Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Police pull cyclist over for not using Cycle Superhighway

Officer claims cyclist was riding dangerously by pulling out into traffic to avoid congested new cycle route

A cyclist has caught on camera the moment he was pulled over by police for leaving a Cycle Superhighway and riding on the road with motor traffic.

The cyclist, posting on YouTube as Clockwise Cycling, pulled off Cycle Superhighway 7 on Kennington Park Road, South London, and onto the carriageway, when he was stopped by a Metropolitan Police Officer, who asserts the man was riding dangerously by suddenly exiting the cycle superhighway and joining the motor traffic.

Met Police: Cuts mean no more support for London mass rides

The police officer drives alongside the cyclist, and can be heard telling him there is a cycle superhighway, until eventually, after a car horn is heard several times, the police car’s sirens come on.

The officer tells the cyclist: “There’s a cycle highway there for you. For you to suddenly then come out it’s going to cause you to get knocked off your bike.”

When the cyclist says he couldn’t join the cycle superhighway because it was too busy, the officer tells him “yes there is, you just have to be patient, like everyone else on this road”.

The rider claims it would have been dangerous for him to remain on the cycle superhighway because of the number of cyclists using it.

The officer repeatedly asserts the man was cycling dangerously, and tells him “you will, because of the way you cycle, end up underneath a lorry”.

The officer, who says he has been driving as a police officer for 30 years, said: “I’m retiring soon, and idiots like you, riding your bike like you do, will continue to get yourself knocked off. But you won’t listen, will you?”

The Metropolitan Police have been contacted for comment. 

Add new comment

109 comments

Avatar
oozaveared | 7 years ago
3 likes

Good job he is retiring soon.  

As others have said the amount of dangerous driving of large vehicles the police ignore and we have this clown of an officer deciding that the most dangerous thing he has seen today is a cyclist not using the CSH.  

Avatar
andrewthecook | 7 years ago
1 like

I think there's a fair bit of fear mongering about the impending enforcement of cycle lane use. I think the cyclist has changed lanes too close, whether he looked out not, but don't agree that he should therefore HAVE to use the cycle highway. The reference to how he cycles seems to be more about his lane discipline issues not about which lane he chooses to use.

There's a fair group of people who think mandatory cycle lane use is the way. Given the readership of the site I expect most are cyclists and not people with an agenda against cycling. Don't agree with their opinion but fair enough. But agreeing with the copper does not equate to agreeing that cycle lanes should be mandatory. The cyclist is fixated on that issue but the copper is not interested in being sidetracked on that question because it's not his issue.

I've read lots of Trump-worthy comments about cycling and have no doubt there's a lot of people with hostility towards cyclists/cycling, but I think we don't help matters if we justify bad cycling and talk like there is a conspiracy against us and that anyone who disagrees is the enemy.

Avatar
andrewthecook | 7 years ago
0 likes

And to that end I think Road.cc you've misrepresented the events in your headline. Some week disagree bit it's definitely disputable as a summary of the events in the video. I've seen a few accusations of clickbait headlines here before and not entirely without foundation I'd say.

Avatar
narch | 7 years ago
4 likes

I love how these threads go off in tangents and everyone gets personal, really interesting social study. Anyway......

Paraphrasing without emotional overlay

Officer : don't pull out suddenly (as you did in my opinion (and there is no video from his POV)) as you may be killed by a truck. I wouldn't want that to happen to you. There appears to be a possibly safer option for you. I am not planning to give you a ticket

Cyclist: I don't agree but I am going to try and wind you up and be smart, oh look I have succeeded in irritating someone (aren't I clever and I have this video of it).

Rather than say thanks for your concern, I did not think my actions would be perceived as such. Certainly wasn't my intent.

imaginary ending ensues with officer saying thanks for considering that, have a good day and ride safe, cyclist trying the chirpy 'no worries' and cycling home to upload a positive video about how to act as an adult.

Release the trolls!

