The police are stopping all the naughty cyclists

randomspam

Well, they are outside my window anyway, my office is above the Moorgate "Ring of Steel" checkpoint. I saw about 10 cops in a side street in finsbury circus and then there's a couple at the checkpoint too. They're stopping all the red light runners and one way street riders.

Tut tut!

prj45

Good.

Although if they spent 100% of their time doing this I'd be a bit annoyed as if you want to reduce death and injury in the city it's not cyclist's behaviour you should be scrutinising.

plapping

I wish they would do this in Coventry. We have some real idiots riding bikes at the moment- no lights, stealth riding, red light jumpers etc.

stev3

yeah... people who ride on the road with no lights/high viability clothing is getting a little annoying... don't know how they expect motorists to see them :x

cougie

I've no problem with this - its for the riders own good. They should also have crackdowns on nobs using mobiles when driving. They could make a fortune in fixed penalties at the traffic lights I pass on the way to work.

jonginge

I saw them pulling someone over on moorgate. Actually my first thought was it was part of the lorry vs cyclist awareness campaign (I didn't see the cyclist do anything wrong, as my line of sight was occluded by a bus). Is it just me or are places like the ring of steel and going past parliament the last places you'd RLJ: those cops have guns people!

prj45

stev3 wrote:

yeah... people who ride on the road with no lights/high viability clothing is getting a little annoying... don't know how they expect motorists to see them :x

Don't know if you're being flippant there, but if a motorist drives their car in such a way that they can't see what's ahead of them, even if it is a stealth cyclist then they are an idiot.

Slow Downcp

Wish they'd do it more often, and in more places.

Maybe then less people would do it and we'd stop getting slagged off by Gormless Moron TV and the like. I don't give a toss what they think but it turns other member of the public against cyclists.

biondino

prj45 wrote:

stev3 wrote:

yeah... people who ride on the road with no lights/high viability clothing is getting a little annoying... don't know how they expect motorists to see them :x

Don't know if you're being flippant there, but if a motorist drives their car in such a way that they can't see what's ahead of them, even if it is a stealth cyclist then they are an idiot.

Eh? When it's dark (especially if it's wet) unlit pedestrians and cyclists can be night on impossible to see. A motorist has a duty to take care in such situations but there are many times, in particular if the ped/cyclist does something unexpected, when the motorist is absolutely free from blame in the event of an accident.

There are any number of reason why an unlit cyclist would be absolutely invisible, whether it's to do with placement of light sources and shadows, camouflage or the simple fact that so much of our perception is to do with seeing and responding to movement. If a cyclists bursts out of shadows in front of a car, say, how on earth can a motorist be expected to stop or evade in time?

El Gordo

prj45 wrote:

Don't know if you're being flippant there, but if a motorist drives their car in such a way that they can't see what's ahead of them, even if it is a stealth cyclist then they are an idiot.

But unfortunately there are an awful lot of idiots out there and I'd rather avoid getting run over in the first place than argue about who's fault it was after I've been squashed.

prj45

El Gordo wrote:

prj45 wrote:

Don't know if you're being flippant there, but if a motorist drives their car in such a way that they can't see what's ahead of them, even if it is a stealth cyclist then they are an idiot.

But unfortunately there are an awful lot of idiots out there and I'd rather avoid getting run over in the first place than argue about who's fault it was after I've been squashed.

Absolutely. Let's be clear I think cyclists that don't light up are idiots, but primarily because there are other idiots out there who WILL hit them.

Slow Downcp

prj45 wrote:

El Gordo wrote:

prj45 wrote:

Don't know if you're being flippant there, but if a motorist drives their car in such a way that they can't see what's ahead of them, even if it is a stealth cyclist then they are an idiot.

But unfortunately there are an awful lot of idiots out there and I'd rather avoid getting run over in the first place than argue about who's fault it was after I've been squashed.

Absolutely. Let's be clear I think cyclists that don't light up are idiots, but primarily because there are other idiots out there who WILL hit them.

You don;t need to be an idiot to hat a stealth cyclist - there are many other factors, like road conditions, other road users etc. Quite often on dimly or unlit roads you see an unlit cyclist very late, regardless of whether driving like, in your opinion, an idiot.

prj45

Slow Downcp wrote:

You don;t need to be an idiot to hat a stealth cyclist - there are many other factors, like road conditions, other road users etc. Quite often on dimly or unlit roads you see an unlit cyclist very late, regardless of whether driving like, in your opinion, an idiot.

Sorry, but if you hit an unlit object at night that you were going too fast, i.e. driving/riding like an idiot.

