Deliveroo rider in York fined by ‘confrontational’ police officer who grabbed his bike (+ video)

Previous advice in threads on the same topic has been for the cyclist to just ride off - nothing the PCSO can do about it. So it is hardly surprising the PCSO was holding on to the bike. The still image taken from the video is selected to make it look like the PCSO is "grabbing" the bike, reinforced by the misleading headline. But in fact the video reveals he had simply been holding on to the handlebars and the cyclist later tried to pull the bike away.
All in I see this as a very poor piece of reporting.

Sriracha wrote:

... But in fact the video reveals he had simply been holding on to the handlebars and the cyclist later tried to pull the bike away. All in I see this as a very poor piece of reporting.

But if he was anticipating getting so up close and personal with people, he ought to have had gloves and a face-covering, surely?

What difference do gloves make?

Touching other people or their property? (I notice the other police officer is wearing them).

But whatever you think about gloves, surely the police ought to have had face coverings?  

brooksby wrote:

Touching other people or their property? (I notice the other police officer is wearing them).

But whatever you think about gloves, surely the police ought to have had face coverings?  

Still don't see what difference gloves make, unless you think the virus is excreted through the skin. But no matter - I'll accept that whatever PPE might be necessary would have been better if worn. But I sense that people are saying that regardless of any PPE, the copper ought to have been "looking the other way" since it was only a cyclist and not a car driver flouting the no cycling zone.

OMG Seriously? Jeez...

I agree with his tactics in these specific times (I seem to remember a story that the Police were taking a relaxed view of minor offences at the moment.) and alos surprised on the lack of PPE as well being as he will need to be close to people. 

However I suspect if he doesn't do the specific grab, the cyclist would be off as we don't have registrations blah blah.

This issue is that the council lifted the bollards at the end and there was confusion about whether it was now ok to cycle down there. There were mixed messages coming from police and the council, so it's not hard to see how this cyclist was caught out. Point is, it's quiet down there (I was in town last week and the street was empty), so there's no reason to not allow cyclists to use it, as many of the streets in York are only pedestrianised on certain days at certain times (e.g. busy ones). I often use it on a Sunday morning on the way out of town.

I want to agree, but I think it's a case of relative harm. 

Someone speeding around at 60mph in a 1.5+ ton of metal will cause significantly more harm to others if something goes wrong than a delivery cyclist riding at 15mph through a very quiet city centre. The two examples are not equivalent.

Quite - the driver who came round a blind bend on the wrong side of the road at way over the speed limit straight at me yesterday is not the same as a family using an empty pedestrian area to avoid a main road (as the street in the article does).

A case of false equivalence. Many folk are KSI by car drivers daily, very few by cyclists.

The rozzers make a deal of being professional enough to use their discretion.... when it suits them. And "I don't make the rules".... when it suits them.....

Strangely it often suits them to come down hard on cyclists, and use their discretion with motorists.

How has any of this got to do with cars and drivers?

Replying to bigbiker101....

Oh give over

Correct.

If it's a no cycling zone don't ride there. It doesn't matter if there are pedestrians there or not c.f. the cyclists on the motorway - legally they shouldn't be there even if there are next to no motorised (legal) traffic.

We could use that argument for anything couldn't we?!

"As long as ther is no one using the roads I can drive at 90 in a 30 limit"

I have a friend who has ver very poor sight. Cyclists are the road users that frighten her the most....

Nice straw man.

Read the comments on this article.  Lots of straw men. OK to have a straw man if you're a cyclist otherwise not?

If she's not safe on the road..... maybe she shouldn't be on it? I pitty the poor bugger she hits before calling it a day. 

So she should lock herself in her house because she feels vulnerable?

if we use your argument then cyclists should not cycle on the road as they feel unsafe?

In which case she's worrying about the wrong thing. About 400 peds a year are killed by motorists in the UK. Around 50 of these are on the pavement. Conversely it's been a bad year if 1 ped is killed in collision with a cyclist. The misplaced worry that your friend feels is not uncommon, and really underlines how cyclists are demonised by the press, and how that skewed narrative insidiously feeds into the public sub-conscious. Note that the numbers above do not take into account secondary mortality from pollution, which we all contribute to when we get into our cars.

Really, cyclists are not the villains here.

She shoud transfer her worry to electric cars. The worst of both worlds with the momentum of a car but the silence of a bike. 

Although in all seriousness, I suspect anyone who does use hearing to get around and to try to be safe would be more scared of the silent travel people rather then others. Running creates vibraions, walking, well small bump not serious, motor vehicles are noisy so we would be faster and silent so alot more scary in those situations.