A cyclist who complained to the police after he was mistakenly pulled over by an officer for “using a mobile phone” while riding on the road – when, in fact, the cyclist was attempting to save footage of a close pass from a lorry driver on his bike camera – was later told that, while there is no specific offence for using an electronic device while riding a bike, his actions could still be deemed “careless and inconsiderate”.

During the incident, after stopping the cyclist the officer erroneously argued that it was illegal to use a phone or electronic device while cycling, telling the rider to “look it up”, said that he would have received a ticket – or been arrested or charged – had she not been on her own, and advised him that not wearing a helmet or hi-vis clothing could lead to him getting “killed or smushed”.

Aberdeen-based cyclist Liam was riding a bike fitted with a cargo trailer, loaded with recycling material, on the city’s Berryden Road when he was close passed by a lorry driver, footage of which the cyclist posted on X, formerly Twitter, this week.

“You can clearly see from the footage how close it was to my bike, so it was even closer to my wider trailer,” Liam told road.cc.

“I was trying to navigate the rough road but a bit further on, once I’d pulled over into the correct lane for going round the roundabout to enter Sainsbury’s, I had a second to press the button on my Cycliq Fly 12 to prevent the video footage from being overwritten.”

However, that brief action led to him being pulled over by a lone female police officer shortly after the roundabout for “playing with something” on his bike.

“As I was exiting the roundabout I heard a siren, looked behind me and saw a police car following me,” Liam says.

“I didn’t think it was for me but I pulled over to let it past, but it pulled in behind me. The officer asked me if I knew why she had pulled me over. My first thought was there was an issue with the trailer or a strap had come loose or something.

“She then proceeded to tell me it was because I was using my mobile phone whilst cycling. I couldn’t believe what she was saying until I realised it was about the camera.”

In the video of the incident posted to X, the officer can be heard saying: “Do you know why I stopped you? I’m on my own and I’m on my way to a job, so you’re not getting a ticket, but I saw you on your phone… You were playing with something on the front of your bike – you need to be concentrating on the road as much as everyone else.”

After being informed by the “dumbfounded” cyclist that his phone was in his pocket and that he had instead pressed a button on his camera, the officer replied: “Don’t start pointing in my face. I’m here to give you a bit of safety advice – you’re also not wearing a helmet, with no hi-vis on. Do you want to get killed and smushed?”

Liam then pointed out to the officer that there is no law requiring the wearing of helmets or hi-vis, to which she replied: “And that’s why you’re not getting arrested or charged. I’m trying to give you a bit of safety advice. You need to take care of yourself – you should be wearing a helmet and hi-vis.

“It’s safety advice, so you don’t get injured when you’re cycling on the road. I’m not saying it’s a requirement, but in order to be safe on the road you should be wearing a helmet and hi-vis, and concentrating on the road, and not looking down at a camera.”

Liam, who was again accused of “wagging” his finger at the officer, also asked if she had witnessed the close pass committed by the lorry driver, arguing: “If you saw me touch that, you saw the close pass.”

“I didn’t see the [driver] pass you,” the officer responded. “I was looking at you, because your lack of hi-vis caused me to look at you, and I noticed you had no hi-vis on and no hat. If you’re to be safe on the road, you should do so. It’s concern for you on the road.”

Liam then asked: “Do you pull lots of cyclists over and tell them about hi-vis and helmets?”

“If I have the time to do so, and I see them doing something else, yes I do – because I’m concerned, I’ve seen cyclists suffer car accidents on the road without helmets.”

Finally, Liam informed the officer that it is not illegal to use a phone while cycling, prompting her to respond: “Yes it is, look it up.”

According to Police Scotland’s website (link is external), “using a handheld mobile phone whilst cycling is not illegal. However, you could commit an offence of careless riding or riding without due care and consideration. It is also not advisable for the obvious safety reasons.”

In April last year, transport minister Baroness Vere told the House of Lords that the government currently has no plans to introduce specific legislation banning cyclists and e-scooter riders from using mobile phones while riding, while telling her fellow politicians that “is s really important that we do not demonise all cyclists”.

