RLJ and the police - To prevent or to catch?

snooks

I was on the tube today (I know, I know long story, but my back is knackered and I've been advised not to do anything to strain it, including cycling ) So anyway on the tube today I was sat opposite an off duty copper and his mate having a chat, I was listening in cos I forget my headphones.

It started off by the copper staying that due to the cycling even he's never seen the traffic so bad around Fulham, Knightsbridge etc. Mate has a bit a a rant about cyclists, same old same old weaving in and out, RLJ etc

Copper then says about watching the face, of someone he's caught RLJ, drop when they think they are going to be arrested when they don't have anything form of ID, as he has to confirm the fixed penalty has the name of the person standing in front of them.

Then copper says "It's harder to catch them now, as we have to be wearing high vis. It is much easier to catch them if we're lurking in the shadows"

So, I don't give a toss about RLJ, I do however think that coppers should be happy they preventing an offence taking place, rather than letting people offend (by lurking in the shadows) then catch them....Am I the only one?

notsoblue

Even wearing Hi-Viz there will still be cyclists that will run red lights in front of them. I've seen a few times. The last time was on NKR at the Chutney Mary bridge heading east. It was like shooting fish in a barrel.

snooks

notsoblue wrote:

Even wearing Hi-Viz there will still be cyclists that will run red lights in front of them. I've seen a few times. The last time was on NKR at the Chutney Mary bridge heading east. It was like shooting fish in a barrel.

I know, if they miss plod in high vis, it begs the question what else they have missed. but I thought the police were there to prevent "crime" rather than watch it happen.

OK if they are going in for some big drugs bust, under cover , lurking in shadows, hiding out etc is the way forward, but preventing RLJ? :roll:

Clever Pun

snooks wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Even wearing Hi-Viz there will still be cyclists that will run red lights in front of them. I've seen a few times. The last time was on NKR at the Chutney Mary bridge heading east. It was like shooting fish in a barrel.

I know, if they miss plod in high vis, it begs the question what else they have missed. but I thought the police were there to prevent "crime" rather than watch it happen.

OK if they are going in for some big drugs bust, under cover , lurking in shadows, hiding out etc is the way forward, but preventing RLJ? :roll:

same principal no? once the 'crime' is committed they can act. Standing by the lights is such a waste of popo time as they will have nothing to show for the effort and will be redeployed surely?

Bassjunkieuk

Isn't the "lurking to prevent" similar to what they do with speed traps? Just watch how many red lights to see on a motorway when you spot a highways agency van (with it's police-esque markings) and then how many people whizz off ahead once they realize it's not the plod!

I guess prevention is better then cure but then some people just don't seem to care/realize. IMHO there are fair to many places where it can happen. Targeting one particular set of lights or even a stretch of road is a drop in the ocean if you look at how many sets of lights and cyclists we have in London!

rebs

Seems like a waste for police to go out and prevent RLJ'ers.

Seems time is better spent to catch those that do. I mean if they are fully aware they are crossing a red light and get caught. Well fool them.

bails87

So the police are highly visible, and they prevent RLJing at the one junction where they're standing?

But if they're 'undercover'/hiding then they only catch and punish RLJers at the one junction where they're standing, but potential RLJers are worried about the presence of more 'hidden' police (having just seen another RLJer be pulled for it) so don;t RLJ?

Maybe?


It's like if every lampost/tree/postbox was a potential disguised speed camera, that would focus a lot of drivers minds more than the flourescent yellow, well signposted ones that we have now......maybe

CyclingBantam

bails87 wrote:

So the police are highly visible, and they prevent RLJing at the one junction where they're standing?

But if they're 'undercover'/hiding then they only catch and punish RLJers at the one junction where they're standing, but potential RLJers are worried about the presence of more 'hidden' police (having just seen another RLJer be pulled for it) so don;t RLJ?

Maybe?


It's like if every lampost/tree/postbox was a potential disguised speed camera, that would focus a lot of drivers minds more than the flourescent yellow, well signposted ones that we have now......maybe

This.

Why on earth speed camera's etc have to be visable is beyond me. It totally defeats the object of having them IMO (Although plenty are STILL too stupid to not get caught.

The Rookie

In the case of RLJ I think the Police should focus on catch, the reason I say this is that there is no point stopping a habitual RLJer doing it once by standing there, you have to catch and penalise in order for them to think it's not worth doing next time as I may get caught, so I agree with the above.

Most speed camera's are in vans, by the sime you see them your done, no point braking, no deterrent other than by threat of enforcement.

Simon

bails87

Hmmm, I've only seen one camera van in my (not so many) years of driving*. It was parked up in a layby 10 yards from a NSL sign, but still inside the 30 zone. Sneaky, but had I been caught I would have had to hold my hands up. I knew the limit, I would have chosen to break it if I'd accelerated before the NSL sign.


* Maybe they're just very well hidden

The Rookie

I see loads of vans........should have gone to specsavers!

