Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Met cycle cops' “Half our enforcement is on cyclists” Tweet gets strong response from London Cycling Campaign and Cycling UK

Campaigners urge police: Enforce law against road users who do most harm, not cyclists

Cycling campaigners have urged the Metropolitan Police’s Cycle Safety Team to work with councils to identify why some cyclists break the law and find a solution to safety issues that lead them to do so, and to target those road users who have greater capacity to harm others.

Their comments come after the Cycle Safety Team - previously known as the Cycle Task Force - said in a reply on Twitter yesterday that around half of the enforcements they make against road users for breaking traffic laws relate to cyclists.

As we reported yesterday on the live blog, two officers from the Cycle Safety Team targeted cyclists riding the wrong way along Beeston Lane, a one-way street that runs north to south from close to The Royal Mews at Buckingham Palace to Grosvenor Gardens.

Beeston Place junction Grosvenor Gardens (GoogleStreetView).PNG

As Twitter user and cycling campaigner David Arditti pointed out, the road cuts across the intimidating Victoria gyratory system, where cyclist Claire Hitier-Abadie was killed in a collision involving a lorry in 2015 (Arditti’s tweet mentioned Dr Katherine Gilkes, who died in a similar incident in 2013, although as he pointed out, “They are both examples of crashes that can’t happen when cyclists use one-way streets contraflow.”

Indeed, some cyclists ride the wrong way up Beeston Lane precisely to avoid the danger posed by motor traffic that typically includes a high volume of coaches, buses and, given the extensive redevelopment going on in the area, construction vehicles.

Another Twitter user who campaigns for cycle safety, Jono Kenyon, pointed out parallels with a similar operation previously undertaken at Holborn, another gyratory system in the capital in an area that has seen a number of cyclist fatalities in recent years.

Sam Jones, senior campaign officer at Cycling UK, told road.cc: “Cycling UK does not endorse illegal or dangerous cycling and encourages all road users to respect one another and act within the boundaries of the law.

“It is concerning to see the Met Cycle Cops’ say that half our enforcement is on cyclists – as this suggests they’re focusing on a particular road user, whose capacity to harm others is pretty small compared to motor traffic.

“Cycling UK would encourage the Met to put more emphasis on policing the greater causes of danger on our roads, not go for the low hanging fruit.

“They should also investigate the causes of the offending by any road user and see what work they can do with the council to ensure road conditions are improved.”

Similar views were expressed by Simon Munk, infrastructure campaigner at LCC. He told us: “All road users should obey the law, including those cycling.

“But enforcement on Beeston Lane hardly seems proportional to the dangers there, with no recorded collisions in over 10 years involving cycling.

“It’s also concerning that half of the police’s Cycle Safety Team enforcement work is now on those cycling – again, this appears to be disproportionate given those cycling cause very little road danger.

“If we want to rapidly reduce road danger, this isn’t the way to do it. What the Met should be doing is asking Westminster Council to put in a cycle contra-flow at this location, which is clearly needed to help those cycling avoid the lethal Victoria gyratory, site of a fatal collision in which a  a cyclist died in 2015.”

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

39 comments

Avatar
Pantster | 4 years ago
3 likes

I always find it funny that as someone who cycles all over the world regularly the UK does get VERY worked up about cyclists riding the wrong way on roads.

Abroad it is very common to encounter cyclists riding in the gutter going the wrong way, even when the road is 2 way. In NYC for example, cyclists, skateboarders etc regularly ride the wrong way and no one bats an eyelid about it

Avatar
CygnusX1 | 4 years ago
5 likes

They will get onto it once they've sorted out Brexit once and for all. Personally I would be planning for the next ice age, because that's bound to happen sooner.

Avatar
JonDxxx | 4 years ago
3 likes

Cycling in Belgium recently there are many streets that are signposted one way except cyclists. Doesn't seem to cause any problems. 

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to JonDxxx | 4 years ago
3 likes
JonDxxx wrote:

Cycling in Belgium recently there are many streets that are signposted one way except cyclists. Doesn't seem to cause any problems. 

We've got some of them in the UK too, though I think they mostly use a "cycle lane" to show that cyclists can go the wrong way. Personally I think the law should be changed for all one way streets - maybe they'll consider that when the govt. gets around to doing that traffic law safety review they've promised.

Avatar
ktache | 4 years ago
3 likes

Crambie was up to 5 trolling posts and had become quite sweary.

