- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Police use close pass footage to prosecute cyclist for riding on shared-use path
A cyclist who submitted footage of a close pass to the Met Police has learned that he himself is to be prosecuted. The force says road.cc reader Giles is guilty of riding a pedal cycle on a footpath – but the cyclist points out that the stretch in question is a well-marked shared-use path.
The alleged offence happened at 6.45am on March 4 at the roundabout between New and Old Kent Roads in London. It occurs towards the end of the video above.
“As a result of my reporting a driver for what I considered a fast, close, aggressive pass, I am being prosecuted for ‘Ride a pedal cycle on a footpath,’ when in fact I was using a well-marked cycle path,” said Giles.
“After I reported the driver I was somewhat surprised to get an email a few days later saying that they were going to prosecute. They rarely prosecute for close passes. It turns out that they are prosecuting me rather than the driver.
“I am absolutely raging about this. It highlights how clueless police are about cycling and to me seems to be an attack on cyclists. They are ignoring the driver but jump at a chance to prosecute a cyclist.”
A look on Google StreetView shows that there is a sign indicating the area can be used by cyclists as well as pedestrians at the point at which Giles comes off the road.
There are further signs round the corner.
Giles says that he often takes this route.
“In this case the roundabout was very quiet but there can often be lots of queuing traffic there. This makes it hard to get by on the road, especially leaving the roundabout where it is narrow. It's a lot easier on the shared cycle path – and the shared cycle path avoids two sets of lights.”
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- stonojnr 1 min 45 sec ago
Exactly that, I'd have answered their survey I was unaware anyone had been sent to prison or banned from driving for driving dangerously, like they...
- jaymack 13 min 54 sec ago
Always, always, always fear the actuary.
- Rendel Harris 46 min 58 sec ago
Welcome, hope it works!
- Hirsute 1 hour 17 min ago
They think Peds will only look one way and so there will a collision. If only they knew how little Peds look !
- ROOTminus1 1 hour 26 min ago
And if I tried to inspire you that critical thinking isn't just about finding problems with someone else's logic?...
- jonah1961 1 hour 41 min ago
Same here Luca, I subscibed this morning but wonder whether the creaky website takes a while to update?
- David9694 1 hour 58 min ago
Castle Fields car park extension in Tonbridge abandoned but charges remain on Sundays and Martin Square in Larkfield and Bailey Bridge in Aylesford...
- Dnnnnnn 1 hour 58 min ago
Having used them hundreds of times with only a couple of lost parcels, my experience is the opposite, and better than with Royal Mail and UPS....
- Sriracha 2 hours 10 min ago
In Merseyside that's just an everyday greeting 😉
Add new comment
74 comments
This story confuses me. If there are signs up saying that area of pavement is shared use then surely there's no case to answer?
That would require a bit of effort to watch the video and check on street view.
tbh I'm surprised they watched more than the first few seconds and filed it as no action.
Do hope the Police have sent an NIP to the driver.
You can just see what'll happen though. We didn't send an NIP because the evidence video included the cyclist breaking the law and now we've had it pointed out that it was a shared use path, it's now too late so we won't even talk to the driver at all. Which is all that it would take in most circumstances to make a driver realise that their driving was unacceptable. People on bikes can't get that message across but the Police should be able to!
For those of you in London who have this kind of shared path locally you could forward the article to your local counciller and ask them to confirm with the metropolitan police if using these shared paths is legal or not? It would be useful to know
For those of you in London who have this kind of shared path locally you could forward the article to your local counciller and ask them to confirm with the metropolitan police if using these shared paths is legal or not? It would be useful to know
I'm amazed they had the time to watch the whole video!
They probably didn't, just skipped to the best bit at the end
A trick that the Met use all the time is to send the complainant a letter or an e-mail, saying that 'after revieiwing the evidence...', there will be no further action.
Whoever decided on this policy is evidently too effing thick to realise that if you don't actually view the video on the complainant's YouTube page, then the 'view' counter will not increment.
This has happened to me on more than a dozen occasions. I've complained about the individual in question, who works out of CO16 at Marlow House in Sidcup. He has done this so often, that it can't be a coincidence. He has said 'no further evidence' without even looking at the video. One time, he e-mailed me back to say that 'the motorcyclist has committed no offence'.
Except it wasn't a motorcyclist. It was a driver. As in, you know in a fucking car.
My complaints didn't get anywhere. I tried to make a complaint of misconduct in public office. They refused to register it, and I was told that there was 'no right of appeal'.
