"Half our enforcement is on cyclists", say Met Cycle Safety team; Wiggins on Brailsford cancer diagnosis; Netflix while driving; Cyclist killed trying to escape magpieattack; 25,000 protesters block Frankfurt car show +more in the Live Blog

cycle.london wrote:

Sadly, it is now legal to use your iPad to watch a TV show or a film, when you're driving, since the case where the bloke got off after being nicked filming a car crash.

Only, I would argue, if the content is stored on the device. If you are streaming it, then you are using the device for an "interactive communication function" within the meaning of the law and so it is illegal. Either way, you're still open to a dangerous driving charge. As the court said in the Barreto case you refer to: "It should not be thought that this is a green light for people to make films as they drive. As I have already said, driving while filming events or taking photographs whether with a separate camera or with the camera on a phone, may be cogent evidence of careless driving, and possibly of dangerous driving. It is criminal conduct which may be prosecuted and on conviction may result in the imposition of penalties significantly more serious than those which flow from breach of the regulations. The same applies to any other use of the phone while driving."      

quiff wrote:

cycle.london wrote:

Sadly, it is now legal to use your iPad to watch a TV show or a film, when you're driving, since the case where the bloke got off after being nicked filming a car crash.

Only, I would argue, if the content is stored on the device. If you are streaming it, then you are using the device for an "interactive communication function" within the meaning of the law and so it is illegal. Either way, you're still open to a dangerous driving charge. As the court said in the Barreto case you refer to: "It should not be thought that this is a green light for people to make films as they drive. As I have already said, driving while filming events or taking photographs whether with a separate camera or with the camera on a phone, may be cogent evidence of careless driving, and possibly of dangerous driving. It is criminal conduct which may be prosecuted and on conviction may result in the imposition of penalties significantly more serious than those which flow from breach of the regulations. The same applies to any other use of the phone while driving."      

yeah, you're probably right.  I reported a bloke a fortnight ago, and plod couldn't get him for anything but 'not being in proper control' or whatever.

craigstitt wrote:

Sorry I am lost here.... why are people complaining that the police are stopping cyclists for breaking the law?

If I am driving my car and see someone driving like a bell end, and to see them get stopped by the police nothing makes me happier.... because something is getting done about it.

If I am on my bike and I see someone cycling like a bell end nothing would make me happier than to see them get stopped by the police.

As a group we cannot call for more policing against cars because they do more damage than cylists.  Police should enforce the laws of the road regardless of the mode of transport.  Expecting special treatment for law breaking cyclists is sheer hipocrisy.

It is like turning round and saying nothing should be done about people allowing their dogs to s#*t in parks or on the street, because who is that hurting?  Or nothing should be done about people fly tipping, or throwing litter away, that doesn't hurt anyone?  No?

If you break the law and get caught you only have one person to blame.

The problem that a lot of us are having is the proportion of resources. You would expect police to allocate more resources for the more numerous and higher impact crimes e.g. to have the same number of police enforcing the copyright infringement of singing 'Happy Birthday' in public as to enforcing house burglaries would be seen as mis-management of police time.

As cyclists are far less numerous than cars, you'd expect them to put about 50 times more resources into policing motor vehicles just from the numbers alone. When you also look at the harm to society, you'd want even more resources to be spent on motor vehicles versus bikes, skateboards, electric scooters, horses, roller-blades etc.

The other aspect to consider is that most 'bell-end' cyclists are mainly putting themselves at risk whereas 'bell-end' drivers are mainly putting others at risk. I know which crimes that I'd rather have more police resources used for.

hawkinspeter wrote:

The problem that a lot of us are having is the proportion of resources. You would expect police to allocate more resources for the more numerous and higher impact crimes e.g. to have the same number of police enforcing the copyright infringement of singing 'Happy Birthday' in public as to enforcing house burglaries would be seen as mis-management of police time.

As cyclists are far less numerous than cars, you'd expect them to put about 50 times more resources into policing motor vehicles just from the numbers alone. When you also look at the harm to society, you'd want even more resources to be spent on motor vehicles versus bikes, skateboards, electric scooters, horses, roller-blades etc.

The other aspect to consider is that most 'bell-end' cyclists are mainly putting themselves at risk whereas 'bell-end' drivers are mainly putting others at risk. I know which crimes that I'd rather have more police resources used for.

