Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Multi-day police operation on Leicester path following concerns about speeding delivery cyclists

Suggestion that delivery cyclists are effectively incentivised to speed

A number of police officers have been deployed in Leicester to catch cyclists using a pedestrian route. A by-law means that cycling on New Walk is punishable by a fine, but the Leicester Mercury reports that fast food delivery cyclists have been spotted riding along it at speed.

One officer involved in the operation said of his presence: “It’s part of an operation to do with the number of cyclists and anti-social behaviour. There’s going to be a few days of it.”

A Leicestershire Police spokeswoman later confirmed: “Officers from the city centre are carrying out an operation in New Walk following ongoing concerns about cyclists using the path and crimes in the area.

“The operation will run for most of this week and anyone caught cycling along this route will be stopped and advised of their actions.

“As well as cycling offences officers are tackling an increase in low level crime in the area such as damage, thefts and anti-social behaviour.”

In August, a New Walk resident was hit by a fast food cyclist and spent a night in hospital with concussion.

Speaking at the time, city centre police commander Inspector Manjit Atwal said: “I’m aware of the concerns around the way the delivery riders cycle round.

“It’s a new phase. Suddenly you’ve got people who are delivering items that shockingly are working on commission.

“If you try to get in touch with the companies – and I’ve tried plenty of times over the last few weeks – they will say they are working for themselves. You can deal with the individuals but the companies have a lot to answer to themselves.”

A similar police operation in August saw 11 cyclists stopped in the first 45 minutes. Several said they used New Walk as a safe alternative to riding along London Road.

There are plans to put cycle lanes along London Road, but work on the £2.75m plan is not set to start until next spring or summer.

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.

Add new comment

17 comments

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... | 6 years ago
4 likes

Never mind quibbling over the truth of the injury claim (it doesn't really need actual injuries for pedestrians to feel menaced and stressed by the presence of fast cyclists, just as with cyclists in fast motor traffic), isn't the real issue this -

"The operation will run for most of this week "

So the problem will be greatly reduced for a few weeks, then, as the underlying cause (lack of a safe route for cycling) remains unchanged, things will go right back to how they were before?

Avatar
fukawitribe replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 6 years ago
1 like
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Never mind quibbling over the truth of the injury claim (it doesn't really need actual injuries for pedestrians to feel menaced and stressed by the presence of fast cyclists, just as with cyclists in fast motor traffic), isn't the real issue this - "The operation will run for most of this week " So the problem will be greatly reduced for a few weeks, then, as the underlying cause (lack of a safe route for cycling) remains unchanged, things will go right back to how they were before?

That sounds about right. Unfortunately. Again.

Avatar
ClubSmed | 6 years ago
0 likes

To me this is a clear case of fixing the symptom, not the cause.
What I see as I go about my daily grind, is that the worst road users are generally those that are there are part of their job. Delivery drivers, delivery cyclists, taxi drivers, cycle couriers, white van drivers etc.
What is needed is some solution at the source like penalties on the companies, higher level and not frequent tests for professional road users etc.

Avatar
tonyleatham | 6 years ago
2 likes

It's really annoying that the police in Leicester are willing to put so much effort into policing New Walk, when their efforts at running a Close Pass campaign were woeful and inadequate.

They failed completely to engage with local cycling campaign groups, the inspector in charge just would not speak to us or return emails. As a consequence, they ran the campaign in the middle of the Summer when there was very little traffic on the road, their reasoning being that good weather would bring more cyclists to the roads. Which shows they don't understand: they believe that actually, it's the volume of cyclists that is the problem, not the volume of motorists.

Despite the deaths of at least two cyclists recently, they concluded from their attempts that there is no close pass problem in Leicester, and so have concluded there is nothing to be gained from allocating further resources to it. I know this because I exchanged several letters with the Leicestershire PCC on the subject.

Had they engaged with the campaign groups in the city, we would have put them right.

I commute into Leicester several times a week. I have front and rear cameras, and probably record a close pass once or twice a week. Except during the school summer holiday when there is significantly less traffic on the road.

