Police stopping cyclist last night - Hyde Park

georgee

A couple of cop cars parked up by the ped crossing/Borris Bike stand at HPC just inside the park and plenty of nobbers without lights being stopped. Chapeaux to that.

The Rookie

Agreed, no excuse for not having lights, its not like they cost a fortune to be seen (seeing is different!)

Simon

Headhuunter

Wish they'd also pay attention to the huge numbers of loony motorists on the roads by the Tube strike. Had idiot drivers blasting their horns at me unnecessarily, trying to squeeze past me through pinch point causing near misses, trying to overtake me, pulling fast past me cutting in and then braking suddenly when they hit queues of traffic at lights.

At one point one of those enormous Terravision buses that transports people between airports was blasting its horn at every cyclist it passed as it travelled along Tooley St, almost shoved me off the road completely. I assume the extra trafic had made it late on its route but tough luck!

The police need to spend time noticing this as well as cyclists without lights....

Clever Pun

Headhuunter wrote:

Wish they'd also pay attention to the huge numbers of loony motorists on the roads by the Tube strike. Had idiot drivers blasting their horns at me unnecessarily, trying to squeeze past me through pinch point causing near misses, trying to overtake me, pulling fast past me cutting in and then braking suddenly when they hit queues of traffic at lights.

At one point one of those enormous Terravision buses that transports people between airports was blasting its horn at every cyclist it passed as it travelled along Tooley St, almost shoved me off the road completely. I assume the extra trafic had made it late on its route but tough luck!

The police need to spend time noticing this as well as cyclists without lights....

driving like a cu^t is different from being on the road ilegaly... the pops can't be everywhere

maybe it was a friendly reminder to wear socks?

ooermissus

Clever Pun wrote:

driving like a cu^t is different from being on the road illegaly

How so? Surely driving a coach aggressively and using the horn illegally is a greater problem than cycling through Hyde Park without lights?

W1

ooermissus wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

driving like a cu^t is different from being on the road illegaly

How so? Surely driving a coach aggressively and using the horn illegally is a greater problem than cycling through Hyde Park without lights?

Surely muggings are more of a problem that coaches sounding their horns?

ooermissus

W1 wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

driving like a cu^t is different from being on the road illegaly

How so? Surely driving a coach aggressively and using the horn illegally is a greater problem than cycling through Hyde Park without lights?

Surely muggings are more of a problem that coaches sounding their horns?

Interesting question. I guess it depends on the damage caused by dangerous driving, vs that caused by muggings and similar crimes. I have no idea how they compare.

W1

ooermissus wrote:

W1 wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

driving like a cu^t is different from being on the road illegaly

How so? Surely driving a coach aggressively and using the horn illegally is a greater problem than cycling through Hyde Park without lights?

Surely muggings are more of a problem that coaches sounding their horns?

Interesting question. I guess it depends on the damage caused by dangerous driving, vs that caused by muggings and similar crimes. I have no idea how they compare.

The point being, the police don't just attend to the most serious crimes, so it's pointless complaining that they are addressing one issue rather than another.

dhope

ooermissus wrote:

W1 wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

driving like a cu^t is different from being on the road illegaly

How so? Surely driving a coach aggressively and using the horn illegally is a greater problem than cycling through Hyde Park without lights?

Surely muggings are more of a problem that coaches sounding their horns?

Interesting question. I guess it depends on the damage caused by dangerous driving, vs that caused by muggings and similar crimes. I have no idea how they compare.

Murder's worse than muggings, and genocide worse than both. I say pull all the traffic cops off bike and horn duty and stick them in the anti genocide squad.

SimonAH

Yup, they attend to the crime where they have the best ratio of numbers of 'crimes' vs number of convictions - unless it's a headline grabber.

'Measure me with irrational measures then you should expect me to behave irrationally'

..................they've got to hit those targets guys, and it makes no difference on the severity of the crime, just the number of 'em solved. Total insanity.

