A cyclist has caught on camera the moment he was pulled over by police for leaving a Cycle Superhighway and riding on the road with motor traffic.
The cyclist, posting on YouTube as Clockwise Cycling, pulled off Cycle Superhighway 7 on Kennington Park Road, South London, and onto the carriageway, when he was stopped by a Metropolitan Police Officer, who asserts the man was riding dangerously by suddenly exiting the cycle superhighway and joining the motor traffic.
Met Police: Cuts mean no more support for London mass rides
The police officer drives alongside the cyclist, and can be heard telling him there is a cycle superhighway, until eventually, after a car horn is heard several times, the police car’s sirens come on.
The officer tells the cyclist: “There’s a cycle highway there for you. For you to suddenly then come out it’s going to cause you to get knocked off your bike.”
When the cyclist says he couldn’t join the cycle superhighway because it was too busy, the officer tells him “yes there is, you just have to be patient, like everyone else on this road”.
The rider claims it would have been dangerous for him to remain on the cycle superhighway because of the number of cyclists using it.
The officer repeatedly asserts the man was cycling dangerously, and tells him “you will, because of the way you cycle, end up underneath a lorry”.
The officer, who says he has been driving as a police officer for 30 years, said: “I’m retiring soon, and idiots like you, riding your bike like you do, will continue to get yourself knocked off. But you won’t listen, will you?”
The Metropolitan Police have been contacted for comment.
109 thoughts on “Police pull cyclist over for not using Cycle Superhighway”
If cops like this could just
If cops like this could just put the same equivalent effort into stopping mobile phone using drivers… That’d be nice.
As is, I believe this cop just happens to be another anti-cyclist person who happens to wear a badge. Happily he got schooled.
BigManLittleHair wrote:
Can you clarify why he is ‘anti cyclist’?
Because he stopped and spoke to a cyclist? Maybe that day he was also anti drug dealer, anti burglar, anti pickpocket as well, maybe even anti mobile phone using motorist!!!
DivineChorus wrote:
So cycling is a crime now?
DivineChorus wrote:
You’ve gone too far there…
PaulBox wrote:
I know, too busy hammering RLJers like there’s no tomorrow whilst smiling at motorists, giving them a big thumbs up and mouthing ‘Got another one!!”
Or so it would appear to some forum members on here.
Looking at the video, the
Looking at the video, the police officer is right imo, nipping in and out of cycling lanes for the ‘quickest route’ or in this case to overtake other cyclists, will just make people think all cyclists are idiots. He’s probably the same ‘cyclist’ who jumps red lights and nips onto the pavement now and again.
And the policeman didn’t make any special efforts, he just dealt with it because he happened to be driving alongside.
I agree. Plod was right. Yes
I agree. Plod was right. Yes it’s annoying that other people hold you up but if you were pulling out from a raised cycle path into the traffic you would stop and wait for a gap – no reason that this should be any different. The policeman is not hating on cyclists! He’s actually trying to help the guy ride safely and stay alive!
A message for Sadiq Khan and
A message for Sadiq Khan and his ‘cycle lanes don’t need to be so wide’ comment.
In addition to the clear need for further education against bias and discrimination in the police force.
emishi55 wrote:
Has he really said that? Well, darn, if I lived in London then he’d have lost my vote right there!!
To claim that “it would have
To claim that “it would have been dangerous … to remain on the cycle superhighway because of the number of cyclists using it” indicates very clearly that the chap who posted this footage is a tosser.
The copper could have handled it better but I have some sympathy with him. I imagine it was hard not to be exasperated by the overweening sense of entitlement displayed by the chap on the bike. Whether he was “schooled” by the infantile posturings of the bloke on the bike is a matter of opinion.
I use that “cycling superhighway” (and the one on the other side of the road) on my daily commute. The sad fact is that the addition of “cycling infrastructure” has had the unfortunate effect of delaying a lot of competent cyclists. But we got what we wanted – lots of money spent on stuff that’s designed (not sure by whom – I find the new layout at Elephant and Castle terrifying in comparison to the old roundabout) to make more of us safer. It’s too late to realise that creating designated areas for bicycles merely reinforces the impression held by most road users that bicycles don’t belong on the road.
Wait until they open the new bike lanes running north/south on Farringdon Road. Each lane has a vertical kerb alongisde it, so absent some pretty good bunny hopping skills, there is nowhere to go (other than veering into cyclists coming the other way) to avoid obstacles.
I would be delighted if the mayor (or TFL or whomever is responsible) stopped spending my rates (or whatever other source of money they use for funding) on any further “cycling infrastructure” in London.
surly_by_name wrote:
Maybe there is a memo to officers to keep as many cyclists on the blue paint, which seem to only last a few hundred yards before becoming a bus lane.
So glad there arent these stop start cycleways where I live, I personally would choose to ride in the road— CXR94Di2
It’s a real shame there are people still rolling with these anti-infrastructure lines. Some of the new infra that’s being installed in London is really good but it’s being done (necessarily) in sections.
I cycled this junction daily for many years and it both felt and was dangerous (there were serious collisions here and many near misses). When I join the first section of it now I can feel myself relax whereas it used to be somewhere you were on high alert.
It’s not long enough, it’s not without some minor issues but it makes one junction significantly safer and I hope we see much more like this.
To claim that “it would have
It indicates that he judged the conditions unsafe and chose to exercise his right to ride in _another_part_of_the_road_. Which is exactly what he should do.
Yeah, this is where I start suspecting that the only tosser in this discussion is your good self. “Overweening” forsooth! “Entitlement” prithee! etcetera. The police officer in this video is a motorist hiding behind a police uniform: wasting a vast amount of time and money, blocking the frigging traffic and causing a disruption to everyone around him. About time the old fool was retired.
This is about social enforcement of a non-law: the law that cyclists are supposed to cower in narrow, unfit-for-purpose ghettoes at the side of the road instead of cycling in comfort on the roads their taxes pay for.
My already low opinion of the police has received another piece of confirmation bias.
Ush]To claim that “it would
So would you be quite happy for him to not pull over and have a word with a motorist on the phone, as he may be wasting time and money?
That last paragraph of yours is a bit tin foil hat wearing, do you really believe coppers go round trying to force you off the road as some part of social enforcement?
