You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
"The law is the law, whether you are talking about pedestrians, cyclists or motorists".
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/News/Hundreds-of-cyclists-fined-in-police-blitz-15032013.htm
"The fines were issued as part of Operation Pedalo, which saw undercover officers used for the first time in the city to target law-breaking cyclists"
[img] 
[/img]
Am I wrong to feel a bit cheesed off that my taxes are being spent in such a frivolous fashion?
If there are so few crimes to deal with that all that's left is a few kids jumping red lights, then perhaps we could get rid of a few police officers and spend the extra cash on teachers and cycle lanes?
What do you mean frivolous fashion? Have you any experience of the cyclists in Cambridge?
Good on them, I say. For their own safety & the safety of others the moron cyclists in places such as Cambridge should be targeted.
Am I wrong to feel a bit cheesed off that my taxes are being spent in such a frivolous fashion?
Given they appear to have been issuing fines, then I should think more money has been taken than it cost, so I wouldn't worry too much about your taxes.
I'm fine with it. Those cyclists who ride like dicks are the ones getting us a bad name.
Funny thing to do is stand a t a set of busy city centre traffic lights and count the car drivers jumping the lights, no seat belt on and using their mobile phone. I'd guess thats OK pick on the ones that pose the most danger.
Operation Pedo?
nah, pedalo
[img] 
[/img]
so many good pics on GIS.
these guys look serious
yeah.. why are you complaining unless you ride like a dick? will they catch some Strava users..
It's not just that they give us a bad name. They create resentment which breeds a dangerous attitude towards other cyclists. Every time I see a cyclist bust a red light I feel the roads get slightly more dangerous.
I'm fine with it. Those cyclists who ride like dicks are the ones getting us a bad name.
This, and well punned sir!
And also this.
It's not just that they give us a bad name. They create resentment which breeds a dangerous attitude towards other cyclists. Every time I see a cyclist bust a red light I feel the roads get slightly more dangerous.
Good. I hope they also took the time to do some motorists sitting in ASLs at the same time. I'm all in favour of this.
S'all em posh kids innit.....
[b]Am I wrong [/b]to feel a bit cheesed off that my taxes are being spent in such a frivolous fashion?
Yes.
Whilst the law may be the law, and breaking it may cause resentment (just like when people break speed limits?), it needs to be remembered that most of these laws were applied to control powerful, motorized traffic, which is worlds apart from a simple bicycle.
My local force have decided it's a sensible use of our money to equip several bobbies with off-road motorbikes so they can blat about in the woods. Presumably just in case a squirrel steals some nuts off its neighbour.
Might be adding petrol to the fire here but I was in Cambridge town centre just before Christmas and was walking around with some time to kill. I found there were a large number of very inconsiderate cyclists who were hooning around with no regard for the pedestrians. I'm all for charging about on bikes but why not go out into the countryside and do it instead of doing it in busy town centres.
I for one was pretty pissed off with the cyclists after an hour or so and I'm very pro cycling in towns and cities as a rule. I've certainly never felt as threatened by bikes in London nor Amsterdam when walking about. Good on the police as long as they are going for the real culprits. IMHO there are quite a number there that deserve a ticking off.
@butcher. I do agree but two things, One a cycle meandering (often they do, wildly haphazardly so) through a red into a junction could cause someone in a big ton of metal to steer suddenly, out of a desire not to kill a cyclist, and result in worse injuries etc. Even if they didn't its gonna **** them up a bit through not fault of their own. Second we should campaign for things like bike filters, bike turn left on Red laws etc. Include the flexibility of the harmless simple bicycle in our traffic law, which it isn't really much at the moment.
it needs to be remembered that most of these laws were applied to control powerful, motorized traffic, which is worlds apart from a simple bicycle.
there is a small point here in that the phasing on traffic lights is often completely wrong for cyclists. I can get hit by all four sets of closely spaced lights on one short stretch of my journey, whereas a car will not.
Totally agree unklehomered. I can accept there's problems created by cyclists. But I think perhaps many of these problems exist [i]because[/i] the law has been designed around motor vehicles. The infrastructure for cyclists is lacking, and not just in a physical sense. Thus cyclists apply their own rules and logic because they don't directly fit in anywhere.
