Laughs all round as police officer tries to halt cyclist for riding on bike path

[Elybazza61]

Similar thing happened to me, a PCSO stopped me and when I pointed out it was a cycle route, looked at his oppo (a Regular) who smiled and shrugged his shoulders.

Used to get a newsletter from an advanced motorcycle training company run by current and ex traffic police and accident investigators* and they had this saying for PCSO's "can't help in most Police situations" ie "Chimps"


*This is their website; http://rapidtraining.co.uk/

 

[ufkacbln]

Where is the speed at which a passing cyclist can join a shared use path defined so folk can know how fast a bit fast is?

It is called "common sense"?

Several organisations have suggested ideas, but none a re enforceable, others are by TRO or Byelaw which are.

Bournemouth has a 10 mph limit in the promenade which is enforced bu police with speed cameras during busy periods

The Royal Parks also have limits that are enforced

Sustrans suggests that 12 mph is the limit when in shared areas

The Department of Transport suggests that faster than 18 mph you should be on the road

 

[jefmcg]

I don't think he's travelling anywhere 18mph, I'd be surprised if it was even 12 mph.

It's also a tricky transition to make,:you often have cars following close, other cyclists on your tail, some possibly turning right across you; the pedestrians don't realise it's even a cycle path, so they are not aware you might be coming. So you pick a path between pedestrians, enter at a reasonable speed 10-12 mph, and then slow down to navigate the pavement.

 

[ianrauk]

I don't think he's travelling anywhere 18mph, I'd be surprised if it was even 12 mph.

If that even..

 

[GrumpyGregry]

What is "it" I don't get?

My first post sums up how I feel about the incident recorded on the video.

Posters have suggested plod should have advised the cyclist to slow down. The debate is not about a trivial point of law but rather the principle of to what degree one should accept "advice" from someone simply because they are wearing a police uniform or otherwise perceived to be an authority figure, and whence does the authority of said advice originate.

As well as advice on speed should we unquestioningly accept the advice of police officers and PCSOs to

wear helmets
wear hi-viz
use lights in daylight
ride on the cycle path
ride in the gutter
not ride on a cycle route
not ride on the pavement when the road alternative is too dangerous
et cetera
et cetera

all of which advice is doled out to cyclists with monotonous and moronic regularity by the forces of law and order, hereabouts and elsewhere.

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

Maybe I'm missing something? It was an every day situation where everyday adults behaved grown up. Have we become so entrenched in a negative world viewpoint - that that "incident" needs to be dissected?

Hopefully the coppers mates will have ribbed him and had some banter with him. And I also hope the geezer on the bike did the same, and the worlds a better place for it.

 

[Drago]

My first post sums up how I feel about the incident recorded on the video.

Posters have suggested plod should have advised the cyclist to slow down. The debate is not about a trivial point of law but rather the principle of to what degree one should accept "advice" from someone simply because they are wearing a police uniform or otherwise perceived to be an authority figure, and whence does the authority of said advice originate.

As well as advice on speed should we unquestioningly accept the advice of police officers and PCSOs to

wear helmets
wear hi-viz
use lights in daylight
ride on the cycle path
ride in the gutter
not ride on a cycle route
not ride on the pavement when the road alternative is too dangerous
et cetera
et cetera

all of which advice is doled out to cyclists with monotonous and moronic regularity by the forces of law and order, hereabouts and elsewhere.

I'm one of the 3 responsible in Westshire Dibble for cycling safety guidance, and nothing like that gets doled out here. The nearest we get is "consider" a helmet and florrie. No 'must' or 'should', and even only that much because of gentle pressure from non cycling senior officers.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I'm one of the 3 responsible in Westshire Dibble for cycling safety guidance, and nothing like that gets doled out here. The nearest we get is "consider" a helmet and florrie. No 'must' or 'should', and even only that much because of gentle pressure from non cycling senior officers.

Am I to assume that all other officers of Westshire Dibble, apart from your trimvirate, are instructed to remain stoically silent on the matter of cycling safety when they encounter cyclists. Seems unlikely to me.

Why do you or anyone even consider asking cyclists who are complete strangers to you I imagine to "consider" wearing a helmet or hi-viz as part of offering cycling safety guidance? The case for either is unproven and neither are a legal requirement unlike, say, seatbelts. So why do your senior officers apply pressure and you succumb to it?

 

[Drago]

We don't go out seeking complete strangers.

It's guidance we give when they come and ask us.

And that's all we offer - guidance. And it wouldn't be terribly good guidance if we didn't cover all options. We give them the menu, we don't recommend any particular meal.

You'd have to ask senior officers why they do something - I can't answer for someone else's actions. We comply because an order is an order, though we interpret it's a freely as we're able. If we ignored it entirely we'd a) be disciplined, and b) taken off doing it and the task would be given to someone with no cycling qualifications who probably doesn't even ride a bike, and enquiries would be told to wear a helmet, told to ridein the gutter, told to dress like a Christmas tree, instead of being presented with informed options they can select from themselves.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

We don't go out seeking complete strangers.

It's guidance we give when they come and ask us.

And that's all we offer - guidance. And it wouldn't be terribly good guidance if we didn't cover all options. We give them the menu, we don't recommend any particular meal.

And that is very excellent. (Thanks for clarifying)

But can we be certain that a regular beat copper, if such creatures still exist, or PCSO, in Westshire doesn't offer advice when they interact (stop) a complete stranger on a bike for some act of malfeasance, real or imagined.

Cos they do in Surrey, Sussex, Kent, London, Dyfed-Powys, and Grampian based on my experience and the experience of people I've ridden with. It's actually a bit of a hot topic locally as we are cursed with over-zealous cyclo-ignorant PCSO's and a lot of folk who like to complain about (the scourge of pavement) cyclists out of all proportion to the risk we represent to their well-being, whilst they ignore or overlook the risk from motor vehicles.

 

[Drago]

They're advised to refer such enquiries to those suitably qualified - me and my 2 colleagues - except where the officer is a qualified patrol cyclist themselves and the query falls within their area of qualified expertise.

I can't answer for forces outside if Westshire, but they're very foolish if they do. We're liable for the advice we give so if someone follows it, comes a cropper, and the person who gave that advice isn't qualified to give it then they open themselves up to personal legal action. Me and my 2 chums are all individually insured through MIAS for such an eventuality..

 

[jarlrmai]

The minor issue for me is the dichotomy in the enthusiasm for dealing with this easy target "cyclist on a pavement, easy peasy, oh I was wrong", contrasted with the attitude we are often presented with when trying to get an officer to deal with a dangerous motorist (phone use, close pass, aggressive tailgating/beeping). We saw this during the London crackdown, cyclists being "advised" by officers, whilst texting drivers rolled past.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Me and my 2 chums are all individually insured through MIAS for such an eventuality..

Is that pronounced 'my ass'? Great name for insurance cover!

GC

 

[Crankarm]

Is that pronounced 'my ass'? Great name for insurance cover!

GC

Got MIAS covered .

 

[Tim Hall]

It is called "common sense"?

Several organisations have suggested ideas, but none a re enforceable, others are by TRO or Byelaw which are.

Bournemouth has a 10 mph limit in the promenade which is enforced bu police with speed cameras during busy periods

The Royal Parks also have limits that are enforced

Sustrans suggests that 12 mph is the limit when in shared areas

The Department of Transport suggests that faster than 18 mph you should be on the road

I thought the Royal Parks had changed (yet again). The last time I read the legislation it referenced "mechanically propelled vehicles" or similar, ie cars not bikes.There was a time when bikes were specifically included. Whether that makes any difference to the policeman trying to stop you when you get to 21mph is another matter.