And some of the others were replies to the obvious trolling.

Avatar
srchar | 4 years ago
0 likes

Quite a few uncontroversial posts deleted from this thread - mods, any chance of an explanation please?

Avatar
Hirsute replied to srchar | 4 years ago
2 likes
srchar wrote:

Quite a few uncontroversial posts deleted from this thread - mods, any chance of an explanation please?

When it reaches the point where contributers are telling one another to foxtrot oscar, then no meaningful discussion can be held.

Avatar
Tony Farrelly replied to srchar | 4 years ago
4 likes
srchar wrote:

Quite a few uncontroversial posts deleted from this thread - mods, any chance of an explanation please?

Hi srchar – I didn't see the posts myself, but someone complained about the swearing - which to be fair are against the site T&Cs - and after looking at his other posts one of my colleagues brought down the ban hammer.

Avatar
srchar replied to Tony Farrelly | 4 years ago
3 likes
Tony Farrelly wrote:
srchar wrote:

Quite a few uncontroversial posts deleted from this thread - mods, any chance of an explanation please?

Hi srchar – I didn't see the posts myself, but someone complained about the swearing - which to be fair are against the site T&Cs - and after looking at his other posts one of my colleagues brought down the ban hammer.

Thanks for the explanation Tony. Guilty.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to srchar | 4 years ago
0 likes
srchar wrote:

Quite a few uncontroversial posts deleted from this thread - mods, any chance of an explanation please?

 

Is it not the case that if a poster is banned _all_ their posts disappear, even the non-ban-worthy ones?  Is that what happened here?  (I didn't actually see what happened)

Past bannings of certain posters have retrospectively rendered some threads incomprehensible, leaving people looking as if they were arguing with phantom posters only they could see.

 

Possibly if someone is banned only the posts that actually got them banned should be removed.  But it's not exactly a vitally-important issue.

Avatar
ktache | 4 years ago
3 likes

I was riding to work through cemetary juction in Reading one morning, multiple police an PCSOs on every bit of pavement on it's many feeder/exit roads, I asked what was going on, fearing major criminality, after all there was less of a visible police presence at Reading station after the London terrorist attacks.  Firstly I was told I was "a good cyclist" (on the road, hi viz and many lights) and they were stopping pavement cyclists.  I continued my way to work.

Now cemetary junction is necessary to pass through to get to many parts around that area of Reading, with low traffic levels motor vehicles speed around and with high traffic levels use of smart phones is endemic, so I can see why some cyclists might wish to take to the pavement.

It is a very student and poor area, and motorists come and go from the motorway there.

I have yet to ever see similar numbers of "the law" to enforce driving offences in that area.

Some months later the whole area became shared use on the pavements and all of the pedestrian crossings became Toucan.

Avatar
TriTaxMan | 4 years ago
2 likes

I just cannot get over how some of the responses smack of hipocrisy in general.

As cyclists we are the first to call for drivers to be prosecuted for any number of offenses such as close passes, speeding, running red lights etc but as soon as it is mentioned that the police are stopping cyclists for doing something illegal there is collective outrage. 

The long and short of it is....if they are doing 50% of their enforcement against bikes then it is likely that there is a higher proportion of cyclists doing illegal things in comparison with other forms of transport.  If the people doing 4% of the journeys are doing 50% of the misdemeanours, then they are commiting 24 times as many misdemeanours as the remaining 96%..... but no all cyclists are angels.

Maybe the particular one way street is a soft target for the cycle safety team to target and get a high number of offences against cyclists.  However, all it said was that 50% of enforcement is against cyclists..... enforcement could be issuing fixed penalty notices, but equally it could be them standing a point in the one way street telling the cyclists they have to go round with the flow of traffic.  Prevention, as they say, is better than a cure.

Yes there are questions regarding whether resources would be best spent elsewhere, but this is not the point, such backlash and complaints from cyclists and cycling bodies only suggests to other road users that cyclists think they are above the law...... because when cyclists are subject to enforcement action they are vocal in complaining.  Yes it may be that the cycling infrastructure is badly set out but that doesn't change the fact that these cyclists are breaking the law.

