Police stopping cyclist last night - Hyde Park

Headhuunter

W1 wrote:

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.

And you have completely misread where I propose officers should be... Read again.

W1

Clever Pun wrote:

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

Indeed. Blaming the coppers for revenue raising is rather absurd - they'd raise no revenue if no cyclists RLJ'd, so I have no sympathy. In fact I support it, and am grateful for these volutary contributions from blind, idiot, anti-social cyclists. And as for not stopping cars - run a red light in a car and the fine is double that of an RLJing cyclist - if it was a revenue raising exercise, they'd be much better off targeting cars.

And it's not as though the last round of City Police crackdowns didn't include all road users, fining twice as many drivers as cyclists...

rjsterry

The 'revenue generation' argument is nonsense. If you have two officers stood at a junction, they'd need to issue at least 2 FPNs an hour just to cover the costs of them being there. now they might get more than two in the rush hour, but by the time they've been there all day, I reckon it would be costing them money not generating revenue.

W1

Headhuunter wrote:

W1 wrote:

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.

And you have completely misread where I propose officers should be... Read again.

No, I haven't.

jonginge

W1 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

W1 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Again.

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

And you have completely misread where I propose officers should be... Read again.

No, I haven't.

Has panto season started already?

They're (the fuzz) behind you!

Headhuunter

rjsterry wrote:

The 'revenue generation' argument is nonsense. If you have two officers stood at a junction, they'd need to issue at least 2 FPNs an hour just to cover the costs of them being there. now they might get more than two in the rush hour, but by the time they've been there all day, I reckon it would be costing them money not generating revenue.

Who said anything about hjaving to cover costs? Any revenue generation is better than zero which is what most officer generate because they're there to provide a service rather than run a business.... But anyway, I've said all this before and I'm going home now...

Clever Pun

W1 wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

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

Indeed. Blaming the coppers for revenue raising is rather absurd - they'd raise no revenue if no cyclists RLJ'd, so I have no sympathy. In fact I support it, and am grateful for these volutary contributions from blind, idiot, anti-social cyclists. And as for not stopping cars - run a red light in a car and the fine is double that of an RLJing cyclist - if it was a revenue raising exercise, they'd be much better off targeting cars.

And it's not as though the last round of City Police crackdowns didn't include all road users, fining twice as many drivers as cyclists...

Come to think of it I've seen police pull more cars than cyclists on tower bridge

Anyway cyclists are targeted as they're in the press a lot stands to reason the top brass have to be seen to be doing something about

HH will argue till everyone has left the thread as they just don't care anymore... he'll just be a tall hobbit talking to himself about his percieved injustice of coppers picking on law evading cyclists

and thus ends my contribution to this thread

Headhuunter

Clever Pun wrote:

W1 wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

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

Indeed. Blaming the coppers for revenue raising is rather absurd - they'd raise no revenue if no cyclists RLJ'd, so I have no sympathy. In fact I support it, and am grateful for these volutary contributions from blind, idiot, anti-social cyclists. And as for not stopping cars - run a red light in a car and the fine is double that of an RLJing cyclist - if it was a revenue raising exercise, they'd be much better off targeting cars.

And it's not as though the last round of City Police crackdowns didn't include all road users, fining twice as many drivers as cyclists...

Come to think of it I've seen police pull more cars than cyclists on tower bridge

Anyway cyclists are targeted as they're in the press a lot stands to reason the top brass have to be seen to be doing something about

HH will argue till everyone has left the thread as they just don't care anymore... he'll just be a tall hobbit talking to himself about his percieved injustice of coppers picking on law evading cyclists

and thus ends my contribution to this thread

I had already stopped arguing ACTUALLY. Beat you. Yah boo shucks to you....

rjsterry

But now you've started again :roll:

Headhuunter

rjsterry wrote:

But now you've started again :roll:

No I haven't.

hatbeard

Headhuunter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

But now you've started again :roll:

No I haven't.

it's not quite panto season just yet

The Rookie

Oh yes it is....

pshore

Headhuunter wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

... 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.

This does actually happen, I call it legalised vigilantism. Let me explain.

The police HAVE to spend some of their time (10% ?) tackling issues brought up by local people (I forget what this policy is called).

In an area of Cambridge, a local community decided that the top three problems the police should spend some of their time on was:

1) buglary
2) speeding
3) cyclists going through red lights on a specific roundabout.

In practice, the people with the time to go to police committee are going to be retired. They were annoyed by cyclists, they get the police to crackdown on cyclists.

Headhuunter

pshore wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

... 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.

This does actually happen, I call it legalised vigilantism. Let me explain.

The police HAVE to spend some of their time (10% ?) tackling issues brought up by local people (I forget what this policy is called).

In an area of Cambridge, a local community decided that the top three problems the police should spend some of their time on was:

1) buglary
2) speeding
3) cyclists going through red lights on a specific roundabout.

In practice, the people with the time to go to police committee are going to be retired. They were annoyed by cyclists, they get the police to crackdown on cyclists.

