- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Video: London cyclist pulled over by police officer – who needs to re-read the Highway Code
A London cyclist has posted footage online showing a police officer overtaking him too closely in his vehicle then, after telling him to pull over, provides him with advice on how to cycle on the road that is at odds with rules contained in the Highway Code.
Helmet camera user Evo Lucas posted footage yesterday to YouTube and other social media sites of the incident, which happened in Walworth, South London.
At the start of the clip, he turns left from Wells Way into Albany Road, then passes the police car at traffic lights before tuning right into Portland Street, which subsequently leads into Brandon Street.
Around 1 minutes 30 seconds into the video, the police officer makes a close overtake on the rider, who says, “Excuse me,” then as he pulls alongside the police vehicle asks, “Are you in a hurry, sir?”
The officer asks Mr Lucas, “Wanna pull over?” then puts his flashing blue lights on and passes the rider, who comes to a halt behind him.
He asks him: “Do you want to explain why you are cycling in the middle of the road, making it difficult for vehicles to pass you?”
But Mr Lucas pointed out that he was allowed to use the width of the carriageway and suggested the officer may have broken the speed limit when he overtook him, saying: “No sir, I am entitled to use the whole road and you are entitled to do 20 mph on a 20 mph road.”
“Which I was doing,” the police officer replied. “Now you are getting to a fine line of obstructing vehicles.
“You are getting very close to the way you are cycling to obstructing vehicles from passing you,” he added, saying that Mr Lucas should “take on board” his advice.
Mr Lucas responded: “You take on board you were driving too closely, sir”
As he rode away, the cyclist said: “Well you should have waited then, sir. Are you detaining me, sir? I'm going to work. No, you need to get on board with how the Highway Code works, you are a police officer.”
The Highway Code allows cyclists to ride in primary position, including on narrow roads, and also instructs motorists “'Not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake. Give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car.”
A number of police forces across the UK have adopted the initiative launched by West Midlands Polcie last year that targets drivers passing cyclists too closely.
However, one commenter to Mr Lucas’s video on Twitter pointed out, “How are the general public meant to be educated on how to pass cyclists safely, when officers like this get it so wrong?”
In a reply to a question on the London Cycling Facebook group regarding whether he had reported the incident, Mr Lucas said: “I'm hoping he will call me and I'll get an apology. If so I'll leave it at that.”
Should Mr Lucas receive an apology the police officer won't be the first London driver to apologise to Mr Lucas as the result of one of his helmetcam videos - back in 2014 a white van man who close passed Mr Lucas in Covent Garden lost his job and was convicted of assault on the video evidence of the footage. At his trial the van driver changed his plea from innocent to guilty after learning of the existence of helmetcam footage of the incident and offered Mr Lucas a "profuse apology".
Last year one of Mr Lucas's videos also provoked some intense debate around the subject of red light jumping in the capital when his video of an incident in which Guardian journalist, Jack Shenker being ticketed for riding through a red light went viral. Mr Shenker maintained that he rode through the light because it was safer to do so.
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.
Latest Comments
- Rendel Harris 9 min 36 sec ago
WH RS-171 wheelset is currently £99 at Merlin Cycles, who also have the 105 mechanical groupset for £550. You're paying an awfully big chunk of the...
- Hirsute 57 min 14 sec ago
I got fed up with my work trousers wearing out on the bum and being fine elsewhere. The final straw was catching the inside leg on the saddle and...
- FionaJJ 1 hour 24 min ago
For the purposes of investment then cycling for transport, that also keeps/get you fit should be prioritised. However, there's an argument that if...
- KDee 1 hour 27 min ago
Yeah, that fits. Already seen the helmets, shoes etc. rebrand as Trek. Scott are pretty similar with their Scott and Syncros branding.
- eburtthebike 1 hour 44 min ago
Yes, where are the same figures for drivers, Telegraph?
- Rendel Harris 2 hours 26 min ago
Well with wand protection they don't even need tools, as various idiots rapidly discovered during the pandemic in London, the wands can just be...
- notMyRealName 2 hours 27 min ago
Given his demonstrated lack of judgement, I can't help but think that the Gran Fondo would have been safer without him in it.
- Pub bike 2 hours 33 min ago
It doesn't. Here are a few more helpful suggestions to make society just work better:...
- mdavidford 2 hours 47 min ago
Unfortunately, the AI is more likely to look at the weight of people expressing that opinion and considered it gold standard truth....
Add new comment
139 comments
from 0:05 to 0:29 there are no parked cars requiring the cyclist to be in that position (IMHO)
It is only a short section (prior to the police car) of the footage and the rest is all parked cars and requires such a position. It is enough time to annoy any car users behind though.
