Police pull over 'two abrest' cyclists - argument ensues
Discussion
NinjaPower said:
This news story has been doing the rounds over the last few days, can't seem to find it on PH though.
Two cyclists pulled over by the police on a main road for riding two abreast and 'causing other drivers to drive carelessly'.
An argument and various threats then occur between the officer and cyclists, all caught on video of course.
I'm not a cyclist, and very occasionally I get a little irritated by them, but in this case I think they were absolutely 100% in the right, both legally and otherwise.
It's also a good example of a Police officer being annoyed about something and then making up laws/rules in his own head to suit his argument/opinion, which I'm sure we've all been on the receiving end of at some point. I know I have.
Have a watch:
http://www.cyclingweekly.com/videos/watch/watch-cy...
From what i've read, cycling two abreast is illegal. The Highway Code advises specifically NOT to do this, anyway. I'm not sure of the technicalities associated with it but, either way, it is written as a rule.Two cyclists pulled over by the police on a main road for riding two abreast and 'causing other drivers to drive carelessly'.
An argument and various threats then occur between the officer and cyclists, all caught on video of course.
I'm not a cyclist, and very occasionally I get a little irritated by them, but in this case I think they were absolutely 100% in the right, both legally and otherwise.
It's also a good example of a Police officer being annoyed about something and then making up laws/rules in his own head to suit his argument/opinion, which I'm sure we've all been on the receiving end of at some point. I know I have.
Have a watch:
http://www.cyclingweekly.com/videos/watch/watch-cy...
So, i ask you, how are they in the right here?
If you ask me, this a good example of a copper just doing his job properly and putting a stop to something which is, in fact, illegal and ensuring that no accidents or casualties occur as a result of a couple of cocky, holier-than-though muppets who think that the rules, for some reason, don't apply to them.
Yes, i have certainly been on the receiving end in the past. However, it's unfair to judge all scenarios the same and all Police the same aswell.
yellowjack said:
It's not the cars that are the issue - it's the morons driving them.
It's a regular thing, on open rural roads (two lanes), where a driver makes a song and dance about being "held up" despite it being so straight and clear ahead that Helen Keller herself could see it. Then, to compound their idiocy, they pull out to overtake and then seem to spend an age speed-matching me. Why? What possible benefit or enjoyment could be derived from maintaining a cyclist's pace while hanging yourself out to dry on the 'wrong' side of the road, alongside said cyclist? FFS, just drop it down a gear, accelerate, and f
k off. I don't want you behind me any more than you want to be "stuck" (clue: you probably aren't 
) there. Nor do I want you alongside me. Just overtake and have done with it, or wait for a sensible place to overtake. It REALLY isn't that difficult...
As has been said numerous times on multiple threads no one has trouble overtaking normal courteous cyclists. No one is posting pictures of a 'normal cyclist' and saying, couldn't get past her, so your post is redundant.It's a regular thing, on open rural roads (two lanes), where a driver makes a song and dance about being "held up" despite it being so straight and clear ahead that Helen Keller herself could see it. Then, to compound their idiocy, they pull out to overtake and then seem to spend an age speed-matching me. Why? What possible benefit or enjoyment could be derived from maintaining a cyclist's pace while hanging yourself out to dry on the 'wrong' side of the road, alongside said cyclist? FFS, just drop it down a gear, accelerate, and f
k off. I don't want you behind me any more than you want to be "stuck" (clue: you probably aren't ) there. Nor do I want you alongside me. Just overtake and have done with it, or wait for a sensible place to overtake. It REALLY isn't that difficult...They have trouble passing lycra clad road warriors, and not all lycra clad cyclists who in the main are also normal road users, but the specific type of road warriors that the poster has highlighted In this thread. They have a terrible attitude toward other road users, and it seems the police. They believe their bike should be treated like an HGV. They think the responsibility of the overtake should be 100% with the overtaker, and also think that 'commanding' the road is an acceptable way to behave on the road.
