Home
Officer who heads London's traffic police says his orders were misinterpreted...

Police officers in an area of London were each ordered to issue fines to ten cyclists a month following the recent deaths of six bike riders in the capital.

A senior Metropolitan Police officer has said that his order was misinterpreted and that the force’s Operation Safeway initiative targets all road users, not just those on bikes.

However, concerns have been raised by cycle campaigners regarding bike riders being targeted and police setting targets.

The police operation, launched earlier this week, has seen officers take to the streets to target law-breaking road users and issue fixed penalty notices as well as giving safety advice to cyclists.

But according to an email seen by The Times, one senior officer instructed traffic police to specifically target cyclists.

In the email, Inspector Colin Davies from the Met’s South East Area Traffic Garage said: “All, can you please cascade this onto your troops. Officers have four months to do 40 cycle tickets. Ten per month, 2.5 a week. Most officers are nearing or have even achieved their other targets. This will give them a renewed focus for a while.”

The Times said that according to serving police officers, the order was tantamount to “discrimination” against cyclists and they also queried how handing out £50 fines to riders would improve safety.

However, Chief Superintendent Glyn Jones, who is in charge of the Met’s Traffic Command, said that while he had set the 40 ticket per officer performance target, it was meant to apply to a range of offences, not all of which can be committed by cyclists. He confirmed that he has now clarified his instructions.

Offences he highlighted include ignoring traffic lights and careless or inconsiderate cycling, but also stopping beyond Advanced Stop Lines at ‘bike boxes’ at traffic lights or on Barclays Cycle Superhighways.

“The e-mail from the inspector was a genuine misinterpretation of my direction,” he explained. “The offences that relate to the cycle highway and advanced stop lines can actually only be committed by motorists; and contravening traffic lights is dangerous regardless of who commits it.

“Our intention from the very beginning has always been to target dangerous road use by all road users and encourage everyone who uses our roads to be responsible and consider others around them.

He added that the inspector in question “has now issued a corrective instruction to his officers.”

British Cycling policy advisor, Chris Boardman, said that the police should be concentrating their efforts on larger vehicles.

“If you don’t have the resources to prosecute everyone who breaks the law, then it makes sense to start with the people who can cause the most harm and work down from there,” he maintained.

“The bigger and heavier the vehicle you have got, the more damage you are going to do.

“I certainly would not let law-breaking cyclists off the hook but they wouldn’t be top of my list.”

National cyclists’ organisation CTC’s policy director, Roger Geffen, also expressed concern, saying: “They may well nick cyclists for things which are not offences. If it leads to that sort of perverse enforcement then that would be very worrying.”

Others raising disquiet about police setting targets, irrespective of the type of road user, include home secretary Theresa May and shadow transport secretary, Mary Creagh, as well as AA president Edmund King, who said: “In terms of traffic policing, we do not think there should be targets for cyclists or drivers.

“It should be about targeting the most dangerous people on the road, irrespective of some arbitrary target.

“Targets put pressure on some police officers to give tickets when they are not required.”

On the opening day of Operation Safeway on Monday, police issued 150 fixed penalty notices to drivers and cyclists, mainly for using a mobile phone while driving or passing through a red light.

Some 650 officers were involved on the first day of the initiative, which will ultimately involve all 2,500 of the Met’s traffic police.

A similar initiative last week saw lorry drivers and cyclists targeted at several locations in Central London, with the latter given safety advice including being told they should wear helmets and hi-vis clothing.

Born in Scotland, Simon moved to London aged seven and now lives in the Oxfordshire Cotswolds with his miniature schnauzer, Elodie. He fell in love with cycling one Saturday morning in 1994 while living in Italy when Milan-San Remo went past his front door. A daily cycle commuter in London back before riding to work started to boom, he's been news editor at road.cc since 2009. Handily for work, he speaks French and Italian. He doesn't get to ride his Colnago as often as he'd like, and freely admits he's much more adept at cooking than fettling with bikes.

35 comments

Avatar
KiwiMike [1298 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

...and people wonder why the police don't hold the respect of the public like they used to.

FFS.

Avatar
mrmo [2093 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

and if the police were set targets for how many black youths they stopped and searched......

We know there are cyclists who break the rules, but to say you must catch X.....

I assume that the officers had a quota of car drivers they had to pull over....

Quote:

“If you don’t have the resources to prosecute everyone who breaks the law, then it makes sense to start with the people who can cause the most harm and work down from there,”

exactly.

Avatar
jasecd [449 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

My last scrap of faith in the police has just vanished. Clear evidence of discrimination and then bullshit back-pedalling when called out on it.