Sorry to disappoint but most coppers are too busy sorting out Kylie and Chanel’s Facebook arguments to harass cyclists. Or motorists come to that.
Ush wrote:
— Ush Yeah, this is where I start suspecting that the only tosser in this discussion is your good self. “Overweening” forsooth! “Entitlement” prithee! etcetera.— surly_by_name
Since we are playing the man ….. I am kind of surprised that you appear proud that you struggle with the word “entitlement”. (“Overweening” I’ll let you off on, there’s no reason you should have received anything more than a primary shool education I guess; but you got it in the end, from the context, yes? That’s how my ten year old works out the big words.) But each to his (or her) own.
Back to the subject at hand ….. The safest course of action would have been to slow down a bit. The cyclist judged that the best thing to do to maintain the speed he wanted to ride at was to drop onto the road. His actions weren’t about safety. They were about him not wanting to be delayed on his trip to wherever he was going. That makes him a selfish twat. (Which is a handy translation of “overweening sense of entitlement”.)
Do you drive a car? Does that make you a motorist hiding behind your lycra?
surly_by_name wrote:
The cyclists was clearly in a conversation with the policeman, thats why he missed the entrance to CSH. Its obvious from the video.
The cyclists was happy to stay in the bike lane, wait at red, behind other cyclists prior to encountering the cop car. Its obvious from the video.
His safest action would actually have been to stop talking to the policeman and concentrate on joining the CSH. Of course we wouldnt have the benefit of seeing the horn-happy cop in all thier glory …
surly_by_name wrote:
My condolences to your ten year old for having a father that first posts that someone else is a tosser and then gets all passive aggressive about being called on it.
But this isn’t about playing the “man”, no matter how amusing that is: it’s about the repetition by the “man” of a meme which is detrimental to cyclists: namely that they are entitled. And all your argumentation suggests that you completely accept the idea that it is somehow selfish of a cyclist to dare to be in the way of another vehicle on the road.
To me that makes you much more of tosser and a twat than anyone, except perhaps the idiot policeman that threw a hissy fit.
Ush wrote:
When there is a cycle lane there, bought and paid for by the tax payer because we as cyclists have quite rightly campaigned long and hard for road layout improvements to dangerous junctions, to make cycling a safer and more attractive option for everyone, not just the fit, brave and/or foolhardy …. and you decide that you are far too important to use it because you simply MUST-GET-IN-FRONT of the lowly Decathlon Hopridercrowd …. that makes you a self-centred, self-entitled, arrogant twat and you deserve every ounce of the pain that is surely coming your way one day.
I would be perfectly happy with a change in the law that says where a cycle lane has been provided, it is compulsory to use it otherwise, why waste tax payers money building them?
A £90 on the spot fine should do the trick nicely.
L.Willo wrote:
And will you be happy to pay for all the cases thrown out because of crap cycle lanes too ? http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/
The cyclists missed the entrance to the lane because he was in conversation with plod.
Couldnt rejoin later due to raised kerb.
ydrol wrote:
Yes. Fair enough. Where the cycle lane is not usable, that ought to be a defence and also the fine-issuing officer should have to take photos in both directions from the penalty spot to prove that the cycle lane was usable in case of disputes.
He missed the entrance because he couldnt be arsed to use his brakes.
Here is the analogy. Pavements are provided for pedestrians because it is too dangerous for them to share the roads with fast moving heavy traffic. Cycle lanes have been provided for cyclists for the same reason …. and even worse, we have campaigned for them.
If as a pedestrian, I think that people are walking too slowly in front of me on Oxford Street, would it be reasonable for me to decide to jump off the pavement without warning and jog down the middle of the fucking road because I can actually run at the pace of a city bus or taxi?
No, didnt think so … so how is what this smug cunt did in anyway different or appropriate? The safe infrastructure has been built. Using it should not be optional IMO.
L.Willo wrote:
Roads were originally for use by pedestrians and as far as I know, pedestrians can still legally use them for travel in the UK (the US has jay-walking laws in contrast).
I strongly disagree that cycle lanes should be compulsory as most of them are not fit for purpose and/or have dangerous entry/exit points. I don’t think it is safe to use shared use facilities (i.e. cycles and pedestrians together) if you’re going quickly, so it makes far more sense to use the roads – that’s what they’re there for.
Have a read of “Roads Were Not Built For Cars” and educate yourself.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Really? You shock me! I thought the Romans built Europe’s road network for their Ferraris …
Nevertheless, what the road network was built for is interesting but more salient is what it is used for. Transportation, primarily motorised transportation and we cannot have it both ways.
We cannot argue that the road layouts are unsafe and lethal, and have die-ins and leave ghost bikes left, right and centre, and go on critical mass rides etc …. and when the powers that be finally act and do something …. sneer and refuse to use the provision because it is not perfect, too slow, or inconvenient or isnt the quickest route as the crow flies etc ….
So why build any more cycling infrastructure and why not tear up the existing ones if usage is not necessary? Have we all been lying? Were the roads perfectly safe all along?
L.Willo wrote:
Nice false dichotomy. If only it were that simple…
And what’s ‘having it both ways’? Riding in the road and expecting not to get squashed or hassled by cops? Entitled, fussy bastards, eh?
L.Willo wrote:
We campaigned for decent off-road infrastructure, like the Dutch seem to have managed. We didn’t get it. We got half-assed shared-use painted line rubbish, in by far the majority of cases.
It is legal to use the road, and sometimes it’s more convenient, and sometimes it’s even safer than using the provided infrastructure.
(Gosh, sometimes I wish road.cc had thumbs-down buttons…).
brooksby wrote:
(Gosh, sometimes I wish road.cc had thumbs-down buttons…).— brooksby
For now. But not for long.
As sure as night follows day, some dick-for-brains is going to pull a stunt like that and hop off the cycle lane into unsuspecting traffic and get squished. And public sympathy will be entirely with the motorist. Mine too. And then the law will change to ensure that cyclists must use the provided infrastructure or get a fine and/or bike confiscated.
I don’t know why humans are so stupid that they need to see totally predictable deaths happening before doing the bleeding obvious … but that is what it will take and the debate will be over.
Book it.
L.Willo wrote:
Are you suggesting that compulsory use of cycle lanes is obvious and sensible? That would make cycling to new places very difficult, as you would need to research cycle infrastructure at thd route planning stage to avoid getting caught on some downright dangerous cycle lanes.
