westminster bike "police"

Wallace1492

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.

Interesting. Does this mean that if they are responsible for 160 deaths (5.4% of total) but as a proportion of total vehicles they are well over 10% (13% in Greater London) then although they might be in more accidents, their death toll is proportionately lower. Looks like that to me.

Anyway, I do agree that uninsured driving is far worse than pavement cycling, however, having a crackdown on the anti-social cyclists I have no problem with, and neither should any other decent law abiding cyclist.

DonDaddyD

I'm really not seeing how clamping down on uninsured drivers is really relevant.

Not having insurance doesn't cause crashes

+1!

The driver behind the wheel who is likely not legally allowed to drive is more than likely to be the cause of the crash, not the fact that the car hasn't got insurance. FFS.

:roll:

DonDaddyD

number9 wrote:

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.

Yes, but how does quoting uninsured drivers and their implied danger relate to the number of cyclists and clamping down on cyclists who break the law?

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.

Yes, this argument is very much like the guy who gets caught for speeding and then moans as to why the police who stopped him aren't out catching robbers and murderers. It's a blinkered and stunted one.

It's why they are suggesting giving those powers to Support Officers and not police. Stopping uninsured drivers would require a lot more man power i.e. cars on the road, two officers per car and a hell of a lot of time considering the number of cars on the road. I'm not saying that they shouldn't, I'm pointing out that your example isn't a direct comparison.

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.

Again, what is your point. What is your point in this comment to the thread or even my question.

They cost more because they aren't insured that doesn't mean they are more dangerous.

And before you post something to claim that they are. It's not th insurance its the driver and why they are uninsured in the first place that makes them potentially dangerous.

number9

The behaviour of the one-in-ten uninsured drivers in London is the reason some cyclists use the pavements.

There is no point in persecuting cyclists when more often than not their bad behaviour is a result of the bad behaviour of other road users.

On-the-spot fines for cyclists will not prevent pedestrians from running across road without looking, vans from turning without indicating or cycle lanes made redundant by poor planning and illegal parking. On-the-spot fines will only work if punishment is fairly distributed to ALL road users who flout the Highway Code, not just to cyclists.

Penalising cyclists where their safety record is second to none is simply playing to the gallery of rabid anti-cyclists who have yet to learn to cross the road, or drive a car properly.

greg66_tri_v2.0

number9 wrote:

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'd be slightly wary of that stat, without further explanation.

There are uninsured drivers who never take out a policy in the first place, and there are those who do, then have an accident, and then find their cover is voided by their insurer (eg for non-disclosure in the policy application, "fronting", etc). Insurers' claims departments have a vested interest in minimising the number of claims they pay out on.

Both categories one assumes end up in the lap of the MIB.

spen666

Greg66 wrote:

number9 wrote:

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'd be slightly wary of that stat, without further explanation.

There are uninsured drivers who never take out a policy in the first place, and there are those who do, then have an accident, and then find their cover is voided by their insurer (eg for non-disclosure in the policy application, "fronting", etc). Insurers' claims departments have a vested interest in minimising the number of claims they pay out on.

Both categories one assumes end up in the lap of the MIB.

No, the latter doesn't go to the MIB- insurer will stil lhave to deal. Voiding insurance after accident is only relevant between insured and insurer it does not allow insurance company to avoid paying out to 3rd party

greg66_tri_v2.0

number9 wrote:

The behaviour of the one-in-ten uninsured drivers in London is the reason some cyclists use the pavements.

There is no point in persecuting cyclists when more often than not their bad behaviour is a result of the bad behaviour of other road users.

On-the-spot fines for cyclists will not prevent pedestrians from running across road without looking, vans from turning without indicating or cycle lanes made redundant by poor planning and illegal parking. On-the-spot fines will only work if punishment is fairly distributed to ALL road users who flout the Highway Code, not just to cyclists.

Penalising cyclists where their safety record is second to none is simply playing to the gallery of rabid anti-cyclists who have yet to learn to cross the road, or drive a car properly.

The first para looks to be completely unsubstantiated speculation.

The remainder is nothing more than a plea that cyclists be placed above the law.

spen666

number9 wrote:

The behaviour of the one-in-ten uninsured drivers in London is the reason some cyclists use the pavements.

There is no point in persecuting cyclists when more often than not their bad behaviour is a result of the bad behaviour of other road users.

that is a bit like saying that its ok for people to carry knives and or guns as they are worried re behaviour of other criminals.

