Cyclist films phone using driver in queue of traffic (supplied)
Police warn camera cyclist about “leaning into lone female drivers’ windows” to capture phone use evidence – but later apologise for “inaccurate recollection” of incident
The same cyclist also received a warning letter for “riding down the middle of a road towards an oncoming bus” while filming phone-using drivers, but says the lack of enforcement of dangerous driving is “making the law worthless”
A cyclist who has submitted hundreds of videos to the Metropolitan Police showing evidence of illegal driving has accused the Met of “failing to tackle road crime”, after the force responded to two clips of motorists using their phones at the wheel by issuing the cyclist with warning letters – one for “leaning in towards drivers’ windows, especially lone female drivers”, and another for “riding down the middle of the road towards an oncoming bus”.
Criticising the warning letters – the first of which was later detracted by the police, who apologised for their “inaccurate recollection” of events – the cyclist claimed that the Met have “let off many drivers for actual dangerous situations” and said he reports motorists so “my wife isn’t in constant fear when my kids go out to the shops”.
The cyclist, who wishes to remain anonymous, received their first warning letter from the Metropolitan Police in May, when they submitted footage of a driver on their phone while in traffic on the Headstone Road in Harrow.
During the incident, seen in the below video and which took place on 7 May, the cyclist spotted the female driver apparently texting at the wheel, before turning around in the road to capture clearer footage of the misdemeanour.
“It’s definitely an iPhone,” the cyclist can be heard saying in the video, as he rides back towards the car. “She’s put it on the left seat.”
A week later, in correspondence seen by road.cc, the Metropolitan Police confirmed that the phone-using driver was issued a Fixed Penalty Notice based on his submission.
However, while noting that they “appreciate the time you have taken in bringing this incident to our attention”, the officer from the Met’s Traffic Processing Services said that “after reviewing the footage, we deem it necessary to bring to your attention the manner of your behaviour and approach to obtain evidence on the date in question”.
The letter continued: “We consider that the standard of your own behaviour fell below what would be expected of a careful and competent rider in that you are seen leaning in towards drivers’ windows to obtain further evidence, especially lone female drivers.
“The Metropolitan Police Service will be taking no action against you on this occasion, but would take this opportunity to remind you of your obligation to show due care and consideration to other road users at all times.”
After receiving the letter, the cyclist launched a formal complaint against what he described as the officer’s “highly defamatory” comments and “baseless allegations”, which he said “caused me a great deal of alarm and distress”.
In response, the officer told the cyclist: “After reviewing the document and incident further, I can see that the wording was not an accurate recollection of the incident and would like to apologise for any distress this may have caused.
“I would like to inform you that no official report has been raised against you and the warning letter has been removed. The prosecution process against the offender is still active for the offence they committed.”
Speaking to road.cc, the cyclist said the original warning letter criticising the rider for “leaning in” to capture footage of phone-using drivers “honestly seemed like it was written by the trolls on Twitter”.
“I’ve reported hundreds of cases to the Met, probably 90 per cent of which are male drivers,” he says. “The prosecutions team probably recognise my name. They know that I do not discriminate on who I report.
“They made this defamatory statement, which they did apologise for, but it should have never happened in the first place.”
And last month, the cyclist was issued with another warning letter by the Met for careless cycling, again as he attempted to capture footage of a motorist using their phone while sat at traffic lights on Harrow’s Peterborough Road.
According to the Met, as the cyclist filtered on the outside of the queue of stationary vehicles, he forced an oncoming bus driver, faced with parked police vans at the side of the road, to stop.
“We consider that the standard of your own riding fell below what would be expected of a careful and competent driver, in that when overtaking stationary vehicles, you rode down the middle of a road towards an oncoming bus which forced the bus to come to a stop,” the letter said.
Responding to this criticism of his cycling, the cyclist told road.cc that their filtering was “well within the law”.
“Yet they let off many drivers for actual dangerous situations,” he continued. “The prosecutions team has got far worse over the past 12 months, and that is a pretty common consensus amongst a few who regularly report to the police.
