A London cyclist has claimed that she was pulled over by two Metropolitan Police officers who accused her of “putting my own safety before cars”.
In a series of tweets Aileen Rice-Jones, who works in public affairs, explained that she was stopped by the officers while cycling between South Wimbledon and Putney on the A218 Merton Road earlier this week.
This evening on my 5km cycle to Brownies I was pulled over on a blue light by two @metpoliceuk officers.
The reason?
I wasn’t cycling very ‘courteously’ (his words)…
?— Aileen (@ARiceJones) March 23, 2022
Rice-Jones says that the officers informed her that she wasn’t cycling “very courteously”, forcing motorists to “go to the other side of the road to overtake me – which they should legally do anyway.”
She also claims that the officer admitted witnessing a motorist carry out a close pass on her, but told Rice-Jones that she was at fault.
When Aileen explained to the officers that she was riding in the primary position in the middle of the lane – as “encouraged by the new Highway Code” – they allegedly accused her “of putting my own safety before cars”.
I was accused of putting my own safety before cars.
Of course I will. I have no roll cage, no air bag, no seat belt.
When you hit me, you hit me, not a bumper or a reparable metal object. A person.
— Aileen (@ARiceJones) March 23, 2022
“I also pointed out he was unlikely to have stopped a car going the same speed as me (roughly 16mph),” she said.
She later sarcastically tweeted that it was “great to see how cycling friendly the police are and how prepared they are to take action against people performing close passes”, and said that she would have placed an official complaint if she had taken note of the officer’s badge number.
> Police in Hackney catch 18 red light jumping cyclists in 90 minutes
Many Twitter users criticised the officers’ actions, with broadcaster Jeremy Vine describing the incident as “just incredible” and arguing that there was a “desperate need of intervention here” from the Met.
A former cycling instructor also tweeted: “Such ignorance [from the] police is concerning and harmful, asking you to disregard the Highway Code, and instead put cars ahead of your own safety.”
Another user claimed that the officers in question demonstrated “idiocy, car-worship and misogyny” through their handling of the incident.
The Met’s Cycling Safety Team has contacted Aileen to discuss the issue further.
In February, the Roads and Transport Policing Command was criticised after it tweeted that Safer Transport Team officers in Hackney fined 18 cyclists in the space of 90 minutes for jumping red lights.
One cyclist asked the team “one day could you please send 14 officers to sit at the lights and look for phone drivers? A fiver says you’d get 18 in 10 minutes.”
60 thoughts on “Cyclist pulled over by police for not riding ‘courteously’”
I can hear the logic going
I can hear the logic going through the always fabulous Met Police mind…
Look at that fucking bike, getting in the way of legitimate motoring. It’s a fucking bird, out on the road, in the evening… it’ll be her fault if I end up having to scrape her off the road or deal with an assault. Let’s get that bitch back in the kitchen.
Though maybe it was nothing like that and they just decided she was an easy target to mess about with on a boring shift.
Absolutely disgraceful
The Met does seem to have
The Met does seem to have rather strange priorities. Two Sundays ago, my riding partner and I were close passed and verbally abused three times by a bloke in a Mercedes. It was 8.50 AM, we’d never seen him before and we were riding single file on the short stretch of 30 mph dual carriageway running through the middle of Bromley. There was nothing in the lane to his right but he was close enough that I could have touched his wing mirror had I taken my hands off the bars.
He subsequently stopped his car in front of us, got as close to me as he possibly could without actually touching and shouted in my face for about a minute. When I pushed him away, he opened his boot, rummaged around and pulled out a hammer which he then attempted to hit me with.
Fortunately, he wasn’t a very good hammer attacker and I hit him first. He did manage to get in a tepid blow to my leg but I was about 6 inches taller than him and have rather longer arms.
I reported it to the Met that day (Crime Ref. No. 3305279/22) but have not had anyone attempt to contact me since despite my chasing.
So, my inevitable conclusion is that taking up a perfectly legal position on the road is worth a stiff talking to to but being attacked by a bloke with a hammer doesn’t even warrant a phone call. Strange old world.
Door mirror!
Door mirror!
Is that for checking the door
Is that for checking the door’s appearance?
swldxer wrote:
eh?
It’s a road.cc thing. See
It’s a road.cc thing. See also “licence” (n) qv. ?
mark1a wrote:
It’s such a cc thing, and so nonsensical to raise given the content of the story itself that on this site I am only gonna use license and wing mirror.
License can be correct as
License can be correct as long as it’s a verb.
But none of that american ‘gonna’ please ! There are standards here !
hirsute wrote:
Standards, what standards? ?
I’m all for amusing pedants. But if they are not amusing the full back is that english language becomes correct on usage.
Though up here in Glasgae
Though up here in Glasgae “gonnae” is totally acceptable. Quite possibly rooted back to the original tongue in the British Isles before the Norman’s got their hands on it!
Ah, but the wonderful thing
Ah, but the wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.
More a swidxer thing.