So the 27 officers (3 sergeants, 15 constables and 9 PCSO's) (https://www.met.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/foi-media/metropolitan-police/di...) within the Cycle safety team within the Metropolitan Police is a tiny proportion of the 31,075 Police officers and 1464 PCSO's within the Met Police.  So yes I would like to think that the Traffic Unit within the met will be significanly larger than 27 - and quite possibly could be close to 30 or 40 times the size of the Cycle Safety Team.  And that does not include the resources such as ANPR, Speed Cameras etch which are also deployed.  

So yes the Met do deploy far more resources in other more relevant fields.  But lets all try and play the victims and shift the blame

craigstitt wrote:

It is like turning round and saying nothing should be done about people allowing their dogs to s#*t in parks or on the street, because who is that hurting?  Or nothing should be done about people fly tipping, or throwing litter away, that doesn't hurt anyone?  No?

If you break the law and get caught you only have one person to blame.

That's all true. 

But, personally, I would still like to see the police spending more time and resources pursuing burglary and assault than rounding up people who don't clean up after their dogs or throwing litter in the streets. 

Sriracha wrote:

The argument that police should prioritise their limited resource to give the greatest reduction in harm is if course convenient to cyclists. They would never be policed. However, taking this principle further, the chancellor would logically spend no money on policing at all, for surely it would be better spend on the NHS, effecting an even greater reduction in harm. Of course, that is not how resources are allocated. Instead they are spread across all areas of society. Including cyclists. A good thing too.

Wow!  Analogy stretching at its finest.  With no police there would be anarchy, widespread violence, extortion for scarce supplies like medicines, the roads would be littered with damaged vehicles and dead pedestrians and cyclists, food would be expensive and limited, nobody would pay any tax and as a result the NHS would be totally overwhelmed and broke. 

As others have pointed out, there is a balance, based on the likelihood of harm, which applies to all of society, not just cyclists.

burtthebike wrote:

It does seem odd that the Met cycle safety team spends just as much time pursuing illegal cyclists as illegal drivers, given that in collisions between the two, it is much more often the driver's fault.  It is a fair point that some cyclists do break the law, but that rarely endangers other people, but I can understand why some people, especially pedestrians feel threatened.

Given that this is such a tiny team, it might be hoped that they would spend most of their time actually making cycling safer, not prosecuting cyclists who break the law but endanger no-one.  I realise that this is the same argument used by speeding drivers, but this is the cycle safety team.

Perhaps a lot of their time is spent sending out NIPs for cycling with intent to use a shared pathway.

burtthebike wrote:

It does seem odd that the Met cycle safety team spends just as much time pursuing illegal cyclists as illegal drivers, given that in collisions between the two, it is much more often the driver's fault.  It is a fair point that some cyclists do break the law, but that rarely endangers other people, but I can understand why some people, especially pedestrians feel threatened.

Given that this is such a tiny team, it might be hoped that they would spend most of their time actually making cycling safer, not prosecuting cyclists who break the law but endanger no-one.  I realise that this is the same argument used by speeding drivers, but this is the cycle safety team.

I disagree. I think they both need sorting out, the idiot drivers and cyclists.  If it were up to me I'd go 100% after each on random days, stopping them, fining them and keep doing that until they start to behave.  I know this was to do with the cycle safety team but it needs to be a huge general crackdown on all of them.

Basically saying that it's ok for cyclists to break the law and to ignore it as long as the likelihood of hurting someone is low is absurd. 

The idiot minority on both sides only understand either a strong deterrent or, more likely, enforcement and unless that's happening then the standard of driving and riding will continue to deteriorate. Don't give one lot of idiots a free pass.

Crambie wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

It does seem odd that the Met cycle safety team spends just as much time pursuing illegal cyclists as illegal drivers, given that in collisions between the two, it is much more often the driver's fault.  It is a fair point that some cyclists do break the law, but that rarely endangers other people, but I can understand why some people, especially pedestrians feel threatened.

Given that this is such a tiny team, it might be hoped that they would spend most of their time actually making cycling safer, not prosecuting cyclists who break the law but endanger no-one.  I realise that this is the same argument used by speeding drivers, but this is the cycle safety team.