Riding on the pavement is a crime. No ifs or buts

On-the-spot fines for cyclists will not prevent pedestrians from running across road without looking, vans from turning without indicating or cycle lanes made redundant by poor planning and illegal parking. On-the-spot fines will only work if punishment is fairly distributed to ALL road users who flout the Highway Code, not just to cyclists.

Penalising cyclists where their safety record is second to none is simply playing to the gallery of rabid anti-cyclists who have yet to learn to cross the road, or drive a car properly.

greg66_tri_v2.0

spen666 wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

number9 wrote:

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'd be slightly wary of that stat, without further explanation.

There are uninsured drivers who never take out a policy in the first place, and there are those who do, then have an accident, and then find their cover is voided by their insurer (eg for non-disclosure in the policy application, "fronting", etc). Insurers' claims departments have a vested interest in minimising the number of claims they pay out on.

Both categories one assumes end up in the lap of the MIB.

No, the latter doesn't go to the MIB- insurer will stil lhave to deal. Voiding insurance after accident is only relevant between insured and insurer it does not allow insurance company to avoid paying out to 3rd party

Ah. Ok, thanks.

DonDaddyD

number9 wrote:

The behaviour of the one-in-ten uninsured drivers in London is the reason some cyclists use the pavements.

That's just rubbish and something you cannot prove.

All you are doing is projecting the blame from one negative element to another.

There is no point in persecuting cyclists when more often than not their bad behaviour is a result of the bad behaviour of other road users.

This is an opinion and not even a valid one. So the actions of another cause someone to commit a crime that could endanger lives and they shouldn't be held responsible?

Is this school?

On-the-spot fines for cyclists will not prevent pedestrians from running across road without looking, vans from turning without indicating or cycle lanes made redundant by poor planning and illegal parking.

But no one is saying it will, on the spot fines will help prevent RLJing and pavement riding, which is the intention.

On-the-spot fines will only work if punishment is fairly distributed to ALL road users who flout the Highway Code, not just to cyclists.

On this I agree.

Penalising cyclists where their safety record is second to none is simply playing to the gallery of rabid anti-cyclists who have yet to learn to cross the road, or drive a car properly.

But the safety record isn't second to none. Again you're just ranting.

EC2boy

number9 wrote:

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

Good idea. I just pinged her this while trying hard not to get really cross:

I am someone who cycles, walks, drives and takes public transport through Westminster daily. I live in the City of London.

I read a comment by you in the Evening Standard with interest. You are on record as stating: “We're always getting little old ladies who are knocked down and abused by a cyclist, who leave them on the ground as they ride away." You made this comemnt in relation to an initiative by your council to fine cyclists for infringing traffic rules.

I would like to know how many cyclists are knocking down and abusing little old ladies in Westminster.

I suspect very few indeed.

Yes, I agree that some cyclists can be irresponsible. Some can be rude and unpleasant. And the same goes for some people when they drive cars and when they walk as well. I have no issue with being fined for infringing road traffic rules, whether in my car or on my bicycle. As a side issue, I think it a shame that you single out only one type of vehicle, namely the bicycle, for penalties.

However, my main thrust is that your comment is factually wrong and, as a result, it is misleading and irresponsible.


I would like to know if you can back up your statement with factual evidence.

I would also like to know how many people are killed or seriously injued by motor vehicles in Westminster.

My guess is that you will find the latter far more potent in knocking down and abusing little old ladies.

I wonder in the light of those two statistics whether you still feel that non-motorised vehicles are more of a threat to your constituents and visitors than motorised vehicles?

Best regards

number9

Hello to the two lawyer straw men fans!!


For the umpteenth time, nobody's condoning pavement cycling, argue with what's been said, not your hysterical lies about what's been written.

Read the thread, I've condemned pavement cyclists, my mouth's big enough without you putting words in them.

You have a situation where, mostly, in my experience, chavs on crappy bikes use the pavement.

On the other hand you have nervous cyclists who, knowing that should a driver kill them the full force of the law will descend upon the driver in the form of, errrr, a £300 fine, use the pavement.

Using the pavement is wrong (you can cut out and keep that last sentence so you don't forget it!) but the reason SOME cyclists do so is because the roads are by and large lawless.

