"Counter-productive war on cyclists": Anger over police enforcing 'no cycling' signs; Good news: VAT on bikes cut...Bad news: in the EU; Alt Tour jersey on Ebay; World champ's Specialized (+2022 route revealed); Cyclo-cross skills + more on the live blog

Fact free as you say. Not all one way though - there's "whataboutthecars" too and some snarky buggers from here appear to have got there now to take the piss:

Another Boo nom-de-plume? Got some of his style to it. 

Be interesting what the full details are. There is an on pavement cycle path as well as lots of pedestrian crossings so could have been on the pavement or on the road when collision occured. Nothing about cyclist being injured or doing a runner or staying on scene. I'm guessing the latter as not reported otherwise.

Someone on there this morning has posted

Quote:

Why is someone on a bike at 10:20pm? Cycling is a hobby, not a genuine means of transportation. Stick to the Brecon Beacons and trails.

Its a busy junction in the middle of a busy area.  At 10.30 at night it's just as likely that the pedestrian made an assumption that there'd be no traffic and didn't look (relied on their hearing) as that the cyclist jumped a light or was Somehow at fault.  But that won't stop the good folks BTL on the Bristol Post...

brooksby wrote:

Its a busy junction in the middle of a busy area.  At 10.30 at night it's just as likely that the pedestrian made an assumption that there'd be no traffic and didn't look (relied on their hearing) as that the cyclist jumped a light or was Somehow at fault.  But that won't stop the good folks BTL on the Bristol Post...

Indeed - but equally it might be a certified wrongun on a bike (gang member, drugs etc.). I get the point and that the outrage is not there for cars. Being better and looking at the bigger picture (once facts are in) this might be a) poor behaviour by cyclist b) avoidable with e.g. better street design.

I sometimes go through that junction late at night and there's usually a few tipsy pedestrians around. It's worse near to the Arches as they sometimes spill into the street around there and the road is narrower, but it's easy enough to avoid them if you pay attention.

I was stopped last summer riding through Hyde Park around 6AM on a Sunday on a permitted cycle path and warned not to ride on any of the internal paths that cross the park. When I pointed out that I wasn't doing so and had no intention of doing so the officer agreed but explained that they were "just warning people not to." I thanked him and went on my merry way, buoyed by the knowledge that my tax quids were being spent on such a sensible exercise rather than fripperies like catching criminals.

Rendel Harris wrote:

I was stopped last summer riding through Hyde Park around 6AM on a Sunday on a permitted cycle path and warned not to ride on any of the internal paths that cross the park. When I pointed out that I wasn't doing so and had no intention of doing so the officer agreed but explained that they were "just warning people not to." I thanked him and went on my merry way, buoyed by the knowledge that my tax quids were being spent on such a sensible exercise rather than fripperies like catching criminals.

Which, of course, is particularly ironic given apparently we 'don't need' the Park Lane cycle lane because we can ride through the park.

Steve K wrote:

Which, of course, is particularly ironic given apparently we 'don't need' the Park Lane cycle lane because we can ride through the park.

Given the RP's well-documented negativity towards cyclists I'm quite surprised the Hyde Park Corner - Marble Arch path hasn't been closed to cyclists yet...

I've been along the northbound Park Lane on buses recently and have seen virtually no cyclists except the odd one actually using it. Observing the South Gate at Hyde Park Corner, MANY cyclists seen entering and exiting, seems that the vast majority are using the internal Hyde Park cycle path in preference to the Park Lane facility.

Steve Garratt wrote:

I've been along the northbound Park Lane on buses recently and have seen virtually no cyclists except the odd one actually using it. Observing the South Gate at Hyde Park Corner, MANY cyclists seen entering and exiting, seems that the vast majority are using the internal Hyde Park cycle path in preference to the Park Lane facility.

I do at the moment, because Hyde Park is pretty sparsely populated in winter, particularly a Covid winter, and it's both more pleasant and a bit quicker if you're heading from/towards Lancaster Gate. In a normal summer the internal path is packed with tourists and kids and it's impossible to make swift progress safely, so then I'd use the Park Lane route. The true utility or otherwise of the Park Lane route will only be seen when tourist numbers, and so pedestrian density in the Park, return to normal pre-Covid levels.

