Police ignoring pavement cycling
Comments
-
wulfhound wrote:She actually said to me that it's impossible for them to stop cars when they're on foot. So basically cyclists are a soft, easy, revenue generating target and stopping cars involves too much effort.
Don't think it generates much revenue - takes them a while to write out a 20 quid ticket, they probably have to do more paperwork on it when they get back to base, and the overall cost of putting a real (non PCSO) copper on the street must be a fortune.
That said, have spoken to them in the City on a few occasions, they do apparently get a lot of complaints about bikes (presumably from impotent Daily Mail types, idfk), hence have to be seen to be 'doing something about it'. Which raises a couple of points..
.. what kind of a pointless, frustrated human d'you have to be to complain about behaviour which, for the most part, hurts nobody?
.. shouldn't we, as cyclists who stand a very real risk of getting hurt by motorists' idiotic and antisocial behaviour, be more forthright in lodging evidence of said with police? My impression is that they are pretty responsive to perceived public pressure - if they & councils start getting letters and calls complaining about driver behaviour, they might be more inclined to do something about it, even if only for the sake of 'being seen to be doing something'. We get so used to driver idiocy that we just chalk it up to experience and move on - I don't think the average copper is much aware of what we encounter on a daily basis.
It's a £30 ticket actually! I've had 1. As for putting out a kick stand and leaving your bike on the road as suggested by the previous poster, they specifically asked me to take my bike onto the pavement and lean it against a wall before they began the lecture/ticket writing.
I think there is something in that. The City Police certainly seem to be responding to knee jerk reaction from the public rather than actually considering the potential damage caused by an RLJing motorist in 2 tonnes of metal and glass compared with a cyclist at possibly 80-100kg.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
Mithras wrote:Cycling on the Pavement is against the law...OK, however guidance from the then home secratary did say it was not brought in to crimanlise every cyclist on a pavement. It is used to discourage people from cycling without any concern for other pavement users. I have never handed out a ticket for cycling on a pavement. I have for a lad cycling no handed whilst texting. Yes for two adults racingdown a pavement at school kicking out time and other similar events. Common Sense should prevail!
Now Ninja cyclists without lights, look out, my target (self imposed) on my little corner of Peterborough is 100 tickets between October and March.... No excuses, Zero Tolerance....Watch the complaints coming my way!
Best get my lights sorted quick then, eh? :oops: Unless your corner isn't near my commute.0 -
These are quite interesting blog posts, they go some way to explain the policing of cyclists in the City:
http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.com/201 ... tings.html
http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.com/201 ... -what.html
Basically, police-community liaison meetings are full of irrational anti-cyclists. And these meetings have a huge influence on policing priorities:[These] are the sorts of issues that come up for discussion and which the Police are using to decide their priorities (quoted directly from the minutes):
"Cyclists take their life in their hands.
The policy is to increase cycling, especially with the Hire Cycles. We need to up the anti.
The Europeans will make it a free for all.
With children cycling on pavements, what happens when they get older? PC Worsfold said this was a good point and she would get back to the person concerned."
What's all this about: 'We need to up the anti'? Is this some sort of war against cyclists? Or, 'The Europeans will make it a free for all'? What about the terror of children riding on pavements? This is the level of debate that is happening in these meetings and it is these sorts of comments that influence how the police decide what their priorities should be in policing neighbourhoods in the City. It's not about cyclists jumping red lights (and by the way, 3,500 cyclists have been ticketed riding through red lights at Beech Street junction since last October). When you actually sit in these meetings, it feels more like a group of people almost at war with the idea of cycling.0 -
Interesting read, kind of tallies.
