Police ignoring pavement cycling

shm_uk

Personally, I would prefer the Police NOT to waste time fannying about with monitoring ASLs & cycling on pavements, and spend their time on more serious stuff ...

With the huge problems associated with gun crime, knife crime, drug & alcohol-related crime, properly dangerous motorists, violence, burglaries etc etc, who really cares whether or not some guy edges into 'my' ASL on my commute to work ...

Headhuunter

bails87 wrote:

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.

But that's exactly what I've been saying! I work 50+hours per week and haven't got time to attend comunity meetings. There should be other ways to access police other than sending random emails to the LCC, my MP or the Chief Super or whoever.

Stuey01

Met Police has a contact us section on their website where you can raise general concerns. I'm sure other areas' police do too. If you delve a bit they also reference their community teams' links to local government.
Of course that requires you to actual spend 30 seconds looking for it, and we all know that 30 seconds would be better spent making assumptions and spouting off on forum sites.

To be honest I can understand why people get annoyed with RLJer's, it is flagrant disregard for the rules, it is extremely irritating. It is annoying when car drivers do it too. There are far more cars on the road than cyclists and daily I see more cyclists jumping than cars, also if you are stupid enough to jump a light in front of a copper then you deserve to get done. Tbh most motorists moderate their behaviour significantly when they see the rozzers about. Apparently your average RLJing cyclist is not that bright, or genuinely thinks the rules don't apply to them.

black20vt

[quoteNow 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..


Please can you come and work in Cambridge :idea: [/quote]

W1

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.

I don't see that. In fact I've never seen a traffic cop speaking to a cyclist. It's usually beat bobbies or PCSOs.

Is a car entering an ASL really that dangerous compared to a cyclist running straight through a red light, weaving in between pedestrians or causing cars to swerve to avoid them?

shm_uk

I also believe that asking the general public what issues the Police should address is probably not very helpful.

Everybody will just give a very seflish narrow-minded response that only addresses their interests.

Nobody will respond with a view of the bigger picture, and what's in the best interests of the general population.

notsoblue

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...

This is evidence based policing. You poll the community, and act on the results of that poll to prioritise policing. Its very democratic. But it clearly isn't an objective or balanced process for the reasons that have been stated in this thread. The police can't be blamed for this imo, its up to those who consider themselves part of the community to step up and voice their opinion when asked for it. Personally I will be making an effort to go to as many of these meetings as I can. Its democratic, you can't legitimately complain if you haven't been part of the process. How fair or effective the process is is debatable though..

I suppose that ultimately we get the police force we deserve.

UpTheWall

W1 wrote:

I actually see very little truly bad driving. I see plenty of very poor cycling.

Seriously?! I get knocked off or nearly knocked off faaaar to regularly.

(NB - I ride relatively safely, don't jump lights, use really powerful lights even at dusk, am polite to drivers, yadda yadda)

Drivers just don't "see" cyclists. They'll look at you, but I surmise they either think you're not that fast, or dont' consider you a threat, and drive out in front of you anyway.

The worst is when they come out of junctions and hit you. I've been knocked off three times by people doing that. Not too mention when they overtake you and then brake sharply. But that's another set of winges for another thread...

biondino

W1 wrote:

Is a car entering an ASL really that dangerous compared to a cyclist running straight through a red light, weaving in between pedestrians or causing cars to swerve to avoid them?

ASLs are a massive red herring in my humble opinion. I'm not sure what real benefits they offer other than perhaps reducing left hooks by vehicles that haven't seen the cyclist pulled up alongside? I certainly struggle to see why people who gaily RLJ have issues with cars in them, as W1 says.

And the police's "we're not going to prosecute drivers in ASLs" stance seems to prove that I'm not alone in thinking they're really not a big deal. In fact, I'd say they're a minor measure intended to placate moany cyclists without actually making any real difference.

And finally, why is HH moaning about rules for cars on a cycling forum? Go to a motoring one, you'll get a proper debate there. Or, has been suggested, actually get off your arse and lobby for changes instead of whining about how much of a victim you are.

bails87

Headhuunter wrote:

bails87 wrote:

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.

But that's exactly what I've been saying! I work 50+hours per week and haven't got time to attend comunity meetings. There should be other ways to access police other than sending random emails to the LCC, my MP or the Chief Super or whoever.

Right, so you don't want to take the time off to go to a meeting, you don't want to email them, you don't want to use the 'contact us' form, you don't want to speak to cycling campaign groups who could act on your behalf, you don't want to email your MP, or go to their surgery, you don't want to speak to councillors. What exactly do you want?

