Kamikaze Cyclists!

vqmismatch

Tilt wrote: »

Maybe because a motorbike has lights on and other drivers can see you more easily?

But that aside, what a good post compared to most others on here who seem to believe the reckless cyclists I saw on Friday night should be allowed to get on with it and God forbid anyone passing a negative opinion about it.

In my instance the push bike probably has equivalent lights to the motorcycle, although around here that is something or a rarity. Despite considerable tinkering the motorcycle lights still leave a lot to be desired.

I was horrified the other day whilst sneaking down the pavement alongside a que of traffic and judging when best to jump the red light to see a fellow clad from head to toe in black with no lights, in the dark in light rain, come the wrong way up a one way street, straight across the junction, and then along the white line between two lanes of traffic coming in the opposite direction.

Breaking the rules is of course never correct, but you would think people doing it would put the time and effort into doing it safely. In my instance I was happy to do it as I knew I was adequately visible and I was happy my actions were predictable. Just as if I were to travel over the speed limit in the car or on the motorcycle, it would be a decision made on the basis of what I felt to be possible safely under the circumstances.

SW17

hugheskevi wrote: »

However, when a road user is observed breaking rules, angst can come from either being irritated they are risking their own or other's safety, or being irritated that they are not following rules despite there being no risk. The two are completely different responses, but they are usually incorrectly conflated.

Fair points made (don't quite agree with you about the legal and risk elements being unrelated, but we don't need to agree...)

I think in the case of the above, there is also an element of angst driven by the risk of being caught/fined. Drivers don't jump lights or speed so much when there are cameras, because they can get caught, and get annoyed in part because cyclists are far less likely to be caught/fined for such traffic offences (and maybe cyclists would do it less if they could be identified easily..).

However, far too many drivers still think it's ok to use their phones without handsfree while driving (a pet peeve of mine, I would have taken a photo of one doing it yesterday if I hadn't been driving myself...), and while I have no data to support my theory, I'm sure they do it with greater impunity because the risk of being caught is lower. We could probably fund some cycle lanes with the fines from mobile phone use if the police sat with a camera at a roundabout near my house

brat

Tilt wrote: »

For a police officer, you have sure got a poor perception of people.

I work on evidence Tilt.

Tilt wrote: »

What I have posted here was an observation of how a particular group of people were recklessly putting their own lives in danger which obviously happens on a regular basis in London.

They were breaking the law by cycling without lights. The evidence would suggest that they were not recklessly putting their lives in danger. London at night is probably brighter than winter day times in many parts of the country. That may provide a reason why they don't use lights. Bike lights get stolen from parked bikes too, so perhaps they've decided it's not worth putting them on if they don't feel the need.

Tilt wrote: »

And all you (and quite a few other posters as well) have done is criticised me for doing so.

Revisit your original post. You express amazement that not more cyclists are killed. One of the reasons why you are amazed is that you don't understand or are not prepared to accept that cyclists do actually take their own safety quite seriously. Every time you open or contribute to a thread such as this, you repeat the same mantra. As you've observed, it's not only me that is critical of your tone and content.

Tilt wrote: »

Obviously you must condone this style of cycling then?

Erm, no. :wall: What irritates me and probably others is that you seem to spend most of your posting time railing against offending cyclists that don't actually endanger anyone but possibly themselves, when the real road risk (about 10,000 times the risk of cyclists) is the motor vehicle user.

Tilt wrote: »

Surely as a police officer, your take should be on accident prevention and NOT having a go at someone making an observation about what could be a potential accident?

I have been practically involved in road safety for nearly 25 years. I often warn and occasionally ticket cyclists for offences including lighting offences. I tell them that while their safety is my concern, the fact that they flout the law gives many motorists an excuse to maintain their prejudicial attitude to cyclists, which in turn affects the safety of other law abiding cyclists.

Tilt wrote: »

And to suggest I am trying to provoke hostilities between certain road users is quite frankly too laughable for words. Clearly that opinion is from someone who rides a bike and either does so irresponsibly themselves or condones it and God forbid anyone expressing a frowned opinion about it!