(Google “common dangers with cycle lanes you tube”) anyone who has ‘designed’ a roundabout with a cycle lane running round the outside should be prevented from doing any more road design.
brooksby wrote:
It is legal to use the road, and sometimes it’s more convenient, and sometimes it’s even safer than using the provided infrastructure.
(Gosh, sometimes I wish road.cc had thumbs-down buttons…).— brooksby
So that’s two votes for down-vote / thumbs down buttons
Damn good idea, somebody get on that please.
whobiggs wrote:
It’s doable but some schwag is required.
Nevertheless, what the road
We cannot argue that the road layouts are unsafe and lethal, and have die-ins and leave ghost bikes left, right and centre, and go on critical mass rides etc …. and when the powers that be finally act and do something …. sneer and refuse to use the provision because it is not perfect, too slow, or inconvenient or isnt the quickest route as the crow flies etc ….
So why build any more cycling infrastructure and why not tear up the existing ones if usage is not necessary? Have we all been lying? Were the roads perfectly safe all along?
— L.WilloTerrible argument. Of course you can complain about the dangerous roads AND complain about dangerous cycle lanes, because they are by and large a complete waste of time. Ghettoising cyclist into the part of the road that is not recommended as being safe to ride in by government guidelines is beyond stupid.
You don’t congratulate councils for doing the wrong thing, you try and convince them to do what actually works instead.
Of note, the idiot policeman tells the cyclist for not cycling on the cycle path just before it vanishes and is replaced by a bus stop that forces cyclists to pull out into the traffic.
“
“
If as a pedestrian, I think that people are walking too slowly in front of me on Oxford Street, would it be reasonable for me to decide to jump off the pavement without warning and jog down the middle of the fucking road because I can actually run at the pace of a city bus or taxi?
”
I frequently do that on busy town centre streets, albeit whilst walking. I don’t expect to get hassle from the police about it.
L.Willo wrote:
He missed th entrance, whatever the actual reason (distraction, lazy, )
Up to that point he was, cetainly from what I can see, using the bike lane, wating behind other cyclists, waiting at red lights, and did not display any sign of prefering to use the road.
Now having missed the entrance – what were his legal options ? and why did he get a tug ?
L.Willo wrote:
actually NO, pavements were there BEFORE motor vehicles… they gave pedestrians a place to walk that wasn’t filled with horse droppings…
Gloucester Southgate Street in 1889…
http://www.theoldbell-tigerseye.co.uk/custom/Southgate.jpg
that ‘bus’ is an electric trolley bus…
L.Willo wrote:
I teach bike ability and one of the things I sadly have to explain is why you shouldn’t automatically use cycle lanes. The reason being is that most of them are not only pointless, but dangerous. The safe distance for cycling is usually further away from kerb than the width of a cycle lane and that’s only if you are happy to share the road with other vehicles and ride in secondary position. If you do not want other road to pass, because it is not safe for them to do so, then you ride in primary, i.e. the middle of the lane. This position is not only a safe place to be, but the actual default legal position for a bike to ride and it is the same for all vehicles. Allowing others to pass is a curtesy, not an obligation.
L.Willo wrote:
When there is a cycle lane there, bought and paid for by the tax payer because we as cyclists have quite rightly campaigned long and hard for road layout improvements to dangerous junctions, to make cycling a safer and more attractive option for everyone, not just the fit, brave and/or foolhardy …. and you decide that you are far too important to use it because you simply MUST-GET-IN-FRONT of the lowly Decathlon Hopridercrowd …. that makes you a self-centred, self-entitled, arrogant twat and you deserve every ounce of the pain that is surely coming your way one day.
I would be perfectly happy with a change in the law that says where a cycle lane has been provided, it is compulsory to use it otherwise, why waste tax payers money building them?
A £90 on the spot fine should do the trick nicely.— Ush
But it seems the cyclist is taking a right turn two lanes of traffic between that and the csh. Or was he just going there to hide from the police?
Whether on 2 wheels or 4,
Whether on 2 wheels or 4, MUST-GET-IN-FRONT twats are the scourge of the UK road network. No doubt when one day he gets his arse handed to him by a truck his ghost and co will wibble on about ‘poor infrastructure’….
L.Willo wrote:
Rather than just a ‘like’ button, can road.cc please provide upvote and downvote buttons for comments.
giskard wrote:
…. so it can be EXACTLY like the Daily Mail ….
There’s no need for the ‘you
There’s no need for the ‘you’re going to end up under a lorry’ stuff. It’s very similar to the way below the line commenters enjoy imagining the death of people on bikes who don’t behave the way the commenters insist they should: hi-viz, helmets etc etc etc.
Copper was right my arse…
Copper was right my arse… Just another Daily Mail reading arsehole who just happens to be wearing a uniform…
If the cyclist feels that it was safe to pull out, in to a lane that he was entitled to be using, and overtake other cyclists using the cycle lane then he is entitled to do so.
And to say that he is probably a red light jumper is just bollocks, the video shows him stopping at red lights.
The rider was perfectly
The rider was perfectly entitled to ride on the highway, the way he went about it is unknown, because we dont see if he looked behind himself before the manouevre. Now the police officer got on his high horse and basically had now where to go, other than I’m a copper and know better. The officer backed down when challenged to what he was going to be charged with.
Riding in towns and cities is by the very nature more dangerous than other situations. This rider felt more comfortable taking a prominent position, much to the anger of the police officer.
Maybe there is a memo to officers to keep as many cyclists on the blue paint, which seem to only last a few hundred yards before becoming a bus lane.
So glad there arent these stop start cycleways where I live, I personally would choose to ride in the road
The rider was perfectly
The rider was perfectly entitled to ride on the highway, the way he went about it is unknown, because we dont see if he looked behind himself before the manouevre. Now the police officer got on his high horse and basically had now where to go, other than I’m a copper and know better. The officer backed down when challenged to what he was going to be charged with.
Riding in towns and cities is by the very nature more dangerous than other situations. This rider felt more comfortable taking a prominent position, much to the anger of the police officer.
Maybe there is a memo to officers to keep as many cyclists on the blue paint, which seem to only last a few hundred yards before becoming a bus lane.
