# Increased police presence.



## Davidsw8 (19 Nov 2013)

So, I think this is pretty good news and as an immediate solution, I think it's very helpful:

http://content.met.police.uk/News/Road-safety-operation-across-London/1400021177206/1257246745756

It certainly isn't sustainable in the long-term as they don't have the man power so the trouble with that is that as soon as their backs are turned, the errant drivers and cyclists will be up to their old tricks again. Clearly the longer term solution is better infrastructure and harsher penalties for traffic offences.

This morning by the Dog House pub in Kennington, there was a PC on foot and one on a motorbike, as soon as the lights went red, the PC on foot was having a word with a couple of the amber gambling, ASZ-violating motorists. Shame they weren't at Lambeth Bridge to catch the cabby and motorbike blatantly RLJ. 

Station a couple of PC's at Lambeth Bridge south side and you've got a license to printing money, I mean they got £2.5K in fines in 4 hours just from the HGV drivers.


----------



## Roadrider48 (19 Nov 2013)

It is good, but the problem is they don't do it enough to get the message clearly across.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (19 Nov 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> It is good, but the problem is they don't do it enough to get the message clearly across.


There's a chance that while Boris is in a bit of a fix he'll keep the pressure on the police up for long enough to have an effect. Heck, that's an almost optimistic post....


----------



## Davidsw8 (19 Nov 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> There's a chance that while Boris is in a bit of a fix he'll keep the pressure on the police up for long enough to have an effect. Heck, that's an almost optimistic post....



I hope so, it's a very expensive option to keep the Police in overtime though.


----------



## MichaelO (19 Nov 2013)

There was a noticeable presence along CS7 today (from Tooting to Clapham Common). A cyclist in front of me was pulled in at Tooting Broadway - no idea why - I'd been following him since Mitcham, and couldn't see he'd done anything wrong!


----------



## Davidsw8 (19 Nov 2013)

MichaelO said:


> There was a noticeable presence along CS7 today (from Tooting to Clapham Common). A cyclist in front of me was pulled in at Tooting Broadway - no idea why - I'd been following him since Mitcham, and couldn't see he'd done anything wrong!



They're pulling some cyclists over for stuff like no helmet etc., which isn't 'wrong' really but they're giving general safety advice I guess.


----------



## Twelve Spokes (19 Nov 2013)

MichaelO said:


> There was a noticeable presence along CS7 today (from Tooting to Clapham Common). A cyclist in front of me was pulled in at Tooting Broadway - no idea why - I'd been following him since Mitcham, and couldn't see he'd done anything wrong!



Did he have any lights? It's weird how many I follow who have no lights or pretty poor ones.I even saw two community officers the other day without rear working lights.I guess they though hi-viz was sufficient.(Leytonstone High Street) weould have been interested to see what happened when the cop van that passed me a few minutes later,whether it pulled them up but I very much doubt it.


----------



## MichaelO (19 Nov 2013)

He had one on the back  And it was about 8am by then...


----------



## Davidsw8 (19 Nov 2013)

MichaelO said:


> He had one on the back  And it was about 8am by then...



Off topic slightly but it REALLY boggles my mind when someone has a rear light but not a front one, what's that all about?! It's like they don't wanna be hit from behind but what about the ped who doesn't see them coming or the HGV driver that can't see them coming up behind them. Madness!


----------



## Leodis (19 Nov 2013)

I don't find a plod telling me to wear a helmet or HiViz much help in stopping the root cause of the problem, if anything its very condescending towards cyclists.



> Cyclists who were stopped were advised of a range of safety measures they can take, such as wearing helmets and high visibility jackets.



Why would looking like a twat head to toe in Hiviz do anything? There is no evidence it makes the blindest bit of difference.


----------



## Davidsw8 (19 Nov 2013)

Leodis said:


> I don't find a plod telling me to wear a helmet or HiViz much help in stopping the root cause of the problem, if anything its very condescending towards cyclists.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would looking like a twat head to toe in Hiviz do anything? There is no evidence it makes the blindest bit of difference.



They're not focussing on helmets and hi-viz, they're giving general safety advice to everyone and clamping down on traffic offences when they see them. If you choose to ignore the advice, that's entirely your choice but the intention is good.


----------



## Leodis (19 Nov 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> They're not focussing on helmets and hi-viz, they're giving general safety advice to everyone and clamping down on traffic offences when they see them. If you choose to ignore the advice, that's entirely your choice but the intention is good.



Not its not, it is a show of force to move the blame on the victims. If someone cycles without wearing a helmet they are pretty sure of the choice they have made, the same goes for been told to wear HiViz its patronising.

If the police want to do something maybe they could deal with the 1.2 Million uninsured drivers, the hundreds of thousands of drivers using mobiles and eating breakfast whilst driving and enforce the law so when attacks on cyclists happen the offenders are not given a caution but taken to court. Stopping someone and telling them to wear hiviz or a helmet is something of nothing other than to blame cyclists for "not making themselves seen", never mind drivers not paying attention to the road.. Ooo no we cant target drivers, its a vote loser.


----------



## Nortones2 (19 Nov 2013)

What does their "general safety advice" consist of I wonder? Ride in the gutter? Be nice to your superiors, who can afford cars? Seriously, who provided the script? Any input from cycling organisation? Or is it made up as they go along? I'm not convinced PC's are expert in safety. PR exercise only. Although it would be nice to have comment from those who have now been "advised"!


----------



## Davidsw8 (19 Nov 2013)

Leodis said:


> Not its not, it is a show of force to move the blame on the victims. If someone cycles without wearing a helmet they are pretty sure of the choice they have made, the same goes for been told to wear HiViz its patronising.
> 
> If the police want to do something maybe they could deal with the 1.2 Million uninsured drivers, the hundreds of thousands of drivers using mobiles and eating breakfast whilst driving and enforce the law so when attacks on cyclists happen the offenders are not given a caution but taken to court. Stopping someone and telling them to wear hiviz or a helmet is something of nothing other than to blame cyclists for "not making themselves seen", never mind drivers not paying attention to the road.. Ooo no we cant target drivers, its a vote loser.



lol they are dealing with those people! They issued £2.5K in fines to HGV drivers in 4 hours yesterday.


----------



## Leodis (19 Nov 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> lol they are dealing with those people! They issued £2.5K in fines to HGV drivers in 4 hours yesterday.



Give over, they could have spent their time doing more of the same rather than patronising cyclists about what to wear. If a plod pulled me over and told me to wear HiViz I'd tell him to jog on.


----------



## Leodis (19 Nov 2013)

Nortones2 said:


> What does their "general safety advice" consist of I wonder? Ride in the gutter? Be nice to your superiors, who can afford cars? Seriously, who provided the script? Any input from cycling organisation? Or is it made up as they go along? I'm not convinced PC's are expert in safety. PR exercise only. Although it would be nice to have comment from those who have now been "advised"!



Most have said it was very patronising.


----------



## Davidsw8 (19 Nov 2013)

Nortones2 said:


> What does their "general safety advice" consist of I wonder? Ride in the gutter? Be nice to your superiors, who can afford cars? Seriously, who provided the script? Any input from cycling organisation? Or is it made up as they go along? I'm not convinced PC's are expert in safety. PR exercise only. Although it would be nice to have comment from those who have now been "advised"!



Oh dear, they can't win can they.

Tbh I think them just being here makes a difference regardless of who they speak to or what they say. Here's an example from yesterday...

Cycling up to Parliament Sq and I've had some nobber cyclist ride alongside all the way down Millbank cutting in, riding through peds on zebra crossings etc. Anyway, we both reach the red light at the same time, I stop at the line, he goes past the point where the peds cross and he stops. Why? Because a police van comes round the square on a green. 5 seconds after the van has passed and he's taken off with our light still red and he's mixing with the traffic that's still going round on green.