The last few weeks have exposed the underlying prejudices against cyclists in London - the Mayor and the Met don't care about our safety or our rights. They won't tackle the real problems of dangerous drivers and poor road design - instead they make token gestures and obfuscate the argument with victim blaming distractions.

Tomorrow nights protest shouldn't just be at TFL HQ but take in GLC and New Scotland Yard.

Avatar
Legin [121 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

That will be why when I stood at the junction of Commercial Road and Whitechapel Road, on Tuesday night for 40 minutes, the two officers on duty were stopping cyclists (not sure if they charged any), but seemed to miss all the motorists encroaching on the advance stop area and yellow box at the lights!

They even missed the minibus that having encroached in to the yellow box when queuing to turn right, then reversed backwards, causing a cyclist to take avoiding action, to switch lanes; appalling driving; oblivious police officers!

Avatar
Mart [110 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

Improving safety my arse.
This is about trying to prove cyclists are the problem.

Avatar
notaclimber [12 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

Great so not only do we have to look out for all the dangers normally associated with riding in London we also have to be extra vigilant looking for trigger happy police. I think that the police should have to ride at least once a month in London rush hour to realise just why cyclists make the decisions they do. I'm sure there are certain things I do which are not breaking the law but would in some eyes constitute a fine! Banging on the roofs of cars that cut me up is one!  19

Avatar
mad_scot_rider [581 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

Even if it's a genuine case of chinese whispers - the very fact the Inspector was happy writing that email to his subordinates clearly means he saw it as reasonable - or else he would have double checked

Said it before and will say it again - plod has no interest in making the roads safe, just in a good arrest/case resolution record

Avatar
David Portland [83 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

Not sure which I find more depressing -- the idiocy of the quota or the use of the phrase "cascade this to your troops".

Avatar
Username [210 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

Shocking.

But then I'm not surprised.

"All, can you please cascade this onto your troops"

Even his use of English is offensive, 'cascade' as a verb, I ask you.

Avatar
wwfcb [83 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
notaclimber wrote:

...... we also have to be extra vigilant looking for trigger happy police.....

Why's that ?  39

If your doing nothing wrong, then you don't have to look out for the Police.

Avatar
farrell [1946 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
wwfcb wrote:
notaclimber wrote:

...... we also have to be extra vigilant looking for trigger happy police.....

Why's that ?  39

If your doing nothing wrong, then you don't have to look out for the Police.

Like getting pulled for not wearing a helmet?

Or getting pulled for listening to music?

What about being fined for "dangerous weaving"?

I suppose you are ok with police stopping people for riding cargo bikes too?

Avatar
bobinski [274 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

should we not take some heart from the fact officers lower in the ranks questioned the initiative and then leaked it?

Avatar
Alb [152 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

Well done the Police, well done  41

Avatar
mrmo [2093 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
wwfcb wrote:
notaclimber wrote:

...... we also have to be extra vigilant looking for trigger happy police.....

Why's that ?  39

If your doing nothing wrong, then you don't have to look out for the Police.

I assume you have been reading and watching the news? cyclists being pulled for not wearing helmets or Hi-Viz? what about entering an ASL by any means other than the filter lane, or positioning yourself in front of a minicab that is occuping the ASL. Also remember that there may be no speedlimit for bikes but there is furious riding, now try and define that?

Avatar
oozaveared [934 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

wwfcb wrote "Why's that ? Thinking If your doing nothing wrong, then you don't have to look out for the Police."

I have to say that this is a bit naive. In terms of road use the police can pretty much catch anyone out if they try. Just for example: If they don't see you look before crossing a give way line (whether or not you did look or not) that's an offence. How many times do you look behind you, see an empty road and them move across without using a hand signal (cos there is no-one back there - to see it.)? If you watch any road user long enough and hard enough or focus on one type of road user you will find something however innocuous or trivial to stick them on for. If your boss then tells you to find a certain number then that's when the "silly buggers" starts.

An old adage from the military describes how we should view this week's shenanigans by the Met. "never mistake movement for action." The police are not acting on road safety but they are moving around a lot to make the less observant and gullible think they are.

Avatar
Rouboy [93 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

Congratulations to the Met decision makers for joining the we hate cycles brigade. What happened to fairness and transparency? Or is that just when it suits your personal selfish needs.
Remind me why did you join the police service?????

Avatar
Sevenfold [66 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

Yet again...

David Bowie - "Life on Mars"

Take a look at the lawman
Beating up the wrong guy

 102 2

Avatar
Matt eaton [741 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

Sad state of affairs when the police's 'focus' is on issuing tickets, whoever the recipient.

