City of London wish list

Alphabet

simple. stop jumping red lights.

Headhuunter

Alphabet wrote:

simple. stop jumping red lights.

Yep and you would have thought it would be simple to enforce ASLs with ASL patrols just as they have RLJ patrols.

W1

Headhuunter wrote:

W1 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Given that cyclists, even in London, still make up a small percentage of road traffic the fact that the Police have issued almost half as many FPN to cyclists as they have to motorists is just a bloody joke! There are clearly a disproportionate number of FPNs being applied to cyclists...

Or just suitable evidence that cyclists break the law more often (as we've already discussed on here)?

Given that the police actually LIE IN WAIT for cyclists but never do the same for motorists, watching them at ASLs etc, it goes without saying they're going to get more cyclists...

But they got half as many!

How do you think they stop the drivers to give them their penalties?

It sounds to be like a lot of cyclists have got off lightly - in my experience (and many others - in fact everyone who rides in London, except you!) they are a number of times more likely to jump a red light than a car....

rjsterry

Way to hijack a thread chaps.

Headhuunter

W1 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

W1 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Given that cyclists, even in London, still make up a small percentage of road traffic the fact that the Police have issued almost half as many FPN to cyclists as they have to motorists is just a bloody joke! There are clearly a disproportionate number of FPNs being applied to cyclists...

Or just suitable evidence that cyclists break the law more often (as we've already discussed on here)?

Given that the police actually LIE IN WAIT for cyclists but never do the same for motorists, watching them at ASLs etc, it goes without saying they're going to get more cyclists...

But they got half as many!

How do you think they stop the drivers to give them their penalties?

It sounds to be like a lot of cyclists have got off lightly - in my experience (and many others - in fact everyone who rides in London, except you!) they are a number of times more likely to jump a red light than a car....

So just because there is a logistical difficulty in stopping an RLJing, ASL entering driver, they get let off? How about taking down number plates? Using CCTV?

They got half as many cyclists yet the number of cyclists on the road is much less than half as many motorists! Disporportionate targetting...

We could go on arguing forever about the number of cyclists vs motorist who break the law. I disagree with what you say.

Alphabet

Headhuunter wrote:

Alphabet wrote:

simple. stop jumping red lights.

Yep and you would have thought it would be simple to enforce ASLs with ASL patrols just as they have RLJ patrols.

i can't really get worked up about all of this disparity to be honest. people RLJing annoy me because it just enforces the bad reputation that cyclists have in london and endangers themselves, peds and drivers for no real reason. people driving into the ASLs also annoy me, because they're blatantly just being utterly ignorant. the fact that they're cracking down on both things is good in my opinion. I don't care if they're getting more cyclists because it's easier. they're still breaking the law and being an @rse.

Headhuunter

rjsterry wrote:

Way to hijack a thread chaps.

It's on topic. I want as much effort put intro enforcing driver law transgression as the police in London dedicate to RLJing cyclists. At the moment they don't.

notsoblue

Headhuunter wrote:

Alphabet wrote:

simple. stop jumping red lights.

Yep and you would have thought it would be simple to enforce ASLs with ASL patrols just as they have RLJ patrols.

I agree with Headhuunter here. The campaign was effectively designed to catch RLJs (as he explained quite clearly), and not to catch both RLJs and ASL encroachers. Its no wonder that proportionally more people riding bikes were caught, and anyone who is using these stats to prop up some kind of anti-cyclist "All of you jump red lights all of the time, always" stance should really bare that in mind.

I also agree that putting PCSO's near the ASL at various junctions would not only discourage ASL encroachment, but would also stop RLJ from all but the most determined idiots. But then the stats wouldn't look so good

Headhuunter

notsoblue wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Alphabet wrote:

simple. stop jumping red lights.

Yep and you would have thought it would be simple to enforce ASLs with ASL patrols just as they have RLJ patrols.

I agree with Headhuunter here. The campaign was effectively designed to catch RLJs (as he explained quite clearly), and not to catch both RLJs and ASL encroachers. Its no wonder that proportionally more people riding bikes were caught, and anyone who is using these stats to prop up some kind of anti-cyclist "All of you jump red lights all of the time, always" stance should really bare that in mind.