It's a murky world of contradiction for a cyclist. Part pedestrian, part vehicle.
Yes and no. Cyclists can't ride through red lights. There are clear reasons why. If there are no cars/people then you may deem it safe to jump that light. It would be just as safe to do it in a car. There's no reason to do it on a bike any more than in a car. I would say there are very few car laws that are categorically not applicable to bikes.
They've been fining RLJers in London for a while, it's great to see the retards remonstrating with the police sat 10 feet after the lights, in a marked car, as they bimble through the 20 law abiding cyclists and through the red lights!
346 offenders over 12 days is just under 30 a day, assuming they did 8 hour days that's about 1 naughty cyclist every 15 minutes. How many cyclists would be passing these "hotspots" in 15 minutes? In Cambridge I'd guess a fair few.
So in conclusion the vast majority of cyclists stick to the rules.
It's not just that they give us a bad name. They create resentment which breeds a dangerous attitude towards other cyclists. Every time I see a cyclist bust a red light I feel the roads get slightly more dangerous.
What absolute tosh GeeTee. The only resentment comes from being shut up in a little metal box travelling more slowly than someone on a bike. It has nothing to do with the 'law being broken' or those people would be raging at all the motorists who routinely break the law. Carlton Reid puts it very well [url= http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/why-do-people-hate-cyclists/ ]here[/url]
this is just an extension of 'we won't build any cycle facilities until cyclists start behaving'. [url= http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/we-won-t-build-more-roads-until-motorists-start-behaving-says-gov-t/013645 ]No more roads until motorists obey speed limits?[/url]
I see motorists jump red lights every single journey in London - It's actually rare not to see someone accelerate at amber and there are junctions where I see 3 or 4 cars blatantly jump red at every phase. Sometimes dangerously late - long enough that the other traffic has a green light. As a cyclist you see it much more as you're always at the front of the traffic queue in the other direction. As a motorist you wouldn't notice it. On my 45 minute commute I usually count over a dozen drivers blatantly using handheld mobile phones, a number obviously texting. Speed limits are routinely broken, bike boxes and cycle lanes not observed.
As far as I can see the law is doing nothing to protect me as a cyclist and I will do whatever I feel I need to do to keep myself safe until it does. Most of the time I'm a good citizen but occasionally I will cycle on the pavement and, if the road is clear, I will sometimes jump a red light to get away from the drag race that's about to start.
When I'm at my most militant I take the view that until the traffic laws are enforce to protect me I will treat them with contempt. "Cyclists refuse to obey red lights until speed limits are enforced" doesn't seem an unreasonable position to take to me.
The met put more effort into dealing with cycling offences than it did motoring last year. Thats not a harm reduction strategy, that's pandering to the daily mail.
I can get hit by all four sets of closely spaced lights on one short stretch of my journey, whereas a car will not.
I've encountered this, also insufficient timings to clear the junction before other traffic starts moving - on one commute I would stop if I thought the light had been green too long as I knew traffic coming out of the side road tended to 30 as a minimum, and didn't ever look.
Also, lights which are triggered by the presence of a car. (I once for a chuckle - i had been to the pool, was knackered, and wanted a bit of a breather before cycling home, sat on the sensor with many cars behind me, before eventually calling out - "Do we all agree that this one time its OK for me to run this light?"
Unanimous it was.
@butcher It is, and our near misses feel all the closer for our vulnerability. But I think give and take in some way is the way forward, the annoying thing is the 'roll right through a moving junction' types I used to see were not what I would describe as a Cyclist, rather, some bloke, and a [usually horribly squeaking barely working] bike. Also, we need a better campaigning body, with cycling numbers on the up we may get it in the CTC - who are I think our best hope.
So in conclusion the vast majority of cyclists stick to the rules.
Or once a copper is writing a ticket and giving a stern ticking off, he can't then stop another cyclist until he's done.
Are any of the pro crowd not slightly disturbed that scarce policing resources are being used to clamp down on crimes which injure or kill about the same number of people each year as wayward golf balls?
I expect Cambridge Police's next move will be reassigning the murder squad to investigate illegal photocopying.
Nice edit to remove advocating keying cars there, Simon.