None of this is true either from a legal standpoint or more importantly from their own safety standpoint.
I live in the country I have cycling groups/meets going on all the time near Brands Hatch. 99% of them are entirely normal people who despite the fact that they look like they are in a race act completely normally to cars approaching, or pinch points. I have one episode which I posted about on here where the behaviour was unacceptable and then a torrent of attitude from pro cycling idiots to defend them, or say I was lying.
It really is a stupid them and us militant mentality some people have who can't actually see what normal is anymore.
vikingaero said:
spaximus said:
The problem is the Highway code is advisory in many areas so legally I think the cyclist was correct in they were within the law. The policeman was correct in saying that drivers do take risks to pass and perhaps a better idea to ride in single file said nicely might have been better.
This. There's the law and there's militant male cyclists who are never wrong. Morally they could help other motorists but they won't. Because they are cyclists. I live in a small village in a beautiful area and it's packed with cyclists at all times of the day. I see time trialers yelling at car drivers to hurry up because they're spoiling the riders time. This is because the cars do 30mph or less as they should do in a 30 zone, yet the TT lads think it's fine to break this limit as they're on a TT. They are complete tits.
We also get the two abreast riders and chain gangs who expect you to sit at 20/30mph for ages in a 60mph zone. The roads to my village are hilly and twisty with not much distance visible.
Move the f
k over. So yes I'm a cyclist (road cycling) and I know they ride two abreast to try and ensure car drivers wait for a safe gap to pass, but it's still bloody annoying when you're in the car.
My wife always gives them room etc yet she's still had them shouting and waving their hands about.
I've come to the conclusion that cycling just has more than it's fair share of t
ts unfortunately. Like those two in the video. Edited by marky911 on Wednesday 24th May 09:43
culpz said:
From what i've read, cycling two abreast is illegal. The Highway Code advises specifically NOT to do this, anyway. I'm not sure of the technicalities associated with it but, either way, it is written as a rule.
So, i ask you, how are they in the right here?
If you ask me, this a good example of a copper just doing his job properly and putting a stop to something which is, in fact, illegal and ensuring that no accidents or casualties occur as a result of a couple of cocky, holier-than-though muppets who think that the rules, for some reason, don't apply to them.
Yes, i have certainly been on the receiving end in the past. However, it's unfair to judge all scenarios the same and all Police the same aswell.
You are a jibbering idiot, and I claim my five pounds.So, i ask you, how are they in the right here?
If you ask me, this a good example of a copper just doing his job properly and putting a stop to something which is, in fact, illegal and ensuring that no accidents or casualties occur as a result of a couple of cocky, holier-than-though muppets who think that the rules, for some reason, don't apply to them.
Yes, i have certainly been on the receiving end in the past. However, it's unfair to judge all scenarios the same and all Police the same aswell.
I don't know what it is you've been reading that even suggests that cycling two-abreast is illegal, but I'd sure like to try some of whatever it is you're smoking...
For clarity...
The Highway Code said:
Section 66
This section explains what cyclists should and should not do when riding on the road.
You should:
Keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear.
Keep both feet on the pedals.
Be considerate of other road users, taking extra care around blind and partially sighted pedestrians. Use your bell when necessary to signal you are nearby.
Ride single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends
[b]You should not :
Ride more than two abreast.[/b]
Ride close behind another vehicle.
Carry anything that will affect your balance or get tangled up in your wheels or chain.
The important words to not are "should not". This is advice, NOT law. If it were law, it would say "must not"and be followed with a reference to the appropriate act of parliament.This section explains what cyclists should and should not do when riding on the road.
You should:
Keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear.
Keep both feet on the pedals.
Be considerate of other road users, taking extra care around blind and partially sighted pedestrians. Use your bell when necessary to signal you are nearby.
Ride single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends
[b]You should not :
Ride more than two abreast.[/b]
Ride close behind another vehicle.
