[Closed] Head of Met police won't ride in London

It's not the polices job to make the roads safe, that's the job of the local authority. I don't like riding in London either and only did the Boris commute on very quiet back streets.

Fixing the problem on the wider perspective includes fixing bike law breakers IMHO. Just cracking down on car drives will I'm sure, highlight transgresions on bikes.

If drives see bikes behaving, attitudes may actually change.

Its an easily trotted out saying but we are all part of the problem and at the same time, all part of the solution....

Jambalaya you sure about that?

Why do my local force always promote road safety as a big part of every campaign?

Why do all the lectures given to drivers on police, camera, interceptor smash tv focus on the safety of others and the driver?

What is a safety camera partnership?

Roads may be craply designed but safety is ultimately a matter of user behaviour (motorised and not).

Illegal and dangerous use is a matter for policing not the local authority...

The local authority needs to improve design yes but poor design does not have to equate to road deaths.

Don't blame the police. They're having their budgets and numbers cut repeatedly and London's a fairly busy place as far as crime goes. It almost rivals Sandford in the levels of crime.

Tom KP

rickmeister - Member

If drives see bikes behaving, attitudes may actually change.

they really won't.

Don't blame the police. They're having their budgets and numbers cut repeatedly

Fixing the problem on the wider perspective includes fixing bike law breakers IMHO. Just cracking down on car drives will I'm sure, highlight transgresions on bikes.

If drives see bikes behaving, attitudes may actually change.

Its an easily trotted out saying but we are all part of the problem and at the same time, all part of the solution....

Oh, behave.

Look at the casualty stats and give up on the trite soundbites.

I'm not a fan of any urban riding, so hats of to all you city commuters not sure I could do it day in day out. Not sure how many police you'd need to deal with all the minor traffic offences and inconsiderate driving you mention !!!! But people are prosecuted for all those things.

We are talking about the Met their sole response to cycle deaths has been to target cyclists . Officers were given instructions to issue set numbers of tickets to cyclists at particular junctions. I am reasonably confident that most drivers do not see cyclists as getting away with stuff and therefore decided to drive badly themselves . Most bad drivers drive badly because they are careless and badly trained and can continue to do without real sanction so form the view that bad driving is acceptable .

rickmeister - Member

Fixing the problem on the wider perspective includes fixing bike law breakers IMHO. Just cracking down on car drives will I'm sure, highlight transgresions on bikes.

If drives see bikes behaving, attitudes may actually change.

Its an easily trotted out saying but we are all part of the problem and at the same time, all part of the solution....

People in cars don't dislike cyclists because they are law breakers. That's the excuse they use for bullying people on bikes. They dislike cyclists because they're not in cars and they act aggressively towards them because they can.

The only thing that will change drivers attitudes to cyclists is having their kids, wife or other close family member a participating cyclist.
My opinion anyway.

The only thing that will change drivers attitudes to cyclists is having their kids, wife or other close family member a participating cyclist.

There's a good deal of truth in that, which is why we're stuck in a vicious circle until we get a good amount of high-quality infrastructure.

As for the police, in many ways they're like an army: directed by political priorities (and democratic demands via PCCs etc) rather than their own autonomy. The Met in particular does have a questionable history of tactics in response to cycling KSIs, though, and while many officers do appear to have the public's best interests at heart, there's a great deal of received wisdom that is propagated unchallenged.

Give up now on the idea of "if everyone in bicycles behaves, everyone not on a bicycle will love them". Two reasons: 1. people on bicycles are people, and as such they will never all behave, and 2. even if they did, people not on bicycles are people, and as such they will never all love everyone. Hopes and dreams of mutual respect (or even just hopes and dreams of an understanding of [url= https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/laws-whos-breaking-what/ ]mutual bad behaviour[/url]) are to be filed in the well-stuffed box marked "never going to work".

taxi25 - Member
...Not sure how many police you'd need to deal with all the minor traffic offences and inconsiderate driving you mention !!!! But people are [u]occasionally[/u] prosecuted for all those things.

every day i see dozens of drivers:

texting
checking facebook
speeding
running red lights
running red lights whilst speeding and checking facebook
etc.

never see anything done about it.

I think he's a big sissy.

I love riding in London. Can't remember the last time I ever felt threatened. More often than not I end up thanking a (usually professional) driver for their consideration. Riding in London has got substantially better over the last 18 years Ive been doing it.

I guess it's what you're used to. I've been riding on the road for about 25 years and I won't ride in London, it's just horrible.

Why should he have to ride in London? What if he's not that into bikes? Every decision people take should be based on risk V reward. If your into cycling on roads then whatever the risk is of riding in London (I don't know as I have never lived there) it may be a risk worth taking. If your not that bothered then maybe you leave it and get on the tube like countless others.

Why should he have to ride in London? What if he's not that into bikes?

I can't recall Hogan-Howe's exact comments, but Davenport's clearly relate to the risks rather than to a lack of desire. I don't think anyone's asked the police chiefs whether they'd convert their current commuting miles to cycling in the long term, they've asked questions that basically amount to whether they'd be prepared to face the risks involved.