Avatar
imaca | 7 years ago
2 likes

When I read the term "Cycling Super Highway", a shitty 1m wide strip of blue paint encouraging cyclists to position themselves in the kill zone immediately to the left of left turning traffic at intersections isn't what sprung to mind. Now I know. Cycling Super Highway, lol.

Avatar
antigee | 7 years ago
3 likes

"The _Kaner [729 posts] 1 day ago

2 likes  

I'd be more concerned with the MPV that pulled out from the left into fast moving traffic at 1:50 in the video...coming to an almost standstill."

noticed that - I presume not giving way to the cyclists is acceptable as it is a norm' 

if you look one cyclist has to stop for the dangerous law breaking driver (partly hidden by guy with red rucsac but you can see them setting off again) 

i don't think the cyclist really did anything dangerous and if he did he only endangered himself - the driver that fails to stop for the oncoming cyclists displays behaviour that endangers others

 

Avatar
antigee | 7 years ago
1 like

couldn't post 2 pics

Avatar
brooksby | 7 years ago
2 likes

My driving instructor, when I was learning to drive, said that the hierarchy for any car journey was something like

1. Don't kill anyone;

2. Don't get killed;

3. Don't break the law;

4. Don't p1ss anyone off.

'Get to your destination' was in there too, but I don't remember if it was more or less important than 'don't kill anyone'...

Avatar
Skylark | 7 years ago
0 likes

Fixed penalty for refusing to stop in time and then arguing with an officer.

Avatar
The _Kaner | 7 years ago
1 like

'Group hug' -  everyone!

Let's all calm down and enjoy some frites & mayo...and a few beers.

Summary:

No 'one' opinion is the same as another

Nobody's opinion is right/wrong (or should that be everybody's...?)

The police officer was right & wrong

The cyclists was right & wrong

CSH are shit - not 100% effective or 'safe'...but can/may be improved (nirvana??? NBL)

Let's just all go cycling (prferably not in a main town/city)

Free your mind, body and soul of the cares and woes (of this video)

Stop getting so 'het up' about things that, although may indirectly affect you, is not your primary concern.....slaggggging each other off over an opinion is pointless.....

...is that, then,  a case of road.cc rage

I'm off to make some daisy chains in the (overtall) grass in my back garden...

 

Avatar
L.Willo replied to oozaveared | 7 years ago
1 like
oozaveared wrote:

Good job he is retiring soon.  

As others have said the amount of dangerous driving of large vehicles the police ignore and we have this clown of an officer deciding that the most dangerous thing he has seen today is a cyclist not using the CSH.  

What is missing from this 'debate' is the view from the driver, minding his own business when out of nowhere a rider decides to abandon the cycle lane, without signalling or checking that it is safe to do so and swerves right in front of him. He cannot have been expecting that. Who would?

Trust me. I will not be driving alongside cycle lanes prepared to take evasive action in such circumstances. I doubt any other motorists will either.

Human nature being what it is, with instincts for self preservation that override virtually everything else in life threatening situations, given the choice of swerving right and crashing in to 2 tonnes of metal, slamming on the brakes and being hit up the arse by 2 tonnes of metal ... or ploughing through 100Kg of fleshy irresponsible idiot and aluminium ....

You get my point.

All the copper tried to do was point out the bleeding obvious. Wasting his breath on future Darwin Award winners all day must take its toll.

I wish you a happy retirement, Sir.

Avatar
L.Willo replied to brooksby | 7 years ago
2 likes
brooksby wrote:

My driving instructor, when I was learning to drive, said that the hierarchy for any car journey was something like

1. Don't kill anyone;

2. Don't get killed;

3. Don't break the law;

4. Don't p1ss anyone off.

'Get to your destination' was in there too, but I don't remember if it was more or less important than 'don't kill anyone'...

Good advice for any journey, not just drivers! Especially No. 2, for example by deviating from a cycle path into fast moving  traffic without warning.

