The Metropolitan Police have said that one of its officers told a young black man stopped while cycling last week that he had not got “lights displayed” and not that he did not have a “licence plate” on his bicycle.
Many social media users who watched footage of the incident posted to social media – and, we have to admit, those of us at road.cc – misheard the officer’s words as the latter.
police getting more bored by the day, whole bully van parked cos a black yute riding his bike??♂️ pic.twitter.com/Io6GRbbAkn
— dimi (@7dimii) June 30, 2020
While both seem unlikely terms to use, once pointed out it does sound much more like she said the phrase “lights displayed,” which is the less unlikely of the two to use, we suppose.
In a statement, the force also said that no further action would be taken in relation to a complaint it had received about the incident, which happened at around 2020 hours last Tuesday 30 June on Upney Road in Barking.
Police said that officers approached the man, who was riding his bike on the pavement, “and stopped him to discuss the manner of his cycling.
“He was asked where he was going and he said he was going home.
“The man was not searched, was not arrested and after a short time he was allowed on his way.”
The cyclist filmed part of the exchange with officers, in which a female officer said he had been stopped for “anti-social behaviour.”
He asked her, “ Does this look like anti-social behaviour to you?” and was told, “Well, the way you’re cycling around, at the moment you’re in and out of the road, on the pavement, on the road, not wearing a [mumbled], not wearing a helmet, not got your lights displayed, not got your hi-viz … ”
“So everyone who’s not wearing a helmet, it’s anti-social behaviour when riding a bike?” the cyclist replied.
In its statement issued today, the Met said: “Police are aware of a video circulating on social media showing an officer providing advice to the man.
“Contrary to some reports, we do not believe the officer in the video referenced a licence plate, but that she said the bike was being ridden without ‘lights displayed’.
“A public complaint was recorded due to comments made on social media and assessed by the Met’s Directorate of Professional Standards.
“This assessment concluded that the officers were perfectly justified in using their powers under the Road Traffic Act to stop the male due to the manner of his cycling, which was both unsafe and anti-social towards other road users.
“The officers were professional, and gave sound advice regarding safe cycling – the male was not wearing a helmet, was dressed all in black, and was not displaying lights in the dusk.
No further action has been taken,” police added.
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
39 thoughts on ““Lights displayed” not “licence plate” says Met in response to outcry over video of officer stopping black cyclist”
Well, to err on the side of
Well, to err on the side of generosity, it could be lights displayed. But since it wasn’t dark, it’s still total nonsense, and she still seemed to think that helmets and hi-viz are mandatory. The statement reinforces that view, claiming that they make cycling safer. I wonder if this officer and the Met think they would make cycling safer for white guys too?
Seeing as pedantry seems to
Seeing as pedantry seems to be the name of this game, I’m sure that the police are provided with helmets for their own safety and removing one from a policeman is a traditional way to arrange for a night in the cells, much favoured by Bertie Wooster and his chums. I observe that the police are not wearing the helmets provided for them at public expense. QED, this is a clear example of ant-social behaviour, m’lud.
Reminds me of what happened
Reminds me of what happened to me when I was a nipper. I was leaving my mates house to go home and as I went to cycle across a road, a car came along towards me. (It was a shit place to cross in hindsight as there was a tight bend to the right). To save me stopping and starting, I cycled along the road for a couple of meters and then crossed when the car went by. Literally as I turned to go across copper walked around the corner of the pavement I was aiming for and stopped me.
“You shouldn’t be cycling on the road without any lights on” he warned sternly.
“But I was only crossing” I replied.
“It is not safe to ride on the road without any lights in the dark” was his next line.
“But it isn’t dark and I was just crossing the road once the car had passed” (It was probably just getting duskish hence me going home.)
“Just cycle on the pavement and hurry up home and get lights for your bike”
“Ok”
So it seems that Coppers have been stating that for at least 40 years. What really pissed me off was the next day in school, the teacher came over and asked me if I had told my parents about me being in trouble with the Police. It turned out my mate had told people at school with the obvious exaggerations of Junior school kids. So then I had to try to explain to another adult that nothing had happened.