Who /are/ these people though? Elderly ladies? Frustrated white van drivers? Residents, business owners, both? I mean - can perfectly understand people being uncomfortable with some cyclist behaviour.. most of us have seen other cyclists doing stupid stuff that we wouldn't like as peds. But uncomfortable enough to spend an evening of one's life turning up at a meeting and ranting about it..?0 -
notsoblue wrote:These are quite interesting blog posts, they go some way to explain the policing of cyclists in the City:
http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.com/201 ... tings.html
http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.com/201 ... -what.html
Basically, police-community liaison meetings are full of irrational anti-cyclists. And these meetings have a huge influence on policing priorities:[These] are the sorts of issues that come up for discussion and which the Police are using to decide their priorities (quoted directly from the minutes):
"Cyclists take their life in their hands.
The policy is to increase cycling, especially with the Hire Cycles. We need to up the anti.
The Europeans will make it a free for all.
With children cycling on pavements, what happens when they get older? PC Worsfold said this was a good point and she would get back to the person concerned."
What's all this about: 'We need to up the anti'? Is this some sort of war against cyclists? Or, 'The Europeans will make it a free for all'? What about the terror of children riding on pavements? This is the level of debate that is happening in these meetings and it is these sorts of comments that influence how the police decide what their priorities should be in policing neighbourhoods in the City. It's not about cyclists jumping red lights (and by the way, 3,500 cyclists have been ticketed riding through red lights at Beech Street junction since last October). When you actually sit in these meetings, it feels more like a group of people almost at war with the idea of cycling.
It is certainly noticeable that the City Police go out of their way to police cyclists but not much else. A short part of my journey used to involve passing through the City (not any more, I avoid the City wherever possible, the Met Police are less irrational with their targetting) and although it only made up perhaps a 3rd of the journey, literally 99% of the time I ever saw cyclists pulled over it was within the City limits, almost never in the Met Police zone and certainly not as a result of PCSOs and PCs actually lying in wait as they do in the City.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
wulfhound wrote:Interesting read, kind of tallies.
Who /are/ these people though? Elderly ladies? Frustrated white van drivers? Residents, business owners, both? I mean - can perfectly understand people being uncomfortable with some cyclist behaviour.. most of us have seen other cyclists doing stupid stuff that we wouldn't like as peds. But uncomfortable enough to spend an evening of one's life turning up at a meeting and ranting about it..?
Surely the fact that they are prepared to take the time to complain is evidence of how much anti-social cycling annoys people? And if that's the case then the police should (and are) attend to it.0 -
W1 wrote:
Surely the fact that they are prepared to take the time to complain is evidence of how much anti-social cycling annoys people? And if that's the case then the police should (and are) attend to it.
If you read through the links you will see that most injuries appear to be caused by motorists. So they are then targeting annoyances, rather than real issues..FCN 9 || FCN 50 -
Mithras wrote:Cycling on the Pavement is against the law...OK, however guidance from the then home secratary did say it was not brought in to crimanlise every cyclist on a pavement. It is used to discourage people from cycling without any concern for other pavement users. I have never handed out a ticket for cycling on a pavement. I have for a lad cycling no handed whilst texting. Yes for two adults racingdown a pavement at school kicking out time and other similar events. Common Sense should prevail!
Now Ninja cyclists without lights, look out, my target (self imposed) on my little corner of Peterborough is 100 tickets between October and March.... No excuses, Zero Tolerance....Watch the complaints coming my way!
You couldn't have a word with your colleages in Devon & Cornwall could you?
The other night returning from an MTB night ride I found myself behind a cop car heading out on duty. During this time he passed three kids on bikes riding without lights on the pavement. Then someone (again no lights) hopped off the pavement, rode down the wrong side of the road for about 20 metres, back onto the pavement before heading down a one-way road against oncoming traffic.
And I know he saw them because I could see he was watching them.0 -
W1 wrote:wulfhound wrote:Interesting read, kind of tallies.
Who /are/ these people though? Elderly ladies? Frustrated white van drivers? Residents, business owners, both? I mean - can perfectly understand people being uncomfortable with some cyclist behaviour.. most of us have seen other cyclists doing stupid stuff that we wouldn't like as peds. But uncomfortable enough to spend an evening of one's life turning up at a meeting and ranting about it..?
Surely the fact that they are prepared to take the time to complain is evidence of how much anti-social cycling annoys people? And if that's the case then the police should (and are) attend to it.