Not that I'm condoning the riding without lights bit you understand.

biondino

Headhuunter wrote:

Wish they'd also pay attention to the huge numbers of loony motorists on the roads by the Tube strike. Had idiot drivers blasting their horns at me unnecessarily, trying to squeeze past me through pinch point causing near misses, trying to overtake me, pulling fast past me cutting in and then braking suddenly when they hit queues of traffic at lights.

At one point one of those enormous Terravision buses that transports people between airports was blasting its horn at every cyclist it passed as it travelled along Tooley St, almost shoved me off the road completely. I assume the extra trafic had made it late on its route but tough luck!

The police need to spend time noticing this as well as cyclists without lights....

It's almost like they know you're a RLJer with a sense of entitlement as big as the chip on your shoulder

Headhuunter

W1 wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

driving like a cu^t is different from being on the road illegaly

How so? Surely driving a coach aggressively and using the horn illegally is a greater problem than cycling through Hyde Park without lights?

Surely muggings are more of a problem that coaches sounding their horns?

I shouldn't think muggings kill or injure more people per year than dangerous and aggressive drivers though (whether they are in coaches or not is irrelevant).

W1

Headhuunter wrote:

W1 wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

driving like a cu^t is different from being on the road illegaly

How so? Surely driving a coach aggressively and using the horn illegally is a greater problem than cycling through Hyde Park without lights?

Surely muggings are more of a problem that coaches sounding their horns?

I shouldn't think muggings kill or injure more people per year than dangerous and aggressive drivers though (whether they are in coaches or not is irrelevant).

So the police should only deal with death and injuries then?

Hope your credit card doesn't get cloned. Or your car vandalised. Or your house burgled.

Back in the real world, the police were - last night - dealing with ninjas. Just because somewhere there was a coach harassing you doesn't make their work any less necessary....

Headhuunter

W1 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

W1 wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

driving like a cu^t is different from being on the road illegaly

How so? Surely driving a coach aggressively and using the horn illegally is a greater problem than cycling through Hyde Park without lights?

Surely muggings are more of a problem that coaches sounding their horns?

I shouldn't think muggings kill or injure more people per year than dangerous and aggressive drivers though (whether they are in coaches or not is irrelevant).

So the police should only deal with death and injuries then?

Hope your credit card doesn't get cloned. Or your car vandalised. Or your house burgled.

Back in the real world, the police were - last night - dealing with ninjas. Just because somewhere there was a coach harassing you doesn't make their work any less necessary....

No. That isn't what I said. Once again you're putting words in my mouth. My original point was that it would be nice if police actually policed drivers as well as pulling over "ninja" cyclists. I'm not trying to defend these cyclists but there was a whole lot of bad driving going on last night which is likely to cause more danger to road users than a couple of cyclists with no lights.

W1

Headhuunter wrote:

W1 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

W1 wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

driving like a cu^t is different from being on the road illegaly

How so? Surely driving a coach aggressively and using the horn illegally is a greater problem than cycling through Hyde Park without lights?

Surely muggings are more of a problem that coaches sounding their horns?

I shouldn't think muggings kill or injure more people per year than dangerous and aggressive drivers though (whether they are in coaches or not is irrelevant).

So the police should only deal with death and injuries then?

Hope your credit card doesn't get cloned. Or your car vandalised. Or your house burgled.

Back in the real world, the police were - last night - dealing with ninjas. Just because somewhere there was a coach harassing you doesn't make their work any less necessary....

No. That isn't what I said. Once again you're putting words in my mouth. My original point was that it would be nice if police actually policed drivers as well as pulling over "ninja" cyclists. I'm not trying to defend these cyclists but there was a whole lot of bad driving going on last night which is likely to cause more danger to road users than a couple of cyclists with no lights.

Who's to say they weren't policing drivers too? Just because they weren't dealing with your issue doesn't mean that thery weren't dealing with any drivers at all last night! What do you want, a personal copper on call for you? Except of course then he'd catch you RLJing I suppose!

soundninjauk

As someone who cycles through Hyde Park between Hyde Park Corner and Victoria Gate, I'm personally pretty pleased that the police were stopping ninja cyclists. I don't absolutely love going through there in the dark, and I'm pretty well lit up front and back (Hope Vision 2 gets the job done nicely at the front, along with a flashy thing on the helmet), but I still have difficulty seeing some cyclists.