----------



## Davidsw8 (19 Nov 2013)

Leodis said:


> Give over, they could have spent their time doing more of the same rather than patronising cyclists about what to wear. If a plod pulled me over and told me to wear HiViz I'd tell him to jog on.



So, you want them to focus solely on drivers and ignore every cyclist?


----------



## Leodis (19 Nov 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> So, you want them to focus solely on drivers and ignore every cyclist?



No, I want law breakers stopped, I don't want yet more victim blaming like good ol' Boris is doing right now. Passing blame on to cyclist for... Yep you guessed it wearing earphones... Nay god I give up.

I want anyone who breaks the law to be held liable, I don't want to be stopped and given a school lesson on how to make myself seen, isn't the point of a licence you have to observe other road users? Like I mentioned above, why don't they ban and remove car stereos, I am sure more people due each year from them than cyclists wearing earphones.

Its all smoke and mirrors, the real problem throughout the UK is that they are short sighted and lack the will to make real changes .


----------



## Davidsw8 (19 Nov 2013)

Leodis said:


> No, I want law breakers stopped, I don't want yet more victim blaming like good ol' Boris is doing right now. Passing blame on to cyclist for... Yep you guessed it wearing earphones... Nay god I give up.
> 
> I want anyone who breaks the law to be held liable, I don't want to be stopped and given a school lesson on how to make myself seen, isn't the point of a licence you have to observe other road users? Like I mentioned above, why don't they ban and remove car stereos, I am sure more people due each year from them than cyclists wearing earphones.
> 
> Its all smoke and mirrors, the real problem throughout the UK is that they are short sighted and lack the will to make real changes .



Totally agree with you re: the law breakers but I think to ride around wearing black with no lights on is pretty dumb and I think the police are right to advise against the former and ticket the latter. You don't have to wear hi-viz but wearing black at night is beyond moronic.


----------



## Leodis (19 Nov 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> Totally agree with you re: the law breakers but I think to ride around wearing black with no lights on is pretty dumb and I think the police are right to advise against the former and ticket the latter. You don't have to wear hi-viz but wearing black at night is beyond moronic.



Yes I agree but there is a difference between a ped on a bike and a cyclist, the majority of peds on bikes wear dark clothes at night and use no lights, quite the opposite for cyclists.


----------



## Davidsw8 (19 Nov 2013)

Leodis said:


> Yes I agree but there is a difference between a ped on a bike and a cyclist, the majority of peds on bikes wear dark clothes at night and use no lights, quite the opposite for cyclists.



Interesting distinction, hmmm....

I get the point re: Boris' comments on the headphones tho, what a berk! The amount of cabbies I see wearing headphone is mental, seems to be more wearing them than not.


----------



## MichaelO (19 Nov 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> Totally agree with you re: the law breakers but I think to ride around wearing black with no lights on is pretty dumb and I think the police are right to advise against the former and ticket the latter. You don't have to wear hi-viz but wearing black at night is beyond moronic.


My cycle wear today is predominantly black (granted, my bike is lit up like a Christmas tree). Not sure I fully understand why that's moronic.


----------



## Davidsw8 (19 Nov 2013)

MichaelO said:


> My cycle wear today is predominantly black (granted, my bike is lit up like a Christmas tree). Not sure I fully understand why that's moronic.



If your bike is lit up, then it isn't moronic, did I not mention lights AND clothing? The point is about being seen, if you're invisible, the chances of you getting hit are exponentially greater, no?


----------



## ianrauk (19 Nov 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> *They're not focussing on helmets and hi-viz*, they're giving general safety advice to everyone and clamping down on traffic offences when they see them. If you choose to ignore the advice, that's entirely your choice but the intention is good.



Actually they were....

When one of the coopers stopped me yesterday on my commute, the 2 things he did focus on was 1: Me not wearing a helmet 2: Me not wearing Hi-Viz.

..


----------



## Davidsw8 (19 Nov 2013)

ianrauk said:


> Actually they were....
> 
> When one of the coopers stopped me yesterday on my commute, the 2 things he did focus on was 1: Me not wearing a helmet 2: Me not wearing Hi-Viz.
> 
> ..



lol that's very specifically about you though. Had you been driving an un-roadworthy HGV, they would have focused on that.


----------



## Davidsw8 (19 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2777678, member: 259"]Oh yes it is![/quote]

By 'wrong' I mean illegal. It's not illegal to not wear a helmet (or did the law change?)


----------



## ianrauk (19 Nov 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> lol that's very specifically about you though. Had you been driving an un-roadworthy HGV, they would have focused on that.




They weren't focusing on HGV's they were focusing on cyclists not wearing helmets or in dark clothing...the copper told me so.


----------



## Davidsw8 (19 Nov 2013)

ianrauk said:


> They weren't focusing on HGV's they were focusing on cyclists not wearing helmets or in dark clothing...the copper told me so.



I cycled past a HGV being stopped and inspected by the Met on Albert Embankment about 9.10 yesterday morning.

Also, the Met website says:

"Over 70 lorries were stopped and checked by MPS Traffic Command officers on Vauxhall Bridge Road, Whitechapel Road and Albert Embankment in a road safety operation today (18 November).

In addition around 100 cyclists were stopped and given safety advice by officers from the MPS Safer Transport Command"

http://content.met.police.uk/News/Road-safety-operation-across-London/1400021177206/1257246745756

Maybe you were talking to someone from the MPS Safer Transport Command and he/she was just telling you about what their section was specifically doing. Bit silly of him/her not to give you the bigger picture though.


----------



## Davidsw8 (19 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2777698, member: 259"]I meant it's wrong for the police to be wasting their valuable time telling people they should wear a helmet.[/quote]

Fair enough, I personally think it's advisable to wear a helmet but I accept not everyone feels the same.


----------



## ianrauk (19 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2777698, member: 259"]I meant it's wrong for the police to be wasting their valuable time telling people they should wear a helmet.[/quote]


Considering the copper when asked couldn't tell me what the minimum tested safety standard was for helmet's... no they shouldn't be wasting their valuable time on something they know nothing about.


----------



## Leodis (19 Nov 2013)

> I cycled past a HGV being stopped and inspected by the Met on Albert Embankment about 9.10 yesterday morning.



Maybe they were asking where to get the best bacon buttie from?


----------



## ianrauk (19 Nov 2013)

Leodis said:


> Maybe they were asking where to get the best bacon buttie from?




Or to borrow the drivers copy of The Sun seeing as the online version is now behind a paywall.


----------



## Davidsw8 (19 Nov 2013)

ianrauk said:


> Considering the copper when asked couldn't tell me what the minimum tested safety standard was for helmet's... no they shouldn't be wasting their valuable time on something they know nothing about.



Poor guy, not many people can quote British Standards from memory :-) Can I assume that it was a bit of a rhetorical question on your behalf given that if you had any interest in wearing a helmet, you would have one?

I think the police's official line with regards to helmets is to wear one and it's maybe then your choice whether to get one and if so, which one you'd like.

I imagine when they stopped the HGV's, they also gave advice about taking breaks and cycle awareness as well as checking the safety of the vehicle etc.

I think the holistic approach is a good one.


----------



## Roadrider48 (19 Nov 2013)

It really pees me off that whatever accident happens or whatever advice is given, the blame or criticism always sways towards the cyclist. Even if not directly said.


----------



## Frood42 (19 Nov 2013)

It is nice to see an increased police presence and that HGV's were being checked.