This was exactly what was highlighted by the link on the other thread. The City Police hold community meetings on weekdays at 10am or similar time when only retired and jobless people can attend. They then adjust policy to reflect what they are told at these meetings. Unfortunately anyone who is actually a cyclist in peak traffic is inevitably on the way to work so when the meetings take place are not able to attend so we end up with police policy reacting to hysteria from people who actually have time on their hands rather than a proper consultation with the community including those who work in the area, drive in the area, cycle in the area etc.... I'll try to find the link again...

deptfordmarmoset

HH, this isn't what you were looking for, but if you remember Westminster's anti-cycling stuff from about a year ago (c.f. Angela Harvey), these minutes of a forum consultation show how such policies get foregrounded.

http://www.westminster.gov.uk/workspace ... 877831.pdf

Pity the poor officer! Mind you their Cycle High(sic) Scheme looks pretty interesting...

ooermissus

my town's policing priorities:

1 - Cycling on the pavements in the town centre [young people moving around]
2 - Anti-social behaviour in the area of the Kebab house [young people going to the only non-licensed place open in the evenings]
3 - Alcohol related anti-social behaviour [young people drowning their sorrows in the face of unremitting persecution]

Headhuunter

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

HH, this isn't what you were looking for, but if you remember Westminster's anti-cycling stuff from about a year ago (c.f. Angela Harvey), these minutes of a forum consultation show how such policies get foregrounded.

http://www.westminster.gov.uk/workspace ... 877831.pdf

Pity the poor officer! Mind you their Cycle High(sic) Scheme looks pretty interesting...

No, this is the one I was thinking of (below), but that one shows the rabid focus on cyclists, a relatively speaking, bening presence on the road, whilst ignoring the thousands of RTAs involving motorists and pedestrians

http://realcycling.blogspot.com/2010/02 ... scuit.html

W1

Headhuunter wrote:

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

HH, this isn't what you were looking for, but if you remember Westminster's anti-cycling stuff from about a year ago (c.f. Angela Harvey), these minutes of a forum consultation show how such policies get foregrounded.

http://www.westminster.gov.uk/workspace ... 877831.pdf

Pity the poor officer! Mind you their Cycle High(sic) Scheme looks pretty interesting...

No, this is the one I was thinking of (below), but that one shows the rabid focus on cyclists, a relatively speaking, bening presence on the road, whilst ignoring the thousands of RTAs involving motorists and pedestrians

http://realcycling.blogspot.com/2010/02 ... scuit.html

Why do you presume that anti-social cycling isn't actually a real problem which should be tackled? On my commute red light jumping is endmic. Just because you don't like the people complaining or they way they go about it doesn't actually mean they don't have a legitimate grievance, and doesn't mean the police should't take it seriously and act accordingly.

Headhuunter

W1 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

HH, this isn't what you were looking for, but if you remember Westminster's anti-cycling stuff from about a year ago (c.f. Angela Harvey), these minutes of a forum consultation show how such policies get foregrounded.

http://www.westminster.gov.uk/workspace ... 877831.pdf

Pity the poor officer! Mind you their Cycle High(sic) Scheme looks pretty interesting...

No, this is the one I was thinking of (below), but that one shows the rabid focus on cyclists, a relatively speaking, bening presence on the road, whilst ignoring the thousands of RTAs involving motorists and pedestrians

http://realcycling.blogspot.com/2010/02 ... scuit.html

Why do you presume that anti-social cycling isn't actually a real problem which should be tackled? On my commute red light jumping is endmic. Just because you don't like the people complaining or they way they go about it doesn't actually mean they don't have a legitimate grievance, and doesn't mean the police should't take it seriously and act accordingly.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be tackled. I have never said that. But as I have said again and again, cyclists still make up what, possibly 10% at most of road users at most? Yet it seems that the police dedicate a lot more than 10% of their time focused on cyclists (as we can see by the number of FPNs issued to cyclists compared with the number issued to mortorists).

If we take a step back fromn the rabid hysteria for a moment, it's not cyclists who generally speaking, cause accidents resulting in death and injury, it's motorists.

I say again, bad cycling should be tackled, but so should bad driving.

W1

Headhuunter wrote:

W1 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

HH, this isn't what you were looking for, but if you remember Westminster's anti-cycling stuff from about a year ago (c.f. Angela Harvey), these minutes of a forum consultation show how such policies get foregrounded.

http://www.westminster.gov.uk/workspace ... 877831.pdf

Pity the poor officer! Mind you their Cycle High(sic) Scheme looks pretty interesting...

No, this is the one I was thinking of (below), but that one shows the rabid focus on cyclists, a relatively speaking, bening presence on the road, whilst ignoring the thousands of RTAs involving motorists and pedestrians

http://realcycling.blogspot.com/2010/02 ... scuit.html

Why do you presume that anti-social cycling isn't actually a real problem which should be tackled? On my commute red light jumping is endmic. Just because you don't like the people complaining or they way they go about it doesn't actually mean they don't have a legitimate grievance, and doesn't mean the police should't take it seriously and act accordingly.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be tackled. I have never said that. But as I have said again and again, cyclists still make up what, possibly 10% at most of road users at most? Yet it seems that the police dedicate a lot more than 10% of their time focused on cyclists (as we can see by the number of FPNs issued to cyclists compared with the number issued to mortorists).

If we take a step back fromn the rabid hysteria for a moment, it's not cyclists who generally speaking, cause accidents resulting in death and injury, it's motorists.

I say again, bad cycling should be tackled, but so should bad driving.

And bad driving is! As we have already seen, twice as many drivers got fined as cyclists did in the last "tackling" of road traffic offences. And in my experience cyclists make up the most obvious majority of offenders - hence why I don't agree that they are unfairly targetted. In fact I'm not sure any group is able to moan and whine when they get "targetted" by the police for their poor behaviour - there's an easy way to stop being a focus of the police's attention (and allow them to actually focus on other, more dangerous, problems) and that's to stop breaking the law in the first place! So your ire should be focused not on those who complain, nor those who enforce, but in fact on those who cause both the complaints and the enforcement!