346 offenders over 12 days is just under 30 a day, assuming they did 8 hour days that's about 1 naughty cyclist every 15 minutes. How many cyclists would be passing these "hotspots" in 15 minutes? In Cambridge I'd guess a fair few.
So in conclusion the vast majority of cyclists stick to the rules
Or, of course, it takes about 15 minutes to issue the fine and a bollocking, and they're actually working non-stop. I applaud them, I hate the attitude of cyclists in Cambridge.
Not really an issue in my neck of the woods (the only people on bikes have likely stolen them) but if we're going for red light jumpers I'd love to see more cameras on red lights. Especially the combined ones, which nick people for speeding through after it's gone red.
What absolute tosh GeeTee. The only resentment comes from being shut up in a little metal box travelling more slowly than someone on a bike. It has nothing to do with the 'law being broken' or those people would be raging at all the motorists who routinely break the law. Carlton Reid puts it very well here
Seriously? How short sighted of you. It's hypocritical, but it is the law breaking cyclists that annoy motorists most.
I dunno where in London you're riding either, on my commute I rarely see traffic manage 20mph, let alone break the speed limit. Motorbikes, pedestrians and other cyclists are the biggest menace. Going through a red light to get 'ahead of the drag race' is often pretty stupid, as the RLJing car is likely to be coming through at the last minute to wipe you out!
The police admitted in a parliamentary enquiry that they don't bother enforcing 20mph speed limits.
The police's job is not to reduce crime, it's to reduce the [i]perception[/i] of crime. To that end, targeting pesky cyclists makes sense as to the Daily Mail crowd. Because everyone knows we're the real danger on the roads, not hard-working car drivers.
Some [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study ]Perspective[/url] [url= http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/cycling/facts-figures.aspx ]Also[/url]
2% of fatalities caused by ignoring red lights or stop signs, 75% of casualties of adult cyclists caused by DRIVERS. 🙁
I can't find any data on fatalities caused by cyclists of other road users or pedestrians..
Police in enforcing the law shocka!
TBH having walked in Cambridge town centre I'm all in favour of a bit of a crack down on bikes there...
The rozzers do similar operations targeting motorists, "Equality" means being subject to full application of the law, people on bikes (I'll not call them cyclists) are not exempt.
It's not just jumping red lights.
When I lived in Cambridge I used to regularly see cyclists riding the wrong way down one way streets, riding in busy pedestrian areas at unsuitable speeds, cycling on the road at night in the wrong direction, people cycling the wrong way round roundabouts to save having to go all the way round them etc....
I've never been to any other city and seen such bad cycling. It could of course be due to the quantity of cyclists there, so it appears worse than anywhere else. Perhaps on a per cyclist ratio it isn't so bad...
Very interesting story from my village
[url= http://www.cravenherald.co.uk/news/10274323.Warning_issued_to_cyclists_over_Tour_de_France_route/?ref=mr ]Last week[/url]
After many letters from various people across the world of cycling pointing out the stupidity of the article and the damage caused by a typical "Daily Mail" reader.
[url= http://www.cravenherald.co.uk/news/10287587.Police_and_Craven_District_Council_vow_to_work_with_cycling_groups/?ref=mr ]This weeks article[/url]
Any one notice the back pedaling ? I'm still waiting for a reply to this letter I sent to the Police Commissioner
"Dear Ms Mulligan
As an Embsay resident I am absolutely astounded by the comments made by, and reported in the Craven Herald, which appear to have been made by serving members of the police force. Hopefully evidence of the incidents will be made available as at the moment it just appears to be hearsay from a councillor.
Are they so ignorant of the damage it can do to a small rural economy when it is reported nationally in papers as far away as the south coast. Are they aware of the economic impact they may have already caused in advance of a world sporting event which will pass through our region. The anti cycling impression it gives and the effect it could have from motorists of a like mind to the Councillor are not tolerable.
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/blogs/all_about_the_bike/10277131.Planning_to_cycle_next_year_s_TDF_prologue__You_may_fall_foul_of_the_local_council___/
Are just two examples. Your point of view would be welcome."
Seems like we are a group that are targeted by certain people, your thoughts ?