Carry anything that will affect your balance or get tangled up in your wheels or chain.
Equally important, for the education of jibbering idiots, is the complete phrase "you should not ride more than two abreast". Which means, explicitly, that riding two-abreast is perfectly fine (save for riding on narrow or busy roads, and when riding around bends). Also worth noting that even this phrase is ADVICE, being a "should not". If you think that riding two-abreast is illegal, here's a newsflash - riding three, four, or even five abreast is not illegal, upon reading the highway code. It is simply inadvisable. I seldom ride in company (on the roads) anyway, so I don't need to worry about whether side-by-side, or one-behind-the-other is more appropriate for a given situation. Suffice to say, though, that if I were riding with a friend on the road, I wouldn't rigidly stick to one or the other option - situations are fluid, and my riding plan would change in response to the physical environment and the evolving traffic situation just as my driving plan would respond to external factors if I were in a car.
This... http://ukcyclelaws.blogspot.co.uk/p/the-laws-accor... ...might also help with your comprehension issues.
Edited by yellowjack on Wednesday 24th May 09:50
marky911 said:
Totally agree. I am a cyclist but to be honest the majority of them are self-righteous alpha male wannabes, that are never wrong.
I live in a small village in a beautiful area and it's packed with cyclists at all times of the day. I see time trialers yelling at car drivers to hurry up because they're spoiling the riders time. This is because the cars do 30mph or less as they should do in a 30 zone, yet the TT lads think it's fine to break this limit as they're on a TT. They are complete tits.
We also get the two abreast riders and chain gangs who expect you to sit at 20/30mph for ages in a 60mph zone. The roads to my village are hilly and twisty with not much distance visible.
Move the fk over.
So yes I'm a cyclist (road cycling) and I know they ride two abreast to try and ensure car drivers wait for a safe gap to pass, but it's still bloody annoying when you're in the car.
My wife always gives them room etc yet she's still had them shouting and waving and their hands about.
I've come to the conclusion that cycling just has more than it's fair share of tts unfortunately. Like those two in the video.
Breaking news! There is NO specific speed limit for bicycles, so it's not possible for those TT lads to "break" a limit that does not exist... I live in a small village in a beautiful area and it's packed with cyclists at all times of the day. I see time trialers yelling at car drivers to hurry up because they're spoiling the riders time. This is because the cars do 30mph or less as they should do in a 30 zone, yet the TT lads think it's fine to break this limit as they're on a TT. They are complete tits.
We also get the two abreast riders and chain gangs who expect you to sit at 20/30mph for ages in a 60mph zone. The roads to my village are hilly and twisty with not much distance visible.
Move the f
k over. So yes I'm a cyclist (road cycling) and I know they ride two abreast to try and ensure car drivers wait for a safe gap to pass, but it's still bloody annoying when you're in the car.
My wife always gives them room etc yet she's still had them shouting and waving and their hands about.
I've come to the conclusion that cycling just has more than it's fair share of t
ts unfortunately. Like those two in the video. Doesn't mean they're not complete tits, just that they commit no specific offence by exceeding the motor vehicle speed limits.
yellowjack said:
You are a jibbering idiot, and I claim my five pounds.
I don't know what it is you've been reading that even suggests that cycling two-abreast is illegal, but I'd sure like to try some of whatever it is you're smoking...
So where does that leave the copper?I don't know what it is you've been reading that even suggests that cycling two-abreast is illegal, but I'd sure like to try some of whatever it is you're smoking...
P.S. Pipe down you absolute tart
culpz said:
So where does that leave the copper?
The copper was absolutely correct to have a chat. He shouldn't have allowed himself to get drawn into the squabble though. Unprofessional.The cyclists were blocking traffic, HC says this should not be done.
Edited by popeyewhite on Wednesday 24th May 10:20
yellowjack said:
It's not the cars that are the issue - it's the morons driving them.