A little lesson on how police
A little lesson on how police operate; if they want a chat about how you are operating a vehicle in public and you give them attitude, they will come up with a list of things just to check your attitude..which is what I saw in this video.
grOg wrote:
Attitude? Politely questioning why the officer thinks not wearing a helmet constitutes antisocial behaviour is “attitude”? Why not just call him an uppity n****r who should know his place and be done with it?
‘Attitude’
‘Attitude’
You mean daring to ask a question about some mumbled list which was indistinct and not clear.
grOg wrote:
It’s what’s known as the attitude test. The more grief you give, the more things they’ll find. Sometimes people need to remember who’s going to ‘win’ an argument, and STFU. We still didn’t see the circumstances leading up to this encounter, but going purely on what the officer said, I’d hazard a guess that the “yute” may have been riding in a fashion which was deemed unacceptable by the officer(s) and took umbrage to being asked to stop doing so.
[/quote]
[/quote]
It’s what’s known as the attitude test. The more grief you give, the more things they’ll find. Sometimes people need to remember who’s going to ‘win’ an argument, and STFU. We still didn’t see the circumstances leading up to this encounter, but going purely on what the officer said, I’d hazard a guess that the “yute” may have been riding in a fashion which was deemed unacceptable by the officer(s) and took umbrage to being asked to stop doing so.
[/quote]
Oh right, you’ve sorted the whole problem there – all any black person stopped by police need do is shut the fuck up and they’ll be OK? Jesus.
Why do you assume that the lad was riding incorrectly? On the basis of the word of an officer who thinks she can nick him for ASB on the basis that he’s got no helmet, hi viz or lights (an hour before sunset)? I assume that as five officers stopped this youth if there was anything they could justifiably charge him with they would have, but to their chagrin he didn’t lose his shit with them but politely and non-aggressively questioned their premise and they had to let him go.
roubaixcobbles wrote:
It’s what’s known as the attitude test. The more grief you give, the more things they’ll find. Sometimes people need to remember who’s going to ‘win’ an argument, and STFU. We still didn’t see the circumstances leading up to this encounter, but going purely on what the officer said, I’d hazard a guess that the “yute” may have been riding in a fashion which was deemed unacceptable by the officer(s) and took umbrage to being asked to stop doing so.
[/quote]
Oh right, you’ve sorted the whole problem there – all any black person stopped by police need do is shut the fuck up and they’ll be OK? Jesus.
Why do you assume that the lad was riding incorrectly? On the basis of the word of an officer who thinks she can nick him for ASB on the basis that he’s got no helmet, hi viz or lights (an hour before sunset)? I assume that as five officers stopped this youth if there was anything they could justifiably charge him with they would have, but to their chagrin he didn’t lose his shit with them but politely and non-aggressively questioned their premise and they had to let him go.
[/quote]
Pretty much right. It’s not applicable just black people though. The fact the “yute” was black just made it more newsworthy.
Judge dreadful wrote:
I’d prefer police focussed on actual crimes rather than whether people pass some arbitrary attitude test. I can’t see why the general public have to abide by some arbitrary officer’s interpretation of a correct, subservient attitude.
grOg wrote:
I reckon the guy in question probably knows better than most of us how (…some of…) the police operate. Including this shitty power-trip tendency to make people’s lives more difficult and unpleasant if the officer thinks that someone isn’t kow-towing to the required degree.
All you’re doing is pointing out the status quo. And it for most people, that’s pretty much just a statement of the obvious – we know that’s how the police operate.
It doesn’t mean it’s right, though.
Cue rehash of all the
Cue rehash of all the arguments about racism, hi-viz and helmets.
Dusk?
Dusk?
London sunset time last
London sunset time last Tuesday was 21:21. Try again, little piggies…
hawkinspeter wrote:
Well, he was dark.
“In the United Kingdom, there is a legally enforced lighting-up time, defined as from half an hour after sunset to half an hour before sunrise, during which all motor vehicles on unlit public roads (except if parked) must use their headlights.”