I wonder how many pedestrians are killed by cyclists in Cambridge per year?
Last time I was in Cambridge I saw a load of posh tossers acting irresponsibly in punts. When are the police going to start cracking down on that, eh?
Is all Police activity aimed at stopping people being killed?
Pedestrians being killed isn't the be all & end all of stopping cyclists behaving like morons.
Perhaps some of it is actually stopping the moronic cyclists being injured/killed themselves...
Geetee had it spot on.
When I'm at my most militant I take the view that until the traffic laws are enforce to protect me I will treat them with contempt. "Cyclists refuse to obey red lights until speed limits are enforced" doesn't seem an unreasonable position to take to me.
If that doesn't seem unreasonable to you, then you seriously need to realign your outlook.
Well according to a government study 75% of adult cyclist deaths are caused by motorists, so I suggest that is where the crackdown should occur..
Your bog standard burglar doesn't kill anyone, should he not be a priority for the police then by that logic?
I live in Cambridge, there are loads of reckless cyclists and even as someone who cycles everyday and doesn't really get stressed they often manage to wind me up.
Two weeks ago I saw a young bloke on a bike knock over a Chinese student on Hills road bridge, he got up quick as a flash and cycled off as quick as he could and left the girl to get picked up off the floor by her friends, who he also nearly knocked over.
When I was 17 a drunk Russian bloke cycled into the side of my car in Cambridge while I was sitting waiting at a red light!
I also spend a fair bit of time in Amsterdam, they are much safer cyclists although that could be partly attributed to the fact that the roads out there are built with cyclists in mind.
Well according to a government study 75% of adult cyclist deaths are caused by motorists, so I suggest that is where the crackdown should occur..
This.
And before anyone asks how many of the cyclists were doing something stupid, it's a tiny proportion - about 6% in London.
Nice edit to remove advocating keying cars there, Simon
GeeTee seems to suggest that motorists think it's OK to put cyclists lives at risk because some of them break the law in way that they find irritating (the stats show it's not actually dangerous, either to themselves* or to others). I merely wondered why a motorist who flouts the law should receive any protection from it but didn't express it very well. Car owners seem to get very protective of their cars - I've been screamed at - 'don't you dare touch my f&&&ing car' - when I've slapped a panel of a car that's been about to sideswipe me.
Police in enforcing the law shocka!
The problem is that they don't, and don't do so to address danger. As already mentioned - cyclists are not killing or injuring yet Met Police confirm 24% of their road traffic enforcement is bikes https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxDRLBeyxwPrSDA4QkR4dGtxRDg/edit?usp=sharing … (item 3) despite bikes being 4-5% of all traffic. No enforcement of 20mph limits.
on my commute I rarely see traffic manage 20mph, let alone break the speed limit.
You don't think theres any speeding in London? So the 'scores' i see on those speed indicators (the useless ones with the smily face) and cars braking for speed cameras are just an illusion. Speed check on my residential speed showed an average speed of 28mph. Assuming thats roughly a bell curve there are a hell of a lot of vehicles exceeding 30 on a road where they shouldn't be exceeding 20.
Motorbikes, pedestrians and other cyclists are the biggest menace.
Of course they are. The cars, trucks and buses are like marshmallow.
Going through a red light to get 'ahead of the drag race' is often pretty stupid,
I'm pretty confidant I can cross the road safely on a bike by confirming that nothing is coming, much as I can and do when I'm on foot.
*and, on a forum for people who willingly partake in a dangerous activity we shouldn't be passing judgement on others who merely put themselves in danger. If you want to [url=
a lorry[/url] it might appear highly foolish but so would many of the trails we ride to non cyclists
Your bog standard burglar doesn't kill anyone, should he not be a priority for the police then by that logic?
There is a sliding scale of severity, isn't there? Going from crime against property to burglary, violent offences, unlawful killing and murder. This is the reason why people aren't transported to Australia for stealing a loaf of bread any more.
In general it works pretty well, except when it's disrupted by vocal arsewits in newspaper columns.
Why 'this'?
All Police activity isn't aimed at people being killed.
Should Police stop dealing with burglary (as above), fraud, drug dealers, rape, domestic violence, drivers without tax, MOT &/or insurance, drunken anti-social behaviour at checking out times? No one has died in these instances, so we can not put any Police resource into preventing them?
