- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Metropolitan Police.jpgPolice in West London fine cyclists for using mobiles – but say no resources to target drivers using handheld phones at wheel
Police in Chiswick, West London, have said they have fined cyclists in the area for using mobile phones while driving, but admit they lack resources to target motorists using handheld devices illegally at the wheel.
While there is no specific offence of using a mobile phone while riding a bike, it may be dealt with under the heading of careless cycling.
Using a handheld device while at the wheel is a specific offence, although harsher punishments introduced almost a year ago, with a fine of £200 and six penalty points, are failing to deter a huge number of motorists from breaking the law, with the RAC last year estimating that 9 million drivers were doing so.
> Up to 9 million drivers using mobile phones at wheel, according to RAC
Officers from the Metropolitan Police revealed last week at a meeting of the Chiswick Area Forum that they had been targeting cyclists using mobile phones under Operation Safeway – the controversial road safety campaign introduced in late 2014 after six cyclists were killed in the capital in the space of a fortnight – and that fines had been issued.
Among those present at the meeting last Tuesday, hosted by Hounslow Borough Council and which brings together councillors, police and local residents every two months, was Ruth Mayorcas, a cycling campaigner and Labour candidate for the Turnham Green ward in the forthcoming local elections.
Aged 64, she has lived locally for more than 40 years, and told road.cc that news of the cyclists being fined was greeted by “a general murmur of approval from the audience.”
The area has seen some anti-cyclist sentiment recently due to a small but vociferous group of opponents to Mayor Sadiq Khan’s plans for Cycle Superhighway 9, unveiled last year, which will run along Chiswick High Road on its way from Kensington Olympia to Brentford.
At the meeting, Mayorcas asked police whether they would be targeting drivers who were using their mobile phones while queueing in traffic on Wellesley Road, but was told no patrol car was available.
Asking whether an officer on a bike might be deployed instead, she was informed that funding had been withdrawn and there was therefore no such officer available.
She also received a non-committal response to her request for a close pass initiative to be introduced in the borough, which she pointed out had met with success in neighbouring Ealing as well as the West Midlands, where the initiative originated.
During the meeting, local restaurant owner David Lesniak – an opponent of the planned Cycle Superhighway 9 who has likened it to a “speedway” – asked police if they would target people riding bikes on the pavement
In response, Mayorcas pointed out to the meeting that the location that Lesniak was most concerned about was one where cyclists took to the pavement because it was dangerous to cycle on the road there.
While fixed penalty notices were introduced for that offence in 1999, official guidance laid down by Paul Boateng, a home office minister at the time, was that “The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so.
“Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.”
That guidance was reaffirmed in 2014 by former transport minister Robert Goodwill and by the Association of Chief Police Officers.
> Transport minister: Responsible cyclists CAN ride on the pavement
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- mark1a 5 sec ago
There is no solar version of the Edge 1050.
- Jimthebikeguy.com 1 hour 33 min ago
Try and get rid of the negative associations around carbon and pressfit. Carbon frames are no more troublesome than metal, and pressfit is no more...
- r32hoo 5 hours 52 min ago
The first generation CHPT3 items made in concert with Castelli were fantastic quality, and when purchased on sale were a reasonable investment. I...
- David9694 9 hours 1 min ago
Theres not one scrap of self-help among drivers is there, it's always someone else's issue.
- Simon E 9 hours 49 min ago
Oh dear. A single bike in a single size in one shop is not indicative of the entire UK market for bicycles. And the slump isn't just bikes, it's...
- hawkinspeter 12 hours 41 min ago
Ridiculed or is it just jealousy?
- Rendel Harris 13 hours 7 min ago
Thank goodness for that. I don't suppose anyone would want you to. You certainly behave like one though.
- Eton Rifle 13 hours 15 min ago
You do see some utterly ridiculous examples of car use....
- Eton Rifle 13 hours 37 min ago
Exactly. Every road death is a tragedy but this is at the "twat deserved it" end of the spectrum, looking at the state of that car.
- Rendel Harris 13 hours 45 min ago
I'm not the editor of this article, nor indeed of anything on this website. One would have thought that didn't require explaining.
Add new comment
32 comments
If they target one but not the other then they're discriminating, regardless of having no resources according to them. They could have officers out actively looking for offending drivers and recording number plate details etc.