So glad there arent these stop start cycleways where I live, I personally would choose to ride in the road
I also agree with the
I also agree with the policeman.
If the CS is too busy, users need to be patient. Nipping in and out of the lane to maintain your desired speed is just selfish, careless and will no doubt anger other road users and even cause accidents.
What I am more shocked about is how disrespectful the cyclist was to an officer. I cant quite believe it. Shameful.
mancrider wrote:
Lol, are you for real?
Just because somebody is wearing a uniform, you don’t have to do what they say. That copper had absolutely no grounds for stopping the rider and taking his name. The cyclist did exactly the right thing, if he hadn’t the copper would not have backed down.
PaulBox wrote:
I was under the impression that the police have to actually tell you what they suspect you of, otherwise you can just trot on. No legal requirement to give them your name or details just because they ask for it. If they stop you in the street, it has to be ‘on suspicion of having/holding/being x’. What crime was he accused or suspected of? (Watching this with the sound off at work, so forgive me).
brooksby wrote:
I was under the impression that the police have to actually tell you what they suspect you of, otherwise you can just trot on. No legal requirement to give them your name or details just because they ask for it. If they stop you in the street, it has to be ‘on suspicion of having/holding/being x’. What crime was he accused or suspected of? (Watching this with the sound off
at work, so forgive me).
— PaulBox
Section 163(2) RTA is the legislation, sounds like this officer may have asked the cyclist to pull over, cyclist didn’t at first for some reason and it goes from there ( if the copper wanted to be really pedantic he could have gone for fail to stop, Section 163(3).
But didn’t and apparently got schooled.
brooksby wrote:
I was under the impression that the police have to actually tell you what they suspect you of, otherwise you can just trot on. No legal requirement to give them your name or details just because they ask for it. If they stop you in the street, it has to be ‘on suspicion of having/holding/being x’. What crime was he accused or suspected of? (Watching this with the sound off
at work, so forgive me).
— PaulBox
Section 163(2) RTA is the legislation, sounds like this officer may have asked the cyclist to pull over, cyclist didn’t at first for some reason and it goes from there ( if the copper wanted to be really pedantic he could have gone for fail to stop, Section 163(3).
But didn’t and apparently got schooled.
brooksby wrote:
I was under the impression that the police have to actually tell you what they suspect you of, otherwise you can just trot on. No legal requirement to give them your name or details just because they ask for it. If they stop you in the street, it has to be ‘on suspicion of having/holding/being x’. What crime was he accused or suspected of? (Watching this with the sound off
at work, so forgive me).
— PaulBox
Section 163(2) RTA is the legislation, sounds like this officer may have asked the cyclist to pull over, cyclist didn’t at first for some reason and it goes from there ( if the copper wanted to be really pedantic he could have gone for fail to stop, Section 163(3).
But didn’t and apparently got schooled.
brooksby wrote:
I was under the impression that the police have to actually tell you what they suspect you of, otherwise you can just trot on. No legal requirement to give them your name or details just because they ask for it. If they stop you in the street, it has to be ‘on suspicion of having/holding/being x’. What crime was he accused or suspected of? (Watching this with the sound off
at work, so forgive me).
— PaulBox
Section 163(2) RTA is the legislation, sounds like this officer may have asked the cyclist to pull over, cyclist didn’t at first for some reason and it goes from there ( if the copper wanted to be really pedantic he could have gone for fail to stop, Section 163(3).
But didn’t and apparently got schooled.
brooksby wrote:
I was under the impression that the police have to actually tell you what they suspect you of, otherwise you can just trot on. No legal requirement to give them your name or details just because they ask for it. If they stop you in the street, it has to be ‘on suspicion of having/holding/being x’. What crime was he accused or suspected of? (Watching this with the sound off
at work, so forgive me).
— PaulBox
Section 163(2) RTA is the legislation, sounds like this officer may have asked the cyclist to pull over, cyclist didn’t at first for some reason and it goes from there ( if the copper wanted to be really pedantic he could have gone for fail to stop, Section 163(3).
But didn’t and apparently got schooled.
brooksby wrote:
I was under the impression that the police have to actually tell you what they suspect you of, otherwise you can just trot on. No legal requirement to give them your name or details just because they ask for it. If they stop you in the street, it has to be ‘on suspicion of having/holding/being x’. What crime was he accused or suspected of? (Watching this with the sound off
at work, so forgive me).
— PaulBox
Section 163(2) RTA is the legislation, sounds like this officer may have asked the cyclist to pull over, cyclist didn’t at first for some reason and it goes from there ( if the copper wanted to be really pedantic he could have gone for fail to stop, Section 163(3).
But didn’t and apparently got schooled.
brooksby wrote:
I was under the impression that the police have to actually tell you what they suspect you of, otherwise you can just trot on. No legal requirement to give them your name or details just because they ask for it. If they stop you in the street, it has to be ‘on suspicion of having/holding/being x’. What crime was he accused or suspected of? (Watching this with the sound off
at work, so forgive me).
— PaulBox
Section 163(2) RTA is the legislation, sounds like this officer may have asked the cyclist to pull over, cyclist didn’t at first for some reason and it goes from there ( if the copper wanted to be really pedantic he could have gone for fail to stop, Section 163(3).
But didn’t and apparently got schooled.
brooksby wrote:
I was under the impression that the police have to actually tell you what they suspect you of, otherwise you can just trot on. No legal requirement to give them your name or details just because they ask for it. If they stop you in the street, it has to be ‘on suspicion of having/holding/being x’. What crime was he accused or suspected of? (Watching this with the sound off
at work, so forgive me).
— PaulBox
Section 163(2) RTA is the legislation, sounds like this officer may have asked the cyclist to pull over, cyclist didn’t at first for some reason and it goes from there ( if the copper wanted to be really pedantic he could have gone for fail to stop, Section 163(3).
But didn’t and apparently got schooled.
mancrider wrote:
If the CS is too busy, users need to be patient. Nipping in and out of the lane to maintain your desired speed is just selfish, careless and will no doubt anger other road users and even cause accidents.
What I am more shocked about is how disrespectful the cyclist was to an officer. I cant quite believe it. Shameful.— mancrider
1. The cyclists wasnt nipping in and out . From start of video it looks clear to me, they fully intended to stay on CSH before interacting with the cop. After that the raised kerb meant they had to stay on the road.
