London: police stopping cyclists for not wearing helmets

[661-Pete]

Unfortunately because of the helmet sub-forum, even the CTC Forum has managed to reduce the Police reaction to a run of deaths on London's roads caused by HGVs, to a helmet ghetto just because the Police raised that Red Herring.

I agree. Mods, could this thread please be promoted to the parent forum 'Campaigning and Public Policy'? Because it's not about h*lm*ts at all: it's about this pusillanimous police reaction to the spate of fatalities....

[661-Pete]

Incidentally, a plastic lid weighing around 200 to 300 grams, has just got to be a perfect foil against a lorry weighing upwards of 30 tonnes, hasn't it?

[ArMoRothair]

I wonder what would have happened had I not stopped.
What would they have done?
I could categorically deny that I'd seen them trying to flag me down.

I was a passenger in a Dublin registered car going from Dublin to Antrim in the '80s, in the middle of the hunger strikes. Up in the far distance I could see a single stationary red light, it was like a bicycle's light only it was so faint it looked like it was miles away in the distance. The driver obviously had the same perception and was 'making progress'.

Suddenly one of our back seat passengers screamed at the top of his voice "STOOOOOOOOOP". Luckily the driver didn't query this outburst and just stood on the middle pedal.

As we screeched to a tyre-smoking halt the red light turned out to be a British soldier, in full camo blacked-out face and all, standing in the middle of the road with a tiny hand torch, about the size of a mini-Maglite (the days before halogen or LED bulbs) with a red cover on it, motionless. It was the smallest, most discrete, red light I've ever seen. I have no idea how the lad in the back seat knew what it was but he doubtless saved our lives that night.

Unlike you, I have no doubt what they would have done if we hadn't stopped.

[thirdcrank]

Surely the real story on that page is:

As well as cyclists, 20 HGVs were stopped and 60 offences were found to be committed, including vehicles in dangerous condition and drivers who had been working too long.

3 offences per HGV?

From my perspective, the present situation has been reached through a prolonged reduction in traffic policing, to a point where almost anything goes. The recent surge in casualties has led to a feeling that something must be done. A bunch of school leavers on work experience could advise cyclists that they'd be better off wearing helmets, just so long as somebody was there with a power to stop vehicles.

While any police officer who knows a bit about cars, and armed with a chief officer's authority can do a simple check of a motor car and its documents (which are now on computer record anyway) and they can get support from an expert if something needs proper checking, HGV's and their documentation require much more expertise if the checking is to be done properly. I've no idea of staffing levels in different branches of the Metropolitan Police but I'll confidently suggest that there aren't the suitably qualified staff to make more than a token contribution here. Unfortunately, thirty years of reducing the priority given to traffic policing won't be reversed overnight. The great majority of the people who might once have dealt with this have either retiredwithout being replaced or have been redeployed.

Twenty HGV's stopped? And somebody at the Met thinks that's newsworthy? I don't know whether to or

[thirdcrank]

Jenny Jones has asked for people to contact her if they have been fined for 'not accepting advice'

https://twitter.com/GreenJennyJones/sta ... 8720267264

The fact she has asked supposes she has received some reports of this happening.

It seems the messagewas:

Urgent: If any #cyclists have been fined for not wearing a helmet or not 'accepting advice', please email me asap:

That suggests to me that she's either living on another planet or she's alert to something wrong going on. The first and most obvious point is that it's not an offence not to wear a helmet, on police advice or otherwise. If fixed penalty notices are being issued for this "offence" then the depths of incompetence really are being plumbed. More generally, the police have very wide powers under statute and common waw to direct traffic and if on a specific occasion they directed a rider to eg use a farcility, falling back on the HC might prove futile. (I have heard of Telford.)

[TonyR]

Probably alert to something going wrong (apart from their suggesting a helmet will ward off a marauding HGV). A few months ago the police had to trace and refund FPNs to a large number of cyclists wrongly booked for cycling on a cycle path near SOAS.

[thirdcrank]

... A few months ago the police had to trace and refund FPNs to a large number of cyclists wrongly booked for cycling on a cycle path near SOAS.

I know that. And even though there's a bit in the Magna Carta about not appointing anybody to be a constable without a good knowledge of the law which they are prepared to enforce properly, I can see how it happened. But no helmet

PS
Also, although it's no excuse, I'm prepared to bet that the fiasco to which you refer was a local initiative, ie a reaction by a local sergeant or inspector to being bombarded with complaints, and it was done with no review of the relevant legislation which is old and relatively complicated. However, the police activity we are now discussing is the response to a series of deaths. If there's a chief superintendent fronting it, with others with grades of "commissioner" on their door plate, it really should have been properly thought through, even though it probably involves the nearest thing to panic that is experienced at that level.

