Metropolitan Police officers told to fine 10 cyclists a month

Dont know about targets - but Norwich cyclists will be targeted over the month of December 1-21st though issued with 'warnings' due to a significant rise in cycle accidents in recent months. Then in Jan, wk beg 13th it will be same again but £30 fines.
No mention of same treatment for other road users but the communication was an internal work one aimed at staff commuting by bicycle as a tip off - cant see anything in local policing websites yet.

Targets are used by lazy managers in lazy organisations.

The outcomes results in "gamed" figures or moving a problem onto someone else.

The part of this I find the most concerning is the simplistic message from the senior plod.

Everytime someone in the UK in a position of authority pops up at the moment it seems to highlights how incompetent they are.

Why have targets at all for anything. It skues the law in reality. I am a great believer in if you offend then suffer the consequences when you're caught. Its black and white in the veiw of an officer for something like booking a speeding car but poor standards of cycling could easily be challenged.

ANY quota for ticketing, no matter who it is aimed at, is a bad idea.

The Met trying to save face and claiming it was juniors who misinterpreted? Never happened before has it? It has and frequently with regard to photographers going about their business. Loads of meetings with top brass placating and it still went on... until the law was changed.

good point fluffykittenoff. Mind you if Mitchell had not been a complete "pleb" himself it wouldn't have happened, but i agree that the cops that lied should be disciplined, there was no need for it at all and all it has done is give bad publicity to the Police, but i digress sorry.

oozaveared - not nit picking here but mrmo was nearly taken out by a coach not a cop also i would never say i saw something when i didn't, i have a mortgage, wife and 2 kids to think about and they are far more important than lying over a poxy public order offence.

Cant speak for others though - plebgate springs to mind

cyclingDMlondon "I have read the ruling, and I am a solicitor. If the offence is 'made out' by the presence of other people, then the appeal would have been found differently. Nor would that be relevant, because the point is that swearing at a police officer is not an offence.

Sorry, but if you think that the utterance of a word which is arbitrarily considered to be 'a swear word' justifies deprivation of liberty, then it *does* show that you have a thin skin, and that you consider yourself in some way 'special'. You aren't - and this has nothing whatsoever to do with any lack of respect for the police on my part. "

I never said swearing at a Police officer was an offence - i said sect 5 Poa was an offence and on the part of mrmo (sorry dont mean to drag you into this) he was surrounded by ordinary members of the public so the offence would have been made out and i would have arrested him. In the Harvey - DPP case it was decided that the people around him (other members of his group) would be used to Harvey swearing and they would not be harrassed etc etc, so the appeal was allowed. It does not say anything other.

I'm not special nor do i have a thin skin but coming from the alleged background you claim i find it nigh on impossible to believe that you are happy with people openly swearing in public as though its just normal and acceptable behaviour, also where does the death penalty for murders come from when the article is about fining cyclists . As for sect 5 poa i have locked up numerous people for this offence and none have got off with it. But lets call it a halt here mate as its nothing to do with the article.

cyclingDMlondon - sect 5 public order act - using foul and abusive language in a public place and i dont do this job to be sworn at.

Also if you think telling a Police officer to F off is being cheeky god help this country.

All this does rather beg the question as to whether the traffic police have bothered to read DfT data collated from police reports on the causes of deaths and injuries on London's roads.

Yes, some people do ride like knobs and that definitely includes the jerk on the road bike I overtook on my mountain bike the other day who started to move left into my lane without bothering to look first, nearly taking us both out. But even so, if you look at the casualty statistics the numbers of injuries caused by cyclists are very low indeed. Compare that with the number of deaths and serious injuries caused by motor vehicle drivers.

You'd think the traffic police, more than anyone, would understand that basic fact. Cracking down on bad cycling simply avoids the real problem.

Why does everything the Met does make me think of The Thick of It ??

The article title intones more of a bias than there is….I am guessing that there are targets for other crimes, including traffic offences by all road users. In fact the article says that the Chief Inspector did clarify this wasn't just aimed at cyclists. But I would imagine that they are under pressure to enforce the road rules for cyclists at this point in time after the high press coverage.

Quote:

“The e-mail from the inspector was a genuine misinterpretation of my direction,”

A pathetic attempt at trying to weasel his way out of the situation.

I'd have far more respect for him if he had the balls to simply say "yes, I have told my officers to target cyclists because I think there's a need to".

Almost beyond belief, if it weren't for all the "plebgate" stuff!

Thank you Theresa May, Edmund King & Chris Boardman. Can you three run the Met traffic division for us please?!

It's not just London that this happens in. My own local police force would regularly organise massive operations to target cyclists whilst ignoring all motorists committing the very same offences right in front of them. I saw one officer using a mobile phone while driving too.

Common sense from AA president Edmund King ... “In terms of traffic policing, we do not think there should be targets for cyclists or drivers. It should be about targeting the most dangerous people on the road, irrespective of some arbitrary target."

Sad state of affairs when the police's 'focus' is on issuing tickets, whoever the recipient.

Call me old fashioned but I want a police force who just look out for the public and protect us from lawless and irresponsible behaviour when it happens.

Yet again...

David Bowie - "Life on Mars"

Take a look at the lawman
Beating up the wrong guy

Congratulations to the Met decision makers for joining the we hate cycles brigade. What happened to fairness and transparency? Or is that just when it suits your personal selfish needs.
Remind me why did you join the police service?????

Well done the Police, well done

should we not take some heart from the fact officers lower in the ranks questioned the initiative and then leaked it?

Even if it's a genuine case of chinese whispers - the very fact the Inspector was happy writing that email to his subordinates clearly means he saw it as reasonable - or else he would have double checked

Said it before and will say it again - plod has no interest in making the roads safe, just in a good arrest/case resolution record

Not sure which I find more depressing -- the idiocy of the quota or the use of the phrase "cascade this to your troops".

Shocking.

But then I'm not surprised.

"All, can you please cascade this onto your troops"

Even his use of English is offensive, 'cascade' as a verb, I ask you.

Great so not only do we have to look out for all the dangers normally associated with riding in London we also have to be extra vigilant looking for trigger happy police. I think that the police should have to ride at least once a month in London rush hour to realise just why cyclists make the decisions they do. I'm sure there are certain things I do which are not breaking the law but would in some eyes constitute a fine! Banging on the roofs of cars that cut me up is one!