On one occasion I also came across a cyclist who had a flashing white light on the back of their bike. I was quite confused as to how I wasn't getting closer to the light more quickly, until I realised what was going on.

Not to mention I've had a couple of interesting encounters with rollerbladers, who stick to the cycle lane yet tend to have absolutely no lighting at all.

DonDaddyD

The police rightly and wrongly get bad press.

It is annoying that you see them in force policing cyclists during a tube strike, but never around to stop a car trying to be faster than a speeding bullet.

The above is, however, a futile point of course. There is always a worse crime.

Officers on the beat can only police or respond to the crime infront of them. (999 calls not withstanding).

The real problem is, why isn't there more officers to police an ever increasing population?

ooermissus

I'm (fairly) firmly in the camp that believes that too much policing of cyclists is driven by public opinion (itself driven by the antagonism of car drivers), rather than actual harm caused.

W1

ooermissus wrote:

I'm (fairly) firmly in the camp that believes that too much policing of cyclists is driven by public opinion (itself driven by the antagonism of car drivers), rather than actual harm caused.

And not because so many cyclists run red lights, ride on the pavement or have no lights?

I think cycling is grossly underpoliced, which generates an assumption that cyclists are above the law - which in turn pisses everyone off (myself, as a cyclist, driver and pedestrian, included).

ooermissus

The main priority for my local police station, at the moment, is pavement cycling in the town centre.

I walk and cycle around the town a lot, and can't remember seeing anyone cycling on the pavement at all in the two months since I got back from holiday. So it seems grossly disproportionate.

(Tthat said I have seen someone - me - cycling on the pavement on a particularly nasty stretch of road outside town - so I guess I am one of those menaces on the road that piss people like you off. Sorry.)

Headhuunter

ooermissus wrote:

The main priority for my local police station, at the moment, is pavement cycling in the town centre.

I walk and cycle around the town a lot, and can't remember seeing anyone cycling on the pavement at all in the two months since I got back from holiday. So it seems grossly disproportionate.

(Tthat said I have seen someone - me - cycling on the pavement on a particularly nasty stretch of road outside town - so I guess I am one of those menaces on the road that wee-wee people like you off. Sorry.)

Exactly. As we discussed on the other thread last week, the police target cyclists, possibly because they are easy targets, possibly because they are easy targets to derive revenue from (through fines). Perhaps last night the cops were out after bad drivers too, but I have never seen this in the past, yet I regularly see police on cyclist crackdown teams which largely seems to be in response to hysteria rather than actual carefully studied use of resources.

W1

ooermissus wrote:

The main priority for my local police station, at the moment, is pavement cycling in the town centre.

I walk and cycle around the town a lot, and can't remember seeing anyone cycling on the pavement at all in the two months since I got back from holiday. So it seems grossly disproportionate.

(Tthat said I have seen someone - me - cycling on the pavement on a particularly nasty stretch of road outside town - so I guess I am one of those menaces on the road that wee-wee people like you off. Sorry.)

Sounds like they are doing a great job then......

Why don't you walk down the pavement?

ooermissus

W1 wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

The main priority for my local police station, at the moment, is pavement cycling in the town centre.

I walk and cycle around the town a lot, and can't remember seeing anyone cycling on the pavement at all in the two months since I got back from holiday. So it seems grossly disproportionate.

Sounds like they are doing a great job then......

Oh right. Yes, of course. Silly me.

W1 wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

(Tthat said I have seen someone - me - cycling on the pavement on a particularly nasty stretch of road outside town - so I guess I am one of those menaces on the road that wee-wee people like you off. Sorry.)

Why don't you walk down the pavement?

Because it's 3/4 mile of bleak, empty pavement with cars rushing past at 60+ mph. And because, as you put it, I believe I am above the law. 8)

Clever Pun

Headhuunter wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

The main priority for my local police station, at the moment, is pavement cycling in the town centre.

I walk and cycle around the town a lot, and can't remember seeing anyone cycling on the pavement at all in the two months since I got back from holiday. So it seems grossly disproportionate.