More a swidxer thing.
swldxer wrote:
Ah, a welcome return. I assume this is in tribute to the Met’s own “rather strange priorities”. In hommage I’ll ask what gives you licence to always correct everyones’ grammar?
chrisonatrike wrote:
Everyone’s!
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Caught one! I could see how
Caught one! I could see how this trolling business could get addictive…
chrisonatrike wrote:
The pedant in me believes he is correcting their usage rather than their grammar.
lesterama wrote:
That’s nit-picking rather than being pedantic
swldxer wrote:
The owner’s manual for my car calls them ‘outside rear view mirrors’ – it isn’t a Mercedes mind.
Huw Watkins wrote:
So sorry to hear that Huw, and glad that you were able to hold your own. Hope you get a worthwhile result from your report.
Interesting detail about the
Interesting detail about the hammer in the boot. Unless he had a good reason for the hammer to be there, does that not come under laws about carrying an offensive weapon? The fact that it was his go-to object when he stopped to confront you suggests he carried it for offensive purposes.
He had a large box of tools
He had a large box of tools in there together with a load of other stuff. The car was a white Mercedes E-class convertible but we’re pretty certain that he was a tradesman despite the not very tradesman-like vehicle.
Sriracha wrote:
He doesn’t need a good reason for carrying a hammer, that’s only bladed and sharply pointed articles – nor does he need a reasonable excuses, that’s only for dedicated weapons (e.g. swords, daggers, knuckle dusters etc). The prosecution would need to prove that he was carrying it with intent to use it as an offensive weapon.
Ofcourse all of the above is moot, the instant someone uses ANY object as a weapon (including threatening) it becomes an offensive weapon. His only defence would be to deny or to make up some bullshit about self defence.
jh2727 wrote:
That particular example is not covered by the “reasonable excuse” section. Possession of a knuckleduster is prohibited under s141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, applied by The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988. Swords are also complicated.
There are some exemptions, such as for museum or film purposes, but these aren’t under the “good reason”/”lawful authority” defence of s139 CJA.
Given the met’s apparent
Given the met’s apparent ambivalence towards the incident, it doesn’t seem like he’ll need to. ☹️
Huw Watkins wrote:
You misunderstand; it was a driver with a hammer, perfectly legitimately dealing out summary justice to some cyclists who hadn’t showed him enough courtesy.
If it had been a cyclist with a hammer, he’d be in custody now and looking at a long stretch for assault.
Seriously, please keep pressing them for a response, and demand to be transferred to someone higher up the chain every time, and please keep us informed.
Don’t be silly, if you’re on
Don’t be silly, if you’re on a cycle there’s NO way you can carry a hammer on it with you, they’re ever so heavy, and cycles are ever so small and feeble and impractical…..
https://momentummag.com/quaxing/
vthejk wrote:
Thanks for reminding me, I had forgotten that chap! One for the bingo card here too.
Words fail me.
Words fail me.
I wondered what busy and wide
I wondered what busy and wide highway this was. Turns out it’s a 20mph limit, through a residential area, with parked cars lining the sides.
I do hope they were also ensuring all drivers adhered to the 20mph limit.
Institutionally anti cyclist
Institutionally anti cyclist
It would appear that from
It would appear that from recent press reports that they’re not specifically anti-cyclist, more anti-people in general, with a particular animosity towards women and ethnic minorities.
Which is nice. [/sarc.]
You have got to feel
You have got to feel (marginally) sorry for the bosses at the Met. They will only ever be percieved as good as their worst behaved member(s). Thus huge numbers of decent coppers everywhere get tarred with the same brush.
Having said that – since said Managements job should have including rooting out those bad coppers and they’ve been failing at that for at least 3 decades now, maybe on balance they dont deserve any sympathy.
They probably think the C in
They probably think the C in ACAB stands for cyclists.. so rebellious..
Car Delenda Est wrote:
I had to google that 😉
I don’t know the ins and outs
I don’t know the ins and outs of this but the highway code does state that cyclists should pull across and cycle at the side of the road to allow vehicles to pass when it is safe to do so. It isn’t just a case of vehicles should only overtake on the opposite side of the road. We have a responsibility to assist vehicles to pass when it is safe.
Rockhopper229 wrote:
But I’ll make an assumption anyway….
That’s when a cyclist decides it’s safe for them to do so, not when a driver thinks it is.
Yes it is. The average car is about 1.8m wide, cyclists are 50cm wide and need to ride 50cm minimum out from the kerb, meaning that to pass with the mandatory 1.5m distance a car has to go into the next lane to pass legally unless the lane is 4.3m wide.
The primary responsibility of a cyclist is to keep themselves safe and, as the Highway Code very clearly states, that means riding in the centre of the lane when necessary. It is the responsibility of drivers as the upcoming vehicle to wait until it is safe to pass and they do not have a right to expect cyclists to put themselves in a position where they feel unsafe to allow them to get to the next red light more quickly (where the cyclist feels unsafe, note, not what the driver feels is safe, it’s not their call).
Six posts from you as a new user so far and every one anti cyclist, I shall watch your future progress with interest.
