IAMA Police Officer AMA
Comments
-
TGOTB wrote:Sketchley wrote:I believe the danger posed by RLJ-ing cyclists, to themselves and to other road users (including pedestrians) is significantly greater.I've witnessed numerous minor accidents and near misses caused by RLJ-ing vehicles; I've never seen one caused a (non-bicycle) vehicle in an ASL...
No:
The Mayor of London’s recently published Cycle Safety Action Plan reveals some interesting statistics about cyclists and London’s roads.
The report data (from 2007) shows that 79% of all cycling casualties occurred at or within 20 metres of a junction in London. It also shows that the second largest source of cycle casualties, after close proximity impacts with other vehicles, comes from other vehicles disobeying junction controls. That is to say 17% of all cyclists killed or seriously injured were hit or forced off the road by other vehicles jumping the lights or ignoring a give way line. By comparison, just 5% of cyclist’s KSI were caused by the cyclists doing the same.
http://ibikelondon.blogspot.com/2010/04 ... clist.html
RLJing by cyclists is annoying, but not anywhere near a real danger.0 -
Does this apply to traffic police also?Canaltowpath wrote:Most Police Officers will not know or care about ASLs, they will not know the Act/Section or will ever give a ticket for it during their entire career. What you describe is a problem local to you and not countrywide. I do not know every law or offence currently on the statute books, there are tens of thousands. For the legal madness have a look at the Town Police Clauses Act.
It would be nice if they didn't block the cycle/bus lane but it happens.
The law is biased based only on the evidence at hand.
Is a local problem replicated in every town and city across the nation really a local problem?
You utterly missed the point of my question, by the way. I compared two fairly trivial offences, one which is rarely but fairly regularly enforced, the other which is not. I think I was having a tiny pop at the police for bias against cyclists, but I'm not sure.
BTW - that you don't know what an ASL is kind of casts a little doubt as to whether you are actually a keen cyclist. That and the whole "canaltowpath" thing sorta makes me suspect that you head out along, say, a canal towpath one or two warm dry weekends a year with the kids.0 -
I'm surprised a cyclist doesn't know what an ASL is.
I'm depressed a copper doesn't.0 -
First Aspect wrote:
Does this apply to traffic police also?Canaltowpath wrote:Most Police Officers will not know or care about ASLs, they will not know the Act/Section or will ever give a ticket for it during their entire career. What you describe is a problem local to you and not countrywide. I do not know every law or offence currently on the statute books, there are tens of thousands. For the legal madness have a look at the Town Police Clauses Act.
It would be nice if they didn't block the cycle/bus lane but it happens.
The law is biased based only on the evidence at hand.
Is a local problem replicated in every town and city across the nation really a local problem?
You utterly missed the point of my question, by the way. I compared two fairly trivial offences, one which is rarely but fairly regularly enforced, the other which is not. I think I was having a tiny pop at the police for bias against cyclists, but I'm not sure.
BTW - that you don't know what an ASL is kind of casts a little doubt as to whether you are actually a keen cyclist. That and the whole "canaltowpath" thing sorta makes me suspect that you head out along, say, a canal towpath one or two warm dry weekends a year with the kids.
Traffic Officers are specialists and receive additional training to fulfill the role but knowledge will be regional specific when it comes to enforcement. If there is no local problem the knowledge is not retained. Traffic Officers in Norfolk will not need to know the ins and outs of ASLs just as those in London won't need to know all about tractors and farm machinery out on the public roads.
The Police are like any big company, different people do different jobs with varying levels of knowledge and expertise..
I apologise for not naming myself 'ShavenLeggedRacer'0 -
I know more than a few cyclists who don't know the term ASL but do know "the bit infront of cars for bikes that you always get cars in anyway"Le Cannon [98 Cannondale M400] [FCN: 8]
The Mad Monkey [2013 Hoy 003] [FCN: 4]0 -
notsoblue wrote:To be fair, Canaltowpath seems to be structuring this as a Reddit IAMA, a format that relies on verification to really have any merit. This could really just be anyone.
Ah, I didn't know that was an actual 'thing', I thought there was just a strange typo in the title!0 -
So:
1. What are the 4 bikes in the stable
2. What competitions do you do
3. Any big sportives, EPIC rides
Personally I'm over other things in the bike lane and ASL. Its most likely populated with uneducated riders than cars and scooters. I'd much rather the police be dealing with more pressing matters than enforcing ASLs.0 -
All the incidents I've seen have involved collisions between cyclists and pedestrians, and fall outside your quoted stats because the cyclists (and generally, but not universally, the pedestrians) have not been seriously injured. In fact, the article you linked confirms that accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians are a real issue...mybreakfastconsisted wrote:TGOTB wrote:Sketchley wrote:I believe the danger posed by RLJ-ing cyclists, to themselves and to other road users (including pedestrians) is significantly greater.I've witnessed numerous minor accidents and near misses caused by RLJ-ing vehicles; I've never seen one caused a (non-bicycle) vehicle in an ASL...