It's a regular thing, on open rural roads (two lanes), where a driver makes a song and dance about being "held up" despite it being so straight and clear ahead that Helen Keller herself could see it. Then, to compound their idiocy, they pull out to overtake and then seem to spend an age speed-matching me. Why? What possible benefit or enjoyment could be derived from maintaining a cyclist's pace while hanging yourself out to dry on the 'wrong' side of the road, alongside said cyclist? FFS, just drop it down a gear, accelerate, and fk off. I don't want you behind me any more than you want to be "stuck" (clue: you probably aren't ) there. Nor do I want you alongside me. Just overtake and have done with it, or wait for a sensible place to overtake. It REALLY isn't that difficult...
It's a regular thing, on open rural roads (two lanes), where a driver makes a song and dance about being "held up" despite it being so straight and clear ahead that Helen Keller herself could see it. Then, to compound their idiocy, they pull out to overtake and then seem to spend an age speed-matching me. Why? What possible benefit or enjoyment could be derived from maintaining a cyclist's pace while hanging yourself out to dry on the 'wrong' side of the road, alongside said cyclist? FFS, just drop it down a gear, accelerate, and f
k off. I don't want you behind me any more than you want to be "stuck" (clue: you probably aren't ) there. Nor do I want you alongside me. Just overtake and have done with it, or wait for a sensible place to overtake. It REALLY isn't that difficult...
Most drivers dont want to go past a bike too quickly so will slow down to speed match
Do you go out on the bike much?
popeyewhite said:
The copper was absolutely correct to have a chat. He shouldn't have allowed himself to get drawn into the squabble though.Unprofessional.
The cyclist's were blocking traffic, HC says this should not be done.
Agreed.The cyclist's were blocking traffic, HC says this should not be done.
However, i'm a firm believer in speaking to people how you want to be spoken to. With that being said, if you start being funny with a copper, rightly or wrongly, i'd expect to get a similar response back.
I personally wouldn't say it was unprofessional. Saying that the Police should know better seems a bit unfair to me. The cyclist(s) should also know better in that regard. That's just me though.
marky911 said:
Totally agree. I am a cyclist but to be honest the majority of them are self-righteous alpha male wannabes, that are never wrong.
We also get the two abreast riders and chain gangs who expect you to sit at 20/30mph for ages in a 60mph zone. The roads to my village are hilly and twisty with not much distance visible. Move the fk over.
So yes I'm a cyclist (road cycling) and I know they ride two abreast to try and ensure car drivers wait for a safe gap to pass, but it's still bloody annoying when you're in the car.
Agree with all that, but from a London perspective. I commute through Regents Park on a bike during the week and sometimes drive through it at the weekend.We also get the two abreast riders and chain gangs who expect you to sit at 20/30mph for ages in a 60mph zone. The roads to my village are hilly and twisty with not much distance visible. Move the f
k over. So yes I'm a cyclist (road cycling) and I know they ride two abreast to try and ensure car drivers wait for a safe gap to pass, but it's still bloody annoying when you're in the car.
Sometimes, when in the car, I have to pass groups of Wiggins Wanabees riding three or even four abreast.
They're NOT Wiggins and they're NOT on the TDF.
Please just move over. It's tiresome.
Edited by marky911 on Wednesday 24th May 09:43
saaby93 said:
Most drivers dont want to go past a bike too quickly so will slow down to speed match
Do you go out on the bike much?
I'd rather they get past and get on with it.
culpz said:
From what i've read, cycling two abreast is illegal. The Highway Code advises specifically NOT to do this, anyway. I'm not sure of the technicalities associated with it but, either way, it is written as a rule..
Well you need to have another go at that reading lark, because you're quite wrong. Besides, if the HC advises something then it's advice and not a rule, and in any case neither advice or rules are law, they're advice and rules.saaby93 said:
yellowjack said:
It's not the cars that are the issue - it's the morons driving them.