Take HGVs in London. Only one police unit is allocated to carry out safety checks on London's lorries. TFL are closing it.

In a random survey by City Of London police, every single HGV lorry stopped in central London was found to be unroadworthy, the driver was uninsured, had exceeded the safe working hours or was driving a dangerous vehicle.

Then Westminster announce a clampdown on an activity that is about as risky as gardening.

Make sense?

spen666

number9 wrote:

Hello to the two lawyer straw men fans!!

Are you unable to debate an issue without personal abuse?

For the umpteenth time, nobody's condoning pavement cycling, argue with what's been said, not your hysterical lies about what's been written.

What hysterical lies?

Name a single hysterical lie I have posted on this thread

Read the thread, I've condemned pavement cyclists, my mouth's big enough without you putting words in them.

[/quote How have I put words in your mouth? What words were these?

You have a situation where, mostly, in my experience, chavs on crappy bikes use the pavement.

On the other hand you have nervous cyclists who, knowing that should a driver kill them the full force of the law will descend upon the driver in the form of, errrr, a £300 fine, use the pavement.

Using the pavement is wrong (you can cut out and keep that last sentence so you don't forget it!) but the reason SOME cyclists do so is because the roads are by and large lawless.

So is walking the streets round here, so I am ok to carry a knife or a gun am I because the streets are lawless?

No, its a stupid idea as is the idea that riding on the pavement is somehow justified because of fear of the roads

The roads may indeed be perceived to be dangerous, but a cyclist committing a crime is not able to legitimately justify his crime be claiming he is afraisd of riding on the road.

It also showws a total disregard for the s pedestrians who are entitled to expect to rwalk the pavement without fear of having to dodge criminals on bikes riding illegally

Take HGVs in London. Only one police unit is allocated to carry out safety checks on London's lorries. TFL are closing it.

In a random survey by City Of London police, every single HGV lorry stopped in central London was found to be unroadworthy, the driver was uninsured, had exceeded the safe working hours or was driving a dangerous vehicle.

Then Westminster announce a clampdown on an activity that is about as risky as gardening.

Make sense?

So because the TfL stops funding a police department it justifies the cyclist committing criminal activities does it?

Eau Rouge

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.

I think that's the second time you've mis-attibuted what others have said to me in this thread. I don't think I've even mentioned that report.
As Wallace1492 says, these uninsured drivers are, according to the numbers, actually less likely to kill people than inudured ones.
In another post you quote £30 extra on a premium, but again, the numbers don't actually back that up, do they? £380 million split among 29.6 million policies is £12.83, not £30
The insurance companies like to play this up, car insurance is very competative in the UK (hence the never ending ads) They would much rather get the £380 million from the uninsured because for marketing reasons, they can't really get away with adding £12.83 to everyone's policies because we all compare meerkats to get the cheapest quote.

"The behaviour of the one-in-ten uninsured drivers in London is the reason some cyclists use the pavements."

You seriously think that?

ride_whenever

the thing is, if you're too afraid to cycle any of your route then you shouldn't be riding, you should stay at home wrapped in cotton wool.

If there are sections that are too busy for you then get of and push. Riding on the pavements simply doesn't need to happen.

There is only one place where i ride on the pavement, when cycling onto my drive. The same as any car would do.

number9

ride_whenever wrote:

the thing is, if you're too afraid to cycle any of your route then you shouldn't be riding, you should stay at home wrapped in cotton wool.

If there are sections that are too busy for you then get of and push. Riding on the pavements simply doesn't need to happen.

There is only one place where i ride on the pavement, when cycling onto my drive. The same as any car would do.

Yes, of course. Unfortunately this doesn't happen and pavement cycling DOES happen and IS perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a major problem.

The harsh reality is a number of cyclists would not have been killed if they had RLJd or ridden on the pavement, Sebastien Lukowmski and Emma Foa, for instance. They both obeyed the law and both were killed by HGVs.

That letter to the councillor was very well written.

DonDaddyD

number9 wrote:

Hello to the two lawyer straw men fans!!

Pathetic really.

For the umpteenth time, nobody's condoning pavement cycling

Yes you are by shifting the responsiblity from pavement cyclists to uninsured drivers. See here:

number9 wrote:

The behaviour of the one-in-ten uninsured drivers in London is the reason some cyclists use the pavements.

argue with what's been said, not your hysterical lies about what's been written.

