Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ The Flame Pit _ Why dont the Police enfore the law regarding cyclists?

Posted by: Korting Tue, 1 May 2018 - 22:14
Post #1379029

In the last few weeks, I've nearly had collisions with two cyclists both at night, both had jumped red lights and both had no lights on their bicycles.

Last Saturday night, I saw a cyclist fall over because he lost control, no other vehicles involved. I went to check if he was ok, he was and was going to ride off without lights.

I told him he didn't have any lights and he said he had reflectors. I told him reflectors are not good enough.

If I drive a car without lights the Police are likely to stop me and possibly report me. Ditto for a motorcyclist.

If I'm caught jumping a red light I'm likely to be reported.

Cyclists seem to get away with breaking all the rules and laws.

Why wont the Police take some action? It seems that Cyclists are above the law and a law unto themselves.


Posted by: PASTMYBEST Tue, 1 May 2018 - 22:16
Post #1379031

QUOTE (Korting @ Tue, 1 May 2018 - 23:14) *
In the last few weeks, I've nearly had collisions with two cyclists both at night, both had jumped red lights and both had no lights on their bicycles.

Last Saturday night, I saw a cyclist fall over because he lost control, no other vehicles involved. I went to check if he was ok, he was and was going to ride off without lights.

I told him he didn't have any lights and he said he had reflectors. I told him reflectors are not good enough.

If I drive a car without lights the Police are likely to stop me and possibly report me. Ditto for a motorcyclist.

If I'm caught jumping a red light I'm likely to be reported.

Cyclists seem to get away with breaking all the rules and laws.

Why wont the Police take some action? It seems that Cyclists are above the law and a law unto themselves.


can't catch em

Posted by: cp8759 Wed, 2 May 2018 - 03:19
Post #1379063

QUOTE (Korting @ Tue, 1 May 2018 - 23:14) *
Why wont the Police take some action? It seems that Cyclists are above the law and a law unto themselves.

You need to lobby your police and crime commissioner.

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 2 May 2018 - 06:03
Post #1379066

Warwickshire recently had a big campaign to tackle both. Publicised in advance and then seen by friends of mine in at least 4 different locations. As a cyclist I’m all in favour as I’ve been told a number of times that ALL CYCLISTS jump rd lights which of course is ridiculous.

Meantime I’ve lobbied for them to start enforcing traffic light compliance on cars at advanced stop lines as abuse is rampant.

Posted by: Jlc Wed, 2 May 2018 - 07:25
Post #1379071

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 2 May 2018 - 07:03) *
Meantime I’ve lobbied for them to start enforcing traffic light compliance on cars at advanced stop lines as abuse is rampant.

Actually, I find motorbikes the number 1 culprit here as they filter and decide that the box is their exclusive domain. I've even seen bikes do this straight in front of a police car sitting at the ASL. Perhaps they are interested in real criminals? laugh.gif

Posted by: peterguk Wed, 2 May 2018 - 07:46
Post #1379076

QUOTE (Korting @ Tue, 1 May 2018 - 23:14) *
I told him he didn't have any lights and he said he had reflectors. I told him reflectors are not good enough.

If I drive a car without lights the Police are likely to stop me and possibly report me. Ditto for a motorcyclist.

If I'm caught jumping a red light I'm likely to be reported.


Cars and motorcycles come under different legislation to cycles.

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 2 May 2018 - 08:38
Post #1379086

No cycles are still required to show lights (when light conditions dictate) or are committing the same lighting offence.

Posted by: m7891 Wed, 2 May 2018 - 08:53
Post #1379089

QUOTE (Korting @ Tue, 1 May 2018 - 23:14) *
In the last few weeks, I've nearly had collisions with two cyclists both at night, both had jumped red lights and both had no lights on their bicycles.

Last Saturday night, I saw a cyclist fall over because he lost control, no other vehicles involved. I went to check if he was ok, he was and was going to ride off without lights.

I told him he didn't have any lights and he said he had reflectors. I told him reflectors are not good enough.

If I drive a car without lights the Police are likely to stop me and possibly report me. Ditto for a motorcyclist.

If I'm caught jumping a red light I'm likely to be reported.

Cyclists seem to get away with breaking all the rules and laws.

Why wont the Police take some action? It seems that Cyclists are above the law and a law unto themselves.


Key word - "caught". You can drive through every red light you see, at night with no lights and get away with it if you aren't caught.

There's this prevalent attitude that just because you see a cyclist doing something illegal and they're not caught, it follows that all cyclists act illegally and are not caught. Two applications of the hasty generalisation fallacy.

I'm pretty sure that in your lifetime you've seen more drivers breaking the law and getting away with it than you have cyclists. Amber gamblers? Full-on red-light jumpers? Speeding? The vast majority of drivers see these every single day but just shrug them off; see a cyclist jump a red light and suddenly there should be at least 5 traffic cars and an armed response team descending on the area.

I'm not defending cyclists who break the law; but there is a distinct hypocrisy amongst many drivers when it comes to their complaining.

Posted by: DancingDad Wed, 2 May 2018 - 09:18
Post #1379097

Same story as many others.
Minor crime, not enough cops.

As a car driver, the no lights really bug me...... often also in dark clothing so just a shadow, if that, in headlights

Posted by: notmeatloaf Wed, 2 May 2018 - 10:51
Post #1379122

Cyclists without lights are frustrating, even more so for cyclists liable to meet them on poorly lit cycle paths.

However, I see more drivers with headlights out, taillights out, rubbish retrofit xenon that blinds you or the more recent phenomenon of people driving along in the dark with just DRLs on. And arguably drivers have less excuse with no need to recharge lights or find batteries for them.

As for red lights, again even more drivers do, they just happen to do it with "amber gambling" instead. There is a roundabout near me that is particularly bad because the phasing is terrible so you suddenly realise that someone is flooring it through not only after the light has turned red but when the green man/cycle is lit.

