westminster bike "police"

number9

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.

Sigh.


No, I did not.

I said the law ought to be applied equally and resources allocated to where the significant danger lies.

Pavement cyclists should be fined. Trafpol dedicated to the road users with a disproportionately terrible safety record should not be removed.

These positions are not mutually exclusive.

Wallace1492

I do think this is going round in circles with people picking on the slightest thing, reading all sorts into posts, and generally not progressing with any sort of meaningful debate.
In summary:

Westminster coucil are going to employ some people to fine cyclists for breaking the law - specifically for cycling on pavements. Presumably these people will have the correct powers to do this or they would not consider it.

Some cyclist are not happy about this as they feel picked on, and there are 1.7 million uninsured drivers out there.

I think that sums up 5 pages of constructive debate.

number9

I do think this is going round in circles with people picking on the slightest thing, reading all sorts into posts, and generally not progressing with any sort of meaningful debate.

The spooky thing is it's always the same two posters who nitpick, sneer, belittle and misrepresent what's been said.

DonDaddyD

Wallace1492 wrote:

Some cyclist are not happy about this as they feel picked on, and there are 1.7 million uninsured drivers out there.

My issue is, what does 1.7million uninsured drivers have to do with cyclists on the pavement.

There could be 2 million pickpockets, 6 million muggers, 8 million rapists and 1.9 million people driving without a valid licence (all fictional numbers). Its (the uninsured drivers) a figure pulled out from nowhere (no matter how accurate) that holds no sway over and as to why some people cycle on the pavement and it detracts from the point that while the fines are unfair people shouldn't be cycling on the pavement.

Uninsured drivers have no relevance or influence over or are even a factor as to why some cycle on the pavement. It's not even about resources because the resources used to stop uninsured drivers hold no sway over the resources proposed to stop and fine cyclists.

Its a moot point. That is what I was pointing out.

number9

Uninsured drivers have no relevance or influence over or are even a factor as to why some cycle on the pavement.

Some cyclist use pavements cos they're nervous about traffic.

THIS IS NOT CONDONING PAVEMENT CYCLING!!!

Now, since we know that drivers who are uninsured are more likely to be drunk, drugged and involved in more accidents than insured drivers, the correlation is fairly plain. Bad behaviour by drivers is a reason why cyclists use pavements.


I'd really welcome mandatory training for any cyclist caught on the pavement.

But here's my suggestion if you really want to crack down on pavement cycling: push your local police and council for a crackdown on dangerous and reckless driving – red light cameras, anti-mobile campaigns, random checks for insurance/MOT.

In other words, pavement cycling is the symptom, dangerous drivers are the root cause.

Wallace1492

DonDaddyD wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Some cyclist are not happy about this as they feel picked on, and there are 1.7 million uninsured drivers out there.

My issue is, what does 1.7million uninsured drivers have to do with cyclists on the pavement.

There could be 2 million pickpockets, 6 million muggers, 8 million rapists and 1.9 million people driving without a valid licence (all fictional numbers). Its (the uninsured drivers) a figure pulled out from nowhere (no matter how accurate).

Uninsured drivers have no relevance or influence over or are even a factor as to why some cycle on the pavement. it's not even about resources because the resources used to stop uninsured drivers hold no sway over the resources proposed to stop and fine cyclists.

Its a moot point. That is what I was pointing out.

I did not say it had any relevence. I believe that No9 was suggesting that the resources used to target the cyclists should be used instead to target the uninsured driver as there would be a better return from this. Uninsured drivers cost us £400 mio, whereas pavement cyclist cost us errrr, not as much.

It then degenerated.

Personally i felt that it was a good point, but I would still like to see anti social cyclists targeted as well.

number9

I object to cyclists being policed by council employees rather than the police too.

DonDaddyD

number9 wrote:

Uninsured drivers have no relevance or influence over or are even a factor as to why some cycle on the pavement.

Some cyclist use pavements cos they're nervous about traffic.

Prove it. Because previously you accused them of being chavs on crappy bikes.

Now, since we know that drivers who are uninsured are more likely to be drunk, drugged and involved in more accidents than insured drivers, the correlation is fairly plain.

Substanstiate this with evidence. Don't recite the Direct Line link, its already been shot down.

I'd really welcome mandatory training for any cyclist caught on the pavement.

Why not have mandatory training for all cyclists, seems fairer?

But here's my suggestion if you really want to crack down on pavement cycling: push your local police and council for a crackdown on dangerous and reckless driving – red light cameras, anti-mobile campaigns, random checks for insurance/MOT.

You were almost onto something until this:

In other words, pavement cycling is the symptom, dangerous drivers are the root cause.