I disagree. I think they both need sorting out, the idiot drivers and cyclists.  If it were up to me I'd go 100% after each on random days, stopping them, fining them and keep doing that until they start to behave.  I know this was to do with the cycle safety team but it needs to be a huge general crackdown on all of them.

Basically saying that it's ok for cyclists to break the law and to ignore it as long as the likelihood of hurting someone is low is absurd. 

The idiot minority on both sides only understand either a strong deterrent or, more likely, enforcement and unless that's happening then the standard of driving and riding will continue to deteriorate. Don't give one lot of idiots a free pass.

Who kills more people, drivers or cyclists?  The police have a duty to protect the public, and must therefore appropriate resources to match the risk, and drivers pose a risk hundreds of times greater than that of cyclists.  When all the dangerous, inattentive, distracted drivers have been banned, then the police should turn their attention to cyclists, but not before.

BTW, deterrents don't work.  At hangings of pickpockets, there would be people picking pockets.  Enforcement can work, but if you divert resources into catching people who break the law but pose no threat, you've allowed those who do pose a threat to escape.

Crambie wrote:

 

Basically saying that it's ok for cyclists to break the law and to ignore it as long as the likelihood of hurting someone is low is absurd. 

I actually find it astonishing that you can be so  out-of-touch as to declare 'absurd' something that  has been standard part of police practice all over the country for pretty much the entire time the police have existed.  The police prioritize.  Have you really not noticed that they don't pursue every kind of offence with equal vigour and that they make choices as to how to use limited resources? 

Honestly?  Haven't noticed the statements about, say, not enforcing 20mph limits or not sending officers to RTAs if no-one is injured, etc?  Or not sending detectives to burlgaries, etc?

So, no, far from 'absurd' it's completely consistent with how policing has always been.  It's irrational to deploy resources on things that don't involve much cost to society when those resources could be used investigating crimes that carry a much higher cost.

Sadly, how it actually works is it involves responding to a political balance-of-power rather than some objective measure of efficient use of resources.  But still I'm gobsmacked that you've never noticed how policing works.

Crambie wrote:

I disagree. I think they both need sorting out, the idiot drivers and cyclists.  If it were up to me I'd go 100% after each on random days, stopping them, fining them and keep doing that until they start to behave.  I know this was to do with the cycle safety team but it needs to be a huge general crackdown on all of them.

Basically saying that it's ok for cyclists to break the law and to ignore it as long as the likelihood of hurting someone is low is absurd. 

The idiot minority on both sides only understand either a strong deterrent or, more likely, enforcement and unless that's happening then the standard of driving and riding will continue to deteriorate. Don't give one lot of idiots a free pass.

Isn't the point made by the twitterers that 2% of journeys in London are made by bike and yet the Met are saying they spend 50% of their time enforcing laws against cyclists.  Do you believe cyclists are really 25 times more likely to break the law?

brooksby wrote:

Isn't the point made by the twitterers that 2% of journeys in London are made by bike and yet the Met are saying they spend 50% of their time enforcing laws against cyclists.

It's not the whole Met, just the rather small but seemingly oddly named "cycling safety team". So it's shit, but not that shit.

fukawitribe wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Isn't the point made by the twitterers that 2% of journeys in London are made by bike and yet the Met are saying they spend 50% of their time enforcing laws against cyclists.

It's not the whole Met, just the rather small but seemingly oddly named "cycling safety team". So it's shit, but not that shit.

We could adopt that as our new national slogan, maybe put it on the flag...? 

brooksby wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Isn't the point made by the twitterers that 2% of journeys in London are made by bike and yet the Met are saying they spend 50% of their time enforcing laws against cyclists.

It's not the whole Met, just the rather small but seemingly oddly named "cycling safety team". So it's shit, but not that shit.

We could adopt that as our new national slogan, maybe put it on the flag...? 

In Latin obvs.

fukawitribe wrote:

brooksby wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Isn't the point made by the twitterers that 2% of journeys in London are made by bike and yet the Met are saying they spend 50% of their time enforcing laws against cyclists.

It's not the whole Met, just the rather small but seemingly oddly named "cycling safety team". So it's shit, but not that shit.

We could adopt that as our new national slogan, maybe put it on the flag...? 

