A London cyclist has posted footage online showing a police officer overtaking him too closely in his vehicle then, after telling him to pull over, provides him with advice on how to cycle on the road that is at odds with rules contained in the Highway Code.
Helmet camera user Evo Lucas posted footage yesterday to YouTube and other social media sites of the incident, which happened in Walworth, South London.
At the start of the clip, he turns left from Wells Way into Albany Road, then passes the police car at traffic lights before tuning right into Portland Street, which subsequently leads into Brandon Street.
Around 1 minutes 30 seconds into the video, the police officer makes a close overtake on the rider, who says, “Excuse me,” then as he pulls alongside the police vehicle asks, “Are you in a hurry, sir?”
The officer asks Mr Lucas, “Wanna pull over?” then puts his flashing blue lights on and passes the rider, who comes to a halt behind him.
He asks him: “Do you want to explain why you are cycling in the middle of the road, making it difficult for vehicles to pass you?”
But Mr Lucas pointed out that he was allowed to use the width of the carriageway and suggested the officer may have broken the speed limit when he overtook him, saying: “No sir, I am entitled to use the whole road and you are entitled to do 20 mph on a 20 mph road.”
“Which I was doing,” the police officer replied. “Now you are getting to a fine line of obstructing vehicles.
“You are getting very close to the way you are cycling to obstructing vehicles from passing you,” he added, saying that Mr Lucas should “take on board” his advice.
Mr Lucas responded: “You take on board you were driving too closely, sir”
As he rode away, the cyclist said: “Well you should have waited then, sir. Are you detaining me, sir? I’m going to work. No, you need to get on board with how the Highway Code works, you are a police officer.”
The Highway Code allows cyclists to ride in primary position, including on narrow roads, and also instructs motorists “’Not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake. Give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car.”
A number of police forces across the UK have adopted the initiative launched by West Midlands Polcie last year that targets drivers passing cyclists too closely.
However, one commenter to Mr Lucas’s video on Twitter pointed out, “How are the general public meant to be educated on how to pass cyclists safely, when officers like this get it so wrong?”
In a reply to a question on the London Cycling Facebook group regarding whether he had reported the incident, Mr Lucas said: “I’m hoping he will call me and I’ll get an apology. If so I’ll leave it at that.”
Should Mr Lucas receive an apology the police officer won’t be the first London driver to apologise to Mr Lucas as the result of one of his helmetcam videos – back in 2014 a white van man who close passed Mr Lucas in Covent Garden lost his job and was convicted of assault on the video evidence of the footage. At his trial the van driver changed his plea from innocent to guilty after learning of the existence of helmetcam footage of the incident and offered Mr Lucas a “profuse apology”.
Last year one of Mr Lucas’s videos also provoked some intense debate around the subject of red light jumping in the capital when his video of an incident in which Guardian journalist, Jack Shenker being ticketed for riding through a red light went viral. Mr Shenker maintained that he rode through the light because it was safer to do so.
139 thoughts on “Video: London cyclist pulled over by police officer – who needs to re-read the Highway Code”
Not so long ago, cycling on
Not so long ago, cycling on the Northamptonshire’s roads, ten cyclists, cycling two abreast, five deep (making it easier for overtakes), had a Police car pass close by, put the blues and two’s on, told us to ride single file (in no uncertain terms), before switching off the his toys before continuing on his merry way.
The road wasn’t a narrow country road, else the Police in their own actions, would have caused more of an issue (sitting in the other lane for an extended period).
Therefore, if the Police who are MEANT to uphold a good standard of driving and set an example to us all, doesn’t know the highway code, how can they preach when others break said code?
Perfect interaction.
Perfect interaction.
Cool, Calm & Knowledgable.
That policeman needs to be
That policeman needs to be taken off driving duties and re-assessed. He clearly wasn’t as far to the right as he could have been and was also lying about overtaking at above the speed limit. Wasting Police time pulling over a cyclist who has done nothing wrong is silly.
The van driver managed to overtake safely.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Just a minor note, but he probably wasn’t on “driving duties” – that’s just a panda car, not traffics.
It would certainly be an
It would certainly be an interesting case to drop into his local nick with a copy of that clip with the data off the Garmin overlaid and ask to speak to whoever is in charge of the “close pass initiative” in the burough then ask if they might have a word with “this” driver.
I’d love to see a court case where someone was charged with that heinous crime as described my PC Plod “You are getting very close to the way you are cycling to obstructing vehicles from passing you,” (The only charges here should be brought by the Grammar police)
So if I drive and my wheels roll really close to the stop line would he jump out and tell me “You are getting very close failing to stop at a stop signal.” ?
Fairly representative of the
Fairly representative of the attitude and knowledge of the police, from my interactions with them.
Police officer clearly guilty
Police officer clearly guilty of the offence of wasting police time.
Policeman is making a valid
Policeman is making a valid point about obstructing traffic by cycling in the middle of the road. I’ve cycled myself for 30 years and I cringe so badly whenever I see helmet-cam warriors and internet twats acting in such a self-righteous, entitled way. There’s a sub-section of riders whose lives are so fucking small and pathetic that they go out actively looking to piss people off, it seems. If it’s such a trauma, and such open warfare each day, why don’t you just take the fucking bus? Or just quit cycling altogether?
Applecart wrote:
Yeah, a fine bit of police work there.
And it’s not like there is any other serious sh*t going on in London ….
I agree it’s petty. However
I agree it’s petty. However this is how motorists feel when cyclists ride like arseholes. I always ride as close to the left as I possibly can – never had any kind of run-in and I ride daily. It’s called common courtesy, coupled with a sense of self-preservation. Making someone nervous who’s driving a few tonnes of steel whilst I’m protected only by Lycra ain’t sensible – regardless of who is right or wrong. I’d rather be alive quite frankly.
Yeah, a fine bit of police work there.
And it’s not like there is any other serious sh*t going on in London ….— Applecart
I always ride as close to the
[quote=Applecart]I always ride as close to the left as I possibly can – never had any kind of run-in and I ride daily. [quote=Grumpy17]
[quote=Applecart]
Any tips how to do this ? Round ,say,Marble Arch?
