The British Transport Police has taken issue with “inaccurate” media reports about its policy not to investigate bikes stolen from train stations if they were left for longer than two hours… in a statement confirming that it will not investigate bikes stolen from train stations if they were left for longer than two hours.
In a lengthy statement issued earlier today the British Transport Police said there had been “significant media coverage regarding British Transport Police’s (BTP) crime screening policy” in the past week, however “some reporting has been inaccurate”.

To “try to clarify the situation” the force that polices Britain’s railways and stations issued a fact-checking document with “claims” from the media and public, followed by its response. At the top of the list was the claim: “BTP [British Transport Police] won’t investigate a bicycle theft if it has been left at a station for more than two hours”.
“We know that most people who leave their bicycle at a station will do so for more than two hours,” the clarification begins. “BTP records all cycle crime reported to the force and considers all viable lines of enquiry when an offence is reported. Bicycle thefts have not been de-criminalised as some headlines have suggested.”
The response to “inaccurate” media reports continues: “When we do not have a clear time or location for the offence, or if there is a lack of CCTV, witnesses or other evidence, it can be very difficult to solve a crime. If it is available we will review around two hours of CCTV footage to try to identify the incident, but it is not proportionate to review longer periods as it keeps officers from being available to respond to emergencies, visibly patrolling railway stations and trains, investigating crimes with identified lines of enquiry or which cause the most harm to victims – such as violent or sexual offences.
“We are looking at other ways we could manage this task, and we work closely with train operating companies to identify suspects and are actively improving CCTV coverage and advising on prevention measures as part of our crime prevention strategy.”
The force then concludes the comment by trying to reassure victims of bike theft that “even if an offence is not investigated, it still provides valuable intelligence”.
“This helps us to direct patrols and operations more effectively, ensuring we remain proactive in preventing crime and protecting passengers and staff,” it continues.
While the British Transport Police has taken issue with the idea it has ‘decriminalised’ bike theft from stations, British Cycling and other cycling campaign groups have been clear in their belief that is what the policy effectively amounts to.

British Cycling accused the British Transport Police of “letting cyclists down” and “providing further barriers to people riding a bike”.
“Bikes are a vital mode of transport, and way to access work, education or vital services,” a spokesperson told us. “The theft of a bike is a horrible experience shared by too many people across the country, and decriminalising this activity will only serve to deter more people from choosing cycling, whilst preventing those already riding a bike from continuing to do so.”
Likewise, Sophie Gordon from Cycling UK, told us the decision tells people that they should expect to sort bike thefts themselves.
> Warning that bike theft has been “decriminalised” as stats show 89% of reported cases unsolved
“The decision not to investigate bike theft when cycles have been left for longer than two hours will hit the lowest income groups the hardest,” she said. “These are often working people who might not be able to afford a car and are relying on bikes and public transport to get to work. If you’re on shift or at work, you will inevitably be away longer than a couple of hours.
“Bike theft is not a petty crime but has serious social consequences and the police need to take it seriously – to have your means of getting around stolen can be devastating. By partnering with cycle trade, planners and other groups, the police could find ways to prevent cycle theft, seeing as that’s more effective than enforcement, but it’s not acceptable for the police to say they will be doing less to investigate theft, when they should be doing more. Otherwise it starts to feel like people should ‘See it. Say it. Sort it yourself’.”
The policy not to investigate bikes stolen if they have been left for longer than two hours has been in place since last year, but attracted widespread media attention last week in relation to a story about an attempted bicycle theft at Watford Junction railway station (with the following guidance below shared).

The British Transport Police has claimed some media reporting, notably claims about ‘decriminalisation’ of bike theft, were “inaccurate”, resulting in today’s statement.

Speaking on BBC Breakfast yesterday morning, Cycling UK’s Dollimore said the policy sends an “odd message” to would-be bike thefts, effectively giving them carte blanche to steal whatever they like.
“Drivers would assume that if their car was stolen, that would be a serious matter that someone would at least investigate. And it’s the same with people who cycle, they expect that it should be looked at and considered,” Dollimore said.
