Police ticketing cyclists

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Usually disagreements always come down to a difference in values...

True, but some differences are worth the effort to try and understand. In this particular situation it would be a waste of time to try and forge some kind of mutual understanding.

Often is.

I read somewhere the best way to have a productive argument/discussion is not one where each contributor takes a position and defends it, but rather they discuss the values and criteria of the argument and try and come to a consensus there - then you get to the content.

Ultimately, for example, right/left arguments (especially on here) can be boiled down to the difference in values here http://cache1.bigcartel.com/product_ima ... s_1000.gif

mapleflot

notsoblue wrote:

Its not the police's fault, its the people who turn up to community liaison meetings that cause this.

As the population ages, this sort of thing will increase.
Wouldn't want to be a kid nowadays. I can see the day when the age of majority will eventually be raised to a point where you'll be retired before you can vote. (yes, that is after the retirement age is increased as well).

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

I read somewhere the best way to have a productive argument/discussion is not one where each contributor takes a position and defends it, but rather they discuss the values and criteria of the argument and try and come to a consensus there - then you get to the content.

The best kind of debate.

rick_chasey

mapleflot wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Its not the police's fault, its the people who turn up to community liaison meetings that cause this.

As the population ages, this sort of thing will increase.
Wouldn't want to be a kid nowadays. I can see the day when the age of majority will eventually be raised to a point where you'll be retired before you can vote. (yes, that is after the retirement age is increased as well).

The current average age of voters (I think by that they mean people who stick their voting slip in the ballot box) in the UK is 55.

No wonder it's all gone to sh!t for the youth.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12482018
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/educa ... 39691.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs ... years.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/ ... ate-lowest

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I read somewhere the best way to have a productive argument/discussion is not one where each contributor takes a position and defends it, but rather they discuss the values and criteria of the argument and try and come to a consensus there - then you get to the content.

The best kind of debate.

The historian's debate .

We largely agree with each other on most matters, so I imagine we share similar values.

notsoblue

This is how threads get killed...

MonkeyMonster

notsoblue wrote:

This is how threads get killed...

you mean when RC starts chatting up people?

CiB

Rick Chasey wrote:

The current average age of voters (I think by that they mean people who stick their voting slip in the ballot box) in the UK is 55.

No wonder it's all gone to sh!t for the youth.

Perhaps if the chuffing youth of today along with a large number of apparently sensible people didn't insist on believing that ALL politicians are grubby expense-fiddling whores of Satan with not a cigarette paper between them and bothered to go out and vote, there might be a different govt that suits their views better.

Anyhoo - Plod enforcing laws. A good thing. If you don't spot a fella in a uniform with hi-viz on when you're going about your law-breaking activities you deserve all that Plod can throw at you. We do pick & choose which laws to obey, a lot of us, but at least have the brains to check that we won't be caught doing it.

El Gordo

CiB wrote:

We do pick & choose which laws to obey, a lot of us, but at least have the brains to check that we won't be caught doing it.

I agree - I've nothing against a small degree of lawbreaking if you've made a better assessment of the situation than the arbitrary law does (like 80mph on an empty motorway or slipping through a red light when there is clearly nobody else around) but you know what you're doing and if you're daft enough to do it in front of the police then tough.

shouldbeinbed

notsoblue wrote:

You have a black and white world view, I don't. Theres nothing I can say to you to justify my point of view on this.

oh, cheers, thanks for telling me, I must have been asleep when we met and you psychoanalysed me also totally wrong. My home life and job are both going quite nicely and are both wholly incompatible with trying to run with a black and white world view, but don't let not having an answer stop you responding again.

on the issue of cyclists thinking they are above the law however I freely admit to a bit of a blind spot and can conclude that I just have either:

a) a lesser tolerance than you for criminality per-se or

b) a greater understanding of the negative impact on the image of cycling and attitude of others towards cyclists that such minor infringements being seen to be ignored provides.

you make a statement that (in effect) you think double standards are acceptable with a suitably hyperpobolic made up example. I've just picked up your own thread of thought and quite simply asked where you draw the line.

Not a hard answer I would have thought but hey ho.

rick_chasey

CiB wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The current average age of voters (I think by that they mean people who stick their voting slip in the ballot box) in the UK is 55.

No wonder it's all gone to sh!t for the youth.

Perhaps if the chuffing youth of today along with a large number of apparently sensible people didn't insist on believing that ALL politicians are grubby expense-fiddling whores of Satan with not a cigarette paper between them and bothered to go out and vote, there might be a different govt that suits their views better.

Bloody baby boomers... *rolls eyes*

Can't think of a politician out there who's beating the drum for young people's representation.

Anyway, we digress.

notsoblue

shouldbeinbed wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

You have a black and white world view, I don't. Theres nothing I can say to you to justify my point of view on this.

oh, cheers, thanks for telling me, I must have been asleep when we met and you psychoanalysed me :roll: also totally wrong. My home life and job are both going quite nicely and are both wholly incompatible with trying to run with a black and white world view. but don't let not having an answer stop you responding again.

on the issue of cyclists thinking they are above the law however I freely admit to a bit of a blind spot and can conclude that I just have either:

a) a lesser tolerance than you for criminality per-se or

b) a greater understanding of the negative impact on the image of cycling and attitude of others towards cyclists that such minor infringements being seen to be ignored provides.

you make a statement that (in effect) you think double standards are acceptable with a suitably hyperpobolic made up example. I've just picked up your own thread of thought and asked where you draw the line. not a hard answer I would have thought but hey ho.