The sun set at 21:21 on 30th June, so lighting up time would have been 21:51, an hour and 31 mins later than 20:20.
Incorrect, with bicycles it’s
Incorrect, with bicycles it’s when the sun goes down that matters.
See:- https://www.cyclinguk.org/lighting-regulations
Either way, it doesn’t look like dusk to me and who uses the phrase ‘Lights Displayed’ anyway. You’d say, why have you got any lights on or where are your lights.
Capt Sisko wrote:
Thanks for that Capt, duly noted.
What was the mumbled bit?
What was the mumbled bit?
And who uses ‘lights displayed’ as a term?
You’d just say without lights or you’ve no lights or just no lights.
hirsuit wrote:
The Highway Code.
Don’t just say ‘ the highway
Don’t just say ‘ the highway code’, state the rule and give a link.
Don’t tell me, you use the word ‘adduce’ in normal conversation.
Where? I can see reference to
Where? I can see reference to lights being lit (Rules 60, 113) but not lights displayed.
Don’t know if it states
Don’t know if it states “lights displayed”in the highway code, but it is commonly used around here by the council and the police.
There is a roadside noticeboard on my way home from school that alternates between reminding cyclists to “obey traffic signals and display lights” and reminding drivers to give cyclists plenty of room and that we are entitled to use the whole lane.
It makes me smile, because my bike is always “displaying lights”, I just don’t switch them on until I actually need to.
quiff wrote:
Rule 249. All vehicles MUST display parking lights when parked on a road or a lay-by on a road with a speed limit greater than 30 mph (48 km/h).
It is also very common usage in aviation and nautical speak, and officialese.
Clearly not applicable in
Clearly not applicable in this situation (and in any event doesn’t generally apply to pedal cycles), but chapeau for finding it
Police using police speak.
Police using police speak..colour me surprised..not.
This article is a total
This article is a total nothing-burger.
Get a grip and stop creating issues where there are none.
Road.cc find articles on the
Road.cc find articles on the web that have something to do with bikes. Some are tenous and some are not. I
n this case it is a Police person seemingly to quote spurious “Law” requirements for an Anti Social Behaviour stop that are not the case. It was also big news due to it being so close to BLM and because of the “license plate” bit. The Police have released press releases now at least clearing some of it up so Road.cc do have a duty to publish that aspects of the original story they had was wrong.
Now whether it needed to be a full article or lines in the daily updates is the only debate really but their site, their rules.
“Road.cc find articles on the
“Road.cc find articles on the web that have something to do with bikes. Some are tenous and some are not.”
Completley agree, road.cc is becoming the Daily Mail of cycling news.
Some would say you are
Some would say you are trolling and ignore you but as 7 (really?) others have
bleatedliked ……I believe it to be a neat example of a bigger issue. And these examples need to be provided at regular intervals until everyone wakes up to the fact that there is an issue. Comments in the replies here demonstrate that some contributers (2cb inc) have an “Unconcious Bias” (or are in denial or ‘ism) with regard to their understanding of the information being reported. They assemble their opinions based upon cues taken from the clip and combined with historical ‘beliefs/bias’ that match with their personal understanding of life, then assemble ‘a’ version of what happened.
Regardless, we can all have a bias but the key thing is to recognise it and change. The parallel for need of a bike context (if one is required) is reflected in NMOTD. How many of those situations would be avoided if there was a change in attitudes, how many of those are caused by isms and disregard for the rights of others/cyclists; most I would say. This story is on road.cc because there is a person on a bike in a situation that is specifically topical. If you wish or think that cyclists are defined by lycra or specified bikes then maybe you need to read a more niche publication where you are far less likely to be informed (bothered) by what is happening in the real world. Change the clothing/skin colour/age/location/gender in this situation any number of ways and there will be many different outcomes, many of which would not even trigger 1 PO getting out of the vehicle never mind multiples – in British Society it should always be the same response for anyone. That is the issue.