As for rushing, my opening post was that MGIF twats are the scourge of the road network, whether on 4 wheels or 2. I stand by that. That video was Exhibit A.

Patience is a virtue in life, and on the roads, a life saver.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to narch | 7 years ago
1 like
narch wrote:

I love how these threads go off in tangents and everyone gets personal, really interesting social study. Anyway......

Paraphrasing without emotional overlay

[followed by passive-aggressive injection of emotion on the part of the poster]

You have a fine grasp of irony, sir!

Avatar
atgni replied to Skylark | 7 years ago
2 likes
Skylark wrote:

Fixed penalty for refusing to stop in time and then arguing with an officer.

 

Immediately after the fixed penalty for unnecesarily sounding horn and pulling the wrong cyclist.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to L.Willo | 7 years ago
2 likes
L.Willo wrote:
oozaveared wrote:

Good job he is retiring soon.  

As others have said the amount of dangerous driving of large vehicles the police ignore and we have this clown of an officer deciding that the most dangerous thing he has seen today is a cyclist not using the CSH.  

What is missing from this 'debate' is the view from the driver, minding his own business when out of nowhere a rider decides to abandon the cycle lane, without signalling or checking that it is safe to do so and swerves right in front of him. He cannot have been expecting that. Who would? Trust me. I will not be driving alongside cycle lanes prepared to take evasive action in such circumstances. I doubt any other motorists will either. Human nature being what it is, with instincts for self preservation that override virtually everything else in life threatening situations, given the choice of swerving right and crashing in to 2 tonnes of metal, slamming on the brakes and being hit up the arse by 2 tonnes of metal ... or ploughing through 100Kg of fleshy irresponsible idiot and aluminium .... You get my point. All the copper tried to do was point out the bleeding obvious. Wasting his breath on future Darwin Award winners all day must take its toll. I wish you a happy retirement, Sir.

What is also missing is an accurate account of whether the cyclist did look andindicate before leaving the cycle lane. If he did blindly pull out, then I'd agree with the policeman. If he did take due care in leaving the lane, then I'd side with him.

By the way, I'm concerned that you think that "slamming on the brakes" is not acceptable due to "being hit up the arse by 2 tonnes of metal". It sounds like vehicles are not following guidelines in keeping a safe distance. I'd hate to think that you would delay your reactions in an attempt to prevent an insurance claim.

Avatar
L.Willo replied to hawkinspeter | 7 years ago
1 like
hawkinspeter]</p>

<p>[quote=L.Willo

wrote:

What is also missing is an accurate account of whether the cyclist did look andindicate before leaving the cycle lane. If he did blindly pull out, then I'd agree with the policeman. If he did take due care in leaving the lane, then I'd side with him.

The officer's annoyance is with the sudden move made by the cyclist. He accepts completely that cyclists are allowed to use the highway, it is leaving the highway without notice in the middle of a curve which has got the copper's heart rate up. I don't believe he is lying.

Quote:

By the way, I'm concerned that you think that "slamming on the brakes" is not acceptable due to "being hit up the arse by 2 tonnes of metal". It sounds like vehicles are not following guidelines in keeping a safe distance. I'd hate to think that you would delay your reactions in an attempt to prevent an insurance claim.

Yes, drivers should maintain a safe distance but you and I know they don't always do so, especially in rush hour traffic. It isnt about an insurance claim, it is about wanting to avoid an accident that causes injury to me or my passengers, which is always my primary concern on the road. My reflexes will pick the best option for me in those circumstances where an accident becomes unavoidable due to someone else's stupidity.

Avatar
atgni replied to L.Willo | 7 years ago
3 likes
L.Willo wrote:

The officer's annoyance is with the sudden move made by the cyclist. He accepts completely that cyclists are allowed to use the highway, it is leaving the highway without notice in the middle of a curve which has got the copper's heart rate up. I don't believe he is lying.

Watch the vid with sound around 1min in - if what you say is true he pulled the wrong guy.  The PC began blowing his horn before the guy he pulled had moved from the bike lane.

