A cyclist who submitted headcam footage to the Metropolitan Police showing three drivers using their phones received a letter warning him of his own “dangerous” behaviour on the bike.
The road.cc reader, who wishes to remain anonymous, reached out to the Met Police with the following headcam footage, showing him cycling through Putney on the outside of the vehicles. In his words, he had approached the zebra crossing “at near walking pace, stopped ([with] a foot on the floor) to let a pedestrian cross and then I got on my way.”
However the following week, he received a letter from the police that sought to bring the cyclist’s attention to “the manner of [his] riding on the date in question.”
“We consider that the standard of your own cycling fell below what would be expected of a careful and competent cyclist in that you overtook a car that was stationary, giving way to a pedestrian at a zebra crossing.
“In respect of your original allegation we have decided to proceed with the case [against the three, phone-using drivers].
“The Metropolitan Police Service will be taking no action against you on this occasion, but would take this opportunity to remind you of your obligation to show due care and consideration to other road users at all times.”
Our reader was surprised by the letter and sought clarification from the officer who issued it. A week after making contact over email the officer, whose name has been withheld, replied that overtaking a stationary car before giving way at the crossing “is dangerous because a stationary vehicle at a crossing may be concealing pedestrians who have priority, so a cyclist overtaking can emerge suddenly into their path and cause a collision.”
Our reader replied to reiterate that he “actually stopped there to let the pedestrian cross in front” – unlike the hire bike user – and that he “approaches that pedestrian crossing (and in other locations) every day with the utmost carefulness. I have seen quite a few things happening there, hence my slow progress throughout Upper Richmond Road.”
Despite being informed of his “dangerous” cycling, the officer subsequently confirmed that “In this specific event, no danger was caused. This is why no action has been taken against yourself and we have decided to proceed with your initially reported allegation.
“The letter was there to warn you, when in that situation in the future, to not proceed past the lead vehicle.”
But our cyclist has now confirmed to road.cc that he has withdrawn his submission to the Met, writing “I don’t see how I can be a credible witness in court if I can get picked up later on by the defence lawyer” over his own “dangerous” behaviour.
Our reader is “happy to learn from [his] mistake” but added “I see other cyclists, motorbike riders and drivers doing the same thing everyday.” The net outcome of this case is three phone-using drivers who are set to avoid punishment, and a cyclist . The fate of the pedestrian crossing-jumping cyclist is unknown.
road.cc has contacted the Metropolitan Police for comment.
21 thoughts on “Cyclist reports phone-using drivers to police… only to receive warning for “dangerous” riding”
It’s not illegal for a cyclist to overtake a stationary vehicle at a zebra crossing.
However, it’s an area that confuses some people (including the police it would seem), as rule 165 in the Highway Code that references this law omits that it only applies to motorised vehicles.
Indeed, and it is therefore not a crime for drivers to overtake cyclists at zebra crossings, as I found out when I submitted a video of a driver doing just that as I waited for the pedestrian to cross.
I’m assuming the Met police NIPed this driver as there was a parent and child crossing when this driver zoomed through…
I think it depends on whether or not you were stationary. The relevant legislation is here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/14/made Part 5 paragraph 6. I’ve tried to add a screengrab but no idea if that will work on the “new and improved” website.
My reading is that the driver of a motor vehicle cannot overtake another moving motor vehicle on the approach to a crossing (marked by zig-zags) but could legally overtake a moving cyclist in that area, as per 6(1)(a). However, if the cyclist is stopped to let a pedestrian cross, then the driver cannot overtake them, as 6(1)(b) applies to any stationary vehicle (including a bicycle), not only motor vehicles.
So if you had stopped to let a pedestrian cross and you were overtaken, then the driver did commit a crime, and the police were erroneous in their contention that it was not illegal.
The Met police staff who issued the warning is entirely wrong here.
The cyclist came up to and alongside the lead vehicle before the zebra crossing and rightly stopped due to the potential for pedestrians crossing.