2. Respect is earned.
Struggling to see what the
Struggling to see what the cyclist did that was so wrong or so dangerous. The arrogance of the officer on the other hand does not surprise.
Great little pieces of paint
Great little pieces of paint these. They somehow obviate the need to provide sufficient space when overtaking vulnerable road users.
Great little pieces of paint
Great little pieces of paint these. They somehow obviate the need to provide sufficient space when overtaking vulnerable road users.
Welcome to RoadCC, home of
Welcome to RoadCC, home of CycleHatred.
“nipping in and out of cycling lanes”
He didn’t – he didn’t join the off road cycleway, but stayed on the road.
If you’re carrying on to Elephant the point at which that CSH remerges from the left puts you dangerously into conflict with buses pulling into the bus stop just after the junction (you can see this scissor movement happening in the video at 5.35ish). Personally I think the CSH is a much better option.
“the way he went about it is unknown, because we dont see if he looked behind himself before the manouevre.”
exactly. I think the reality here is that the officer expected him to join the off road section and he didn’t.
Actually, watching that again
Actually, watching that again I don’t think that’s what the Police objects to.
This starts at 1.33 – another cyclist overtakes as the lights change and the Police gives them the horn. The cyclist who gets pulled over gives him a ‘Calm down mate’. He then doesn’t join the off road section but you can already hear the Police giving him verbal by then.
It wasn’t an appropriate use of the horn – people in cars forget how loud a car horn is. At c1m out of the car it’s damned unpleasant.
If they Police are going to start pulling people over for crossing out of lanes when cornering (and the blue paint across that junction isn’t bound by white lines so it’s not acually a lane marking) then they’re going to be very busy.
The impatience here is the driver of that car – he’s the one who needed to leave some space for the junction to clear of cyclists before pulling off.
The problem started , with
The problem started , with the other cyclist with the black/white top and yellow rucksack. He did a MGIF filter between the cycle lane and the motor traffic. The policeman beeped at the MGIF cyclist in annoyance. (incorrect use of horn/impatient)
The Cam-Cyclist then told him “calm down mate” with the horn (horns sound much louder to cyclists right next to the bonnet), thus drawing the full ire/attention of the policeman for ‘dissing’ his authority. – From that point on they were interacting, and cyclists attention was divided between cop car and entering CSH?
As a general rule admonishing a policeman will always become a strung out affair – so dont be surprised. Expect, at best, to be late to wherever you are going, unless they are called away to another incident.
ydrol wrote:
The policeman blowing his horn incorrectly & unnecessarily.
30 year PC needs to read rule 151 & calm down.
in slow-moving traffic. You should…
be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side.
Arrogant arse meets self
Arrogant arse meets self-important twat. Or the other way round.
That cycle lane does look as if it should be wider though, but then congestion is the norm for London.
SimonS – snap
SimonS – snap 🙂 I suspect Video Cyclist would have joined CSH just fine , if attention was not diverted by interaction with cop + car.
ydrol wrote:
The dropped kerb sections of this off road cycleway are a (minor) issue – they’re not very long and if it’s congested and you’re not in the right place you can miss them. Then there aren’t any other oppotunities to leave the main carriageway.
SimonS wrote:
Yup Cam-Cyclist said as much in their YouTube comments. Once he had missed the entrance to the CSH, he had to stay on the main carriageway, so – rightly – took the lane – at which point I think the cop beeped behind him before lighting up…
Overtaking slower traffic
Overtaking slower traffic like drivers do day in day out…
I’m not really sure what the
I’m not really sure what the fuss was about – he moved out into the main traffic (as I’m pretty sure he’s allowed to do) and then seems to ride along just fine there. However, it seems to me that the police car was a bit too close to the cyclist at 1:46 or thereabouts, going through a pinch point too. (was he doing the Aussie tactic of ‘force them off the road’?).
Apologies for the multiple
Apologies for the multiple postings. Sticking iPhone screen it seems.
I’d be more concerned with
I’d be more concerned with the MPV that pulled out from the left into fast moving traffic at 1:50 in the video…coming to an almost standstill.
You can’t pull people over
You can’t pull people over for cycling on the highway – that’s just silly!
The cycle lane was full, which makes it very difficult to see what’s ahead and, after missing the entrance to the CSH, the cyclist had the choice of either continuing to ride in the road (the kerb blocking him off from the CSH), which is perfectly legal, or stopping dead in the moving traffic and lifting his bike over the kerb into the moving cycle traffic in the CSH, which would have put him at risk of being hit by traffic, or colliding with someone in the CSH…
I’ve ridden that route, many times, but before the kerbed cycle lane went in, and if faced with the situation in which he found himself, I’d have made the same decision. I’d also have been surprised to find myself being admonished by the Police for riding in the road, which is, after all, perfectly legal.
The copper needs to be given some cycle training so he understands what it’s like riding in congested cycle infrastructure like that – what visibility the cyclist has, what the hazards are and the choices available… There’s no law requiring cycling infrastructure to be used and the PC should have known that…
The Police ‘officer’ starts
The Police ‘officer’ starts beeping his horn at 1:31, after a different cyclist is out of the cycle lane and overtakes the cameraman on the road, the officer then starts shouting at cameraman thereafter. I’d wager cameraman took offense to that and started exercising his right to use the road just to annoy the copper.
You could argue this is 6 of on and half a dozen of the other, but in my opinion Police Officers should be above such things as petty road rage, even if the guy they’re attempting to ‘educate’ is being a pratt (in this case mostly because of a case of mistaken identity, because ‘all cyclists look the same’ apparently?).
MrElChristoph wrote:
It’s a raised kerb – once CSH entrace is missed (due to talking with policeman) , cyclist safest option is to stay on main road , get in correct lane, and (ideally) take the lane., as they couldn’t safely bunny hop into the bike lane!
Didn’t lksten to the argument
Didn’t lksten to the argument sith the copper but I don’t think the cycliat did anything wrong at all up to that point. If he was really minded to hop in and out of the cycle lane to maximise speed he would have done it in many other places when there were slower cyclists in front of him. If anything I suspect that he chose not to use it in the run up to a junction at which the lane he used was more direct. You’re quite entitled to do that, and I saw no evidence that the lane switch was dangerous – we can’t see what shoulder check he did of course.