So why do you trawl out exactly the same banal argument year on year? As I've said, cyclists are 0.01% of the risk of motorised vehicles. It would be nice to hear some balance from you such as the threat to cyclists of other road users who don't consider the cyclist's needs. It'd be nice to hear something about drink drivers or boy racers who are responsible for hundreds of deaths every year. It'd give the impression that you genuinely cared about road safety. From my experience about 70 to 80% of cyclist deaths on the road are the fault of careless drivers. 10% are caused by cyclists on their own, and 10 to 20% caused by careless cycling. In 24 years of policing, I've never yet dealt with an accident where a cyclist was hit because he wasn't able to be seen because he had no lights. It's worth asking yourself why it is that unlit cyclists are not significantly represented in accident stats, before you start posts about the silly lemming-like behaviour of cyclists

Tilt wrote: »

Happy and safe cycling to all responsible cyclists.

Thank you. Better late than never.

Tilt

brat wrote: »

In 24 years of policing, I've never yet dealt with an accident where a cyclist was hit because he wasn't able to be seen because he had no lights. It's worth asking yourself why it is that unlit cyclists are not significantly represented in accident stats, before you start posts about the silly lemming-like behaviour of cyclists

Just because you havn't dealt with one, dosn't mean they don't happen

http://www.whtimes.co.uk/news/death_of_welwyn_garden_city_violinist_a_tragic_accident_says_coroner_1_1115588

This one was actually featured in a Police Action Camera type programme a few years ago.

But I suppose these incidents are too rare to dare speak about. Quite frankly I would worry about today's police officers if they all have the same "approach" as yours. Fortunately though I do have a few friends who are police officers who thankfully have different views on this kind of thing than you do.

Tilt

SW17 wrote: »

Jumping red lights is not legal though, is it? Not all laws are perfect of course, but IMO neither can we all just choose which parts of the law we think we should obey, whether cyclist or motorist (or on any other subject for that matter). It's just too subjective.

FWIW, there was a lot I agreed with in both your posts (edited down above for brevity), and I'm not looking to get into this debate about reckless cyclists/drivers because most of both are not reckless. I see both sides of the argument. I've seen pedestrians hit by cyclists jumping lights and I've seen cyclists seriously injured/killed by vehicles (there are way too many white bikes at London's junctions). I just can't agree with saying "it's ok if I break the law, but not if you do".

At last we are now getting some sensible posters contributing with more reasonable debate. More Refreshing than most posters on here thinking the thread is designed to alienate ALL cyclists which it wasn't.

brat

Tilt wrote: »

Just because you havn't dealt with one, dosn't mean they don't happen

http://www.whtimes.co.uk/news/death_of_welwyn_garden_city_violinist_a_tragic_accident_says_coroner_1_1115588

This one was actually featured in a Police Action Camera type programme a few years ago.

Like I say, they are rare, and this one had the added complication that the cyclist was drunk. We had a similar incident some years ago in thick fog where a very drunk cyclist was knocked off his bike on an unlit D/C town bypass. He was lit, although the lights were ineffectual, but he was using the centre line of the carriageway to guide him along the road! Once knocked off he was run over and killed.

But I suppose these incidents are too rare to dare speak about. Quite frankly I would worry about today's police officers if they all have the same "approach" as yours. Fortunately though I do have a few friends who are police officers who thankfully have different views on this kind of thing than you do.

Too many police officers feel obliged to toe the 'party line'. I like to give some thought to cause and effect, ask why incidents happen rather than merely how. While I will not condone any law breaking, I look for reasons why the law breaking occurs because it may be possible to refine the law (or more precisely the enforcement strategies) within those ranges for improved road safety. Road safety is a complex subject to referee effectively. Fortunately many of my supervisors look to the years of experience of their long serving traffic cops to drive their road safety and enforcement strategies.

Tilt

brat wrote: »

Like I say, they are rare, and this one had the added complication that the cyclist was drunk. We had a similar incident some years ago in thick fog where a very drunk cyclist was knocked off his bike on an unlit D/C town bypass. He was lit, although the lights were ineffectual, but he was using the centre line of the carriageway to guide him along the road! Once knocked off he was run over and killed.



Too many police officers feel obliged to toe the 'party line'. I like to give some thought to cause and effect, ask why incidents happen rather than merely how. While I will not condone any law breaking, I look for reasons why the law breaking occurs because it may be possible to refine the law (or more precisely the enforcement strategies) within those ranges for improved road safety. Road safety is a complex subject to referee effectively. Fortunately many of my supervisors look to the years of experience of their long serving traffic cops to drive their road safety and enforcement strategies.

Oh dear... I can feel another "like" coming! You are now beginning to sound on my wave length. I'll tell you my biggest traffic gripes shall I (in no particular order), and the level of 'annoyance' (for want of a better word) indicate on the sentence I would dish out. Then my cards will be on the table.