[/b]

Sorry for any offence caused, replace "world view" with "opinion on this matter".

rick_chasey

shouldbeinbed wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

t4tomo wrote:

Indeed, if everyone obeys the rules the roads are far safer.

A colleague of mine got knocked of his bike & quite badly shook up by a cyclist pegging it the wrong way down a one way street straight into him.

Its not just motor vehicles that cause a danger to cyclists.

Replace "quite badly shook up" with "suffered a ruptured spleen, broken ribs and fractured vertebrae" if he had collided with a motorised vehicle.

I'm in awe of how people seem to have the binary view that cyclists breaking the law is just as dangerous as motorists breaking it. Its crazy.

but that didn't happen there did it, only in your mind.

I'm in awe of the blinkered vision that wants a two tier enforcement system and special prvileges depending on your personal choices.

where do you stop on that scale?

Is mugging and robbery ok as long as you didn't actually stab someone?

Is it ok as long as you burgle only in affluent areas rather than target people without much in the first place?

If I chloroformed someone and killed them painlessly whilst they slept am I less of a murderer than if I stuck a gun in someones face?

define your parameters of acceptable criminality

It's not about where you stop on a scale.

There are cases where literally no-one is put at risk or hurt when breaking the law.

(relevant) case in point: Cyclist wants to head straight on. Traffic light is red to let cars turning right onto said road. Now, if the cyclist sticks to his painted cycle lane, no car will cross the cyclist's path. In that instance, plod aside, I'd jump the red light.

Now, you can get all "if we don't uphold the law equally then what's the point of it?" and give me a slippery slope argument, but, as NSB says, it's not that black & white. Anyone with a braincell can make the judgement that in this instance, it's fine.


Furthermore, if large quantities of people are breaking the same law, on a regular basis, the law itself needs to be looked at.

There's always chat about looking at how to enforce laws in a new way, in this instance, number plates, licences, but no-one thinks "there's clearly an incentive for riders to jump lights, why is this? do we need a bespoke law or white paper?"

A look into vehicle specific lights perhaps, or removing the cycles from the road onto their own path or whatever.

So it's not black & white, and nor is it a slippery slope. To do that, is to blind yourself to the other ways of dealing with the problem.

Headhuunter

El Gordo wrote:

CiB wrote:

We do pick & choose which laws to obey, a lot of us, but at least have the brains to check that we won't be caught doing it.

I agree - I've nothing against a small degree of lawbreaking if you've made a better assessment of the situation than the arbitrary law does (like 80mph on an empty motorway or slipping through a red light when there is clearly nobody else around) but you know what you're doing and if you're daft enough to do it in front of the police then tough.

Thing is they don't often hang out in hi viz, widely visible. I've seen the police lurking in shop doorways, seemingly specifically trying to catch people out. So this brings up the other debate, should the police be trying to stop crime occurring and therefore preventing any injury etc incurred, by making themselves visible, or hiding away and catching "criminals" after the crime has taken place, raising revenue in fines but also risking lives (if we really believe that cyclists RLJ-ing causes the death and destruction you would expect from the hysteria it generates). What is the police role in this? Punishment and revenue generation or crime prevention?

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

CiB wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The current average age of voters (I think by that they mean people who stick their voting slip in the ballot box) in the UK is 55.

No wonder it's all gone to sh!t for the youth.

Perhaps if the chuffing youth of today along with a large number of apparently sensible people didn't insist on believing that ALL politicians are grubby expense-fiddling whores of Satan with not a cigarette paper between them and bothered to go out and vote, there might be a different govt that suits their views better.

Bloody baby boomers... *rolls eyes*

Can't think of a politician out there who's beating the drum for young people's representation.

Anyway, we digress.

Hell, let's digress some more. If everyone eligible voted, the mean age would still be somewhere around 50 wouldn't it? The 'average age' of 55 doesn't tell you very much at all.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

CiB wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The current average age of voters (I think by that they mean people who stick their voting slip in the ballot box) in the UK is 55.

No wonder it's all gone to sh!t for the youth.

Perhaps if the chuffing youth of today along with a large number of apparently sensible people didn't insist on believing that ALL politicians are grubby expense-fiddling whores of Satan with not a cigarette paper between them and bothered to go out and vote, there might be a different govt that suits their views better.

Bloody baby boomers... *rolls eyes*

Can't think of a politician out there who's beating the drum for young people's representation.

Anyway, we digress.

Hell, let's digress some more. If everyone eligible voted, the mean age would still be somewhere around 50 wouldn't it.

Correct.

Kerguelen

notsoblue wrote:

You have a black and white world view, I don't. Theres nothing I can say to you to justify my point of view on this.

Now who's rushing to judgement...?

Mike Healey

There's a bunch of us who've tried that, but the police won't let us give them tickets