- 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
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Met Police on CS7 (YouTube still from Clockwise Cycling)Police pull cyclist over for not using Cycle Superhighway
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.
Laura Laker is a freelance journalist with more than a decade’s experience covering cycling, walking and wheeling (and other means of transport). Beginning her career with road.cc, Laura has also written for national and specialist titles of all stripes. One part of the popular Streets Ahead podcast, she sometimes appears as a talking head on TV and radio, and in real life at conferences and festivals. She is also the author of Potholes and Pavements: a Bumpy Ride on Britain’s National Cycle Network.
Latest Comments
- eburtthebike 4 sec ago
The BBC is institutionally biased, both about cyclists and cycle helmets.
- Secret_squirrel 49 min 58 sec ago
One less thing to clutter up your jersey pockets no? Though difficult to retrieve in a hurry...
- David9694 1 hour 42 min ago
was it one of these? https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202411246675771?
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 44 min ago
I may not have expressed myself clearly, I meant that it would be okay for cycle racers because it's banned, rather than that it wouldn't be...
- lesterama 1 hour 59 min ago
Houchen is utterly corrupt and morally bankrupt, as readers of Private Eye know all too well.
- hawkinspeter 2 hours 3 min ago
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd7n1l72j9wo
- Geoff H 2 hours 15 min ago
ALERT!!! SAVE 100%!!! Stay home!
- Geoff H 2 hours 34 min ago
Deflect. Deflect! DEFLECT!! If the lad was in the drivers 'blind spot' no amount of high-viz and lights would have done any good. There is NO...
- andyk 2 hours 37 min ago
Hi Griff, unfirtunately one of the key measurements isn't bigger - the stack - it's the same on the 54 SL8 - 544mm, as the 54cm Addict 543.3mm, so...
- Geoff H 2 hours 44 min ago
Didn't the police (in regards to thefts) say solve your own issuses? Without their assistance the police are promoting vigilante-ism. Laz (below)...
Add new comment
109 comments
Section 163(2) RTA is the legislation, sounds like this officer may have asked the cyclist to pull over, cyclist didn't at first for some reason and it goes from there ( if the copper wanted to be really pedantic he could have gone for fail to stop, Section 163(3).
But didn't and apparently got schooled.
Section 163(2) RTA is the legislation, sounds like this officer may have asked the cyclist to pull over, cyclist didn't at first for some reason and it goes from there ( if the copper wanted to be really pedantic he could have gone for fail to stop, Section 163(3).
But didn't and apparently got schooled.
Section 163(2) RTA is the legislation, sounds like this officer may have asked the cyclist to pull over, cyclist didn't at first for some reason and it goes from there ( if the copper wanted to be really pedantic he could have gone for fail to stop, Section 163(3).
But didn't and apparently got schooled.
Section 163(2) RTA is the legislation, sounds like this officer may have asked the cyclist to pull over, cyclist didn't at first for some reason and it goes from there ( if the copper wanted to be really pedantic he could have gone for fail to stop, Section 163(3).
But didn't and apparently got schooled.
Section 163(2) RTA is the legislation, sounds like this officer may have asked the cyclist to pull over, cyclist didn't at first for some reason and it goes from there ( if the copper wanted to be really pedantic he could have gone for fail to stop, Section 163(3).
But didn't and apparently got schooled.
Section 163(2) RTA is the legislation, sounds like this officer may have asked the cyclist to pull over, cyclist didn't at first for some reason and it goes from there ( if the copper wanted to be really pedantic he could have gone for fail to stop, Section 163(3).
But didn't and apparently got schooled.
Section 163(2) RTA is the legislation, sounds like this officer may have asked the cyclist to pull over, cyclist didn't at first for some reason and it goes from there ( if the copper wanted to be really pedantic he could have gone for fail to stop, Section 163(3).
But didn't and apparently got schooled.
1. The cyclists wasnt nipping in and out . From start of video it looks clear to me, they fully intended to stay on CSH before interacting with the cop. After that the raised kerb meant they had to stay on the road.
2. Respect is earned.
The rider was perfectly entitled to ride on the highway, the way he went about it is unknown, because we dont see if he looked behind himself before the manouevre. Now the police officer got on his high horse and basically had now where to go, other than I'm a copper and know better. The officer backed down when challenged to what he was going to be charged with.
Riding in towns and cities is by the very nature more dangerous than other situations. This rider felt more comfortable taking a prominent position, much to the anger of the police officer.
Maybe there is a memo to officers to keep as many cyclists on the blue paint, which seem to only last a few hundred yards before becoming a bus lane.
