'Bike storming' and skateboarding youths welcome in City of London, suggests new police report responding to anti-social behaviour complaints
Far from cracking down on youths cycling and skating in the Square Mile, the report says that the City "is a safer place to spend time in comparison to other London boroughs", and suggests more longer term solutions...
A police response to anti-social behaviour complaints about youths 'bike storming' and skating in London's Square Mile has played down the issue, concluding that the number of reports are low, and that the City is a safer place for youths to take part in their hobbies in a relatively safe environment.
In the report, under the subject 'Responses to Anti-Social Behaviour in the City of London', points 20 through to 27 refer to Skateboarding and ‘Bike Storming’. It says the City of London Corporation and City Police have been working closely to 'proportionately respond' to reports of anti-social behaviour with regards to bike storming and skateboarding; however, it says the number of reports are low:
"Several options have been explored by partners to holistically mitigate the issue", says the report. "However, many of proposed solutions have been compounded by data from the City Police, which indicates that the actual number of reports to the Police regarding ASB [anti-social behaviour] and such activities is very low.
"Additionally, if there is ASB displayed with the skateboarding and cycling activities the age range of many of those 5 participating in those activities limit the use of low-level ASB enforcement powers, such as Community Protection Warnings and Notices and subsequently displacing the issue."
Long-term solutions are suggested to allow youths to cycle and skate in a specific area of the City "to avoid noise complaints"; a skate park in the Square Mile is one of the options being explored.
The report concludes: "We are exploring which are the most effective options to address this issue and aim to provide the best possible outcome for both residents and young people.
"We know young people come to the City for a number of reasons and one of them is that the City is a safer place to spend time in comparison to other London boroughs. As such, children and young people can visit the City to play with a significantly reduced risk of becoming involved in serious criminal activities, both as victims and perpetrators. Rather, they can spend their time taking part in an active hobby which promotes exercise, with many of them considering it a sport."
The response was shared numerous times on social media, with @lastnotlost commenting: "The City provides a safe environment to burn off energy."
Paul Allen added: "Whenever I see Bike Stormz I find it heart warming rather than threatening. A lovely response from the authorities."
'Bike storming' commonly refers to cyclists, often youths, riding bmx and mountain bikes in a large group together. As we've previously reported, the official 'BikeStormz' events are described as "the biggest underground youth movement in the UK" by its creators, with the video above recorded at the 2020 edition. Launched in 2015, the defining message is ‘Knives Down, Bikes Up’, and organisers say they want to turn the riding style – one-handed wheelies, skids and numerous others tricks performed in motion – into a sport in its own right.
BikeStormz 2021 is set to take place on 10th July, and those interested in joining can register on the BikeStormz website. Under 18's must have parental consent to participate.
Help us to fund our site
We’ve noticed you’re using an ad blocker. If you like road.cc, but you don’t like ads, please consider subscribing to the site to support us directly. As a subscriber you can read road.cc ad-free, from as little as £1.99.
If you don’t want to subscribe, please turn your ad blocker off. The revenue from adverts helps to fund our site.
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £1.99. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
Jack has been writing about cycling and multisport for over a decade, arriving at road.cc via 220 Triathlon Magazine in 2017. He worked across all areas of the website including tech, news and video, and also contributed to eBikeTips before being named Editor of road.cc in 2021 (much to his surprise). Jack has been hooked on cycling since his student days, and currently has a Trek 1.2 for winter riding, a beloved Bickerton folding bike for getting around town and an extra beloved custom Ridley Helium SLX for fantasising about going fast in his stable. Jack has never won a bike race, but does have a master's degree in print journalism and two Guinness World Records for pogo sticking (it's a long story).
and yet the parallels are so clearly drawn in AidanR's line of reasoning.
An analogy is an argument from one particular to another particular. It does not say that they are alike in all ways.
In any event, I did not say that we should encourage such things. I could have also drawn the analogy that one man murdering his wife doesn't mean that all husbands are tarnished by that man's actions. Would you also suggest that I'm encouraging men to murder their wives?
and yet the parallels are so clearly drawn in AidanR's line of reasoning.
An analogy is an argument from one particular to another particular. It does not say that they are alike in all ways.
In any event, I did not say that we should encourage such things. I could have also drawn the analogy that one man murdering his wife doesn't mean that all husbands are tarnished by that man's actions. Would you also suggest that I'm encouraging men to murder their wives?
Thanks for removing the ambiguity - for clearly we are not expected to condone nor encourage the activities of murderous husbands.
In each of your three parallel scenarios you argue that the activities of the subject group being deplorable need not reflect on the reputation of the majority.
This only makes sense in so far as we do find the activities of the subject group deplorable, else where is the risk to reputation?