Well, just to take the otherside of the arguement, I would favour police cyclists being out and about all the time (just one or too, doing people, who run lights. All this story has really done is told cyclists, don't worry if you had to stop jumping red 'cos you heard were were stopping and fining people, we're done now so you can carry on as before.
[url= http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/cycling-against-car-culture.html ]It is not necessary to be an apologist for red light jumping or pavement riding cyclists to point out that the risks they pose are many orders of magnitude less than the risks to pedestrians and cyclists from poorly controlled motor vehicles[/url]
If that doesn't seem unreasonable to you, then you seriously need to realign your outlook.
I'm still just aghast at how we treat the deaths and injuries on our roads as collateral damage and there is a societal acceptance that the laws around road use are flexible in a way that others aren't.
Why is a 30mph limit not a limit that's enforced at 30? Why should 40mph be acceptable? Slower speeds make a huge difference to survivability when collisions occur.
The age of consent is 16 - is it allright for someone to &*$$ your 11 year old daughter because she's only 30% below the limit?
But while its a silly one there is a perception issue, when they next do stopping motorists for whatever is the hot topic of the week, and they get the "why don't you go getting all the horrid nasty cyclists instead of punishing decent [speeding/negligent/red light running] motorists" they can say - we did, look. I don't like it, but it is the world they have to operate in, even more so now we have elected police commissioners.
I'll give a massive +1 to speed limits, my town has a 20, and I reckon a trap would catch more people at 30+ than they could effectively process.
when they next do stopping motorists for whatever is the hot topic of the week, and they get the "why don't you go getting all the horrid nasty cyclists instead of punishing decent [speeding/negligent/red light running] motorists" they can say - we did, look
But there we have the problem. As has come up through this thread the danger comes overwhelmingly from motor vehicles yet the enforcement action is disproportionately aimed at cyclists.
The answer to that question should not be "we did, look" it should be "because they don't kill or injure anyone and you do so we are focusing our efforts where they make the biggest difference to public safety"
Why is a 30mph limit not a limit that's enforced at 30? Why should 40mph be acceptable? Slower speeds make a huge difference to survivability when collisions occur.
But they do try to enforce it. Speeding tickets are given out all the time.
See my follow on point about the politicisation of policing. I don't like it, I think its insane, I think the police should decide what is worthy of attention, and also focus on all things all the time. As opposed to having a crime of the week.
This is my first post so hi everyone its a bit of a hot topic for a first post but Ive been lurking on the forum for ages and it spurred me to sign up to comment.
I live in cambridge and have done all my life .I cycle and I drive around the city everyday and I have never visited a city anywhere with worse cyclists even the tuc tuc drivers in bangkok have nothing on some of these guys. ive seen kids cycle down the centre of busy roads in the dark with no lights, women with children on the back of there bikes with no lights, people cycling down streets on the wrong side of the road two abreast and alot of other offences and its not once in a while its everyday.imo they needed this crackdown and I hope it continues its hard enough for cyclists in citys without these idiots giving us a bad name.....
In an ideal world the police would be sufficiently resourced to catch and convict all Road traffic law transgressors and then "the I won't comply with the law until every single bad motorists are caught" arguments would be pointless.
The fact is poor driving regularly happens and doesn't get detected or stopped, how is that an excuse for RLJing or T-Boning peds?
Ride like a Christian and stay within the law and you've got the "moral high ground" by default. Everyone caught in Cambridge was breaking the law and fined accordingly, what's wrong with that?
You can't honestly be defending traffic offences just because they are carried out by someone on a bicycle as opposed to a motorist?
Just got sent notification of [url= http://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/index.aspx?articleid=10840 ]this[/url] .
Likewise, should they say where there will cameras? So people are more careful not to get caught, and as a result maybe speed less, or should they just put them places and do people (quite possibly me, I'm sometimes a little naughty on NSL roads)
But they do try to enforce it. Speeding tickets are given out all the time.