However I do not expect to be pulled over and "given advice" on wearing Hi Viz and Helmets when I have a white front light, rear red light, rear red reflector and pedal reflectors...

I have a horrid yellow hump back pack cover, 3 rear lights and a Hope 1 light up front and all the required reflectors (including a front reflector which I don't need to have). The rest of my "cycling gear" (it's mostly actually running gear) is blue and black, through my own choice.
I will not be taken out by an observant driver, I will be taken out by someone checking twitter or their texts on their mobile.

I was pulled over by an officer about a month ago and asked if I would like a free service and to register my bike, I kindly declined and off I went...
I saw no reason to be impolite to that person, but I do not expect to be stopped while riding for that, if they want to put up a sign or ask me when I am stopped at lights that is fine, but as I have what I should have on my bike I do not expect to get stopped, but be allowed to go on my way...
.


----------



## Davidsw8 (19 Nov 2013)

Frood42 said:


> It is nice to see an increased police presence and that HGV's were being checked.
> 
> However I do not expect to be pulled over and "given advice" on wearing Hi Viz and Helmets when I have a white front light, rear red light, rear red reflector and pedal reflectors...
> 
> ...



Free service sounds good! And I had my bike marked and registered by the Met a while back, they have shed loads of bikes they recover from thieves that they can't re-home because they're not identifiable, registering it might mean you get your bike back.


----------



## steveindenmark (19 Nov 2013)

It must be so hard to stop a bike and answer a question. I bet you would have been really cheesed off if he was handing out free ten pound notes and didnt stop you.

Actually it wasa free service.......thats just like ten pound notes.

I wear a viz vest but if I didnt and had all the correct lighting, i wouldnt want stopping on the way to work to be advised about it. I am an ex police officer and nobody was ever daft enough to give me that directive.

If the police decide to do a purge on cyclists without lights its ok by me. But there is no point is saying he stopped me for no lights but a HGV went by with a tail light out. Its petulent.

Why are you stopping me? Why dont you do something useful, like catching a murderer? He may have done that yesterday. I caught one. ;0)


Steve


----------



## Frood42 (19 Nov 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> Free service sounds good! And I had my bike marked and registered by the Met a while back, they have shed loads of bikes they recover from thieves that they can't re-home because they're not identifiable, registering it might mean you get your bike back.


 
I already had it serviced, my normal intention is to get it serviced before and after autumn/winter by a bike shop (and at least twice a year by a bike shop), that is beyond whatever maintenance I do on it myself.

A sign telling me there was a free service available would have been better, especially as I was on my way to work, as someone who has commuted 7000+ miles this year on what can be busy fast roads I need a proper working bike...

Registering for me is not really something I am too concerned about, I have the bike frame number, and at work it is stored in a secure location (underground employee only card controlled car park) and at home it is stored in the house. My bike is not going to be the most valuable thing to hand for them to steal. When I go out at the weekends I am very deliberate about where I go and the bike does not leave my sight (unless it is locked up when I go into a superstore, but then it is locked securely with at least two different types of locks)...

Put a sign up, don't pull me over, especially when I am going to work...
It's great they are out, but they should be there to stop the blatant RLJ'ing, the going over the stop lines, the no lights etc..., don't pull over people who are actually complying, just because they don't have a helmet or a space lemon coloured jacket...
.


----------



## newfhouse (19 Nov 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> You don't have to wear hi-viz but wearing black at night is beyond moronic.


Moron here. Black is cool.

(Decent main and backup lights front and rear)


----------



## Davidsw8 (19 Nov 2013)

newfhouse said:


> Moron here. Black is cool.
> 
> (Decent main and backup lights front and rear)




Crikey, people really do only read the parts they want to object to and miss the point entirely huh...


----------



## buggi (19 Nov 2013)

Leodis said:


> I don't find a plod telling me to wear a helmet or HiViz much help in stopping the root cause of the problem, if anything its very condescending towards cyclists.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would looking like a twat head to toe in Hiviz do anything? There is no evidence it makes the blindest bit of difference.


 i had a cyclist at work tell me today a car pulled out on him when he was in primary, had full hi viz, two strong front lights. I told him to go stealth... Joking of course! (omg i hope he took it as a joke!)


----------



## buggi (19 Nov 2013)

the police should concentrate only on those breaking the law, not giving advice about what to wear or wearing headphones if that person is not breaking the law. Lack of helmets and hi viz, and wearing headphones is not breaking the law so they have no right going there. Lights yes (but it is not a requirement in the day). Bad cycling yes. Clothing no


----------



## Kies (19 Nov 2013)

was working late in Docklands today and followed the river all the way round to Earls Court before joining the A4/M4

suprised to see so many cyclists, saw 2 cyclists RLJ at the jct of Vauxhall Bridge & MillBank :eek
most had really good lights front/back - but a few had very poor rear lights and two girls in sit up and beg bikes had NO LIGHTS ... FFS luvies !!!!!


----------



## newfhouse (19 Nov 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> Crikey, people really do only read the parts they want to object to and miss the point entirely huh...


Would a smiley have helped?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (19 Nov 2013)

It occurs to me that perhaps Caroline Pidgeon might be a good person to write to about the apparent misguidedness of the Met's advice to cyclists. She's a known campaigner on cycling issues, a vigorous opponent of BJ and....


> *Caroline Pidgeon* is Leader of the Liberal Democrat London Assembly Group, Deputy Chair of the London Assembly's Transport Committee and Deputy Chair of the Police and Crime Committee. Caroline leads for the Group on Transport, Policing and Education issues in London.


She's also tweeted this this evening: ''I will be pressing for urgent action on safer cycling in London at Mayor's Question Time tomorrow morning from 10am.''
email her here:
caroline@carolinepidgeon.org


----------



## Sittingduck (19 Nov 2013)

Dumb copper stepped in front of me at Clapham North this afternoon, looked like he was inspecting the visibility of riders from the front or something. It's a dodgy bit of road at the best of times, with 2 lanes filtering into one, a bus stop and cars always coming out of a side road without looking properly. Could have done without it to be honest. Luckily he jumped back onto the pavement before I was too close.

Must have seen at least ten of em along CS7. I appreciate the authorities are under pressure to be seen to act upon recent events but the really should do something more considered. If they nick RLJers, then all good but they might be better off having a word with drivers encroaching our ASZ's and those on mobile phones, which seem to be happy to continue doing so, regardless of these extra Police.


----------



## RedRider (19 Nov 2013)

A cop on a motorbike stopped a lad wearing headphones on Kennington Rd this avvy, not rush hour.


----------



## theclaud (19 Nov 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> Totally agree with you re: the law breakers but I think to ride around wearing black with no lights on is pretty dumb and I think the police are right to advise against the former and ticket the latter. You don't have to wear hi-viz but *wearing black at night is beyond moronic*.



I think you'll find it's impossibly stylish at any hour.


----------



## Twelve Spokes (19 Nov 2013)

RedRider said:


> A cop on a motorbike stopped a lad wearing headphones on Kennington Rd this avvy, not rush hour.



I hope he bothered to stop mobile phone wielding car drivers.


----------



## RedRider (19 Nov 2013)

Twelve Spokes said:


> I hope he bothered to stop mobile phone wielding car drivers.


hope so too. It _feels_ as though cyclists are being targeted at the moment. I'll be pissed off if it doesn't pre-figure some action on motorists, Say more controls on the tipper industry.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (19 Nov 2013)

They're asking cyclists to be more visible because they know it's a hopeless cause asking everyone else to observe better.
The guy in the Octavia behind me this morning on his handheld mobile, reading papers on his passenger seat while approaching a primary school lollipop lady should be the target audience. It would take a major threat and insulting of ego to change people like him. Unfortunately there's no fear of consequences in the majority of drivers.