One rule for motorists another for cyclists by the sounds of their approach.
maybe they should speak to their colleagues in Suffolk & Norfolk who were shocked, shocked I tell you, that they caught 122 drivers using their mobile phones in Suffolk in one week https://www.suffolk.police.uk/news/latest-news/22-01-2018/operation-ring...
whilst the same operation just across the border in Norfolk running at the same time with the same blanket publicity they were doing it caught another 121 https://www.norfolk.police.uk/news/latest-news/22-01-2018/op-ringtone-ja...
thats nearly 50,000 pounds in just fines collected in one week, and doesnt include those who went to magistrate courts,and ended up, youd suspect paying higher fines, and court costs.
While I do think it's a bit stupid using a phone while cycling, it's pretty heavy handed by the police, surely stopping them and reminding them of this fact would be sufficient, rather than targetting a group of people unlikely to cause much damage. And as for not having resources to target drivers using phones, surely standing by the side of most moderately busy roads with a camera would do the trick, at £200 per driver caught surely it would pay for itself?
I can see why many are annoyed, especially when it isn’t a specific offense, whilst motorists are banned from using phones. On the other side of the coin, I see cyclists riding round Cambridge while using phones with both hands, often without lights while riding on shared use pavements that aren’t wide enough.
Adjusting a car stereo is not a specific offense, much the same as a cyclist with a phone, but it can be considered careless if it causes loss of control. Of course drivers adjusting the radio too much are unlikely to be spotted and unlikely to be challenged by police, but it can be seen as a contributory factor in an investigation.
What really bugs me about this is that there is no law against cyclists using mobile phones.
It'd be interesting if some of those cyclists contested the fines as surely "careless cycling" is purely subjective. If they didn't cause any harm to anyone and stopped when asked by the police, then I would think that they are cycling carefully and the police have no remit to stop them.
Presumably it would be the same as for careless driving:
"Driving that falls below the standard expected of a competent driver; or. Driving that does not show reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or pathways."
So surely if you asked a group of cyclists and the majority replied, "Meh!" then its not careless cycling... Isn't that pretty much how careless and dangerous driving are worked out, even before a jury?
There's a world of difference between a court case judging blame for a road traffic incident and a policeman just stopping cyclists because they've got nothing better to do.
I'd think that a cyclist that causes an incident should probably be found guilty of careless cycling, but a cyclist that remains in control of their bike (one handed) whilst also using a phone is probably fine. The thing is that if a cyclist doesn't remain in control of their vehicle, then it's typically the cyclist that ends up getting hurt.
I agree
(I thought that was what I was saying...).
Why not just stop and make the call?
I would rather A&E resources are not wasted on sorting out wholly avoidable accidents; it's not consequence free as your post suggests.
Yes, stopping to make a call is the definitely the best bet.
I'm not sure about all the A&E resources wasted on these accidents - I've never seen a cyclist fall off whilst using a phone. How many have you seen or know about?
Well you did say it's the cyclist getting hurt in your original post, which is what I responded to.
It's not sensible though is it and if motorists see us doing it - then they think - why not...
It just normalises the whole thing.
It's a bit like the excuse of using the phone when a car is stationary - so its fine to do it when you're stopped - and then if someone pulls up on your inside - you haven't seen them as you were twittering.
And if its OK to use a phone when stopped - what about in slow traffic - oops - its speeded up again and I've not finished my tweet....
It'd be easier all round if they said drivers put the phone in the glove box and only then can you drive. Nice and clearcut. No temptation. It would save lives.
If motorists think "why not" after seeing pedestrains/cyclists doing something, then they should be stripped of their license. There is a very good reason why there are different laws governing motor vehicles and any motorist that doesn't understand that should give their keys to someone else.
I am not going to be held responsible for the actions of motorists that have seen me doing something on my bike that isn't appropriate to do whilst in control of a motorised vehicle.
Really though? Do you honestly think 'seeing cyclists do it' is in any sense a non-negligable part of what causes motorists to do it? Are they also influenced by seeing pedestrians on the phone?
They do it because they know that the odds are massively in favour of getting away with it.
It's already 'normalised', by motorists doing it. Cyclists don't add anything measurable to that.