So glad there arent these stop start cycleways where I live, I personally would choose to ride in the road
The rider was perfectly entitled to ride on the highway, the way he went about it is unknown, because we dont see if he looked behind himself before the manouevre. Now the police officer got on his high horse and basically had now where to go, other than I'm a copper and know better. The officer backed down when challenged to what he was going to be charged with.
Riding in towns and cities is by the very nature more dangerous than other situations. This rider felt more comfortable taking a prominent position, much to the anger of the police officer.
Maybe there is a memo to officers to keep as many cyclists on the blue paint, which seem to only last a few hundred yards before becoming a bus lane.
So glad there arent these stop start cycleways where I live, I personally would choose to ride in the road
Copper was right my arse... Just another Daily Mail reading arsehole who just happens to be wearing a uniform...
If the cyclist feels that it was safe to pull out, in to a lane that he was entitled to be using, and overtake other cyclists using the cycle lane then he is entitled to do so.
And to say that he is probably a red light jumper is just bollocks, the video shows him stopping at red lights.
There's no need for the 'you're going to end up under a lorry' stuff. It's very similar to the way below the line commenters enjoy imagining the death of people on bikes who don't behave the way the commenters insist they should: hi-viz, helmets etc etc etc.
Whether on 2 wheels or 4, MUST-GET-IN-FRONT twats are the scourge of the UK road network. No doubt when one day he gets his arse handed to him by a truck his ghost and co will wibble on about 'poor infrastructure'....
Rather than just a 'like' button, can road.cc please provide upvote and downvote buttons for comments.
.... so it can be EXACTLY like the Daily Mail ....
To claim that "it would have been dangerous ... to remain on the cycle superhighway because of the number of cyclists using it" indicates very clearly that the chap who posted this footage is a tosser.
The copper could have handled it better but I have some sympathy with him. I imagine it was hard not to be exasperated by the overweening sense of entitlement displayed by the chap on the bike. Whether he was "schooled" by the infantile posturings of the bloke on the bike is a matter of opinion.
I use that "cycling superhighway" (and the one on the other side of the road) on my daily commute. The sad fact is that the addition of "cycling infrastructure" has had the unfortunate effect of delaying a lot of competent cyclists. But we got what we wanted - lots of money spent on stuff that's designed (not sure by whom - I find the new layout at Elephant and Castle terrifying in comparison to the old roundabout) to make more of us safer. It's too late to realise that creating designated areas for bicycles merely reinforces the impression held by most road users that bicycles don't belong on the road.
Wait until they open the new bike lanes running north/south on Farringdon Road. Each lane has a vertical kerb alongisde it, so absent some pretty good bunny hopping skills, there is nowhere to go (other than veering into cyclists coming the other way) to avoid obstacles.
I would be delighted if the mayor (or TFL or whomever is responsible) stopped spending my rates (or whatever other source of money they use for funding) on any further "cycling infrastructure" in London.
It's a real shame there are people still rolling with these anti-infrastructure lines. Some of the new infra that's being installed in London is really good but it's being done (necessarily) in sections.
I cycled this junction daily for many years and it both felt and was dangerous (there were serious collisions here and many near misses). When I join the first section of it now I can feel myself relax whereas it used to be somewhere you were on high alert.
It's not long enough, it's not without some minor issues but it makes one junction significantly safer and I hope we see much more like this.
It indicates that he judged the conditions unsafe and chose to exercise his right to ride in _another_part_of_the_road_. Which is exactly what he should do.
Yeah, this is where I start suspecting that the only tosser in this discussion is your good self. "Overweening" forsooth! "Entitlement" prithee! etcetera. The police officer in this video is a motorist hiding behind a police uniform: wasting a vast amount of time and money, blocking the frigging traffic and causing a disruption to everyone around him. About time the old fool was retired.
This is about social enforcement of a non-law: the law that cyclists are supposed to cower in narrow, unfit-for-purpose ghettoes at the side of the road instead of cycling in comfort on the roads their taxes pay for.
My already low opinion of the police has received another piece of confirmation bias.
Since we are playing the man ..... I am kind of surprised that you appear proud that you struggle with the word "entitlement". ("Overweening" I'll let you off on, there's no reason you should have received anything more than a primary shool education I guess; but you got it in the end, from the context, yes? That's how my ten year old works out the big words.) But each to his (or her) own.
Back to the subject at hand ..... The safest course of action would have been to slow down a bit. The cyclist judged that the best thing to do to maintain the speed he wanted to ride at was to drop onto the road. His actions weren't about safety. They were about him not wanting to be delayed on his trip to wherever he was going. That makes him a selfish twat. (Which is a handy translation of "overweening sense of entitlement".)
Do you drive a car? Does that make you a motorist hiding behind your lycra?
The cyclists was clearly in a conversation with the policeman, thats why he missed the entrance to CSH. Its obvious from the video.