And what is such a load of bull is this "we shouldn't do anything because the only people they are going to hurt is themselves" line of thinking.  Are these people trying to say that if a lorry driver runs over and kills a cyclist who runs a red light and ends up under the wheels of the lorry, through absolutely no fault of the lorry driver, that the driver of that lorry is not 'injured'?  The psychological damage in such cases is massive.  Yes the chances of physically hurting someone on a bike are far lower than in a car but physical is not the only form of injury.

Avatar
JF69 replied to TriTaxMan | 4 years ago
6 likes
craigstitt wrote:

I just cannot get over how some of the responses smack of hipocrisy in general.

As cyclists we are the first to call for drivers to be prosecuted for any number of offenses such as close passes, speeding, running red lights etc but as soon as it is mentioned that the police are stopping cyclists for doing something illegal there is collective outrage. 

The long and short of it is....if they are doing 50% of their enforcement against bikes then it is likely that there is a higher proportion of cyclists doing illegal things in comparison with other forms of transport. (SNIPPED)

No, that's utter bullcrap. 

If they are doing 50% of their enforcement against bikes, it only means they're are doing 50% of their enforcement against bikes.

Which shouldn't be the case, since even the smallest of errors from a car driver can cause serious injury or death; they are not only not pursuing vision zero but riding (pun intended) against it.

 

Avatar
TriTaxMan replied to JF69 | 4 years ago
2 likes
JF69 wrote:

No, that's utter bullcrap. 

If they are doing 50% of their enforcement against bikes, it only means they're are doing 50% of their enforcement against bikes.

Which shouldn't be the case, since even the smallest of errors from a car driver can cause serious injury or death; they are not only not pursuing vision zero but riding (pun intended) against it.

Even if it is 50% of their enforcement time checking into cyclists why is that a bad thing?

They are the cycling safety team sometimes that involves educating cyclists, in the same way that the roads policing units use the likes of the "Close Pass Initiative" to educate drivers to do things differently. (And bearing in mind the size of the met cycling safety team in comparison with the met roads policing team, it is not such a disproportionate use of resources as people claim)

By bleating loudly about actually having cyclists monitored by the law reinforces the drivers mentality that cyclists are above the law.

But again that part of my comment you conveniently "Snipped" from your rebuttal because you only wanted to take certain things out of context to try and further your argument.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to TriTaxMan | 4 years ago
2 likes
craigstitt wrote:
JF69 wrote:

No, that's utter bullcrap. 

If they are doing 50% of their enforcement against bikes, it only means they're are doing 50% of their enforcement against bikes.

Which shouldn't be the case, since even the smallest of errors from a car driver can cause serious injury or death; they are not only not pursuing vision zero but riding (pun intended) against it.

Even if it is 50% of their enforcement time checking into cyclists why is that a bad thing?

They are the cycling safety team sometimes that involves educating cyclists, in the same way that the roads policing units use the likes of the "Close Pass Initiative" to educate drivers to do things differently. (And bearing in mind the size of the met cycling safety team in comparison with the met roads policing team, it is not such a disproportionate use of resources as people claim)

By bleating loudly about actually having cyclists monitored by the law reinforces the drivers mentality that cyclists are above the law.

But again that part of my comment you conveniently "Snipped" from your rebuttal because you only wanted to take certain things out of context to try and further your argument.

 

But my impression is that it is _motorists_ who are above the law.  Ergo, they need to put a lot more effort into policing them, so as not to reinforce that impression of mine.

Just today I saw yet another car with huge clouds of foul-smelling black/gray smoke coming out of it's exhaust as it drove down the road, smoke I had to breath in and choke on - seems to me that car can't have been legally on the road, but you think there's any chance the police will do anything about it?  Pull them over and tell them to stop driving and keep the thing off the road till it meets emissions standards?  I see that not infrequently and nothign is ever done about it - absolutely NOTHING is done to police motorists, as far as I can see, the law simply does not apply to them.  Put more resources into that before worrying whether a cyclist has walked their bike a few yards the wrong way on a one-way road, say.  It's a simple matter of priorities.

Avatar
Awavey replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 4 years ago
1 like
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

But my impression is that it is _motorists_ who are above the law.  Ergo, they need to put a lot more effort into policing them, so as not to reinforce that impression of mine.