It's not about being "into bikes". Ask me if I'd be prepared to travel by bus in London and I'd say yes, because I think it's safe. Would I want to? No, I hate buses. But as a form of transport, it's something that enables travel for anyone of any age, whether or not they're "into buses".

That's not the case with cycling in London: It enables travel only for the fit, the brave and the reckless.

[quote="Bez"]there's a great deal of received wisdom that is propagated unchallenged.

Yep. And this "wisdom" often stems from an entrenched, narrow and deeply conservative world view.

So the head of the Met won't ride in London. Of course he won't. He's a "normal". "Normal" people drive cars. Because it's dangerous on the roads, you know. These bloody cyclists want their heads testing. They get knocked off their bikes, then they expect us to come along and do something about it.

See also:

"Well, you [i]must[/i] have been asking for it, love"
"Oi oi smiler. What are you doing in this fancy motor car, then?"
"Bunch of unwashed layabouts should put down their placards and go and get a job"

etc

Riding in central London isn't so bad so long as you're reasonably aware of what you're doing, the dangerous bits are the suburbs where it seems there's just enough space on the road to allow people to drive like a dicks.

Yep. And this "wisdom" often stems from an entrenched, narrow and deeply conservative world view.
(snip)

Yes, partly the narrow perspectives and borderline bigotry; but also the belief that certain interventions make a substantive difference to safety/danger, when there is little or no supporting evidence (or even evidence to the opposite effect); and the focus on (say) casualty rates in ignorance of things like participation rates, losing sight of normalized rates and side effects on health and congestion.

Why should he have to ride in London? What if he's not that into bikes? Every decision people take should be based on risk V reward.

Cycling to work shouldn't be about risk v reward, it's about feeling safe enough to use a cheap, healthy, congestion free mode of transport. My girlfriend hates getting the tube but for her to cycle to work it would be almost entirely mixed with traffic on busy roads and she doesn't feel safe enough to do it.

Why should he have to ride in London?

Why should he have to ride in London? What if he's not that into bikes? Every decision people take should be based on risk V reward.

Cycling shouldn't be so risky that most people opt out all together.

Or, it shouldn't be [i]perceived to be[/i] so risky.

Getting rid of those unsafe road users is part of his job!

Maybe so but that still doesn't mean he has to ride if he doesn't want to does it. It doesn't say anything quantitatively about the risk involved either.

For example I'm happy to ride down the side of an Alpe as fast as I can or jump out of an aeroplane because I really love it - I'm sure its quite risky. Id also quite like to have a go at track cycling - but not enough to actually do it. I'm sure its less risky but I'm just not as bothered about it...there's a tiny chance I could brake a wrist but that would stop me mountain biking for ages.

Look at the casualty stats and give up on the trite soundbites.

I have, the trend is decreasing.

What a baby. I think its shocking that a senior policeman is that risk adverse. I hardly think cycling round London is that shockingly dangerous; 27 years cycling round town, and never had a scrape.

Probably shows why the police are so ludicrously risk adverse.

Hogan-Howe as quoted by [url= http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3929028.ece ]The Times[/url]:

[i]"I’ve never been a big bike rider anyway but it seems to be that if you get it wrong, or the driver gets it wrong, the person that’s going to pay is the cyclist. It seems to me that there’s a lot of traffic and personally I wouldn’t [cycle]. Some people, they’ve got limited money and they can’t pay for public transport. I understand why they take the choice. It wouldn’t be mine."[/i]

[url= https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/hogan-howes-comments-and-social-attitudes-to-cycling/ ]Mark Treasure covers his comments in more detail.[/url]

He's less explicit than Davenport about it being "too risky", but I think it's reasonably clear that his view is that it's too dangerous for him to choose to cycle: some of his comments are specifically around the hypothetical (for him) scenario of having travel options limited by economic necessity, where he still wouldn't choose cycling.

It really wasn't about whether he loves the smell of WD-40 in the morning. It's about whether he thought it was safe.

Maybe so but that still doesn't mean he has to ride if he doesn't want to does it.

Of course there is danger - its a capital city
Perhaps London is less safe than other cities.... Im sure it is but there will always be some danger in a big city. Iv Ridden around Paris - that was a hair raising experience

you seem to be intentionally missing the point...

There's nothing inherently dangerous about cycling.

Ever been to The Netherlands? (it's brilliant btw, i can thoroughly recommend it) it's simply inconceivable that a policeman would say they didn't feel safe cycling around Rotterdam.

Which, btw, looks like this:

[img] [/img]

(big, busy, and crowded, despite this, cycling around it is a piece of cake)

if people are scared of cycling in Britain's cities, it's a statement about [u]our[/u] infrastructure and attitude, not the intrinsic dangers of cycling.