She clearly says “not got a
She clearly says “not got a license plate”. To deny that is perverting justice.
Just like a Two Ronnies
Just like a Two Ronnies sketch, It is one of those things were if you read it and listen to it you can hear other words. But I will hold up my hands and state it is “lights displayed” now it is in my head. I think he would have asked that instead of the “not wearing a helmet is anti-social behaviour?” that then got her stumped.
She clearly said ‘not having
She clearly said ‘not having your lights displayed’..she said it quickly and with ‘police’ attitude but then she was dealing with a young man clearly showing attitude while filming the interraction for social media; NB – there is no requirement for licence plates in the U.K. so mishearing that takes a leap of logic.
grOg wrote:
I’m afraid that it could be either, and we’d need an expert language analyst to be definitive.
6 Polis involved in advising
6 Polis involved in advising this guy! Proportionate.
So the guy is riding his bike
So the guy is riding his bike all over the place… up on the pavement all over the road… and his reply to the police officer is soley around the helmet… sure the helmet comment is stupid, but that doesn’t detract from the other anti-social riding he was doing, people need to stop looking at one tiny detail of this event and look at the whole picture. It is a shame that everything appears to be coming down to Race… if you don’t ride like an idiot you won’t get stopped, also what are the stats ? how many “white” people have been stopped by the police ? what we are seeing here is one disgruntaled idiot, it really isn’t providing a true picture
bigbiker101 wrote:
Oh, do you have video of the whole interaction then, you know he was all over the road and riding like an idiot? Or are you just taking the word of a police officer who believes that she can charge him with anti-social behaviour for not wearing a helmet or hiviz and not having lights even though it’s an hour before sunset? I wonder what makes you believe one and not the other? Let’s think, there must be some difference, if only we could put our finger on it…
Cannot believe the racism shown by some posters on here. The black lad, who we have no evidence was committing any offence, intelligently and politely questions the officer about her wrongful accusation that he is behaving antisocially by not wearing a helmet and he gets called an idiot and accused of having attitude…here’s a thought, he’s been stopped by a whole vanload of police and yet they haven’t issued him with a warning or charged him with any offence (they could have given him an FPN if he was cycling on the pavement). You reckon they just did that out of the goodness of their hearts, or do you think maybe there was no offence with which to charge him?
I live, ride and drive (as a passenger) in South London. I have never been stopped by the police when on my bike or in my wife’s car, not once in fifty years. My black friends ride just as carefully as me and drive just as carefully as my wife, and yet they are pulled over constantly. These are facts of life where we live. So sorry if you’re fed up with everything “coming down to race” – if the police stopped racially profiling for stops (and their own figures prove unequivocally that they do) then perhaps everything wouldn’t come down to race, how about that for a solution?
bigbiker101 wrote:
— bigbiker101That’s 100%, absolutely and completely wrong, as @roubaixcobbles has outlined.
I feel sorry for you that, after all the fuss in the news and on social media over recent weeks, that you still don’t get it. Or is it that you don’t want to understand?
It is providing a true
It is providing a true picture. I don’t know any white person who has ever been stopped in this manner, and I know multiple black and Asian men who have been stopped repeatedly since they were teenagers.
Certain police are a joke. The non racist ones need to stand up to the racist ones. Full stop.
As to the incident. 5 police for that? Really FFS? And she gets EVERYTHING wrong. Send her back to police school
I don’t think I’ve ever been
I don’t think I’ve ever been stopped by the police, either on the bike or in the car- not in the last 20 years, anyway. This may be because I live in North Lancashire, and because I’m a White Old Knacker who is generally pretty law abiding. Although I am generally highly anti-police, this is because of what they won’t do rather than what they do. In this case, I can see both sides. It must be annoying for the police when every such ‘stop’ they undertake is filmed with a view to Black Lives Matter on social matter- on the other hand, they’re filming, so they can’t complain. On the other, other hand it must be a pain to be regularly stopped because your non-white skin colour fits offenders who, in some areas, may well be the usual suspects. I think both sides here are a bit over-outraged.