Ah yes, the Met. I'd like to share with you the response I got when challenging a ticket for jumping a red that was actually amber when I crossed the stop line. I thought the best course of action would be to challenge the ticket based on the copper not having completed it correctly, you know, like motorists are able to do, as I had bugger all chance of proving it was amber. Here's the reply:
Apparently, failing to fill out a ticket correctly is both "professional" and was the "best" he could do. I suppose that replying in infant school level English also earns a gold star. That's what Giles is up against. Good luck.
It’s a war on motorists!! Haven’t they got better things to do like knife wielding hoodies !!111eleventyone !!!
Oh sorry, I thought I had wandered into the Daily Mail comments by mistake. So you want some sympathy on here for approaching a signal that was at stop, in your car, and choosing to carry on through it, rather than stopping?
It is clear - though not 100% explicit - from srchar's post that he wasn't in a car, but was cycling and light was amber and not a stop signal. Not sure how the PCSO caught up with him to give him the ticket, that might be an interesting story.
Said PCSO was standing on the pavement on the other side of the junction and couldn't possibly have seen what state the traffic lights were in. It didn't stop him pulling me over and, being a law-abiding citizen, I stopped and complied with his request for my name and address. Lesson learned: fuck the police.
Lovely comment, except that I was on my bike. I don't stop for amber - I speed up and go through them, having twice been punted up the rear by a car driver while hauling the brakes on at an amber traffic light.
Do bore off with your Daily Mail reference.
Why don't you stop for amber?
Institutionally anti-cyclist
Best of luck, let them take you to court. I have absolutely no faith at all in our local force, Lancashire Police. Having reported a driver for texting whilst driving, I showed the officer the video, showing the woman driving with the phone stuck in front of her face, including the woman admitting on camera to texting during her foul mouthed rant to me. The officer said it wouldn't be in the public interest to prosecute, but then questioned why I was overtaking the slow moving traffic on the right hand side. She then had the cheek to ask why I did a dangerous manoeuvre by doing a U turn so I could speak to her. I pointed out that there was nothing dangerous in doing a U turn on a cycle when the oncoming road was completely clear, but she wasn't interested. I complained to the professional standards department, they couldn't even be arsed replying.
Have you complained to the police and crime commissioner? I have to say, my local one is very good, so give it a try.
I really do not think we want crapita running anything like that. There would be endless failed court cases as they would chase the money.
And yet when I uploaded to the met’s road safety portal a video of a woman veering across the a4 in London simultaneously driving and having a heated argument over FaceTime video (driver and the other person were both crystal clear in the footage) the Met did absolutely nothing.
Actually, that’s not quite true - they sent me an email saying that even though the footage showed the car from behind, side on and in front, the reg number, the driver being clearly visible - as was the phone mounted literally in the centre of her field of vision on a windscreen mount, there wasn’t enough evidence to justify investigting.
The Met never miss an opportunity to make themselves look like complete tools.
I really think it’s about time that enforcement of road traffic offences should be outsourced to the likes of capita who could run it as a profit centre, release funds for reinvestment in road safety initiatives, release the police from a job they clearly can’t be bothered to do and potentially, do it with enough enthusiasm to shift the behaviour of all road users within a year or two as new tech, automation and commercial incentives drives a very high rate of detection and enforcement.
Tax payers money going to good use again.
This is getting like Terry Gilliam's Brazil.
Can I suggest sending a leg of gammon to the police station? They might have to call in the detectives to work out why though.
More evidence of the extent to which most of the police simply have a deep-rooted hostility towards anyone on a bicycle (and a corresponding automatic sympathy with people using cars).
Clearly their eagerness to "get one over" on a bicyclist meant they couldn't even see the cycle-path signs or do the smallest bit of checking. With the close-pass itself, as with countless others, it works entirely the other way.
I wonder if it's sociologically-possible, anywhere in the world, to get a police force that actually puts the interest of the general public and wider society first, rather than just making their own prejudices and self-interests their top priority?
Couple of RLJs to be dragged down the cells.
I’m presuming the car in question belongs to the cunstable who reviewed the footage?
Looking back on it now, Giles may find that he can't remember for sure who may have been riding his bike at that exact time?
I'd happily chip in a fiver to pay for a solicitor
Much as I dislike our Chancellor Phillip Hammond, he said in an interview on TV that our police forces could do more to tackle knife crime by working more efficiently, this seems like case where the officer could be better redeployed out on the streets dealing with proper crime.
Good god no! We don't need fking idiots like this policing our streets.
Get a really expensive legal team, let the prosecution run it's course and run up a large legal expenses bill for the met.
It would be great to see this taken to Court!
That's fraud, that is - drawing pay under false pretences.
Worse, it's perverting the course of justice and breaking their sworn oaths.
Met police are institutionally corrupt and bent as a nine bob note!
It's not even in the public interest to prosecute ffs!
I hope the MET get a fucking kicking and get exposed for the twats that they are!
Pages