I wouldn’t ride daily in
I wouldn’t ride daily in central London as I value my life. If I had to I’d avoid major junctions like that as it’s just too hairy for me. Luckily I live in Scandinavia for work now and we have amazing cycling infrastructure – I rarely share the road with a car any more. I sincerely hope the UK catches up to this as I’m sick of people whining. It is bloody dangerous to ride on the road: fact.
Applecart wrote:
No it isn’t. Unless you also think walking is “bloody dangerous”.
http://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/road-safety-and-cycling-overview
I don’t know whether you are trolling – but you are certainly spreading misinformation.
That link says that cycling
That link says that cycling safety in the UK is one of the poorer countries in Europe. I don’t get your point.
My ideal view is that bikes and motorised traffic should be entirely separate as much as possible. In Scandinavia every footpath has a line down the middle and the outer is for cyclists – this is just basic logic. If I still lived in the UK I’d happily pay large taxes to build cycling infrastructure so it’s safe for everyone.
I realise then that nobody would have anything to complain about, which would be a national tragedy.
No it isn’t. Unless you also think walking is “bloody dangerous”.
http://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/road-safety-and-cycling-overview
I don’t know whether you are trolling – but you are certainly spreading misinformation.
— Applecart
Applecart wrote:
Yes, you are a troll. I wasn’t sure before but now that is my point.
What is your point? I don’t
What is your point? I don’t see how this is a logical statement.
Yes, you are a troll. I wasn’t sure before but now that is my point.— Applecart
Applecart wrote:
I think road.cc should run an article on you…
the headline should say something like – person who has no experience of a situation fails to see the point of view of those who do, but can’t seem to stop posting to repeatedly reinforce that idea
I’ve ridden around central
I’ve ridden around central Bristol daily, for 10 years.
My main point is: don’t act like an entitled, whinging, sad, middle-aged, passive-aggresive beardo cockshaft when you’re out riding your bike, and especially don’t then upload it to YouTube as you just make people hate us, which makes my life as a cyclist worse, and more dangerous.
I think road.cc should run an article on you…
the headline should say something like – person who has no experience of a situation fails to see the point of view of those who do, but can’t seem to stop posting to repeatedly reinforce that idea — Applecart
Applecart wrote:
whinging about whinging = whinging squared
you seem to have no problem eciliciting hatred by yourself – which is all good and proper as I assume you are an adult and thus responsible for yourself
I too dislike some of the rubbish whiny videos posted on you tube by cyclists, motorcylists and car drivers alike – I don’t blame them for anything that happens to me though!
Applecart wrote:
There’s no luck at all involved in that – you just picked an area in Europe trendy and progressive, yet vague enough, to avoid being called out on specifics, in order to aid your trolling.
Who the fuck says they live in Scandinavia? Are you learning Scandinavian? Maybe go for a Scandinavian passport after a few years?
Troll off, and take your mate, Willo, with you. Again.
I’ve got dual citizenship and
I’ve got dual citizenship and yes it’s pretty cool being a Nordic citizen. I’m not giving specifics. Presumably Willo is someone else who also called you folks out for acting like dicks?
Applecart wrote:
Which bit of ‘not riding in the door zone of parked cars’ don’t you get ? The rearward shot shows a whole bunch of them.
And as for ‘riding as far to the left’, perhaps you could do the rest of us favour and read a copy of Cyclecraft (or the IAM equivalent) – skulking in the gutter just encourages close passes when there’s not enough room, particularly at pinch points. And yeah, I used to do a regular cycle commute too.
Exactly re door zone… would
Exactly re door zone… would the officer have preferred the rider to be ‘car doored’ and end up under his wheels?
This is what works for me.
This is what works for me. Been hit by a car only once, but I was speeding over the limit down a hill and someone pulled out and didn’t see me: my fault.
I think there’s a false dichotomy here, ie. Riding in the middle vs skulking. I ride balls-out and somewhat aggressively, but I hold a line close to cars and scan for occupants as on balance I feel safer, as do drivers. I feel I have fewer close passes too, on balance, the more I’m out of the way.
This is my two cents. I love riding my bike and never get angry, or receive punishment passes, etc etc. EZ life. Go figure.
Applecart wrote:
There is no speed limit on a bike, perhaps the driver did not see you because you were hidden in the gutter.
As for your comments on riding correctly in a city with poor cycling infrastructure, poor driving stands and no presumed liability – I don’t think your opinion counts seeing as you don’t experience any of these.
Thanks for taking the time to
Thanks for taking the time to respond and care for my safety, much appreciated.
Firstly I don’t ride in the gutter – I’m about 6 inches out.
Secondly, I was hit when I absolutely bombed it down Bristol’s Park Street, with parked cars left and right. I was going faster than traffic and a few feet out into the road. Someone pulled out fast on the right from a side street and pulled straight into a parking space on my left, cutting me up. My thighs took the force and I flipped over the bonnet and skidded several metres on my gloved hands – I was bloody lucky as I was doing about 35-40mph with no helmet (15 years ago).
Finally, I’m British and have ridden for more than 20 years on UK roads. Now living in Scandinavia, but I still ride in Britain with other lycra-clad friends and see the occasional open warfare and animosity so yes, I have up-to-date experience.
There is no speed limit on a bike, perhaps the driver did not see you because you were hidden in the gutter.
As for your comments on riding correctly in a city with poor cycling infrastructure, poor driving stands and no presumed liability – I don’t think your opinion counts seeing as you don’t experience any of these.— Applecart
Firstly I don’t ride in the
[quote=Applecart]
Firstly I don’t ride in the gutter – I’m about 6 inches out.
[quote=Applecart]
Really? At that distance I’d be worried about hitting pavement furniture almost as much as close passes :-/
Applecart wrote:
Troll-de-lol-de-troll
By which you’re implying that
By which you’re implying that I’m saying this simply for effect or to annoy people? No, this is what I sincerely believe. I think Road.cc are trolling for clickbait, more than anything as these are such petty non-events. ‘Angry people click more’, is the rule for news sites looking to make revenue. Good luck with your valiant helmet-cam crusade, noble cycling knights of justice. lol
Applecart wrote:
Aw, bless. I do believe that we’ve upset the applecart. The sun’s out too :o)
Still, I always like the line ‘This is a public right of way; I use it by right but you use it under licence, a licence which may be taken away if you fail to meet the required standards’.
