’s work…
on top of that, as SuperPython59 points out – what do you expect from the police anyway?
I certainly would not wish to go to court 10 to 20 times to argue over half a metre, just from a 60 minute ride!
beezus fufoon wrote:
I wasn’t hysterical. I was angry that had I not moved aside at the last second, the driver would have wiped me out at 30MPH. I have a wife and three kids.
This is a polite way of telling you that your attitude to vulnerable road users is utter shite. Delete your account.