City of London Police targeting cyclists again....

rjsterry

spen666 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Ian.B wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

spen666 wrote:

so once again we have people complaining about the police catching criminals. Apparently every group thinks the police should catch other groups of criminals and ignore the crimes committed by their own group. The crimes our groups commit are excusable.

The police (by their own admission) can't catch all criminals. People here are complaining about their choice of priority.

Isn't that exactly Spen's point? Every group thinks the police should prioritise other groups of criminals

Well, I'm not a criminal, ....

Then this thread is of no relevance to you. The police action will not affect you

No. You have got this back to front spen. People are not complaining about the police catching criminals, quite the opposite in fact. And this spurious notion that some other people on bikes are part of 'our' group - what us on Commuting Chat? All BR members? - and that we have some sort of responsibility for their actions? Am I responsible for the halfwit who lives down the road from me who likes to bomb around in his BMW (practising his powerslides in the street last time it was snowy) purely because I also own a car and I live on the same street as him?

spen666

rjsterry wrote:

spen666 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Ian.B wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

spen666 wrote:

so once again we have people complaining about the police catching criminals. Apparently every group thinks the police should catch other groups of criminals and ignore the crimes committed by their own group. The crimes our groups commit are excusable.

The police (by their own admission) can't catch all criminals. People here are complaining about their choice of priority.

Isn't that exactly Spen's point? Every group thinks the police should prioritise other groups of criminals

Well, I'm not a criminal, ....

Then this thread is of no relevance to you. The police action will not affect you

No. You have got this back to front spen. People are not complaining about the police catching criminals, quite the opposite in fact. And this spurious notion that some other people on bikes are part of 'our' group - what us on Commuting Chat? All BR members? - and that we have some sort of responsibility for their actions? Am I responsible for the halfwit who lives down the road from me who likes to bomb around in his BMW (practising his powerslides in the street last time it was snowy) purely because I also own a car and I live on the same street as him?

I'm afraid I haven't got a clue what you are trying to say.

I have not said you or any other cyclist is responsible for anyone but their own actions

notsoblue

spen666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

spen666 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Ian.B wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

spen666 wrote:

so once again we have people complaining about the police catching criminals. Apparently every group thinks the police should catch other groups of criminals and ignore the crimes committed by their own group. The crimes our groups commit are excusable.

The police (by their own admission) can't catch all criminals. People here are complaining about their choice of priority.

Isn't that exactly Spen's point? Every group thinks the police should prioritise other groups of criminals

Well, I'm not a criminal, ....

Then this thread is of no relevance to you. The police action will not affect you

No. You have got this back to front spen. People are not complaining about the police catching criminals, quite the opposite in fact. And this spurious notion that some other people on bikes are part of 'our' group - what us on Commuting Chat? All BR members? - and that we have some sort of responsibility for their actions? Am I responsible for the halfwit who lives down the road from me who likes to bomb around in his BMW (practising his powerslides in the street last time it was snowy) purely because I also own a car and I live on the same street as him?

I'm afraid I haven't got a clue what you are trying to say.

I have not said you or any other cyclist is responsible for anyone but their own actions

Have you really been for decided to use, even go want to do look more like?

flimflam_machine

McNulty wrote:

I have no sympathy for RLJ, by association they make my life more difficult - there should be no "take" on it btw, a red light is a red light. Once our own house is in order we can whine about how unfair the application of the law is.

I don't know what this means. As rjsterry says, why should any cyclist be considered answerable for the actions of any other cyclist? More generally I think there is a tendency to for anti-cycling campaigners to imply that all cyclists RLJ and are generally a bunch of nogood criminals/weirdo lefties/tofu-knitting ecofreaks in order to marginalise the views of cyclists and stifle any useful debate. Essentially they try to say "Why should we listen to them until they stop RLJing/ appearing slightly alternative/banging on about the environment", all of which are actually actions of only a minority of cyclists.

In terms of enforcing cycling laws and people banging on about ticketing RLJers, I think it comes down to 3 things:

1 - All groups of road users have some inconsiderate members (RLJers in all vehicles, numpty pedestrians, drivers on mobiles etc.). All of these should be addressed. This includes inconsiderate cycling, if only because poor cycling increases the levels of stress on the road and causes the road network to function less efficiently. However...