:roll:

Again, you ar trying to justify pavement cycling. And I'm sorry it is in part condoning. It's like saying "I know its wrong, but it happens because..."

Clever Pun

number9 wrote:

I object to cyclists being policed by council employees rather than the police too.

but council employees are cheaper to use thus helping the cops have more budget to catch other law breakers such as uninsured drivers?

DonDaddyD

Wallace1492 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Some cyclist are not happy about this as they feel picked on, and there are 1.7 million uninsured drivers out there.

My issue is, what does 1.7million uninsured drivers have to do with cyclists on the pavement.

There could be 2 million pickpockets, 6 million muggers, 8 million rapists and 1.9 million people driving without a valid licence (all fictional numbers). Its (the uninsured drivers) a figure pulled out from nowhere (no matter how accurate).

Uninsured drivers have no relevance or influence over or are even a factor as to why some cycle on the pavement. it's not even about resources because the resources used to stop uninsured drivers hold no sway over the resources proposed to stop and fine cyclists.

Its a moot point. That is what I was pointing out.

I did not say it had any relevence. I believe that No9 was suggesting that the resources used to target the cyclists should be used instead to target the uninsured driver as there would be a better return from this. Uninsured drivers cost us £400 mio, whereas pavement cyclist cost us errrr, not as much.

It then degenerated.

Personally i felt that it was a good point, but I would still like to see anti social cyclists targeted as well.

I've got no problem with it being a good point. I asked for how uninsured drivers was relevant or even related to cyclists and got nothing. The resources to chase (keep in mind the uninsured car is driving so you would need a police car and two police officers per car) and stop the uninsured driver are completely different to addition support officers employed to stop pavement cyclists.

number9

I asked for how uninsured drivers was relevant or even related to cyclists and got nothing.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... c&start=60

Please don't ignore my posts then claim you've not been answered.

Unless you can demonstrate pavement cyclists cost the rest of us in excess of £400 million a year it's difficult to see how the allocation of limited resources is equitable.

DonDaddyD

number9 wrote:

I asked for how uninsured drivers was relevant or even related to cyclists and got nothing.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... c&start=60

Please don't ignore my posts then claim you've not been answered.

Unless you can demonstrate pavement cyclists cost the rest of us in excess of £400 million a year it's difficult to see how the allocation of limited resources is equitable.

Yes its a link to an earlier page of the thread. It doesn't answer my question.

So again I ask:

How are uninsured drivers related to and are the cause of cyclists riding on the pavement? How are the resources interlinked? Please don't just use your hypothetical theories.

I really would appreciate it if you read not only mine but other peoples posts before you reply. Consider the following posts:

Clever Pun wrote:

number9 wrote:

I object to cyclists being policed by council employees rather than the police too.

but council employees are cheaper to use thus helping the cops have more budget to catch other law breakers such as uninsured drivers?

And

Dondaddyd wrote:

The resources to chase (keep in mind the uninsured car is driving so you would need a police car and two police officers per car) and stop the uninsured driver are completely different to additional support officers employed to stop pavement cyclists.

Wallace1492

DonDaddyD wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Some cyclist are not happy about this as they feel picked on, and there are 1.7 million uninsured drivers out there.

My issue is, what does 1.7million uninsured drivers have to do with cyclists on the pavement.

There could be 2 million pickpockets, 6 million muggers, 8 million rapists and 1.9 million people driving without a valid licence (all fictional numbers). Its (the uninsured drivers) a figure pulled out from nowhere (no matter how accurate).

Uninsured drivers have no relevance or influence over or are even a factor as to why some cycle on the pavement. it's not even about resources because the resources used to stop uninsured drivers hold no sway over the resources proposed to stop and fine cyclists.

Its a moot point. That is what I was pointing out.

I did not say it had any relevence. I believe that No9 was suggesting that the resources used to target the cyclists should be used instead to target the uninsured driver as there would be a better return from this. Uninsured drivers cost us £400 mio, whereas pavement cyclist cost us errrr, not as much.

It then degenerated.

Personally i felt that it was a good point, but I would still like to see anti social cyclists targeted as well.

I've got no problem with it being a good point. I asked for how uninsured drivers was relevant or even related to cyclists and got nothing. The resources to chase (keep in mind the uninsured car is driving so you would need a police car and two police officers per car) and stop the uninsured driver are completely different to addition support officers employed to stop pavement cyclists.

And that is a fair point.

However I also see No9's point that people will ride on the pavement because they are nervous about the behaviour of some cars/vans/HGV's and the many accidents there have been. I would suggest that a lot of the bad driving is attributable to insured drivers as well, but do accept that uninsured driver will have more accidents (but probably proportionately less fatalities) than insured drivers.