W1

UpTheWall wrote:

W1 wrote:

I actually see very little truly bad driving. I see plenty of very poor cycling.

Seriously?! I get knocked off or nearly knocked off faaaar to regularly.

(NB - I ride relatively safely, don't jump lights, use really powerful lights even at dusk, am polite to drivers, yadda yadda)

Drivers just don't "see" cyclists. They'll look at you, but I surmise they either think you're not that fast, or dont' consider you a threat, and drive out in front of you anyway.

The worst is when they come out of junctions and hit you. I've been knocked off three times by people doing that. Not too mention when they overtake you and then brake sharply. But that's another set of winges for another thread...

Yeah, seriously. I've been knocked off or nearly knocked off a few times. But I've also had a number of very close brushes with poor cyclists, and I witness more poor cycling on a daily basis than dangerous driving.

Most drivers are average - you might notice the truly bad ones more, making them seem more prevelant, but in reality it is relatively unusual to see truly bad driving.

UpTheWall

biondino wrote:

W1 wrote:

Is a car entering an ASL really that dangerous compared to a cyclist running straight through a red light, weaving in between pedestrians or causing cars to swerve to avoid them?

ASLs are a massive red herring in my humble opinion. I'm not sure what real benefits they offer other than perhaps reducing left hooks by vehicles that haven't seen the cyclist pulled up alongside? I certainly struggle to see why people who gaily RLJ have issues with cars in them, as W1 says.

And the police's "we're not going to prosecute drivers in ASLs" stance seems to prove that I'm not alone in thinking they're really not a big deal. In fact, I'd say they're a minor measure intended to placate moany cyclists without actually making any real difference.

And finally, why is HH moaning about rules for cars on a cycling forum? Go to a motoring one, you'll get a proper debate there. Or, has been suggested, actually get off your ars* and lobby for changes instead of whining about how much of a victim you are.

By ASLs you mean the green bits at the front at lights?

Studies prove they save lives.

You remember that study that said people that jump red lights are less likelyto get run over? The actual reason was that cars all see the bikes because they get a head start. And these ASLs mean that people still get that life saving advantage without having to break the law.

don_don

Headhuunter wrote:

bails87 wrote:

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.

But that's exactly what I've been saying! I work 50+hours per week and haven't got time to attend comunity meetings. There should be other ways to access police other than sending random emails to the LCC, my MP or the Chief Super or whoever.

Out of curiousity I had a quick look at our local Constabulary and Police Authority websites. Its pretty clear that you can contact our plod via the website, txt and even a Facebook site. There was mention of a 'public perception survey' but not much info on how police priorities are chosen (at least at first glance).

The Police Authority site specifically mentions public engagement meetings across the county. It says that in 2009, 1237 people went to one of these meetings. As it happens, that is almost exactly 1% of the population of Gloucestershire! So, I can't imagine they base all their priorities on what 1% are saying, can they???

I'm a dullard, its 0.2%, not 1%...

UpTheWall

W1 wrote:

UpTheWall wrote:

W1 wrote:

I actually see very little truly bad driving. I see plenty of very poor cycling.

Seriously?! I get knocked off or nearly knocked off faaaar to regularly.

(NB - I ride relatively safely, don't jump lights, use really powerful lights even at dusk, am polite to drivers, yadda yadda)

Drivers just don't "see" cyclists. They'll look at you, but I surmise they either think you're not that fast, or dont' consider you a threat, and drive out in front of you anyway.

The worst is when they come out of junctions and hit you. I've been knocked off three times by people doing that. Not too mention when they overtake you and then brake sharply. But that's another set of winges for another thread...

Yeah, seriously. I've been knocked off or nearly knocked off a few times. But I've also had a number of very close brushes with poor cyclists, and I witness more poor cycling on a daily basis than dangerous driving.

Most drivers are average - you might notice the truly bad ones more, making them seem more prevelant, but in reality it is relatively unusual to see truly bad driving.

i've rarely seen poor cycling, (except when watching groups of club cyclists). Perhaps we cycle in different areas. I tend to cycle more in Surrey, and occasionally in central london south of the river.

bails87

UpTheWall wrote:

W1 wrote:

UpTheWall wrote:

W1 wrote:

I actually see very little truly bad driving. I see plenty of very poor cycling.

Seriously?! I get knocked off or nearly knocked off faaaar to regularly.

(NB - I ride relatively safely, don't jump lights, use really powerful lights even at dusk, am polite to drivers, yadda yadda)

Drivers just don't "see" cyclists. They'll look at you, but I surmise they either think you're not that fast, or dont' consider you a threat, and drive out in front of you anyway.