----------



## ComedyPilot (19 Nov 2013)

> A 1947 book by J. S. Dean, former Chairman of the Pedestrians’ Association, is instructive here. In his ‘study of the road deaths problem’, _Murder Most Foul_, Dean's basic tenet is that, ‘*as roads are only “dangerous” by virtue of being filled with heavy fast moving motor vehicles, by far the greatest burden of responsibility for avoiding crashes, deaths and injury on the roads should lie with the motorist*’ (Peel n.d., 3).
> 
> Seems sad that the burden of responsibility to avoid an incident should lie on the young shoulders of the most vulnerable road users?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (19 Nov 2013)

Plus ça change.....


----------



## Sittingduck (20 Nov 2013)

This morning at Stockwell lights the Police Support guy was having a word with a WVM about something he had done and I heard him mention 3 points (maybe he was talking about Chelsea's next fixture - who knows...). Nice to see them not only targetting cyclists this morning. Perhaps they have received feedback similar to some of this thread, or maybe it was just a coincidence.


----------



## Ganymede (20 Nov 2013)

Read this in the Standard last night:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tran...palling-litany-of-cycling-deaths-8949207.html

My hope is that the result will be lots and lots of HGV drivers and owners getting heavily fined.

I note this: 

"Starting on Monday, they will be looking for motorists using mobile phones, drivers stopping in the advance “bike boxes” at traffic lights and cyclists riding on the inside of HGVs."

- ie they will be after motorists for things that are ILLEGAL and cyclists for something which is ill-advised but not illegal. 

(I am in favour of more cyclists being made aware of the danger of going left of an HGV btw.)


----------



## Dmcd33 (20 Nov 2013)

I'm suprised that no one has picked up on the lack of indicator use in London over the past few years. Most drivers see it as an optional extra and it causes me the most hassle on my commute to work. I would like to see a campaign and clamp down by police on people who don't use them. Even as a driver and pedestrian! never mind cycling.


----------



## Davidsw8 (20 Nov 2013)

newfhouse said:


> Would a smiley have helped?



A smiley always helps!  See?


----------



## Davidsw8 (20 Nov 2013)

theclaud said:


> I think you'll find it's impossibly stylish at any hour.



Black mixed with a few pints of claret and a few flappy fleshy bits mightn't be quite so chic


----------



## Ganymede (20 Nov 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> Black mixed with a few pints of claret and a few flappy fleshy bits mightn't be quite so chic



Yeah but it might be better than turquoise under the same conditions...


----------



## Davidsw8 (20 Nov 2013)

Dmcd33 said:


> I'm suprised that no one has picked up on the lack of indicator use in London over the past few years. Most drivers see it as an optional extra and it causes me the most hassle on my commute to work. I would like to see a campaign and clamp down by police on people who don't use them. Even as a driver and pedestrian! never mind cycling.



Totally agree! It's especially prevalent among cabbies and hire car drivers. I asked a cab driver friend of mine if they disable the indicator lights in black cabs these days, cos that's what it seems like.

I don't see what the problem is, it can't use up much car battery and it's just a slight flick of your little finger huh?


----------



## Davidsw8 (20 Nov 2013)

Ganymede said:


> Yeah but it might be better than turquoise under the same conditions...



This is assuming said ninja has no lights, if he's lit up like the proverbial Christmas tree then way-hay go Kate Moss!


----------



## glenn forger (20 Nov 2013)

> One cyclist, Harriet Lamb, told us in an email of her experience of being stopped by police as she rode across Vauxhall Bridge, with an officer telling her: “Hi, we’re stopping all cyclists in light of the recent cyclist fatalities, to make sure that you’re making yourselves as safe as possible. Obviously it’s great that you have lights on and are wearing a helmet, but have you considered wearing a hi-viz jacket?”
> 
> She replied: “No, I’ve got really bright lights, reflective material on my coat and my bike, and I position myself in the road so that I can be seen.”
> 
> ...



http://road.cc/content/news/99261-p...-targets-dozens-london-cyclists-lorry-drivers


----------



## Ganymede (20 Nov 2013)

glenn forger said:


> http://road.cc/content/news/99261-p...-targets-dozens-london-cyclists-lorry-drivers



I thought this was interesting from the comments: 

"A few years ago the Army started putting devices in the civilian cars to measure acceleration, cornering braking and was GPS enabled a box on the dash registered green, amber & red LED's more than 2 red LEDS during a journey when it was downloaded and you were called in to explain with the possibility of disciplinary action. All company vehicles should be fitted with them. Time people learnt that car is not God and a driving licence is a privilege and with it comes responsibility."

plus a mention of pursuing the drivers' employers if the drivers are found to have been making work calls while driving - ie if the employer requires the drivers to make calls during their journeys.

I once took a call from a delivery driver who asked for directions to my house (this was just pre-GPS) and said "hold on, I'll write this down". I realised he was on the phone and writing and still driving. I told him to concentrate on the road and I hung up. Gave him an earful when he arrived.


----------



## Davidsw8 (20 Nov 2013)

glenn forger said:


> http://road.cc/content/news/99261-p...-targets-dozens-london-cyclists-lorry-drivers



Classic example of a great idea but p*** poor execution  How depressing.


----------



## glenn forger (20 Nov 2013)

A friend says the cops were waiting at the west side of the Bow flyover last night and radioing ahead to colleagues waiting at the eastern end. Just cyclists targeted. This, where drivers killed three cyclists.


----------



## Davidsw8 (20 Nov 2013)

glenn forger said:


> A friend says the cops were waiting at the west side of the Bow flyover last night and radioing ahead to colleagues waiting at the eastern end. Just cyclists targeted. This, where drivers killed three cyclists.



If this is how it's going to be, it's such a shame and a wasted opportunity.

Maybe they're trying to put cyclists off cycling? Tbh, if I didn't have to cycle to work, I wouldn't do it now, all the hassle I get and now all these injuries and deaths just doesn't seem worth it.


----------



## glenn forger (20 Nov 2013)

Reports on Ken High St David, the cops are "advising" cyclists after parking just past the lights in the cycle lane, forcing riders out into traffic. Sheesh.


----------



## Davidsw8 (20 Nov 2013)

FFS


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (20 Nov 2013)

I'm not generally much of an activist, usually preferring to move information around, but I did write to Caroline Pidgeon last night about misguided policing. I'm now waiting for the webcast of Mayor's questions to come online. Maybe they'll focus a little bit more on what they're doing, or maybe they'll just disappear.


----------



## Twelve Spokes (20 Nov 2013)

Sittingduck said:


> This morning at Stockwell lights the Police Support guy was having a word with a WVM about something he had done and I heard him mention 3 points (maybe he was talking about Chelsea's next fixture - who knows...). Nice to see them not only targetting cyclists this morning. Perhaps they have received feedback similar to some of this thread, or maybe it was just a coincidence.



Chelski's next fixture = 1 point.



glenn forger said:


> A friend says the cops were waiting at the west side of the Bow flyover last night and radioing ahead to colleagues waiting at the eastern end. Just cyclists targeted. This, where drivers killed three cyclists.



Blimey they'd catch me easily if I had been a naughty gal.My bike isn't really distinctive is it?


----------



## Dmcd33 (20 Nov 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> Totally agree! It's especially prevalent among cabbies and hire car drivers. I asked a cab driver friend of mine if they disable the indicator lights in black cabs these days, cos that's what it seems like.
> 
> I don't see what the problem is, it can't use up much car battery and it's just a slight flick of your little finger huh?