I would think that at the peak times, the majority of vehicles will be insured, and the uninsured will be out avoiding these times (no cash, unemployed, criminals, drugies, drunks) no proof mind, just speculation.

I do not think therefore uninsured drivers influence pavement cycling to any great extent. It would be interesting to hear the reasons given when they are stopped and fined.

I do not have a problem with a council employee doing this, as long as they are properly trained. After all what are Police other than glorified council workers.

Clever Pun

following on from Wallace's post

the only people I've seen using pavements to cycle 'fully' on aren't commuters and I suspect they don't give a damn about anything let alone safety

I do occasionally see commuters hoping onto pavements to nip past blocked traffic again not safety induced just trying to get where they're going faster (not unlike a lot of commuting rlj'ing)

DonDaddyD

Wallace1492 wrote:

And that is a fair point.

However I also see No9's point that people will ride on the pavement because they are nervous about the behaviour of some cars/vans/HGV's and the many accidents there have been. I would suggest that a lot of the bad driving is attributable to insured drivers as well, but do accept that uninsured driver will have more accidents (but probably proportionately less fatalities) than insured drivers.

I take your point, but my brain won't allow me to quantify it. When on my bike, driving my car or as a pedestrian regardless of the car being driven I cannot determine who is an uninsured driver and who isn't. A Bad driver I attribute to motorists not the fact that they are insured or not insured. Insurance, for me, doesn't determine how good or bad the driver is going to be.

I will say this, there is likely to be a reason why the driver is uninsured and there may be correlation to that and the ability to drive (age, legal status of driving a car, legal status in general) however, this isn't th definitive rule.

I would think that at the peak times, the majority of vehicles will be insured, and the uninsured will be out avoiding these times (no cash, unemployed, criminals, drugies, drunks) no proof mind, just speculation.

Good point.

I do not think therefore uninsured drivers influence pavement cycling to any great extent. It would be interesting to hear the reasons given when they are stopped and fined.

Well said.

Wallace1492

Clever Pun wrote:

following on from Wallace's post

the only people I've seen using pavements to cycle 'fully' on aren't commuters and I suspect they don't give a damn about anything let alone safety

I do occasionally see commuters hoping onto pavements to nip past blocked traffic again not safety induced just trying to get where they're going faster (not unlike a lot of commuting rlj'ing)

Here Here!!

Would be interesting to find out their reasons none the less.
Well, we seem to have got somewhere at last..... but not really sure where that is!!

number9

Roger Geffen, campaigns and policy manager at UK cyclists' organisation CTC, said there were better ways to improve road safety than pointing the finger at cyclists.

He told BikeRadar: “We would entirely agree that all road users – cyclists included – need to have respect for one another and for the rules of the road. CTC is all in favour of more traffic policing, as cyclists are far more likely to be the victims than the perpetrators of dangerous road behaviour.

"However, if the mayor is serious about improving cyclists’ safety he would be increasing the resources available for traffic policing. Instead he is cutting spending on roads policing, making London’s roads a lot more dangerous for cyclists, and then blaming the victims.”


http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/arti ... /?pageno=2

I agree.

I feel cycling on the pavement is a very visible example of bad road use. When motorists drive on the verge of sleep, pass too close / without due care and attention it is actually hard to spot it, which is perhaps why Westminster have highlighted a more visible and easy target of cyclists on pavements

Read more: http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/cycling/l ... z0Z1JQvmPT

bails87

IF I was driving with no insurance, I'd be paying more attention than normal, to avoid the chance of having an accident/getting pulled over, leading to me being 'found out'

However, if people are driving with no insurance because they're in a stolen car or they don't have a license, they're probably not the best drivers to start with. Insurance (or lack of) is a bit of a red herring. If you take the same driver and insure them, their behaviour is unlikely to change. Is it possible that it just happens that drivers who are already bad, are less likely to be insured?

Bad driver---->more accidents

---

>higher premiums

---

>more likely to not take out insurance?

DonDaddyD

bails87 wrote:

IF I was driving with no insurance, I'd be paying more attention than normal, to avoid the chance of having an accident/getting pulled over, leading to me being 'found out'

+1

However, if people are driving with no insurance because they're in a stolen car or they don't have a license, they're probably not the best drivers to start with. Insurance (or lack of) is a bit of a red herring. If you take the same driver and insure them, their behaviour is unlikely to change. Is it possible that it just happens that drivers who are already bad, are less likely to be insured?

Bad driver---->more accidents

---

>higher premiums

---

>more likely to not take out insurance?