The cyclists was happy to stay in the bike lane, wait at red, behind other cyclists prior to encountering the cop car. Its obvious from the video.
His safest action would actually have been to stop talking to the policeman and concentrate on joining the CSH. Of course we wouldnt have the benefit of seeing the horn-happy cop in all thier glory ...
My condolences to your ten year old for having a father that first posts that someone else is a tosser and then gets all passive aggressive about being called on it.
But this isn't about playing the "man", no matter how amusing that is: it's about the repetition by the "man" of a meme which is detrimental to cyclists: namely that they are entitled. And all your argumentation suggests that you completely accept the idea that it is somehow selfish of a cyclist to dare to be in the way of another vehicle on the road.
To me that makes you much more of tosser and a twat than anyone, except perhaps the idiot policeman that threw a hissy fit.
When there is a cycle lane there, bought and paid for by the tax payer because we as cyclists have quite rightly campaigned long and hard for road layout improvements to dangerous junctions, to make cycling a safer and more attractive option for everyone, not just the fit, brave and/or foolhardy .... and you decide that you are far too important to use it because you simply MUST-GET-IN-FRONT of the lowly Decathlon Hopridercrowd .... that makes you a self-centred, self-entitled, arrogant twat and you deserve every ounce of the pain that is surely coming your way one day.
I would be perfectly happy with a change in the law that says where a cycle lane has been provided, it is compulsory to use it otherwise, why waste tax payers money building them?
A £90 on the spot fine should do the trick nicely.
And will you be happy to pay for all the cases thrown out because of crap cycle lanes too ? http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/
The cyclists missed the entrance to the lane because he was in conversation with plod.
Couldnt rejoin later due to raised kerb.
Yes. Fair enough. Where the cycle lane is not usable, that ought to be a defence and also the fine-issuing officer should have to take photos in both directions from the penalty spot to prove that the cycle lane was usable in case of disputes.
He missed the entrance because he couldnt be arsed to use his brakes.
Here is the analogy. Pavements are provided for pedestrians because it is too dangerous for them to share the roads with fast moving heavy traffic. Cycle lanes have been provided for cyclists for the same reason .... and even worse, we have campaigned for them.
If as a pedestrian, I think that people are walking too slowly in front of me on Oxford Street, would it be reasonable for me to decide to jump off the pavement without warning and jog down the middle of the fucking road because I can actually run at the pace of a city bus or taxi?
No, didnt think so ... so how is what this smug cunt did in anyway different or appropriate? The safe infrastructure has been built. Using it should not be optional IMO.
Roads were originally for use by pedestrians and as far as I know, pedestrians can still legally use them for travel in the UK (the US has jay-walking laws in contrast).
I strongly disagree that cycle lanes should be compulsory as most of them are not fit for purpose and/or have dangerous entry/exit points. I don't think it is safe to use shared use facilities (i.e. cycles and pedestrians together) if you're going quickly, so it makes far more sense to use the roads - that's what they're there for.
Have a read of "Roads Were Not Built For Cars" and educate yourself.
Really? You shock me! I thought the Romans built Europe's road network for their Ferraris ...
Nevertheless, what the road network was built for is interesting but more salient is what it is used for. Transportation, primarily motorised transportation and we cannot have it both ways.
We cannot argue that the road layouts are unsafe and lethal, and have die-ins and leave ghost bikes left, right and centre, and go on critical mass rides etc .... and when the powers that be finally act and do something .... sneer and refuse to use the provision because it is not perfect, too slow, or inconvenient or isnt the quickest route as the crow flies etc ....
So why build any more cycling infrastructure and why not tear up the existing ones if usage is not necessary? Have we all been lying? Were the roads perfectly safe all along?
Nice false dichotomy. If only it were that simple...
And what's 'having it both ways'? Riding in the road and expecting not to get squashed or hassled by cops? Entitled, fussy bastards, eh?
We campaigned for decent off-road infrastructure, like the Dutch seem to have managed. We didn't get it. We got half-assed shared-use painted line rubbish, in by far the majority of cases.
It is legal to use the road, and sometimes it's more convenient, and sometimes it's even safer than using the provided infrastructure.
(Gosh, sometimes I wish road.cc had thumbs-down buttons...).
For now. But not for long.
As sure as night follows day, some dick-for-brains is going to pull a stunt like that and hop off the cycle lane into unsuspecting traffic and get squished. And public sympathy will be entirely with the motorist. Mine too. And then the law will change to ensure that cyclists must use the provided infrastructure or get a fine and/or bike confiscated.
I don't know why humans are so stupid that they need to see totally predictable deaths happening before doing the bleeding obvious ... but that is what it will take and the debate will be over.
Book it.
Pages