Big jump in number of cyclists fined in Cambridge in 2013

mbrads72 wrote:

So, (some) fellow commenters, is it OK for you to pick and choose which laws get enforced any more than you're accusing the police of doing?

Starting from the premise that the police have limited resources and have to set priorities because they can't enforce everything completely, it is fair to say it's more important to enforce some laws than others.

And a good way of deciding which laws to enforce is to look at potential and actual harm caused. In which case, policing cyclists not using lights in well-lit, low traffic city centres is pretty near the bottom of the pile.

My argument is that cyclists pose a low risk to others. We have no shortage of stats to back this up. I also have huge reservations as to the effectiveness of the campaign to improve road safety, even for the cyclists themselves. It's too early to see the STATS19, but I would be amazed if there is significant decrease in either cyclist or pedestrian safety attributable to this.

The police's argument is that some people have complained (not even necessarily people who live in Cambridge - the PCC's area of authority is much bigger), so they're going to do it.

So, yes, I am going to call bullshit on that. They can't enforce everything, but I expect them to justify what they do enforce, and they haven't.

HKCambridge][quote=mbrads72 wrote:

So, (some) fellow commenters, is it OK for you to pick and choose which laws get enforce
And a good way of deciding which laws to enforce is to look at potential and actual harm caused. In which case, policing cyclists not using lights in well-lit, low traffic city centres is pretty near the bottom of the pile.

My argument is that cyclists pose a low risk to others. We have no shortage of stats to back this up. I also have huge reservations as to the effectiveness of the campaign to improve road safety, even for the cyclists themselves. It's too early to see the STATS19, but I would be amazed if there is significant decrease in either cyclist or pedestrian safety attributable to this.

The problem with this is that those same cyclists don't start and end their trip in the well lit centre, they end up on Cherry Hinton road (etc) where there are almost no street lights, they are still in complete stealth mode and expect everyone else (pedestrians, cars and other cyclists) to avoid them. I agree that their risk to others is low, but to themselves is considerable, all for the sake of 15 quids worth of LEDs and some respect for others. Remember the vast majority of other road users are not out to 'get' cyclists and don't want to hurt anyone - let them see and they will avoid.

3cylinder wrote:

The problem with this is that those same cyclists don't start and end their trip in the well lit centre, they end up on Cherry Hinton road (etc) where there are almost no street lights, they are still in complete stealth mode and expect everyone else (pedestrians, cars and other cyclists) to avoid them. I agree that their risk to others is low, but to themselves is considerable, all for the sake of 15 quids worth of LEDs and some respect for others. Remember the vast majority of other road users are not out to 'get' cyclists and don't want to hurt anyone - let them see and they will avoid.

It's also pretty low to themselves. We have the STATS19 data for collisions. Cyclists actually have fewer collisions in the dark than other road users, compared with daylight. http://cottenhamcyclist.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/road-safety-statistics-fo...

"The DfT Contributory Factors for Cambridge City 2009-2001, show:
•Not displaying lights at night or in poor visibility. 8 of 695 accidents (all vehicle types).
•Cyclist wearing dark clothing at night. 14 of 695. [this is not an offence]"

I've been lit up like a Christmas tree, covered in retro-reflectives, and drivers have still failed to see me. They weren't looking. Lack of lights makes for a very convenient excuse if you weren't looking. I always have lights myself, but as much as anything to remove the excuse from careless drivers. It's a footnote to road safety.

HKCambridge wrote:

3cylinder wrote:

The problem with this is that those same cyclists don't start and end their trip in the well lit centre, they end up on Cherry Hinton road (etc) where there are almost no street lights, they are still in complete stealth mode and expect everyone else (pedestrians, cars and other cyclists) to avoid them. I agree that their risk to others is low, but to themselves is considerable, all for the sake of 15 quids worth of LEDs and some respect for others. Remember the vast majority of other road users are not out to 'get' cyclists and don't want to hurt anyone - let them see and they will avoid.

It's also pretty low to themselves. We have the STATS19 data for collisions. Cyclists actually have fewer collisions in the dark than other road users, compared with daylight. http://cottenhamcyclist.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/road-safety-statistics-fo...

"The DfT Contributory Factors for Cambridge City 2009-2001, show:
•Not displaying lights at night or in poor visibility. 8 of 695 accidents (all vehicle types).
•Cyclist wearing dark clothing at night. 14 of 695. [this is not an offence]"

I've been lit up like a Christmas tree, covered in retro-reflectives, and drivers have still failed to see me. They weren't looking. Lack of lights makes for a very convenient excuse if you weren't looking. I always have lights myself, but as much as anything to remove the excuse from careless drivers. It's a footnote to road safety.