2 - The level of enforcement should be proportional to the harm that the crime/misdemeanour causes. Poor cycling realistically creates very little danger for any road user. Most risk is to the cyclist themselves (although it is still the police's job to protect people from themselves). Therefore the investment in targeting poor cycling should be small compared to the investment in targeting poor driving, which is much more dangerous (thanks physics!).

3 - Cycling misdemeanours are, in part, caused by poor infrastructure, although many (e.g., most RLJing) are just sheer damn laziness. There is much less incentive to act in accordance with an apparently arbitrary set of rules if the system that you are working within is, at best, apathetic towards your safety or, at worst, actually works to puts you in harm's way. Some people suggest that no extra infrastructure or legal consideration should be provided for cyclists until "we" improve our behaviour. But if poor infrastructure is actually a cause of poor behaviour then this is equivalent to saying "We should do nothing to solve the problem until the problem solves itself."

Apologies for length.

notsoblue

flimflam_machine wrote:

McNulty wrote:

I have no sympathy for RLJ, by association they make my life more difficult - there should be no "take" on it btw, a red light is a red light. Once our own house is in order we can whine about how unfair the application of the law is.

I don't know what this means. As rjsterry says, why should any cyclist be considered answerable for the actions of any other cyclist? More generally I think there is a tendency to for anti-cycling campaigners to imply that all cyclists RLJ and are generally a bunch of nogood criminals/weirdo lefties/tofu-knitting ecofreaks in order to marginalise the views of cyclists and stifle any useful debate. Essentially they try to say "Why should we listen to them until they stop RLJing/ appearing slightly alternative/banging on about the environment", all of which are actually actions of only a minority of cyclists.

In terms of enforcing cycling laws and people banging on about ticketing RLJers, I think it comes down to 3 things:

1 - All groups of road users have some inconsiderate members (RLJers in all vehicles, numpty pedestrians, drivers on mobiles etc.). All of these should be addressed. This includes inconsiderate cycling, if only because poor cycling increases the levels of stress on the road and causes the road network to function less efficiently. However...

2 - The level of enforcement should be proportional to the harm that the crime/misdemeanour causes. Poor cycling realistically creates very little danger for any road user. Most risk is to the cyclist themselves (although it is still the police's job to protect people from themselves). Therefore the investment in targeting poor cycling should be small compared to the investment in targeting poor driving, which is much more dangerous (thanks physics!).

3 - Cycling misdemeanours are, in part, caused by poor infrastructure, although many (e.g., most RLJing) are just sheer damn laziness. There is much less incentive to act in accordance with an apparently arbitrary set of rules if the system that you are working within is, at best, apathetic towards your safety or, at worst, actually works to puts you in harm's way. Some people suggest that no extra infrastructure or legal consideration should be provided for cyclists until "we" improve our behaviour. But if poor infrastructure is actually a cause of poor behaviour then this is equivalent to saying "We should do nothing to solve the problem until the problem solves itself."

Apologies for length.

+1. Being self-flagellating cyclo-communalists will never get us anywhere :P

McNulty

the opening line of the OP was

We can debate the merits of stopping at red lights all day long here...... I'm one who does in 99% of all cases.

Its this attitude I refer to, it seems that there are a decent proportion of cyclists who genuinely think that its OK to break the lights at all times/some of the time/1% of the time. I accept that other road users do this also but I would bet my house that the proportion of drivers who do this and/or think stopping at red lights is a judgement call is tiny in comparison to cyclists.
Its a joke to complain that cyclists are being unfairly targeted by Police and start the thread with the assertion that stopping of red lights has ever been something that can have or not have merit.

prj45

As much as I think red light jumpers should get a ticket, I can't help thinking the police should be spending their time on more impactful crimes.

But then RLJers /pavement riders are responsible for the general terrible attitude toward cyclists so happy to see it.

But then I think the terrible attitude towards cyclists of non cyclists gotten off the back of RLJers is very prejudiced and should be challenged rather than accepted.

SimonAH

A lot of it comes down to sheer bloody annoyance - the anger boiling from every pore of the harrassed driver averaging 2mph and paying a fortune for each one of those miles when a cyclist breezily filters past and then jumps the lights with almost no fear of retribution makes the severity of the crime far higher than the actual harm that the crime can do (to anyone other than the cyclist). It's like kids shouting and drinking cider on street corners - doesn't really hurt anyone but it is universally a police priority because the level of annoyance it causes Joe Public is out of all proportion. Everytime a cyclist jumps a red light a fairy dies - personally I tell them off when I see them.