(Tthat said I have seen someone - me - cycling on the pavement on a particularly nasty stretch of road outside town - so I guess I am one of those menaces on the road that wee-wee people like you off. Sorry.)

Exactly. As we discussed on the other thread last week, the police target cyclists, possibly because they are easy targets, possibly because they are easy targets to derive revenue from (through fines). Perhaps last night the cops were out after bad drivers too, but I have never seen this in the past, yet I regularly see police on cyclist crackdown teams which largely seems to be in response to hysteria rather than actual carefully studied use of resources.

and I regularly see drivers pulled over by a cop car getting a ticket for whatever... yet I never think damn I wish they were stopping rlj'ing/ninja cyclists

just cause you don't see it doesn't mean it's not happening

Headhuunter

Clever Pun wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

The main priority for my local police station, at the moment, is pavement cycling in the town centre.

I walk and cycle around the town a lot, and can't remember seeing anyone cycling on the pavement at all in the two months since I got back from holiday. So it seems grossly disproportionate.

(Tthat said I have seen someone - me - cycling on the pavement on a particularly nasty stretch of road outside town - so I guess I am one of those menaces on the road that wee-wee people like you off. Sorry.)

Exactly. As we discussed on the other thread last week, the police target cyclists, possibly because they are easy targets, possibly because they are easy targets to derive revenue from (through fines). Perhaps last night the cops were out after bad drivers too, but I have never seen this in the past, yet I regularly see police on cyclist crackdown teams which largely seems to be in response to hysteria rather than actual carefully studied use of resources.

and I regularly see drivers pulled over by a cop car getting a ticket for whatever... yet I never think damn I wish they were stopping rlj'ing/ninja cyclists

just cause you don't see it doesn't mean it's not happening

You do? In central London? I never see it and I never see them lying in wait for bad drivers as they do for bad cyclists.... Regarding ASL enforcement and RLJ-ing for example, I suggested on another thread that instead of waiting on the far side of the junction to catch cyclists after they have RLJ-ed, they wait on the near side. They could then enforce the ASL by indicating that drivers who enter them that they shouldn't be there (also it would allow them to make a judgement as to whether the driver had entered after the lights had gone red or before which the police always cite as a reason ASLs are impossible to enforce). Also their presence in their hi viz clothes would put cyclists off RLJ-ing before they did it.

By there very positionming on the far side of junctions It seems that current police policy is to allow cyclists to commit the crime (RLJ-ing), then catch them AFTER it has occured and then raise finance by issuing fines, whereas when you speak to them, they say they are there to PREVENT the crime/RLJ-ing which is clearly horsesh!t.

W1

Headhuunter wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

The main priority for my local police station, at the moment, is pavement cycling in the town centre.

I walk and cycle around the town a lot, and can't remember seeing anyone cycling on the pavement at all in the two months since I got back from holiday. So it seems grossly disproportionate.

(Tthat said I have seen someone - me - cycling on the pavement on a particularly nasty stretch of road outside town - so I guess I am one of those menaces on the road that wee-wee people like you off. Sorry.)

Exactly. As we discussed on the other thread last week, the police target cyclists, possibly because they are easy targets, possibly because they are easy targets to derive revenue from (through fines). Perhaps last night the cops were out after bad drivers too, but I have never seen this in the past, yet I regularly see police on cyclist crackdown teams which largely seems to be in response to hysteria rather than actual carefully studied use of resources.

and I regularly see drivers pulled over by a cop car getting a ticket for whatever... yet I never think damn I wish they were stopping rlj'ing/ninja cyclists

just cause you don't see it doesn't mean it's not happening

You do? In central London? I never see it and I never see them lying in wait for bad drivers as they do for bad cyclists.... Regarding ASL enforcement and RLJ-ing for example, I suggested on another thread that instead of waiting on the far side of the junction to catch cyclists after they have RLJ-ed, they wait on the near side. They could then enforce the ASL by indicating that drivers who enter them that they shouldn't be there (also it would allow them to make a judgement as to whether the driver had entered after the lights had gone red or before which the police always cite as a reason ASLs are impossible to enforce). Also their presence in their hi viz clothes would put cyclists off RLJ-ing before they did it.