Applecart wrote:
Applecart = bikebikebike = willo = TROLL.
Do not feed.
I have no idea what you’re
I have no idea what you’re chatting about. My only issue is the absolutely stinking attitude so many of you display. Occasionally one of your own needs to point that out as frankly I feel a lot of this YouTube vigilantism, negativity and mouthing off in public lets the whole fucking community down.
Applecart = bikebikebike = willo = TROLL.
Do not feed.— Applecart
burtthebike wrote:
Applecart = bikebikebike = willo = TROLL.
Do not feed.— Applecart
Nope.
Possibly Applecart = bikelikebike = willo = TROLL
Not sure why he’s subverted my username, but it ain’t me.
Bikebikebike wrote:
Yeah was wondering about that the other day. Didn’t think you guys were the same (it’d be too obvious), but couldn’t think why he’d pick you out. Maybe just a coincidence.
Anyway, Willo’s a grade A timewaster. No point engaging. Some guys you can have your say, they can have theirs and move on. But Willo will not take note of any decent point anyone makes. Just ignore and repeat what he said previously in a different way.
Applecart wrote:
Go back to driving your black cab/white van. I call BS on the “I’ve cycled myself for 30 years”.
Never owned a car. I’m not
Never owned a car. I’m not giving you my Strava though so think what you will.
Go back to driving your black cab/white van. I call BS on the “I’ve cycled myself for 30 years”. — Applecart
Applecart wrote:
Go back to driving your black cab/white van. I call BS on the “I’ve cycled myself for 30 years”.
— MikeOnABike— Applecart
You have had your bit of attention, now clear off.
Not seeking attention! I’m
Not seeking attention! I’m genuinely mystified by this bizarre us-and-them mentality. Ie. Policemen are all lazy, incompetent wankers, all drivers are crazed maniacs who wish they could just kill cyclists, and cyclists are the noble, oppressed underdog fighting to educate the stupid/evil masses and institutions that conspire against them. I just find this whole narrative fucking ridiculous lol
Fact is, most drivers are just fine, going about their business. They may not appreciate what it’s like to ride, therefore give them the benefit of the doubt, and be wary – *always* presume they haven’t seen you, can’t judge your speed, and that your vulnerability makes them nervous. This is my golden rule.
Applecart wrote:
Mostly a straw man argument, though you do seem naive and trusting of power in general. You think all ‘institutions’ have everyone’s best interests at heart? Really?
The point is that human beings are fallible, morally-(very)-imperfect and make mistakes, and that power tends to be abused, even by good people.
Human beings with weapons are more dangerous than those without and their mistakes are more likely to have serious concequences. Therefore use of weapons should be restricted and controlled and there should be separation of those with them and those without them as far as is possible.
Nothing and nobody ever suggested that ‘cyclists’ are ‘noble’ – they are merely less well armed – so am not sure why you decided to invent that one. Indeed plenty of
of existing cyclists seem to be smug elitists who appear to like the fact that cycling appears too scary for most non-cyclists.
Cycling on the road is not dangerous. What is dangerous, of course, is _driving_ on the road. That the danger is directed at others than those driving doesn’t change the fact that it’s the driving that is dangerous, not the cycling.
I think perhaps youre making
I think perhaps youre making this unnecessarily complicated: a human being is a a 70-odd kilo bag of muscle and bone, on a metal frame + skinny wheels weighing about 10% of their bodyweight in total, sharing the road with steel motorised vehicles weighing upwards of 1500kg. Any sort of touch or collision will result in likely serious injury or death for the cyclist, and likely zero physical consequences for the driver. In this respect cycling on the road is inherently highly dangerous.
I believe drivers should be educated, of course. I also want to see cyclists educated to use common sense. eg. I have noticed even amongst my friends that it’s perfectly fine to ride in the middle of the road and block traffic, to ride about 1.5 metres away from parked cars, etc. I realise the highway code stipulates that this is acceptable, however I think common sense should prevail too. Eg. if you are clearly obstructing the flow of traffic, it’s best to pull in a little rather than obstinately continue, get cut up, and then mouth off at people that it’s your right to piss them off. This doesn’t actually help anyone – it makes things worse for both drivers and cyclists.
Applecart wrote:
You just described, accurately, why driving in the vicinity of cyclists and pedestrians is dangerous (it endangers those outside the vehicle, who, as you say, are fragile and unprotected). (In a similar way that shooting a gun in a public street would be dangerous).
Then you go on to repeat your statement about [i]cycling being dangerous, directly contradicting what you just said.
Do you know what ‘dangerous’ means? If you do something that puts others in danger, that is dangerous.
I take your point that it is
I take your point that it is cars that are dangerous, yes. Cycling in the vicinity of cars is therefore highly dangerous for cyclists. I don’t think this is really debatable XD
I would add that cycling at high speed is dangerous too; speed shimmies, slips, mechanical failures, human error, etc. eg. I saw my mate’s forehead split open and glimpsed his skull – was sure he had brain damage. Not something you forget in a hurry, trying to stop him bleeding with my jersey whilst an ambulance came. This was at ~35kmh, junction – inexperienced, braked too hard on a new bike and flipped. Please be careful and wear helmets, regardless of how ‘in the right’ you are..
Never owned a car. I’m not
[quote=Applecart]Never owned a car. I’m not giving you my Strava though so think what you will. [quote=MikeOnABike]
Advice on how to interact with motorists but never owned a car…?
Sshhhhhh then. When I drive I give way to cyclists. When I cycle I own the road when it’s the safest option and hug the kerb when it’s safe and let people pass.
Funnily enough the ones I see taking the biggest risks are the prats competing on Strava…
Applecart wrote:
cyclist is barely out of the door zone. are you smoking crack?
no way is the road wide enough to pass safely in the presence of oncoming traffic and cyclist position does not prevent safe passing in absence if oncoming traffic.
I cycle inside the door zone,
I cycle inside the door zone, as I’ve already said. I also stop if I see someone pull over as – obviously – someone is probably about to open a door.. Genius. I’m also fit enough and on light enough wheels to accelerate back up to speed at will. This is why I love cycling, it keeps you sharp.
If you’re pushing 50, have a beard, erectile dysfunction, can’t afford a car, have mirrors and cameras on your bike, and get angry and start quoting the highway code when cars honk at you for cycling in the middle of the road, I can only say I’m sorry, and good luck.
