Metropolitan Police officers are once again targeting cyclists in south west London this morning. As we reported on Saturday, officers from the force’s cycle safety team were distributing hi-viz vests to riders in Colliers Wood, and now a road.cc reader tells us that he was stopped by a traffic officer while attempting to use a shared use path in nearby Morden.
Adrian told us that the operation we covered on Saturday took place “right next to one of the worst pieces of cycling infrastructure you’ll see – a murder lane where the bikes go straight on and the majority of cars turn left.
“This morning, they moved their attention to Morden, 1.3 miles south, where there is another piece of well-conceived but poorly executed cycling infrastructure,” he said.
“One part is clearly a two-way bike lane; the other part is shared used but cluttered with Pelican crossings, bike racks and trees. It does have a drop kerb to get onto it from the road. I use it every morning because it skirts around a rather nasty roundabout. The signage is poor, but it is there.”
He continued: “This morning, I popped up the dropped kerb onto the shared-use part, heading for the cycle part. As I approached it, a policeman stepped out and stopped me.
“Apparently the shared-use area isn’t shared-use; it’s pedestrian only and I must push my bike if I wanted to reach the cycle path. The presence of a sign showing otherwise was, ‘Not ideal’.
“I really don’t know what they are trying to achieve – what the Met set out to do was to push me back into a stretch of road that is really unfriendly. Realistically, I am not going to get off and walk – I am, after all, a cyclist.”
Adrian took a couple of photos of the location, taken from each direction. “The front-view photo shows the policeman with the ‘segregated’ lanes behind him, with a shared-use sign,” he explained.
“The reverse view shows the shared-use sign covering the supposedly pedestrian area and a variety of bike racks and other cycling signs.”
On Friday afternoon, the Met’s Cycle Safety Team tweeted a picture of its operation in Colliers Wood, showing officers handing out hi-viz vests to cyclists, attracting a lot of critical comments on Twitter.
Cycle Safety Team this afternoon in High Street, Colliers Wood. Working in partnership with @Merton_Council Engaging and issuing hi vis vests to #vulnerableroadusers #visionzeroldn @SuptAndyCox pic.twitter.com/lrq8xPj9eW
— Cycle Safety Team (@MetCycleCops) February 14, 2020
However, the force’s Vision Zero lead, Superintendent Andy Cox, replied to the criticism defending the initiative.
I find the tit-for-tat tweets v frustrating. This is not ‘victim blaming’! If a dangerous driver escapes conviction on basis of #Cyclist not in high vis then thats ludicrous!! We do this to save life! If it saves a life then that’s a v good days work! #Cycling #RoadSafety #London https://t.co/iuVRejcQyq
— Andy Cox (@SuptAndyCox) February 14, 2020
We’ve covered stories before in which shared use paths appear to have caused confusion on the part of the Met – including this one from last year in which a cyclist who had submitted close pass footage was himself told that he would be prosecuted for riding on the footway – even though there his video clearly showed signage permitting him to ride there.
> Police use close pass footage to prosecute cyclist for riding on shared-use path
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
24 thoughts on “Met police officer tells London cyclist to get off bike to ride on shared use path”
From the rear view I see no
From the rear view I see no End of Route sign, let alone a blue Cyclist Dismount sign (completely advisory) and definitely no red Cyclist Dismount sign (the only legally enforceable one) there is a give way marking at the end of the cycle route.
If the ill informed officer would like to enforce the Give Way markings at most side roads they are going to be forcing many drivers out of their massivly heavy motor vehicles and make them push. Very difficult for HGV drivers of course.
I’m hoping you have taken note of his name and number Adrian and will be taking this further.
So, the MET hand out hi-viz
So, the MET hand out hi-viz and enforce non-existent rules rather than actually caring about the cyclists injured and killed on the roads. Maybe the announced review into road safety and traffic offence sentencing will give them a renewed focus.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I’d rather they spent time handing out HiViz jackets than caring about killed cyclists.
I hope you’re joking, but it
I hope you’re joking, but it is important that they ‘care’ about RTCs – they need to be investigating them and hopefully doing something to reduce them.
Looks as if the Met need a
Looks as if the Met need a few more (any?) cyclists on their cycle safety team. At least one who knows the law would be my preference.
Perhaps Adrian would like to tell us what the policeman said when Adrian pointed out that what he was doing was perfectly legal, and safer than using the road?
eburtthebike wrote:
A little bit more for your delectation:
The first thing is, you doubt yourself. Then you quit while you’re ahead, take your lecture, and are grateful that you’re not going to get the fine that was mentioned. Smile wanly when he says he’ll let you cycle the next six feet to the bike lane. You cycle that bit and then check the reverse of the sign to make sure that you’re not going mad. Then you call him back and have a discussion. At some point he says that the sign “Is not ideal”, but concedes that I probably know more about cycling than he does. He sort of agrees that shared-use is shared-use but clearly doesn’t want it to be.
That sounds too detailed to
That is too detailed to be made up. You are Adrian and ICMFP.
eburtthebike wrote:
Bah! Rumbled!
And to think that I used to
And to think that I used to actually respect these fools.
The cycle lane in theory
The cycle lane in theory should be useful. Especially during the rush hour, when the lanes are full.