True, but were there any vehicles anywhere in sight behind him at that point? If it was an empty road, not sure it matters very much. May have been anticipating the subsequent right-turn (a bit early, granted)?
I am of the opinion that we should always use the road as if there are other road users in the vicinity. To me it is the same as cars indicating, they should always indicate just in case there is someone who needs to know, not just when they see someone who needs to know.
I used to be of that opinion, but twice on IAM courses (different instructors) I was told off for indicating (on motorways) when my manouvre wasn't going to affect anybody else. I was told that it demonstrates laziness in that I couldn't be bothered to check that everything was clear before making the manouvre (or words to that effect).
I thought the law said to indicate before making a manoeuvre (not 'indicate before making a manoeuvre if and only if there are any other vehicles or pedestrians within eyeshot')...? That whole "mirror-signal-mirror-manoeuvre" thing.
I thought so too but when my wife took her driving test 6 years ago she was told that she could fail for signalling when there was no-one to signal too as it would be taken that she was not aware of her surroundings.
Personally I think this is a very bad thing to introduce into learning to drive and was discusted at the time (and still am).
It's not correct at all. Motorists should use the left hand lane and the other (2) lanes are for overtaking only. If a motorist stays in the middle lane whilst not overtaking, then they are obstructing other traffic and possibly encouraging vehicles to undertake them which can be very dangerous.
I can't believe this! (Not that ClubSmed is mistaken, but that the driving instructor was so dumb).
The Highway Code id quite clear on indicating before making maneouvres and there's no exceptions e.g. not even if you're in a left-turning only lane.
It's particularly dangerous as pedestrians might be planning on crossing a road if they spot that a car is going straight on and there's no guarantee that the pedestrian is immediately visible to the motorist.
I remember having exactly the same argument with my driving instructor when I was 18. He made the point that you don't 'just signal' as it indicates complacency.
I made the point that a sizeable proportion of his other lessons were about neither he nor I being fucking omniscient, and that my signalling 'just in case' wasn't a precursor to me not looking and just lazily driving in any direction willy-nilly.
His point was bullshit then and it's bullshit now.
Exactly. You signal to anyone who might Be there, to let *anyone* know that you intend to do something. Your instructor's attitude might as well be make brake lights voluntary.
I don't think that applies for something like this. The point with riding position surely is that if there's anyone stuck behind you, the polite and sensible thing to do is to move towards the kerb _when it's safe and practical to do so_ and let them pass. If there's nobody behind it doesn't really arise.
If you haven't noticed someone coming up behind, they will usually let you know pretty clearly that they are getting impatient. It's not as if you are endangering them, so it's not something where you need to err on the side of being over-cautious. It seems to me.
And I thought the advice on indicating was precisely _not_ to do it if there's nobody who needs to see it?
He's at the speed LIMIT for motorvehicles, that's in best conditions, that means that because there is a hazard/vulnerable road user who has priority in front the motorist should be thinking do I need to be at this limit or hold back until it's safe without exceeding the posted limit to overtake. It's not 'passing', it's overtaking.
There is absolutely zero reason whatsoever for the bicyclist to cede priority in this instance, why should he not be able to make progress/get to where he is going? Do you pull over on any given road when driving (if you drive) when another vehicle comes up behind you say in an urban environment that probably wants to go faster, do you pull in between parked vehicles or do you hold a predictable line and carry on at or just below the posted limit?
Answer; no you wouldn't and neither does anyone else, so why should he, because he's on a bike, right, you want all the rules applied to people on bikes that seemingly piss motorists off yet in the same breath want to remove the rights afforded to vehicles on the roads becase that vehicle is two wheels being propelled by a human not a motor.
You can feck right off with that shite way of thinking, that's half the problem, doffing caps bowing and scraping and always giving in. And the addage no good being right if you're dead is bollocks, what about walking on the footway, no good being right if you're dead because some killer decides to drive in a piss poor manner. There's no evidence to support that being right/holding your line/riding in what we know to be safer has a greater chance of death/serious injury. What it does by ceding is giving the impression that's that how you should always behave and thus more likely chance of being struck or like helmets/hi-vis being blamed for not wearing despite that being the root cause of the problem in the first place and having a negative effect on safety. Even the increases in brighter car lights/DRLs are causing negative effects on safety
Stop being so damn subservient, it's not helpful in the slightest to yourself or other people on bicycles.
But he would have encouraged cars to go past him. If you are pulling in and out each time there are cars parked you're inviting trouble. He was taking the lane on this narrow, 20mph zoned, road, as he didn't want people to overtake him. Because he felt it was unsafe. Which is exactly what cyclists are meant to do.
It's not the same as driving in the middle lane of the motorway. That is against the Highway Code, whereas the cycling here was following the HC.