           

In Latin obvs.

Better ask Jacob 

brooksby wrote:

Isn't the point made by the twitterers that 2% of journeys in London are made by bike and yet the Met are saying they spend 50% of their time enforcing laws against cyclists.  Do you believe cyclists are really 25 times more likely to break the law?

No the Met cycle safety team are saying that,which I think is the important distinction people have overlooked when you consider what law breaking a cycle cop is actually capable of dealing with,that it's only 50% of their time dealing with cyclists, is actually a good thing

burtthebike wrote:

It does seem odd that the Met cycle safety team spends just as much time pursuing illegal cyclists… that rarely endangers other people, but I can understand why some people, especially pedestrians feel threatened.

Given that this is such a tiny team, it might be hoped that they would spend most of their time actually making cycling safer, not prosecuting cyclists who break the law but endanger no-one.  I realise that this is the same argument used by speeding drivers, but this is the cycle safety team.

This just demonstrates the difference between cities that don’t understand cycling and those that do. Were this happening in Amsterdam or Copenhagen, instead of punishing cyclists they would observe them, work out why they are cycling that way, and change the infrastructure to adapt to the desired use and make it safer.

Road rules are not designed for pedestrians and cyclists, they’re designed around the car so as to prevent their progress from being impeded. Given the right priority, cyclists have no need to break the rules.

Philh68 wrote:

Road rules are not designed for pedestrians and cyclists, they’re designed around the car so as to prevent their progress from being impeded.

That's not generally true is it ? There are rules to dictate behaviour - such as those to aid in conflict prevention - which can also be used to help with traffic flow sure, but also those to mandate against dangerous use and to try and protect more vulnerable road users. There are code of conduct combined with rules, such as the Highway Code, which are clearly not solely "designed around the car so as to prevent their progress from being impeded". I don't believe the balance is right, but it's not all one way traffic, so to speak.

Philh68 wrote:

Given the right priority, cyclists have no need to break the rules.

..and yet they will, as now, because apart from anything else they're humans.

Philh68 wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

It does seem odd that the Met cycle safety team spends just as much time pursuing illegal cyclists… that rarely endangers other people, but I can understand why some people, especially pedestrians feel threatened.

Given that this is such a tiny team, it might be hoped that they would spend most of their time actually making cycling safer, not prosecuting cyclists who break the law but endanger no-one.  I realise that this is the same argument used by speeding drivers, but this is the cycle safety team.

This just demonstrates the difference between cities that don’t understand cycling and those that do. Were this happening in Amsterdam or Copenhagen, instead of punishing cyclists they would observe them, work out why they are cycling that way, and change the infrastructure to adapt to the desired use and make it safer.

I'd agree desire lines are the best way to work out city planning issues like this rather than enforcement,but in my view it's not the job of the police to be city planners,that's the councils job

Philh68 wrote:

No problem Brooksby, it’s just a pet peeve of mine that every time a cyclist is killed the question “were they wearing a helmet” pops up in the local newspaper, as if a crappy styrofoam hat would have prevented it. There’s been four fatalities in my area this year, for all of them the news reports mentioned helmets. The most recent was a high schooler riding to school, hit by a school bus which should have given way at an intersection. “It was not known if he was wearing a helmet”, as if doing so would matter when a bus drives over you. It’s just the worst kind of victim blaming, inferring that what happened was at least partly due to their own negligence.

Then I think we may have misunderstood each other, Phil... 

My original post was intended to draw attention to the fact that helmets are compulsory in Oz, so this poor bloke was wearing one, and yet he still crashed and died of his injuries.

So, that helmet didn't help him at all.

And yet, "falling off and hitting something" is one of those sorts of incidents that helmets are argued as protecting against ("Yes, I know a helmet won't save you if you get run over by a bus, but at least it'll save you if you fall off and hit your head on a post").

Except this time it didn't.

No offence intended <hand-shake offered>

ktache wrote:

I waited all weekend and there was no update on the insanity of the continuing saga surrounding VeloLife.

I actually bumped into a couple of riders from that neck of the woods in our local cycle cafe in East Yorkshire over the weekend. They were very vocal in expressing their frustration at the actions of the council and the continued lack of any sensible conclusion to the whole situation.