- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Metropolitan Police New Scotland Yard.jpgLondon police stopping cyclists without helmets in "advice & education" exercise
Met Police stopping unhelmetted cyclists to provide “advice and education”
As part of Road Safety Week, the Metropolitan Police is stopping cyclists and lorry drivers in three locations in central, east and south London to offer “education and advice” to cyclists who are seen riding dangerously. Conrtoversially, the police are also stopping cyctlists who are not wearing helmets.
A spokesman for Scotland Yard told road.cc that cyclists were being stopped “where there are concerns about their behaviour - for instance cutting corners, performing other dangerous manoeuvres or wearing headphones while riding.”
He also acknowledged that officers were stopping riders who were not wearing helmets. While there is no legal requirement to wear a helmet while riding a bicycle in the UK, the spokesman said: “If you want to be safe it’s a very good idea to put one on.” That’s an opinion that some in the cycling community might perhaps take issue with.
London Assembly member Jenny Jones told road.cc she had contacted the Met and a superintendent had agreed that helmets and high vis are not required by law.
Baroness Jones said: "The Met’s ‘advice’ on cyclists wearing a helmet and high vis is not based on any scientific research. As an informed cyclist I ride my bike without either. Their efforts would be better focussed on enforcing the laws we have, for example on not driving vehicles while using a mobile, not driving a vehicle into ASLs when the lights are red, which would make our roads much safer.
"Clearing our roads of illegal and dangerous drivers has to be the priority, not hassling cyclists who are obeying the law."
Scotland Yard said that the intention was not enforcement and when asked if, for example, a cyclist riding through a red light would be issued a fixed penalty notice, said that no fixed penalty notices had been issued to cyclists. “It’s about advice and education rather than cracking down,” said the spokesman.
A total of 45 officers are involved in the operation, and police are also stopping lorry drivers. Their vehicles have been checked for any issues and in one instance a lorry was found to have a dangerously over-inflated tyre that left it unfit to continue its journey.
According to LBC, police at one location have stopped 20 HGVs and found a total of 60 offences, including vehicles in dangerous condition and drivers who had been working too long.
Chief-Superintendent Glyn Jones, who is in charge of the operation, told LBC: "If you're going to cycle in London, wear a helmet, wear high-vis, make sure your bike has the right lights, don't wear headphones and obey the rules of the road.
"That way you will be a lot safer."
In a ten-day period to last Thursday, five cyclists were killed in collisions with large vehicles on London's roads. It is not known how many of them were wearing helmets or whether their riding was a factor in the crashes.
John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.
He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.
Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.
John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.
He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 11 min 25 sec ago
I'd agree there are a lot people who want no change whatsoever (or rather just don't think about change, busy getting on with life). Until...
- David9694 1 hour 13 min ago
I like how drivers make the case for making monitoring covert, not overt.
- andystow 1 hour 25 min ago
She seemed a bit upset about a minor misjudgement that could have killed someone and is going to cause months of stress and inconvenience.
- Backladder 1 hour 30 min ago
No we don't agree, personally I would take primary, even if only for a short period although I can understand why some riders might not want to...
- brooksby 1 hour 52 min ago
And which looks very like the bag produced by indy bag manufacturer Wizard Works…...
- HoarseMann 2 hours 3 min ago
If it was a 'no vehicles' sign (all white circle centre), it would mean cyclists could ride in the hours that HGVs and disabled drivers are allowed...
- stonojnr 3 hours 33 min ago
The bit at the start and end looks like a cycle lane, but the bit they drive on looks just like a patched filter lane for traffic lights.
- JOHN5880 3 hours 34 min ago
Hey, you 4 execs helped run a company into the ground and have no jobs anymore... Come work for us because you have great experience in the...
- Oakhambike 4 hours 18 min ago
£11.5k for a bike weighing over 8kg that's 2 fingers to customers let alone UCI
- Dnnnnnn 4 hours 34 min ago
I'm going to show my bike a picture of this shed and tell it, "If you don't behave..."