On the way to one of the Stop Killing Cyclists die-ins (on Blackfriars I think) I was stopped with another cyclist in the advanced stop zone and given advice about having lights on our bikes.  Both of us had lights on our bikes, both sets switched on.  It was good-natured chat, seemingly part of a charm offensive by the police; but, just like you being stopped for using a permitted route, we were advised about an issue that didn't apply to us.  During the course of the conversation a lorry pulled over the advanced stop line behind us, completely blocking it for it's intended users and a red-light jumping offence. I politely mentioned this to the officer and he said they were only speaking with cyclists this particular evening.

markieteeee wrote:

On the way to one of the Stop Killing Cyclists die-ins (on Blackfriars I think) I was stopped with another cyclist in the advanced stop zone and given advice about having lights on our bikes.  Both of us had lights on our bikes, both sets switched on.  It was good-natured chat, seemingly part of a charm offensive by the police; but, just like you being stopped for using a permitted route, we were advised about an issue that didn't apply to us.  During the course of the conversation a lorry pulled over the advanced stop line behind us, completely blocking it for it's intended users and a red-light jumping offence. I politely mentioned this to the officer and he said they were only speaking with cyclists this particular evening.

That sounds like an excellent opportunity to confront the lorry driver and demand that they reverse back out of the ASL. I can just imagine the confusion of the police if they're talking to you about one thing and then you prevent the lorry moving off because it's blocking the ASL. Maybe couple it with a bit of "This is your job - you should be doing this" to the police.

Yes, I wish I'd done that - I wasn't quick enough off the mark in the moment, partly as it wasn't in our lane. I did mention to the rozzer that he had just witnessed a breach the law by a class of vehicle responsible for many deaths on the road, while unnecessarily advising people riding safely with lights about the use of lights. 

A few years ago a cyclist was killed by a left-turning HGV driver at Elephant & Castle, coming from the Walworth Road. The next day I happened to be riding through on a bus and saw there were a number of officers present, and I thought good, they'll be watching for dangerous driving...then saw four of them converge on a cyclist who had stopped with his front wheel maybe a foot over the stop line at the lights... 

The lorry I mentioned was also left-turning at the top of Walworth Road. And also was soon after a death, hence why I was attending a SKC happening. It's possible it was the same time, although there have been occasional charm offensives between Elephant and Camberwell with the police out in force having friendly chats with cyclists.  These wouldn't be so bad, if they were giving sensible advice and showing cyclists that they take their safety seriously, but it's baffling that they can ignore illegal and/or dangerous road offences on a given day because they are only focussing on chatting to cyclists. 

SPOILERS!! 

(Just joking - don't think I've seen a single episode of that show...).

It was so funny because I had Sky on as background noise, hadnt even realised it was the Sex & the City thing, not paying attention at all but glanced up just to see the Peloton scene and just thought wow Peloton bike ads have gone a bit dark for Christmas

Well it seemed to have gone dark last XMas if you saw the tone of those as "controlling husband buys wife fitness machine to bodyshame her after giving birth and she then feels forced to use it". 

brooksby wrote:

Quote:

only got a reply saying the parks police isn't part of the Met and is a service employed by the council.

So not actually police.

So, passing themselves off as police.

So - committing an offence themselves!

Sadly they have full police powers

I meant that I was under the impression that you can't call yourselves "Police" if you are not actually a police force (there must be some sort of legal procedure for establishing a police force?).  Otherwise every local councils 'environmental enforcement' people would be calling themselves 'the Green Police' or some sh!t...

brooksby wrote:

I meant that I was under the impression that you can't call yourselves "Police" if you are not actually a police force (there must be some sort of legal procedure for establishing a police force?).  Otherwise every local councils 'environmental enforcement' people would be calling themselves 'the Green Police' or some sh!t...

I don't know the details, but they report into the Dept of media culture and sport rather than the HO. I understand that there are other council run parks police, but they don't have teh same powers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Parks_Constabulary

I particularly like the last sentence of the article:

Wiki wrote:

The Royal Parks Constabulary had white vehicles with Orange decals on them. Later on, they had yellow decals.

This would have been the Wandsworth Parks & Events Police, though.