This whole thing confirms
This whole thing confirms exactly what has always been warned about “bicycle infrastructure” aka Get-Cyclists-Off-the-Roads: they re-inforce in the mind of the anti-cycling public that bicycles have no place on the road.
Anybody calling themselves a “bicycle activist” or whatever and supporting these bicycle ghettoes which have no safety value and a lot of downsides needs to re-examine the facts.
As to the absolute fool driving the police car: eff off and get on a bike you busybody fool.
At this stage I find it difficult to decide who I dislike the most: Jobsworth betas with a uniform, Fearmongering hippy greenies, Feckless car-drivers. So much choice.
100% with the copper on this
100% with the copper on this one.
The cyclist’s logic falls down if you apply it to any other vehicle.
pintoo wrote:
Talk us through how this applies to those other vehicles……………
From the start of the video
From the start of the video its patently obvious that the cyclist is happy using the bike lane and only left the bike lane when distracted talking to the copper, and was unable to safely rejoin (raised kerb) so had to stay in the street. The reason they were talking in the first place was because the copper was being aggresive with his horn.
Nah, this is mostly just poor
Nah, this is mostly just poor infrastructure and furious commenters, nothing to see. The police guy is wrong too but it’s not worth getting into.
Potentially he didn’t look
Potentially he didn’t look over his shoulder when he pulled off the super slow way, but I suspect he riled the PC for pulling in front on his car in the middle of the lane. That would be asking for it.
Otherwise I can’t see anything wrong with him cycling on the road. Don’t think I would want to use the slow way if it was that clogged with slow cyclists. They are no doubt great for being safe and enabling slower cyclists to arrive at work without working up a sweat, that’s just not why I like cycling. Go fast, go hard!
Colin Peyresourde wrote:
Funnily enough I asked him why he didn’t use a helmet cam on the YT page, response .. “it would be unwatchable due to constant shoulder checks”
ydrol wrote:
Good on him then. So many cyclists never check around them.
I’m not sure why there are so many ‘plod did the right thing’ comments. Plod just sounds narky because he’s trapped in a steel box.
Most dangerous thing I saw in
Most dangerous thing I saw in that video, was the police officer trying to engage the cyclist in conversation from a moving vehicle at a distance of less than 2 feet.
The Highway Code clearly
The Highway Code clearly states that a cyclist is not obliged to ride in a cycle lane – it is that simple.
Cycle lanes take many forms, usually paint on the road which road users in motor vehicles choose to drive in and (as a retired police officer) I am yet to see a police officer stopping a motor vehiche for encroaching into a cycle lane (when my cycle is already in it) despite the obvious potential danger to me. This is a routine hazard.
Use of the horn is merely to inform other road users that you are where you are – nothing more, nothing less.
As ever, the cycle lane was a patchwork of paint on the road, the odd segregated bit and cyclists of very differing abilities. IMHO the cyclist didn’t cause danger to himself or to others and the officer seemed quite confused over what action to take.
The cyclist observed traffic regulations so far as I could see. If, as suggested, he should remain in the so-called cycle lane then how would he have turned right had he wanted to because there was no obvious means so to do other than signalling right and moving across the lanes of traffic – a daily hazard for cyclists?
DingDongBell wrote:
I’ll be amazed if that is still the case five years from now.
L.Willo wrote:
Sadly, you are probably right. In five years we’ll all be legally obliged to go everywhere in those automatic self-driving pods like in Wall-E.
Okay having now watched the
Okay having now watched the video I can’t see how this isn’t titled ‘Cyclist has the nerve to carve up a police car and then be pissy to the officer who’s been forced to pull him over for disregarding his instructions.’
You can see he’s been alongside this police car from the start, then is in the cycle lane (just) as he moves himself very close to the police vehicle to overtake the other cyclist. He then, while still effectively alongside the police car, moves out of the cycle lane and cuts the corner into the adjoining lane directly in front of the police car. Distracted? Possibly bit it looks likely he just wasn’t prepared to abandon an ill thought overtake right before the raised kerb begins and chooses to jump in front of the car instead of the cyclist (the right thing being to do neither and brake and wait for a better passing place). As the officer said, no one is suggesting he can’t use the main highway, but what is being said is the no matter what vehicle you use you can’t carve someone up like that. Once locked out by the raised kerb and alongside the police car he again decides push through instead of slowing down, which would be the safer and quicker way to move out from being within easy arms reach of the car.
Riding inches from motor traffic and then cutting them up he is likely to take a hit – the cop is stating a fact not expressing his wish. Nor is he saying getting squashed by a lorry is the outcome of not using the cycle lane – lack of discipline changing lanes will. This cyclist could not be told anything though and was like a sulking child, so I’m not surprised the officer was exasperated with him.
Definitely the cycle lane is very crowded and would be nice if it was wider with a fast and a slow lane plus some wiggle room. But it’s not and if you want to change lanes do it like any other road user should. To claim it was unsafe to stay in his original lane is rubbish. Maybe unsafe to overtake in that lane / travel at the speed he wants to go (the pace of that commute would certainly drive me nuts), but then just has to be patient as was said, and wait for an opportunity to overtake. People rightly get pissed off at motorists who won’t wait for a suitable place to overtake a cyclist, and while the consequences of a cyclist determined to overtake and maintain his course at all costs is generally going to be less, surely the same standard should be expected?
Just by reading a selection
Just by reading a selection of the comments I can see it coming: Mandatory cycle lanes 🙁
This guy was doing absolutely nothing illegal and yet a good proportion of the comments agree with the daft old plod. We can be pretty sure that most of the car drivers in that short clip exceeded a speed limit at some point during their day and were not reprimanded for their lawbreaking.
Good job he is retiring soon.
Good job he is retiring soon.
As others have said the amount of dangerous driving of large vehicles the police ignore and we have this clown of an officer deciding that the most dangerous thing he has seen today is a cyclist not using the CSH.
oozaveared wrote:
What is missing from this ‘debate’ is the view from the driver, minding his own business when out of nowhere a rider decides to abandon the cycle lane, without signalling or checking that it is safe to do so and swerves right in front of him. He cannot have been expecting that. Who would?
Trust me. I will not be driving alongside cycle lanes prepared to take evasive action in such circumstances. I doubt any other motorists will either.