Following the incident, Liam took a photograph of the back of his cargo trailer which, incidentally, was carrying a brightly coloured yellow box. He also filed a complaint with Police Scotland later that day, claiming that the officer “falsely accused me of using a phone whilst cycling and how there’s no such charge”.
Cargo bike trailer used by cyclist pulled over by police for phone use (Liam)

“Months passed and I was contacted for further info,” he says. “Whilst being seriously unwell I provided this to the best of my ability. Then about five days ago the result of my complaint came through the letterbox. As I read it my jaw got lower and lower to the floor as they refused to uphold any of my complaints.”

In a letter sent by Police Scotland’s Professional Standards Department, responding to Liam’s complaints, an inspector dismissed the cyclist’s assertion that the “officer falsely claimed that [he] was using his mobile phone while cycling”, and that the officer “falsely claimed that it was an offence to use a mobile phone whilst cycling”.

Two other complaints, alleging that the officer who stopped the cyclist and those who later attended his home were “rude”, were also dismissed.

Referring to Liam saving the recorded footage of the close pass on his camera, the letter said: “While I appreciate the need for this, it perhaps would have been safer for both you and fellow road users if you had pulled over at the earliest opportunity to capture the footage, rather than doing so while continuing to cycle on a busy road.”

The letter also says that it “would have been reasonable for the officer to have assumed the device was a mobile phone” until the matter was clarified by the cyclist, before noting that “the device in question has not been inspected, and its capabilities and functions have not been determined. Hence, I cannot definitively rule out the possibility that it may have also functioned a mobile phone.”

“While there is no specific offence for cycling whilst using a mobile phone or other electronic device,” the inspector added, “these actions may be deemed careless and inconsiderate, and therefore punishable by law.”

“For those charges to apply one would have to be riding like a lunatic swerving in and out of people and traffic and causing damage or accidents,” Liam told road.cc. “But then those charges apply whether a mobile phone is involved or not.

“Simply riding along texting and being in full control of the bike and obeying all laws and traffic lights is not illegal and there’s no offence. This is what the officer was essentially accusing me of.

“The video shows that at no point was I riding like an idiot. I’m not even going fast on account of the weight of the trailer.

“They also try to claim that it’s possible my device was a phone. I provided Police Scotland with the video footage that clearly shows in the bottom right corner of the video that it’s a Cycliq camera. Can’t they use Google at Police Scotland?”

road.cc has contacted Police Scotland for comment. A spokesperson has told us that the matter has been passed onto the relevant teams, prior to a statement being issued, while we were also directed to the force’s safety page for cyclists (link is external), which informs people on bikes that “bright and fluorescent materials should be worn in the daytime” and that “wearing a helmet may help protect your head if you are involved in a collision”.

https://road.cc/content/news/cyclist-mistakenly-pulled-over-police-phone-use-305133

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> A cyclist who complained to the police after he was mistakenly pulled
> over by an officer for “using a mobile phone” while riding on the road –
> when, in fact, the cyclist was attempting to save footage of a close pass
> from a lorry driver on his bike camera – was later told that, while there
> is no specific offence for using an electronic device while riding a
> bike, his actions could still be deemed “careless and inconsiderate”.

Welcome, cyclists, to the Real World.

There may not be a law against using an electronic device while cycling,
but that doesn’t prevent other laws being enforced relating to that action.

> According to Police Scotland’s website (link is external), “using a
> handheld mobile phone whilst cycling is not illegal. However, you could
> commit an offence of careless riding or riding without due care and
> consideration. It is also not advisable for the obvious safety reasons.”

So there you are, cyclists, you wanted tougher policing, now you’re getting
it. It seems you don’t like it.

Oh dear…📱🚴🚓🪪✂️

> https://road.cc/content/news/cyclist-mistakenly-pulled-over-police-phone-use-305133

--
Spike

On 17/11/2023 07:37 am, Simon Mason wrote:

> A cyclist who complained to the police after he was mistakenly pulled over by an officer for “using a mobile phone” while riding on the road – when, in fact, the cyclist was attempting to save footage of a close pass from a lorry driver on his bike camera – was later told that, while there is no specific offence for using an electronic device while riding a bike, his actions could still be deemed “careless and inconsiderate”. [ ... ]

Indeed. BOTH at once.