Reacting simply to the requests of people who have time or are concerned by specific issues is ridiculous. Attendees of these meetings are by no means likely to be representative of everyone in living and working in the City, it will be made up of people with time on their hands and who have particular beefs with cyclists (or whoever). Busy people who work in the City and are only in between 8 and 6 or whatever and who have no issue with cyclists are hardly going to take time to attend these meetings. It's very common that community meetings like these are only attended by people who actually have something to say or a specific issue. Your average Joe on the City streets is most likely completely unaware they are taking place and has no concerns in any case.
If the City Police is defining its policy in reaction to a meeting of a minority of the City's population with unrepresentative views then this is VERY alarming.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
Evidence of how much it annoys /some/ people, sure - just curious as to who and why (edit: "The Europeans will make it a free for all".. must be DM readers then :twisted: ). I can't be the only one to think that at least some of the anti-bike rhetoric comes from frustrated motorists who hate the fact that cyclists seem to get away with RLJ'ing whereas they get fined every time they so much as put a toe in a bus lane.
Anyhow - think the blogger is very much on the right track re getting more of us to turn up at such meetings to try and get a more balanced view.Reacting simply to the requests of people who have time or are concerned by specific issues is ridiculous.
Why d'you think drugs (aside from cigs & alcohol) are still illegal in this country then, despite solid scientific & social policy research suggesting the least harmful policy would be to decriminalise? :roll:0 -
Headhuunter wrote:
If the City Police is defining its policy in reaction to a meeting of a minority of the City's population with unrepresentative views then this is VERY alarming.
So when a few cyclists turn up and say "punish more drivers", they won't say the exact same thing back?
At the end of the day, if you turn up to one of these meetings then something is bothering you enough to make the effort to go. Even if it's 'just' a nuisance then it's anti-social behaviour (Side point, I read some interesting stuff about how the term 'antisocial behaviour' was invented by labour to be the thing they could eradicate, and it went a bit wrong!) and PCSOs especially, and the police in general are there to stop antisocial behaviour.
If there were other issues, affecting more people, more seriously, that they felt the police were doing nothing about, then those people should go to the meeting and their case will be seen as more important than stopping pavement cyclists, RLJers etc.
How can the police consult the majority of the population, if asking the minority isn't good enough? They've go tto rely on people coming forward to let the police know what 'issues' there are. I've not got a problem with the police holding the meetings, doesn't mean I don't think the people attending are a bit misguided though. 0 -
The policy is to increase cycling, especially with the Hire Cycles. We need to up the anti.
The Europeans will make it a free for all.
Two points....1. I think "anti" should be "ante".www.usingenglish.com wrote:If you up the ante, you increase the importance or value of something
and 2. As has been pointed out "the Europeans"?! WTF!
Classic DM readership there. I'm not quite sure who exactly "the Europeans" are. Maybe whoever said that thinks they'll all be coming over here, eating their garlic and riding on the wrong side of our roads! 0 -
If I'm on a narrow road, and a big lorry wants to get past, and the pavement is empty, I'll hop on the pavement and beckon the lorry past. Bit of courtesy really.
To say cycling on a pavement is illegal is silly.
Besides, Home Office advice about riding on pavements:
"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."
Coppers wont stop kids, old people, women with shopping or postmen riding on the pavement. But young white male on the other hand....
Granted it is down to their discretion, but it does seem rather lopsided, especially given how most of the above are more likely to be a danger, zig zagging about on a pavement.
I really don't see a problem with riding on the pavement if it's empty, or if you're in control of your vehicle.0 -
bails87 wrote:Headhuunter wrote:
If the City Police is defining its policy in reaction to a meeting of a minority of the City's population with unrepresentative views then this is VERY alarming.
So when a few cyclists turn up and say "punish more drivers", they won't say the exact same thing back?