If you ever cycle you will soon appreciate the number of drivers who overtake in the stupidest places with inches to spare, that is much worse than a cyclist without lights but I have never seen a police car pull someone for it even though it happened a couple of weeks ago with a police car 20m behind.

Basically, whatever form of transport you use there are idiots who don't maintain their vehicle, treat the rules as optional. It isn't a cyclist problem or a driver problem, just a general all round tw*t problem.

Posted by: nigelbb Wed, 2 May 2018 - 11:17
Post #1379134

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Wed, 2 May 2018 - 11:51) *
Cyclists without lights are frustrating, even more so for cyclists liable to meet them on poorly lit cycle paths.

However, I see more drivers with headlights out, taillights out, rubbish retrofit xenon that blinds you or the more recent phenomenon of people driving along in the dark with just DRLs on. And arguably drivers have less excuse with no need to recharge lights or find batteries for them.

As for red lights, again even more drivers do, they just happen to do it with "amber gambling" instead. There is a roundabout near me that is particularly bad because the phasing is terrible so you suddenly realise that someone is flooring it through not only after the light has turned red but when the green man/cycle is lit.

You will be telling us next that even more motorists than cyclists drive on the pavement.

Posted by: notmeatloaf Wed, 2 May 2018 - 11:40
Post #1379139

Per year between 2007 - 2016

Average number of pedestrian deaths by cyclist over the last decade per year - 3

Average number of pedestrians killed by drivers per year - 317 including 43 on the pavement.

Average number of pedestrians seriously injured by cyclist per year - 82

Average number of pedestrians injured by motorists - 4394

Obviously some of the cyclist ones will be on shared paths where cyclists are entitled to be.

When motorists get their house in order maybe we can move onto cyclists on the pavement.

Posted by: TheDisapprovingBrit Wed, 2 May 2018 - 15:27
Post #1379184

Ah, the fallacy of relative privation - a favoured refuge among many cyclists.

Posted by: nigelbb Wed, 2 May 2018 - 16:02
Post #1379193

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Wed, 2 May 2018 - 12:40) *
Per year between 2007 - 2016

Average number of pedestrian deaths by cyclist over the last decade per year - 3

Average number of pedestrians killed by drivers per year - 317 including 43 on the pavement.

Average number of pedestrians seriously injured by cyclist per year - 82

Average number of pedestrians injured by motorists - 4394

Obviously some of the cyclist ones will be on shared paths where cyclists are entitled to be.

When motorists get their house in order maybe we can move onto cyclists on the pavement.

I am truly astonished at those figures. Taking into account the vastly greater number of miles travelled by motorists versus cyclists it's clear that cyclists who are by far the greater menace to pedestrians.

Posted by: ford poplar Wed, 2 May 2018 - 16:38
Post #1379203

No cyclist >10yo can legally cycle on the pavement or use a pedestrian crossing, (includes dismounted 'scooting'.
What annoys me are those riders who use only 'flashing' front/rear lights or use a helmet-mounted front light.
As the number of motorists/cyclists increase, each should be subject to basic requirements eg 'third party' Insurance and MOT.

Posted by: 666 Wed, 2 May 2018 - 16:54
Post #1379205

QUOTE (ford poplar @ Wed, 2 May 2018 - 17:38) *
No cyclist >10yo can legally cycle on the pavement or use a pedestrian crossing, (includes dismounted 'scooting'.


No cyclist of any age can legally cycle on the pavement, it's just that under-10s can't be prosecuted (in E & W).

AFAIK there's no law against cycling on a ped crossing.

Posted by: big_mac Wed, 2 May 2018 - 17:01
Post #1379207

QUOTE (nigelbb @ Wed, 2 May 2018 - 17:02) *
Taking into account the vastly greater number of miles travelled by motorists versus cyclists it's clear that cyclists who are by far the greater menace to pedestrians.

The last time I could be bothered to go through the figures, compared to a car driver, a cyclist was about twice as likely, per mile travelled, to be involved in collision causing death or serious injury to a pedestrian.

Obviously, if you just consider urban roads, the result would be different.

Posted by: notmeatloaf Wed, 2 May 2018 - 17:44
Post #1379214

QUOTE (nigelbb @ Wed, 2 May 2018 - 17:02) *
I am truly astonished at those figures. Taking into account the vastly greater number of miles travelled by motorists versus cyclists it's clear that cyclists who are by far the greater menace to pedestrians.

Except I would imagine most pedestrians are worried about the chance of being killed or seriously injured per journey, or per million people, or whatever. Most people don't worry about things that are very very very unlikely to happen unless they don't understand it is very very very unlikely to happen.

QUOTE (ford poplar @ Wed, 2 May 2018 - 17:38) *
As the number of motorists/cyclists increase, each should be subject to basic requirements eg 'third party' Insurance and MOT.

If you look at somewhere like the Netherlands cycling becomes less risky the more people who cycle. Not least because they don't have the god awful cycle lanes we have here. So you should need less regulation.

With motoring the risk is unchanged so the regulation is broadly unchanged.

Again any stats will tell you it would be worth targeting uninsured drivers before giving a monkey about cyclists, because police resources are stretched so you have to prioritise.

Posted by: southpaw82 Wed, 2 May 2018 - 19:01
Post #1379229

I f***ing hate these cyclist threads.

Posted by: notmeatloaf Wed, 2 May 2018 - 20:07
Post #1379241

You're lucky it's just threads, as "the" cyclist at work it's every. Sodding. Day.

"Oi, were you cycling along xxx Road yesterday morning?"
"No."
"Oh. Well, a cyclist pulled out of the cycle lane right in front of me. I almost ran them over. I thought it must be you."
"Perhaps it was one of the other handful of cyclists in the city?"
"It just looked like your bike. Two wheels. Saddle."
"Where did they pull out?"
"Right by those road works."
"There's a traffic light in the middle of the cycle lane there, you have to pull out to go around it."
"Well, they should have waited. I wasn't expecting it."
"WHAT DID YOU EXPECT YOU HALFWIT? THE CYCLIST TO CYCLE THROUGH THE TRAFFIC LIGHT? HOP ONTO THE PAVEMENT AND KILL FOUR PEDESTRIANS? WAIT UNTIL 3AM WHEN THERE IS NO OTHER TRAFFIC AROUND?"