Applecart wrote:
And yet better practice really would …Bbcbvcb0pp p 909 99
Ah, f- it! Life’s too short
Applecart wrote:
Strava or it didn’t happen
Applecart wrote:
To be fair, it’s hard to tell from the footage as the rear facing camera isn’t very good but it looks to me like he passes quite a few parked cars.
I too would ride primary position in that scenario due to the prevalant risk of dooring.
Applecart wrote:
There should be a simple acid
There should be a simple acid test, would you fail a driving test by driving like that. If the answer is yes then it should be considered as a driving offence. As someone who has passed a driving test and a course to drive a Police Vehicle, they should understand the basics of the Highway Code & set an example to other road users. Situations like these just erode the law abiding publics trust and support for the Police with stupid incidents like this.
This is why people with mini
This is why people with mini-dicks shouldn’t be allowed on the force.
Write to your MPs.
unconstituted wrote:
No, register a complaint with the police and escalate to IPCC if you don’t get a good response.
Ramuz wrote:
Normal for police. The ones that are not are a rare and beautiful thing, not often seen in the UK
And then sit back and watch the IPCC ignore you, because the IPCC is staffed mainly by ex-cops, who are still institutionally anti-cyclist, and other motorists, who are just “ordinary” anti-cyclist.
Being ignorant of the highway
Being ignorant of the highway code is poor. Should complain to police standards about his behaviour, use of the blues and so on as the rest of it is below the standard required and he should at least get a written warning for it.
Gotta dream -but I hope the video make or roadcc at least try and get the police standards to take it up
christ, what a non event –
christ, what a non event – next time when asked if you want to pull over, just say no!
beezus fufoon wrote:
He did. And then the blues went on and the horn sounded.
Considering the road has a
Considering the road has a 20mph limit and the cyclist was easily riding at 20 mph the officer should have just wound his neck in and kept going. At 20mph.
What disappoints me the most is that a police officer has treated a vulnerable road user like many other bad drivers do; as a nuisance on the road instead of a… wait for it…. vulnerable road user.
I also think there’s some validity to Applecarts conviction that *some* cyclists with helmet cams seem to ride in a manner where they are baiting poor driving so they can publish it on the www and complain.
Institutionally anti-cyclist.
Institutionally anti-cyclist.
It’s incredibly bad advice to
It’s incredibly bad advice to ride as close to the left hand side as you can. It encourages close passes in places where it’s unsafe to overtake, which can result in upsetting the Applecart.
HarrogateSpa wrote:
places like the setting for this scene perhaps?
Seemed to me he was riding a
Seemed to me he was riding a smartly safe distance from the door-zone. When it’s unsafe to overtake, it’s a cyclists right to take the lane. Not that most of us want to be jerks about it – we just want to arrive alive.
If only the public was truly properly educated about what it’s like to be a vulnerable road user. If only they knew what it’s like to need a little room on a bike to waver from your line in case a stiff breeze or a pothole or even crack; or what it would be like to plow into a car door at 20 mph.
This is not a difficult
This is not a difficult problem to fix.
It could be put to rest with a few cheaply made public information films, distributed on old and new media.
It doesnt happen because the majority of people (like this copper and the troll above) are ignorant bigots who dont want you on the road.
That’s a pretty dim view of
That’s a pretty dim view of humanity you’ve got therethe. Internet comments however are 100% guaranteed to make you depressed and lose faith in humanity. Join a cycling club maybe 🙂
IanW1968 wrote:
It could be put to rest with a few cheaply made public information films, distributed on old and new media. — IanW1968
Like this perhaps?
Classic :). Copper makes
Classic :). Copper makes close pass cause he can’t wait a few seconds. He then gets ripped to shreds by someone with a basic knowledge of the highway code. 😀
I think everyone is reading
I think everyone is reading this wrong. The way I see it happening:
1. Small-brain police thug is in a rush to get to his morning Greggs and Daily Mail down the nick
2. He drives like a twat past the cyclist
3. He notices that there are cameras all over the bicycle
4. He works out that unless he comes up with a post-hoc rationalization of his shit driving that he could become a media star
5. Proffers his piss poor, pretend explanation which he knows is untrue and hopes that the resulting smoke will distract from his illegal overtake.
I admire EvoLucas’ sang froid. You sir, are a gentleman, unlike the knuckle dragger you had to interact with.
From DfT…
From DfT…
http://road.cc/content/news/144699-think-cycling-campaign-extended-seven-more-cities-despite-failure-change-driver
Unfortunately at the time we
Unfortunately at the time we are praising the bravery of PC Keith Palmer up pops a numpty who goes and spoils everything.
There’s a way of speaking to people and that’s not one of them.
Last one: to avoid ear
Last one: to avoid ear-bendings I often pull in and let cars pass where possible – particularly if I sense then piling up behind me. More often than not I get a smile and a wave and a mouthed ‘thank you’.
Contrast this with riding down the middle of the road like some entitled cock, recording it all, mouthing off, and uploading it to YouTube.
You can choose what sort of rider you want to be, and how best to represent cyclists through your actions and interactions.
Applecart wrote:
Yeah, I think your interpretation of hand signals and lip reading needs some work.
You’re implying that drivers
You’re implying that drivers just think I’m a complete wanker for being kind and polite? I’m fucking happy I don’t inhabit your negative mental space mate.
Applecart wrote:
No, I’m implying that someone who gets their kicks out of being a contrary wanker is likely to be greeted as the belligerent non-entity they actually are in others, and not as the offspring of Jesus Christ and Mary Poppins, as they suggest.
I think we’ve gone full
I think we’ve gone full circle here. My issue is with you folks getting your kicks out of being contrary wankers 😀 touche
You’re implying that drivers just think I’m a complete wanker for being kind and polite? I’m fucking happy I don’t inhabit your negative mental space mate.