<takes deep breath>

HOWEVER the point here is that the thugs in blue on RLJ duty were not tracking down a rapist or a serial killer working his way through the alphabet. They were not engaged in close personal protection of Pippa Middleton's undercarriage, no, they were catching cyclists and issuing the equiivalent of parking tickets - ergo when a more serious crime (as evinced by the penalty attached to it) is perpetrated in front of their noses it is their duty to give it the consideration that it deserves. Instead of giggling they should at the very least have been radioing ahead with the registration number.

Unfortunately I have very rarely met a policeman that I've liked or respected. My mate Pervy Mark from university who joined the CoL police is the only exception to the rule, but purely because I have photographic evidence of him stoned out of his face with a bong in his hand and I may one day need leverage should I fall foul of the City of London force.

UndercoverElephant

I thought that only traffic police could actually pull you over for this when you're in a car. I would suspect that if they were on foot, they wouldn't have been allowed to try and stop the taxi.

noodles71

McNulty wrote:

the opening line of the OP was

We can debate the merits of stopping at red lights all day long here...... I'm one who does in 99% of all cases.

Its this attitude I refer to, it seems that there are a decent proportion of cyclists who genuinely think that its OK to break the lights at all times/some of the time/1% of the time. I accept that other road users do this also but I would bet my house that the proportion of drivers who do this and/or think stopping at red lights is a judgement call is tiny in comparison to cyclists.
Its a joke to complain that cyclists are being unfairly targeted by Police and start the thread with the assertion that stopping of red lights has ever been something that can have or not have merit.

I take it you are the guy who stays waiting all night for a red light that refuses to change once they have gone off automatic rotation and switch over to being triggered by the inductance loop under the road surface. Life isn't black & white and you will find this is why I originally said 99% of cases. Just today I even needed to "technically" RLJ to make way for van full of lags under police escort.

Besides, there is room for discussion about red lights in general. Many places in the world a turn is permitted while a red is showing. Statistics with regards to accidents also show stopping a lights is sometimes not as safe as running them. My whole point though was not to turn this into an argument about whether it is good or bad as I am in the same boat as you and stop every time I couldn't convince a judge otherwise. My point was about selective application of the law.

McNulty

Are you on a very subtle wind up? Are you serious with the rest of your post?
laws overseas & "statistics"?

EKE_38BPM

UndercoverElephant wrote:

I thought that only traffic police could actually pull you over for this when you're in a car. I would suspect that if they were on foot, they wouldn't have been allowed to try and stop the taxi.

That can't be right. A police officer not being able to apprehend a criminal they saw commited a crime?

cycladianpirate

The police have always done this sort of thing.

For example, generally speaking, your chance of getting nicked while doing 80mph on a bog standard dual-carriageway is zero.

However if the local constabulary decide to to a "public information" bit and make a point of rigidly enforcing the speed limit on one particular day, along one particular stretch of road, they tend to do it. The idea is that the unlucky schmucks who get caught will bleat about it to their family, friends, friends tennis partners, etc. who (so the theory goes) will all think twice about doing it themselves in the future.

Result - you nick a few today but, more importantly, prevent an awful lot more doing it tomorrow.

mar_k

UndercoverElephant wrote:

I thought that only traffic police could actually pull you over for this when you're in a car. I would suspect that if they were on foot, they wouldn't have been allowed to try and stop the taxi.

Completely wrong! They can and do perform normal duties.
Its not the police car that gives them their powers, Its the unifrom and warrant card

rick_chasey

cycladianpirate wrote:

The police have always done this sort of thing.

For example, generally speaking, your chance of getting nicked while doing 80mph on a bog standard dual-carriageway is zero.

However if the local constabulary decide to to a "public information" bit and make a point of rigidly enforcing the speed limit on one particular day, along one particular stretch of road, they tend to do it. The idea is that the unlucky schmucks who get caught will bleat about it to their family, friends, friends tennis partners, etc. who (so the theory goes) will all think twice about doing it themselves in the future.

Result - you nick a few today but, more importantly, prevent an awful lot more doing it tomorrow.

There's nothing like fair and equal policing eh?...