Almost worth driving to work just to shut them up.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Wed, 2 May 2018 - 20:27
Post #1379248

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 2 May 2018 - 20:01) *
I f***ing hate these cyclist threads.


Two words to many, both begin with T

Posted by: m7891 Wed, 2 May 2018 - 23:08
Post #1379286

QUOTE (ford poplar @ Wed, 2 May 2018 - 17:38) *
What annoys me are those riders who use only 'flashing' front/rear lights or use a helmet-mounted front light.


Well, job done w.r.t. having a rear flashing light. If you're annoyed by it, it means you've seen it.

Flashing lights are far more likely to be seen, and since that's the primary reason for rear lights (rather than helping you see) then it makes perfect sense to have one that flashes.

QUOTE
As the number of motorists/cyclists increase, each should be subject to basic requirements eg 'third party' Insurance and MOT.


Just...no.

I'm not long back from The Netherlands. The difference in attitude to cycling and cyclists over there is amazing.

Posted by: facade Thu, 3 May 2018 - 05:41
Post #1379292

As a pedestrian, I see some quite awful cyclists- several times whilst walking the dog I've had adult cyclists hurtle up silently (to me) from behind on the pavement, and skim my elbow. It only needs me to stumble or to have to jerk the dog away from a pile of drugs/food for there to be an accident, which hopefully will put them right onto the road that they are so afraid of. (I must get myself a walking stick to poke through their front wheel wink.gif )
I also pretty much daily witness driving on the pavement. Cars just mount the pavement and try to run us over because they "have" to selfishly park blocking most of it, immediately, and we are "in the way". Then there are the drivers who just reverse quickly off their drives straight across the pavement without even bothering to look, and assume that we will just stop and wait for them. (Obviously we do, as I don't want the dog run over)

As a cyclist, I often see other cyclists run red lights and ride on pavements, and I experience some terribly unsafe passes by cars that have to get in front of me, only to then hold me up by turning left across the front of me, or slowly starting off from traffic lights.

As a car driver, I see the aforementioned cyclists, and some astonishingly bad/unsafe driving from fellow car users, together with some pedestrians who are convinced that they can just walk straight across roads without looking no matter what the traffic conditions.

I think it would be nice if we just had more Police around to enforce the Laws relating to all 3 groups of road users.

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 3 May 2018 - 07:56
Post #1379308

QUOTE (facade @ Thu, 3 May 2018 - 06:41) *
I think it would be nice if we just had more Police around to enforce the Laws relating to all 3 groups of road users.

If the Police were allowed to operate self funding from fines/penalties/courses in areas other than speed camera's then its affordable.

As an aside if you compare our fines with typical US fines for the same activity, our fixed fines are roughly half what theirs are or even less, for example misuse of a disabled parking 'placard' will typically cost you about $900, roughly half and half between the unlawful parking and the misuse fines.

As a cyclist I abhor those cyclists who flout the law as much as any other driver (being both) as I get tarred with the same brush.

Posted by: m7891 Thu, 3 May 2018 - 08:09
Post #1379318

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 3 May 2018 - 08:56) *
As a cyclist I abhor those cyclists who flout the law as much as any other driver (being both) as I get tarred with the same brush.


This, several times over.

Although at the same time, there shouldn't be any tarring. It's surely not unreasonable to expect people to have sufficient intelligence to realise that the cyclist who has stopped at the lights can't be blamed for the actions of the one in front who didn't?

Posted by: Tartarus Thu, 3 May 2018 - 09:58
Post #1379353

QUOTE (m7891 @ Thu, 3 May 2018 - 00:08) *
QUOTE (ford poplar @ Wed, 2 May 2018 - 17:38) *
What annoys me are those riders who use only 'flashing' front/rear lights or use a helmet-mounted front light.

Well, job done w.r.t. having a rear flashing light. If you're annoyed by it, it means you've seen it. Flashing lights are far more likely to be seen, and since that's the primary reason for rear lights (rather than helping you see) then it makes perfect sense to have one that flashes.

I find it makes them a lot harder to judge their distance away from me though in the dark. I wish they hadn't amended the law, and you were still required to have a steady light present front and back.

Posted by: m7891 Thu, 3 May 2018 - 10:06
Post #1379357

QUOTE (Tartarus @ Thu, 3 May 2018 - 10:58) *
QUOTE (m7891 @ Thu, 3 May 2018 - 00:08) *
QUOTE (ford poplar @ Wed, 2 May 2018 - 17:38) *
What annoys me are those riders who use only 'flashing' front/rear lights or use a helmet-mounted front light.

Well, job done w.r.t. having a rear flashing light. If you're annoyed by it, it means you've seen it. Flashing lights are far more likely to be seen, and since that's the primary reason for rear lights (rather than helping you see) then it makes perfect sense to have one that flashes.

I find it makes them a lot harder to judge their distance away from me though in the dark. I wish they hadn't amended the law, and you were still required to have a steady light present front and back.


Which surely means you will over-compensate to ensure you definitely pull out in time at an appropriate distance to pass? Something that's better than not seeing a cyclist at all, which is entirely possible with a steady light that can be lost in the glow of your own headlights, or other light pollution.

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 3 May 2018 - 10:17
Post #1379363

QUOTE (m7891 @ Thu, 3 May 2018 - 09:09) *
It's surely not unreasonable to expect people to have sufficient intelligence to realise that the cyclist who has stopped at the lights can't be blamed for the actions of the one in front who didn't?

In the age of Facebook, I think that a wholly unreasonable expectation, usually best to figure NO-ONE has that intelligence until you have the evidence otherwise.