As the cyclist was alongside the lead vehicle when they stopped there was no overtake at that point.
Once the crossing was clear the cyclist was safe to proceed onwards.
There was never any danger and the police wasted everyone’s time with this unnecessary and incorrect “warning”.
I’m sure Cycling Mikey would have something to say about this.
And my own incident, involving a cyclist zooming through a red light:
Reminds me of the time I submitted footage via OpSnap to South Wales Police of a driver clearly using their phone as they drove past me whilst I waited at a crossing. They claimed that they couldn’t see the driver clearly enough to prosecute (which was nonsense) and then proceeded to chastise me for riding on the pavement. This despite the fact that said ‘pavement’ was in fact a dedicated shared-use path, and part of the national cycle network! In my video, you could clearly see the painted symbols on the ground, and the crossing I stopped at even had the cyclist symbol on the push button console right next to me! I guess if they were blind to those obvious features, it maybe explains why they “couldn’t see the driver on their phone”.
In my video, you could clearly see the painted symbols on the ground, and the crossing I stopped at even had the cyclist symbol on the push button console right next to me!
Can you show us the video? Here’s mine:
wow, she was completely out of it. Vaping by the looks of it.
I don’t vape (or smoke) myself, but surely it must have some negative impact on driver attention?
wow, she was completely out of it. Vaping by the looks of it
No. I’m going for a 90% probability that what she’s holding is a small mobile, which she may well keep specially for use while she’s driving because she can hide it in her hand. It all fits with the totally distracted driving, almost charging into me while I’m actually rounding the mini-roundabout, and not even noticing me when I’m just by her window
As a cyclist, you’re wrong, you’re doing something illegal, and you are dangerous to everyone in your vicinity. Your attitude is hostile and you are interfering with the rights of everyone else. No wonder YOU have created this animosity to cycling!
Nope, nope and nope if you are referring to the header.
Isn’t it strange that some wrongly believe that using a phone whilst driving is not dangerous or illegal?
Isn’t it strange that some wrongly believe that using a phone whilst driving is not dangerous or illegal?
Yes. Unfortunately, a lot of them are police officers running OpSnap Lancs.
I cannot believe that so many people continue to use their phones in Lancashire. It must be down to the fact that the police are nowhere to be seen, and ignore law breaking when it happens in front of them, I refer to the police officer who drove past three youths in balaclavas pulling wheelies on their illegal e bikes in the middle of the road. And they aren’t interested in tackling illegal drivers either, such as a local driver who has no MOT, and hasn’t had vehicle excise duty for 5 1/2 years.
I guess I should have put a
at the end!Sheesh! That was suppose to indicate sarcasm!
No you shouldn’t, because it horribly breaks the site, you vandal!
Indeed – was going to report that to road.cc but I was struck down…
I had something similar happen to me. I was riding around a large roundabout, and indicated to leave at the next junction, as I began to move across a BMW X5 overtook me on the inside and hit my outstretched arm, and continued to carry on around the roundabout. I reported it to the police and supplied footage from the GoPro on my bars. The police contacted me after a month and threatened to prosecute me, stating I was ‘only just in my lane’ and therefore confused the poor driver. I can only assume the BMW driver must have been a police officer.
It doesn’t make much sense to me. Firstly, he doesn’t overtake the van, he stops. Secondly, I don’t see how it would change your credibility as a witness.
I cannot believe that so many people continue to use their phones in Lancashire
I don’t know why not! The police refuse to take action and there are no penalties, and these people believe they’re ace drivers who can drive brilliantly and conduct phone conversations at the same time- despite the evidence of the dangerously distracted driving above which nearly resulted in her driving directly into me on a roundabout. There are no traffic queues around here, so it’s difficult to detect ‘phone-driving’ because you have to film them ‘on the move’ despite all the window reflections etc. There are many more than I report, because the videos are not useable, although I’m pretty sure of the offence using normal vision.
This shows the driver of Porsche KD10 WER driving with one or no hands while holding the smartphone up to her mouth in her right hand.