“The British Transport Police saying they’re not even going to look at the evidence is alarming. We’re getting more and more people who are saying that their motivation for cycling is to save money, and so we should be encouraging people to cycle to the train station for the health benefits, cost benefits, and to make it easier for other people who drive to the station.

“And it’s alarming that the British Transport Police are sending a very odd message to criminals and would-be criminals, don’t worry, there’s going to be no enforcement at train stations if you’re stealing bikes. Incredibly, the government is about to publish a new integrated transport strategy which reinforces how we integrate cycling and public transport together.
“Cycle parking at stations is massively important for that, and it’s quite gobsmacking really that they’re saying if you leave your bike at the station for more than two hours, we’re not going to look at the CCTV. I struggle to think of anyone who would leave a bike at a station for less than two hours.”
Dollimore added that he was “amazed” when he read that the police justified their decision on the grounds that it was “realistic”, the BTP claiming that officers were being prevented from effectively patrolling stations due to the time spent reviewing CCTV footage concerning bike thefts that were unlikely to be solved.
“They seem to suggest that they had people spending hours looking at CCTV cameras,” he said. “If you drop your bike off at 8am and it’s not there at six in the evening, someone could look at the CCTV cameras at 12, if it’s not there, they can look at 10. They can nail down the time window when the bike went within ten minutes.
“It doesn’t have to be a fully qualified police officer who does that, it can be admin staff. So I really struggle to understand the logic that it’s a time-consuming exercise when there is evidence. The evidence is there, they’re just refusing to use it.”




















58 thoughts on “Police blame media for “inaccurate” stories claiming they won’t investigate bikes stolen from train stations if they’ve been left for longer than two hours… before confirming that’s actually correct”
Police now contradicting
Police now contradicting their own document.
Maybe it wasn’t woke enough 🤷
Maybe it wasn’t woke enough 🤷
On the contrary, they are
On the contrary, they are doubling down on their position. They are complaining about “inaccurate” media coverage, but actually the media coverage has been pretty spot on.
The example given in the statement of “inaccurate” media coverage is apparent claims that bike theft has been decriminalised. But of course no media outlet actually said bike theft has been decriminalised – they said it has been _effectively_ decriminalised given the police refusal to investigate in most circumstances. Which is accurate…
Plod being plod.
Plod being plod.
So, does that relate to cars,
So, does that relate to cars, as well ?
Yes i believe it covers any
Yes i believe it covers any type of theft from railway station property the BTP are responsible for policing.
The original BBC article said it even included theft from trains if the witness reporting the crime couldn’t specify the exact carriage it happened in.
BTP say
BTP say
But they don’t say a *continuous* 2 hours. Clearly they have read the numerous road.cc comments explaining binary search and will be taking it up, but don’t want to pay royalties.
slc wrote:
Binary search has been known for Millenia, since at least Babylonian times – there can be no royalties. A reasonably bright child would figure out binary search for themselves, when necessary.
A friend of mine once
A friend of mine once reported his car having been stolen in a 36 hour window from right underneath a CCTV camera. The desk officer explained that he couldn’t be expected to sit through 36 hours of footage. Elliot then calmly explained that he wouldn’t have to – just simply fast forward to the 18 hour point, and either the car is there (fast forward to 27h) or it isn’t (rewind to 9h) and repeat until the perp is at least visible. The officer’s response? “I’m not a computer expert sir”.
They’re suddenly computer experts when someone upsets a delicate soul on the internet though aren’t they? Maybe the answer is to have someone call the thief something totally unacceptable and ask them to track the victim down?
panda wrote:
TBF everyone is an expert when it comes to *posting* in the Internet – and those suspected of committing such offenses are often self-documenting. (Often seems to be the equivalent of someone signing their graffiti with their real name and a handprint…)
I wish there was more effort on tackling bike theft but it still involves *policing* eg. who is it, where are they, can they show it was actually theft eg. who owns the bike, is there other evidence they had it etc. Otherwise it could be eg. Banksy doing a significant fraction of UK bike thefts…
Pathetic – give them a flow
Pathetic – give them a flow diagram then or will they claim to be unable to follow instructions ?