Posted by: notmeatloaf Thu, 3 May 2018 - 10:56
Post #1379381

I have tried cycling with different combinations of lights. My commute is partially on narrow winding country roads where you want to be seen.

Best combination on the rear is two bright lights flashing at different rates. Strobe in poor visibility.

Best on the front is two bright steady lights.

I also went a Proviz top.

As above I don't give a monkeys if people find them annoying if it saves hearing someone doing an emergency stop behind you, which happens with steady lights fairly often. I think because they are small people mistake them for a vehicle further away. Flashing lights mean it is immediately obvious it is a cyclist.

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 3 May 2018 - 11:21
Post #1379389

I also have a country lane commute and semi urban at the end, I use a very bright rear light and in addition lots of reflector on both the mudguard and on the back of the seatpost (3M diamond tape, amazing reflection and you can cut it to maximise area), on the front I just have a decent light for seeing as being seen is not an issue on my commute.

Posted by: The Slithy Tove Sat, 5 May 2018 - 18:45
Post #1379910

QUOTE (facade @ Thu, 3 May 2018 - 06:41) *
As a pedestrian, I see some quite awful cyclists

As a cyclist, I see some quite awful pedestrians.

On the occasions I use the Santander Cycle Hire in London, I am amazed at how little notice pedestrians crossing the road take. I have found routes that take quiet lanes right into the City of London (thanks to the TfL web site). On those roads, pedestrians, too busy staring at their phones, too often just step into the road without looking at all, and only glance up once they've taken a pace or two into the road. I guess they've done a cursory look for traffic (which is normally large, obvious and slow delivery vans or buses), and don't even bother "thinking bike", so step right into my path.

Like others have said, ALL road users need to do a bit more to take notice and consideration of other road users, which includes following the Highway Code.

Posted by: dacouc Sat, 5 May 2018 - 19:00
Post #1379911

They enforce traffic light jumping on a regular basis in SE1 Central London on a regular basis and always issue the (Small) fixed penalty.

They either use two or three plastic police on push bikes or my favourite as the real police on pedal cycles who have really small flashing blue lights that they put on when in hot pursuit

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 7 May 2018 - 13:14
Post #1380163

QUOTE (dacouc @ Sat, 5 May 2018 - 20:00) *
They enforce traffic light jumping on a regular basis in SE1 Central London on a regular basis and always issue the (Small) fixed penalty.

They either use two or three plastic police on push bikes or my favourite as the real police on pedal cycles who have really small flashing blue lights that they put on when in hot pursuit

Often they just use officers on foot, one observing the light and several further ahead to stop offenders and issue the penalties.

Posted by: TonyS Thu, 10 May 2018 - 06:07
Post #1380937

Why dont the Police enfore the law regarding car drivers? Every day I see car drivers breaking the speed limits, or failing to correctly obey traffic lights.

Posted by: facade Thu, 10 May 2018 - 17:33
Post #1381101

QUOTE (TonyS @ Thu, 10 May 2018 - 07:07) *
Why dont the Police enfore the law regarding car drivers? Every day I see car drivers breaking the speed limits, or failing to correctly obey traffic lights.


Because there are very very few Police about. Enforcement is mainly by camera. If you don't trigger a camera, nothing happens.
If there were more Police visible, a lot of this lawbreaking wouldn't even happen in the first place, whether from cyclists, pedestrians or motorists.

I'd happily pay another £10 a month on my Poll Tax to have a Policeman constantly walking our estate, moving on the crackheads, following his nose to the cannabis farms, stopping the procession of stolen cars, getting people to move their cars off the pavement and discouraging burglaries.
All they can afford to do is put a letter through my door telling me the crime wave is our fault for having any property worth stealing....

Posted by: Korting Thu, 10 May 2018 - 23:29
Post #1381233

QUOTE (facade @ Thu, 10 May 2018 - 18:33) *
QUOTE (TonyS @ Thu, 10 May 2018 - 07:07) *
Why dont the Police enfore the law regarding car drivers? Every day I see car drivers breaking the speed limits, or failing to correctly obey traffic lights.


Because there are very very few Police about. Enforcement is mainly by camera. If you don't trigger a camera, nothing happens.
If there were more Police visible, a lot of this lawbreaking wouldn't even happen in the first place, whether from cyclists, pedestrians or motorists.

I'd happily pay another £10 a month on my Poll Tax to have a Policeman constantly walking our estate, moving on the crackheads, following his nose to the cannabis farms, stopping the procession of stolen cars, getting people to move their cars off the pavement and discouraging burglaries.
All they can afford to do is put a letter through my door telling me the crime wave is our fault for having any property worth stealing....


The Poll tax went out about 25 years ago unfortunately and was replaced by Council Tax.

We pay enough Council Tax as it is, if the Councils were to impose another £120 a year for the Police, they would find another way of spending it and there would still be no increase in police.



Posted by: facade Fri, 11 May 2018 - 07:14
Post #1381250

It's a poll tax to me. All I get for the thousands I put in is a bin that is too small and not emptied often enough, LED streetlamps that don't light up the unrepaired holes in the road and pavements and the chance to vote. rolleyes.gif

The subs for the Police and Fire service are separate additions to the Poll Tax bill already, and not subject to the increase cap as far as I can tell, which is why the council can claim the % increase in the bill is lower than the extra % you get charged.

I did think of stopping the Fire service sub as I have a hosepipe, and the Police one as they never come round here wink.gif

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 11 May 2018 - 10:55
Post #1381303

QUOTE (Korting @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 00:29) *
We pay enough Council Tax as it is, if the Councils were to impose another £120 a year for the Police, they would find another way of spending it and there would still be no increase in police.

The police precept goes to the police force so I don't see how the council could sped it.

Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 11 May 2018 - 11:02
Post #1381308

QUOTE (facade @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 08:14) *
It's a poll tax to me. All I get for the thousands I put in is a bin that is too small and not emptied often enough, LED streetlamps that don't light up the unrepaired holes in the road and pavements and the chance to vote. rolleyes.gif
You seem to have missed the roads and pavements around the potholes and the fact the bin is emptied, there is of course much more serviceable road and pavement than there is pothole, but if you decide you'll only ever drive off road then fair play and you'd have a vaguely sensible argument rather and childish and petty one.

No-one wants a fire brigade until they actually need it, a hose will usually be far too little too late.

I'm sure you''ll be happy to sign up now for zero support in your old age if they let you make the saving that goes to those in that situation now.

Posted by: facade Fri, 11 May 2018 - 14:23
Post #1381389

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:02) *
I'm sure you''ll be happy to sign up now for zero support in your old age if they let you make the saving that goes to those in that situation now.



Don't start me. I'm unlikely to see a penny because I am/was stupid enough to make provision for my old age. If you have anything, they will take that to pay for what you need before they give you support.


Anyway, my point wasn't the massive burden of tax that I can't avoid (although refusing to pay it might well cause a rare appearance by the Police biggrin.gif ) , but that I am willing to pay out even more for more Police on the streets which would help reduce the lawbreaking that we seem to be dismissing as uneconomic to address.


Posted by: notmeatloaf Fri, 11 May 2018 - 16:14
Post #1381428

If there was some way of punishing or rehabilitating career criminals usually motivated by drugs then that would be loads of police time freed up in a second. These people just commit constant low level crime which is easy to "solve" for a month to look good on the figures but simply needs to be "solved" next month.

Interestingly more police on the beat actually gathering that intelligence would probably go some way to tackling that.

Posted by: Fredd Fri, 11 May 2018 - 17:32
Post #1381439

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 17:14) *
If there was some way of punishing or rehabilitating career criminals usually motivated by drugs then that would be loads of police time freed up in a second.

Well, a good start would be ending the pointless criminalisation of recreational drug use, and treating it as a public health issue instead. Prohibition hasn't worked and never will.

Posted by: notmeatloaf Fri, 11 May 2018 - 20:20
Post #1381461

Most of the petty criminality in my experience is from heroin addicts, and it would be very difficult to decriminalise that beyond the current dishing out methadone.

Obviously cocaine, phets, etc. it is absolutely pointless being illegal. It is trivially easy to get them delivered in any city. The criminality from that tends to be much larger thefts, and that is because of the cost of maintaining a habit. If it was priced/taxed like fags there would be little issue, in the same way there is little issue with people habitually stealing to buy fags.

One of the prescribed meds I take is Modafinil, a mild phet. It really isn't that exciting unless you take several times the dose, but it still sells for shedloads online. Money going to criminals which could be going partially to the exchequer.

Posted by: southpaw82 Fri, 11 May 2018 - 21:00
Post #1381467

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 21:20) *
there is little issue with people habitually stealing to buy fags.

HMRC seem to have quite a large problem with people avoiding the duty on them though.

Posted by: Mat_Shamus Sat, 26 May 2018 - 14:16
Post #1385160

QUOTE (Korting @ Tue, 1 May 2018 - 23:14) *
Cyclists seem to get away with breaking all the rules and laws.

Why wont the Police take some action? It seems that Cyclists are above the law and a law unto themselves.


How many motorists do you think go through lights just as they change red as well and don't get caught? I work in a city and although i see cyclists do it, there's no shortage of motorists doing it also.

I see countless motorists parking on double yellow lines and break the speed limit daily on my commute as well but seems everyone forgets about that when talking about another group of road users they aren't part of.

Posted by: notmeatloaf Sat, 26 May 2018 - 14:57
Post #1385168

My favourite is motorists complaining about speed enforcement because the driver knows best what the safe speed is, can't measures safety in mph, whilst simultaneously wanting a zero tolerance approach to cyclists going through red lights.

If only there was some sort of statistical way of knowing who causes the most deaths and serious injuries.

Posted by: DancingDad Sat, 26 May 2018 - 16:18
Post #1385180

TBH recently I am getting fed up with motorists jumping red lights.
Couple of weeks back, I slowed and stopped for a Red light at road works, by no means close enough to consider jumping it....
Bloke behind me stopped
Bloke behind them simply overtook and drove through the red.
Friday at some other road works, I was second in queue at red light.
Goes to green and guy in front pulls away, followed by me.
As we exit the works, guy in the other direction overtaking queue of cars and goes through on red.
This morning, pulling up at lights at junction... on Red, not amber.
Guy behind overtakes, blowing his horn and seeming to be swearing at me as he drove through the red.
Two cars crossing on their green had to anchor up sharpish.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sat, 26 May 2018 - 16:22
Post #1385183

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 26 May 2018 - 17:18) *
TBH recently I am getting fed up with motorists jumping red lights.
Couple of weeks back, I slowed and stopped for a Red light at road works, by no means close enough to consider jumping it....
Bloke behind me stopped
Bloke behind them simply overtook and drove through the red.
Friday at some other road works, I was second in queue at red light.
Goes to green and guy in front pulls away, followed by me.
As we exit the works, guy in the other direction overtaking queue of cars and goes through on red.
This morning, pulling up at lights at junction... on Red, not amber.
Guy behind overtakes, blowing his horn and seeming to be swearing at me as he drove through the red.
Two cars crossing on their green had to anchor up sharpish.


+1

Posted by: DastardlyDick Sat, 26 May 2018 - 16:23
Post #1385184

QUOTE (Korting @ Tue, 1 May 2018 - 23:14) *
Cyclists seem to get away with breaking all the rules and laws.

Why wont the Police take some action? It seems that Cyclists are above the law and a law unto themselves.


They do - just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean it never happens.


Part of the problem is that the fines are so small (e.g £40 for cycling on the footpath) that many cyclists are perfectly willing to pay up and carry on.