I also agree that putting PCSO's near the ASL at various junctions would not only discourage ASL encroachment, but would also stop RLJ from all but the most determined idiots. But then the stats wouldn't look so good

Exactly. The fact that they position patrols ACROSS junctions mean they intend to catch cyclists AFTER the offence has been committed, however if they positioned patrols next to red lights, cyclists would not RLJ in front an officer and the same officer could also enforce the ASL. Trouble is no revenue would be generated, which is clearly the aim...

W1

Headhuunter wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Alphabet wrote:

simple. stop jumping red lights.

Yep and you would have thought it would be simple to enforce ASLs with ASL patrols just as they have RLJ patrols.

I agree with Headhuunter here. The campaign was effectively designed to catch RLJs (as he explained quite clearly), and not to catch both RLJs and ASL encroachers. Its no wonder that proportionally more people riding bikes were caught, and anyone who is using these stats to prop up some kind of anti-cyclist "All of you jump red lights all of the time, always" stance should really bare that in mind.

I also agree that putting PCSO's near the ASL at various junctions would not only discourage ASL encroachment, but would also stop RLJ from all but the most determined idiots. But then the stats wouldn't look so good

Exactly. The fact that they position patrols ACROSS junctions mean they intend to catch cyclists AFTER the offence has been committed, however if they positioned patrols next to red lights, cyclists would not RLJ in front an officer and the same officer could also enforce the ASL. Trouble is no revenue would be generated, which is clearly the aim...

What a load of crap.

Do you have this much sympathy for the 900 drivers who were caught? Or are they fair game and it's the poor cyclists who are being targetted. They can ONLY be caught if they run red lights, so I have ZERO sympathy They only have themselves to blame. And they have to be stopped because bikes don't have numberplates!

The response already says they don't keep figures for ASL offences so your stance that these haven't also been targetted is pure conjecture.

And as for having a bobby on every street corner - get real. Hopefully the fines will act as a deterrent, making a policeman on every street corner unnecessary!

Anyway the fact that you have been caught anf fined for this offence hardly makes you (a) an unbiased spectator or (b) much able to criticise other road users who fail to adhere to red lights....

notsoblue

Headhuunter wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Alphabet wrote:

simple. stop jumping red lights.

Yep and you would have thought it would be simple to enforce ASLs with ASL patrols just as they have RLJ patrols.

I agree with Headhuunter here. The campaign was effectively designed to catch RLJs (as he explained quite clearly), and not to catch both RLJs and ASL encroachers. Its no wonder that proportionally more people riding bikes were caught, and anyone who is using these stats to prop up some kind of anti-cyclist "All of you jump red lights all of the time, always" stance should really bare that in mind.

I also agree that putting PCSO's near the ASL at various junctions would not only discourage ASL encroachment, but would also stop RLJ from all but the most determined idiots. But then the stats wouldn't look so good

Exactly. The fact that they position patrols ACROSS junctions mean they intend to catch cyclists AFTER the offence has been committed, however if they positioned patrols next to red lights, cyclists would not RLJ in front an officer and the same officer could also enforce the ASL. Trouble is no revenue would be generated, which is clearly the aim...

I'm not certain that revenue generation is the aim here. At the City of London Police Liaison Meetings RLJ was raised as an issue that people felt needed dealing with. In fact I think it was the No1 priority for a while. Putting PCSO's at the opposite end of junctions and catching RLJs would easily appease those who raised it as an issue and allow CoL Police to claim that they're focusing on public priorities and getting results. I can't blame them really. But being so "results" focused isn't really helping anyone in this case.

rjsterry

Headhuunter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Way to hijack a thread chaps.

It's on topic. I want as much effort put intro enforcing driver law transgression as the police in London dedicate to RLJing cyclists. At the moment they don't.

Fair enough, but let's not turn this into another RLJ slanging match. Perhaps we should just focus on the poor enforcement of ASLs without the need to compare it to a short term anti-RLJ campaign.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

Anyway the fact that you have been caught anf fined for this offence hardly makes you (a) an unbiased spectator or (b) much able to criticise other road users who fail to adhere to red lights....