Add new comment
130 comments
I was out the other week and came down after hitting an unseen pothole. I hit my unhelmeted head on the road and I was just fine - and after a bit of fettling to fix my bike was able to ride the 50-odd miles home.
I fell quite hard and had I been wearing a helmet I'm pretty sure I'd have smashed it up. Were I so inclined I might even be telling people right now it had saved my life. But I'd have been talking out of my arse.
I don't have to replace a helmet and my wife is still stuck with me.
Good for you. It's great to live in a society where we can all hold our own opinions and beliefs isn't it.
I'm sorry Sir, I have been authorised to stop you on this public internet way and advise you that your belief is actually illegal. Take it off... now.
Motor vehicles, a disproportionately high percentage of them large motor vehicles, ie, lorries and buses, are the real problem here, not cyclists failing to wear hi viz and helmets, neither of which are a legal requirement.
I've said it before, I'll say it again, if the driver is not paying attention, they will not see you whether you are wearing hi viz or not, and a piece of polystyrene on your head is not going to save you.
The Met need to get a grip and sort the real problem, not harass the victim.
News coming through another cyclist killed by a lorry in London.
Remind me - what is the *real* problem here?
Good god, this is exactly why helmets can never become compulsory under UK legislation as it would just give plod another pointless target to pursue whilst avoiding the obvious.
Full disclosure - I choose to wear a helmet for some reason or another
The Met have followed Alice through the looking glass...
Do motorcyclists feel the same way about the "Iron Union Flag" or motorists over seatbelts...? I am too young to remember the mandatory introduction of these safety regulations but not for one minute would I consider giving up either even if I had the choice?
My brother went across a car bonnet as the discerning motorists ran a red light, his helmet was mashed, his head was not!!!
Bring it on I say, mandatory use of cycling helmets "could" save the lives of those to cool to, to stubborn or stupid enough to not see the benefit of wearing one? I despair every time I see a young cyclists without a helmet.
Really? Because you do go on to spout a load of emotive bollocks, such as the following:
You also go on to say that "mandatory use of cycling helmets "could" save the lives of those to cool to, to stubborn or stupid enough to not see the benefit of wearing one?", which, first of all, suggests that you yourself aren't actually convinced that they definitely will save lives but also you deem yourself above someone who chooses to not wear a helmet. Not only do you want to turn people in to criminals because of your beliefs which have no real grounding but you also choose to denigrate the choices of others by suggesting they are stubborn or stupid. What a bad tit you are.
..er, yes, they do.
And as you're obviously concerned about your safety, do you wear a helmet when participating in something far more dangerous than cycling, such as driving a car? I doubt it.
No one thinks genuine safety advances are a bad thing, but unless we realise choice is still important, the day will come when you won't be allowed to even get out of bed without wearing a helmet - I don't want that either.
I salute you and your brother for your courage in wearing pedestrian helmets. If he hadn't been wearing that helmet as he walked across the road he COULD HAVE BEEN DEAD.
I too have had the same experience, except for me it was with my 2 year old child who fell and banged her head on the floor. Luckily my child was wearing a Thudguard helmet and a child's spine protector. I am sure that you, like me, are a careful and prudent person whose common sense has led them to equip all their family with helmets. Personally I cry whenever I go over to a young family's house and I see their children running around without helmets on.
It's just common sense. Why won't people wear them? Is it some sort of anti-establishment thing?
Or maybe they're not f****Ing mental like me?
This could finally prove Darwin right when somehow people who wear pedestrian helmets fail to reproduce even though they are supposedly more likely to survive a vehicle strike
....
They "could".
They "could" also make it more likely that those people are hit by cars (who pass cyclists closer if they wear helmets) and more importantly, mandatory helmets "could" over-emphasise the relative danger of cycling, putting people off trying it, leading to an increase in the deaths from heart disease and obesity when cycling "could" save their lives.
When I was young we had something called "The Iron Curtain", now it appears we have "The Iron Union Flag"
Where is the freedom of choice everyone loves to say our forefathers fought for ?