So what and where was the "mistake"?

> https://road.cc/content/news/cyclist-mistakenly-pulled-over-police-phone-use-305133

The semi-literate journal for semi-literate "readers".

eburtthebike | 5 min ago
0 likes

So this officer ignores the obviously criminal behaviour of the driver, but invents a law to blame the cyclist? Flabbergasted. Such utter incompetence should be called out and appropriate action taken by her superiors, but no.

Then to add insult to injury, her colleagues defend her indefensible actions in ignoring the crime and having a go at the victim. My flabber has never been more gasted.

Clearly the officer needs considerable education, in the law and in the actual effects of helmets and hi-viz, as do her superiors and fellow officers.

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> eburtthebike | 5 min ago
> 0 likes
>
>
> So this officer ignores the obviously criminal behaviour of the driver,
> but invents a law to blame the cyclist? Flabbergasted. Such utter
> incompetence should be called out and appropriate action taken by her superiors, but no.
>
> Then to add insult to injury, her colleagues defend her indefensible
> actions in ignoring the crime and having a go at the victim. My flabber
> has never been more gasted.

> Clearly the officer needs considerable education, in the law and in the
> actual effects of helmets and hi-viz, as do her superiors and fellow officers.

eburtthebike spirals off into fantasy, totally ignoring the cyclist’s act
as being potentially actionable, and trying to shift the blame anywhere
else convenient.

--
Spike

Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
> Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A cyclist who complained to the police after he was mistakenly pulled
>> over by an officer for “using a mobile phone” while riding on the road –
>> when, in fact, the cyclist was attempting to save footage of a close pass
>> from a lorry driver on his bike camera – was later told that, while there
>> is no specific offence for using an electronic device while riding a
>> bike, his actions could still be deemed “careless and inconsiderate”.
>
> Welcome, cyclists, to the Real World.
>
> There may not be a law against using an electronic device while cycling,
> but that doesn’t prevent other laws being enforced relating to that action.
>
>> According to Police Scotland’s website (link is external), “using a
>> handheld mobile phone whilst cycling is not illegal. However, you could
>> commit an offence of careless riding or riding without due care and
>> consideration. It is also not advisable for the obvious safety reasons.”

> So there you are, cyclists, you wanted tougher policing, now you’re getting
> it. It seems you don’t like it.

As Mason said in another thread: ‘…call it justice in action’.

> Oh dear…📱🚴🚓🪪✂️

>> https://road.cc/content/news/cyclist-mistakenly-pulled-over-police-phone-use-305133

--
Spike

wtjs | 28 min ago
4 likes
My present state of despising the police began with someone hitting me while I was stationary waiting to leave the Sainsbury's exit road onto the main road. The driver leaving the main road turning right came down the wrong side of the exit road-'cutting the corner'. The police response to this was that the Freelander driver was excused by it being dark and rainy. The PC said it was 'only a momentary loss of concentration'. That was nearly 5 years ago when I didn't have a GoPro- I soon got one, and my opinion of the police, as if you didn't know, has been decreasing monotonically since then. This was one where I went right through the police complaints process to no avail

https://upride.cc/incident/md68fwc_apcovernight_whitelinecross/ (link is external)

What the joke Professional Standards Department dreamed up was that they had to have confirmatory video from the (alleged!) offending vehicle, and because there wasn't any, they "couldn't do anything".

Avatar
Matthew Acton-Varian | 5 hours ago
10 likes

I have experienced dangerous close passes whilst wearing a jacket that is ENTIRELY fluorescent yellow. Hi vis means fuck all.

Also, a large commercial vehicle will crush any and every bicycle helmet on the market, as the safety standards do not entail they must survive being run over by a 7.5t vehicle. Nobody's surviving that if such a freak accident were to occur. Only a motorcycle helmet faces such tests. Helmets mean fuck all.
====================No, motorcycle helmets aren't tested by running a 7.5t truck over them, and neither would they be effective in such a case.