Avatar
Housecathst | 6 years ago
2 likes

That’s a massive expense of pavement, about 3 times as wide as your average shit shared use cycle lane.

I wonder how many cycling fines will equate to the fine that pissed up van driver got for killing a cyclist in Leicester, I’m guessing about 5. 

Avatar
Dnnnnnn | 6 years ago
11 likes

"Suddenly you’ve got people who are delivering items that shockingly are working on commission"

He must've led a sheltered life. There are HGV drivers working on much the same basis.

Avatar
EddyBerckx replied to Dnnnnnn | 6 years ago
9 likes
Duncann wrote:

"Suddenly you’ve got people who are delivering items that shockingly are working on commission"

He must've led a sheltered life. There are HGV drivers working on much the same basis.

Hgv drivers, taxi drivers, bus drivers, white van men...virtually all professional drivers are incentivised to speed in order to make more money or keep their job.

Sort out the speeding delivery cyclists by all means, but sort out those who cause the.most damage first

Avatar
lllnorrislll | 6 years ago
14 likes

Cyclists are using new walk, a wide pedestrian walkway, protected by a bylaw dating back to 1785 because the alternative route of London Road is down right dangerous. This was highlighted by the death of Sam Boulton, who was killed on London Road by a taxi dooring him in to the path of a drunk driver.
The council won't take the simple decision of creating a cycle path up New Walk, because of risk spoiling this 'protected' area. The council has instead put in proposals for cycle paths on London Road, but there is now opposition because of the risk of a loss of trees.
The alleged collision, was challenged by local cycle group - http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/critical-mass-resp...

TLDR - police go hard on cyclists rather than dangerous motorists, while council make noise about cycle provisions but baulk at first challenge.

Avatar
fatsmoker replied to lllnorrislll | 6 years ago
1 like
lllnorrislll wrote:

Cyclists are using new walk, a wide pedestrian walkway, protected by a bylaw dating back to 1785 because the alternative route of London Road is down right dangerous. This was highlighted by the death of Sam Boulton, who was killed on London Road by a taxi dooring him in to the path of a drunk driver. The council won't take the simple decision of creating a cycle path up New Walk, because of risk spoiling this 'protected' area. The council has instead put in proposals for cycle paths on London Road, but there is now opposition because of the risk of a loss of trees. The alleged collision, was challenged by local cycle group - http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/critical-mass-resp... TLDR - police go hard on cyclists rather than dangerous motorists, while council make noise about cycle provisions but baulk at first challenge.

 

Bit harsh on the council. They are making some good plans for London Road and reacted swiftly after Sam Boulton's death outside the station.  London Road does seem to attract a lot of dim-witted taxi drivers, some of whom look so stupid you wonder where/how they got a driving licence.

Avatar
Bluebug replied to fatsmoker | 6 years ago
3 likes
fatsmoker wrote:
lllnorrislll wrote:

Cyclists are using new walk, a wide pedestrian walkway, protected by a bylaw dating back to 1785 because the alternative route of London Road is down right dangerous. This was highlighted by the death of Sam Boulton, who was killed on London Road by a taxi dooring him in to the path of a drunk driver. The council won't take the simple decision of creating a cycle path up New Walk, because of risk spoiling this 'protected' area. The council has instead put in proposals for cycle paths on London Road, but there is now opposition because of the risk of a loss of trees. The alleged collision, was challenged by local cycle group - http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/critical-mass-resp... TLDR - police go hard on cyclists rather than dangerous motorists, while council make noise about cycle provisions but baulk at first challenge.

 

Bit harsh on the council. They are making some good plans for London Road and reacted swiftly after Sam Boulton's death outside the station.  London Road does seem to attract a lot of dim-witted taxi drivers, some of whom look so stupid you wonder where/how they got a driving licence.

No it isn't harsh on the council.

Virtually every council in the country makes noises about improving cycling infrastructure but they do SFA. They do need to be challenged and shamed in public to do something about dangerous routes.