At the end of the day, if you turn up to one of these meetings then something is bothering you enough to make the effort to go. Even if it's 'just' a nuisance then it's anti-social behaviour (Side point, I read some interesting stuff about how the term 'antisocial behaviour' was invented by labour to be the thing they could eradicate, and it went a bit wrong!) and PCSOs especially, and the police in general are there to stop antisocial behaviour.
If there were other issues, affecting more people, more seriously, that they felt the police were doing nothing about, then those people should go to the meeting and their case will be seen as more important than stopping pavement cyclists, RLJers etc.
How can the police consult the majority of the population, if asking the minority isn't good enough? They've go tto rely on people coming forward to let the police know what 'issues' there are. I've got problem with the police holding the meetings, doesn't mean I don't think the people attending are a bit misguided though.
I would not expect the police to base its policy on any unrepresentative meetings like this. Although it's useful for the police to meet the local community and hear its concerns, people they meet are likely to be from a specific strata of population. I would have hoped that any police force, especially one governing one of the major financial centres of the world, would have better ways of tapping into what is needed in the community than meeting a few local old dears who have nothing better to do with their time. Not everyone with something to say has time to attend community police meetings and the police should be aware of this.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
Headhuunter wrote:bails87 wrote:Headhuunter wrote:
I would not expect the police to base its policy on any unrepresentative meetings like this.
I would!
People often assume that if one or two can be bothered to complain, then there must be thousands more that think the same but don't complain.
Besides, most coppers will find it easier to empathise with other car drivers than other cyclists.
A mans car is his castle. Or soemthing like that...0 -
Headhuunter wrote:bails87 wrote:Headhuunter wrote:
If the City Police is defining its policy in reaction to a meeting of a minority of the City's population with unrepresentative views then this is VERY alarming.
So when a few cyclists turn up and say "punish more drivers", they won't say the exact same thing back?
At the end of the day, if you turn up to one of these meetings then something is bothering you enough to make the effort to go. Even if it's 'just' a nuisance then it's anti-social behaviour (Side point, I read some interesting stuff about how the term 'antisocial behaviour' was invented by labour to be the thing they could eradicate, and it went a bit wrong!) and PCSOs especially, and the police in general are there to stop antisocial behaviour.
If there were other issues, affecting more people, more seriously, that they felt the police were doing nothing about, then those people should go to the meeting and their case will be seen as more important than stopping pavement cyclists, RLJers etc.
How can the police consult the majority of the population, if asking the minority isn't good enough? They've go tto rely on people coming forward to let the police know what 'issues' there are. I've got problem with the police holding the meetings, doesn't mean I don't think the people attending are a bit misguided though.
I would not expect the police to base its policy on any unrepresentative meetings like this. Although it's useful for the police to meet the local community and hear its concerns, people they meet are likely to be from a specific strata of population. I would have hoped that any police force, especially one governing one of the major financial centres of the world, would have better ways of tapping into what is needed in the community than meeting a few local old dears who have nothing better to do with their time. Not everyone with something to say has time to attend community police meetings and the police should be aware of this.
So how would you determine it?
Anyway, as we have previously discussed it only takes a day in the City to see that unlawful and anti-social cycling is endemic - even if the misguided DM biddies weren't complaining about it I'd be amazed if the police never did anything about it.0 -
UpTheWall wrote:Headhuunter wrote:bails87 wrote:Headhuunter wrote:
I would not expect the police to base its policy on any unrepresentative meetings like this.
I would!
People often assume that if one or two can be bothered to complain, then there must be thousands more that think the same but don't complain.
Besides, most coppers will find it easier to empathise with other car drivers than other cyclists.
A mans car is his castle. Or soemthing like that...
I find both these points extremely alarming and hope that what you say isn't true! That a police force would have no better way to consult with the local populace than a few badly publicised community meetings that probably happen at 6pm on weekdays when everyone is either travelling or trying to get out of work, would beggar belief!Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
Headhuunter wrote:IME the Police DO stop cyclists who RLJ and ride on the pavement but they DON'T stop motorists who RLJ or sit in ASLs. They actually have crackdowns on cyclists RLJing but never on motorists.