The worst is when they come out of junctions and hit you. I've been knocked off three times by people doing that. Not too mention when they overtake you and then brake sharply. But that's another set of winges for another thread...

Yeah, seriously. I've been knocked off or nearly knocked off a few times. But I've also had a number of very close brushes with poor cyclists, and I witness more poor cycling on a daily basis than dangerous driving.

Most drivers are average - you might notice the truly bad ones more, making them seem more prevelant, but in reality it is relatively unusual to see truly bad driving.

i've rarely seen poor cycling, (except when watching groups of club cyclists). Perhaps we cycle in different areas. I tend to cycle more in Surrey, and occasionally in central london south of the river.

But then potential for, and amount of, harm needs to be considered

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

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.

I don't see that. In fact I've never seen a traffic cop speaking to a cyclist. It's usually beat bobbies or PCSOs.

Is a car entering an ASL really that dangerous compared to a cyclist running straight through a red light, weaving in between pedestrians or causing cars to swerve to avoid them?

I don't remember the last time I saw this happen. You're comparing something that happens with great regularity with an extreme case that I personally rarely observe. ASL encroachment really does cause issues for cycle safety. Especially with unconfident cyclists who are, lets face it, more likely to have accidents than others.

Headhuunter

bails87 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

bails87 wrote:

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.

But that's exactly what I've been saying! I work 50+hours per week and haven't got time to attend comunity meetings. There should be other ways to access police other than sending random emails to the LCC, my MP or the Chief Super or whoever.

Right, so you don't want to take the time off to go to a meeting, you don't want to email them, you don't want to use the 'contact us' form, you don't want to speak to cycling campaign groups who could act on your behalf, you don't want to email your MP, or go to their surgery, you don't want to speak to councillors. What exactly do you want?

I can't make it to City Police community meetings. At what point did I say that I don't want to email them or speak to cycling campaign groups? I have emailed the City Police a couple of times, once in particular which I have written about here several times. I am also in regular contact with Jenny Jones on the London Assembly who works on cyclist rights in London. I have also often spoken to my local councillor, she knows me by name, although this has admittedly not been on cycling issues but other things. The point I am trying to make is that the City Police seems to be basing its traffic policing decisions on a minority view. As I have pointed out, this is not an indisputable fact, I simply raised it for discussion. As I have said several times. I hope they have a selection of ways to consult the public other than simple "community meetings".

Headhuunter

biondino wrote:

W1 wrote:

Is a car entering an ASL really that dangerous compared to a cyclist running straight through a red light, weaving in between pedestrians or causing cars to swerve to avoid them?

ASLs are a massive red herring in my humble opinion. I'm not sure what real benefits they offer other than perhaps reducing left hooks by vehicles that haven't seen the cyclist pulled up alongside? I certainly struggle to see why people who gaily RLJ have issues with cars in them, as W1 says.

And the police's "we're not going to prosecute drivers in ASLs" stance seems to prove that I'm not alone in thinking they're really not a big deal. In fact, I'd say they're a minor measure intended to placate moany cyclists without actually making any real difference.

And finally, why is HH moaning about rules for cars on a cycling forum? Go to a motoring one, you'll get a proper debate there. Or, has been suggested, actually get off your ars* and lobby for changes instead of whining about how much of a victim you are.

Jeez Biondino, do shut up, there's a good chap/chappess (unless you actuallyhave something useful to say).

bails87

Headhuunter wrote:

I can't make it to City Police community meetings. At what point did I say that I don't want to email them or speak to cycling campaign groups? .

Apologies then, I took this:

Headhuunter wrote:

There should be other ways to access police other than sending random emails

to mean you didn't want to email/thought there was no point.

Headhuunter

bails87 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

I can't make it to City Police community meetings. At what point did I say that I don't want to email them or speak to cycling campaign groups? .

Apologies then, I took this:

Headhuunter wrote:

There should be other ways to access police other than sending random emails

to mean you didn't want to email/thought there was no point.

No, that's not what I said, I just think there should be better ways of getting in touch with the police and that if they really are basing policy decisions on what people tell them, they should have better ways of speaking to the public than an email address on their website and random meetings.

jds_1981

http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.com/201 ... -what.html

The fact that 77% of people killed or seriously injured on the City's roads are pedestrians or cyclists hit by motor vehicles means nothing to them.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

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.

I don't see that. In fact I've never seen a traffic cop speaking to a cyclist. It's usually beat bobbies or PCSOs.