No:
The Mayor of London’s recently published Cycle Safety Action Plan reveals some interesting statistics about cyclists and London’s roads.
The report data (from 2007) shows that 79% of all cycling casualties occurred at or within 20 metres of a junction in London. It also shows that the second largest source of cycle casualties, after close proximity impacts with other vehicles, comes from other vehicles disobeying junction controls. That is to say 17% of all cyclists killed or seriously injured were hit or forced off the road by other vehicles jumping the lights or ignoring a give way line. By comparison, just 5% of cyclist’s KSI were caused by the cyclists doing the same.
http://ibikelondon.blogspot.com/2010/04 ... clist.html
RLJing by cyclists is annoying, but not anywhere near a real danger.Pannier, 120rpm.0 -
I live in Scotland. Do you actually think that ASL's are a London only thing? I'm sure they have them in Norwich too.Canaltowpath wrote:Traffic Officers in Norfolk will not need to know the ins and outs of ASLs just as those in London won't need to know all about tractors and farm machinery out on the public roads.
Again, avoiding the point of the original question.0 -
TGOTB wrote:All the incidents I've seen have involved collisions between cyclists and pedestrians, and fall outside your quoted stats because the cyclists (and generally, but not universally, the pedestrians) have not been seriously injured. In fact, the article you linked confirms that accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians are a real issue...
It wouldn't be the first time that breakfast runs a little off piste with his articles and links and conclusions...Le Cannon [98 Cannondale M400] [FCN: 8]
The Mad Monkey [2013 Hoy 003] [FCN: 4]0 -
Is Norwich one of the largest UK forces? Horizontal rain - sound more like Manchester or Leeds. EDIT: or Scotland0
-
The thread is quite interesting because it has thrown up what I believe are ongoing and entrenched public views about what the Police actually do, how they operate at street level and how they are directed.
Despite the protestations of many on here about the abuse of traffic regulations by motorists there will never be a national enforcement campaign unless it is directed by central Government.
There are national and EU led campaigns for seatbelts and drink driving but just about every other form of enforcement is a local initiative started as a result of an identified problem or in response to local pressure.
There are ways to get issues addressed locally and once again I can advise you of the loopholes in the system which are most likely to bring some Police attention to your problem.0 -
TGOTB, I'm happy to accept your personal experience, but RLJing by cyclists is nowhere near a major factor in accidents. That's not to say it's annoying, but I'd also point out that it is disproportionately targetted by coppers as an easy box-ticking exercise that boosts the police detected crime rates.0
-
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:TGOTB, I'm happy to accept your personal experience, but RLJing by cyclists is nowhere near a major factor in accidents. That's not to say it's annoying, but I'd also point out that it is disproportionately targetted by coppers as an easy box-ticking exercise that boosts the police detected crime rates.
Road traffic offence detections are not a part of the sanctioned detections policy prescribed by The Home Office.0 -
Canaltowpath wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:TGOTB, I'm happy to accept your personal experience, but RLJing by cyclists is nowhere near a major factor in accidents. That's not to say it's annoying, but I'd also point out that it is disproportionately targetted by coppers as an easy box-ticking exercise that boosts the police detected crime rates.
Road traffic offence detections are not a part of the sanctioned detections policy prescribed by The Home Office.
Police forces are judged as to their efficacy or otherwise by detected crime rates, among other factors.
RLJing cyclists or people on the underground caught by a sniffer dog with a small amount of cannabis don't get cautioned but the cops treat each case as a detected crime.0 -
Canaltowpath wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:TGOTB, I'm happy to accept your personal experience, but RLJing by cyclists is nowhere near a major factor in accidents. That's not to say it's annoying, but I'd also point out that it is disproportionately targetted by coppers as an easy box-ticking exercise that boosts the police detected crime rates.
Road traffic offence detections are not a part of the sanctioned detections policy prescribed by The Home Office.
MBC is wrong, but what do you think about things like this? http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.com/201 ... -city.html
It would appear that local police do set their priorities based on feedback from the community.0 -
Canaltowpath wrote:The thread is quite interesting because it has thrown up what I believe are ongoing and entrenched public views about what the Police actually do, how they operate at street level and how they are directed.
Despite the protestations of many on here about the abuse of traffic regulations by motorists there will never be a national enforcement campaign unless it is directed by central Government.
There are national and EU led campaigns for seatbelts and drink driving but just about every other form of enforcement is a local initiative started as a result of an identified problem or in response to local pressure.
There are ways to get issues addressed locally and once again I can advise you of the loopholes in the system which are most likely to bring some Police attention to your problem.
The police's job is to enforce the law. If they are selectively enforcing it then I might start to selectively brake it. This may seem like a antagonistic view point but I think you might find parallels between it and the recent civil disobedience.
However I'm digressing, in order to get the problems of motorised vehicles illegally using cycle only infrastructure in the London area, specifically ASLs and mandatory cycle lane what should we do?