I actually asked a PCSO who was on cyclist crackdown patrol a few weeks back. She and a couple of others were stopping cyclists who had RLJed. Whilst I understand they have a job to do I asked why they never seem to stop motorists in ASLs or motorists who RLJ. She actually said to me that it's impossible for them to stop cars when they're on foot. So basically cyclists are a soft, easy, revenue generating target and stopping cars involves too much effort.
Whilst I was talking to her a woman pedestrian actually jumped in to agree with me, saying that she never, ever sees the police bother motorists the way they do cyclists, especially in the City.
They can take all thje revenue they like from red light jumpers on bikes. Keep doing it, HH, the public purse needs all the £££ it can get.0 -
Headhuunter wrote:
I would not expect the police to base its policy on any unrepresentative meetings like this.
Then what should they do? How do they know it's unrepresentative?
I agree that it probably is, but how do the police know that? They ask for people with problems to come forward, the anti bike brigade show up, and that's it. How are they meant to know about the issues of people who decided to stay at home instead?
Evidence based policy decisions? I think the policies on drugs show that's not going to happen!
Just remembered, I've got a friend who works in the City, I saw him the other week and he was talking about his brother, who's been banned from driving for speeding and drink driving. And he was telling me what an excellent driver he was. Then a few minutes later he was moaning about the "crazy cyclists". So the petty old biddies might be more representative than we'd hope.0 -
W1 wrote:Headhuunter wrote:bails87 wrote:Headhuunter wrote:
If the City Police is defining its policy in reaction to a meeting of a minority of the City's population with unrepresentative views then this is VERY alarming.
So when a few cyclists turn up and say "punish more drivers", they won't say the exact same thing back?
At the end of the day, if you turn up to one of these meetings then something is bothering you enough to make the effort to go. Even if it's 'just' a nuisance then it's anti-social behaviour (Side point, I read some interesting stuff about how the term 'antisocial behaviour' was invented by labour to be the thing they could eradicate, and it went a bit wrong!) and PCSOs especially, and the police in general are there to stop antisocial behaviour.
If there were other issues, affecting more people, more seriously, that they felt the police were doing nothing about, then those people should go to the meeting and their case will be seen as more important than stopping pavement cyclists, RLJers etc.
How can the police consult the majority of the population, if asking the minority isn't good enough? They've go tto rely on people coming forward to let the police know what 'issues' there are. I've got problem with the police holding the meetings, doesn't mean I don't think the people attending are a bit misguided though.
I would not expect the police to base its policy on any unrepresentative meetings like this. Although it's useful for the police to meet the local community and hear its concerns, people they meet are likely to be from a specific strata of population. I would have hoped that any police force, especially one governing one of the major financial centres of the world, would have better ways of tapping into what is needed in the community than meeting a few local old dears who have nothing better to do with their time. Not everyone with something to say has time to attend community police meetings and the police should be aware of this.
So how would you determine it?
Anyway, as we have previously discussed it only takes a day in the City to see that unlawful and anti-social cycling is endemic - even if the misguided DM biddies weren't complaining about it I'd be amazed if the police never did anything about it.
And bad driving, misuse of ASLs etc is NOT endemic I suppose?!
I would expect the police to consult the local population on a number of levels, through community meetings, through the web, through national and local government, through local businesses. Not simply by asking a couple of old dears and single mothers from the local estate what they think....Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
Headhuunter wrote:
And bad driving, misuse of ASLs etc is NOT endemic I suppose?!
I would expect the police to consult the local population on a number of levels, through community meetings, through the web, through national and local government, through local businesses. Not simply by asking a couple of old dears and single mothers from the local estate what they think....
Of course it is. But if no-one turns up and tells them that then they assume the local population aren't bothered by it. Which knocks it down the priorities.
I'm sure people recording tv programmes without written permission from the copyright owners is 'endemic' (don't know if it's actually illegal, but just making a point) but if it doesn't bother people, and no-one complains about it, the police aren't going to be as fussed about it.