Bollocks. You're suggesting he only has that opinion because he got caught. I share his opinion and I don't RLJ.

Headhuunter

W1 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Alphabet wrote:

simple. stop jumping red lights.

Yep and you would have thought it would be simple to enforce ASLs with ASL patrols just as they have RLJ patrols.

I agree with Headhuunter here. The campaign was effectively designed to catch RLJs (as he explained quite clearly), and not to catch both RLJs and ASL encroachers. Its no wonder that proportionally more people riding bikes were caught, and anyone who is using these stats to prop up some kind of anti-cyclist "All of you jump red lights all of the time, always" stance should really bare that in mind.

I also agree that putting PCSO's near the ASL at various junctions would not only discourage ASL encroachment, but would also stop RLJ from all but the most determined idiots. But then the stats wouldn't look so good

Exactly. The fact that they position patrols ACROSS junctions mean they intend to catch cyclists AFTER the offence has been committed, however if they positioned patrols next to red lights, cyclists would not RLJ in front an officer and the same officer could also enforce the ASL. Trouble is no revenue would be generated, which is clearly the aim...

What a load of crap.

Do you have this much sympathy for the 900 drivers who were caught? Or are they fair game and it's the poor cyclists who are being targetted. They can ONLY be caught if they run red lights, so I have ZERO sympathy They only have themselves to blame. And they have to be stopped because bikes don't have numberplates!

The response already says they don't keep figures for ASL offences so your stance that these haven't also been targetted is pure conjecture.

And as for having a bobby on every street corner - get real. Hopefully the fines will act as a deterrent, making a policeman on every street corner unnecessary!

Anyway the fact that you have been caught anf fined for this offence hardly makes you (a) an unbiased spectator or (b) much able to criticise other road users who fail to adhere to red lights....

I have no sympathy for the cyclists or the drivers however the fact remains that almost 50% of the number of FPNs applied to drivers were applied to cyclists, whereas cyclists make up less than 10% of road users. It's not a question of sympathy, it's a question of fair application of the law.

I did not argue for a "bobby on every corner" I simply said that if instead of utilising police time to have officers and PCSOs lying in wait to catch cyclists after a crime has been committed, they should move the same officers to the lights side of the junction. Cyclists would see the officer waiting and not RLJ and motorists would find themselves ticked off for entering the ASL and because of the officer's position at the junction, they could clearly see whether the motorist entered the ASL before or after the lights went red (which is always the reason the police say they can't enforce ASLs). Solves 3 problems in 1 swoop.

The fact is that the police are surely there to PREVENT the law being broken, not to allow it to be broken and then apply fines (revenue generation). That's the reason in many cases speed cameras are signposted so that drivers slow down. It makes more sense for drivers to keep to the speed limit than them speeding, possibly killing someone but getting fined by a police patrol.

When did I ever say I had been caught RLJ-ing?!

rjsterry

I think the point is, to bring this back more directly to the topic, the cyclists may have been targeted more specifically because a number of people at one of these meetings raised it as an issue they would like dealt with. Given that such meetings have a habit of being attended by reactionary busybodies with too much time on their hands, if we want more even handed policing of City roads, then those who have a particular issue with it should attend the meetings and put their point across as strongly as possible.

Headhuunter

rjsterry wrote:

I think the point is, to bring this back more directly to the topic, the cyclists may have been targeted more specifically because a number of people at one of these meetings raised it as an issue they would like dealt with. Given that such meetings have a habit of being attended by reactionary busybodies with too much time on their hands, if we want more even handed policing of City roads, then those who have a particular issue with it should attend the meetings and put their point across as strongly as possible.

That's exactly it. We discussed that on another thread. It seems that the police judge their policy on these things by what the little old ladies and stay at home parents who (have time to) attend these liaison mtgs say that they want the police to crack down on what they perceive as a large number of cyclists RLJing. Because commuting cyclists have jobs in the City, which often mean (like me) that they are at their desks at all hours, they are unable to make their voices heard. Which again is unfair.

