RLJ and the police - To prevent or to catch?

notsoblue

mroli wrote:

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!

Yeah, but pedalling is really hard!

bails87

I've RLJed twice, once on the bike, once in the car. Both times I'd spent 5 minutes sitting at clearly broken temporary traffic lights, controlling the flow of traffic along a 20 yard stretch of road where the roadworks that meant the lights had to be put there had been finished anyway!

But I wouldn't advocate RLJing in any other circumstances, despite mroli's regular dances with death when he RLJs.

notsoblue

bails87 wrote:

But I wouldn't advocate RLJing in any other circumstances, despite mroli's regular dances with death when he RLJs.

I'm just concerned for his safety.

Mroli, RLJ IS DANGEROUS.

gilesjuk

How many deaths does RLJ-ing cause?

Any figures?

Craggers

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

snooks

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.

I don't go around nicking bikes, but I'm glad if there are high vis plod around to help stop it. (unless it's a riot of course)

Rather than lurking, not being seen and waiting to fine a RLJ, wouldn't it be better for plod to be seen and reduce all traffic offences, or would they rather catch more offenders?

Being hi vis wouldn't just stop RLJ, but also speed/ASL/box junction infringements would no doubt be reduced.

Would it be a fair assumption to say the more plod that are visible the less crime occurs? Not just RLJ, but any crime unless someone is dumb enough to commit a crime in front of a high vis plod*

*I acknowledge there will still be muppets who go speeding past a marked plod car, or walk past a policeman in the queue to rob a bank and I'm sure someone will come up with a statistic from the riots where lots of crime was committed in front of plod

mroli

Buh, buh, buh, but... I DON'T RLJ!!!!



I dunno, you guys don't believe me, what chance will I have of convincing the camo clad rozzers, hiding sneakily behind street furniture just waiting, just waiting to pounce upon an innocent cyclist (me!) to hit me with a massive fine....

notsoblue

mroli wrote:

Buh, buh, buh, but... I DON'T RLJ!!!!



I dunno, you guys don't believe me, what chance will I have of convincing the camo clad rozzers, hiding sneakily behind street furniture just waiting, just waiting to pounce upon an innocent cyclist (me!) to hit me with a massive fine....

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime, mroli. There is no excuse for RLJ.

snooks

Craggers wrote:

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

Read the post..."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."

OK I missed the t off event, but still

RowCycle

There isn't a vote option for neither.

gilesjuk

notsoblue wrote:

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime, mroli. There is no excuse for RLJ.

True. But out of all the offences on the roads is it the one causing the most deaths per person doing it?

Surely with limited police time and resources the offences should be categorised in terms of severity and quantity with the most common high severity offences tackled first?

(I don't RLJ anyway).

notsoblue

gilesjuk wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime, mroli. There is no excuse for RLJ.

True. But out of all the offences on the roads is it the one causing the most deaths per person doing it?

Surely with limited police time and resources the offences should be categorised in terms of severity and quantity with the most common high severity offences tackled first?

(I don't RLJ anyway).

London would be a safer place without mroli and gilesjuk RLJ all over the place. Maybe we should give normal citizens the power to take down and give cyclists who RLJ on the spot fines?

asprilla

gilesjuk wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime, mroli. There is no excuse for RLJ.

True. But out of all the offences on the roads is it the one causing the most deaths per person doing it?

Surely with limited police time and resources the offences should be categorised in terms of severity and quantity with the most common high severity offences tackled first?

If you did that then there is an awful lot of stuff that you would never get round to looking at and if you didn't then the bar defining what was acceptable behaviour would be raised / lowered depending on your point of view.

Before you know it you'd have respectable members of society looting because everyone else was doing it.....