Edit: Bad driver-->accident-->no insurance-->cost of repair-->criminal record (maybe) Is it worth it and has anyone looked at whether the number of uninsured drivers is increasing or is the cost to repair damages increased which is why they're costing so much?

So I'm going to go out on a limb and say not really.

If we took a poll of all the people here who have unfortunately been hit by a car, how many were by uninsured drivers?

I'm not saying that uninsured drivers aren't a problem, they are. But they are a seperate problem that needs to be dealt with seperately.

I don't buy into the argument "Don't point the finger at cyclists point the finger at uninsured drivers or any other kind of motorists". I'm more about dealing with road safety holistically. Deal with the problem because its a problem unto itself and not because it diverts attention from another problem.

Wallace1492

number9 wrote:

Roger Geffen, campaigns and policy manager at UK cyclists' organisation CTC, said there were better ways to improve road safety than pointing the finger at cyclists.

He told BikeRadar: “We would entirely agree that all road users – cyclists included – need to have respect for one another and for the rules of the road. CTC is all in favour of more traffic policing, as cyclists are far more likely to be the victims than the perpetrators of dangerous road behaviour.

"However, if the mayor is serious about improving cyclists’ safety he would be increasing the resources available for traffic policing. Instead he is cutting spending on roads policing, making London’s roads a lot more dangerous for cyclists, and then blaming the victims.”


http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/arti ... /?pageno=2

I agree.

I feel cycling on the pavement is a very visible example of bad road use. When motorists drive on the verge of sleep, pass too close / without due care and attention it is actually hard to spot it, which is perhaps why Westminster have highlighted a more visible and easy target of cyclists on pavements

Read more: http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/cycling/l ... z0Z1JQvmPT

I agree too, and probably will most cyclists to the first point.

As to Westminster targeting cyclists, as they are more visible, well why not? A visible problem is seen by many and they will want something done about it. Doesn't mean it should be the only thing looked at, but it is part of the "improving safety" tool kit that the council uses.

I have always advocated a better method to be able to report bad driving, not sure how it could work, but after nearly being killed by a driver going through a red light at 70 in a 30 zone and being told by police it was his word against mine, I have been a little p1ssed off.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Wallace1492 wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

following on from Wallace's post

the only people I've seen using pavements to cycle 'fully' on aren't commuters and I suspect they don't give a damn about anything let alone safety

I do occasionally see commuters hoping onto pavements to nip past blocked traffic again not safety induced just trying to get where they're going faster (not unlike a lot of commuting rlj'ing)

Here Here!!

Would be interesting to find out their reasons none the less.
Well, we seem to have got somewhere at last..... but not really sure where that is!!

Hmm. Why do some cyclists ride on the pavement?

Leave aside the quick nip onto and off the pavement to get round a blockage or something, and let's forget kids of the small children variety. I don't think that's really the sort of endemic pavement cycling we're looking at here.

If I think about it, the pavement riders I see are CP's first category. They're on the pavement because (a) they can be (b) they know they shouldn't be and (c) the pavement offers more scope for c0cking around on than the road does. Critically, they're not going somewhere - they're just c0cking about. They have no interest in using a road network to go from A to B, because they're not interested in either A or B.

Where does that get us though? They're borderline deserving of an ASBO?

Public money resources are always finite, and if the entity that's spending them is electable, it's inevitable that at some point those resources will be spent on something that has mass voter appeal. Vote winners and VFM don't need to go hand in hand; far from it.

OldSkoolKona

Dondaddyd wrote:

The resources to chase (keep in mind the uninsured car is driving so you would need a police car and two police officers per car) and stop the uninsured driver are completely different to additional support officers employed to stop pavement cyclists.

But not necessarily the budgets.

Great to be back on the forum, but hey guys, can we not just chill and accept that each person has interesting points and perspectives to add. Having arguments to prove a point to the n'th degree is a little offputting to some peeps on the forum and dare I say it any newbies/lurkers. Lets not lose the banter and nice atmosphere that makes BikeRadar Commuting forum a cool place to discuss stuff, have a bit of a debate, and hopefully give some guidance to the newbies :-)

Clever Pun

OldSkoolKona wrote:

Dondaddyd wrote:

The resources to chase (keep in mind the uninsured car is driving so you would need a police car and two police officers per car) and stop the uninsured driver are completely different to additional support officers employed to stop pavement cyclists.

But not necessarily the budgets.