This means nothing except that you can't admit your wrong, your back is against the wall and you have to resort to hysterical rambilings to defend your point/self.

Read the thread, I've condemned pavement cyclists, my mouth's big enough without you putting words in them.

No one is talking about condeming cyclists. Your going off the point here possibly because your point about uninsured drivers which your now seemingly ignoring has been picked apart and you to your own failings cannot admit your wrong or manage to maintain a civil informative conversation.

You have a situation where, mostly, in my experience, chavs on crappy bikes use the pavement.

For someone who likes to post a multitude of internet based evidence can you support this claim, back it up with stats? Or is this more wild rantings? Besides what has this got to do with uninsured drivers?

On the other hand you have nervous cyclists who, knowing that should a driver kill them the full force of the law will descend upon the driver in the form of, errrr, a £300 fine, use the pavement.

Again ramblings and Daily mail style rantings, which are again pathetic. Harsher punishments aren't going to solve anything on their own.

Besides what has this got to do with uninsured drivers? Or even cyclists RLJing and on the spot fines?

Using the pavement is wrong (you can cut out and keep that last sentence so you don't forget it!) but the reason SOME cyclists do so is because the roads are by and large lawless.

But they aren't lawless are they? They clearly have laws don't they?

Take HGVs in London. Only one police unit is allocated to carry out safety checks on London's lorries. TFL are closing it.

In a random survey by City Of London police, every single HGV lorry stopped in central London was found to be unroadworthy, the driver was uninsured, had exceeded the safe working hours or was driving a dangerous vehicle.

Then Westminster announce a clampdown on an activity that is about as risky as gardening.

Make sense?

Not really. It makes as much sense as
"Trying to find the purple monkey before the Jade moon..."

:roll:

spen666

Number 9

Are you able to carry out a debate without insulting or twisting what is said.

Where have I been dishonest?

What have I done that justifies the straw man jibe?
Why won't you answer the questions I asked regarding your previously unfounded allegations?

You appear very ready to make unfounded and untrue allegations but ignore any requests for any evidence to back up what you claim.

number9

The behaviour of the one-in-ten uninsured drivers in London is the reason some cyclists use the pavements.

How is that condoning pavement cycling?

If I say "Some people shoplift because they're poor" does that justify shoplifting?

For someone who likes to post a multitude of internet based evidence can you support this claim, back it up with stats?

As I said, it's my experience, it's what I see up and down Leytonstone High Road.

Your going off the point here possibly because your point about uninsured drivers which your now seemingly ignoring has been picked apart and you to your own failings cannot admit your wrong or manage to maintain a civil informative conversation.

It's "You're".

Which point about uninsured drivers do you think is wrong please?

I thought I'd explained, let me know which bit you don't understand.

number9

This move was one of the proposals that was in the TfL/LLA Bill defeated by the London Cycling Campaign in Parliament.


Westminster seem to be trying to get the suggestion in via the back door.

The LCC argued against the proposals because they believe that enforcement is a matter for the police.

DonDaddyD

number9 wrote:

The behaviour of the one-in-ten uninsured drivers in London is the reason some cyclists use the pavements.

How is that condoning pavement cycling?

If I say "Some people shoplift because they're poor" does that justify shoplifting?

But you are not saying that are you. You were trying to justify why cyclists ride on the pavement by shifting the responsibility to uninsured drivers. See here:

number9 wrote:

The behaviour of the one-in-ten uninsured drivers in London is the reason some cyclists use the pavements.

As I said, it's my experience, it's what I see up and down Leytonstone High Road.

Fine, but it really isn't a point is it?

It's "You're".

My typo and I stand corrected, thank you.

Which point about uninsured drivers do you think is wrong please?

I thought I'd explained, let me know which bit you don't understand.

The point that you are trying to claim that on the spot fines for cyclists are wrong because there are uninsured drivers, which was about the sum total of your point.

The two don't even correlate and frankly I've grown tired of meaningful threads, that even I have the decency to treat with a level of maturity and respect, being bombarded by your Daily Mail-esque rantings. In my opinion your somewhat intollerance and inability to discuss in an informed and measured manner does nothing for the safety, well-being or image of cyclists. If anything your stance if had the publicity would push us back 20years or so.

There I've said it.

Anonymous

number9 can you please use the forum without descending into personal insults. If this continues you'll be banned.