Indeed, itdi be interesting to have someone challenge one of this tickets in court with a properly funded QC, needs a crowd funding page
Mayorcas asked police whether they would be targeting drivers who were using their mobile phones while queueing in traffic on Wellesley Road, but was told no patrol car was available.
Sitting in a car isn't a very good way of catching drivers on their phones. You will queue with them, and only see one driver ahead, behind or to the side. By cycling or walking, you go past the queue of traffic, and see them.
TBH, I don't really care about drivers looking at phones whilst stationary.
You can watch the self-appointed motorbike police staring through drivers windows with helmet cams and shouting 'phone, 6 points' if that entertains you but if they put it down before they move, I don't see too much of a problem. I even watched one where some tosser on a motorbike was going on about people in a tailback being on phones. Yeah, 2 mile tailback, instead of enjoying your motorbike get out clause, you're crawling along side cars looking for phone users to cry about for 'motomadness' or whatever.
Except they rarely put the phone down as they move forward the next 10 yards and drift out of their lane as you are filtering.
It's not about where the phone is being used whilst in control of a vehicle, it's about bring about behaviour and mindset change such that drivers become conditioned to not use a phone at all if they are behind the wheel. If you allow phone usage under certain conditions it blurs the lines between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable it's harder for behaviour change to happen.
Unless you have filtered to the ASL and they haven't realised you are there when they suddenly move forward at at speed...
As long as they actually *stay* stationary. But inevitably they glance up, realise the traffic's moved, and drive off without looking.
And I'd be willing to bet that most people that look at their phone when the car has stopped in traffic also do it while the car is moving.
Get a sodding hands-free kit. Or better yet, don't use your phone. End of.
Under the 'pecking order' approach, the police should be targeting drivers of HGVs ... more than ... drivers of LGVs ... more than ... drivers of cars ... more than ... riders of bikes using mobile phones.
There can be no sensible argument against this approach. The police should be told to produce figures showing that they are doing this. A careless driver of a truck poses far more danger than a careless rider of a bicycle.
Pleased I can't afford to live in Chisick.
To be fair plod are busy, they have to falsify evidence in a fixie versus pedestrian case...
Waiting for police to come up with some stats on distracted cycling incidents specifically whilst operating a mobile phone to justify the 'careless' cycling BS
Plod have no business sticking their oar in for something that endangers no-one but the person they are threatening extortion/penalise. They have sworn an oath to keep the peace so as none has being broken and with zero evidence that the action does damage/harms others over and above what society is seemingly allowed to do they can jog on.
Additionally there is (yet again) clear discrimination/bias in the application of how they are treating certain people in society, in this case a sub group of road users which breaches their sworn oath. Targetting those that do very little harm in the grand scheme of things and certainly less so than those that are factually known to cause massive amounts of harm directly and indirectly including thousands of deaths. Nice one scum bags!
Plod are nothing more than unlawful policy enforcers to extort penalties from citizens doing no harm. I do not give you consent wankers.
Is "careless driving" something where the police can just pull over a car and
extort spot fine the driver? I thought it had to go to court.So presumably the Met can't just spot fine a cyclist for an act which isn't even an offence but might be careless, depending. I guess it's easier for a constable to just stick their arm out and stop a cyclist, though: if it was a motorist, then they'd have to chase them and they've said they don't have the resources for that...
It occurs to me, though: if a cyclist is happily using their phone while riding one-handed in a safe and controlled manner, and then a policeman steps out and puts an arm out and only then does the cyclist lose control and (perhaps) come off, doesn't that make the policeman a contributory factor? 'Elf 'n' Safety, innit?
The first duty of a police officer is the safety of the public. Or not, if it's drivers causing the danger.
We need a few more police officers out of their cars and on bikes.
Thank you Ruth, and could all the keyboard warriors do what she did and actually do something?
If they target cyclist but not motorists, then this is possible discriminatory and as such probably illegal as it's not a balanced approach to policing.
By this logic this would rule out the close pass policing too ?
By all means police cyclists on phones. Drivers will probably think they're in the frame too.
Right-on, man.
Is there anywhere people like you don't see discrimination?
So the police are targeting the ones a danger to themselves rather the ones a danger to others...
Pages