Of course there is danger - its a capital city
Perhaps London is less safe than other cities.... Im sure it is but there will always be some danger in a big city. Iv Ridden around Paris - that was a hair raising experience

Paris is, broadly, just another capital city. Try Amsterdam or Copenhagen.

I have tried Amsterdam - very pleasant
London will never be Amsterdam

Look at the casualty stats and give up on the trite soundbites.
>

GOV.UK "https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/358042/rrcgb2013-02.pdf"

I have, the trend is decreasing.

The trend of cyclists being KSI'd on the road? Yes, the data shows a huge decrease from the 1920s, and I'll bet this is largely due to a decrease in cycling participation, and an increase in traffic management, ie traffic lights etc.

I think the important statistic for our debate is the Contributing Factors table, which shows that most cyclist KSIs happen because ANOTHER road user "failed to look properly".

Your point about cyclists having to behave better does not address this fact. When people talk about cyclist behaviour as a contributing factor, they are making the mistake of addressing a minor cause of cyclist KSIs, while ignoring the major cause, which is big, heavy vehicles on the roads, being driven by people who don't always drive with due care.

London will never be Amsterdam

Care to justify this commonly-cited canard? Tip: you can avoid wasted effort if you avoid bringing up any of these flawed points:

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/all-those-myths-and-excuses-in-one-post.html

London will never be Amsterdam

Care to justify this commonly-cited canard?

No - but I'll have you a bet if you like

No - but I'll have you a bet if you like

Let's wind the clock back ten years and have some imaginary bets on the Victoria Embankment being ripped up and half converted to a wide, dedicated cycleway.

(Or let's wind it back 50 years and take bets on what Amsterdam would be like.)

So the Head of the Metropolitan Police refuses to ride a bike in London because he considers it too dangerous, and the roads policing lead for the National Police Chiefs' Council won't do it because "there are too many risks."

I wouldn't cycle in town either if I had the use of Private Hire Cabs FOC.. 😆

Sorry I make a rule of never betting against things that have already happened....you nearly had me there you little ripper!

I'll refer you back to [url= http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/220-fine-for-no-lights/page/2#post-7256704 ]this post[/url].

People in cars don't dislike cyclists because they are law breakers. That's the excuse they use for bullying people on bikes. They dislike cyclists because they're not in cars and they act aggressively towards them because they can.

this + thousands. You'll notice the aggression from drivers is present however you're riding - you get grief for stopping at red lights too IME!
Have you ever tried debating cycling with someone who's anti? They won't budge however many figures you put to them about the overall legal behaviour of people on bikes and the very widespread illegal behaviour of people in cars. They don't want to adapt to the increase in numbers of people riding, they want them to go away... being aggressive is a lame attempt at making this happen.

Riding in central London isn't so bad so long as you're reasonably aware of what you're doing, the dangerous bits are the suburbs where it seems there's just enough space on the road to allow people to drive like a dicks.

This too - the Policemen are talking absolute rot about central London - the traffic is mainly at a standstill or under 20mph from sheer congestion. Get out into Beckenham and Bromley and the driving is faster and much much more aggressive IME.

On a positive note, I was out on a club run yesterday for the first time since June after breaking my wrist. 50 miles over 4 hours. We got a couple of close passes, one mindless leaning on a horn and countless holding backs/wide passes. IME the vast majority of drivers are growing up and learning to cope with the increase in numbers of people riding...

Davenport's clearly relate to the risks rather than to a lack of desire. I don't think anyone's asked the police chiefs whether they'd convert their current commuting miles to cycling in the long term, they've asked questions that basically amount to whether they'd be prepared to face the risks involved.

What a baby. I think its shocking that a senior policeman is that risk adverse. I hardly think cycling round London is that shockingly dangerous; 27 years cycling round town, and never had a scrape.

Probably shows why the police are so ludicrously risk adverse.

Next door neighbour has been a traffic cop for many years. After seeing many times that bigger cars give you a better chance of surviving crashes he is somewhat tied into getting large Volvos/BMWs for his family. Sure it happens with all professions - sure some of the paramedics on here will be risk averse to certain situations. My ex-fireman pal is paranoid about finding emergency exit routes in hotels when he stays away, for example. All the IT bods on here are probably paranoid about security breaches that nobody cares about (until obviously something happens to them...).

Your exposure to certain situations will inevitably infuence your decision making.

Indeed: Davenport made that point explicitly.

Don't blame him, it's bad enough driving anywhere these days let alone cycling!

There are too many ****wits in general on the roads these days and that includes all forms of transport. Standards of road users in this country have been going downhill for ages so its only going to get worse.

I ride 200km+ a week in London and the standards of driving is piss poor and downright dangerous at times.

Whether drivers are becoming more incompetent, more distracted by hand held cellular devices, or have realised that the chances of getting caught by an ever thinner blue line as police cutbacks, especially traffic police, become evident on the streets; I could not say?

Yes I see plenty of cyclists running red lights, on the pavement, riding at night without lights but bicycles do not require licenses or a competency test so that is another topic for a different argument.