Avatar
brooksby replied to L.Willo | 7 years ago
3 likes
L.Willo wrote:

He cannot have been expecting that. Who would? Trust me. I will not be driving alongside cycle lanes prepared to take evasive action in such circumstances. I doubt any other motorists will either.

I think when you are driving you are supposed to be expecting - to the best of your ability - the worst (or, the unexpected), not just reacting to what happens or what you expect to happen.

Your comment sounds like the one where a truck driver got away with flattening a cyclist on a large road because he hadn't seen cyclists on there before and hadn't expected to see one.

Anyway...  So when you're driving on the motorway, in - say - the middle lane or the so-called fast lane, do you pay attention to the cars to your left?  Or do you happily zip along paying no attention to those vehicles because who would expect one of them to just pull out?

Avatar
L.Willo replied to brooksby | 7 years ago
1 like
brooksby wrote:
L.Willo wrote:

He cannot have been expecting that. Who would? Trust me. I will not be driving alongside cycle lanes prepared to take evasive action in such circumstances. I doubt any other motorists will either.

I think when you are driving you are supposed to be expecting - to the best of your ability - the worst (or, the unexpected), not just reacting to what happens or what you expect to happen.

Your comment sounds like the one where a truck driver got away with flattening a cyclist on a large road because he hadn't seen cyclists on there before and hadn't expected to see one.

Anyway...  So when you're driving on the motorway, in - say - the middle lane or the so-called fast lane, do you pay attention to the cars to your left?  Or do you happily zip along paying no attention to those vehicles because who would expect one of them to just pull out?

Meteor strikes happen regularlyl, sink holes can open up, bastards string wire across tow paths? Is it reasonable to be expected to drive / cycle at 4mph just in case this happens?

No. The test is to be prepared for that which could reasonably be predicted. A lemming throwing himself off a cycle path without warning under your wheels does not cut it. 99% of the time a jury will rightly acquit a driver who becomes a victim of someone else's rank stupidity. The 1% will win on appeal.

Changing lanes on a motorway is a predictable and safe event, provided that mirrors and signals are used by the driver making the manoeuvre. There is an incentive to do so. Not many people want to be rear ended at 70mph do they?

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to L.Willo | 7 years ago
2 likes
L.Willo wrote:

 A lemming throwing himself off a cycle path without warning under your wheels does not cut it. 99% of the time a jury will rightly acquit a driver who becomes a victim of someone else's rank stupidity.

so, the highway code requires drivers to give cyclists as much room as a car when overtaking https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203 see rule 163 for an illustration. This is to allow fpor unforeseen circum,stances, wind, debris, potholes that may cause the cyclist to deviate. You suggest that as loing as there is a white line between the car and the cyclist then one foot is a sufficient passing distance.

sort of makes using cycle lanes pointless as all safety margins disappear because of the magic paint.

Before even considering whether the cyclist in thios case, looked and indicated before moving out slightly.

Would you also apply your logic of not moving right or stopping (so as to avoide impacting other vehicles) if a child stepped into the road? The attitude that killing people ios preferable to denting metal is quite concerning.

 

Avatar
L.Willo replied to wycombewheeler | 7 years ago
1 like
wycombewheeler wrote:

so, the highway code requires drivers to give cyclists as much room as a car when overtaking https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203 see rule 163 for an illustration. This is to allow fpor unforeseen circum,stances, wind, debris, potholes that may cause the cyclist to deviate. You suggest that as loing as there is a white line between the car and the cyclist then one foot is a sufficient passing distance.

The highway code requires that in the same way it requires cyclists to wear helmets and clothing to aid visibility. It is not a legal requirement but something that might be taken into account if there is an accident. 

However the Highway Code does not oblige motorists to allow sufficient room in case another road decides to pull a suicide stunt.

Quote:

Would you also apply your logic of not moving right or stopping (so as to avoide impacting other vehicles) if a child stepped into the road? The attitude that killing people ios preferable to denting metal is quite concerning.