— davel No, I’m implying that someone who gets their kicks out of being a contrary wanker is likely to be greeted as the belligerent non-entity they actually are in others, and not as the offspring of Jesus Christ and Mary Poppins, as they suggest.— Applecart
Applecart wrote:
You’re implying that your experience negates all tthe government advice, directed to improve cyclists’ safety, and that they too should be seen as “contrary wankers”. Your advice is contrary to what is taught in Bikeabiity, what you can read about in Cyclecraft, and one of the Think! campaigns. I know who I’d rather listen to. Whatever, when people who should presumably know better i.e. Police Officers, give instructions contrary to official advice then surely something is wrong and both the police officer, the public and the authorities need to be made aware of that. IMO, without people like the video-uploader whittling away at the rough edges, it would be even more of a free-for-all than it already is.
That’s fine, I’m happy to
That’s fine, I’m happy to agree to disagree on this. I am however giving my experience and what works for me personally. Not mouthing off at motorists and not blocking lanes works well for me. If you like getting shouted at and having punishment passes, that’s ok.
Applecart wrote:
The troll is strong with this one
Applecart wrote:
Ah, so you think you’re here as some sort of public service. Nurse! I think that’s all the delusion boxes ticked.
Really, though, your life in Nordicland must be better than to warrant spending time lecturing a load of angry British cyclists with actual UK commute experience. Surely there are some tall blonde twins about to invite you into a sauna with some expensive lager as you finish your 3-hour workday?*
*sarcasm note: this is purely taking the piss out of Applecart’s stereotyping. I work for an actual Swedish company from the actual country of Sweden and know two actual Swedish cities and a load of actual Swedes very well, and only refer to ‘Scandinavia’ when I’m ripping the piss out of them, wag that I am.
Applecart wrote:
19 posts by the same user in this one thread-so desperate is he to keep making the same tedious point over and over again when nobody actually agrees with him.
He is crying because he can see that no-one actually cares how cool and level-headed and even tempered he is with all the psychos he meets on his weekly 3 mile full team kit clad ride around a f*cking fjord.
Only one wanker on this thread actually.
As voted for unamimously by everyone else.
Grumpy17 wrote:
Nooo, he travels back to the UK at weekends so he can go riding with other MAMILs, or something. So his experience of three cows and an old spinster on her way back from church in a 2CV in the Cotswolds, and being overtaken by blond kids who speak better English than him on his daily commutes, makes him uniquely qualified to lecture about dealing with school-running, facebooking drivers on a wet Tuesday evening in Stoke.
That’s a pretty funny picture
That’s a pretty funny picture of my life you’ve got there. . if it makes you feel better good for you.
19 posts by the same user in this one thread-so desperate is he to keep making the same tedious point over and over again when nobody actually agrees with him.
He is crying because he can see that no-one actually cares how cool and level-headed and even tempered he is with all the psychos he meets on his weekly 3 mile full team kit clad ride around a f*cking fjord.
Only one wanker on this thread actually.
As voted for unamimously by everyone else.
— Grumpy17 Nooo, he travels back to the UK at weekends so he can go riding with other MAMILs, or something. So his experience of three cows and an old spinster on her way back from church in a 2CV in the Cotswolds, and being overtaken by blond kids who speak better English than him on his daily commutes, makes him uniquely qualified to lecture about dealing with school-running, facebooking drivers on a wet Tuesday evening in Stoke.— Applecart
Erm I do 80-120km rides Sat
Erm I do 80-120km rides Sat and Sun, and my kit is below my ability in all sports.. What you’ve done is an ad hominem attack btw – you disagree with the statement so you attack the person. It’s pretty amateur.
19 posts by the same user in this one thread-so desperate is he to keep making the same tedious point over and over again when nobody actually agrees with him.
He is crying because he can see that no-one actually cares how cool and level-headed and even tempered he is with all the psychos he meets on his weekly 3 mile full team kit clad ride around a f*cking fjord.
Only one wanker on this thread actually.
As voted for unamimously by everyone else.— Applecart
Erm I do 80-120km rides Sat
Erm I do 80-120km rides Sat and Sun, and my kit is below my ability in all sports.. What you’ve done is an ad hominem attack btw – you disagree with the statement so you attack the person. It’s pretty amateur.
19 posts by the same user in this one thread-so desperate is he to keep making the same tedious point over and over again when nobody actually agrees with him.
He is crying because he can see that no-one actually cares how cool and level-headed and even tempered he is with all the psychos he meets on his weekly 3 mile full team kit clad ride around a f*cking fjord.
Only one wanker on this thread actually.
As voted for unamimously by everyone else.— Applecart
You’ve scored 9 internet
You’ve scored 9 internet points by calling someone a wanker. I can mail you a commemorative certificate of your achievement if you like?
Applecart wrote:
No, that isn’t really a ‘circle’. There’s no equivalence between finding yourself in a minority in a less powerful position, without consciously choosing it, and choosing to go and pick fights with those in that minority position, for fun, safe in the knowledge that you have social and political power on your side. Not the same thing, really.
Anyway, as I said, far from saying all cyclists are ‘noble’ I think a proportion of actual existing cyclists are tiresome types for whom cycling is purely an exercise in showing off their technical prowess and so feeling elite. For them its ultimately all about their ego, rather than actually making anything better for anyone else.
Edit – and another proportion are annoying pavement-racing youths who if not actually delivering drugs, aspire to look as if they might be.
That’s quite sweet, I
That’s quite sweet, I appreciate the sentiment. I don’t intend to bully anyone in a genuinely weaker position and I wouldn’t say anything if I didn’t think a person both fully deserved it and could handle it.
I think we’ve gone full circle here. My issue is with you folks getting your kicks out of being contrary wankers 😀 touche
— FluffyKittenofTindalos No, that isn’t really a ‘circle’. There’s no equivalence between finding yourself in a minority in a less powerful position, without consciously choosing it, and choosing to go and pick fights with those in that minority position, for fun, safe in the knowledge that you have social and political power on your side. Not the same thing, really. Anyway, as I said, far from saying all cyclists are ‘noble’ I think a proportion of actual existing cyclists are tiresome types for whom cycling is purely an exercise in showing off their technical prowess and so feeling elite. For them its ultimately all about their ego, rather than actually making anything better for anyone else. Edit – and another proportion are annoying pavement-racing youths who if not actually delivering drugs, aspire to look as if they might be.— Applecart
I would have replied to the
I would have replied to the first question the PC asks with, I will after you’ve explained why you broke the law at least three times in a matter of seconds and broke your sworn oath.
firstly you exceeded the posted speed limit and whilst doing so deliberately did not give me the space I am entitled to thus using your vehicle to intimidate me as I did not feel safe and felt fear of harm, this is a common assault under UK law but you can call it driving with undue care and attention if you want. You then deliberately obstructed me/tried to cause me to go into the rear of you with your brake check and lastly you lied about going as far as you could over to the other side of the lane when exceeding the speed limit to pass me, there was clearly another 3 feet to the kerb.