Simon

bails87

The Beginner wrote:

I see loads of vans........should have gone to specsavers!

Simon

They obviously follow you around

Headhuunter

This is something that has always got me. If you get stopped by the fuzz for RLJ-ing they give you the usual lecture about how dangerous it is, how many cyclists die per year blah, blah, blah, yet, they are doing nothing to PREVENT it, they are trying to CATCH people out.

I have said this before on this site but if the police were serious about PREVENTING RLJing they could wait at the junction itself, next to the stop line. This would also allow them to have a word with motorists encroaching into ASLs and their presence would likely stop mopeds/motorists from encroaching the ASL and cyclists from RLJing altogether. 2 birds with 1 stone. Yet they do not do this. They wait "in the shadows" on the other side of the junction to catch people after the act and, in their words, the hugely dangerous RLJ has already taken place. This also means they cannot stop motorists who RLJ, encroach on the ASL etc.

If, as police say, RLJing so so huuuugely dangerous that it should be stopped, then they should do something about stopping it. Luriking in the shadows waiting to fine cyclists is simply a revenue generation exercise...

W1

Headhuunter wrote:

they are doing nothing to PREVENT it, they are trying to CATCH people out.
.

You make it sound like these things are mutually exclusive.

Headhuunter

CyclingBantam wrote:

bails87 wrote:

So the police are highly visible, and they prevent RLJing at the one junction where they're standing?

But if they're 'undercover'/hiding then they only catch and punish RLJers at the one junction where they're standing, but potential RLJers are worried about the presence of more 'hidden' police (having just seen another RLJer be pulled for it) so don;t RLJ?

Maybe?


It's like if every lampost/tree/postbox was a potential disguised speed camera, that would focus a lot of drivers minds more than the flourescent yellow, well signposted ones that we have now......maybe

This.

Why on earth speed camera's etc have to be visable is beyond me. It totally defeats the object of having them IMO (Although plenty are STILL too stupid to not get caught.

The point of having them visible is so that motorists slow down! It depends on what your objective is - revenue generation, in which case hide the cameras and catch motorists out with a fine when they have already hammered it along that dual carriageway at 100mph, or prevention, in which case you should have the cameras on display, which would make motorists slow down and prevent potential accidents and unnecessary deaths.

I prefer the latter option, however the police are often focused on revenue unfortunately...

bails87

Headhuunter wrote:

If, as police say, RLJing so so huuuugely dangerous that it should be stopped, then they should do something about stopping it. Luriking in the shadows waiting to fine cyclists is simply a revenue generation exercise...

Except the cyclist knows why they've been fined. Everyone who sees it knows why the cyclist is fined. That hopefully makes cyclists less likely to RLJ, because there may be hidden police at the next junction, or the one after that, or the one after that....

If the police are always obvious then the deterrent only works where you can see an officer. If you can't see one then you know it's 'safe'* to RLJ.



*don't....just don't.

Headhuunter

Clever Pun wrote:

snooks wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Even wearing Hi-Viz there will still be cyclists that will run red lights in front of them. I've seen a few times. The last time was on NKR at the Chutney Mary bridge heading east. It was like shooting fish in a barrel.

I know, if they miss plod in high vis, it begs the question what else they have missed. but I thought the police were there to prevent "crime" rather than watch it happen.

OK if they are going in for some big drugs bust, under cover , lurking in shadows, hiding out etc is the way forward, but preventing RLJ? :roll:

same principal no? once the 'crime' is committed they can act. Standing by the lights is such a waste of popo time as they will have nothing to show for the effort and will be redeployed surely?

So we're guaging police effectiveness on revenue generated over crime prevented and lives saved? Seems cocked up to me...

bails87

Headhuunter wrote:

CyclingBantam wrote:

bails87 wrote:

So the police are highly visible, and they prevent RLJing at the one junction where they're standing?

But if they're 'undercover'/hiding then they only catch and punish RLJers at the one junction where they're standing, but potential RLJers are worried about the presence of more 'hidden' police (having just seen another RLJer be pulled for it) so don;t RLJ?

Maybe?


It's like if every lampost/tree/postbox was a potential disguised speed camera, that would focus a lot of drivers minds more than the flourescent yellow, well signposted ones that we have now......maybe

This.

Why on earth speed camera's etc have to be visable is beyond me. It totally defeats the object of having them IMO (Although plenty are STILL too stupid to not get caught.

The point of having them visible is so that motorists slow down! It depends on what your objective is - revenue generation, in which case hide the cameras and catch motorists out with a fine when they have already hammered it along that dual carriageway at 100mph, or prevention, in which case you should have the cameras on display, which would make motorists slow down and prevent potential accidents and unnecessary deaths.

I prefer the latter option, however the police are often focused on revenue unfortunately...

There may be evidence to the contrary. But if you know where the cameras are, and they're always well signed then you can do 100mph with impunity, slow down for 100 yards, then get back to 100mph. If any bit of street furniture could be hiding a camera then you can never 'safely' drive at 100mph. That's how I see it anyway, maybe I'm completely wrong.