Call me old fashioned but I want a police force who just look out for the public and protect us from lawless and irresponsible behaviour when it happens.

Avatar
djcritchley [181 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

Common sense from AA president Edmund King ... “In terms of traffic policing, we do not think there should be targets for cyclists or drivers. It should be about targeting the most dangerous people on the road, irrespective of some arbitrary target."

Avatar
Saratoga [43 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

It's not just London that this happens in. My own local police force would regularly organise massive operations to target cyclists whilst ignoring all motorists committing the very same offences right in front of them. I saw one officer using a mobile phone while driving too.  39

Avatar
BikeBud [255 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

Almost beyond belief, if it weren't for all the "plebgate" stuff!

Thank you Theresa May, Edmund King & Chris Boardman. Can you three run the Met traffic division for us please?!

Avatar
Colin Peyresourde [1814 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

The article title intones more of a bias than there is….I am guessing that there are targets for other crimes, including traffic offences by all road users. In fact the article says that the Chief Inspector did clarify this wasn't just aimed at cyclists. But I would imagine that they are under pressure to enforce the road rules for cyclists at this point in time after the high press coverage.

Avatar
dp24 [203 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
Quote:

“The e-mail from the inspector was a genuine misinterpretation of my direction,”

A pathetic attempt at trying to weasel his way out of the situation.

I'd have far more respect for him if he had the balls to simply say "yes, I have told my officers to target cyclists because I think there's a need to".

Avatar
Joeinpoole [444 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
wwfcb wrote:

If your doing nothing wrong, then you don't have to look out for the Police.

Beautiful! Just beautiful. Try telling that to Jean Charles de Menezes to name just one example.

Btw, you are abbreviating the words 'you' and 'are' so you should have used 'you're'.

2/10 _ See me!

Avatar
Mike_B [26 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

Why does everything the Met does make me think of The Thick of It ??

Avatar
OldRidgeback [2776 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

All this does rather beg the question as to whether the traffic police have bothered to read DfT data collated from police reports on the causes of deaths and injuries on London's roads.

Yes, some people do ride like knobs and that definitely includes the jerk on the road bike I overtook on my mountain bike the other day who started to move left into my lane without bothering to look first, nearly taking us both out. But even so, if you look at the casualty statistics the numbers of injuries caused by cyclists are very low indeed. Compare that with the number of deaths and serious injuries caused by motor vehicle drivers.

You'd think the traffic police, more than anyone, would understand that basic fact. Cracking down on bad cycling simply avoids the real problem.

Avatar
Stumps [3479 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

cyclingDMlondon - sect 5 public order act - using foul and abusive language in a public place and i dont do this job to be sworn at.

Also if you think telling a Police officer to F off is being cheeky god help this country.

Avatar
Stumps [3479 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

cyclingDMlondon "I have read the ruling, and I am a solicitor. If the offence is 'made out' by the presence of other people, then the appeal would have been found differently. Nor would that be relevant, because the point is that swearing at a police officer is not an offence.

Sorry, but if you think that the utterance of a word which is arbitrarily considered to be 'a swear word' justifies deprivation of liberty, then it *does* show that you have a thin skin, and that you consider yourself in some way 'special'. You aren't - and this has nothing whatsoever to do with any lack of respect for the police on my part. "

I never said swearing at a Police officer was an offence - i said sect 5 Poa was an offence and on the part of mrmo (sorry dont mean to drag you into this) he was surrounded by ordinary members of the public so the offence would have been made out and i would have arrested him. In the Harvey - DPP case it was decided that the people around him (other members of his group) would be used to Harvey swearing and they would not be harrassed etc etc, so the appeal was allowed. It does not say anything other.

I'm not special nor do i have a thin skin but coming from the alleged background you claim i find it nigh on impossible to believe that you are happy with people openly swearing in public as though its just normal and acceptable behaviour, also where does the death penalty for murders come from when the article is about fining cyclists  40 . As for sect 5 poa i have locked up numerous people for this offence and none have got off with it. But lets call it a halt here mate as its nothing to do with the article.

Avatar
Stumps [3479 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

oozaveared - not nit picking here but mrmo was nearly taken out by a coach not a cop also i would never say i saw something when i didn't, i have a mortgage, wife and 2 kids to think about and they are far more important than lying over a poxy public order offence.

Cant speak for others though - plebgate springs to mind  39

Avatar
Stumps [3479 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

good point fluffykittenoff. Mind you if Mitchell had not been a complete "pleb" himself it wouldn't have happened, but i agree that the cops that lied should be disciplined, there was no need for it at all and all it has done is give bad publicity to the Police, but i digress sorry.

Pages