The three parallel examples you give, hoodlums in cars, murderous husbands, and Stormz cyclists.
An analogy is an argument from one particular to another particular. It does not say that they are alike in all ways. In any event, I did not say that we should encourage such things. I could have also drawn the analogy that one man murdering his wife doesn't mean that all husbands are tarnished by that man's actions. Would you also suggest that I'm encouraging men to murder their wives?
Thanks for removing the ambiguity - for clearly we are not expected to condone nor encourage the activities of murderous husbands.
Now you tell me!
Anyone have any good tips for removing blood from carpets?
Thanks for removing the ambiguity - for clearly we are not expected to condone nor encourage the activities of murderous husbands.
In each of your three parallel scenarios you argue that the activities of the subject group being deplorable need not reflect on the reputation of the majority.
This only makes sense in so far as we do find the activities of the subject group deplorable, else where is the risk to reputation?
The three parallel examples you give, hoodlums in cars, murderous husbands, and Stormz cyclists.
The original point was about motorists having a negative view of all cyclists because of the atypical actions of a small subset.
I'm sure that some motorists do find it deplorable - we all know that there are plenty of angry drivers out there. That doesn't mean that everyone finds Stormz cyclists deplorable.
Neither does the analogy stretch from deplorable to dangerous - it is specific to (some) people's perceptions, not to actual threat posed.
What kind of reaction......an accident, calling them out and getting mobbed for doing so, damaging other peoples property, negative attention whilst trying to gain some kind of recognition for performing a wheelie towards oncoming traffic?
I am all for pushing your abilities in your chosen field but the need to get in peoples faces to do so is unnecessary. There is intimidation and that is why most people won't intervene.
We as cyclists are often lambasted for not having insurance or having total disregard for other road users and this behaviour is a complete step backwards. Do it in an area that doesn't involve other road users.
Don't tell I tell 'e, Richard.....
It's annoying, along with all manner of behaviour that emanates from the yoof of today (and yesterday. 'xcept my generation. We had respect).
Only, what realistically can be done, that is proportionate to the annoyance?
What kind of reaction......an accident, calling them out and getting mobbed for doing so, damaging other peoples property, negative attention whilst trying to gain some kind of recognition for performing a wheelie towards oncoming traffic?
I am all for pushing your abilities in your chosen field but the need to get in peoples faces to do so is unnecessary. There is intimidation and that is why most people won't intervene.
We as cyclists are often lambasted for not having insurance or having total disregard for other road users and this behaviour is a complete step backwards. Do it in an area that doesn't involve other road users.
The idea that we could get teenagers to stop acting like assholes is ludicrous. Cycling has nothing to do with it.
Add new comment
44 comments
Don't forget all the air pollutants and the participants not getting exercise.
Is either desirable?
and yet the parallels are so clearly drawn in AidanR's line of reasoning.
An analogy is an argument from one particular to another particular. It does not say that they are alike in all ways.
In any event, I did not say that we should encourage such things. I could have also drawn the analogy that one man murdering his wife doesn't mean that all husbands are tarnished by that man's actions. Would you also suggest that I'm encouraging men to murder their wives?
Thanks for removing the ambiguity - for clearly we are not expected to condone nor encourage the activities of murderous husbands.
In each of your three parallel scenarios you argue that the activities of the subject group being deplorable need not reflect on the reputation of the majority.
This only makes sense in so far as we do find the activities of the subject group deplorable, else where is the risk to reputation?
The three parallel examples you give, hoodlums in cars, murderous husbands, and Stormz cyclists.
Now you tell me!
Anyone have any good tips for removing blood from carpets?
The original point was about motorists having a negative view of all cyclists because of the atypical actions of a small subset.
I'm sure that some motorists do find it deplorable - we all know that there are plenty of angry drivers out there. That doesn't mean that everyone finds Stormz cyclists deplorable.
Neither does the analogy stretch from deplorable to dangerous - it is specific to (some) people's perceptions, not to actual threat posed.
Don't tell I tell 'e, Richard.....
It's annoying, along with all manner of behaviour that emanates from the yoof of today (and yesterday. 'xcept my generation. We had respect).
Only, what realistically can be done, that is proportionate to the annoyance?
The idea that we could get teenagers to stop acting like assholes is ludicrous. Cycling has nothing to do with it.
Kids on bikes, showing off skills.
What's not to like.
Well done City of London police.
And Knives down, Bikes up is never a bad message...
But I'm a Cabby & dun <sic> the knowledge; it's my street. Now even the ol bill are against us!
You forgot road tax! Tell em about road tax!
I'm such a poor driver that I can't afford an electric one & not pay the tax, like those swarmin scoundrels!
Noice!
Pages