Not enough for it to be a deterrent. Likewise mobile phone use. Just look at driver behaiviour - why all those brake lights at (ridiculously visible) speed cameras? because all those vehicles are speeding on either side. If you want to enforce limits you make the cameras invisible and move them regularly. Theres a simple way to avoid fines - limit your speed. If you're unable to do that by yourself get some technology to help you.
There are over [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8833796/Carry-on-driving-for-half-of-drivers-with-12-points-on-licence.html ]10,000 drivers with in excess of 12 points[/url] who are still driving. Fines are insultingly low - a £60 fixed penalty? That doesn't even pay for a tank of fuel in most cars.
Cycling campaigners insist the popular perceptions of rampaging cyclists are not supported by statistical evidence. According to the Department for Transport (DfT), in 2009, the most recent year for which figures are available, no pedestrians were killed in Great Britain by cyclists, but 426 died in collisions with motor vehicles out of a total of 2,222 road fatalities.
Indeed, bike riders insist it is they who are vulnerable. Of the 13,272 collisions between cycles and cars in 2008, 52 cyclists died but no drivers were killed.
From 2006 to 2010 [from Office for National Statistics] there was an amazing 18 incidents of pedestrians struck by a cyclist on a pavement in the same period there was over a 1000 struck by cars whilst on the pavement.
Maybe it should be against the law for cars to drive on the pavement ?
£60 fixed penalty? That doesn't even pay for a tank of fuel in most cars.
You are quite right
Fuel is FAR too expensive.
From 2006 to 2010 [from Office for National Statistics] there was an amazing 18 incidents of pedestrians struck by a cyclist on a pavement in the same period there was over a 1000 struck by cars whilst on the pavement.
Given what in my head seems the likely proportion of urban miles driven to urban miles cycled [more than 1000:1], 18 actually seems quite high to me. Also I doubt all cycle incidents were reported. I probably wouldn't bother unless someone was hospitalised, whereas I would with a car even if everyone was fine.
The problem with cycling, is also the great thing about cycling. Anyone can get on a bike. The worst stuff I saw around Leeds was split between lycra clad hardcore elite made a point of passing me nothing will stop me, types - and people in normal clothes [jeans often under the arse], with their seat too low, in a low gear, no helmet, no stability wiggling about all over the place and the drive chain squealing its rusty self to bits i.e. not what I [and I suspect many here] would describe as a cyclist.
That's a worrying line to go down though as it leads towards licencing of some kind which I am dead against.
It's about allocation of limited resources innit 😉 whilst cycling irresponsibly might be annoying, it 's mostly harmless ...... I'd rather see police budgets spent on things that are really dangerous like car drivers or crimes that have real victims like burglary.
Thing is, almost all the time a bad cyclist is only a danger to themselves. A bad driver is a danger to everyone around them.
I have a philosophical problem with laws that only exist to protect people from themselves, but that's not the point here - the point is that scarce police resources are being used to target cyclists instead of car drivers for PR reasons.
+1 and it's rather sad that on a cycling forum, this is lost on a lot of the posters.
Not enough for it to be a deterrent.
I dunno. I had a ticket, awareness course and it cost me £90. Improved my driving too.
We are people, and I personally get pissed off with RLJers. I give plenty of space to cyclists and having commuted by bike myself, am mindful of their vulnerability. I still get very pissed off with RLJers. Imagine what it does to non-cyclists?
You can't honestly be defending traffic offences just because they are carried out by someone on a bicycle as opposed to a motorist?
I'm not defending dangerous activity because it takes place on a bicycle. I'm saying that the road network is so poorly engineered for use by cyclists that it is sometimes safer to ignore the traffic regulations if you are using a bike. This is exacerbated by the failure to adequately address traffic offences committed by motorists which, in almost all cases, are an order of magnitude different in terms of the danger they cause.
I think it's questionable whether a lot of these traffic offences should even apply to cyclists. In many ways cyclists have a lot more in common with pedestrians than they do with motorists - certainly in terms of kinetic energy in the event of a collision. Fat bloke running vs child on bike? Must be about the same.
We don't have a 'jay walking' law in the country for pedestrians and the same approach could apply to cyclists. Why shouldn't it be OK for a cyclist to turn left on a red light, or cross a clear junction against the lights, or roll through a light controlled pedestrian crossing when the peds crossed before the lights changed because the delay was set ridiculously long in favour of motor traffic? We need to control motor vehicles more rigidly because of the speeds, the implications when something goes wrong and because they would be incapable of negotiating the junctions when busy without some management. That's not the case for cyclists.