Just today I saw yet another car with huge clouds of foul-smelling black/gray smoke coming out of it's exhaust as it drove down the road, smoke I had to breath in and choke on - seems to me that car can't have been legally on the road, but you think there's any chance the police will do anything about it?  Pull them over and tell them to stop driving and keep the thing off the road till it meets emissions standards?  I see that not infrequently and nothign is ever done about it - absolutely NOTHING is done to police motorists, as far as I can see, the law simply does not apply to them.  Put more resources into that before worrying whether a cyclist has walked their bike a few yards the wrong way on a one-way road, say.  It's a simple matter of priorities.

 

look if the Met were saying 50% of all their time was spent with enforcement on cyclists, like the daft Operation Safeway they ran a few years back, Id be absolutely agreeing there was a point to be made on the priorities here, but they arent, this is a really small part of the Met police which accounts for not even 1% of the entire size of their traffic division, the traffic division whose role is to police motorists in the main. so is it really a priorities issue for them to say only half the cycle teams work is in enforcement on cyclists ? given they must practically spend nearly all their time dealing with cyclists or problems that impact cyclists, like on all the close pass ops they run

this feels totally like a molehill of an issue thats been turned into something resembling Ventoux proportions for no logical reason I can follow.

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to TriTaxMan | 4 years ago
2 likes
craigstitt wrote:
JF69 wrote:

No, that's utter bullcrap. 

If they are doing 50% of their enforcement against bikes, it only means they're are doing 50% of their enforcement against bikes.

Which shouldn't be the case, since even the smallest of errors from a car driver can cause serious injury or death; they are not only not pursuing vision zero but riding (pun intended) against it.

Even if it is 50% of their enforcement time checking into cyclists why is that a bad thing?

They are the cycling safety team sometimes that involves educating cyclists, in the same way that the roads policing units use the likes of the "Close Pass Initiative" to educate drivers to do things differently. (And bearing in mind the size of the met cycling safety team in comparison with the met roads policing team, it is not such a disproportionate use of resources as people claim)

By bleating loudly about actually having cyclists monitored by the law reinforces the drivers mentality that cyclists are above the law.

But again that part of my comment you conveniently "Snipped" from your rebuttal because you only wanted to take certain things out of context to try and further your argument.

If 50% of enforcement is carried out on 5% of road users, then the other 95% are only 5% as likely to face enforcement. You know, the 95% of road users with significant kinetic energy most likely to result in fatalities or serious injuries.

Avatar
TriTaxMan replied to wycombewheeler | 4 years ago
0 likes
wycombewheeler wrote:

If 50% of enforcement is carried out on 5% of road users, then the other 95% are only 5% as likely to face enforcement. You know, the 95% of road users with significant kinetic energy most likely to result in fatalities or serious injuries.

Nope.  Your argument has as many holes in it as a seive.

For your argument to hold water you need to factor in the rest of the Roads Policing Department of the Met.  And I would be willing to place money that they don't spend anywhere near as much time policing cyclists as you think.

Assuming the roads policing department is 10 times the size of the cycle safety team (which it will be that and then some - as the cycle safety team has 27 people in it) you are already down to about 5% of enforcement against 5%  of road users.

Chances are it is much closer to about 1% of enforcement ever being applied against cyclists in general.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to TriTaxMan | 4 years ago
2 likes
craigstitt wrote:
wycombewheeler wrote:

If 50% of enforcement is carried out on 5% of road users, then the other 95% are only 5% as likely to face enforcement. You know, the 95% of road users with significant kinetic energy most likely to result in fatalities or serious injuries.

Nope.  Your argument has as many holes in it as a seive.

For your argument to hold water you need to factor in the rest of the Roads Policing Department of the Met.  And I would be willing to place money that they don't spend anywhere near as much time policing cyclists as you think.

Assuming the roads policing department is 10 times the size of the cycle safety team (which it will be that and then some - as the cycle safety team has 27 people in it) you are already down to about 5% of enforcement against 5%  of road users.

Chances are it is much closer to about 1% of enforcement ever being applied against cyclists in general.

Just for reference, cyclists form about 2% of traffic by journey or 1% by distance travelled.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to TriTaxMan | 4 years ago
4 likes
craigstitt wrote:
wycombewheeler wrote:

If 50% of enforcement is carried out on 5% of road users, then the other 95% are only 5% as likely to face enforcement. You know, the 95% of road users with significant kinetic energy most likely to result in fatalities or serious injuries.

Nope.  Your argument has as many holes in it as a seive.

For your argument to hold water you need to factor in the rest of the Roads Policing Department of the Met.  And I would be willing to place money that they don't spend anywhere near as much time policing cyclists as you think.