It's a regular thing, on open rural roads (two lanes), where a driver makes a song and dance about being "held up" despite it being so straight and clear ahead that Helen Keller herself could see it. Then, to compound their idiocy, they pull out to overtake and then seem to spend an age speed-matching me. Why? What possible benefit or enjoyment could be derived from maintaining a cyclist's pace while hanging yourself out to dry on the 'wrong' side of the road, alongside said cyclist? FFS, just drop it down a gear, accelerate, and fk off. I don't want you behind me any more than you want to be "stuck" (clue: you probably aren't ) there. Nor do I want you alongside me. Just overtake and have done with it, or wait for a sensible place to overtake. It REALLY isn't that difficult...
It's a regular thing, on open rural roads (two lanes), where a driver makes a song and dance about being "held up" despite it being so straight and clear ahead that Helen Keller herself could see it. Then, to compound their idiocy, they pull out to overtake and then seem to spend an age speed-matching me. Why? What possible benefit or enjoyment could be derived from maintaining a cyclist's pace while hanging yourself out to dry on the 'wrong' side of the road, alongside said cyclist? FFS, just drop it down a gear, accelerate, and f
k off. I don't want you behind me any more than you want to be "stuck" (clue: you probably aren't ) there. Nor do I want you alongside me. Just overtake and have done with it, or wait for a sensible place to overtake. It REALLY isn't that difficult...Most drivers dont want to go past a bike too quickly so will slow down to speed match
Do you go out on the bike much?
Would you 'speed match' a car you were overtaking? Ah! Thought not. Just get the overtake done, and f
k off please. If you have left a safe distance between me and your vehicle your speed becomes far less of an issue. And that switch on the steering column? Knock it up before you pass, there's a good chap. It kinda helps the driver(s) behind you to plan for moving out around something ahead on the road. Simple, basic driving technique really, and far from being rocket science...culpz said:
yellowjack said:
You are a jibbering idiot, and I claim my five pounds.
I don't know what it is you've been reading that even suggests that cycling two-abreast is illegal, but I'd sure like to try some of whatever it is you're smoking...
So where does that leave the copper?I don't know what it is you've been reading that even suggests that cycling two-abreast is illegal, but I'd sure like to try some of whatever it is you're smoking...
P.S. Pipe down you absolute tart
culpz said:
From what i've read, cycling two abreast is illegal. The Highway Code advises specifically NOT to do this, anyway. I'm not sure of the technicalities associated with it but, either way, it is written as a rule.
So, i ask you, how are they in the right here?
If you ask me, this a good example of a copper just doing his job properly and putting a stop to something which is, in fact, illegal and ensuring that no accidents or casualties occur as a result of a couple of cocky, holier-than-though muppets who think that the rules, for some reason, don't apply to them.
Yes, i have certainly been on the receiving end in the past. However, it's unfair to judge all scenarios the same and all Police the same aswell.
If you ask me, the detection and prosecution of drivers committing speeding offences is a good example of coppers just doing their jobs properly and putting a stop to something which is, in fact, illegal and ensuring that no accidents or casualties occur as a result of a literally millions of cocky, holier-than-though muppets who think that the rules, for some reason, don't apply to them...So, i ask you, how are they in the right here?
If you ask me, this a good example of a copper just doing his job properly and putting a stop to something which is, in fact, illegal and ensuring that no accidents or casualties occur as a result of a couple of cocky, holier-than-though muppets who think that the rules, for some reason, don't apply to them.
Yes, i have certainly been on the receiving end in the past. However, it's unfair to judge all scenarios the same and all Police the same aswell.
yellowjack said:
saaby93 said:
yellowjack said:
It's not the cars that are the issue - it's the morons driving them.