I dont care about the metal, I care about human lives, mine and my passengers first. However we are biologically evolved to care for children even if not our own. The truth is I dont know how I would react in that situation, it would be instinctual.

Avatar
Ush replied to L.Willo | 7 years ago
3 likes
L.Willo wrote:
wycombewheeler wrote:

so, the highway code requires drivers to give cyclists as much room as a car when overtaking https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203 see rule 163 for an illustration. This is to allow fpor unforeseen circum,stances, wind, debris, potholes that may cause the cyclist to deviate. You suggest that as loing as there is a white line between the car and the cyclist then one foot is a sufficient passing distance.

The highway code requires that in the same way it requires cyclists to wear helmets and clothing to aid visibility. It is not a legal requirement but something that might be taken into account if there is an accident. 

However the Highway Code does not oblige motorists to allow sufficient room in case another road decides to pull a suicide stunt.

Quote:

Would you also apply your logic of not moving right or stopping (so as to avoide impacting other vehicles) if a child stepped into the road? The attitude that killing people ios preferable to denting metal is quite concerning.

I dont care about the metal, I care about human lives, mine and my passengers first. However we are biologically evolved to care for children even if not our own. The truth is I dont know how I would react in that situation, it would be instinctual.

Ah, not just a road safety expert, cycling expert, moral ethicist, road designer, lawyer, but also an evolutionary biologist! Is there no end to your talents?

There is nothing in that video that shows the cyclist doing anything other than cycling in a manner in accordance with the rules of the road and normality.

The piteous spilling of electrons and concern on your part does nothing to diminish the fact that a fool of a police officer lost the plot when his importune hootings were challenged.

The cyclist DID NOT pull out without checking, DID NOT hurl himself into the path of the brave terrorist-thwarting, rescuing-of-drowning-children, hard-worked, down-to-earth civil servant. He suggested gently to the motorist that he stop making a nuisance of himself by sounding his horn and then continued on his way. This caused what can only be fairly described as an outburst of road-rage by someone that has been privileged (and overpaid) to theoretically protect all road users. The cyclist then changed lanes like any other normal member of society riding on the public highway, safely occupied the centre of the lane and was then honked at again by the senile menace.

Stop making it worse for the officer by highlighting his appalling conduct:
1. Driving distracted while mouthing off to cyclists
2. Sounding his horn, not in order to avoid a collision, but in order to intimdate other road users
3. Disrupting traffic in order to indulge in his geriatric rage and _failing_to_make_any_charge_when_challenged.

Your own faults, if not obvious to yourself already, probably never will be. But I implore you, in the name of the poor policeman, please don't draw any more attention to him, or he might actcually get disciplined!

Avatar
ydrol replied to L.Willo | 7 years ago
2 likes
L.Willo wrote:

What is missing from this 'debate' is the view from the driver, minding his own business when out of nowhere a rider decides to abandon the cycle lane,[/quote]

The driver and cyclists were already 'exchanging words' - and cyclists missed entrance to CSH as they were too busy interacting with the cop-  are people commenting without listening to audio ??

Avatar
Christopher TR1 | 7 years ago
3 likes

Just by reading a selection of the comments I can see it coming: Mandatory cycle lanes  2

This guy was doing absolutely nothing illegal and yet a good proportion of the comments agree with the daft old plod. We can be pretty sure that most of  the car drivers in that short clip exceeded a speed limit at some point during their day and were not reprimanded for their lawbreaking.

Avatar
andrewthecook | 7 years ago
5 likes

Okay having now watched the video I can't see how this isn't titled 'Cyclist has the nerve to carve up a police car and then be pissy to the officer who's been forced to pull him over for disregarding his instructions.'