Human nature being what it is, with instincts for self preservation that override virtually everything else in life threatening situations, given the choice of swerving right and crashing in to 2 tonnes of metal, slamming on the brakes and being hit up the arse by 2 tonnes of metal … or ploughing through 100Kg of fleshy irresponsible idiot and aluminium ….
You get my point.
All the copper tried to do was point out the bleeding obvious. Wasting his breath on future Darwin Award winners all day must take its toll.
I wish you a happy retirement, Sir.
L.Willo wrote:
Good job he is retiring soon.
As others have said the amount of dangerous driving of large vehicles the police ignore and we have this clown of an officer deciding that the most dangerous thing he has seen today is a cyclist not using the CSH.
— L.Willo What is missing from this ‘debate’ is the view from the driver, minding his own business when out of nowhere a rider decides to abandon the cycle lane, without signalling or checking that it is safe to do so and swerves right in front of him. He cannot have been expecting that. Who would? Trust me. I will not be driving alongside cycle lanes prepared to take evasive action in such circumstances. I doubt any other motorists will either. Human nature being what it is, with instincts for self preservation that override virtually everything else in life threatening situations, given the choice of swerving right and crashing in to 2 tonnes of metal, slamming on the brakes and being hit up the arse by 2 tonnes of metal … or ploughing through 100Kg of fleshy irresponsible idiot and aluminium …. You get my point. All the copper tried to do was point out the bleeding obvious. Wasting his breath on future Darwin Award winners all day must take its toll. I wish you a happy retirement, Sir.— oozaveared
What is also missing is an accurate account of whether the cyclist did look andindicate before leaving the cycle lane. If he did blindly pull out, then I’d agree with the policeman. If he did take due care in leaving the lane, then I’d side with him.
By the way, I’m concerned that you think that “slamming on the brakes” is not acceptable due to “being hit up the arse by 2 tonnes of metal”. It sounds like vehicles are not following guidelines in keeping a safe distance. I’d hate to think that you would delay your reactions in an attempt to prevent an insurance claim.
hawkinspeter]
The officer’s annoyance is with the sudden move made by the cyclist. He accepts completely that cyclists are allowed to use the highway, it is leaving the highway without notice in the middle of a curve which has got the copper’s heart rate up. I don’t believe he is lying.
Yes, drivers should maintain a safe distance but you and I know they don’t always do so, especially in rush hour traffic. It isnt about an insurance claim, it is about wanting to avoid an accident that causes injury to me or my passengers, which is always my primary concern on the road. My reflexes will pick the best option for me in those circumstances where an accident becomes unavoidable due to someone else’s stupidity.
The officer’s annoyance is
Watch the vid with sound around 1min in – if what you say is true he pulled the wrong guy. The PC began blowing his horn before the guy he pulled had moved from the bike lane.
L.Willo wrote:
I think when you are driving you are supposed to be expecting – to the best of your ability – the worst (or, the unexpected), not just reacting to what happens or what you expect to happen.
Your comment sounds like the one where a truck driver got away with flattening a cyclist on a large road because he hadn’t seen cyclists on there before and hadn’t expected to see one.
Anyway… So when you’re driving on the motorway, in – say – the middle lane or the so-called fast lane, do you pay attention to the cars to your left? Or do you happily zip along paying no attention to those vehicles because who would expect one of them to just pull out?
brooksby wrote:
I think when you are driving you are supposed to be expecting – to the best of your ability – the worst (or, the unexpected), not just reacting to what happens or what you expect to happen.
Your comment sounds like the one where a truck driver got away with flattening a cyclist on a large road because he hadn’t seen cyclists on there before and hadn’t expected to see one.
Anyway… So when you’re driving on the motorway, in – say – the middle lane or the so-called fast lane, do you pay attention to the cars to your left? Or do you happily zip along paying no attention to those vehicles because who would expect one of them to just pull out?— L.Willo
Meteor strikes happen regularlyl, sink holes can open up, bastards string wire across tow paths? Is it reasonable to be expected to drive / cycle at 4mph just in case this happens?
No. The test is to be prepared for that which could [b] reasonably [/b]be predicted. A lemming throwing himself off a cycle path without warning under your wheels does not cut it. 99% of the time a jury will rightly acquit a driver who becomes a victim of someone else’s rank stupidity. The 1% will win on appeal.
Changing lanes on a motorway is a predictable and safe event, provided that mirrors and signals are used by the driver making the manoeuvre. There is an incentive to do so. Not many people want to be rear ended at 70mph do they?
L.Willo wrote:
so, the highway code requires drivers to give cyclists as much room as a car when overtaking https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203 see rule 163 for an illustration. This is to allow fpor unforeseen circum,stances, wind, debris, potholes that may cause the cyclist to deviate. You suggest that as loing as there is a white line between the car and the cyclist then one foot is a sufficient passing distance.
sort of makes using cycle lanes pointless as all safety margins disappear because of the magic paint.
Before even considering whether the cyclist in thios case, looked and indicated before moving out slightly.
Would you also apply your logic of not moving right or stopping (so as to avoide impacting other vehicles) if a child stepped into the road? The attitude that killing people ios preferable to denting metal is quite concerning.
wycombewheeler wrote:
The highway code requires that in the same way it requires cyclists to wear helmets and clothing to aid visibility. It is not a legal requirement but something that might be taken into account if there is an accident.
However the Highway Code does not oblige motorists to allow sufficient room in case another road decides to pull a suicide stunt.
I dont care about the metal, I care about human lives, mine and my passengers first. However we are biologically evolved to care for children even if not our own. The truth is I dont know how I would react in that situation, it would be instinctual.
L.Willo wrote:
The highway code requires that in the same way it requires cyclists to wear helmets and clothing to aid visibility. It is not a legal requirement but something that might be taken into account if there is an accident.
However the Highway Code does not oblige motorists to allow sufficient room in case another road decides to pull a suicide stunt.
I dont care about the metal, I care about human lives, mine and my passengers first. However we are biologically evolved to care for children even if not our own. The truth is I dont know how I would react in that situation, it would be instinctual.— wycombewheeler
Ah, not just a road safety expert, cycling expert, moral ethicist, road designer, lawyer, but also an evolutionary biologist! Is there no end to your talents?