Granted it gets complicated when the object is travelling across your path or toward you, but still, when your driving a car, or riding a bike, you should be prepared for any evetuality.

Coriander

prj45 wrote:

Slow Downcp wrote:

You don;t need to be an idiot to hat a stealth cyclist - there are many other factors, like road conditions, other road users etc. Quite often on dimly or unlit roads you see an unlit cyclist very late, regardless of whether driving like, in your opinion, an idiot.

Sorry, but if you hit an unlit object at night that you were going too fast, i.e. driving/riding like an idiot.

Granted it gets complicated when the object is travelling across your path or toward you, but still, when your driving a car, or riding a bike, you should be prepared for any evetuality.

By that logic it's fine for all cars to drive around without lights at night as it's obviously solely the fault of the car that hits you when the inevitable happens.

While cyclists are more vulnerable and some car drivers are undoubtedly aggressive and/or idiotic towards them, each and every cyclist has a personal duty and responsbility to ensure their own safety. This means ensuring you are adequately visible at night, that your bicycle is suitable for the terrain you are cycling in, that you cycle assertively but not aggressively and that you obey the rules of the road.

I get so frustrated with the hard core of people on here who seem to refuse to acknowledge that a cyclist can ever have contributed to an incident he or she is involved in with a driver.

Slow Downcp

prj45 wrote:

Slow Downcp wrote:

You don;t need to be an idiot to hat a stealth cyclist - there are many other factors, like road conditions, other road users etc. Quite often on dimly or unlit roads you see an unlit cyclist very late, regardless of whether driving like, in your opinion, an idiot.

Sorry, but if you hit an unlit object at night that you were going too fast, i.e. driving/riding like an idiot.

Granted it gets complicated when the object is travelling across your path or toward you, but still, when your driving a car, or riding a bike, you should be prepared for any evetuality.

If that were the case, there'd never be any accidents (but there are). The stopping distance (at 40mph in a 40mph) is further than the distance that you'd see an unlit cyclist from in many circumstances. How is that driving like an idiot?

jjojjas

prj45 wrote:

Sorry, but if you hit an unlit object at night that you were going too fast, i.e. driving/riding like an idiot.

Granted it gets complicated when the object is travelling across your path or toward you, but still, when your driving a car, or riding a bike, you should be prepared for any evetuality.

What a load of crap :roll:
Has it ever occured to you that maybe, just maybe... its the fault of the cyclist or the pedestrian in some accidents? I got knocked off at night many years ago. It was completely my fault as I cut in front of a car. The fact that I was about 10 year old still doesn't make the driver an idiot, .......more the victim.

Simonb256

I'll bite.

How is it cr*p?

Do you expect wildlife to have highviz and/or lights too? they are generally unlit and tend to move round at night.

What about the idiots who dump a skip in the middle of the road. Or something smaller like a sofa (seen it done). Do all inanimate object require lights too?

Yes cyclists without lights are dangerous and generally idiots but it is possible for the driver to be at fault by driving too fast for the conditions which the generally do.

EDIT the image of badgers wearing highviz and a head torch(sp) does make me titter.

Slow Downcp

Simonb256 wrote:

I'll bite.

How is it cr*p?

Do you expect wildlife to have highviz and/or lights too? they are generally unlit and tend to move round at night.

What about the idiots who dump a skip in the middle of the road. Or something smaller like a sofa (seen it done). Do all inanimate object require lights too?

Yes cyclists without lights are dangerous and generally idiots but it is possible for the driver to be at fault by driving too fast for the conditions which the generally do.

EDIT the image of badgers wearing highviz and a head torch(sp) does make me titter.

I didn't say that driers couldn't be held at fault. The point I was making is that you don't have to be driving like a tw*t to hit an unlit cyclist.

Simonb256

Slow Downcp wrote:

I didn't say that driers couldn't be held at fault. The point I was making is that you don't have to be driving like a tw*t to hit an unlit cyclist.

The point I am trying to take it that its not a black and/or white kind of thing its a very grey area.

Yes the cyclist would be in the wrong, but drivers are meant to be hyper-alert super-beings, aren't they?

MrChuck

I'm with Biondino and Slow Downcp. Lots of people do indeed drive like idiots and they shouldn't be excused, but things aren't as nicely black and white as prj45 is making out. Also, what Coriander said.

prj45

Slow Downcp wrote:

The stopping distance (at 40mph in a 40mph) is further than the distance that you'd see an unlit cyclist from in many circumstances. How is that driving like an idiot?

If you can't see far enough in front of you to stop in time you are driving/riding like an idiot (and illegally).

squired

Having the police do this sort of thing is vital. There are far too many idiots on bikes. Other cyclists may give them advice, but they will still ignore it. A perfect example is something I saw the other day. A woman was cycling in London with a red light on the front of her bike and white on the back. I asked politely if she realised that they were the wrong way round. Her response was yes, but it was too much hassle to swap them over and there was no point to it anyway. If a policeman stopped her I'd like to think she'd actually do something about it.

robmanic1

If you can't see far enough in front of you to stop in time you are driving/riding like an idiot (and illegally).[/quote]

KAK!

So, by your reckoning, if you're driving along a unlit road at night you should drive at 15mph? Perhaps with a chap waving a red flag in front of you as you drive along?

Anyhew, back in the REAL world..... :roll:

lost_in_thought

squired wrote:

Having the police do this sort of thing is vital. There are far too many idiots on bikes. Other cyclists may give them advice, but they will still ignore it. A perfect example is something I saw the other day. A woman was cycling in London with a red light on the front of her bike and white on the back. I asked politely if she realised that they were the wrong way round. Her response was yes, but it was too much hassle to swap them over and there was no point to it anyway. If a policeman stopped her I'd like to think she'd actually do something about it.

Unfortunately, having been one of those idiots, and now changed my ways, the reaction is much more likely to be along the lines of

'FFS why can't the police go and do something useful, I'm not doing anyone any harm' followed by being more vigilant for police so as not to get caught again. Not changing your ways, just looking out for bobbies...

Slow Downcp

prj45 wrote:

Slow Downcp wrote:

The stopping distance (at 40mph in a 40mph) is further than the distance that you'd see an unlit cyclist from in many circumstances. How is that driving like an idiot?

If you can't see far enough in front of you to stop in time you are driving/riding like an idiot (and illegally).

Do you drive a car?
EDIT:
If I'm doing 40mph in a 40mph zone, how is that illegal?
If people could always stop before they hit things, why are there so many accidents where drivers are found to have been driving at the correct speed limit?
The attitude of "the car couldn;t stop in time, so the driver is a knob who drives too fast" is as bad as the one that has people thinking all cyclists are RLJ'ers who ride on pavements.
As already said, there are too many cyclists that will jump to a cyclists defence even if they're in the wrong.

prj45

Slow Downcp wrote:

Do you drive a car?

EDIT:
If I'm doing 40mph in a 40mph zone, how is that illegal?

It's illegal to drive too fast for the conditions, regardless of the limit. It's also illegal to drive faster than the limit.

Slow Downcp wrote:

If people could always stop before they hit things, why are there so many accidents where drivers are found to have been driving at the correct speed limit?

Because our justice system is incredibly lenient on crap drivers.

prj45

Slow Downcp wrote:

Do you drive a car?

EDIT:
If I'm doing 40mph in a 40mph zone, how is that illegal?

It's illegal to drive too fast for the conditions, regardless of the limit. It's also illegal to drive faster than the limit.

Slow Downcp wrote:

If people could always stop before they hit things, why are there so many accidents where drivers are found to have been driving at the correct speed limit?

Because our justice system is incredibly lenient on crap drivers.

biondino

Perhaps, like the "warning: deer" signs you get in wooded areas, there should be "warning: d!ckhead cyclists" signs in places they're likely to be difficult to see? Then at least drivers will know to take special care.

prj45

biondino wrote:

Perhaps, like the "warning: deer" signs you get in wooded areas, there should be "warning: d!ckhead cyclists" signs in places they're likely to be difficult to see? Then at least drivers will know to take special care.

Drives should always take special care, they are bound to do so by law.

Slow Downcp

prj45 wrote:

Slow Downcp wrote:

Do you drive a car?

EDIT:
If I'm doing 40mph in a 40mph zone, how is that illegal?

It's illegal to drive too fast for the conditions, regardless of the limit. It's also illegal to drive faster than the limit.

Slow Downcp wrote:

If people could always stop before they hit things, why are there so many accidents where drivers are found to have been driving at the correct speed limit?

Because our justice system is incredibly lenient on crap drivers.

I drive to the conditions - the conditions being that a ninja cyclist isn't going to jump out in front of me.

Do you drive - if so, do you ever go above 10 mph?

biondino

Dude you're on a hiding to nothing. If someone is driving to the conditions then there is a certain implied risk; that risk is by necessity very small but it's always there. Unlit peds and cyclists moving into the path of the car might, sometimes, be outside this expected risk. In this event there can be no sanctions merited by the car driver.

(by your argument there shouldn't be cars, or hard edges, and leaving your house should involve some kind of insurance waiver. Realism trumps utopianism, it's the way things are)