On 17/11/2023 11:37 am, Simon Mason wrote:

> eburtthebike | 5 min ago
>
> So this officer ignores the obviously criminal behaviour of the driver, but invents a law to blame the cyclist? Flabbergasted. Such utter incompetence should be called out and appropriate action taken by her superiors, but no.
> Then to add insult to injury, her colleagues defend her indefensible actions in ignoring the crime and having a go at the victim. My flabber has never been more gasted.
> Clearly the officer needs considerable education, in the law and in the actual effects of helmets and hi-viz, as do her superiors and fellow officers.

It is the duty of police officers to warn criminal chavs on chav-bikes
against repeating their dangerous and self-obsessed vigilantism.

[Sorry for the five syllable word; you'll have to look it up.]

On 17/11/2023 01:56 pm, Simon Mason wrote:

> wtjs | 28 min ago
> 4 likes
>
> My present state of despising the police began with someone hitting me while I was stationary waiting to leave the Sainsbury's exit road onto the main road. The driver leaving the main road turning right came down the wrong side of the exit road-'cutting the corner'. The police response to this was that the Freelander driver was excused by it being dark and rainy. The PC said it was 'only a momentary loss of concentration'. That was nearly 5 years ago when I didn't have a GoPro- I soon got one, and my opinion of the police, as if you didn't know, has been decreasing monotonically since then. This was one where I went right through the police complaints process to no avail

Oh dear.

How sad.

Never mind.

> https://upride.cc/incident/md68fwc_apcovernight_whitelinecross/ (link is external)

> What the joke Professional Standards Department dreamed up was that they had to have confirmatory video from the (alleged!) offending vehicle, and because there wasn't any, they "couldn't do anything".

Calm down a bit. Try to act like an adult (even though you ride a
chav-bike).

On 17/11/2023 02:04 pm, Simon Mason wrote:
> Avatar
> Matthew Acton-Varian | 5 hours ago
> 10 likes
>
> I have experienced dangerous close passes whilst wearing a jacket that is ENTIRELY fluorescent yellow. Hi vis means fuck all.
>
> Also, a large commercial vehicle will crush any and every bicycle helmet on the market, as the safety standards do not entail they must survive being run over by a 7.5t vehicle. Nobody's surviving that if such a freak accident were to occur. Only a motorcycle helmet faces such tests. Helmets mean fuck all.
> =====================
> No, motorcycle helmets aren't tested by running a 7.5t truck over them, and neither would they be effective in such a case.

Gibberish in action.

Did you take lessons from Stanley Unwin's book?

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Avatar
> Matthew Acton-Varian | 5 hours ago
> 10 likes
>
> I have experienced dangerous close passes whilst wearing a jacket that is
> ENTIRELY fluorescent yellow. Hi vis means fuck all.

> Also, a large commercial vehicle will crush any and every bicycle helmet
> on the market, as the safety standards do not entail they must survive
> being run over by a 7.5t vehicle. Nobody's surviving that if such a freak
> accident were to occur. Only a motorcycle helmet faces such tests. Helmets mean fuck all.

The ‘Helmets mean fuck all’ mentioned above is based on a a type of false
argument known as ‘reductio ad absurdum’, by taking something to an absurd
level and then using that to dismiss all the other levels below the absurd.

> ====================No, motorcycle helmets aren't tested by running a
> 7.5t truck over them, and neither would they be effective in such a case.

Not a case of ‘cogito ergo sum’, is it?

But it got 10 likes, presumably from similar cyclists.

--
Spike

jthurber80 | 2 hours ago
2 likes

If an officer "threatens" you with arrest say, "That's fine. We can let a magistrate inform us of the proper law."

This places the officer in a dangerous position, with possible false arrest chargest being lodged against them. I've used this tactic with California officers and, in every single case, they either offered a warning or contacted a supervisor (Sergeant) who informed them that an arrest would be inappropriate (and legally liable).

RobD | 2 hours ago
1 like

I hope she just as frequently stops motorists that don't have their daylight running lights on to "advise" them on safety issues.

Rendel Harris | 9 hours ago
11 likes

I like "you had no hat", smacks of the days when a gentleman wouldn't dream of leaving home without his titfer. I trust Police Scotland will also start pulling cyclists over for not wearing spats and for not leaving the bottom button of their weskit undone.

:-)

https://cdn.road.cc/sites/default/files/styles/main_width/public/istockphoto-1258149503-1024x1024.jpg