There is nothing in that video that shows the cyclist doing anything other than cycling in a manner in accordance with the rules of the road and normality.
The piteous spilling of electrons and concern on your part does nothing to diminish the fact that a fool of a police officer lost the plot when his importune hootings were challenged.
The cyclist DID NOT pull out without checking, DID NOT hurl himself into the path of the brave terrorist-thwarting, rescuing-of-drowning-children, hard-worked, down-to-earth civil servant. He suggested gently to the motorist that he stop making a nuisance of himself by sounding his horn and then continued on his way. This caused what can only be fairly described as an outburst of road-rage by someone that has been privileged (and overpaid) to theoretically protect all road users. The cyclist then changed lanes like any other normal member of society riding on the public highway, safely occupied the centre of the lane and was then honked at again by the senile menace.
Stop making it worse for the officer by highlighting his appalling conduct:
1. Driving distracted while mouthing off to cyclists
2. Sounding his horn, not in order to avoid a collision, but in order to intimdate other road users
3. Disrupting traffic in order to indulge in his geriatric rage and _failing_to_make_any_charge_when_challenged.
Your own faults, if not obvious to yourself already, probably never will be. But I implore you, in the name of the poor policeman, please don’t draw any more attention to him, or he might actcually get disciplined!
L.Willo wrote:
What is missing from this ‘debate’ is the view from the driver, minding his own business when out of nowhere a rider decides to abandon the cycle lane,[/quote]
The driver and cyclists were already ‘exchanging words’ – and cyclists missed entrance to CSH as they were too busy interacting with the cop- are people commenting without listening to audio ??
I think there’s a fair bit of
I think there’s a fair bit of fear mongering about the impending enforcement of cycle lane use. I think the cyclist has changed lanes too close, whether he looked out not, but don’t agree that he should therefore HAVE to use the cycle highway. The reference to how he cycles seems to be more about his lane discipline issues not about which lane he chooses to use.
There’s a fair group of people who think mandatory cycle lane use is the way. Given the readership of the site I expect most are cyclists and not people with an agenda against cycling. Don’t agree with their opinion but fair enough. But agreeing with the copper does not equate to agreeing that cycle lanes should be mandatory. The cyclist is fixated on that issue but the copper is not interested in being sidetracked on that question because it’s not his issue.
I’ve read lots of Trump-worthy comments about cycling and have no doubt there’s a lot of people with hostility towards cyclists/cycling, but I think we don’t help matters if we justify bad cycling and talk like there is a conspiracy against us and that anyone who disagrees is the enemy.
And to that end I think Road
And to that end I think Road.cc you’ve misrepresented the events in your headline. Some week disagree bit it’s definitely disputable as a summary of the events in the video. I’ve seen a few accusations of clickbait headlines here before and not entirely without foundation I’d say.
I love how these threads go
I love how these threads go off in tangents and everyone gets personal, really interesting social study. Anyway……
Paraphrasing without emotional overlay
Officer : don’t pull out suddenly (as you did in my opinion (and there is no video from his POV)) as you may be killed by a truck. I wouldn’t want that to happen to you. There appears to be a possibly safer option for you. I am not planning to give you a ticket
Cyclist: I don’t agree but I am going to try and wind you up and be smart, oh look I have succeeded in irritating someone (aren’t I clever and I have this video of it).
Rather than say thanks for your concern, I did not think my actions would be perceived as such. Certainly wasn’t my intent.
imaginary ending ensues with officer saying thanks for considering that, have a good day and ride safe, cyclist trying the chirpy ‘no worries’ and cycling home to upload a positive video about how to act as an adult.
Release the trolls!
narch wrote:
You have a fine grasp of irony, sir!
When I read the term “Cycling
When I read the term “Cycling Super Highway”, a shitty 1m wide strip of blue paint encouraging cyclists to position themselves in the kill zone immediately to the left of left turning traffic at intersections isn’t what sprung to mind. Now I know. Cycling Super Highway, lol.
“The _Kaner [729 posts] 1 day
“The _Kaner [729 posts] 1 day ago
2 likes
I’d be more concerned with the MPV that pulled out from the left into fast moving traffic at 1:50 in the video…coming to an almost standstill.”
noticed that – I presume not giving way to the cyclists is acceptable as it is a norm’
if you look one cyclist has to stop for the dangerous law breaking driver (partly hidden by guy with red rucsac but you can see them setting off again)
i don’t think the cyclist really did anything dangerous and if he did he only endangered himself – the driver that fails to stop for the oncoming cyclists displays behaviour that endangers others
couldn’t post 2 pics
couldn’t post 2 pics
My driving instructor, when I
My driving instructor, when I was learning to drive, said that the hierarchy for any car journey was something like
1. Don’t kill anyone;
2. Don’t get killed;
3. Don’t break the law;
4. Don’t p1ss anyone off.
‘Get to your destination’ was in there too, but I don’t remember if it was more or less important than ‘don’t kill anyone’…
brooksby wrote:
Good advice for any journey, not just drivers! Especially No. 2, for example by deviating from a cycle path into fast moving traffic without warning.
As for rushing, my opening post was that MGIF twats are the scourge of the road network, whether on 4 wheels or 2. I stand by that. That video was Exhibit A.
Patience is a virtue in life, and on the roads, a life saver.
Fixed penalty for refusing to
Fixed penalty for refusing to stop in time and then arguing with an officer.
Skylark wrote:
Immediately after the fixed penalty for unnecesarily sounding horn and pulling the wrong cyclist.
‘Group hug’ – everyone!
‘Group hug’ – everyone!
Let’s all calm down and enjoy some frites & mayo…and a few beers.
Summary:
No ‘one’ opinion is the same as another
Nobody’s opinion is right/wrong (or should that be everybody’s…?)
The police officer was right & wrong
The cyclists was right & wrong
CSH are shit – not 100% effective or ‘safe’…but can/may be improved (nirvana??? NBL)
Let’s just all go cycling (prferably not in a main town/city)
Free your mind, body and soul of the cares and woes (of this video)
Stop getting so ‘het up’ about things that, although may indirectly affect you, is not your primary concern…..slaggggging each other off over an opinion is pointless…..
…is that, then, a case of road.cc rage
I’m off to make some daisy chains in the (overtall) grass in my back garden…