Great to be back on the forum, but hey guys, can we not just chill and accept that each person has interesting points and perspectives to add. Having arguments to prove a point to the n'th degree is a little offputting to some peeps on the forum and dare I say it any newbies/lurkers. Lets not lose the banter and nice atmosphere that makes BikeRadar Commuting forum a cool place to discuss stuff, have a bit of a debate, and hopefully give some guidance to the newbies :-)

How dare you come on here telling us what to do :!:

Wallace1492

OldSkoolKona wrote:

Dondaddyd wrote:

The resources to chase (keep in mind the uninsured car is driving so you would need a police car and two police officers per car) and stop the uninsured driver are completely different to additional support officers employed to stop pavement cyclists.

But not necessarily the budgets.

Great to be back on the forum, but hey guys, can we not just chill and accept that each person has interesting points and perspectives to add. Having arguments to prove a point to the n'th degree is a little offputting to some peeps on the forum and dare I say it any newbies/lurkers. Lets not lose the banter and nice atmosphere that makes BikeRadar Commuting forum a cool place to discuss stuff, have a bit of a debate, and hopefully give some guidance to the newbies :-)

+1 Nice post OldSkool

I thought with the shortening of the days the bees died off, but they are certainly in peoples bonnetts in here.

The "debates" that piss me off are the ones where everyone is on the same side, but have a very slight angle on it, that is argued over and picked and counter picked apart.
This being case in point.

Everyone agrees that it is not good cycling on pavements.

number9

I don't buy into the argument "Don't point the finger at cyclists point the finger at uninsured drivers or any other kind of motorists".

Luckily nobody's made that argument.

It's a great shame there is this aggression and hostility to peoples' opinions here.

You could summarise the thread thus far as:

Number9 "Cycling on pavements sometimes happens because cyclists are nervous"

Spen: "Ah, so carrying a knife is ok then!!!"

What that is, is substituting what's been said with something hysterically at odds that has nothing to do with the original point.

Nobody said pavement cycling was "ok".

That's a straw man , incredibly tedious. and petty.

I'm beginning to think that you never actually leave your house. You lock yourself in, and read accounts of the outside world on the internet.

Does the ban on personal abuse apply mulilaterally? What does Greg's remark add to the debate? Why belittle people because you disagree with them?

Take someone lurking on the forum and summoning the courage to post. Would Greg's snide personal remarks encourage them to join in?

Ad hominem, straw men, misrepresentations of what's been said, so much aggression can't be healthy.

spen666

How is the cyclist who is riding on the pavement to know the motorist is uninsured or does the cyclist just ride omn the pavement incase any motorist is uninsured.

Although what is the relevance to riding on the pavement of the cyclist being uninsured. If you are hit by a car, it hurts whether the driver is insured or not.

If the driver is insured and driver is to blame his insurers will settle any claim. This of course does not stop the accident happening or prevent any injury

If the driver is not insured and driver is to blame the MIBwill settle any claim. This of course does not stop the accident happening or prevent any injury


The suggestion that uninsured drivers somehow cause cyclists to ride on the pavement seems to be a rather strange premise.

To say that someone cycles on the pavement because of fear of an accident is a different mattere

BTW does having insurance prevent a car mounting the pavement in an accident?

number9

The suggestion that uninsured drivers somehow cause cyclists to ride on the pavement seems to be a rather strange premise.

Luckily, nobody's said that.

To say that someone cycles on the pavement because of fear of an accident is a different mattere

That's what I said.

Please, respectfully, can you stop plucking arguments out of thin air?

What may work for you in your busy lawyer job comes across as a dishonest, unending parade of straw men here.

MonkeyMonster

Yawn
I'll use this one but i'm not surprised at all...

number9

Cyclists should be where they belong – on the road. Cycling on the pavement is annoying, but it's not as dangerous as you might think. In the past 10 years, not a single pedestrian in London has been killed by a cyclist on the pavement - yet 54 pedestrians have been killed by motorists driving on the pavement.


Compared to other forms of illegal and antisocial behaviour, antisocial cycling is not particularly harmful. Of course, the rare instances when bad cycling causes injury and even death are tragic and should be investigated by the police. However, we need to put it in perspective: it is very rare, and that is why it hits the headlines when it happens.


Cyclists just aren't that much of a problem. Much illegal cycling is the result of ignorance and fear of cycling on hostile roads, rather than malice. I'd like to see all cyclists offered cycle training and cyclists who break the law required to undergo it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/g ... al-cycling

Wallace1492

number9 wrote:

The suggestion that uninsured drivers somehow cause cyclists to ride on the pavement seems to be a rather strange premise.

Luckily, nobody's said that.

Err I thought you did - and to quote you - "The behaviour of the one-in-ten uninsured drivers in London is the reason some cyclists use the pavements."

That is why these threads annoy me. No-one admits mistakes, they are always right.

I have had enough.