Alphabet

Headhuunter wrote:

I did not argue for a "bobby on every corner" I simply said that if instead of utilising police time to have officers and PCSOs lying in wait to catch cyclists after a crime has been committed, they should move the same officers to the lights side of the junction. Cyclists would see the officer waiting and not RLJ and motorists would find themselves ticked off for entering the ASL and because of the officer's position at the junction, they could clearly see whether the motorist entered the ASL before or after the lights went red (which is always the reason the police say they can't enforce ASLs). Solves 3 problems in 1 swoop.

The fact is that the police are surely there to PREVENT the law being broken, not to allow it to be broken and then apply fines (revenue generation). That's the reason in many cases speed cameras are signposted so that drivers slow down. It makes more sense for drivers to keep to the speed limit than them speeding, possibly killing someone but getting fined by a police patrol.

When did I ever say I had been caught RLJ-ing?!

if you honestly think a cyclist who would otherwise RLJ sees a yellow vested officer at a junction occasionally and therefore decides to wait for the green will become a reformed character because of it, i don't agree with you. if, instead, they have the worry that there might be one lurking after the junction where they wouldn't be pre-warned, they might stop being such an idiot, if only to save themselves some cash

Headhuunter

Alphabet wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

I did not argue for a "bobby on every corner" I simply said that if instead of utilising police time to have officers and PCSOs lying in wait to catch cyclists after a crime has been committed, they should move the same officers to the lights side of the junction. Cyclists would see the officer waiting and not RLJ and motorists would find themselves ticked off for entering the ASL and because of the officer's position at the junction, they could clearly see whether the motorist entered the ASL before or after the lights went red (which is always the reason the police say they can't enforce ASLs). Solves 3 problems in 1 swoop.

The fact is that the police are surely there to PREVENT the law being broken, not to allow it to be broken and then apply fines (revenue generation). That's the reason in many cases speed cameras are signposted so that drivers slow down. It makes more sense for drivers to keep to the speed limit than them speeding, possibly killing someone but getting fined by a police patrol.

When did I ever say I had been caught RLJ-ing?!

if you honestly think a cyclist who would otherwise RLJ sees a yellow vested officer at a junction occasionally and therefore decides to wait for the green will become a reformed character because of it, i don't agree with you. if, instead, they have the worry that there might be one lurking after the junction where they wouldn't be pre-warned, they might stop being such an idiot, if only to save themselves some cash

May be you're right but I doubt many cyclists would literally blast past a line of waiting cars, through a stream of crossing peds, through traffic, right under the nose of a police officer!

Alphabet

Headhuunter wrote:

Alphabet wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

I did not argue for a "bobby on every corner" I simply said that if instead of utilising police time to have officers and PCSOs lying in wait to catch cyclists after a crime has been committed, they should move the same officers to the lights side of the junction. Cyclists would see the officer waiting and not RLJ and motorists would find themselves ticked off for entering the ASL and because of the officer's position at the junction, they could clearly see whether the motorist entered the ASL before or after the lights went red (which is always the reason the police say they can't enforce ASLs). Solves 3 problems in 1 swoop.

The fact is that the police are surely there to PREVENT the law being broken, not to allow it to be broken and then apply fines (revenue generation). That's the reason in many cases speed cameras are signposted so that drivers slow down. It makes more sense for drivers to keep to the speed limit than them speeding, possibly killing someone but getting fined by a police patrol.

When did I ever say I had been caught RLJ-ing?!

if you honestly think a cyclist who would otherwise RLJ sees a yellow vested officer at a junction occasionally and therefore decides to wait for the green will become a reformed character because of it, i don't agree with you. if, instead, they have the worry that there might be one lurking after the junction where they wouldn't be pre-warned, they might stop being such an idiot, if only to save themselves some cash

May be you're right but I doubt many cyclists would literally blast past a line of waiting cars, through a stream of crossing peds, through traffic, right under the nose of a police officer!

well, 400 apparently have

notsoblue

Alphabet wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

May be you're right but I doubt many cyclists would literally blast past a line of waiting cars, through a stream of crossing peds, through traffic, right under the nose of a police officer!

well, 400 apparently have

You've missed the point, the police officers were on the other side of the road. They wouldn't have been able to see them while they were RLJing. Still though, they shouldn't have been doing it anyway. Bad RLJers, NO!