You can see he's been alongside this police car from the start, then is in the cycle lane (just) as he moves himself very close to the police vehicle to overtake the other cyclist. He then, while still effectively alongside the police car, moves out of the cycle lane and cuts the corner into the adjoining lane directly in front of the police car. Distracted? Possibly bit it looks likely he just wasn't prepared to abandon an ill thought overtake right before the raised kerb begins and chooses to jump in front of the car instead of the cyclist (the right thing being to do neither and brake and wait for a better passing place). As the officer said, no one is suggesting he can't use the main highway, but what is being said is the no matter what vehicle you use you can't carve someone up like that. Once locked out by the raised kerb and alongside the police car he again decides push through instead of slowing down, which would be the safer and quicker way to move out from being within easy arms reach of the car.

Riding inches from motor traffic and then cutting them up he is likely to take a hit - the cop is stating a fact not expressing his wish. Nor is he saying getting squashed by a lorry is the outcome of not using the cycle lane - lack of discipline changing lanes will. This cyclist could not be told anything though and was like a sulking child, so I'm not surprised the officer was exasperated with him.

Definitely the cycle lane is very crowded and would be nice if it was wider with a fast and a slow lane plus some wiggle room. But it's not and if you want to change lanes do it like any other road user should. To claim it was unsafe to stay in his original lane is rubbish. Maybe unsafe to overtake in that lane / travel at the speed he wants to go (the pace of that commute would certainly drive me nuts), but then just has to be patient as was said, and wait for an opportunity to overtake. People rightly get pissed off at motorists who won't wait for a suitable place to overtake a cyclist, and while the consequences of a cyclist determined to overtake and maintain his course at all costs is generally going to be less, surely the same standard should be expected?

Avatar
DingDongBell | 7 years ago
4 likes

The Highway Code clearly states that a cyclist is not obliged to ride in a cycle lane - it is that simple. 

Cycle lanes take many forms, usually paint on the road which road users in motor vehicles choose to drive in and (as a retired police officer) I am yet to see a police officer stopping a motor vehiche for encroaching into a cycle lane (when my cycle is already in it) despite the obvious potential danger to me. This is a routine hazard.

Use of the horn is merely to inform other road users that you are where you are - nothing more, nothing less.

As ever, the cycle lane was a patchwork of paint on the road, the odd segregated bit and cyclists of very differing abilities. IMHO the cyclist didn't cause danger to himself or to others and the officer seemed quite confused over what action to take.

The cyclist observed traffic regulations so far as I could see. If, as suggested, he should remain in the so-called cycle lane then how would he have turned right had he wanted to because there was no obvious means so to do other than signalling right and moving across the lanes of traffic - a daily hazard for cyclists?

Avatar
L.Willo replied to DingDongBell | 7 years ago
0 likes
DingDongBell wrote:

The Highway Code clearly states that a cyclist is not obliged to ride in a cycle lane - it is that simple. 

 

 

 I'll be amazed if that is still the case five years from now.

Avatar
brooksby replied to L.Willo | 7 years ago
1 like
L.Willo wrote:
DingDongBell wrote:

The Highway Code clearly states that a cyclist is not obliged to ride in a cycle lane - it is that simple. 

 I'll be amazed if that is still the case five years from now.

Sadly, you are probably right.  In five years we'll all be legally obliged to go everywhere in those automatic self-driving pods like in Wall-E.

Avatar
wycombewheeler | 7 years ago
3 likes

Most dangerous thing I saw in that video, was the police officer trying to engage the cyclist in conversation from a moving vehicle at a distance of less than 2 feet.

Avatar
Colin Peyresourde | 7 years ago
1 like

Potentially he didn't look over his shoulder when he pulled off the super slow way, but I suspect he riled the PC for pulling in front on his car in the middle of the lane. That would be asking for it.

Otherwise I can't see anything wrong with him cycling on the road. Don't think I would want to use the slow way if it was that clogged with slow cyclists. They are no doubt great for being safe and enabling slower cyclists to arrive at work without working up a sweat, that's just not why I like cycling. Go fast, go hard!

Pages

Latest Comments