“Overall, the Met is failing to tackle road crime. It has zero enforcement across the borough, whenever you ask the Met about it, it’s always the usual answer of ‘not enough resource’ or ‘more urgent crimes like assaults or stabbings’.
“Because of the zero proactive enforcement approach, it means the laws in place are almost worthless, drivers know there’s an extremely low chance of being caught.
“Road crime is real crime, lives are at stake, and there are consequences, these consequences are paid for usually by those outside of the vehicle, the ones without airbags, without crumple zones. These are not victimless crimes.
“I want safe roads, so that my wife isn’t in constant fear when my kids go out to the shops or school walking or cycling. That’s why I report these drivers.”
Incidentally, this isn’t the first time this year that the Met has come in for criticism for its approach towards camera cyclists challenging phone-using drivers.
In March, the force apologised for any “stress and inconvenience” caused as it dropped a much-criticised attempt to prosecute a cyclist accused of “posing a danger to other road users” as he attempted to film a phone-using motorist – just one day before the cyclist was due to face trial for cycling without due care and attention.
56-year-old Dave Clifton was cycling on Pont Street in Belgravia, London on 22 August 2023 when he spotted a Range Rover using his mobile phone while driving in traffic in the opposite direction, before turning around to capture footage of the motorist’s phone use with his helmet camera.
However, after submitting the footage to the Met, Clifton was told by a member of the force’s traffic division that the police intended to criminally prosecute him for allegedly committing the offence of ‘riding a cycle on a road without due care and attention’ while attempting to film the Range Rover driver.
But in a letter sent seven months later, a senior manager at the Met said that while responses to footage of road traffic violations submitted to the police were “subjective” and based on the opinion of the officer reviewing the footage, the offence of cycling without due care was not met in this instance, and that the footage of the incident is now being used by the force for internal training purposes.
road.cc has contacted the Metropolitan Police for comment, with a spokesperson confirming that they are currently looking into both incidents.
Help us to fund our site
We’ve noticed you’re using an ad blocker. If you like road.cc, but you don’t like ads, please consider subscribing to the site to support us directly. As a subscriber you can read road.cc ad-free, from as little as £1.99.
If you don’t want to subscribe, please turn your ad blocker off. The revenue from adverts helps to fund our site.
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £1.99. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
I believe some research has demonstrated that "distraction blindness" can last for up to ninety seconds after putting the phone down, with the driver thinking about what they've just read/sent and how they might respond at the next lights. Definitely not "no harm no foul" as so many drivers claim.
I'm inclined to ask you which country you are in (I'll be restrained and not extend it to 'which planet are you on?').
In the UK we have policing by consent, and the police are a set-aside section of the public ("citizens in uniform"). There is a general need that as members of the public we watch for and report crime when we witness it. It is precisely the business of those reporting it.
That is all cammers, whether cycle cammers, or motor vehicle cammers who make the majority of witness reports, are doing.
There are very good explanations in the book "Record, Retreat, Report: How hundreds of thousands fought road crime". I recommend it. The Amazon page has free sections for you to sample.
In the UK we have policing by consent, and the police are a set-aside section of the public ("citizens in uniform"). There is a general need that as members of the public we watch for and report crime when we witness it. It is precisely the business of those reporting it.
As indeed the founder of the Metropolitan Police, and arguably all modern policing, himself said:
Wish i had a camera, spotted a bus-driver. Driving a bus full of people using her phone while driving yesterday.
When I worked for a local council, I had to ring a local bus company, got put through to the manager, and I could hear a lot of kids chattering in the background. I asked him about it and he said he was driving a bus full of schoolchildren. I cut the call then and there.
sounds like someone at the Met is allowing the constant driver whingeing about being caught to get to them. I guess if you're trying to hold on to the idea that you've done nothing wrong, it's a natural reaction, or in simpler terms just a way of trying to get out of it.
Lone female drivers can't kill you if they hit you because they're texting when driving? Can I send Mrs H out to shoplift me some beer on the basis that if CCTV catches her at it the shopkeeper will get a warning letter from the police about filming lone females committing crimes? Stone the crows.