It's a regular thing, on open rural roads (two lanes), where a driver makes a song and dance about being "held up" despite it being so straight and clear ahead that Helen Keller herself could see it. Then, to compound their idiocy, they pull out to overtake and then seem to spend an age speed-matching me. Why? What possible benefit or enjoyment could be derived from maintaining a cyclist's pace while hanging yourself out to dry on the 'wrong' side of the road, alongside said cyclist? FFS, just drop it down a gear, accelerate, and fk off. I don't want you behind me any more than you want to be "stuck" (clue: you probably aren't ) there. Nor do I want you alongside me. Just overtake and have done with it, or wait for a sensible place to overtake. It REALLY isn't that difficult...
It's a regular thing, on open rural roads (two lanes), where a driver makes a song and dance about being "held up" despite it being so straight and clear ahead that Helen Keller herself could see it. Then, to compound their idiocy, they pull out to overtake and then seem to spend an age speed-matching me. Why? What possible benefit or enjoyment could be derived from maintaining a cyclist's pace while hanging yourself out to dry on the 'wrong' side of the road, alongside said cyclist? FFS, just drop it down a gear, accelerate, and f
k off. I don't want you behind me any more than you want to be "stuck" (clue: you probably aren't ) there. Nor do I want you alongside me. Just overtake and have done with it, or wait for a sensible place to overtake. It REALLY isn't that difficult...Most drivers dont want to go past a bike too quickly so will slow down to speed match
Do you go out on the bike much?
Would you 'speed match' a car you were overtaking? Ah! Thought not. Just get the overtake done, and f
k off please. If you have left a safe distance between me and your vehicle your speed becomes far less of an issue. And that switch on the steering column? Knock it up before you pass, there's a good chap. It kinda helps the driver(s) behind you to plan for moving out around something ahead on the road. Simple, basic driving technique really, and far from being rocket science...You know I'm only kidding about the miles
Antony Moxey said:
Well you need to have another go at that reading lark, because you're quite wrong. Besides, if the HC advises something then it's advice and not a rule, and in any case neither advice or rules are law, they're advice and rules.
Regardless, i still think the officer was in the right. It may not be illegal but clearly, in this scenario, there was cause for concern that needed addressing.saaby93 said:
Don't decry it. It may be about treating a cyclist as a horse.
You know I'm only kidding about the miles
I get what you're saying.You know I'm only kidding about the miles
But car drivers (much like cyclists, I suppose) fall mainly into one of two camps.
1) The majority, who are not memorable in any way, shape or form. You see them and deal with them at the time, then, because they did absolutely nothing annoying or stupid, you forget about them and move on to the next hazard.
2) The very memorable minority. From the idiot straddling the white line hundreds of yards ahead of a merge point, to the oncoming driver who'll ignore two passing places and try to squeeze past on a single-track road simply because I'm on a bicycle. They do very stupid, dangerous, or simply plain irritating stuff, and three days after you got back from that ride/drive you still remember the incident with some clarity and post it up in the "Knob!" thread on PistonHeads.
But the thing is, I'm not a horse, and I'm not old enough to recall a time before motor vehicles. Therefore they don't tend to startle me unless they tap me on the elbow as they pass. The solution, in my eyes, is simple. Leave me a safe gap as you pass, but pass quickly and go on with your journey. Contrary to popular belief (on here at least) we cyclists (generally) don't delight in, nor deliberately set out to interrupt, delay, or otherwise interfere with other peoples' journeys. There's ALWAYS an element of risk when cars are behind you, especially on rural roads. I'd far rather that you got ahead of me at the earliest SAFE opportunity.
Yesterday, for instance, I HAD to ignore a passing place when a car was behind me. There was a huge (three inch minimum) step down to the passing place as it was not an official, surfaced one, and it was all loose gravel and potholes. If I'd have used it I could potentially have found myself off the bike and under the wheels of the car behind me. I think the driver was a bit grumpy at that because he started being a bit of a dick. But at the next (this time a proper) passing place I moved over, waved him through, and moved back out behind the car without needing to even slow down. I didn't use the first passing place because it wasn't safe, to the point where I'd have been reluctant to drop my car's wheel into it. Apologies if anyone's offended by this statement, but my safety trumps your inconvenience. Every single time.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff