westminster bike "police"

DonDaddyD

will3 wrote:

I think they should use mounted police to stop cyclists. The thought of bikes being chased by coppers on horses through the streets of london ........................

I could scalp a horse.

will3

DonDaddyD wrote:

will3 wrote:

I think they should use mounted police to stop cyclists. The thought of bikes being chased by coppers on horses through the streets of london ........................

I could scalp a horse.

so could a granny on a shopper

Clever Pun

Chunkers1980 wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

Chunkers1980 wrote:

I say clamp down on scooters... Bet half of them don't have any insurance...

thanks for your valuable contribution

As you're such a clever pun... Try reading behind what's been said.

My view is that the Police should worry more about uninsured motor vehicles than giving fines to cyclists…

Interesting to see that someone commented on my comment with useful information about the Police stoping scooters rather than making a sarcy comment...

we should all be treated equally no? that's what we're aiming for as a community so making sweeping derogatory statements about other types of road users really isn't very helpful especially without any basis whatsoever for the accusation you made.

I just see that kind of comment far too often and it just makes the author look a bit of a prat imo

Oh yes you're confusing helpful with anecdotal

Headhuunter

OldSkoolKona wrote:

Ultimately its all about publicity - it goes down well with the council electorate. Go to any area consultation meeting, and sadly all anyone rants about are cyclists on pavements, not drivers on mobile phones. Doing this they get some votes for 'doing something' for the electorate

That's exactly it. It's a quick headline grabbing elastoplast type policy to pander to the the electorate. It shows no forethought or consideration. To be honest it looks like the Evening Standard has grabbed on a sound bite by some obscure woman at Westminster Council running some minor committee of no significance. This will never make it into law, it's just the Evening Standard stirring again, they know full well that anti cycling articles earn them lots of hits on their website.

number9

My view is that the Police should worry more about uninsured motor vehicles than giving fines to cyclists…

Total number of cycle commuters in the UK = 1 million. (Including the ones like me who never ride on pavements)

Total number of uninsured vehicles on our roads = 1.2 million.

Uninsured drivers cost the rest of us £400 million last year in crashes, injuries, deaths. What did pavement cyclists cost us?

I'd ask Westminster Council what their priorities are.

patchy

Headhuunter wrote:

OldSkoolKona wrote:

Ultimately its all about publicity - it goes down well with the council electorate. Go to any area consultation meeting, and sadly all anyone rants about are cyclists on pavements, not drivers on mobile phones. Doing this they get some votes for 'doing something' for the electorate

That's exactly it. It's a quick headline grabbing elastoplast type policy to pander to the the electorate. It shows no forethought or consideration. To be honest it looks like the Evening Standard has grabbed on a sound bite by some obscure woman at Westminster Council running some minor committee of no significance. This will never make it into law, it's just the Evening Standard stirring again, they know full well that anti cycling articles earn them lots of hits on their website.

+1

hits from anti-cyclist lobby, hits from pro-cyclist lobby... it's a winner for selling advertising

Chunkers1980

Clever Pun wrote:

Chunkers1980 wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

Chunkers1980 wrote:

I say clamp down on scooters... Bet half of them don't have any insurance...

thanks for your valuable contribution

As you're such a clever pun... Try reading behind what's been said.

My view is that the Police should worry more about uninsured motor vehicles than giving fines to cyclists…

Interesting to see that someone commented on my comment with useful information about the Police stoping scooters rather than making a sarcy comment...

we should all be treated equally no? that's what we're aiming for as a community so making sweeping derogatory statements about other types of road users really isn't very helpful especially without any basis whatsoever for the accusation you made.

I just see that kind of comment far too often and it just makes the author look a bit of a prat imo

Oh yes you're confusing helpful with anecdotal

But we're not equal - we are not required by law to have insurance
I do have a basis for my accusation.
It was helpful to me to know that the Police are actually doing something about scooters and lack of insurance in London.

Clever Pun

Chunkers1980 wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

Chunkers1980 wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

Chunkers1980 wrote:

I say clamp down on scooters... Bet half of them don't have any insurance...

thanks for your valuable contribution

As you're such a clever pun... Try reading behind what's been said.

My view is that the Police should worry more about uninsured motor vehicles than giving fines to cyclists…

Interesting to see that someone commented on my comment with useful information about the Police stoping scooters rather than making a sarcy comment...

we should all be treated equally no? that's what we're aiming for as a community so making sweeping derogatory statements about other types of road users really isn't very helpful especially without any basis whatsoever for the accusation you made.

I just see that kind of comment far too often and it just makes the author look a bit of a prat imo

Oh yes you're confusing helpful with anecdotal

But we're not equal - we are not required by law to have insurance
I do have a basis for my accusation.
It was helpful to me to know that the Police are actually doing something about scooters and lack of insurance in London.

would you care to share this information?

but we wanted to be treated equally on the roads.. that's what I was saying, if you start compartmentalising other roads users it's just not very helpful

Number9 wrote:

Total number of cycle commuters in the UK = 1 million. (Including the ones like me who never ride on pavements)

Total number of uninsured vehicles on our roads = 1.2 million.

unrelated stats... more helpful would have been total vehicles on road vs uninsured(how'd you get that number btw is it another one of your self promoted sites?)

number9

The costs to the UK economy and society are significant, with more than 1.6 million vehicles still driven uninsured.

www.mib.org.uk/NR/.../NoplacetohideforU ... rivers.pdf

Clever Pun

number9 wrote:

The costs to the UK economy and society are significant, with more than 1.6 million vehicles still driven uninsured.

www.mib.org.uk/NR/.../NoplacetohideforU ... rivers.pdf

your link doesn't work... 1.2 or 1.6mil?

number9

Sorry:

The Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) has revealed that London has the highest number of uninsured drivers after a report discovered that more than 1.7 million people drove without cover last year.

http://www.financemarkets.co.uk/2009/09 ... rs-report/

I don't have any "self-promoted" websites clever pun, I'm not sure what you mean!

il_principe

artaxerxes wrote:

I found the comment below the article a bit worrying

Alex Morris wrote:
About time too - the highway code clearly states that cyclists are obliged to observe the same laws of the road as other road users.

When was the last time you saw a cyclist sit and wait at a red light?

Since lots of cyclists wait at red lights, I'm assuming his observational skills are so poor he is an accident waiting to happen...

In London most cyclists seem to jump red lights...

DonDaddyD

number9 wrote:

Sorry:

The Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) has revealed that London has the highest number of uninsured drivers after a report discovered that more than 1.7 million people drove without cover last year.

http://www.financemarkets.co.uk/2009/09 ... rs-report/

I don't have any "self-promoted" websites clever pun, I'm not sure what you mean!

I'll bite:

A shocking figure to be sure but only if it has a point. So I ask:

The highest number compared to what, who, whom or even where?

What is the relevance against the proportion of cyclist, the number of people living in London or even the acutal number of people who can drive?

What do you actually mean and what point are you making?

Your Daily Mail-esque posts are just shock-stats for the sake of posting without any real relevance or point. It's similar to the fear-mongering Bush applied.

It's like:

Thread title:
"Cyclists on the rise in London"

Number9 posts:
"Immigration in London up by 200%" www.somebullshtlink.com

:roll:

number9

In London most cyclists seem to jump red lights...

The snapshot survey of driver behaviour in London and Glasgow found a surprising number of motorists and cyclists failed to stop on red or attempted to scramble through on amber.

One in 10 car drivers risked a serious accident or injury to themselves, other road users and pedestrians by driving through a traffic light when it had been red for over three seconds

A further one in five took a chance on a last-minute amber signal.



Bus drivers too were observed to frequently disobey traffic lights. In London, as many as a fifth of bus drivers were found to go through traffic signals, making them worse offenders than car drivers.

Cyclists were found to have the least regard for traffic lights, most notably in central London.

In Glasgow up to one in four cyclists seemed to have no regard for traffic lights, while in central London this rose to 50% of those on bicycles.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3005364.stm

patchy

'most' 'always'

i don't like these generalised terms. Give me STATS!

God dammit, i'll quite happily sit and count how many cyclists jump a red at certain junctions. Do you think anyone would fund that?

I also want details of little old ladies that get knocked down. come on Government, stats is what you do best (worst)!

Chunkers1980

"but we wanted to be treated equally on the roads.. that's what I was saying, if you start compartmentalising other roads users it's just not very helpful"

I don't want to be treated equally on the roads. I'm not the same as an HGV, you wouldn't want them using the cycle lanes.

As for sharing my edvidence. To be honest it's a bit thin. But I've lived in London for many years in various house shares with non-native English people who've ridden scooters with 3 out of 4 not having any insurance...

Eau Rouge

Chunkers1980 wrote:

But we're not equal - we are not required by law to have insurance
I do have a basis for my accusation.
It was helpful to me to know that the Police are actually doing something about scooters and lack of insurance in London.

You're confusing "equal" with "the same". Cyclists are equal members of traffic and should be treated as such, but they are not the same as buses or 4x4 or Fiestas, and so can have their own laws on things like lights, insurance, helmet wearing, speed limits, etc.
Motorbike have different laws to cars, HGV drivers have some of their own specific laws. They are all equal, just not the same.

number9

A shocking figure to be sure but only if it has a point. So I ask:

The highest number compared to what, who, whom or even where?

What is the relevance against the proportion of cyclist, the number of people living in London or even the acutal number of people who can drive?

What do you actually mean and what point are you making?

The highest number of any city in the UK, fairly obviously! That's why the article mentioned comparable rates elsewhere in England.

The disproportionate amount of whining about cyclists on pavements is daft. It's like complaining about a dirty glass on the Titanic as freezing water laps round your ankles.

There are more uninsured vehicles on our roads than the total number of cycle commuters including the ones who obey every law. The cost of accidents involving uninsured vehicles is £400m and rising.

Now, none of this excuses pavement cycling (usually carried out by kids on stupid bikes with the saddle way too low), but if we are looking at limited resources being allocated to road safety, where is the real problem?

It's not a terribly difficult point to grasp eau rouge, some obscure fart-knocker Westminster councillor makes inflammatory, bogus remarks about the menace of lycra nazis punching rosy-cheeked old ladies and the amount of gum-gnashing generated is hysterically over-inflated.

Do you see what I mean?

Since pedestrians are more likely top be killed by a police car on the pavement than a cyclist it seems strange to me.

DonDaddyD

number9 wrote:

The highest number of any city in the UK, fairly obviously! That's why the article mentioned comparable rates elsewhere in England.

Fine. Say that then. Don't just post something, actual explain, clearly, the point you are trying to make. It wouldn't suprise me that London has the highest number of unisured drivers of any city, doesn't it have the biggest population of any city and the highest number of drivers as well. So proportionally it would stand to reason that the number of insured and uninsured drivers would equally be as high.

The disproportionate amount of whining about cyclists on pavements is daft. It's like complaining about a dirty glass on the Titanic as freezing water laps round your ankles.

This made me laugh with a 'come again' type tone...

There are more uninsured vehicles on our roads than the total number of cycle commuters including the ones who obey every law. The cost of accidents involving uninsured vehicles is £400m and rising.

I assume that there is no clear distinction or total number listed that can fully serperate cyclist who obey the law and those that don't and so conclude that you are just writing that to be poignant.

Again what is the relevance between the number of uninsured vehicles to cyclists. What is your point. There are more cars on the roads than bikes so it would stand to reasons that uninsured cars outweigh the number of bikes. Are you suggesting that something should be done? Yes it should.

Now, none of this excuses pavement cycling (usually carried out by kids on stupid bikes with the saddle way too low), but if we are looking at limited resources being allocated to road safety, where is the real problem?

But uninsured drivers aren't the single biggest threat to road safety. What your saying reads like uninsured drivers are more likely to be dangerous on the road.

The comparison would be the percentage of road accidents caused by uninsured drivers compared to insured drivers.

I

Clever Pun

number9 wrote:

Sorry:

The Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) has revealed that London has the highest number of uninsured drivers after a report discovered that more than 1.7 million people drove without cover last year.

http://www.financemarkets.co.uk/2009/09 ... rs-report/

I don't have any "self-promoted" websites clever pun, I'm not sure what you mean!

Must be confusing you with a different nutbar

Doesn't answer my question giving %'s of uninsured drivers though does it? half-arsed stats are attention seeking devices imo

Clever Pun

Chunkers1980 wrote:

"but we wanted to be treated equally on the roads.. that's what I was saying, if you start compartmentalising other roads users it's just not very helpful"

I don't want to be treated equally on the roads. I'm not the same as an HGV, you wouldn't want them using the cycle lanes.

As for sharing my edvidence. To be honest it's a bit thin. But I've lived in London for many years in various house shares with non-native English people who've ridden scooters with 3 out of 4 not having any insurance...

So by that logic we shouldn't ride on the roads? only on cycle paths?.. yes you're right that's nonsense

Read Eau Rouges reply to you and start again

DonDaddyD

Clever Pun,

You're on fire today!

Chapeau.

Headhuunter

Chunkers1980 wrote:

"but we wanted to be treated equally on the roads.. that's what I was saying, if you start compartmentalising other roads users it's just not very helpful"

I don't want to be treated equally on the roads. I'm not the same as an HGV, you wouldn't want them using the cycle lanes.

As for sharing my edvidence. To be honest it's a bit thin. But I've lived in London for many years in various house shares with non-native English people who've ridden scooters with 3 out of 4 not having any insurance...

I agree with this somewhat. The road system, including traffic lights, 1 way systems, complex junctions etc, is largely set up for the motor vehicle. New rules allowing cyclists to head the wrong way down 1 way streets or turn left on red lights go some way to acknowledge this and allow different sets of rules for the bicycle, which frankly has more in common with a pedestrian than an HGV or even a car for that matter.

Pedestrians cross roads wherever they wish and when the "red man" is showing, this is taken for granted. Just as it's take for granted in come continental European cities that cyclists cross junctions on red.

number9

Doesn't answer my question giving %'s of uninsured drivers though does it?

It does if you bother to read the link::

Thirteen percent of vehicles in Greater London were found to be driven illegally - the highest proportion for any region.

The Bureau, which compensates people in accidents with uninsured drivers, said other worst offenders could be found in Merseyside and Greater Manchester with 12% and 10% of vehicles uninsured respectively.

Again what is the relevance between the number of uninsured vehicles to cyclists. What is your point.

For the third time...


There are limited resources to allocate to road safety and enforcing the law.

Given the above, and the councillor's strange remark about the threat to old ladies that isn't borne out by the stats, is this a sensible allocation of resources?

Eau Rouge

number9 wrote:

Uninsured drivers cost the rest of us £400 million last year in crashes, injuries, deaths. What did pavement cyclists cost us?

Not having insurance doesn't cause crashes, injuries or deaths any more than having insurance prevents them. I'd almost say the opposite. Would I even drive my car if I was fully liable for the cost of any accident? But yes, uninsured drivers cost us £400 million becuase the insurance companies are going to get it back fro the rest of us.

With 29.6 million cars on the roads (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8007798.stm) that's £13.50 for each car we have. ("Uninunsred drivers cost us £13.50 for each car we have" - doesn't that sound so much less dramatic than "Unisured drivers cost the rest of us £400 million last year in crashes, injuries, deaths")
What do pavement cyclists cost us? My turn to be dramatic
They cost us the otherwise safe use of the footpaths.
More seriously, they partly cost us our place on the road. The more cyclists there are on the roads, the safer cyclists become, as drivers get more and more used to having them there, looking for them, and expecting to be slightly delayed by them. Cyclists using the pavment instead take away from that, and reinforce the idea that somehow cyclists shouldn't be on the roads in the first place. They cause councils to go about designating footpaths as "shared use" which are totally useless to cyclists but make car drivers think we should be using them. They make road planners think that way too.
Pavement cyclists don't cost me financially, but I'd happily pay more than £13.50 to have them all using the road.

number9

Not having insurance doesn't cause crashes, injuries or deaths any more than having insurance prevents them. I'd almost say the opposite.

Then you'd be wrong.

Uninsured drivers should note that they are five times more likely to be involved in road collisions, Direct Line said, and are responsible for around 160 road deaths every year.

http://www.financemarkets.co.uk/2009/09 ... rs-report/


It's puzzling you claim the link is irrelevant, then post a load of old guff that shows you haven't even read it!

Guffaw.

number9

There is evidence that London clampdowns on pavement cycling is misdirection:

With collisions in the City involving those on foot and on cycles soaring, you might expect City Cyclists to welcome the City Police's latest "Safer Cycling" campaign. Unfortunately its name is a misnomer: this is a dressed up anti-cycling operation from the police force with the worst record on road safety in the whole country.

"The two main offences identified around cycle safety are cyclists contravening red traffic signals, and cycling on the footpath"

According to one City of London Police office interviewed on BBC1's Road Rage (broadcast 07.01.08),

"Most incidents we get called to involve cyclists who'd jumped red lights", while the safer cycling operation identifies that and cycling on the footpath

. Compare this with the City of London's report on Casualties in the City (19.11.2007) which states that in relation to cycling


"The main causation factors of the accident data attributes are 'turning right', 'changing lanes', 'opening vehicle doors' and 'undertaking of large vehicles turning left across cyclists path'."


Obviously someone's got a rather selective memory.

http://ralphsmyth.me.uk/citycyclists/po ... pdown.html

Conclusion: the safer cycling campaign cannot lead to a statistically significant increase in safety for cyclists, let alone road users in general.

Headhuunter

number9 wrote:

Not having insurance doesn't cause crashes, injuries or deaths any more than having insurance prevents them. I'd almost say the opposite.

Then you'd be wrong.

Uninsured drivers should note that they are five times more likely to be involved in road collisions, Direct Line said, and are responsible for around 160 road deaths every year.

http://www.financemarkets.co.uk/2009/09 ... rs-report/


It's puzzling you claim the link is irrelevant, then post a load of old guff that shows you haven't even read it!

Guffaw.

That doesn't prove that not being insured causes more accidents, it could just be that people who don't have insurance are reckless anyway, or possibly underage so unable to even get insurance. There's no way to prove that not being insured directly causes people to have more crashes!

number9

How does what you wrote relate to uninsured drivers?

What is the relevance of your uninsured drivers post?

How does being uninsured mean you are more likely to have an accident on the road?

1/

I gave a link that shows the staggering number of uninsured drivers on the roads.

2/

On a story about resouces being allocated to reduce accidents, 160 deaths a year at the hand of uninsured drivers outnumbers the, on average, half a person killed every year by cyclists on the pavement.

3/

Uninsured drivers in the UK are more prevalent than you may think at first. Each year, uninsured drivers cost other motorists around £380 million a year, which works out at approximately £30 on each individual's insurance premium.

Recent research has shown that uninsured drivers are more likely to be responsible for road traffic accidents and to ignore many of the road rules that keep other drivers and road users safe.

They are ten times more likely to drive under the influence of alcohol and three times more likely to be convicted of unsafe driving in some form.

http://www.injuriesdirect.com/road-traf ... -uninsured

number9

I'm going to drop the councillor a line and ask if she can back up her claims:

http://www3.westminster.gov.uk/forms/em ... N=42507214