By there very positionming on the far side of junctions It seems that current police policy is to allow cyclists to commit the crime (RLJ-ing), then catch them AFTER it has occured and then raise finance by issuing fines, whereas when you speak to them, they say they are there to PREVENT the crime/RLJ-ing which is clearly horsesh!t.

Well obviously all that would happen then is that if you don't see a copper you know you won't get caught, which would just encourage RLJing (unless there is a copper on every corner). And guess what - a copper waiting accross the junction from you, is alongside the opposite lights (i.e. exactly where you propose he should be) for traffic crossing the other way....

And you've never seen a car oulled over in central London? Actually you also think cars run more lights than cyclists. Have you considered an eye test?

rjsterry

Clever Pun wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

The main priority for my local police station, at the moment, is pavement cycling in the town centre.

I walk and cycle around the town a lot, and can't remember seeing anyone cycling on the pavement at all in the two months since I got back from holiday. So it seems grossly disproportionate.

(Tthat said I have seen someone - me - cycling on the pavement on a particularly nasty stretch of road outside town - so I guess I am one of those menaces on the road that wee-wee people like you off. Sorry.)

Exactly. As we discussed on the other thread last week, the police target cyclists, possibly because they are easy targets, possibly because they are easy targets to derive revenue from (through fines). Perhaps last night the cops were out after bad drivers too, but I have never seen this in the past, yet I regularly see police on cyclist crackdown teams which largely seems to be in response to hysteria rather than actual carefully studied use of resources.

and I regularly see drivers pulled over by a cop car getting a ticket for whatever... yet I never think damn I wish they were stopping rlj'ing/ninja cyclists

just cause you don't see it doesn't mean it's not happening

+1, I see this (drivers being given a talking to) about once a week on average. I have seen maybe one cyclist pulled over, ever. And RLJing is endemic on my route.

Clever Pun

Headhuunter wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

The main priority for my local police station, at the moment, is pavement cycling in the town centre.

I walk and cycle around the town a lot, and can't remember seeing anyone cycling on the pavement at all in the two months since I got back from holiday. So it seems grossly disproportionate.

(Tthat said I have seen someone - me - cycling on the pavement on a particularly nasty stretch of road outside town - so I guess I am one of those menaces on the road that wee-wee people like you off. Sorry.)

Exactly. As we discussed on the other thread last week, the police target cyclists, possibly because they are easy targets, possibly because they are easy targets to derive revenue from (through fines). Perhaps last night the cops were out after bad drivers too, but I have never seen this in the past, yet I regularly see police on cyclist crackdown teams which largely seems to be in response to hysteria rather than actual carefully studied use of resources.

and I regularly see drivers pulled over by a cop car getting a ticket for whatever... yet I never think damn I wish they were stopping rlj'ing/ninja cyclists

just cause you don't see it doesn't mean it's not happening

You do? In central London? I never see it and I never see them lying in wait for bad drivers as they do for bad cyclists.... Regarding ASL enforcement and RLJ-ing for example, I suggested on another thread that instead of waiting on the far side of the junction to catch cyclists after they have RLJ-ed, they wait on the near side. They could then enforce the ASL by indicating that drivers who enter them that they shouldn't be there (also it would allow them to make a judgement as to whether the driver had entered after the lights had gone red or before which the police always cite as a reason ASLs are impossible to enforce). Also their presence in their hi viz clothes would put cyclists off RLJ-ing before they did it.

By there very positionming on the far side of junctions It seems that current police policy is to allow cyclists to commit the crime (RLJ-ing), then catch them AFTER it has occured and then raise finance by issuing fines, whereas when you speak to them, they say they are there to PREVENT the crime/RLJ-ing which is clearly horsesh!t.

on the A21 between lewisham and bromley... they also set up sneaky speed cameras with a cop in wait further down the road.. probably about once a month. It's been deemed an issue and they get sent out to ensure everyone is playing by the rules

the cops you see have been instructed to do this probably after some old dear has been knocked over by a w@nker cycling through a group of peds crossing. The more times 'cyclists' behave like this the more cops will be sent to entrap and hopefully stop futures infringer's... you don't see cars or motorcycles driving through crossing peds do you? it's something that really pisses the public off so rightly they seek to address it

Headhuunter

W1 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

The main priority for my local police station, at the moment, is pavement cycling in the town centre.