To judge whether it is safer in the dark you’d need to know the relative number (and ideally length) of journeys to see if the 173 vs 521 is not just a result of fewer people and shorter trips. I actually think a bike with decent lights is more visible at night than a cyclist in the day against a typical urban background.
I totally agree with you that being lit up like a Christmas tree does not prevent being SMIDSY-ed, but equally someone who is more visible is less likely to be overlooked.

In an ideal world all drivers would be competent, attentive and drive with caution, and would pick out an unlit cyclist or pedestrian. The real world includes people who shouldn't have a license in the first place, driving cars with bad brakes and smeary windscreens, pissed off from an argument with their boss, with screaming kids in the back seat, and running late.

There’s no question that it is the latter that is the real problem, but fixing bad driving is going to be incredibly difficult and won’t be on any government’s manifesto. In the meantime, making some minimal effort to help that distracted, incompetent driver avoid you makes sense to me.

HKCambridge][quote=mbrads72 wrote:

So, (some) fellow commenters, is it OK for you to pick and choose which laws get enforce
And a good way of deciding which laws to enforce is to look at potential and actual harm caused. In which case, policing cyclists not using lights in well-lit, low traffic city centres is pretty near the bottom of the pile.

My argument is that cyclists pose a low risk to others. We have no shortage of stats to back this up. I also have huge reservations as to the effectiveness of the campaign to improve road safety, even for the cyclists themselves. It's too early to see the STATS19, but I would be amazed if there is significant decrease in either cyclist or pedestrian safety attributable to this.

The problem with this is that those same cyclists don't start and end their trip in the well lit centre, they end up on Cherry Hinton road (etc) where there are almost no street lights, they are still in complete stealth mode and expect everyone else (pedestrians, cars and other cyclists) to avoid them. I agree that their risk to others is low, but to themselves is considerable, all for the sake of 15 quids worth of LEDs and some respect for others. Remember the vast majority of other road users are not out to 'get' cyclists and don't want to hurt anyone - let them see and they will avoid.

Cantab wrote:

If this sort of enforcement is notionally down to residents' complaints, a concerted campaign of complaints from cyclists about ASL violations, mobile phone use, speeding etc. will bring about a city wide crackdown right?!

Not holding my breath, but perhaps it's worth a try?

20mph enforcement was set at North Area Committee as a priority in response to public complaint. See how much the police care: http://cambridge.shapeyourplace.org/20mph-north-cambridge-enforcement/#....

JackBuxton wrote:

I'm moving to Cambridge in September for uni, and i enjoy cycling but i might be giving it a miss, i definitely won't be able to afford to pay a stupid fine! I think these fines are petty, why not just give verbal or written warnings about things like lights?
How would they measure when lights should be used, get out the colour chart for the sky?

If you're a student in Cambridge you won't have anywhere to keep a car unless you have really good reason (like a serious disability), and since you are on this site you already know that cycling is better than walking, so I reckon you will be joining the thousands of other cyclists in Cambridge

Cambridge isn't a police state and on the whole you'd have to do something particularly stupid to even get noticed, much less get a fine: a few hundred fines a year out of tens of thousands of journeys a day is not something to worry about unless you know you have a reckless disregard for your fellow citizens and laws in general.

Finally when I've seen the police check for lights it is dark - no colour chart required...

JackBuxton wrote:

I'm moving to Cambridge in September for uni, and i enjoy cycling but i might be giving it a miss, i definitely won't be able to afford to pay a stupid fine! I think these fines are petty, why not just give verbal or written warnings about things like lights?
How would they measure when lights should be used, get out the colour chart for the sky?

To be honest, depending on your college and subject, you might not need a bike. Many colleges and depts are within a mile, and walking is sociable and you don't need to find parking (there isn't enough).

It is petty, though. The police always seem to focus on Market Square, which has very high levels of lighting at all times. There are unlit streets further from the town centre where I'd have a bit more sympathy with the difficulty of seeing cyclists, but the police would rather fine students in the most brightly lit area of the city, because they know they'll catch more that way. Maybe it's the only way they can see the 'invisible' ones?

JackBuxton wrote:

I'm moving to Cambridge in September for uni, and i enjoy cycling but i might be giving it a miss, i definitely won't be able to afford to pay a stupid fine! I think these fines are petty, why not just give verbal or written warnings about things like lights?
How would they measure when lights should be used, get out the colour chart for the sky?

It says in the article that there is a 'lights for tickets' campaign, whereby if you can produce lights within a certain period you don't pay a fine. Maybe you need to improve your reading comprehension skills if you're going to uni!!
Also there is an easy way to know if you should be using lights. It's called lighting-up time, otherwise known as sunset, which is easily found on any weather site; even my GPS has it.