[broadway]

It seems the messagewas:

Urgent: If any #cyclists have been fined for not wearing a helmet or not 'accepting advice', please email me asap:

That suggests to me that she's either living on another planet or she's alert to something wrong going on. The first and most obvious point is that it's not an offence not to wear a helmet, on police advice or otherwise. If fixed penalty notices are being issued for this "offence" then the depths of incompetence really are being plumbed. More generally, the police have very wide powers under statute and common waw to direct traffic and if on a specific occasion they directed a rider to eg use a farcility, falling back on the HC might prove futile. (I have heard of Telford.)

The comments say that the report has been revised, originally it read that cyclists were being fined for not wearing a helmet.

[thirdcrank]

... The comments say that the report has been revised, originally it read that cyclists were being fined for not wearing a helmet.

Thanks for that. I hopeit means that the original bit was based only on rumour, although a better planned operation might have anticipated the possibility of misunderstanding.

IMO, none of it changes my basic argument that the issue is one of traffic enforcement being increasingly neglected over the last several decades. We wouldn't be discussing bad driving or bad cycling now, if that had not been the case.

[Mick F]

Just thinking about stopping the traffic ..................
Mrs Mick F used to be the lollipop lady in the village. She did the job for ten years.

It is a fact that there's only two sorts of people who can legally stop the traffic: the police, and lollipop people.
No-one else has the authority to stop the flow of traffic on the Queen's highway.

It's very easy to see a School Crossing Patrol by dint of their "lollipop" and yellow coats, but a copper with a flashlight in a dark uniform on a dark road at night may not be seen at all. Good job that these days they wear reflective clothing and their cars all have flashing blue lights. When I was stopped in my Mini, we didn't even have hazard warning lights as standard!

[thirdcrank]

J It is a fact that there's only two sorts of people who can legally stop the traffic: the police, and lollipop people.
No-one else has the authority to stop the flow of traffic on the Queen's highway....

Except for Highways Agency traffic officers, firefighters at the scene of a fire when no police are present, PCSO's (that's an AFAIK) and traffic wardens, but they don't exist any more. (I'm not suggesting this list is exhaustive - I don't know.)

PS Just remembered: people at roadworks with STOP/GO lollipops.
PPS I'm not suggesting that any of these people can stop cyclists just to extol the virtues of helmets.
PPPS I saee that in the current regs, suitably authorised Fire Brigade personnel can stop traffic full stop. ie not only in the absence of the police. (They keep changing these things while I'm not looking )

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/21/section/44

[Mick F]

Yes, I know that other folk can stop traffic, but it needs planing permission(?) for traffic management stop/go boards etc.
Traffic wardens couldn't legally stop the traffic as far as I remember, and PCSOS didn't exist when she was a Lollipop Lady, neither did the Highways Agency.

Yes, they keep changing the regs whilst we're not looking ............. not only for the better.

There ain't nobody wot can go out on the highway and legally walk out onto the road and stop the traffic BY RIGHT other than the police or their representatives suitably dressed.

Other folk need a reason.
Lollipop Ladies and Gents as part of their job, and I'll concede that the Fire and Emergency Services can do so in an emergency.

[thirdcrank]

I tend to assume that all the people I listed would be doing it as part of their job. The police have no power to direct traffic as a sport or pastime. I suppose the difference with school crossing patrols is that they have no other duties forming part of their job, which was probably why the job was invented ie because the police might be unavailable because of other elements of their job.

I'm not sure why anybody would need planning permission although some of the appointments must be part of a wider plan eg when SXP's are appointed, AFAIK, they are also allocated to a specific crossing: they don't just get the lollipop and togs and then freelance about town looking for schoolchildren to help.

[Mick F]

A policeman on duty on his beat could stand in the road and stop the traffic. AFAIK, this is a part of the powers invested in him to be able to stop the flow of traffic along the highway providing he has good reason - even then, you would have to stop because he has the authority to stop the traffic.
We can all use the highway, but we have no authority to impede the flow of traffic unless we are a policeman/woman.

A council employee with a Stop/Go board needs permission from the council/county highways/planning authority plus date/time/warning boards to go out with his Stop/Go equipment.

An erk with a stop board can stop the traffic, but he would be doing it illegally.

[thirdcrank]

In a probably vain attempt to relate this back to the OP, I'll mention that the police have two statutory powers involving stopping vehicles.

Unders s 35 RTA 1988 it's an offence to fail to comply with police traffic directions (note that this doesn't include a requirement that they should be in uniform, just that it should be in the execution of their duty.)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/35

s 163 of the same act makes it an offence not to stop when driving or cycling on a road when required to do so by a police officer in uniform

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/163

Note that both sections have been amended to include traffic officers as well as police.