 
I think you would be hard pressed to find a car driver who didn't agree that not indicating is a major problem on the roads. Even those that use them wait until they have turned the wheel, or are about to, before using it. 
Public advertising campaign is probably the only practical way of dealing with it. Maybe the adverts should be between the 25 gambling adverts between football matches?


----------



## Dmcd33 (20 Nov 2013)

Twelve Spokes said:


> Chelski's next fixture = 1 point.
> 
> 
> 
> Blimey they'd catch me easily if I had been a naughty gal.My bike isn't really distinctive is it?


 Chelsea are playing West Ham next. 3 points all the way!


----------



## Twelve Spokes (20 Nov 2013)

Dmcd33 said:


> Chelsea are playing West Ham next. 3 points all the way!




That would be pretty funny if Chelski cock that one up as well.Im sure they are capable.


----------



## PK99 (20 Nov 2013)

Dmcd33 said:


> I'm suprised that no one has picked up on the lack of indicator use in London over the past few years. Most drivers see it as an optional extra and it causes me the most hassle on my commute to work. I would like to see a campaign and clamp down by police on people who don't use them. Even as a driver and pedestrian! never mind cycling.



Cyclists too! Interesting to observe in the many CommuterCam videos on you tube how many cyclists (incidental to the point of the footage) fail to indicate or shoulder check when pulling out past stopped traffic or changing lanes


----------



## Davidsw8 (20 Nov 2013)

PK99 said:


> Cyclists too! Interesting to observe in the many CommuterCam videos on you tube how many cyclists (incidental to the point of the footage) fail to indicate or shoulder check when pulling out past stopped traffic or changing lanes



I know what you mean, it can be a quite distracting when anyone, cyclists included, hasn't indicated their intention. However, there are situations that I sometimes feel I can't arm-indicate when cycling because of the amount of traffic and the road surface (seriously). I hope that a shoulder check and my position on the road is enough of an indication in those situations.


----------



## gaz (20 Nov 2013)

Some more at vauxhall bridge this morning. A shame they don't pick me out, it would be amusing having them tell me I'm not visible enough with my bright ass lights shining in their faces.


----------



## Davidsw8 (20 Nov 2013)

gaz said:


> Some more at vauxhall bridge this morning. A shame they don't pick me out, it would be amusing having them tell me I'm not visible enough with my bright ass lights shining in their faces.



We must kinda pass each other Gaz, I cycle from Vauxhall up Albert Embankment and over Lambeth Bridge of a morning :-)


----------



## ianrauk (20 Nov 2013)

gaz said:


> Some more at vauxhall bridge this morning. A shame they don't pick me out, it would be amusing having them tell me I'm not visible enough with my bright ass lights shining in their faces.




2 flashing Hope Vision 1's didn't stop a copper telling me that because I was wearing black drivers would find it hard to see me.


----------



## MichaelO (20 Nov 2013)

ianrauk said:


> 2 flashing Hope Vision 1's didn't stop a copper telling me that because I was wearing black drivers would find it hard to see me.


I quite often fail to see black cars at night...


----------



## gaz (20 Nov 2013)

ianrauk said:


> 2 flashing Hope Vision 1's didn't stop a copper telling me that because I was wearing black drivers would find it hard to see me.


I also wear all black, so kind of hoping I get picked out because of that.


----------



## PK99 (20 Nov 2013)

2779651 said:


> Shoulder check for one's own safety but indicate? What does anyone imagine a cyclist is going to do when coming up behind a stopped bus, run into it?



Stop behind it and wait for it to move off?

Cyclecraft:


> By definition, all movements involve a change in your position on the road, and often a change relative to the position of following vehicles in a way that might not be easily predicted. Clear signalling of movements is therefore important in order to inform others and enhance your own safety.



If cyclists want to complain about motorists not signalling then they themselves should follow this basic guidance.


----------



## spen666 (20 Nov 2013)

Only issue on my cycle to work today in London was that at one point the cycle superhighway was obstructed by a parked vehicle (on a red route incidentally), causing cyclists to pull out into the 2 lanes of traffic alongside the cycle super highway.

A police officer was stood nearby as part of the increased safety campaign watching this. He took no action on this vehicle causing the obstruction







Probably because it was his vehicle causing the obstruction and danger!!


----------



## PK99 (20 Nov 2013)

2779691 said:


> 1TMN2TMN?



eh?


----------



## Glow worm (20 Nov 2013)

PK99 said:


> eh?



See post #88


----------



## PK99 (20 Nov 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> I know what you mean, it can be a quite distracting when anyone, cyclists included, hasn't indicated their intention. However, there are situations that I sometimes feel I can't arm-indicate when cycling because of the amount of traffic and the road surface (seriously). I hope that a shoulder check and my position on the road is enough of an indication in those situations.



Granted, I know just what you mean eg around road works, in busy traffic: two hands needed to steer the bike, none available to signal. In that case, I agree shoulder checking and early predictable movements are preferable.

Cyclecraft caveats its guidance on signalling with:


> "yadda yadda...without putting your self at risk"


----------



## Frood42 (20 Nov 2013)

RedRider said:


> A cop on a motorbike stopped a lad wearing headphones on Kennington Rd this avvy, not rush hour.


 
Do we know why?
What legal reason did he do this for?


----------



## Frood42 (20 Nov 2013)

glenn forger said:


> > One cyclist, Harriet Lamb, told us in an email of her experience of being stopped by police as she rode across Vauxhall Bridge, with an officer telling her: “Hi, we’re stopping all cyclists in light of the recent cyclist fatalities, to make sure that you’re making yourselves as safe as possible. Obviously it’s great that you have lights on and are wearing a helmet, but have you considered wearing a hi-viz jacket?”
> > She replied: “No, I’ve got really bright lights, reflective material on my coat and my bike, and I position myself in the road so that I can be seen.”
> > The officer then said: “I just think that if a driver wasn’t wearing their glasses then they might not be able to see you.”
> > Harriett asked him: “Do you not think that a driver driving around half-blind is more the problem?”
> > “Well, we’re just here to talk to cyclists,” continued the officer.


 
 about the officer
.


----------



## glenn forger (20 Nov 2013)

My bike:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/99498418@N05/10962158125/in/photostream 

if a copper stopped me and asked if I'd considered hi vis I'd call him a silly billy.


----------



## 400bhp (20 Nov 2013)

MichaelO said:


> I quite often fail to see black cars at night...


I see the lights, I just don't see the car between them


----------



## 400bhp (20 Nov 2013)

glenn forger said:


> My bike:
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/99498418@N05/10962158125/in/photostream
> 
> if a copper stopped me and asked if I'd considered hi vis I'd call him a silly billy.


Why do you have shifters at the end of your bars??


----------



## glenn forger (20 Nov 2013)

Because that's how the bike's constructed.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (20 Nov 2013)

400bhp said:


> Why do you have shifters at the end of your bars??


Because the added length means you can scratch your itchy knee with them.

I like bar end shifters, particularly using the friction setting.


----------



## glenn forger (20 Nov 2013)

Some people prefer brifters. Bed-wetting shoplifting mouth-breathers, mostly.


----------



## EthelF (20 Nov 2013)

One advantage of the current crackdown is that cars & motorbikes are actually respecting ASLs (so apparently they do know what they are after all). OK, only the particular ASLs being watched by a copper/PCSO at the time (eg Chelsea Bridge north end this morning, PCSO watching one ASL, the other 3 ASLs at the junction all had scooters in them), but at least we now know what it takes to achieve ASL compliance: 4 coppers per junction...


----------



## Dmcd33 (20 Nov 2013)

PK99 said:


> Stop behind it and wait for it to move off?
> 
> Cyclecraft:
> 
> ...