Assuming the roads policing department is 10 times the size of the cycle safety team (which it will be that and then some - as the cycle safety team has 27 people in it) you are already down to about 5% of enforcement against 5%  of road users.

Chances are it is much closer to about 1% of enforcement ever being applied against cyclists in general.

 

Your argument wouldn't even work as a seive, it's just one giant hole!

 

The rest of the 'roads policing department' does pretty much nothing.  Law-breaking by drivers is rarely pulled up on, _even_ on the rare occasions when there's a cop there to see it.

 

  The point of a 'cycle safety team' I would expect to be ensuring the safety of cyclists.  As the biggest threat to cyclists is motorists, that's who it should be devoting most of it's time to.  You seem to think it should mean 'cyclist policing team'.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to TriTaxMan | 4 years ago
6 likes
craigstitt wrote:

By bleating loudly about actually having cyclists monitored by the law reinforces the drivers mentality that cyclists are above the law.

Is that similar to young black men complaining about being targetted by the police use of stop-and-search powers? Presumably you think that if they complain about institutional racism then they are just reinforcing the racists' views?

We are not complaining about cyclists being monitored by the law, but the utter refusal of the MET police to enforce the law against motorists. There are many examples here on Road.cc showing explicit evidence of motorists not driving safely and keeping to the highway code and yet the MET has refused to act.

Whether or not the police crack down on cyclists jumping red lights or going the wrong way up one-way roads has virtually zero effect on cyclists' safety. It's the 2-tonne metal boxes travelling at speed that are dangerous when driven by people who don't even understand how dangerous they can be.

For a "cycle safety team" to focus 50% of its time on enforcing laws that won't provide any safety benefit (and in the case of the one-way road, will decrease the cyclists' safety) is purely a political move to appease the car driving Londoners.

Avatar
TriTaxMan replied to hawkinspeter | 4 years ago
0 likes
hawkinspeter wrote:

Is that similar to young black men complaining about being targetted by the police use of stop-and-search powers? Presumably you think that if they complain about institutional racism then they are just reinforcing the racists' views?

We are not complaining about cyclists being monitored by the law, but the utter refusal of the MET police to enforce the law against motorists. There are many examples here on Road.cc showing explicit evidence of motorists not driving safely and keeping to the highway code and yet the MET has refused to act.

Whether or not the police crack down on cyclists jumping red lights or going the wrong way up one-way roads has virtually zero effect on cyclists' safety. It's the 2-tonne metal boxes travelling at speed that are dangerous when driven by people who don't even understand how dangerous they can be.

For a "cycle safety team" to focus 50% of its time on enforcing laws that won't provide any safety benefit (and in the case of the one-way road, will decrease the cyclists' safety) is purely a political move to appease the car driving Londoners.

I'm now utterly confused.  How can you liken a blatent abuse of police powers in terms of racial profiling..... to the police actually enforcing the law.   I could understand if the police were say only enforcing the going the wrong way up a one way street to cyclists breaking the law, but not applying the law equally to cars going the wrong way up a one way street.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes I am fully aware that cars can and do more damage than cyclists but to cry that we are being picked on by the "cycle safety team" which makes up about 1% of the roads policing departments of the met are spending 50% of their time enforcing laws against cycling is just absurd.

Lets do the numbers 50% of 1% is 0.5% therefore somewhere way in excess of 90% (probably close to 99%) of the roads policing enforcement is actually applied against..... yes you've guessed it - motor vehicles. 

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to TriTaxMan | 4 years ago
5 likes
craigstitt wrote:
hawkinspeter wrote:

Is that similar to young black men complaining about being targetted by the police use of stop-and-search powers? Presumably you think that if they complain about institutional racism then they are just reinforcing the racists' views?

We are not complaining about cyclists being monitored by the law, but the utter refusal of the MET police to enforce the law against motorists. There are many examples here on Road.cc showing explicit evidence of motorists not driving safely and keeping to the highway code and yet the MET has refused to act.

Whether or not the police crack down on cyclists jumping red lights or going the wrong way up one-way roads has virtually zero effect on cyclists' safety. It's the 2-tonne metal boxes travelling at speed that are dangerous when driven by people who don't even understand how dangerous they can be.

For a "cycle safety team" to focus 50% of its time on enforcing laws that won't provide any safety benefit (and in the case of the one-way road, will decrease the cyclists' safety) is purely a political move to appease the car driving Londoners.