Avatar
lllnorrislll replied to fatsmoker | 6 years ago
0 likes
fatsmoker wrote:
lllnorrislll wrote:

Cyclists are using new walk, a wide pedestrian walkway, protected by a bylaw dating back to 1785 because the alternative route of London Road is down right dangerous. This was highlighted by the death of Sam Boulton, who was killed on London Road by a taxi dooring him in to the path of a drunk driver. The council won't take the simple decision of creating a cycle path up New Walk, because of risk spoiling this 'protected' area. The council has instead put in proposals for cycle paths on London Road, but there is now opposition because of the risk of a loss of trees. The alleged collision, was challenged by local cycle group - http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/critical-mass-resp... TLDR - police go hard on cyclists rather than dangerous motorists, while council make noise about cycle provisions but baulk at first challenge.

 

Bit harsh on the council. They are making some good plans for London Road and reacted swiftly after Sam Boulton's death outside the station.  London Road does seem to attract a lot of dim-witted taxi drivers, some of whom look so stupid you wonder where/how they got a driving licence.

For me the debate over an alternate route to London Road has been going on for years, with previous suggestions of using Regent road or Princess Road East and West (would need to be bridged) as a alternative, because God for bid they should spoil New Walk and it's 'interesting' residents. London Road has been dangerous for years with Taxis picking up and poor parking, that it took a death for the council to finally act. Yes, Soulsby is pro cycling, but some routes are poorly planned and just abused as ad-hoc parking.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
5 likes

Yet more inequity in how police distribute their time!

So no reports of injury never mind a collision so why are the police even bothered when they'll basically tell you to stop wasting their time when you report a close pass.

Go use your precious time chasing those that are being anti-social with a dangerous weapon/killing machine plus the assaults/threats and killing and maiming on the roads, that being motorists.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
7 likes
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

So no reports of injury never mind a collision......

"In August, a New Walk resident was hit by a fast food cyclist and spent a night in hospital with concussion."

I generally find it's better to read the article before commenting, then you don't look quite so fooliish.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to burtthebike | 6 years ago
6 likes
burtthebike wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

So no reports of injury never mind a collision......

"In August, a New Walk resident was hit by a fast food cyclist and spent a night in hospital with concussion."

I generally find it's better to read the article before commenting, then you don't look quite so fooliish.

No witness so obviously never happened, thems the rules with plod.

One incident EVER compared to hundreds on the same stretch of road by motorists and old bill put a full team to this yet ignore the greater harm, which is what my main point was and is still accurate.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
0 likes
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
burtthebike wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

So no reports of injury never mind a collision......

"In August, a New Walk resident was hit by a fast food cyclist and spent a night in hospital with concussion."

I generally find it's better to read the article before commenting, then you don't look quite so fooliish.

No witness so obviously never happened, thems the rules with plod.

One incident EVER compared to hundreds on the same stretch of road by motorists and old bill put a full team to this yet ignore the greater harm, which is what my main point was and is still accurate.

Carrying on digging doesn't make you look any less foolish.

Avatar
rct replied to burtthebike | 6 years ago
1 like
burtthebike wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

So no reports of injury never mind a collision......

"In August, a New Walk resident was hit by a fast food cyclist and spent a night in hospital with concussion."

I generally find it's better to read the article before commenting, then you don't look quite so fooliish.

 

If you clicked on the link and read the article then you'd have come across this parargraph.

"An FOIA request has been sent to Leicestershire Police to clarify the number of serious injuries on New Walk caused by cyclists. Publicly available data (source: www.crashmap.co.uk) suggests no pedestrians have been seriously injured in cycle collisions in Leicestershire within the last five years."

Avatar
fukawitribe replied to rct | 6 years ago
1 like
rct wrote:
burtthebike wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

So no reports of injury never mind a collision......

"In August, a New Walk resident was hit by a fast food cyclist and spent a night in hospital with concussion."

I generally find it's better to read the article before commenting, then you don't look quite so fooliish.

 

If you clicked on the link and read the article then you'd have come across this parargraph.

"An FOIA request has been sent to Leicestershire Police to clarify the number of serious injuries on New Walk caused by cyclists. Publicly available data (source: www.crashmap.co.uk) suggests no pedestrians have been seriously injured in cycle collisions in Leicestershire within the last five years."

..except that last bit isn't quite true.

Latest Comments