 


PK99 said:


> Cyclists too! Interesting to observe in the many CommuterCam videos on you tube how many cyclists (incidental to the point of the footage) fail to indicate or shoulder check when pulling out past stopped traffic or changing lanes


 
Shoulder checking and indicating do make cars aware of your intentions and I believe make you safer. But having driven for some years in London also. Indicators are becoming an optional extra as I said in an earlier post. The law is the law and none of us have the moral authority to ignore or change it for our own purpose. Drivers, cyclists and pedestrians.


----------



## RedRider (20 Nov 2013)

Frood42 said:


> Do we know why?
> What legal reason did he do this for?


 No idea, I noticed the lad had headphones on but didn't hear the conversation so don't know whether this was why he was stopped. As you imply, there's no legal problem wearing headphones.
Seemed part of the drive to 'educate' cyclists that's been going on this week. Feeling pretty pissed off about it myself.


----------



## glenn forger (20 Nov 2013)

100 cyclists stopped and lectured about stupid plastic hats.

20 lorry drivers stopped and fifteen were breaking the law-one had been driving for ten hours straight, and was trundling around the capital in a twenty ton lorry.

Where should the cops devote resources?


----------



## Davidsw8 (20 Nov 2013)

glenn forger said:


> 100 cyclists stopped and lectured about stupid plastic hats.
> 
> 20 lorry drivers stopped and fifteen were breaking the law-one had been driving for ten hours straight, and was trundling around the capital in a twenty ton lorry.
> 
> Where should the cops devote resources?



People like this:

http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/tales-from-todays-commute.105055/post-2780234


----------



## glenn forger (20 Nov 2013)

Why? Unlit cyclists killed nobody in the last year, lorries are responsible for half of all cyclists deaths. It's about making the roads safer, right?


----------



## Davidsw8 (20 Nov 2013)

glenn forger said:


> Why? Unlit cyclists killed nobody in the last year, lorries are responsible for half of all cyclists deaths. It's about making the roads safer, right?



It's totally about making the roads safer but I don't believe that the police should solely concentrate on those behaviours that have directly led to someone dying. 

I have made the assumption that you read the whole post and not just highlighted the 'unlit' bicycle aspect. Cycling at night with no lights and wearing dark clothes is not just suicidal, it's against the law and of course the police should do something about that, the same as they should do something about any other law that's been breached. However, this incident isn't just about the 'I couldn't see him until I was a few feet away' aspect, it's also about the fact he was also jeopardising the safety of a child. To be honest, if I was a policeman and I'd caught him doing that, I'd be ringing Social Services.


----------



## glenn forger (20 Nov 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> Cycling at night with no lights and wearing dark clothes is not just suicidal,.



Then how come such behaviour is implicated in just 2% of accidents? Early cyclists didn't have lights-it was up to drivers to watch the road and anticipate them, now we're in an arms race of mega-watt lights and cyclists dressed up as if they're driving a frigging bulldozer.


----------



## Davidsw8 (20 Nov 2013)

glenn forger said:


> Then how come such behaviour is implicated in just 2% of accidents? Early cyclists didn't have lights-it was up to drivers to watch the road and anticipate them, now we're in an arms race of mega-watt lights and cyclists dressed up as if they're driving a frigging bulldozer.



Let's none of us wear lights and dress like ninja's and sod the law then.

I don't get this attitude, sorry.

Early drivers were fewer in number and had fewer cyclists to deal with, the world has changed and in London the amount of people on the roads has exploded.


----------



## Davidsw8 (20 Nov 2013)

And it's clear you've chosen to focus JUST on the no lights aspect of the post, interesting...


----------



## glenn forger (20 Nov 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> Let's none of us wear lights and dress like ninja's and sod the law then.



That's what I said, yes.


----------



## Twelve Spokes (20 Nov 2013)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/six-cyclists-dead-two-weeks-2810647

Sorry if this has already been posted here.

http://metronews.ca/voices/urban-co...with-a-death-wish-can-become-a-hood-ornament/

Also.


----------



## lukesdad (20 Nov 2013)

theclaud said:


> I think you'll find it's impossibly stylish at any hour.


Bollox ! It just makes fat commuters look thin.


----------



## ianrauk (20 Nov 2013)

lukesdad said:


> Bollox ! It just makes fat commuters look thin.




You say that as if it's a bad thing


----------



## lukesdad (20 Nov 2013)

ianrauk said:


> You say that as if it's a bad thing


I'm not prepared to elaborate .


----------



## Frood42 (20 Nov 2013)

2780199 said:


> He is allowed to talk to people.



 yes, yes he is...


----------



## Sittingduck (20 Nov 2013)

lukesdad said:


> Bollox ! It just makes fat commuters look thin.



If only...


----------



## Dan B (20 Nov 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> in London the amount of people on the roads has exploded.


sounds messy


----------



## Frood42 (20 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2780583, member: 1314"]Stopped at reds today, bottom of Kennington waiting to turn right towards the Oval at THAT infamous junction. Cyclist next to me started talking to the police officer by the lights.

Cyclist was friendly and charming: "Why you here?"

PO looked as though forced to be there but replied in very badly faked bonhomie: "2 pedestrians and 4 cyclists have died in the last 2 weeks so we're here advising cyclists to be safe and to be seen."

It's tokenistic window dressing now.[/quote]

Did you ask if they were handing out hi viz tabards to people on foot? 
.


----------



## Frood42 (21 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2780814, member: 1314"]I don't talk on my commute, now. I'm too cool.[/quote]

innit blud 

I know wheres my towels is at and tings 

Was that right..?


----------



## stowie (21 Nov 2013)

Frood42 said:


> Did you ask if they were handing out hi viz tabards to people on foot?
> .



The other day, I saw a group of school children on a school outing walking along the pavement all with high viz on. It somehow depressed me hugely. If high viz is needed for drivers to see 30 school children noisily making their way to a museum then I think we all need to have a bit of think about what the hell we have done with our streets.


----------



## stowie (21 Nov 2013)

BTW - have they been doing a speed trap Eastbound on Bow flyover? I went over there the other day and there were a couple of policeman with a speed gun. The driver in front of me got pulled and no question why - he had caned it over the crest of the flyover at way above 30mph. The next driver started to overtake me, saw the camera and backed off but it is downhill and I was probably doing around 25-30 mph so he found himself not able to fully overtake without probably getting nicked. I could almost feel his tension between MGIF and mustn't get a fine.


----------



## Twelve Spokes (21 Nov 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> Let's none of us wear lights and dress like ninja's and sod the law then.
> 
> I don't get this attitude, sorry.
> 
> Early drivers were fewer in number and had fewer cyclists to deal with, the world has changed and in London the amount of people on the roads has exploded.



Was beemer man invented then?



stowie said:


> The other day, I saw a group of school children on a school outing walking along the pavement all with high viz on. It somehow depressed me hugely. If high viz is needed for drivers to see 30 school children noisily making their way to a museum then I think we all need to have a bit of think about what the hell we have done with our streets.



I think another reason for that is it's easier for the teachers to keep tabs on the children.


----------



## Frood42 (21 Nov 2013)

stowie said:


> The other day, I saw a group of school children on a school outing walking along the pavement all with high viz on. It somehow depressed me hugely. If high viz is needed for drivers to see 30 school children noisily making their way to a museum then I think we all need to have a bit of think about what the hell we have done with our streets.


 
Yes, I have seen these school trains near work, "H&S gone mad I tell you", but then think about those mothers who take the children 5mins into school in a 4x4 and is it any surprise.. no to me.