I think I have even used it at least the far end.
Its kinda in the lead up to Cycle Superhighway 7.
It clearly just needs to be rebuilt, round the edge of the pavement and with priority of over the side road.
I use this route almost every
I use this route almost every day (no sign of the police this morning) and almost always use the shared use section. The roundabout is a nightmare – there’s a left turn just after the northbound exit that’s perfect for SMIDSYs ?
You do wonder how, if the PC
You do wonder, if the PC is correct, how cyclists are supposed to jump from the road, over the pavement, to land perfectly on the start of the marked path.
Much more obviously, other than the PC, there appears to be a complete absence of pedestrians for as far as can be seen in both rear and forward views. So even if the PC was right on the strict legality of the situation, no harm has been caused by riding to the shared use path, while significant potential harm of riding across a very busy roundabout has been avoided.
It’s supposed to be policing by consent in the UK, applying the law sensibly and proportionately. You’re also supposed to be dealt with based on what you have done (riding on a deserted pavement) as opposed to what others have done or what you might do (riding dangerously through pedestrians). Again, all assuming the PC was right in the first place.
This is just wierd! In the
This is just wierd! In the North we have neither the infrastructure to ride or the police to enforce… we have pot holes! But we do have high Vis but they charge for them like plastic bags.
They should hand out sausage
They should hand out sausage rolls to cyclists to encourage more people to cycle! This would have a far more positive effect on road safety.
That superintendent Andy Cox attempts to defend victim blaming by citing a victim-blaming scenario is just the cherry on the cake. I despair at these idiots who are supposed to be there to make us safer.
They could hand out crisp new
They could hand out crisp new £10 notes. Would pay for itself in reductions to the NHS and road maintenance budget.
So Instead of them standing
So Instead of them standing around doing this for however many hours they were there, perhaps they should have been at the side of the road getting evidence to fine drivers that are using a mobile phone while driving, they’d make a bigger difference to everyone’s safety in a couple of hours of that than handing out thousands of hi-viz vests (unless of course they’re going to insist all cars are painted in Hi-viz colours only in future)
Imagine the uproar if the
Imagine the uproar if the police handed out modesty blankets to scantily clad ladies on nights out for the ‘best be safe’ reasons.
There do seem to be a lot of
There do seem to be a lot of places where the signage is “not ideal”, mind. I’ve seen lots which have ‘shared use’ signs within an area but nothing to indicate that you are entering, or leaving, said area.
I hate to have to admit it,
I hate to have to admit it, but the copper was right. The ‘shared’ bit actually starts at the tactile mat, where the copper is stood. The drop kerb needs to be closer to ( or actually linked up ) to the shared bit.
Judge dreadful wrote:
How do you know that? And it directly contradicts what Adrian, who was actually there and actually saw the signs and actually talked to the plod who agreed that the signs were “less than ideal”?
I know that road, that’s how
I know that road, that’s how it is.
it’s easy to confuse the pedestrian bit, and the shared bit, but the shared bit does actually only start where the green tarmac / tactile mat / copper, in the picture is. The signs are ‘less than ideal’ because there isn’t actually a ‘no cycling’ sign on the pedestrian bit, that would make it clearer. Because there isn’t a sign saying don’t do it, and a sign so close that indicates the shared bit, people do ride on the pedestrian only bit all the time. The ‘other cycling signs’ are actually indicating where the cycle lanes / routes are, on / alongside the road, and which direction goes where. The cycle racks / hoops are in front of the tactile mat where the shared bit starts, but you shouldn’t have any issues reaching them, without cycling in the ped only bit.
Judge dreadful wrote:
If the green tarmac marks the segregated cycle track, as the signage says it does, and if the shared bit starts at the end of the green tarmac, as the other sign says it does, I don’t understand which bit you say isn’t for cyclists.
The signage looks very clear, certainly a lot better than the routes around where I live. There’s a sign showing where the segregated track starts and a sign showing where the shared space starts. Where the two meet, there is no road marking to indicate the end of a cycle route (as there would need to be if there was a gap between the two routes).
But the signage from one
But the signage from one direction shows a shared space beyond the segregated part. So from an outsider’s view there is a segregated area which leads to a shared space. Surely that’s Adrian’s point?
Judge dreadful wrote:
Simply – that is not correct. If you look at the photo that shows the policeman walking away, it very clearly shows a shared use sign for users headed in that direction. If it were a pedestrian area, there would be a Cyclists Dismount sign instead. The shared use sign in the photo of the policeman facing the camera is, at best, a repeater. The policeman took it to mean the start of shared use on the demarcated cycle lane (it’s not ‘segregated’ by anything more than paint and coloured tarmac). A simple look at the other side of the sign shows that that is simply not the case and shared use is in force on the pavement. The signs do seem to make the demarcated cycle lanes shared use, which is a sub-optimal design. As I originally said, it’s a well conceived, poorly executed arrangement.
PS – the dropped kerb to which I referred is way back down the road at the other end of the shared use pavement area – there’s a solitary dropped kerbstone by the bike racks and the whole kerb at a side street right round onto the main road, more than the standard pram/wheelchair access.