Wallace1492

To get back on topic. If 1 in 5 cyclist are breaking the law, that is a significant number.
I beleive they should be cracked down on. They may have reasons for doing so, but that is not an excuse, other than in extreme circumstances.

If the "lycra lout" stories had no basis, they would not get printed. Simple.
Virtually all in this forum will be pretty responsible, and generally law abiding, so it should not affect many here.

By all means get the uninsured drivers, the murderers, the rapists and the litter droppers as well. But let's not bleat when it is cyclists turn too.

Clever Pun

Exactly, if you get caught doing something wrong

number9 wrote:

However justified

:roll: however justified... and you get caught suck it up and don't do it again

greg66_tri_v2.0

Wallace1492 wrote:

"lycra lout"

It is a regrettable characteristic of the tabloids that they need a whipping boy. Think back: dangerous dogs, illegal immigrants, bankers and their bonuses, fat cat lawyers, lycra louts, lager louts, football holligans and so it goes on.

I console myself with the thought that another group will be along soon to be picked, and us lycra louts and retire to the old peoples' home in peace.

number9

Saying "Some cyclists are scared of traffic and use the pavement" is no more justifying or condoning pavement cycling than saying "Some people get drunk and smash up kebab shops" is justifying or condoning smashing up kebab shops.

I'm getting tired of posts that start "So, what you are saying is..." followed by a wildly inaccurate distortion of what I've said.

Like this:

The point that you are trying to claim that on the spot fines for cyclists are wrong because there are uninsured drivers, which was about the sum total of your point.

Since I've said untold times that pavement cyclists should be fined I'm baffled as to how you've got this wildly inaccurate impression.

Explaining isn't justifying.

Describing isn't condoning.

greg66_tri_v2.0

number9 wrote:

I'm getting tired of posts that start "So, what you are saying is..." followed by a wildly inaccurate distortion of what I've said.

This is intended to be constructive.

IMO, you need to take more care to ensure that what you write accurately reflects what you are trying to say. Some of the heat in these arguments is generated by a mismatch between what you think you're saying, and what your posts objectively say.

HTH

Clever Pun

Greg66 wrote:

number9 wrote:

I'm getting tired of posts that start "So, what you are saying is..." followed by a wildly inaccurate distortion of what I've said.

This is intended to be constructive.

IMO, you need to take more care to ensure that what you write accurately reflects what you are trying to say. Some of the heat in these arguments is generated by a mismatch between what you think you're saying, and what your posts objectively say.

HTH

I'm not familiar with this one

Have to Hurry
Hang the Heathen?
heart to heart?

DonDaddyD

number9 wrote:

Saying "Some cyclists are scared of traffic and use the pavement" is no more justifying or condoning pavement cycling than saying "Some people get drunk and smash up kebab shops" is justifying or condoning smashing up kebab shops.

FFS.

But you weren't saying that were you. Let me re post:

number9 wrote:

Dondaddyd wrote:

But you are not saying that are you. You were trying to justify why cyclists ride on the pavement by shifting the responsibility to uninsured drivers.

The behaviour of the one-in-ten uninsured drivers in London is the reason some cyclists use the pavements.

I'm getting tired of posts that start "So, what you are saying is..." followed by a wildly inaccurate distortion of what I've said.

Like this:

The point that you are trying to claim that on the spot fines for cyclists are wrong because there are uninsured drivers, which was about the sum total of your point.

Since I've said untold times that pavement cyclists should be fined I'm baffled as to how you've got this wildly inaccurate impression.

Explaining isn't justifying.

Describing isn't condoning.

So, what you are saying is that you are now back tracking on your initial stance? You said that there shouldn't be an initiative to stop cyclists because it was a waste of resources as that money would be better spent chasing uninsured drivers.

How the two correlates I'll never no. You then went on to ramble about uninsured drivers being the cause for cyclists to ride on the pavement [see above].

Normally I would have just skimmed past what you wrote, but today (after days of your Daily Mailposts) I decided to bite and actually challenge you on what you're trying to say. I've gotten nowhere and am no wiser as to what you were trying to say. Do you see now why I don't feel you could possibly benefit cyclists?

Anywho, we are going around in circles and this will be the second-third time I've copied and pasted what I've written previously with you desperately trying (with the skill of a failed politician) to avoid it. I'm bored and done.

greg66_tri_v2.0

HTH = hope that helps.