Posted by: notmeatloaf Sat, 26 May 2018 - 16:57
Post #1385196

It is not really a cost thing, as a cyclist there is as far as I can almost zero enforcement at least outside London. if you want to be a tw*t as a cyclist and realistically as a motorist too you will almost certainly get away with it.

I have had my driving licence 13years and standards of the bottom 20% of drivers have got muchworse in that time, with a corresponding drop in police cars, at least here (Thames Valley).

That is essentially the problem, there is little enforcement so any law would need to be self enforcing. The best way in my opinion would be to introduce proportionate liability, e.g. the heaviest vehicle is always liable even if not culpable. So as a cyclist if you hit a pedestrian you are liable, no questions asked. This would both deter people cycling on pavements, and also for cyclists that do the most miles make third party insurance more attractive.

However, that would mean motorists would always be liable if they hit a cyclist, which always seems to lead to accusations people would deliberately get hit. Having been hit by a car twice and run over once (all not at fault) I can thoroughly recommend not engineering a crash.

Posted by: DancingDad Sat, 26 May 2018 - 19:28
Post #1385217

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sat, 26 May 2018 - 17:57) *
............which always seems to lead to accusations people would deliberately get hit. Having been hit by a car twice and run over once (all not at fault) I can thoroughly recommend not engineering a crash.


Accusations ?
Have you seen some of the spurious insurance claims on Russian dash cams ?

Not to mention what people will do for money.
When I was a lad, we had a spate of accidents on semi automatic turning lathes... rough turning cast pistons.
Operator would load a piston and despite all the interlocks, tailstock (driven by a 6" pneumatic cylinder) would somehow come forward and punch a 3/4" diameter steady into, even through the back of their hand.
Always seemed to happen on nightshift and eventually the manager witnessed how.
Guy would load the piston and his mate would press the two handed start system !
Seems the lure of compensation enough for a deposit on a house or an extended visit back home was enough to be crippled for life

Posted by: southpaw82 Sat, 26 May 2018 - 19:45
Post #1385222

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sat, 26 May 2018 - 17:57) *
The best way in my opinion would be to introduce proportionate liability, e.g. the heaviest vehicle is always liable even if not culpable.

No.

Posted by: notmeatloaf Sat, 26 May 2018 - 20:11
Post #1385228

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 26 May 2018 - 20:45) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sat, 26 May 2018 - 17:57) *
The best way in my opinion would be to introduce proportionate liability, e.g. the heaviest vehicle is always liable even if not culpable.

No.

Why?

At the moment if you are knocked off your bike the insurance company will not deal with you. So you pretty much have to go through a claims management company.

The last accident I had my losses were in the £hundreds in terms of time off work and repairs. But ended up being about £4000 once all the claim management company charges were added on.

It would be much much cheaper to settle claims bearing in mind almost all are low value.

R.e Russian insurance scams it is much much less risky engineering being hit from behind by a car compared to being hit by a bike. One of my colleagues had a low speed accident (American tourist driving on wrong side of road) and was still in hospital for six weeks. My last accident it was luck that the car ran over my foot and I was wearing steelies, otherwise I would have had broken bones.

There must be a couple of mad people up for the challenge, but there are far less risky ways to scam money.

Posted by: southpaw82 Sat, 26 May 2018 - 21:27
Post #1385236

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sat, 26 May 2018 - 21:11) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 26 May 2018 - 20:45) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sat, 26 May 2018 - 17:57) *
The best way in my opinion would be to introduce proportionate liability, e.g. the heaviest vehicle is always liable even if not culpable.

No.

Why?

Funnily enough I don’t like the idea of attributing liability without culpability. It is, in common parlance, "unfair".

Posted by: The Rookie Sat, 26 May 2018 - 22:01
Post #1385243

A rebutable presumption of liability (such as they have the the Netherlands) is one thing, irebutable quite another and you create stupid scenarios like the suicidal pedestrians in China throwing themselves under cars. (See YouTube).

Posted by: Korting Sun, 27 May 2018 - 08:06
Post #1385263

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 26 May 2018 - 20:45) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sat, 26 May 2018 - 17:57) *
The best way in my opinion would be to introduce proportionate liability, e.g. the heaviest vehicle is always liable even if not culpable.

No.



+1,

The LibDems tried to introduce something like this and thankfully failed. Why should one be liable just because you drive a bigger vehicle?

Does that mean that if for example a motorcyclist pulls out from a side turning straight into your path, you would be automatically liable as a car driver? or a car driver do the same to a bus or a truck?

Such a law would be insane.

I'm not a saint when I drive, but as a motorist I have to ensure that I drive to certain standards and just as importantly that my vehicle is kept to a certain standard, ie having lights that work, and not jumping traffic lights etc, but some cyclists seem to do both these things. Riding without lights at night mean you cant be seen, that applies to both car and cyclist.

Posted by: notmeatloaf Sun, 27 May 2018 - 16:54
Post #1385368

We are simply talking about pragmatism here.

Pragmatically it costs much more to administer claims for cyclists than it would just to pay reasonable damages, say up to £1,000. Insurance companies would be obliged to make direct claims easy. In return you could limit claims management costs for claims under £1k to deter parasitic firms running up huge bills.

If proportional liability existed it would reduce insurance premiums for most people.

In my case the claims management company arranged assessment by an independent doctor to confirm that I wasn't able to work for two weeks. I don't know how much that costs - doctor driving 100 miles, renting a meeting room - but I would imagine more than I actually claimed for loss of earnings seeing as only 20% of my work is done through an agency. That clearly makes no sense.

If cyclists deliberately causing accidents to claim insurance money (as opposed to just being dopey) was an issue there would be plenty of dashcam videos but as i have said much more sensible to do it in a car and ham up whiplash if that is your thing.

Insisting on fighting every insurance claim to prove a point is essentially cutting off your entire face to spite your face.

Posted by: Fredd Sun, 27 May 2018 - 17:17
Post #1385376

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 27 May 2018 - 17:54) *
We are simply talking about pragmatism here.