With limited resources they need to be seen to do stuff to have the biggest impact.0 -
bails87 wrote:Headhuunter wrote:
And bad driving, misuse of ASLs etc is NOT endemic I suppose?!
I would expect the police to consult the local population on a number of levels, through community meetings, through the web, through national and local government, through local businesses. Not simply by asking a couple of old dears and single mothers from the local estate what they think....
Of course it is. But if no-one turns up and tells them that then they assume the local population aren't bothered by it. Which knocks it down the priorities.
I'm sure people recording tv programmes without written permission from the copyright owners is 'endemic' (don't know if it's actually illegal, but just making a point) but if it doesn't bother people, and no-one complains about it, the police aren't going to be as fussed about it.
With limited resources they need to be seen to do stuff to have the biggest impact.
Which I find very alarming. So it's more important to be sen to be doing stuff that has the biggest impact than actually finding out what people think? If they really are concerned about what makes the biggest impact then they need to focus on drivers, as pointed out on the blog above, it's not cyclists that kill peds and other cyclists, its' motorists.
But essentially you're saying that it's OK that busy people who have little free time on their hands to attend these meetings have no say in what the police actually spend their time doing? I'm hoping that the police do actually have better avenues of enquiry than simple "community meetings" that most people can't make it to...Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
Headhuunter wrote:W1 wrote:Headhuunter wrote:bails87 wrote:Headhuunter wrote:
If the City Police is defining its policy in reaction to a meeting of a minority of the City's population with unrepresentative views then this is VERY alarming.
So when a few cyclists turn up and say "punish more drivers", they won't say the exact same thing back?
At the end of the day, if you turn up to one of these meetings then something is bothering you enough to make the effort to go. Even if it's 'just' a nuisance then it's anti-social behaviour (Side point, I read some interesting stuff about how the term 'antisocial behaviour' was invented by labour to be the thing they could eradicate, and it went a bit wrong!) and PCSOs especially, and the police in general are there to stop antisocial behaviour.
If there were other issues, affecting more people, more seriously, that they felt the police were doing nothing about, then those people should go to the meeting and their case will be seen as more important than stopping pavement cyclists, RLJers etc.
How can the police consult the majority of the population, if asking the minority isn't good enough? They've go tto rely on people coming forward to let the police know what 'issues' there are. I've got problem with the police holding the meetings, doesn't mean I don't think the people attending are a bit misguided though.
I would not expect the police to base its policy on any unrepresentative meetings like this. Although it's useful for the police to meet the local community and hear its concerns, people they meet are likely to be from a specific strata of population. I would have hoped that any police force, especially one governing one of the major financial centres of the world, would have better ways of tapping into what is needed in the community than meeting a few local old dears who have nothing better to do with their time. Not everyone with something to say has time to attend community police meetings and the police should be aware of this.
So how would you determine it?
Anyway, as we have previously discussed it only takes a day in the City to see that unlawful and anti-social cycling is endemic - even if the misguided DM biddies weren't complaining about it I'd be amazed if the police never did anything about it.
And bad driving, misuse of ASLs etc is NOT endemic I suppose?!
I would expect the police to consult the local population on a number of levels, through community meetings, through the web, through national and local government, through local businesses. Not simply by asking a couple of old dears and single mothers from the local estate what they think....
And I'd be surprised if any of those consultations didn't come back with anti-social cycling being high on the list of complaints. Do you really think that consultations such as those are a proper use of resources, when all the police need to do is stand on a street corner to see anti-social cycling?
I actually see very little truly bad driving. I see plenty of very poor cycling.0 -
Headhuunter wrote:bails87 wrote:Headhuunter wrote:
And bad driving, misuse of ASLs etc is NOT endemic I suppose?!
I would expect the police to consult the local population on a number of levels, through community meetings, through the web, through national and local government, through local businesses. Not simply by asking a couple of old dears and single mothers from the local estate what they think....
Of course it is. But if no-one turns up and tells them that then they assume the local population aren't bothered by it. Which knocks it down the priorities.