.
.
Take care, Rock.
.
Trendy Rendy has warned you that he will watch your ‘future progress’ [Rendy – have you ever heard on any ‘previous progress’] with interest.
.
Be scared.
.
Be VERY scared.
.
Flintshire Boy wrote:
“The previous progress made towards a peace agreement has been undermined by recent events.” Seems your grasp of basic English is as sound as your understanding of politics, road law and humour.
Flintshire Boy wrote:
.
Why
.
do
.
you put
.
full stops between
.
every line you
.
write
.
?
Rockhopper229 wrote:
You are relentless, Loophole. But also quite thick.
In short, a female cyclist
In short, a female cyclist being told off by some oafs in uniform who don’t know the Highway Code for following the Highway Code.
I still think the bravest
I still think the bravest people in earth a British cyclists not counting the civilian who are victims if war or asshole relationship
Facepalm!
Facepalm!
Complain anyway someone can work out which officer it was.
Hasn’t Ms Dick been
Hasn’t Ms Dick been essentially sacked for failing to tackle, amongst other things, misogyny in the Met police? Perhaps these two are friends of Couzens.
VIPcyclist wrote:
In light of that, it can’t be easy or not fear-inducing for a woman to be stopped by the police these days can it?
Perhaps she could have
Perhaps she could have flagged down a bus…
The officer was quite right,
The officer was quite right, and failing to doff your cap, or helmet, to a driver is clearly discourteous to our lords and masters in their cars.
This is absolutely ludicrous
This is absolutely ludicrous
Part of me is curious as to
Part of me is curious as to whether the peelers were from Traffic or a pair pottering about in a station car with nothing better to do and out to prove to the passing motorists that they were dealing with perceived anti social cyclists. My experience has taught me that the station cop is pretty clueless regarding road craft. I was pulled in once for being far too out in their eyes. I pointed to the potholes behind and asked if they allowed to drop their nearside wheels into them or if they had swung out as I wouldn’t even drive my car through such a mess
My experience has taught me
My experience has taught me that the station cop is pretty clueless regarding road craft
The same is true of traffic officers, who don’t have a clue about which part of a bike is the top, how you make it go, and what the point of the Advanced Stop Line is. Lancashire Constabulary hasn’t yet replied to my complaint about the traffic officer who asserted that you’re entitled to carry on if you have crossed (it seems to be ill-defined which part of the vehicle has crossed!) the ASL when the lights turn red (Lancashire has abandoned the Highway Code rules about amber lights and you can count them as green here)- the officer asserts that the stop-line you come to after the ASL only applies to cycles because it is “clearly marked” that way. The artic driver below has, according to Lancashire Constabulary, committed no offence
An alternative view, held by me, is that Lancashire traffic is as bent as a £9 note and officers make a part-time living from assisting drivers in not being troubled by traffic offences.
I once had to correct the
I once had to correct the chief traffic cop when he stated that cyclists could be prosecuted for breaking the speed limit.
From the article ‘Highway
From the article ‘Highway Code changes: ‘What about cyclists, or do the rules not apply to them?’
Well…
As most of that applies to
As most of that applies to riding in groups, I’m not sure how you are intending that to be read.
The idea that a cyclist is obliged to defer to motorists as a translation of consideration is clearly wrong. Given that the officers apparently acknowledged there was a safety issue, the cyclist is correct to abide by the HWC and ride in a safe position.
Without knowing the exact circumstances, we cannot say whether the cyclist was being deliberately obstructive in a safe passing area, but it would seem not given the safety issue.
Any fule kno that cycling in London, giving way to motorists rarely results in their journey being speed up significantly and quite possibly the cyclist would simply re-pass cars at the next junction, or get stuck behind a car queuing to pass another car parked so as to cause an obstruction.
IanMSpencer wrote:
Not wrong in the slightest. Perfect demonstration of the police deciding all by themselves that cyclists should give deference to motorists, exactly as predicted.
Where is the danger coming from?
Try reading the article.
And, again, where is the danger coming from?
As I said, your comment was
As I said, your comment was ambiguous in the point I think you are trying to make and I originally read it as anti-cyclist. I think we are agreeing, but it doesn’t sound like it. 🙂
No. Not anti-cyclist at all.
No. Not anti-cyclist at all.
I thought the same about your reply, hence my prickly response. Sorry.
Cycling for the win.
Aileen.
Aileen.
Thank you for sharing the story.
Had it been a forward thinking European nation you’d have had the full support of the law. Encouraging more use of the bicycle amongst the population.
In the meantime we’ll keep hearing of the pain motorists have to suffer to fill up their cars.
Sell your car!
Save money.
Ride a bike to work.
Change. For the good of us all. Plan it out. Be persistent. You’ll feel much better for it.
Quote:
This quote should be on a t-shirt! (edited 29/03)
Plod just wanted a reason to
Plod just wanted a reason to meet Aileen..
There’s a Dexy’s Midnight
There’s a Dexy’s Midnight Runners joke in there somewhere.