I find it bizarre the outpouring of emotion against wearing of helmets, I would not ride without one as I figure smashing my unprotected skull off tarmac, concrete, car windscreens etal would be better served with one at any speed.
I don't need scientific evidence to convince me of that... Is this more an anti-establishment argument than safety debate?
Would you let your child ride without one?
Would you object to being stopped by the police for not wearing a stab vest in a known high knife-crime area?
I think I see the problem.
I do.
Pedestrians have more head injuries per mile travelled than cyclists http://cyclehelmets.org/1100.html
Pedestrians are killed at 41 per billion kms travelled, whereas for cyclists it's fewer at 35 per billion kms travelled.
I presume you let your child walk on the pavement without a helmet? For the same reasons I let my child cycle without one.
So you dont need scientific evidence to convince you that a helmet is not designed to protect your head against impacts over 12mph, nor against rotational or oblique impacts, or do you mean that you wear one as you're convinced through superstition of its supernatural powers to save lives under all conditions?
Exactly! How dare those dirty low down Dutch allow their children to cycle to school sans helmet!
Wont somebody think of the children!
Political exercise, what a load of crap. You would be better off having these policeman in plain clothes catching any dickhead using his mobile phone whilst driving or looking out for aggressive behaviour (both drivers and cyclists).
A helmet would hardly have helped the victims of the recent fatalities,
Imagine if the police in Copenhagen or Amsterdam or Malmo stopped cyclists and told them to wear hi viz and helmets?
Im sure they would be met with a combination of bafflement, incredulity and open hostility.
Err. Are they also telling motorists to wear helmets?
Or advising drivers of cars with no airbags to part-ex for one with bags?
No thought not. they can sod off.
Kick us while we're down, Met. Thanks.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
The way I see it, they are at least making an attempt to engage and discuss. No-one is being forced or legislated to wear high viz or helmets. If the comments above are representative of the cyclist attitude then I think you could all do with some education in how to converse in a polite and respectful manner.
Here's how I'd go about a typical encounter with a police officer
PC - "Sir, can I advise you on your cycling outerwear and headwear?"
Me - "Good morning officer..of course, please go ahead"
PC - "Helmets are great, high-viz is cool etc etc"
Me - "Thank you officer, I agree/disagree with your suggestions but either way I'll bear it in mind for future reference..have a good day"
Replace the last one with:
"Thank you officer, don't you think your time might be spent more productively checking motorists and their vehicles, as they are the ones who are actually killing people, and of whom a large proportion will be driving without a licence or insurance, or in a vehicle that is not fit to be on the roads."
Do you ride a penny farthing or something? Get down off your high horse!!!
Or alternatively as this conversation is going on, three drivers pass, tailgating, another drinking a cup of coffee, someone else is on the phone. another berating the kids in the back seat whilst on the way to school.
deal with the biggest problem first, if the cyclists have no lights and should, pull them, talk to them and give them the option, fine or lights. If they are doing nothing wrong then don't bother. Use the limited time and resources for those things that matter.
Seeing as such your a reasonable chap I'll be stopping you to discuss the rest of your clothes with you then. After all, if you're walking down the street minding your own business I don't see why the police shouldn't stop you to have a chat with you about your diet, your lack of a copper bracelet to prevent arthritis, whether you've had enough homeopathic medicine today and whether or not you're aware of the beneficial health effects of prayer.
This is all because as a member of a cash-strapped force that doesn't have enough time to follow up on all manner of things I have oodles of spare time for standing around stopping you in the street.
The worrying part is that there is evidence to suggest that wearing a helmet makes you less safe. While the addition of a helmet may prevent road rash and dampen the blow, most are only rated to 12 mph, which most collisions you would be going quicker, but also while you have mitigated a small risk, the driver perception is that a helmeted cyclist is more professional and so they undertake more risky behaviour as the helmeted cyclist is perceived as more experianced and therefore less likely to make eratic moves.
Pages