I'm sure people recording tv programmes without written permission from the copyright owners is 'endemic' (don't know if it's actually illegal, but just making a point) but if it doesn't bother people, and no-one complains about it, the police aren't going to be as fussed about it.
With limited resources they need to be seen to do stuff to have the biggest impact.
Which I find very alarming. So it's more important to be sen to be doing stuff that has the biggest impact than actually finding out what people think? If they really are concerned about what makes the biggest impact then they need to focus on drivers, as pointed out on the blog above, it's not cyclists that kill peds and other cyclists, its' motorists.
But essentially you're saying that it's OK that busy people who have little free time on their hands to attend these meetings have no say in what the police actually spend their time doing? I'm hoping that the police do actually have better avenues of enquiry than simple "community meetings" that most people can't make it to...
Policing isn't just about saving lives - it's about attending to issues which are of concern to people at various levels. If policing was just about dealing with deaths then would you propose no resources be levied at street robbery, burglary or any number of other offences that are less deadly than, say, murder?
I'm sure you can e-mail your local force if you can't attend meetings.0 -
W1 wrote:Headhuunter wrote:W1 wrote:Headhuunter wrote:bails87 wrote:Headhuunter wrote:
If the City Police is defining its policy in reaction to a meeting of a minority of the City's population with unrepresentative views then this is VERY alarming.
So when a few cyclists turn up and say "punish more drivers", they won't say the exact same thing back?
At the end of the day, if you turn up to one of these meetings then something is bothering you enough to make the effort to go. Even if it's 'just' a nuisance then it's anti-social behaviour (Side point, I read some interesting stuff about how the term 'antisocial behaviour' was invented by labour to be the thing they could eradicate, and it went a bit wrong!) and PCSOs especially, and the police in general are there to stop antisocial behaviour.
If there were other issues, affecting more people, more seriously, that they felt the police were doing nothing about, then those people should go to the meeting and their case will be seen as more important than stopping pavement cyclists, RLJers etc.
How can the police consult the majority of the population, if asking the minority isn't good enough? They've go tto rely on people coming forward to let the police know what 'issues' there are. I've got problem with the police holding the meetings, doesn't mean I don't think the people attending are a bit misguided though.
I would not expect the police to base its policy on any unrepresentative meetings like this. Although it's useful for the police to meet the local community and hear its concerns, people they meet are likely to be from a specific strata of population. I would have hoped that any police force, especially one governing one of the major financial centres of the world, would have better ways of tapping into what is needed in the community than meeting a few local old dears who have nothing better to do with their time. Not everyone with something to say has time to attend community police meetings and the police should be aware of this.
So how would you determine it?
Anyway, as we have previously discussed it only takes a day in the City to see that unlawful and anti-social cycling is endemic - even if the misguided DM biddies weren't complaining about it I'd be amazed if the police never did anything about it.
And bad driving, misuse of ASLs etc is NOT endemic I suppose?!
I would expect the police to consult the local population on a number of levels, through community meetings, through the web, through national and local government, through local businesses. Not simply by asking a couple of old dears and single mothers from the local estate what they think....
And I'd be surprised if any of those consultations didn't come back with anti-social cycling being high on the list of complaints. Do you really think that consultations such as those are a proper use of resources, when all the police need to do is stand on a street corner to see anti-social cycling?
I actually see very little truly bad driving. I see plenty of very poor cycling.
Well I see both but am more concerned that the damage, injury and death causd by bad driving exceeds that many times over than bad cycling. However in the City the attention appears to be on the lesser of the 2 evils due to "public opinion" (AKA the opinion of a couple of old dears at the local community meeting).Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
Of course it is!Headhuunter wrote:Which I find very alarming. So it's more important to be sen to be doing stuff that has the biggest impact than actually finding out what people think?
I know. But the general public are generally stupid!If they really are concerned about what makes the biggest impact then they need to focus on drivers, as pointed out on the blog above, it's not cyclists that kill peds and other cyclists, its' motorists.But essentially you're saying that it's OK that busy people who have little free time on their hands to attend these meetings have no say in what the police actually spend their time doing? I'm hoping that the police do actually have better avenues of enquiry than simple "community meetings" that most people can't make it to...