You then continued to treat me unfairly and without integrity with your deliberate twisting of the law and the highway code to try to push the blame onto someone whom was the victim of your law breaking/poor driving, instead of keeping the peace you disturbed it with your actions and your lie.
So, how do you explain that officer?
I once got caught out without
I once got caught out without lights after dark and stopped – when asked why I was riding in the middle of the lane I explained that I would be more visible there – the copper said, fair enough and let me go…
on the other hand I was once fined £30 for looking down a one way street the wrong way, the copper anticipated I was going to turn and booked me for it – in my defense, it was my first week riding around London when I was young and naive.
A countries police force is a
A countries police force is a reflection of it’s society.
check12 wrote:
a country’s police force is a reflection of its society. bloody grocer’s!
Cop over takes, not once, but
Cop over takes, not once, but twice. When he pulls the cyclist over, he claims there is not enough room to overtake. Either there was enough room, and the cop was able to pass safely, or there was not enough room, and the cop should have waited.
The cops first pass was just after the road narrowed, I think he had time to pass before the zebra crossing.
The cyclist was passing occasional parked cars, the highway code states that he should give them plenty of space. If the road is not wide enough for this, then the cars should not be parked there.
The cop stopped right on a road hump, which is a very stupid place to stop.
Policeman sounds like a
Policeman sounds like a fucking moron.
Chapeau to the cyclist; I don’t think I’d have dealt with the situation so calmly, confidently and knowledgeably.
About 20 parked vehicles and
About 20 parked vehicles and he’s told to cycle in the gutter.. So the officer is blind as well as unaware of the rules he’s meant to enforce and demonstrate on a daily basis to other road users.. There are some bike users on the roads who do silly things and take up space, but this is shameful, the cyclist could not have positioned himself better! Action taken against the officer? Probably not, judging by every other situation and the consequences we read about daily.
“Video: London cyclist pulled
“Video: London cyclist pulled over by police officer – who needs to re-read the Highway Code”
Which makes the rather large and unjustified assumption that he’s read it once. I’ve lost count of the number of police officers who park illegally, and not in hot pursuit either. Last one I took a picture of was on double yellow lines, on continuous white lines, obstructing the footpath, and the dropped kerb for pedestrians and cyclists.
I also had to correct the inspector in charge of road policing who claimed that cyclists could be prosecuted for speeding.
If there is one thing the police are not experts in, it is the law.
Everyone’s entitled to be
Everyone’s entitled to be wrong from time to time. Despite this country’s increasing number of faults, at least we can still argue with the cops and cycle away without getting a truncheon between the ischial tuberosities. How would that have ended in many other countries?
as an update, he’s now posted
as an update, he’s now posted that when the police car came up behind him, he was doing 19.5mph.
In a 20mph zone.
I have to admit that I do in
I have to admit that I do in part agree with Applecart.
At the beginning of the footage the cyclist takes a good position on the road considering the parked cars to their left. However there is quite a period after where there are clearly no parked cars and the cyclist is still keeping the same position.
I’m all for keeping out the way of the door zone but that is only relevant where there are cars, at other times it is common courtesy to ride a little further in. Not doing so to me is the same as those car drivers who constantly drive in the middle lane of the motorway even when there is nothing to overtake on the inside lane.
However the point at which the police car is behind right through to the end the cyclist is in exactly the right position (IMHO) and probably traveling at the speed limit so nothing should even be considering the need to overtake.
So in summery I am saying that I do think that the cyclist was positioned in an inconsiderate place at the beginning of the footage but at no point whilst the police car was behind. So there was absolutely no reason to pull the cyclist over and the police officer should be brought to account for his actions in this regard.
ClubSmed wrote:
[]
Duncann wrote:
I’m not sure what you define “quite a period” but didn’t see it. By coincidence I ride that road most days and heading northwards (as in this case) there is rarely an absence of parked cars for long.— ClubSmed
from 0:05 to 0:29 there are no parked cars requiring the cyclist to be in that position (IMHO)
It is only a short section (prior to the police car) of the footage and the rest is all parked cars and requires such a position. It is enough time to annoy any car users behind though.
ClubSmed wrote:
True, but were there any vehicles anywhere in sight behind him at that point? If it was an empty road, not sure it matters very much. May have been anticipating the subsequent right-turn (a bit early, granted)?
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
from 0:05 to 0:29 there are no parked cars requiring the cyclist to be in that position (IMHO)
— FluffyKittenofTindalos True, but were there any vehicles anywhere in sight behind him at that point? If it was an empty road, not sure it matters very much. May have been anticipating the subsequent right-turn (a bit early, granted)?— ClubSmed
I am of the opinion that we should always use the road as if there are other road users in the vicinity. To me it is the same as cars indicating, they should always indicate just in case there is someone who needs to know, not just when they see someone who needs to know.
ClubSmed wrote:
I used to be of that opinion, but twice on IAM courses (different instructors) I was told off for indicating (on motorways) when my manouvre wasn’t going to affect anybody else. I was told that it demonstrates laziness in that I couldn’t be bothered to check that everything was clear before making the manouvre (or words to that effect).
PaulBox wrote:
I thought the law said to indicate before making a manoeuvre (not ‘indicate before making a manoeuvre if and only if there are any other vehicles or pedestrians within eyeshot’)…? That whole “mirror-signal-mirror-manoeuvre” thing.
brooksby wrote:
I thought so too but when my wife took her driving test 6 years ago she was told that she could fail for signalling when there was no-one to signal too as it would be taken that she was not aware of her surroundings.
Personally I think this is a very bad thing to introduce into learning to drive and was discusted at the time (and still am).
ClubSmed wrote:
It’s not correct at all. Motorists should use the left hand lane and the other (2) lanes are for overtaking only. If a motorist stays in the middle lane whilst not overtaking, then they are obstructing other traffic and possibly encouraging vehicles to undertake them which can be very dangerous.