Although outside my work there is a rather unhelpful crossing they have to use, its dangerous to adults let alone kids, so its no wonder really, but I do find the need to have to put kids in hi viz tabards really very silly.

.


----------



## Frood42 (21 Nov 2013)

stowie said:


> BTW - have they been doing a speed trap Eastbound on Bow flyover? I went over there the other day and there were a couple of policeman with a speed gun. The driver in front of me got pulled and no question why - he had caned it over the crest of the flyover at way above 30mph. The next driver started to overtake me, saw the camera and backed off but it is downhill and I was probably doing around 25-30 mph so he found himself not able to fully overtake without probably getting nicked. I could almost feel his tension between MGIF and mustn't get a fine.


 
At odd times I have seen coppers West to East with a speed gun at the bottom of the hill (in the centre reservation area), normally on there own.

On the hybrid I cannot top 30mph down that hill, yet, normally I get to about 25mph and freewheel looking to see what the lights are doing on the left and what the traffic is doing as I come down and they look to join the road... or at least should look...

If I do come down the flyover I make sure not to go in the bike lane entrance, but instead use one of the gaps further along, much safer.

I am not convinced they made any provision for the fact that most bikes use the flyover rather than the roundabout though.
.


----------



## martint235 (21 Nov 2013)

I don't see what the issue is with being asked if you've considered hi-viz. I haven't worn a hi viz tabard for years however in light of recent incidents SWMBO has asked if I'd wear it again on the principle of "What harm can it do?". Yes my bike is lit up like a Xmas tree, yes I'm hard to miss at the best of times but something that doesn't inconvenience me, isn't uncomfortable to wear and keeps someone I love happy, what's not to like?


----------



## Chris-H (21 Nov 2013)

I can't see the problem, some people here are saying the Police are wrong for stopping cyclists and offering advice and some are saying the Police are at least trying to do something. whilst I agree that motorists need to be punished harder than they currently are for the likes of mobile use while driving etc the facts are there will ALWAYS be moronic drivers who have absolutely no regard for any other road users. All the time these twats are on the road, which unfortunately will never cease then surely we need to at least reduce the chances of being a victim of these idiots by making ourselves more visible. How on earth anyone can say that being offered advice by the Police in relation to making ourselves more visible to these idiots is wrong is beyond me. Yes a lot of us on here know how to ride sensibly in traffic and at night or in the hours of darkness but what about the less experienced cyclists out there, the ones who have maybe been sucked in by the Olympic legacy and decided to go and buy a bike and give it a go, those without the years of experience and knowledge that a lot on here have. If my teenage kids got stopped by the police and offered free safety advise about protecting themselves further I would be extremely greatful. I'm not the biggest fan of the Police but for Gods sake at least give them credit for trying !!!!


----------



## Davidsw8 (21 Nov 2013)

stowie said:


> The other day, I saw a group of school children on a school outing walking along the pavement all with high viz on. It somehow depressed me hugely. If high viz is needed for drivers to see 30 school children noisily making their way to a museum then I think we all need to have a bit of think about what the hell we have done with our streets.



I think it's also for the teacher (or whoever's in charge) to be able to keep an eye on the children should they start wandering off or if they have to walk through large crowds of people, sounds sensible to me.


----------



## PK99 (21 Nov 2013)

stowie said:


> The other day, I saw a group of school children on a school outing walking along the pavement all with high viz on. It somehow depressed me hugely. If high viz is needed for drivers to see 30 school children noisily making their way to a museum then I think we all need to have a bit of think about what the hell we have done with our streets.



Don't confuse 'elf'n'safety over-reactions with need


----------



## PK99 (21 Nov 2013)

martint235 said:


> I don't see what the issue is with being asked if you've considered hi-viz. I haven't worn a hi viz tabard for years however in light of recent incidents SWMBO has asked if I'd wear it again on the principle of "What harm can it do?". Yes my bike is lit up like a Xmas tree, yes I'm hard to miss at the best of times but something that doesn't inconvenience me, isn't uncomfortable to wear and keeps someone I love happy, what's not to like?



There is a difference between "High-Viz" and highly visible.

I opt for the highly visible eg http://www.foska.com/marmite-toastie-lite-en.html, or the light blue and red of my club colours.


----------



## Davidsw8 (21 Nov 2013)

I'm starting to come round to the way of thinking that the Police are wasting their time and it's all just a publicity stunt.

Cycled past the Houses of Parliament this morning to see 2 signs asking cyclists to stop for some HGV awareness training and to get their bike security tagged. The security thing is fine but they do that every now and again anyway and it only takes 2 PC's. They had a dozen PC's here (and a couple of TV cameras coincidentally...) plus a HGV, presumably for cyclists to have a sit in to see how hard it is to see anything out of.

Any cyclist who thinks it's a good idea to ride up the inside of a HGV on a corner won't be stopping to chat the police, I'm assuming that the ones who did stop were having a general chat about cycle safety.

All the while this is going on, there's chaos just up the road on the south side of Lambeth Bridge with all the traffic getting ultra-aggressive, trundling through red lights etc...


----------



## Frood42 (21 Nov 2013)

Chris-H said:


> I can't see the problem, some people here are saying the Police are wrong for stopping cyclists and offering advice and some are saying the Police are at least trying to do something.


 
I disagree, setup roadside signs and stopping areas, go to peoples work places, go to schools, if people want to stop voluntarily for that safety advice about hi viz and helmets that are NOT A LEGAL REQUIREMENT then great.

It is a LEGAL REQUIREMENT not to speed and to drive/ride safely around more vunerable people even if they are going at a "turtles pace".

I don't want to be stopped and told I should be wearing a space yellow vest when I have perfectly legal lights, and contrasting clothes, and especially where it is the police forces and the governments failure in other areas which means they are moving to victim blaming rather than tackling the root cause, as it is easier to do this and because they are too cowardly to do anything else.
When the police are stopping the victims when they are lit up legally just because they are not wearing a stupid coloured piece of cloth because of drivers they have failed to get off the road, then yes, I am going to get annoyed, hell I am going to get rightly outraged!

Take those police officers that do not really want to be stood there in the cold and get them to black spot areas with ANPR and speed cameras, get them stood at ASL's giving out FPN's to cars and bikes, get them giving out FPN's to RLJ's on bikes and in cars.
Start clearing up the ASL problems and less cyclists will start feeling the need to "get a head start" on traffic, as they will start to feel like they have a safe zone to use where cars will see them. Personally I am in two minds about ASL's, I am not sure I want a twonk in a black BMW sat behind me revving his engine...

It was quite telling that 15 lorries were issued with FPN's and fines, and yet all they got hit with was fines totalling £2300, and this is for large heavy vehicles, transporting all sorts of cargo, which can be a danger to cars and buses, let alone pedestrians and cyclists, in a heavily used URBAN AREA.

I also look at that headline about 100 cyclists being "pulled over" and it concerns me, especially when they are handing out the sort of advice I read about which seems ignorant, incorrect and 10 years out of date. It seems the officers themselves could have done with being educated before they tried to start educating others...

I wonder how many of these 100 cyclists that were pulled over and given this "advice" had comitted any offence beyond not wearing a piece of clothing that is NOT A LEGAL REQUIREMENT.
I wonder how many motor vehicle drivers saw JUST the headline of 100 cyclists being pulled over and thought, deserves "em right" when those people had not comitted any offences?

I just don't get it. I really don't.