Headhuunter

bails87 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

If, as police say, RLJing so so huuuugely dangerous that it should be stopped, then they should do something about stopping it. Luriking in the shadows waiting to fine cyclists is simply a revenue generation exercise...

Except the cyclist knows why they've been fined. Everyone who sees it knows why the cyclist is fined. That hopefully makes cyclists less likely to RLJ, because there may be hidden police at the next junction, or the one after that, or the one after that....

If the police are always obvious then the deterrent only works where you can see an officer. If you can't see one then you know it's 'safe'* to RLJ.



*don't....just don't.

I guess it depends on how effective fines are at dissuading people from perpetrating the crime... I have admitted to RLJing on here many times (and have explained why, so won't go down that route again) and I have been stopped by the fuzz, I think 3x but I still do it. But I wouldn't blatantly do it in front of a police office waiting at a junction in hi viz though....

bails87

Headhuunter wrote:

I guess it depends on how effective fines are at dissuading people from perpetrating the crime...
[snip]
....I wouldn't blatantly do it in front of a police office waiting at a junction in hi viz though....

Plenty of people repeatedly get caught for speeding past hi viz speed cameras. Some people are just stupid.

The Rookie

Headhuunter wrote:

I prefer the latter option, however the police are often focused on revenue unfortunately...

Why would they be, they don't get any of it in any way.....

Simon

Headhuunter

The Beginner wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

I prefer the latter option, however the police are often focused on revenue unfortunately...

Why would they be, they don't get any of it in any way.....

Simon

Well I assume it's not the individual policeman who stops you actually getting a percentage cut, but orders from up high requiring that police produce a certain amount of revenue from their activities...

Clever Pun

Headhuunter wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

snooks wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Even wearing Hi-Viz there will still be cyclists that will run red lights in front of them. I've seen a few times. The last time was on NKR at the Chutney Mary bridge heading east. It was like shooting fish in a barrel.

I know, if they miss plod in high vis, it begs the question what else they have missed. but I thought the police were there to prevent "crime" rather than watch it happen.

OK if they are going in for some big drugs bust, under cover , lurking in shadows, hiding out etc is the way forward, but preventing RLJ? :roll:

same principal no? once the 'crime' is committed they can act. Standing by the lights is such a waste of popo time as they will have nothing to show for the effort and will be redeployed surely?

So we're guaging police effectiveness on revenue generated over crime prevented and lives saved? Seems cocked up to me...

The budget is being cut to ribbons they'll only be out on street corners when public outcry determins it (this is a different argument to the one above)

It's all about metrics; an officer giving out 10 tickets will be deemed to be more effective than an officer to give out none but stop all rlj. It comes down to management bullshit and justification and protection of budgets... very similar to lots of other jobs.

It's shit and that's the way it is

Craggers

I'd be more concerned about why that copper thinks the traffic around fulham and kensington is due to cyclists?

notsoblue

Craggers wrote:

I'd be more concerned about why that copper thinks the traffic around fulham and kensington is due to cyclists?

+1

mroli

Not bothered. Don't RLJ, therefore is of no consequence to me whether the police stop me from doing it (as I won't do it) or fine me for doing it (as I won't have done it). No RLJ, no police dedicated to stopping it, no worries.

The Rookie

Headhuunter wrote:

Well I assume it's not the individual policeman who stops you actually getting a percentage cut, but orders from up high requiring that police produce a certain amount of revenue from their activities...

Any proof that occurs? The Revenue all goes to 'central funds' and is not at any pointed totted up from individual forces activity, there may be targets and guidelines and credits systems, but none related to revenue as far as I know (and I've looked!)

Simon

W1

notsoblue wrote:

Craggers wrote:

I'd be more concerned about why that copper thinks the traffic around fulham and kensington is due to cyclists?

+1

They probably meant yesterday when the roads were closed for the cycle race.

notsoblue

mroli wrote:

Not bothered. Don't RLJ, therefore is of no consequence to me whether the police stop me from doing it (as I won't do it) or fine me for doing it (as I won't have done it). No RLJ, no police dedicated to stopping it, no worries.

So what I'm getting from this post is that you don't often RLJ?

snooks

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Craggers wrote:

I'd be more concerned about why that copper thinks the traffic around fulham and kensington is due to cyclists?

+1

They probably meant yesterday when the roads were closed for the cycle race.

Yup, this was why they started complaining about cyclists, cos the traffic was bad because of the Surrey Cycle Classic

Traffic = Surrey Cycle Classic = Cyclists = weaving in and out of traffic = red light jumping!
Within a few sentences

mroli

notsoblue wrote:

mroli wrote:

So what I'm getting from this post is that you don't often RLJ?

Nah - sorry, I must have been unclear I never RLJ, even if its the middle of the night and there's no-one around. Don't do it in my car, don't do it on the motorbike, don't do it on the bike. Maybe i just like the feeling of accelerating!