Also again please provide evidence that you are who you say you are, you are clearly reading my post but ignoring this part. At least explain why you won't prove it.--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
God you are starting to get annoying. The thread is nothing to do with that - you are simply evading every question put to you. Go and play on a motoring forum, will you?Canaltowpath wrote:The thread is quite interesting because it has thrown up what I believe are ongoing and entrenched public views about what the Police actually do, how they operate at street level and how they are directed.
Despite the protestations of many on here about the abuse of traffic regulations by motorists there will never be a national enforcement campaign unless it is directed by central Government.
There are national and EU led campaigns for seatbelts and drink driving but just about every other form of enforcement is a local initiative started as a result of an identified problem or in response to local pressure.
There are ways to get issues addressed locally and once again I can advise you of the loopholes in the system which are most likely to bring some Police attention to your problem.0 -
If they are selectively enforcing it then I might start to selectively brake it.
just make sure you break the bit that isnt being selectively enforced and no one will have a problem.0 -
notsoblue wrote:Canaltowpath wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:TGOTB, I'm happy to accept your personal experience, but RLJing by cyclists is nowhere near a major factor in accidents. That's not to say it's annoying, but I'd also point out that it is disproportionately targetted by coppers as an easy box-ticking exercise that boosts the police detected crime rates.
Road traffic offence detections are not a part of the sanctioned detections policy prescribed by The Home Office.
MBC is wrong, but what do you think about things like this? http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.com/201 ... -city.html
It would appear that local police do set their priorities based on feedback from the community.
I'm glad you found this, a community which shouts loudest gets heard.
In this case it is not pro cyclist but it demonstrates that the public can influence how the Police act.
It is the case that those who are unhappy with the non enforcement of local traffic regulations which adversely impact cyclists have the ability to have something done about it.0 -
why don't you see the tall hats so much any more?
why are some coppers so small? I thought you had to be six foot.
do PCSO's know how to tuck their shirts in?
do you still get free Doc Martins? Did you ever?
Is having a "ACAB" tattoo illegal?0 -
clarkey cat wrote:Is having a "ACAB" tattoo illegal?
Always carry a bible?0 -
clarkey cat wrote:why don't you see the tall hats so much any more?
why are some coppers so small? I thought you had to be six foot.
do PCSO's know how to tuck their shirts in?
do you still get free Doc Martins? Did you ever?
Is having a "ACAB" tattoo illegal?
They are the first thing to role around on the floor during a fight and some little scrote will pick it up and run away with it.
Height restrictions went ages ago.
Hmmmmm
Never got free footwear other than for PSU (riot training), we get some sort of tax code adjustment I think for buying them ourselves.
ACAB has never been an offence, it can still be found close to a swallow between the thumb and forefinger along with a borstal spot on some of the old guys. Mild and Best above the nipples always did it for me, could never keep a straight face when I had to record those on the fingerprint forms.0 -
-
do you like doughnuts?<a>road</a>0
-
el_presidente wrote:do you like doughnuts?
Yes but I am not Chief Wiggum and they aren't as easy on the stomach as a banana and some jelly babies.0 -
Many decent (usually law-abiding) people perceive that the police vigorously enforce the law for petty offences, whilst showing indifference towards them when they are the victims of crime.
Therefore, these people see themselves as soft targets for an "easy collar", whilst the real scrotes, who are undoubtedly more difficult to police, get away with more serious offences.
I could provide examples from personal experience, but I won't bore everyone.
Is this a fair perception?0 -
canaltowpath ive enjoyed your responses.im also an officer and tried to do a similar thing on another forum but got warned off by an inspector friend of mine from complaints and discipline.
keep it going its nice that we have a voice and i tend to agree with your comments.0 -
HebdenBiker wrote:Many decent (usually law-abiding) people perceive that the police vigorously enforce the law for petty offences, whilst showing indifference towards them when they are the victims of crime.
Therefore, these people see themselves as soft targets for an "easy collar", whilst the real scrotes, who are undoubtedly more difficult to police, get away with more serious offences.
I could provide examples from personal experience, but I won't bore everyone.
Is this a fair perception?
Yes I agree that it perceived like this but it is for one primary reason.
The Police fail to publicise the everyday successes of arresting and then the later convictions of offenders who have committed more serious offences.
When such stories are released they fail to make the local papers because they are not impactive enough in the minds of the local journos.
The effective of this is that when an otherwise law abiding member of the public is prosecuted/ticketed/advised they fail to see where their minor matter fits into the grand scheme of what is going on in their community and as a result the perception is born.
Police forces are starting to use Twitter and Facebook so avoiding local rags and are so able to provide this information directly and without any journalistic twist.0 -
Who cares whether or not you're a real police officer, just that you're a cyclist!
1) Complete the phrase: It never get's easier...
2) Who or what should shut up?
3) The correct number of bikes to own is?0