I've been commuting in London for a long while and I go through phases of saint like adherence of the rules of the road and times when I take a more liberal interpretation. Right now I'm sick of having to fight for safe space on the road. I'm sick of motorists pushing past dangerously close to get to the back of a stationary queue they can already see, I'm sick of motorists accelerating towards me on a single lane 'quiet back route' thinking they can bully me out of the way, I'm sick of people revving their engine on my back wheel when I take the lane because I don't consider the lane wide enough for them to safely pass. I'm sick of reaching an ASL to find it filled with cars and motorbikes.
RLJing is interesting. Because car drivers do it all the time. I doubt it's just Glasgow, but almost every traffic light has several people sneaking through on amber and very often one on red.
When a cyclist does it, it's more obvious because cyclists aren't so common.
The fundamental problem is that motoring offences are so common that they've ceased to be seen as offences in the eyes of the public - and more worryingly in the eyes of the police.
Also I doubt all cycle incidents were reported. I probably wouldn't bother unless someone was hospitalised, whereas I would with a car even if everyone was fine.
That's also true of a great number of minor incidents between bikes and cars. Knocked off by a car with only cuts and bruises and the temptation is not to report it since the police make it such a long winded process and are extremely unlikely to do anything about it.
That's also true of a great number of minor incidents between bikes and cars.
Indeed. If I reported every incident of dangerous driving I saw every week, I'd never get anything else done.
RLJing is interesting. Because car drivers do it all the time. I doubt it's just Glasgow, but almost every traffic light has several people sneaking through on amber and very often one on red.
Absolutely. Cars doing it pisses me off too.
Absolutely. Cars doing it pisses me off too.
but doesn't generate news stories in the national press
That's also true of a great number of minor incidents between bikes and cars. Knocked off by a car with only cuts and bruises and the temptation is not to report it since the police make it such a long winded process and are extremely unlikely to do anything about it.
True, can't argue with that one, done it myself, I took pity on them. Were genuinely mortified by what had happened and it was a little bit my fault too.
but doesn't generate news stories in the national press
I haven't read about cyclists RLJing in the press. Is it a mail thing?
but doesn't generate news stories in the national press
The Cambridge News is not "the National Press"
It's a Local newspaper reporting what's happened recently in the Local area.
There was a rash of articles after the IAM's survey last year including [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/9272455/57-per-cent-of-cyclists-have-jumped-a-red-light.html ]this [/url]
but fairly regular before that such as [url= http://www.****/news/article-1226245/Theres-stopping-lycra-lout-cyclists-prosecutions-running-red-lights-plummets.html ]this[/url]
[url= http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/have-daily-mail-evening-standard.html ]Have the Daily Mail & Evening Standard published a fake article about cyclist road behaviour to call for compulsory cycle licences
[/url]
[url= http://www.****/debate/article-2242003/Arrogant-abusive-oh-smug--cyclists-think-theyre-law.html ]Arrogant, abusive and oh-so smug – why do so many cyclists think they’re above the law?[/url]
For reference -
[url= http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/the-terrible-journalists-guide-to-writing-an-article-about-bicycles/ ]The terrible journalist’s guide to writing an article about bicycles[/url]
unklehomered - MemberGiven what in my head seems the likely proportion of urban miles driven to urban miles cycled [more than 1000:1], 18 actually seems quite high to me. Also I doubt all cycle incidents were reported. I probably wouldn't bother unless someone was hospitalised, whereas I would with a car even if everyone was fine.
Those are Serious injuries/Deaths the dept doesnt give just deaths.
I drove to work yesterday [2 miles] and saw 0 cyclists and quite a few cars. 5 of which were commiting traffic offences. most serious being going through a red light. Other 4 were crossing double white lines, failing to stop at a pedestrian crossing and 2 parking on pavements.
Maybe its time to prioritize, maybe take a leaf from Holland or Belgiums traffic policy on bikes and cycling ?