I can’t believe this! (Not that ClubSmed is mistaken, but that the driving instructor was so dumb).
The Highway Code id quite clear on indicating before making maneouvres and there’s no exceptions e.g. not even if you’re in a left-turning only lane.
It’s particularly dangerous as pedestrians might be planning on crossing a road if they spot that a car is going straight on and there’s no guarantee that the pedestrian is immediately visible to the motorist.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I remember having exactly the same argument with my driving instructor when I was 18. He made the point that you don’t ‘just signal’ as it indicates complacency.
I made the point that a sizeable proportion of his other lessons were about neither he nor I being fucking omniscient, and that my signalling ‘just in case’ wasn’t a precursor to me not looking and just lazily driving in any direction willy-nilly.
His point was bullshit then and it’s bullshit now.
davel wrote:
I can’t believe this! (Not that ClubSmed is mistaken, but that the driving instructor was so dumb).
The Highway Code id quite clear on indicating before making maneouvres and there’s no exceptions e.g. not even if you’re in a left-turning only lane.
It’s particularly dangerous as pedestrians might be planning on crossing a road if they spot that a car is going straight on and there’s no guarantee that the pedestrian is immediately visible to the motorist.
— hawkinspeter I remember having exactly the same argument with my driving instructor when I was 18. He made the point that you don’t ‘just signal’ as it indicates complacency. I made the point that a sizeable proportion of his other lessons were about neither he nor I being fucking omniscient, and that my signalling ‘just in case’ wasn’t a precursor to me not looking and just lazily driving in any direction willy-nilly. His point was bullshit then and it’s bullshit now.— ClubSmed
Exactly. You signal to anyone who might Be there, to let *anyone* know that you intend to do something. Your instructor’s attitude might as well be make brake lights voluntary.
ClubSmed wrote:
I don’t think that applies for something like this. The point with riding position surely is that if there’s anyone stuck behind you, the polite and sensible thing to do is to move towards the kerb _when it’s safe and practical to do so_ and let them pass. If there’s nobody behind it doesn’t really arise.
If you haven’t noticed someone coming up behind, they will usually let you know pretty clearly that they are getting impatient. It’s not as if you are endangering them, so it’s not something where you need to err on the side of being over-cautious. It seems to me.
And I thought the advice on indicating was precisely _not_ to do it if there’s nobody who needs to see it?
ClubSmed wrote:
He’s at the speed LIMIT for motorvehicles, that’s in best conditions, that means that because there is a hazard/vulnerable road user who has priority in front the motorist should be thinking do I need to be at this limit or hold back until it’s safe without exceeding the posted limit to overtake. It’s not ‘passing’, it’s overtaking.
There is absolutely zero reason whatsoever for the bicyclist to cede priority in this instance, why should he not be able to make progress/get to where he is going? Do you pull over on any given road when driving (if you drive) when another vehicle comes up behind you say in an urban environment that probably wants to go faster, do you pull in between parked vehicles or do you hold a predictable line and carry on at or just below the posted limit?
Answer; no you wouldn’t and neither does anyone else, so why should he, because he’s on a bike, right, you want all the rules applied to people on bikes that seemingly piss motorists off yet in the same breath want to remove the rights afforded to vehicles on the roads becase that vehicle is two wheels being propelled by a human not a motor.
You can feck right off with that shite way of thinking, that’s half the problem, doffing caps bowing and scraping and always giving in. And the addage no good being right if you’re dead is bollocks, what about walking on the footway, no good being right if you’re dead because some killer decides to drive in a piss poor manner. There’s no evidence to support that being right/holding your line/riding in what we know to be safer has a greater chance of death/serious injury. What it does by ceding is giving the impression that’s that how you should always behave and thus more likely chance of being struck or like helmets/hi-vis being blamed for not wearing despite that being the root cause of the problem in the first place and having a negative effect on safety. Even the increases in brighter car lights/DRLs are causing negative effects on safety
Stop being so damn subservient, it’s not helpful in the slightest to yourself or other people on bicycles.
ClubSmed wrote:
But he would have encouraged cars to go past him. If you are pulling in and out each time there are cars parked you’re inviting trouble. He was taking the lane on this narrow, 20mph zoned, road, as he didn’t want people to overtake him. Because he felt it was unsafe. Which is exactly what cyclists are meant to do.
It’s not the same as driving in the middle lane of the motorway. That is against the Highway Code, whereas the cycling here was following the HC.
Bikebikebike wrote:
Depends on your interpretation I supose.
But I will state again that the police had no call to pull over the cyclist as the cycling was perfect to the environment (IMHO) the whole time the police car was behind.
Bikebikebike wrote:
Sorry for the confusion, the part of the footage I was refering to was from 0:05-0:29 before the police car is behind the cyclist which does not look to be narrow
ClubSmed wrote:
My understanding was that staying out of the door zone was relevant where there are parked cars, since they (well, their doors) are the threat that you are trying to avoid…
HE WAS DOING 20MPH IN A 20MPH ZONE
Al__S wrote:
Which is the same excuse used by motorists who stay in the middle lane “I am doing 70mph on a 70mph road”.
It may be right and legal but it does not stop it causing road rage.
ClubSmed wrote:
No, you drive in the left lane and move right to overtake, on the motorway.
Sitting in the middle lane at any speed isn’t right.
Al__S wrote:
Well exactly. I had this recently in a downhill 30 zone, in which I was a bit further over than usual due to my speed and the state of the roadside. I still got overtaken and stared at my yummy mummies in x5s even though I spent at least 1/2 to 3/4 of a mile at 32mph.
I’d guess even if you were Kittel or someone at full gas in a 30 zone someone would ‘have’ to get past just to save face.
I’ve said it before and I’ll
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: motorists cannot judge cyclists’ speed accurately. Motorists under-estimate cyclists’ speed, and cyclists over-estimate cars’. Try remembering that when riding and a lot of what you see starts to make sense.
PS I’m qualified in psychology and have studied functional neuroanatomy. I can have a good bash at explaining why in-depth.
Applecart – if you wish to
Applecart – if you wish to place yourself in danger by riding in the door zone and as far left as possible, inviting close passes, then please yourself.