W1

Headhuunter wrote:

When did I ever say I had been caught RLJ-ing?!

In the other fun RLJ thread:

Headhuunter wrote:

II was stopped for moving across an ASL (it was blocked by a cab and several mopeds), across the ped crossing and onto the other side to await a green light. As I proceeded across the junction (when the light had turned), I was stopped by a plod who told me I had to remain in the ASL, I asked why he hadn't stopped the drivers blocking the ASL, he said he had taken a not of their reg plates, whcih was utter rubbish as his eyes had been on me the entire time. In a letter from the police later, I was informed that police do not feel that the punishment for drivers in ASLs is not reflective of the crime so they do not enforce, despite the fact that in the eyes of the law, in many cases these drivers have RLJ-ed. This annoyed me but do the drivers concerned care?

So have you or haven't you?

Alphabet

notsoblue wrote:

Alphabet wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

if you honestly think a cyclist who would otherwise RLJ sees a yellow vested officer at a junction occasionally and therefore decides to wait for the green will become a reformed character because of it, i don't agree with you. if, instead, they have the worry that there might be one lurking after the junction where they wouldn't be pre-warned, they might stop being such an idiot, if only to save themselves some cash

May be you're right but I doubt many cyclists would literally blast past a line of waiting cars, through a stream of crossing peds, through traffic, right under the nose of a police officer!

well, 400 apparently have

You've missed the point, the police officers were on the other side of the road. They wouldn't have been able to see them while they were RLJing. Still though, they shouldn't have been doing it anyway. Bad RLJers, NO![/quote]

no, i'm agreeing with you. the fact that they can't see the rozzers until after they've jumped the lights is a good thing IMHO. but if they actually took the care to look at the junction before blazing out into it through a red, they would surely notice the chap in the hiviz jacket with the silly hat about 20 foot away.

if the police are obvious at the start of the junction, noone's going to get caught, and noone will stop RLJing when they can't see an officer right in front of them

W1

If you can't see a copper waiting accross a junction you clearly aren't paying enough attention to the road.

If you want to use the roads, you know the rules. If you don't want to obey the rules, take the train or get caught - but either way don't whine about it.

I'd say that bearing in mind my completely well structured and recent scientific test, which showed that five times as many cyclists RLJ'd as drivers, the cyclists have got away lightly.

I hope the City police continue to clamp down on bad, dangerous cycling and RLJing - it's to the benefit of the majority of cyclists who don't deserve to be tarnished with the "lycra lout" image cause by a selfish, ignorant minority.

notsoblue

Ahh, gotcha.

Alphabet wrote:

if the police are obvious at the start of the junction, noone's going to get caught, and noone will stop RLJing when they can't see an officer right in front of them

Well that just shows how useless the whole exercise is beyond appeasing the busybodies that attend Police Liaison meetings.

Alphabet

W1 wrote:

If you can't see a copper waiting accross a junction you clearly aren't paying enough attention to the road.

If you want to use the roads, you know the rules. If you don't want to obey the rules, take the train or get caught - but either way don't whine about it.

I'd say that bearing in mind my completely well structured and recent scientific test, which showed that five times as many cyclists RLJ'd as drivers, the cyclists have got away lightly.

I hope the City police continue to clamp down on bad, dangerous cycling and RLJing - it's to the benefit of the majority of cyclists who don't deserve to be tarnished with the "lycra lout" image cause by a selfish, ignorant minority.

^this. like wot i woz trying to say but wiv the elekwents

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

If you can't see a copper waiting accross a junction you clearly aren't paying enough attention to the road.

If you want to use the roads, you know the rules. If you don't want to obey the rules, take the train or get caught - but either way don't whine about it.

I'd say that bearing in mind my completely well structured and recent scientific test, which showed that five times as many cyclists RLJ'd as drivers, the cyclists have got away lightly.

I hope the City police continue to clamp down on bad, dangerous cycling and RLJing - it's to the benefit of the majority of cyclists who don't deserve to be tarnished with the "lycra lout" image cause by a selfish, ignorant minority.