Sorry for the confusion, the part of the footage I was refering to was from 0:05-0:29 before the police car is behind the cyclist which does not look to be narrow
Depends on your interpretation I supose.
But I will state again that the police had no call to pull over the cyclist as the cycling was perfect to the environment (IMHO) the whole time the police car was behind.
My understanding was that staying out of the door zone was relevant where there are parked cars, since they (well, their doors) are the threat that you are trying to avoid...
Everyone's entitled to be wrong from time to time. Despite this country's increasing number of faults, at least we can still argue with the cops and cycle away without getting a truncheon between the ischial tuberosities. How would that have ended in many other countries?
"Video: London cyclist pulled over by police officer – who needs to re-read the Highway Code"
Which makes the rather large and unjustified assumption that he's read it once. I've lost count of the number of police officers who park illegally, and not in hot pursuit either. Last one I took a picture of was on double yellow lines, on continuous white lines, obstructing the footpath, and the dropped kerb for pedestrians and cyclists.
I also had to correct the inspector in charge of road policing who claimed that cyclists could be prosecuted for speeding.
If there is one thing the police are not experts in, it is the law.
About 20 parked vehicles and he's told to cycle in the gutter.. So the officer is blind as well as unaware of the rules he's meant to enforce and demonstrate on a daily basis to other road users.. There are some bike users on the roads who do silly things and take up space, but this is shameful, the cyclist could not have positioned himself better! Action taken against the officer? Probably not, judging by every other situation and the consequences we read about daily.
Policeman sounds like a fucking moron.
Chapeau to the cyclist; I don't think I'd have dealt with the situation so calmly, confidently and knowledgeably.
Cop over takes, not once, but twice. When he pulls the cyclist over, he claims there is not enough room to overtake. Either there was enough room, and the cop was able to pass safely, or there was not enough room, and the cop should have waited.
The cops first pass was just after the road narrowed, I think he had time to pass before the zebra crossing.
The cyclist was passing occasional parked cars, the highway code states that he should give them plenty of space. If the road is not wide enough for this, then the cars should not be parked there.
The cop stopped right on a road hump, which is a very stupid place to stop.
A countries police force is a reflection of it's society.
a country's police force is a reflection of its society. bloody grocer's!
I once got caught out without lights after dark and stopped - when asked why I was riding in the middle of the lane I explained that I would be more visible there - the copper said, fair enough and let me go...
on the other hand I was once fined £30 for looking down a one way street the wrong way, the copper anticipated I was going to turn and booked me for it - in my defense, it was my first week riding around London when I was young and naive.
I would have replied to the first question the PC asks with, I will after you've explained why you broke the law at least three times in a matter of seconds and broke your sworn oath.
firstly you exceeded the posted speed limit and whilst doing so deliberately did not give me the space I am entitled to thus using your vehicle to intimidate me as I did not feel safe and felt fear of harm, this is a common assault under UK law but you can call it driving with undue care and attention if you want. You then deliberately obstructed me/tried to cause me to go into the rear of you with your brake check and lastly you lied about going as far as you could over to the other side of the lane when exceeding the speed limit to pass me, there was clearly another 3 feet to the kerb.
You then continued to treat me unfairly and without integrity with your deliberate twisting of the law and the highway code to try to push the blame onto someone whom was the victim of your law breaking/poor driving, instead of keeping the peace you disturbed it with your actions and your lie.
So, how do you explain that officer?
Last one: to avoid ear-bendings I often pull in and let cars pass where possible - particularly if I sense then piling up behind me. More often than not I get a smile and a wave and a mouthed 'thank you'.
Contrast this with riding down the middle of the road like some entitled cock, recording it all, mouthing off, and uploading it to YouTube.
You can choose what sort of rider you want to be, and how best to represent cyclists through your actions and interactions.
Yeah, I think your interpretation of hand signals and lip reading needs some work.
You're implying that drivers just think I'm a complete wanker for being kind and polite? I'm fucking happy I don't inhabit your negative mental space mate.
No, I'm implying that someone who gets their kicks out of being a contrary wanker is likely to be greeted as the belligerent non-entity they actually are in others, and not as the offspring of Jesus Christ and Mary Poppins, as they suggest.
I think we've gone full circle here. My issue is with you folks getting your kicks out of being contrary wankers
touche
You're implying that your experience negates all tthe government advice, directed to improve cyclists' safety, and that they too should be seen as "contrary wankers". Your advice is contrary to what is taught in Bikeabiity, what you can read about in Cyclecraft, and one of the Think! campaigns. I know who I'd rather listen to. Whatever, when people who should presumably know better i.e. Police Officers, give instructions contrary to official advice then surely something is wrong and both the police officer, the public and the authorities need to be made aware of that. IMO, without people like the video-uploader whittling away at the rough edges, it would be even more of a free-for-all than it already is.
Pages