I walk and cycle around the town a lot, and can't remember seeing anyone cycling on the pavement at all in the two months since I got back from holiday. So it seems grossly disproportionate.

(Tthat said I have seen someone - me - cycling on the pavement on a particularly nasty stretch of road outside town - so I guess I am one of those menaces on the road that wee-wee people like you off. Sorry.)

Exactly. As we discussed on the other thread last week, the police target cyclists, possibly because they are easy targets, possibly because they are easy targets to derive revenue from (through fines). Perhaps last night the cops were out after bad drivers too, but I have never seen this in the past, yet I regularly see police on cyclist crackdown teams which largely seems to be in response to hysteria rather than actual carefully studied use of resources.

and I regularly see drivers pulled over by a cop car getting a ticket for whatever... yet I never think damn I wish they were stopping rlj'ing/ninja cyclists

just cause you don't see it doesn't mean it's not happening

You do? In central London? I never see it and I never see them lying in wait for bad drivers as they do for bad cyclists.... Regarding ASL enforcement and RLJ-ing for example, I suggested on another thread that instead of waiting on the far side of the junction to catch cyclists after they have RLJ-ed, they wait on the near side. They could then enforce the ASL by indicating that drivers who enter them that they shouldn't be there (also it would allow them to make a judgement as to whether the driver had entered after the lights had gone red or before which the police always cite as a reason ASLs are impossible to enforce). Also their presence in their hi viz clothes would put cyclists off RLJ-ing before they did it.

By there very positionming on the far side of junctions It seems that current police policy is to allow cyclists to commit the crime (RLJ-ing), then catch them AFTER it has occured and then raise finance by issuing fines, whereas when you speak to them, they say they are there to PREVENT the crime/RLJ-ing which is clearly horsesh!t.

Well obviously all that would happen then is that if you don't see a copper you know you won't get caught, which would just encourage RLJing (unless there is a copper on every corner). And guess what - a copper waiting accross the junction from you, is alongside the opposite lights (i.e. exactly where you propose he should be) for traffic crossing the other way....

And you've never seen a car oulled over in central London? Actually you also think cars run more lights than cyclists. Have you considered an eye test?

To be honest it's pretty easy to see the cops waiting on the other side of a junc before you RLJ anyway, but what I was proposing would make it very obvious and actually prevent RLJ-ing AND allow them to police ASLs for the same outlay in personel. Anyway you've clearly lost the argument as you've resorted to insults.... Again.

W1

Headhuunter wrote:

W1 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

The main priority for my local police station, at the moment, is pavement cycling in the town centre.

I walk and cycle around the town a lot, and can't remember seeing anyone cycling on the pavement at all in the two months since I got back from holiday. So it seems grossly disproportionate.

(Tthat said I have seen someone - me - cycling on the pavement on a particularly nasty stretch of road outside town - so I guess I am one of those menaces on the road that wee-wee people like you off. Sorry.)

Exactly. As we discussed on the other thread last week, the police target cyclists, possibly because they are easy targets, possibly because they are easy targets to derive revenue from (through fines). Perhaps last night the cops were out after bad drivers too, but I have never seen this in the past, yet I regularly see police on cyclist crackdown teams which largely seems to be in response to hysteria rather than actual carefully studied use of resources.

and I regularly see drivers pulled over by a cop car getting a ticket for whatever... yet I never think damn I wish they were stopping rlj'ing/ninja cyclists

just cause you don't see it doesn't mean it's not happening

You do? In central London? I never see it and I never see them lying in wait for bad drivers as they do for bad cyclists.... Regarding ASL enforcement and RLJ-ing for example, I suggested on another thread that instead of waiting on the far side of the junction to catch cyclists after they have RLJ-ed, they wait on the near side. They could then enforce the ASL by indicating that drivers who enter them that they shouldn't be there (also it would allow them to make a judgement as to whether the driver had entered after the lights had gone red or before which the police always cite as a reason ASLs are impossible to enforce). Also their presence in their hi viz clothes would put cyclists off RLJ-ing before they did it.