*Nobody* is endorsing RLJers, or making apologies for them in this thread. Why are you acting as if they are? :P

W1

Headhuunter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I think the point is, to bring this back more directly to the topic, the cyclists may have been targeted more specifically because a number of people at one of these meetings raised it as an issue they would like dealt with. Given that such meetings have a habit of being attended by reactionary busybodies with too much time on their hands, if we want more even handed policing of City roads, then those who have a particular issue with it should attend the meetings and put their point across as strongly as possible.

That's exactly it. We discussed that on another thread. It seems that the police judge their policy on these things by what the little old ladies and stay at home parents who (have time to) attend these liaison mtgs say that they want the police to crack down on what they perceive as a large number of cyclists RLJing. Because commuting cyclists have jobs in the City, which often mean (like me) that they are at their desks at all hours, they are unable to make their voices heard. Which again is unfair.

Yet you weren't prepared to do anything about it!

And a large number of cyclists do RLJ. I seriously can't believe you continue to debate this. Stand by any junction in the city and do some counting.

What's unfair about the police upholding the law, just because it's a law you don't agree with! I think it's great that RLJers keep getting caught - it's their own fault 100%.

EC2boy

Headhuunter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I think the point is, to bring this back more directly to the topic, the cyclists may have been targeted more specifically because a number of people at one of these meetings raised it as an issue they would like dealt with. Given that such meetings have a habit of being attended by reactionary busybodies with too much time on their hands, if we want more even handed policing of City roads, then those who have a particular issue with it should attend the meetings and put their point across as strongly as possible.

That's exactly it. We discussed that on another thread. It seems that the police judge their policy on these things by what the little old ladies and stay at home parents who (have time to) attend these liaison mtgs say that they want the police to crack down on what they perceive as a large number of cyclists RLJing. Because commuting cyclists have jobs in the City, which often mean (like me) that they are at their desks at all hours, they are unable to make their voices heard. Which again is unfair.

That's spot on really. The thing is that the police are trying to make the meetings accessible. The Barbican one is at 7.30pm and the one near Blackfriars is at lunchtime. So it is possible to pop along to these, but people need to be pretty committed.

There's a meeting nr Fenchurch Street in November but that is uselessly at 10.30am.

http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.com/201 ... tings.html

I did nip into a session of the planning committee this morning to hear what was being said about two-way streets for cycling and will be writing that up on the blog tonight but, surprise, surprise, a lot of our elected politicians were standing up ranting about how dreadful cyclists are and don't obey rules etc. I sometimes get the feeling we have to be holier than holy. But then a funny thing happened. One of the politicians outed himself as a Boris biker and started talking about how certain junctions are really badly designed for bikes and taht's encouraged him to brak the rules on those junctions. And then another one joined n and started bliming car drivers who couldn't understand the Highway Code. We need to get more normal people like these politicians on bikes. And we need people to realise we're not 'lycra louts'

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

If you can't see a copper waiting accross a junction you clearly aren't paying enough attention to the road.

If you want to use the roads, you know the rules. If you don't want to obey the rules, take the train or get caught - but either way don't whine about it.

I'd say that bearing in mind my completely well structured and recent scientific test, which showed that five times as many cyclists RLJ'd as drivers, the cyclists have got away lightly.

I hope the City police continue to clamp down on bad, dangerous cycling and RLJing - it's to the benefit of the majority of cyclists who don't deserve to be tarnished with the "lycra lout" image cause by a selfish, ignorant minority.

*Nobody* is endorsing RLJers, or making apologies for them in this thread. Why are you acting as if they are? :P

Erm, moaning about the number of poor old cyclists getting caught compared to twice the number of drivers is basically saying it's unfair to target anti-social cyclists - that's endorsing their behaviour, when we should be condemning it and cheering that 400 iditots will hopefully think twice before RJLing again....

W1

The 14 page joy or RLJing is here:

http://www.bikeradar.com/commuting/foru ... sc&start=0

I would suggest we re-inflate it's rotting corpse, rather than repeating ourselves here and taking this further O/T.