It's a load of patronising nonsense. Apart from them not leaning in etc, the woman is in a queue of traffic in broad daylight. It's possible she might 'jump' if she sees someone unexpected from the side, but the idea that she would feel particularly threatened is a nonsense.
I appreciate that more men are learning that some perfectly innocent behaviours can be intimidating, such as walking close behind you on a dark path, and a cursory glance at the Couch 2 5k Facebook group and you'll find plenty of women discussing how, or even if, they want to keep running along dark streets and paths at this time of year. I myself would never run along my prefered route in the dark. However, the behaviour in the video is not something that the vast, vast majority of women would think is threatening, except for those who are annoyed at the thought of being caught doing something illegal.
It's not just offensive to the person making the report, it's IMO dismissive of the real and plentiful fears that women face on a daily basis. It's most likely someone who doesn't think drivers should be held accountable that resents being forced to do their job that is grasping at straws, and knew that many decent men would be intimdated by an accusation, no matter how baseless, of scaring lone women.
I agree that the officer probably was not motivated by genuine concern, but i wouldn't dismiss this as unintimidating. Obviously she was committing a dangerous crime and that overrides her right to not feel intimidated, however I think we would feel differently if the cyclist had been mistaken and there was no phone.
Add new comment
39 comments
I believe some research has demonstrated that "distraction blindness" can last for up to ninety seconds after putting the phone down, with the driver thinking about what they've just read/sent and how they might respond at the next lights. Definitely not "no harm no foul" as so many drivers claim.
@S E
I'm inclined to ask you which country you are in (I'll be restrained and not extend it to 'which planet are you on?').
In the UK we have policing by consent, and the police are a set-aside section of the public ("citizens in uniform"). There is a general need that as members of the public we watch for and report crime when we witness it. It is precisely the business of those reporting it.
That is all cammers, whether cycle cammers, or motor vehicle cammers who make the majority of witness reports, are doing.
There are very good explanations in the book "Record, Retreat, Report: How hundreds of thousands fought road crime". I recommend it. The Amazon page has free sections for you to sample.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Record-Retreat-Report-hundreds-thousands/dp/B0D...
As indeed the founder of the Metropolitan Police, and arguably all modern policing, himself said:
Wish i had a camera, spotted a bus-driver. Driving a bus full of people using her phone while driving yesterday.
When I worked for a local council, I had to ring a local bus company, got put through to the manager, and I could hear a lot of kids chattering in the background. I asked him about it and he said he was driving a bus full of schoolchildren. I cut the call then and there.
sounds like someone at the Met is allowing the constant driver whingeing about being caught to get to them. I guess if you're trying to hold on to the idea that you've done nothing wrong, it's a natural reaction, or in simpler terms just a way of trying to get out of it.
Lone female drivers can't kill you if they hit you because they're texting when driving? Can I send Mrs H out to shoplift me some beer on the basis that if CCTV catches her at it the shopkeeper will get a warning letter from the police about filming lone females committing crimes? Stone the crows.
It's a load of patronising nonsense. Apart from them not leaning in etc, the woman is in a queue of traffic in broad daylight. It's possible she might 'jump' if she sees someone unexpected from the side, but the idea that she would feel particularly threatened is a nonsense.
I appreciate that more men are learning that some perfectly innocent behaviours can be intimidating, such as walking close behind you on a dark path, and a cursory glance at the Couch 2 5k Facebook group and you'll find plenty of women discussing how, or even if, they want to keep running along dark streets and paths at this time of year. I myself would never run along my prefered route in the dark. However, the behaviour in the video is not something that the vast, vast majority of women would think is threatening, except for those who are annoyed at the thought of being caught doing something illegal.
It's not just offensive to the person making the report, it's IMO dismissive of the real and plentiful fears that women face on a daily basis. It's most likely someone who doesn't think drivers should be held accountable that resents being forced to do their job that is grasping at straws, and knew that many decent men would be intimdated by an accusation, no matter how baseless, of scaring lone women.
I agree that the officer probably was not motivated by genuine concern, but i wouldn't dismiss this as unintimidating. Obviously she was committing a dangerous crime and that overrides her right to not feel intimidated, however I think we would feel differently if the cyclist had been mistaken and there was no phone.
Pages