Paul J wrote:
Binary search has been known for Millenia, since at least Babylonian times – there can be no royalties. A reasonably bright child would figure out binary search for themselves, when necessary.
Belshazzar’s kingdom was divided by the Medes and Persians, so maybe the Medes thought it up and took their royalty by force?
How hard would it be to write
How hard would it be to write some AI that notes who left the bike and decide the person taking it isn’t the same? Then get some lazy-arsed plod out there to check. Answer: Pretty bloody easy.
PS. The binary chop solution occured to me too. Here at 8am, gone at 4pm? 60 seconds of searching and you’re watching the guy steal it.
I suspect they don’t like the
I suspect Police don’t like the use of the word “decriminalisation” because it is not within their gift to decriminalise an offence, but that is what they are doing when they choose not to investigate certain offences. They can’t have it both ways.
The force then concludes the
The force then concludes the comment by trying to reassure victims of bike theft that “even if an offence is not investigated, it still provides valuable intelligence. This helps us to direct patrols and operations more effectively, ensuring we remain proactive in preventing crime and protecting passengers and staff,” it continues
This is a common police excuse/ dodge. Lancashire used to deploy it on me, before they hit on the ‘just bin every case involving cyclists and don’t respond’ dodge.
The police seem to be
The police seem to be complaining about inaccurate reporting that’s actually fairly accurate. As other comments suggest, looking at CCTV footage doesn’t have to be done by trained officers and can be handled by civilian staff, or even by AI tools.
Sad that Trump has taught the
Sad that Trump has taught the British police almost everything they know.
I think some posters on this
I think some posters on this site would be able to confirm that some UK police were masters of that game long before Trump was well-known…
The head of the BTP was
The head of the BTP was literally interviewed on R4 this week about it and confirmed the policy.
Which is exactly what their media myths busting statement confirms is the case.
It’s a simple question, will the BTP investigate if a bike is stolen from a railway station if its been left for two hours, yes or no? Their statement confirms no, so where’s the myth ?
On the bright side at least
On the bright side at least this is simple incompetence rather than Orwellian.
As a general rule the first response from the police is the most accurate. It has been provided without any filter and the author is simply providing facts. Post-fuore and someone senior comes along with weasel words to explain away the fuss, like the Royal Parks police not working before 8AM.
If the BTP is accusing media
If the BTP is wrongly accusing media/news outlets of, effectively, reporting “fake news”…
Can those media outlets sue the BTP for defamation?
Why bother? Pointing and
Why bother? Pointing and laughing is much more fun.
They keep saying about length
They keep saying about length of time needed to review footage – are they really just so effing thick as to not be able to scroll /jump at various time indexes to determine when the bike was nicked? This has been stated by various police time and time again. I now know why we have so much crime – our crime fighters barely have a braincell between them.
Clearly identifying the time
Clearly identifying the time of theft should be relatively simple and doesn’t require watching the footage in realtime, so the 2 hours thing is nonsense. But I suspect that identifying the time of theft rarely leads to identifying a suspect, without then looking for other CCTV to see where the bike was taken etc. I appreciate that’s not the point BTP have made though.
quiff wrote:
It’s hard to tell what BTP really intended to say, but it is hard to come away with anything other than ‘we can’t be bothered’.
I doubt the time taken to find the point at which a bike is no longer there is the problem, and it’s on BTP that they gave that impression. Presumably the quality or location of CCTV is often a problem, and then the requirement to follow-up with other CCTV to establish where the thieves went, and possibly get a better picture and other helpful information. And then if they do get useful information, they’d have to spend time doing something about it.
Even if they can’t or won’t follow up all instances of theft, they should be taking reasonable measures to get images of the thieves and finding out when and how they operate so they can pool intelligence and target repeat offenders.