I learned the very hard way about the dangers of riding in the door zone when I first started cycling, and tore the AC joint in my shoulder in the process. Whilst it is not my intention to upset other road users, I will ride defensively to ensure my risks are as limited as they can be.
The officer here needs to understand the highway code and how speed limits actually work. If our police officers cannot grasp this then my hopes that the general public will also understand are very low.
“I’ve cycled myself for 30
“I’ve cycled myself for 30 years”
You must be tired by now!
#epicride
alansmurphy wrote:
and pining for some company…
It’s true, I’m knackered XD
It’s true, I’m knackered XD
Anyone who thinks they can
Anyone who thinks they can ride in the door zone and “spot people opening doors” is kidding themselves. I learned this the hard way as a teenager.
So.. why do cars drive in the
So.. why do cars drive in the door zone then? I think the actual odds of being doored are so slim that the advice is irrelevant. Except perhaps London, with so many taxis? I’m saying what works for me – road cycling is generally pretty stress-free for me.
Applecart wrote:
Oh do grow up. Cars are driven ( they don’t yet drive themselves, whatever some driverrs appear to think) in the door zone because the drivers know that would-be door openers will probably see them, and will come off worse if they don’t. Neither holds for cyclists, so we have to be further away.
Well I absolutely agree with
Well I absolutely agree with you that cyclists are not as visible to motorists. Keeps you on your toes though, doesn’t it.
Oh do grow up. Cars are driven ( they don’t yet drive themselves, whatever some driverrs appear to think) in the door zone because the drivers know that would-be door openers will probably see them, and will come off worse if they don’t. Neither holds for cyclists, so we have to be further away.— barbarus
Applecart wrote:
Because cars are 1 ton+ metal blocks with no nerve endings, and cyclists are not, you dense, simplistic twat.
davel wrote:
Because cars are 1 ton+ metal blocks with no nerve endings, and cyclists are not, you dense, simplistic twat.
— barbarus
Exactly. And cars should also not drive in the door zone as the highway code says. You can find plenty of examples of cars being doored if you look. Which just goes to show:
1. The road user was in the right.
2. The officer was wrong to advise the road user to use the road differently.
3. The road user made his point calmly and politely
barbarus wrote:
We can also add that motorists are told not to drive in the door zone but that allowing so much on-street parking in urban areas means that on many streets within towns and cities it is literally impossible not to drive in the door zone… If that direction was made a “must” then many streets would become off limits.
brooksby wrote:
We can also add that motorists are told not to drive in the door zone but that allowing so much on-street parking in urban areas means that on many streets within towns and cities it is literally impossible not to drive in the door zone… If that direction was made a “must” then many streets would become off limits.— barbarus
… or parking on them would.
Applecart wrote:
the video is in London
I hold a prominent position
I hold a prominent position in a road no matter how long the road is, if warranted. I was coming into a town last week and saw an artic at the roundabout follow in behind me. I rode in the central part of the road for 300 metres because every 75 yards was an island causing multiple pinch points.
Once I had passed the islands I moved to the left. Only for us to stop at some traffic lights, He turned right at the lights. I must of slowed his journey by all of 15 secs riding at 22mph.
Every piece of road needs to be assessed there and then as to whether you ride in the middle or left or pullover to let vehicles pass.
His name is ‘Evo’?!
His name is ‘Evo’?!
FFS!!
Look at me at started cycling last Thursday and I know the Highway Code….
Evo when I overtake you on my cycle I do not expect you to be riding in the middle of the road like a twat making your pathetic point.
Best you move over – twat.
Nemesis wrote:
FFS.
The amount of trolls crawling out of the woodwork at the moment is breathtaking.
Tommytrucker wrote:
His name is ‘Evo’?!
FFS!!
Look at me at started cycling last Thursday and I know the Highway Code….
Evo when I overtake you on my cycle I do not expect you to be riding in the middle of the road like a twat making your pathetic point.
Best you move over – twat.
— Tommytrucker FFS. The amount of trolls crawling out of the woodwork at the moment is breathtaking.— Nemesis
Perhaps it is the same one being reincarnated after sharing their views with some of the more militant cycling fraternity,
Nemesis wrote:
Ah, you have a cycle. Is it operatic, menstrual, poetic or something else?
barbarus wrote:
…Evo when I overtake you on my cycle ..— barbarus Ah, you have a cycle. Is it operatic, menstrual, poetic or something else?— Nemesis
vicious?
On social media, and indeed
On social media, and indeed life in general, you need to pick your battles, and I’m afraid Applecart, that this was the wrong one for you. I have some sympathy for the underlying points you try to make: There are certainly cyclists who fail to show courtesy to other road users, adehering only to the minimum standards set by the Highway Code in order to make a point, and there are certainly people on this board who sometimes show undue hostility to drivers, but none of this applies here.
The video just before the police car overtakes illustrates a very common A road situation, which is often misunderstood by drivers. A car goes past in the opposite direction, and it is patently clear as he passes the police car, that the usable road width is only 2 lanes, not 2.5 lines or even 2.25 lanes. This means that the police car can only overtake safely when nothing is coming the opposite way, and in that situation it doesn’t matter a damn where the cyclist is in his lane, because the overtaker can use the other lane. I get this all the time, on roads wide enough for two cars, but drivers who try to make it wide enough for two cars and a bike.
The policeman was a dick, and a liar. He could have been further to his right, he should have been within the speed limit, he clearly chose the wrong guy to have an argumnent on the Highway code with. Hopefully he has been suitably embarrassed by all the publicity.
Thanks, that’s good you can
Thanks, that’s good you can see where I’m coming from more generally regarding behaviour, even if we disagree on the specifics in this case (I would pull in and not dominate the lane unless I’m turning, after signalling and making sure I’ve been seen). I’m not seeking to beat anyone or score points however; I would more generally like to see less antagonism on the road. If it means verbally smacking a few fellow cyclists occasionally I will do that.
I think a lot of it is down
I think a lot of it is down to the fact that many people treat 20mph limits as advisories, and don’t treat them as seriously as they should, so when they come across a cyclist, they are automatically thinking they must get in front. Cos bike, and being behind a bike, or doing 20 is beneath them. That’s only the impression I get, when driving or cycling on 20 mph roads, I do get a lot of drivers behind me looking frustrated at my speed.