You seem to have a notable preference for pragmatism over notions such as guilt, innocence or justice.

Posted by: southpaw82 Sun, 27 May 2018 - 17:48
Post #1385397

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 27 May 2018 - 17:54) *
If proportional liability existed it would reduce insurance premiums for most people.

Does the same hold true for clinical negligence? Defending those claims can be really expensive, so perhaps a presumption that the doctor or nurse was negligent and a payout should ensue would work there too.

Occupier liability? Those can be disproportionately expensive. Perhaps if someone slips or trips in a shop the insurance company should just pay out.

Posted by: notmeatloaf Sun, 27 May 2018 - 18:59
Post #1385428

Both examples are where the potential claim is very high.

With low value claims realistically there would/should be little difference between a not at fault accident, which loads your insurance premiums anyway, and an accident with a low value claim where no fault is ascertained.

As for equitable, currently as a pedestrian or cyclist you can either be unrepresented with the certainty the insurance company will tell you to s*d off. Or use a claims firm which will rinse the insurance company for every penny possible.

Bearing in mind TRL figures show that most accidents the motorist was solely or jointly to blame (as recorded by police officers) it is a fairly high price to pay so a minority can prove a point.

Posted by: cp8759 Sun, 27 May 2018 - 19:12
Post #1385431

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 27 May 2018 - 19:59) *
As for equitable, currently as a pedestrian or cyclist you can either be unrepresented with the certainty the insurance company will tell you to s*d off. Or use a claims firm which will rinse the insurance company for every penny possible.

There is a third way, which I have used more than once, i.e. to be an unrepresented litigant, give the insurance company a fair chance to settle, and if they refuse go to court as a litigant in person and rinse them for every penny possible.

Posted by: southpaw82 Sun, 27 May 2018 - 19:14
Post #1385432

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 27 May 2018 - 19:59) *
Both examples are where the potential claim is very high.


RTAs can have high values. Occupiers' liability can have a low quantum. In fact, the quantum in those cases are very often less than RTA cases.

QUOTE
As for equitable, currently as a pedestrian or cyclist you can either be unrepresented with the certainty the insurance company will tell you to s*d off. Or use a claims firm which will rinse the insurance company for every penny possible.


Or a lawyer direct, potentially on a CFA, no?

QUOTE
Bearing in mind TRL figures show that most accidents the motorist was solely or jointly to blame (as recorded by police officers) it is a fairly high price to pay so a minority can prove a point.


Police officers aren’t the arbitrators of blame. Unless they’re an accident investigator their opinion evidence isn’t even admissible.

You say "prove a point", others say "establish legal rights, aka justice".

Posted by: Richy320 Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 18:02
Post #1388757

From another thread.

QUOTE (samthecat @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 14:19) *
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26


If the police ever enforced this law regarding cyclists, 90% of drivers would have a ticket within a month.

Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 18:20
Post #1388763

To true, I’ve been overtaken by cars while waiting behind a cyclist doing 15-20mph where there is a solid white line.

Posted by: oldstoat Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 18:36
Post #1388767

If you expect the police to do anything regards anything these days you are sadly mistaken. One of my colleagues, on tuesday 07.06.18, was at a set of traffic lights in an HGV with a 13m trailer. The lights went red. He stopped. He saw individuals running into the road, and became aware the individuals where opening his trailer doors. He got out of his cab. The individuals then decamped from the trailer and sped off in a car which was along side, which mounted the pavement to get past the red light traffic. He looked around and noticed a POLICE CAR with unifored officers two cars behind his trailer. He went up to them and spoke to the officers. There only reaction was to offer him a crime number. The officers where less than 20 feet from the back of the trailer and made no effort to leave their car, nor leave it even after being approached by my colleague.

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 21:20
Post #1388817

QUOTE (oldstoat @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 19:36) *
If you expect the police to do anything regards anything these days you are sadly mistaken. One of my colleagues, on tuesday 07.06.18, was at a set of traffic lights in an HGV with a 13m trailer. The lights went red. He stopped. He saw individuals running into the road, and became aware the individuals where opening his trailer doors. He got out of his cab. The individuals then decamped from the trailer and sped off in a car which was along side, which mounted the pavement to get past the red light traffic. He looked around and noticed a POLICE CAR with unifored officers two cars behind his trailer. He went up to them and spoke to the officers. There only reaction was to offer him a crime number. The officers where less than 20 feet from the back of the trailer and made no effort to leave their car, nor leave it even after being approached by my colleague.

I would have taken their collar numbers and made a complaint. I know of at least one case where, in similar circumstances, two officers were dismissed from their force for neglect of duty.

QUOTE (Richy320 @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 19:02) *
From another thread.

QUOTE (samthecat @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 14:19) *
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26


If the police ever enforced this law regarding cyclists, 90% of drivers would have a ticket within a month.

That would rely on the police sitting by the side of the road and getting an evidential speed reading for the bicycle while it is being overtaken. Otherwise they can't prove it was doing more than 10 mph.

Posted by: Redivi Sat, 9 Jun 2018 - 09:12
Post #1388887

QUOTE (Richy320 @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 19:02) *
From another thread.

QUOTE (samthecat @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 14:19) *
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26


If the police ever enforced this law regarding cyclists, 90% of drivers would have a ticket within a month.

Permission to pass a cyclist causes a lot of confusion
I always thought it was 8 mph but give myself the benefit of the doubt

Would rather that there was a right to pass cyclists but it's an automatic driving without due care if another vehicle is inconvenienced

Where is the specific legislation stating the speed other than the Highway Code ?

Rather surprised that some of the more aggressive cycling groups haven't organised a day of members cycling along suitably marked roads at 12 mph and reporting every car that overtakes


Posted by: southpaw82 Sat, 9 Jun 2018 - 09:23
Post #1388892

QUOTE (Redivi @ Sat, 9 Jun 2018 - 10:12) *
Would rather that there was a right to pass cyclists but it's an automatic driving without due care if another vehicle is inconvenienced


Driving without reasonable consideration is already an offence.