JackBuxton wrote:

I'm moving to Cambridge in September for uni, and i enjoy cycling but i might be giving it a miss, i definitely won't be able to afford to pay a stupid fine!

They're not stopping or fining people just for riding bikes. So if you don't want to get stopped/fined, you could always try, you know, not doing the things they're stopping people for...?

If so many people are going the wrong way up Sidney street, there must be a reason - bad planning. We need to make the cycling experience as convenient as possible - at the expense of car drivers. Often, in my experience, I nip down a quiet one way street to avoid having to go around the block with all of the traffic. It's safer. In many places, contraflow bike paths are now indicated, at the least, and sometimes segregated ones too.

One way streets are only necessary due to car traffic! They are not helpful, or necessarily safer for bikes.

7thGalaxy wrote:

If so many people are going the wrong way up Sidney street, there must be a reason - bad planning. We need to make the cycling experience as convenient as possible - at the expense of car drivers. Often, in my experience, I nip down a quiet one way street to avoid having to go around the block with all of the traffic. It's safer. In many places, contraflow bike paths are now indicated, at the least, and sometimes segregated ones too.

One way streets are only necessary due to car traffic! They are not helpful, or necessarily safer for bikes.

No, the reason for it is that's it is a short-cut for a few shops. That area of Cambridge is so narrow that it has to be one-way for the vans and lorries that serve the shops there which is why it's only pedestrianised from 10-4. During that time it doesn't really matter a lot, although I do find it annoying as a cyclist to have two-way cycling and pedestrians to deal with on a very narrow road, but outside that time, especially at night, it is potentially dangerous to go up there the wrong way. You'll certainly need to get off your bike sharpish if a lorry is coming down as there would be no space to get by. Not many ordinary cars would go down there. It is very hard to get in and out of that area by car, only authorised traffic is allowed. Where possible there are contraflow lanes in Cambridge, but that road is too narrow for that.

On the whole one-way streets probably are safer for bikes as you're not going to be squeezed by oncoming traffic pushing traffic on your side of the road closer to you. It is very easy to go primary on narrow one-way streets with generally slow-moving traffic and that is normally the safest position to be.

The really dangerous roads are the narrow single-carriageway roads with busy fast-moving traffic on both sides i.e. A roads.

Alan Tullett wrote:

No, the reason for it is that's it is a short-cut for a few shops. That area of Cambridge is so narrow that it has to be one-way for the vans and lorries that serve the shops there which is why it's only pedestrianised from 10-4. During that time it doesn't really matter a lot, although I do find it annoying as a cyclist to have two-way cycling and pedestrians to deal with on a very narrow road, but outside that time, especially at night, it is potentially dangerous to go up there the wrong way. You'll certainly need to get off your bike sharpish if a lorry is coming down as there would be no space to get by. Not many ordinary cars would go down there. It is very hard to get in and out of that area by car, only authorised traffic is allowed. Where possible there are contraflow lanes in Cambridge, but that road is too narrow for that.

There are already contraflows in Cambridge where there's no room to pass: St Andrew's St outside Christ's is a pinch-point used by buses and cyclists can't pass when one is there, despite it being legal.

There are also plenty of two-way streets where two cars can't pass each other (though mainly because parking makes it narrow, not because of the street) such as Adams Rd and Cavendish Rd.

People cope. Someone gives way, you wait, you pass. Since lots of people are already doing this illegally, there's plenty of evidence that it's fine.

You say 'it's only a short-cut for shops' but students live on those streets, and have up to a half mile detour, every day, if their lectures are in the wrong direction from the one-way system. The town centre is also a through-route for many cyclists trying to avoid the inner ring-road.

cat1commuter wrote:

Low hanging fruit. Wonder how many car drivers prosecuted for red light running or parking on the pavement in the same period.

Ah! The old chestnut! "We can do it because they can do it!"... I'm sure the police also fine people in cars when they're not busy fining cyclists.

Absolutely they do. I see cars pulled over on Cambridge streets more often than bikes, though they seem to do a fair bit of both.

jmaccelari wrote:

I'm sure the police also fine people in cars when they're not busy fining cyclists.

How many ASL and 20mph zone violation penalties in Cambridge in last 12 months you think?

vbvb wrote:

jmaccelari wrote:

I'm sure the police also fine people in cars when they're not busy fining cyclists.

How many ASL and 20mph zone violation penalties in Cambridge in last 12 months you think?

There are 4 ASLs on my commute along Hills Road, I reckon at least two of them will have a car at least partially in them every time I cycle it, and that's not to mention the drivers who wait behind the line but rev their engine then tear past you once the lights are green.
Interestingly Cambridge Constabulary have no method of reporting dangerous or anti-social driving. But I guess that's not surprising given Graham Bright's vindictive vendetta against cyclists and the many ways they wrong drivers.