By there very positionming on the far side of junctions It seems that current police policy is to allow cyclists to commit the crime (RLJ-ing), then catch them AFTER it has occured and then raise finance by issuing fines, whereas when you speak to them, they say they are there to PREVENT the crime/RLJ-ing which is clearly horsesh!t.

Well obviously all that would happen then is that if you don't see a copper you know you won't get caught, which would just encourage RLJing (unless there is a copper on every corner). And guess what - a copper waiting accross the junction from you, is alongside the opposite lights (i.e. exactly where you propose he should be) for traffic crossing the other way....

And you've never seen a car oulled over in central London? Actually you also think cars run more lights than cyclists. Have you considered an eye test?

To be honest it's pretty easy to see the cops waiting on the other side of a junc before you RLJ anyway, but what I was proposing would make it very obvious and actually prevent RLJ-ing AND allow them to police ASLs for the same outlay in personel. Anyway you've clearly lost the argument as you've resorted to insults.... Again.

You've kindly proven my point by not actually reading what I said. Again.

Headhuunter

Clever Pun wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

The main priority for my local police station, at the moment, is pavement cycling in the town centre.

I walk and cycle around the town a lot, and can't remember seeing anyone cycling on the pavement at all in the two months since I got back from holiday. So it seems grossly disproportionate.

(Tthat said I have seen someone - me - cycling on the pavement on a particularly nasty stretch of road outside town - so I guess I am one of those menaces on the road that wee-wee people like you off. Sorry.)

Exactly. As we discussed on the other thread last week, the police target cyclists, possibly because they are easy targets, possibly because they are easy targets to derive revenue from (through fines). Perhaps last night the cops were out after bad drivers too, but I have never seen this in the past, yet I regularly see police on cyclist crackdown teams which largely seems to be in response to hysteria rather than actual carefully studied use of resources.

and I regularly see drivers pulled over by a cop car getting a ticket for whatever... yet I never think damn I wish they were stopping rlj'ing/ninja cyclists

just cause you don't see it doesn't mean it's not happening

You do? In central London? I never see it and I never see them lying in wait for bad drivers as they do for bad cyclists.... Regarding ASL enforcement and RLJ-ing for example, I suggested on another thread that instead of waiting on the far side of the junction to catch cyclists after they have RLJ-ed, they wait on the near side. They could then enforce the ASL by indicating that drivers who enter them that they shouldn't be there (also it would allow them to make a judgement as to whether the driver had entered after the lights had gone red or before which the police always cite as a reason ASLs are impossible to enforce). Also their presence in their hi viz clothes would put cyclists off RLJ-ing before they did it.

By there very positionming on the far side of junctions It seems that current police policy is to allow cyclists to commit the crime (RLJ-ing), then catch them AFTER it has occured and then raise finance by issuing fines, whereas when you speak to them, they say they are there to PREVENT the crime/RLJ-ing which is clearly horsesh!t.

on the A21 between lewisham and bromley... they also set up sneaky speed cameras with a cop in wait further down the road.. probably about once a month. It's been deemed an issue and they get sent out to ensure everyone is playing by the rules

the cops you see have been instructed to do this probably after some old dear has been knocked over by a w@nker cycling through a group of peds crossing. The more times 'cyclists' behave like this the more cops will be sent to entrap and hopefully stop futures infringer's... you don't see cars or motorcycles driving through crossing peds do you? it's something that really pisses the public off so rightly they seek to address it

Yes, I completely understand the need to police cyclists who charge through bunches of peds on crossings etc, all I'm saying is that to me there seems to be an emphasis on this as a result of public hysteria rather than an even handed approach to all road users. Someone posted on another thread an account of a meeting with the City police in which the City police acknowledged that they specifically target "nuisance cyclists" rather than "nuisance road users" in general. It was announced as a clear aim. I asked a PCSO a while back why they targetted cyclists and she answered that cars are too difficult to stop as a police officer on foot, which is a fair point but hardly even handed.