All in favour of that, but the country we live in means that's a long way off, and idealism won't get us anywhere, certainly not in the short term.
If the cyclist who keeps nearly hitting Melanie Phillips uses this forum can I ask why you haven't yet managed it? Is she surprisingly nimble? Maybe a fatty bike would increase your chances? Or some type of jousting pole, modded Mad Max style?
simons_nicolai-uk - MemberCar owners seem to get very protective of their cars - I've been screamed at - 'don't you dare touch my f&&&ing car' - when I've slapped a panel of a car that's been about to sideswipe me.
If you've got time to slap a car, you've got time to brake out of danger.
Stop being a prick. 💡
Dales_rider - MemberI drove to work yesterday [2 miles] and saw 0 cyclists and quite a few cars. 5 of which were commiting traffic offences. most serious being going through a red light. Other 4 were crossing double white lines, failing to stop at a pedestrian crossing and 2 parking on pavements.
It is not always illegal to cross solid white lines, and parking on the pavement is not in itself illegal for most of the UK, not that I'm defending the actions of the motorists that I didn't witness, of course.
(2 mile car journey? Shame on you!)
😛
If you've got time to slap a car, you've got time to brake out of danger.
So cyclists should quietly and unobtrusively get out of the way?
boxbuster - MemberI live in Cambridge, there are loads of reckless cyclists and even as someone who cycles everyday and doesn't really get stressed they often manage to wind me up.
Would you say it has (relatively) recently got worse?
I'm sure I've noticed an increase in fixed gear fashion victims weaving between peds crossing the road, running reds and generally exhibiting shit, selfish road use.
bencooper - MemberSo cyclists should quietly and unobtrusively get out of the way?
Two courses of action:
1. Remove yourself from danger.
2. Don't remove yourself from danger.
Why do so many cyclists who constantly complain about car drivers being dangerous pick option 2?
Do they want to avoid danger or not?
It would appear that being a self righteous prick is more important than their own safety.
The last incident I had was a bus driver pulling out on me.
Did I slap the side of the bus?
No.
Because the safest thing for me to do at that time was remove myself from the area of possible conflict, which I did.
Safe road use isn't ****ing rocket science.
While you have a point sbob, merely surrendering the road everytime doesn't alert the driver to the fact he might nearly have killed someone, and reinforces the notion they have somekind of supremacy over cyclists. If I did something which a cyclist found threatening, inimidating or dangerous, I would want to know about it. And lets be honest no matter what the Melanie Phillips of this world might say, a dingding on a handle bar bell isn't going to achieve that.
Mr Agreeable - MemberIt is not necessary to be an apologist for red light jumping or pavement riding cyclists to point out that the risks they pose are many orders of magnitude less than the risks to pedestrians and cyclists from poorly controlled motor vehicles
Unfortunately that opens the door for antagonists like me to point out that speeding is an incredibly minor cause of accidents, even though I don't, of course, advocate speeding, nor partake in excesses of the speed limit myself. 😀
It is not always illegal to cross solid white lines, and parking on the pavement is not in itself illegal for most of the UK, not that I'm defending the actions of the motorists that I didn't witness, of course.(2 mile car journey? Shame on you!)
It is when you are not overtaking anything
"Rule 218 of the Highway Code says: "Do not park partially or wholly on the pavement unless signs permit it".
If there are any restrictions, e.g. yellow line, then you cannot park on the pavement.
Where there are no other parking restrictions then a sign should say that you are not allowed to park on the pavement/grass verge.
Within London it is banned everywhere unless there is a sign permitting parking on the pavement or grass verge.
Vehicles parked on pavements can create a hazard:
To pedestrians by causing an obstruction that may result in them having to step off the pavement into the carriageway, thus putting themselves in danger.
By restricting the width of the pavement and making it difficult for someone with a pushchair or wheelchair to pass safely - again this person may have to enter the carriageway to avoid the obstruction.
Due to the damage caused by driving on and off the pavement - broken flags, potholes, etc.
Illegally parked vehicles cost the City Council thousands of pounds a year in damaged paving and damaged grass verges. It can also create serious problems for blind, disabled and older people."
Finishing work [after 10 hour shift] at 00:40 one does not always fancy the ride home, especially in the rain