And assuming that often the CCTV coverage isn’t in a format or of a quality that is helpful, they should be giving advice on what would provide useful evidence.
I’ve been watching the
I’ve been watching the ‘Goldfinger’ series on Sky about the Brinks Mat gold smelting guy. He was shot 6 times by an assasin but police in Essex didn’t bother investigating as a crime because they thought it was linked to an operation he’d had a week earlier.
Surreyrider wrote:
Well, he was waiting on that lead insertion operation for quite a while – bloody NHS.
Want the police to get
Want the police to get interested in your case? Just make a cardboard sign…
It is strange how the police
It is strange how the police find it so easy to ignore some offences yet not others.
So woefully understaffed yet there never really seems to be a problem finding coppers to police demonstrations in London where generous overtime is on offer.
I hear Domino’s has a special pizza called “The Met” for such occasions.
Pub bike wrote:
Unlimited resources for investigating a thrown milkshake or peaceful protestors holding “Palastine Action” placards
hawkinspeter wrote:
But but isn’t the first legally assault – so even worse than someone driving their vehicle into you? And the second is legally the same as dressing in nazi gear and saying that you wish Hitler had finished the job and support measures in favour of that end (also available in other racist / anti-islamic / militant islamic anti-unbeliever versions)?
Of course the police are not only there to deal with crime as most people care about (law and … *order*). But surely here it’s the laws and directives from on high that are the issue?
Or “I do not agree that
Or “I do not agree that palestine action should be a proscribed group”.
Hirsute wrote:
Based on what I know (which I accept isn’t everything those who made the decision know) I don’t think it should be a proscribed group either, but the government decided it is, and it’s not fair to blame the police for taking action against those who rub their support for an organisation they know to be proscribed in the faces of the authorities. And as much as I have broad agreement with what I think are the stated aims of the organisation, you have to be very stupid or exceptionally narcissistic (likely both) to think that breaking into a military base is something that has no repercussions.
And don’t get me started on people who think that complaining that ‘the police just arrested a nice, educated, white granny’ is a compelling political argument, rather than a foot-shooting display of classism and exceptionalism.
FionaJJ wrote:
In fairness, I don’t think those involved have ever said that they expected that it wouldn’t have repercussions. Just that they didn’t expect that those repercussions would include being labelled as terrorists.
FionaJJ wrote:
I don’t know but I would doubt they did. Isn’t that the point – part of the leverage of protest is in the sympathy of everyone else with what appears to be unfair consequences for protestors? On which:
If people are complaining thus, part of the strategy has worked, no? (The next part is whether that sympathy works its way through to those who actually make the decisions – which is a different thing of course).
Personally I think sending out political grandees, broadcasters and judges to protest would be better, but I’m guessing they didn’t find enough?
FionaJJ wrote:
But the police can be blamed for the fact that a number of forces have taken the proscription of PA as carte blanche to get heavy-handed with all protest related to the issue, e.g. this woman who was told by officers that a “Free Gaza” placard was indicative of support for PA:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-threatened-to-arrest-kent-protester-for-holding-palestinian-flag
Rendel Harris wrote:
Or the chap with the Private Eye cartoon who was also nicked…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz9kdq84j3lo
Alas this doesn’t illustrate the effectiveness of satire, just that much policing comes down to weary pattern-matching. And that people need to keep fighting for (or otherwise investing in) “rights”, and the politicians who see political value in keeping them. Otherwise history shows that nowhere is very far from them being declared “not without limits”, then further qualified, then only for some and so on … and eventually we’re into arrest quotas or “tear him for his bad verses”.
chrisonabike wrote:
Quite the contrary – it demonstrates how satire will never be as effective as people’s efforts to satirise themselves.
FionaJJ wrote:
It’s absolutely fair to blame the police; as they frequently tell us they don’t have the resources to deal with everything so they have to prioritise. It’s the police that decide to spend time on PA protests that they could be spending on something else.
That prioritisation should be based on actual harm, not on embarrasment to ministers.