Is a car entering an ASL really that dangerous compared to a cyclist running straight through a red light, weaving in between pedestrians or causing cars to swerve to avoid them?

I don't remember the last time I saw this happen. You're comparing something that happens with great regularity with an extreme case that I personally rarely observe. ASL encroachment really does cause issues for cycle safety. Especially with unconfident cyclists who are, lets face it, more likely to have accidents than others.

I see it everyday, without fail. And that's not to mention all the more "general" red light jumpers which are also a regular sight.

That's not to say that I don't see ASL infringement too (which I do). But on balance I would submit that a cyclist running a clear red is far more dangerous than a car entering an ASL.

W1

UpTheWall wrote:

W1 wrote:

UpTheWall wrote:

W1 wrote:

I actually see very little truly bad driving. I see plenty of very poor cycling.

Seriously?! I get knocked off or nearly knocked off faaaar to regularly.

(NB - I ride relatively safely, don't jump lights, use really powerful lights even at dusk, am polite to drivers, yadda yadda)

Drivers just don't "see" cyclists. They'll look at you, but I surmise they either think you're not that fast, or dont' consider you a threat, and drive out in front of you anyway.

The worst is when they come out of junctions and hit you. I've been knocked off three times by people doing that. Not too mention when they overtake you and then brake sharply. But that's another set of winges for another thread...

Yeah, seriously. I've been knocked off or nearly knocked off a few times. But I've also had a number of very close brushes with poor cyclists, and I witness more poor cycling on a daily basis than dangerous driving.

Most drivers are average - you might notice the truly bad ones more, making them seem more prevelant, but in reality it is relatively unusual to see truly bad driving.

i've rarely seen poor cycling, (except when watching groups of club cyclists). Perhaps we cycle in different areas. I tend to cycle more in Surrey, and occasionally in central london south of the river.

Fair enough. I can't comment on your experiences. But everyday I see cyclists run red lights, fail to have lights, fail to give way to pedestrians, swerve accross traffic without shoulder checking, jump up and down pavements, cut other cyclists up, barge to the front of traffic queues etc etc. Compared to the (relatively) rare instances where I actually feel that my life has been put in danger by a driver, the poor cycling outweighs the dangerous driving by a decent margin.

saltski

I followed a police car home last night, got overtaken by some guy speeding to overtake me and had only one working headlight, police car just drove on completely oblivious.

jds_1981

W1 wrote:

[
That's not to say that I don't see ASL infringement too (which I do). But on balance I would submit that a cyclist running a clear red is far more dangerous than a car entering an ASL.

Other people appear to have different opinions, else why has there been talk about allowing cyclists to turn left on red?

W1

jds_1981 wrote:

W1 wrote:

[
That's not to say that I don't see ASL infringement too (which I do). But on balance I would submit that a cyclist running a clear red is far more dangerous than a car entering an ASL.

Other people appear to have different opinions, else why has there been talk about allowing cyclists to turn left on red?

Of course they do - that why we had a 17 page RLJ debate not that long ago (and which doesn't need to be repeated here).

In the USA all traffic can turn "right" (i.e. the equivalent of our left) at red lights.

If traffic is allowed to turn on a red signal that's very different to a cyclist running a red light at the moment - the reason being that it is unexpected.

jds_1981

Although I'd prefer not to start the RLJ thread again I'll still point out that even in right on red having someone pull out in front of you is not expected - they're only supposed to do it when they believe it is safe to do so.

W1

jds_1981 wrote:

Although I'd prefer not to start the RLJ thread again I'll still point out that even in right on red having someone pull out in front of you is not expected - they're only supposed to do it when they believe it is safe to do so.

Sure. But someone pulling out in front of you through a red would be slightly more likely to happen (and therefore be more expected) if there was a provision to allow traffic to do so, when compared to a blanket prohibition on passing red lights.

jds_1981

Zebra crossings - annoys me when pedestrians idle around at the side.
In this situation I'm generally nicer than drivers at stopping and beckoning them to cross. (lots of crossings on my way in to compare.) Would be nice if they were better at signaling intent to cross.

Headhuunter

jds_1981 wrote:

Zebra crossings - annoys me when pedestrians idle around at the side.
In this situation I'm generally nicer than drivers at stopping and beckoning them to cross. (lots of crossings on my way in to compare.) Would be nice if they were better at signaling intent to cross.

Yeah I hate that.... Just cross, don't just stand there staring at me! If you cross I can continue on behind you, it's not necessary for me as a cyclist to come to a complete and utter halt for you to cross the road....