QUOTE
Where is the specific legislation stating the speed other than the Highway Code ?

TSRGD, Sch 9, Part 7, Para 9

QUOTE
Nothing in sub-paragraph (1)(b) is to be taken to prohibit a vehicle from being driven across, or so as to straddle, the continuous line referred to in that paragraph, if it is safe to do so and if necessary to do so—

(a) to enable the vehicle to enter, from the side of the road on which it is proceeding, land or premises adjacent to the length of road on which the line is placed, or another road joining that road;
(b) in order to pass a stationary vehicle;
(c) owing to circumstances outside the control of the driver;
(d) in order to avoid an accident;
(e) in order to pass a road maintenance vehicle which is in use, is moving at a speed not exceeding 10 mph, and is displaying to the rear a sign provided for at item 9 or 10 of the sign table in Part 6 of Schedule 13;
(f) in order to pass a pedal cycle moving at a speed not exceeding 10 mph;
(g) in order to pass a horse that is being ridden or led at a speed not exceeding 10 mph; or
(h) for the purposes of complying with any direction of a constable in uniform, a traffic officer in uniform or a traffic warden.

Posted by: DancingDad Sat, 9 Jun 2018 - 09:28
Post #1388894

QUOTE (Redivi @ Sat, 9 Jun 2018 - 10:12) *
...….Where is the specific legislation stating the speed other than the Highway Code ?...…...



TSRGD 2016 Schedule 9, part 7(9)(5)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/9/made

Posted by: Redivi Sat, 9 Jun 2018 - 09:50
Post #1388901

Thank You Both

I couldn't find it

Posted by: Fredd Sat, 9 Jun 2018 - 10:35
Post #1388910

QUOTE (Redivi @ Sat, 9 Jun 2018 - 10:50) *
I couldn't find it

Maybe you haven't noticed before, but the Highway Code includes references to relevant law:
QUOTE
Rule 129

Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.

Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26

Posted by: notmeatloaf Sat, 9 Jun 2018 - 14:01
Post #1388962

QUOTE (Redivi @ Sat, 9 Jun 2018 - 10:12) *
Rather surprised that some of the more aggressive cycling groups haven't organised a day of members cycling along suitably marked roads at 12 mph and reporting every car that overtakes

I think you will find cyclists are the most vociferous opponents of pointless DWL as it is in everyone's interests to have plenty of space to overtake.

Two examples on my way to work, both wide roads, two lanes with an extra lane of hatchings in the centre. Great for cyclists as motorists have loads of space to overtake. Great for motorists as they can pass other vehicles easily.

One 50mph limit they have painted DWLs on both sides of the hatchings. Most motorists very sensibly ignore it but you get the odd one who does the "right" thing and tries to squeeze past within the line.

One 30mph limit they decided to put two metre wide cycle lanes down both sides and DWLs down the middle. Unfortunately this being the council they made the cycle lanes a gully so they are full of puddles, grit, broken glass, parked cars, bus stops (yes, they left the bus stops in the middle of the cycle lane). But of course if/when you have to go into the road everyone is now stuck behind you and annoyed you aren't using the underwater cycle lane.

The current trends to have build outs, artificial narrowing etc... Terrible for motorists, terrible for cyclists.

tl;dr allowing cars to overtake any vehicle with plentry of room is as beneficial to cyclists as it is tomotorists.

Posted by: VANDRVR Mon, 25 Jun 2018 - 13:10
Post #1393613

The one possible way to stop cyclist mayhem is to have number plates just like on scooters. Big enough to ID and thats it.

Then have a 100 strong motorcycle police team patrolling, enforcing the rule by confiscating the bikes that don't have plates with a £100 fine, just like a motor vehicles. I mean, financially speaking, it would be a massive money maker for the councils anyway LOL.

At the end of the day, any argument that plates can then be duplicated would be ridiculous as the same thing can then be argued with motor vehicles (which is the case.) So I suppose we should all rip off our number plates? Thought not.

If multiple offenses take place, the bike is then ID'd via ANPR, stopped, and confiscated until the rider comes forward, or your bike is crushed after 14 days. Once again, just like motor vehicles.

I'm surprised a cash strapped country like England still hasn't thought of this. HAHA (sorry cyclists. biggrin.gif)

Posted by: VANDRVR Mon, 25 Jun 2018 - 13:29
Post #1393626

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfLaC2RPOhg

Posted by: southpaw82 Mon, 25 Jun 2018 - 17:35
Post #1393699

QUOTE (VANDRVR @ Mon, 25 Jun 2018 - 14:10) *
The one possible way to stop cyclist mayhem is to have number plates just like on scooters. Big enough to ID and thats it.

Then have a 100 strong motorcycle police team patrolling, enforcing the rule by confiscating the bikes that don't have plates with a £100 fine, just like a motor vehicles. I mean, financially speaking, it would be a massive money maker for the councils anyway LOL.

At the end of the day, any argument that plates can then be duplicated would be ridiculous as the same thing can then be argued with motor vehicles (which is the case.) So I suppose we should all rip off our number plates? Thought not.

If multiple offenses take place, the bike is then ID'd via ANPR, stopped, and confiscated until the rider comes forward, or your bike is crushed after 14 days. Once again, just like motor vehicles.

I'm surprised a cash strapped country like England still hasn't thought of this. HAHA (sorry cyclists. biggrin.gif)

You seem to have an interesting grasp of the circumstances under which a motor vehicle will be seized.

Posted by: Dwain Mon, 25 Jun 2018 - 21:53
Post #1393750

All I will say is that since my son started traing for Iron Man I am a hell of a lot more aware of cyclyists. I was pretty good before, but those riding side by side got the same passing distance as single riders. Now I just sit back and wait until I can give them enough space, or they start riding consideratly.

Around here (North Manchester area) Traffic lights appear to be advisory to cyclists and motorists alike.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)