No, I'm not saying it's "OK". I'm just saying that's the way they have to do it. I don't there's anything wrong with having the meetings. But I don't think the police base all of their policies on them. Otherwise there'd be no traffic police and a million officers doing nothing but chasing pavement cyclists and rounding up beggars.
Anyway, there are other ways to communicate with the police and other decision makers.0 -
W1 wrote:Headhuunter wrote:bails87 wrote:Headhuunter wrote:
And bad driving, misuse of ASLs etc is NOT endemic I suppose?!
I would expect the police to consult the local population on a number of levels, through community meetings, through the web, through national and local government, through local businesses. Not simply by asking a couple of old dears and single mothers from the local estate what they think....
Of course it is. But if no-one turns up and tells them that then they assume the local population aren't bothered by it. Which knocks it down the priorities.
I'm sure people recording tv programmes without written permission from the copyright owners is 'endemic' (don't know if it's actually illegal, but just making a point) but if it doesn't bother people, and no-one complains about it, the police aren't going to be as fussed about it.
With limited resources they need to be seen to do stuff to have the biggest impact.
Which I find very alarming. So it's more important to be sen to be doing stuff that has the biggest impact than actually finding out what people think? If they really are concerned about what makes the biggest impact then they need to focus on drivers, as pointed out on the blog above, it's not cyclists that kill peds and other cyclists, its' motorists.
But essentially you're saying that it's OK that busy people who have little free time on their hands to attend these meetings have no say in what the police actually spend their time doing? I'm hoping that the police do actually have better avenues of enquiry than simple "community meetings" that most people can't make it to...
Policing isn't just about saving lives - it's about attending to issues which are of concern to people at various levels. If policing was just about dealing with deaths then would you propose no resources be levied at street robbery, burglary or any number of other offences that are less deadly than, say, murder?
I'm sure you can e-mail your local force if you can't attend meetings.
But within the realm of policing traffic, which is a pretty specific area, a inordinately large amount of time and effort seems to be spent policing cyclists, possibly the least damaging of road users. This appears to be a reaction to the views of a limited section of society.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
bails87 wrote:
Of course it is!Headhuunter wrote:Which I find very alarming. So it's more important to be sen to be doing stuff that has the biggest impact than actually finding out what people think?
I know. But the general public are generally stupid!If they really are concerned about what makes the biggest impact then they need to focus on drivers, as pointed out on the blog above, it's not cyclists that kill peds and other cyclists, its' motorists.But essentially you're saying that it's OK that busy people who have little free time on their hands to attend these meetings have no say in what the police actually spend their time doing? I'm hoping that the police do actually have better avenues of enquiry than simple "community meetings" that most people can't make it to...
No, I'm not saying it's "OK". I'm just saying that's the way they have to do it. I don't there's anything wrong with having the meetings. But I don't think the police base all of their policies on them. Otherwise there'd be no traffic police and a million officers doing nothing but chasing pavement cyclists and rounding up beggars.
Anyway, there are other ways to communicate with the police and other decision makers.
Well that's the difference between us, you seem resigned that you have no voice because you can't make the meetings an that the general populace is "stupid and that the police react to "stupid" opinion. I find this incredibly alarming.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
Headhuunter wrote:
But within the realm of policing traffic, which is a pretty specific area, a inordinately large amount of time and effort seems to be spent policing cyclists, possibly the least damaging of road users. This appears to be a reaction to the views of a limited section of society.
Then go to a meeting! If it affects you that much you'll make time for it, that's the whole point of it. If the police came door to door asking what people wanted, they'd spend a load of money on things that people weren't really that fussed about.
Or send an email to the force. Or contact your MP. Or LCC. Or anyone. Don't just moan that people with a different view to you made the time to go to a meeting. As I said before, I think the view of 'lycra louts' is more representative than we'd like.0