I'm now utterly confused.  How can you liken a blatent abuse of police powers in terms of racial profiling..... to the police actually enforcing the law.   I could understand if the police were say only enforcing the going the wrong way up a one way street to cyclists breaking the law, but not applying the law equally to cars going the wrong way up a one way street.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes I am fully aware that cars can and do more damage than cyclists but to cry that we are being picked on by the "cycle safety team" which makes up about 1% of the roads policing departments of the met are spending 50% of their time enforcing laws against cycling is just absurd.

Lets do the numbers 50% of 1% is 0.5% therefore somewhere way in excess of 90% (probably close to 99%) of the roads policing enforcement is actually applied against..... yes you've guessed it - motor vehicles. 

I was pointing out how selective enforcement can be abused.

For a "cycle safety team" to be spending half their time on enforcing laws against cyclists that has virtually no effect on safety seems to me to be a complete waste of time. I'd much rather they went out and about on bikes (plain clothed, preferably) and made more of an effort to teach drivers about close passes and paying sufficient attention whilst driving (e.g. not using phones).

Do you seriously think that half of cycle incidents are caused by cyclists?

Avatar
brooksby replied to TriTaxMan | 4 years ago
7 likes

OK, I'll bite...

craigstitt wrote:

...

As cyclists we are the first to call for drivers to be prosecuted for any number of offenses such as close passes, speeding, running red lights etc but as soon as it is mentioned that the police are stopping cyclists for doing something illegal there is collective outrage. 

Except that the police very often don't know what is illegal in relation to cycling/cyclists, and stop people for things they think are illegal, or which the Highway Code recommends but does not mandate.

Quote:

The long and short of it is....if they are doing 50% of their enforcement against bikes then it is likely that there is a higher proportion of cyclists doing illegal things in comparison with other forms of transport.  If the people doing 4% of the journeys are doing 50% of the misdemeanours, then they are commiting 24 times as many misdemeanours as the remaining 96%..... but no all cyclists are angels.

...

If you really believe that the cyclists are committing twenty four times as many misdemeanours as the motorists then I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you... 

I'd comment on the rest, but Real Life is calling.

Avatar
NPlus1Bikelights | 4 years ago
3 likes

I would point out that one way streets with a single cycle lane  running in the opposite direction are a thing .  Could be an accepted solution for council but in reality with just protective paint  they're quite dangerous.

Avatar
Bob's Bikes | 4 years ago
4 likes

One wonders what the met would do if you used the pavement to cycle "down" Beeston Place cause it's not illegal to use the pavement if you feel unsafe on the road.

Avatar
Michael Scott | 4 years ago
10 likes

As you lay dying after a collision on the more dangerous gyratory system at least you can comfort yourself with the thought that you obeyed the law

Avatar
ktache | 4 years ago
4 likes

I'm not going to defend cyclists for breaking the law, but them motorists they don't break the speed limit, use phones, drive drunk or without insurance to try and stay safe.

Avatar
burtthebike | 4 years ago
8 likes

As has been pointed out elsewhere, if there were a lot of cyclists doing the same thing to avoid a much more serious risk, the local authority and the police would investigate why, and take appropriate action, like re-engineering the road layout.  In this country they just book the cyclists for trying to avoid being killed.

Which Home Secretary or Roads minister was it who said that cyclists should break the law to keep themselves safe?

Minister confirms it’s OK for cyclists to ride on pavement

http://roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/n-a-3319/

 

https://www.bicycling.com/news/a20028922/cyclists-break-the-law-to-stay-...

Avatar
Awavey | 4 years ago
3 likes

I genuinely fail to see what the issue is here, these were 2 police officers of the cycle safety group  carrying out stops against people who were cycling either illegally or dangerously depending on how you define it, the Met police has a traffic division of over 600 officers available to them, they clearly focus on the more dangerous aspects on our roads and arent targetting specific groups disproportionately, and if you look at the cycle safety groups twitter feed, most of their work is on close pass ops, taking cars without tax,mot, insurance off the road, stopping mobile phone using car drivers, they really dont deserve cyclists ire on this,but need our support instead.

If Cycling UK or any  cycling advocate in London has an issue with this road,or the Met police enforcing the rules there, they should be campaigning to get the road fixed or an alternate route provided, not complaining its just unfair.

Pages

Latest Comments