A bike theft should be a higher priority for resource than the Home Secretary’s feelings. Almost everything should.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Even for people wearing Plasticine action t-shirts.
A lot of the protests are
A lot of the protests are resourced via the “mutual aid” arrangements with other forces – so as an example in recent weekends the
Hamas SupporterPalestine Marches have been policed with resources from PSNI (northern ireland police forces).What has also happened though is that because the Met police funding has been cut by the
Campaigners against AusterityLabour Government there is limited overtime funding. So the bulk of the protest policing has been resourced from the London Boroughs which in turn have seen crime go up because there’s less street level policing.Hmm – sounds like the most
Hmm – sounds like the most efficient way would be to stage protests which also draw police resources away from where politicians live/work then? Focus the minds with the power, one way or the other.
chrisonabike wrote:
Also, to stage simultaneous protests in the places where they would typically draw resources from e.g. Belfast in this case.
Private eye cartoon makes
Private eye cartoon makes this point also.
Most in this discussion are
Most in this discussion are focussed on the wrong problem – theft and it’s policing.
Instead, the real issue is – the bizarre wilful dismissal and lack of recognition of cycling as an integral and legitimate component of the transport system/network.
It’s exactly the same as the lack of respect for cycling as legitimate transport on the roads.
Secure bike parking at train stations (and all public places) should be of the highest priority for every station and city council in the world. It should also be free, in order to actually encourage active transport as part of every city’s plan to reduce fossil fuel use and support public health.
Minimising bike theft as a petty crime, deliberately minimises societies’ collective responsibility. It is a diversionary tactic designed to deflect political responsibility away from ethical responsibility and ignore the larger failed cultural issues at play,
GravelIsNothingNew wrote:
Except (from the original story):
So in a wider sense you might have a point, but in the case of this particular story, not so much.
Huh? What has 2hrs got to do
Huh? What has 2hrs got to do with anything? It’s just the smoke screen.
There’s something wrong with
There’s something wrong with that picture of a broken lock.
It doesn’t take 2 hours to
It doesn’t take 2 hours to find when the bike was stolen. If you have 8 hours of video you identify the bike at the start time then go to 4 hours in. If the bike is still there you go to 6 hours. If it’s not there at 6 hours you go to 5 hours and so on. Keep dividing the time in half and you can narrow it down very quickly and see the toe rag that takes the bike.
You’ve got bike brain,
You’ve got bike brain, clearly. Not police brain, which may not be quite as sharp. Though I must admit that wouldn’t have occurred to me, elegant in its simpliciuty!
It is known as a binary
It is known as a binary search. Standard stuff as others have pointed out. It should not be news to the police who should be competent at analysing evidence. But either it is news to the police, or they assume that the general public is unaware and can therefore be fobbed off about how much time it takes to review video footage. Neither is a good look.
This is assuming the CCTV
This is assuming the CCTV covers where the bike was parked rather than just the exits.
Quite a lot of CCTV is shit.
Does it really matter that
Does it really matter that much to any investigation exactly when the bike was stolen – all that gets you is some footage of your perp, but almost certainly doesn’t identify them.
Not yet at least, but you’d
Not yet at least, but you’d think with a little bit of policing work, some of the oiks would be recognised and identifiable.
a little bit of policing work
a little bit of policing work…
They certainly don’t want to set a precedent like that!
Leave a hurty comment on
Leave a hurty comment on Facebook, for 2hrs or more, and they’ll be at your door with some cuffs pronto!
…they have decriminalised bike theft, plain and simple. The BTP needs throwing in the bin and starting from scratch, same goes for the judiciary.
What, like inciting people to
What, like inciting people to turn up mob handed at an asylum seekers hostel? That type of “hurty comment”?
Wait – didn’t the Senate*
Wait – didn’t the Senate* find that in fact that was just a patriotic action by president Farage * (or was it Tommy Musk?) when he told the good people they had to “fight like hell” or their local budget hotels would be stolen from them by cartels of millionaire pizza-delivering paedophiles?
* Is this right?