1) Cyclists riding at night without lights on (Death penalty)
2) Driving a vehicle without the appropriate insurance cover (Death penalty)
3) Drivers driving in poor visibility (not just fog) without dipped head lights on (Death penalty)
4) Drivers stopping/parking on pedestrian crossing zig zag markings (Death penalty)
5) Drivers stopping/parking on school entrance markings (Death penalty)
6) Cyclists ignoring red traffic lights (Death penalty)
7) Drivers sitting in the middle lane on a motorway when lane 1 is clear (Death penalty)
8) Drivers driving with excess alcohol or drugs (Death penalty)
9) Drivers using hand held mobile phone while driving (life imprisonment)
10) Drivers stopping/parking on a restricted bus stop or stand (15 years with minimum term of 8 years)

As I said these are my top ten but in no particular order. I do have others but havn't got the time to list them all BUT I think you will hopefully see where i'm coming from.

I think there is more that can be done in "educating" drivers in some of the above... CCTV coverage outside schools and on pedestrian crossings where by offenders would automatically get ticketed for infringement.

Keep em peeled.

brat

I'll take your punishments with a pinch of salt..

My gripe can be summed up in one sentence, namely...

People who bring the wrong attitude to the road.

Tilt

brat wrote: »

I'll take your punishments with a pinch of salt..

Well obviously that's what the intention was although I was demonstrating the level of annoyance these offences provokes. In my opinion there is simply no excuse for any of them. Perhaps in the case of cyclists with no lights, this could be dealt with similar to sec 165A of the rta in which the police can seize the vehicle. Although the act specifies a motor vehicle, my understanding is that the vehicle must be seized to prevent further offences being committed. So if a bike is not equipped with adequate lights then it follows it cannot be ridden legally at night.

brat wrote: »

My gripe can be summed up in one sentence, namely...

People who bring the wrong attitude to the road.

Assuming you mean me again, my response would be there would be no need for anyone to "bring the wrong attitude to the road" if certain road users followed the simplest of basic rules.

There is simply no excuse for cycling at night with no lights on. A set of lights these days costs less than £20. Are you trying to tell me that that cost isn't worth paying to improve the safety of cyclists? The guy who was killed on the A10 would probably still been alive today had he had working lights fitted to his bike. Sounds like he was a very intelligent man so it beggars belief that he would of put himself in so much danger by riding along that road in dark clothing while over the drink drive limit.

But then it also beggars belief what I witnessed last Friday night in central London; cyclists putting themselves in unnecessary danger by weaving in and out of heavy stop-starting traffic with no lights on.

brat

Tilt wrote: »

Well obviously that's what the intention was although I was demonstrating the level of annoyance these offences provokes. In my opinion there is simply no excuse for any of them. Perhaps in the case of cyclists with no lights, this could be dealt with similar to sec 165A of the rta in which the police can seize the vehicle. Although the act specifies a motor vehicle, my understanding is that the vehicle must be seized to prevent further offences being committed. So if a bike is not equipped with adequate lights then it follows it cannot be ridden legally at night.

It's important not to let the frustrations caused by other people's poor driving affect your own attitude to driving, or tempt you to show your displeasure to them. I'm sure in your case it won't, but when I'm cycling I often ask why a motorist felt it appropriate to sharply accelerate past me far too closely, or cut me up after an overtake. It happens quite often, always for no good reason, and I'm sure it's because they have developed a personal dislike of cyclists.
S165 doesn't apply in these circumstances. A bike is not a motor vehicle, nor does it require insurance or a driving licence for use, which are the factors involved in S165 seizures. the law could of course be changed, but at the moment it cannot apply.

Assuming you mean me again,

No, actually. I mean everyone who brings a bad or poor attitude to the road. Attitude in my book is the biggest avoidable killer on the road, and it includes attitude to others, attitude to rules and rule breaking, etc.

There is simply no excuse for cycling at night with no lights on. A set of lights these days costs less than £20. Are you trying to tell me that that cost isn't worth paying to improve the safety of cyclists?

I have about 20 sets of bike lights for a total of 8 family bikes. No one should ever fail to see me when I'm out on my bike. I carry cheap spare lights in my work rucksack. I've given a cyclist a light before from my rucksack, because his light had failed on return from a night ride. He wasn't aware of the failure.
I don't think anyone can challenge me on my attitude to bike lights.