This quote is very telling as to the "quality" of advice being given out:



> One cyclist, Harriet Lamb, told us in an email of her experience of being stopped by police as she rode across Vauxhall Bridge, with an officer telling her: “Hi, we’re stopping all cyclists in light of the recent cyclist fatalities, to make sure that you’re making yourselves as safe as possible. Obviously it’s great that you have lights on and are wearing a helmet, but have you considered wearing a hi-viz jacket?”
> She replied: “No, I’ve got really bright lights, reflective material on my coat and my bike, and I position myself in the road so that I can be seen.”
> The officer then said: “I just think that if a driver wasn’t wearing their glasses then they might not be able to see you.”
> Harriett asked him: “Do you not think that a driver driving around half-blind is more the problem?”
> ...


 

Sorry, Boris and others, but you are a joke if you think this is how to tackle the issue.
.


----------



## Davidsw8 (21 Nov 2013)

2781203 said:


> As someone who frequently tries to point out to people that the issue is not not riding up the inside of an HGV under any circumstance, it is knowing when it is OK and when not to, I can say that you are wrong. Why would anyone want to pass up the opportunity, provided they had the time?
> So I have done it and guess what? I could see the copper wheeling my bike up the side of the lorry perfectly well.


 
Adrian, how unlike you to disagree!  

I don't believe I said anything about riding up the inside of a HGV under any circumstance, I was talking about riding up the inside of a HGV on a corner. If you wanna do that, then good on you fella, rather you than me.


----------



## MichaelO (21 Nov 2013)

The police have run the lorry thing near to my office (near Victoria) about once every couple of months through the last year, so it's certainly not new. I was surprised, having sat in the truck, that the visibility of a cyclist on the inside was better than I expected!!


----------



## Pale Rider (21 Nov 2013)

I am surprised at the number of posters who think a couple of decent lights is a licence to wear dark clothing.

Contrasting, light or reflective clothing is an enormous help to a driver in picking out a cyclist, particularly from the front or 'in the mirror'.


----------



## Davidsw8 (21 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2781267, member: 1314"]Couple of bored and cold coppers at crossroad of Kennington Lane and Kennington Road. Traffic jam as the traffic, well, just refused to obey the lights and had to stop in the middle of the junction, bikes having to semi-circumnavigate them.[/quote]

Yes! Just by the Dog House pub? I passed them this morning about 7.30. I saw them just after coming out of White Hart Street and having to avoid a ped strolling across the road not paying any attention to me or any of the backed up traffic cos he was on his phone.

The PC's didn't seem to be interested in anything going on particularly but the other day one of them was having a word with a few RLJ'ers and ASZ encroachers. I know a kid died at this junction not that long ago so maybe it's been identified as a hot spot but I think there are much better places for them to station themselves...


----------



## glasgowcyclist (21 Nov 2013)

Pale Rider said:


> I am surprised at the number of posters who think a couple of decent lights is a licence to wear dark clothing.
> 
> Contrasting, light or reflective clothing is an enormous help to a driver in picking out a cyclist, particularly from the front or 'in the mirror'.


 

My bike has excellent German lighting (with good backups) and is well decked out in reflective material, as are my panniers. My clothing is generally dark with very little in the way of reflective material, as it really doesn't need it.
If a driver can't see my bike with all this on it, it won't matter a damn what colour clothing I'm wearing.






GC


----------



## Pale Rider (21 Nov 2013)

glasgowcyclist said:


> My bike has excellent German lighting (with good backups) and is well decked out in reflective material, as are my panniers. My clothing is generally dark with very little in the way of reflective material, as it really doesn't need it.
> If a driver can't see my bike with all this on it, it won't matter a damn what colour clothing I'm wearing.
> 
> View attachment 32875
> ...



It may matter because the clothing can give you a distinctive silhouette in the eye of the driver, as opposed to being a collection of lights among many.

The reflective material on your bike must help, although I wonder how much is visible from the front, ie, when the driver is pulling out of a side junction in front of you.


----------



## glenn forger (21 Nov 2013)

The urban realm is a maelstrom of hi vis, yellow signs, bollards, lit shop fronts, street lights etc. Black can actually stand out better, assuming the bike is lit like Glasgow cyclist's.


----------



## Dan B (21 Nov 2013)

2781275 said:


> Clothes licence?


I used to have an artistic licence, but I forgot to renew it and it expired


----------



## glenn forger (21 Nov 2013)

I paint monochrome, the artistic licence is cheaper.


----------



## spen666 (21 Nov 2013)

MichaelO said:


> The police have run the lorry thing near to my office (near Victoria) about once every couple of months through the last year, so it's certainly not new. I was surprised, having sat in the truck, that *the visibility of a cyclist on the inside was better than I expected*!


[pedant]visibilty of cyclists OUTSIDE the truck that is the issue![/pedant]


----------



## glenn forger (21 Nov 2013)

Johnny Law stopping cyclists on Chelsea Bridge. One rider pointed out the HGV in the ASL.

_"Ah"_

said the copper.

_"There's no picture of a bike in the ASL so they're allowed to do that!"_


----------



## Frood42 (21 Nov 2013)

spen666 said:


> [pedant]visibilty of cyclists OUTSIDE the truck that is the issue![/pedant]


 

Not a very good pedant... perhaps a smiley might have helped, like this one 

I believe he was referring to the visibiltiy of cyclists coming up the inside of the truck or up the left side or even up the nearside, which even I could pick from that sentence you quoted...

Just for you http://www.drivingtesttips.biz/nearside-offside.html 
.


----------



## spen666 (21 Nov 2013)

Frood42 said:


> Not a very good pedant... perhaps a smiley might have helped, like this one
> 
> I believe he was referring to the visibiltiy of cyclists coming up the inside of the truck or up the left side or even up the nearside, which even I could pick from that sentence you quoted...
> 
> ...




Can't do smiley's on my work Pc - seem to be blocked - probably because we use internet explorer caveman version


I WAS aware of what he meant


----------



## glasgowcyclist (21 Nov 2013)

Pale Rider said:


> It may matter because the clothing can give you a distinctive silhouette in the eye of the driver, as opposed to being a collection of lights among many.


 
It might.

I rely on good observation/anticipation, making eye contact with emerging drivers where possible, and always having a plan B. In my nightly commutes home, the amount of light pollution from motorvehicles all around me (in 30mph, built-up areas, so unnecessary) is so great that my silhouette is non-existent. Plus, I prefer _not_ to be obviously a cyclist from the front, my light setup makes me look more like a small motorcycle until I'm too close. I like that because, in my experience, the earlier an emerging driver identifies me as a cyclist, the more likely he is to SMIDGAF me.



> The reflective material on your bike must help, although I wonder how much is visible from the front, ie, when the driver is pulling out of a side junction in front of you.


 
Well, by its nature it only reflects in the eyes of the people viewing it from more or less the source of light hitting it, so it's not designed to be of most benefit in that scenario; that's why I have good quality, and properly aligned, front lighting. I am told, though, that the spoke reflectors are quite eye-catching even from the rear.



GC
PS Weren't you on Channel 5 the other night?


----------



## Frood42 (21 Nov 2013)

glenn forger said:


> Johnny Law stopping cyclists on Chelsea Bridge. One rider pointed out the HGV in the ASL.
> 
> _"Ah"_
> 
> ...


 

Hmmm, interesting one
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...le/223667/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-05.pdf
Page 100 (text) and 101 (diagram)

The diagrams have bikes in them, but the text makes no mention of them...
There is no mention that diagram 1057 (bike symbol) must be used in the resevoir area within the ASL design text... but it is mentioned in other areas when talking about cycle lane design, this would suggest (to me) that they are not a mandatory part of the ASL design, which would mean the officer was incorrect and the HGV was breaking the law by crossing the first white line on a red light (as I bolded below).

However this is my interpretation of what is written as an armchair engineer and not a real one!

I wonder if there are any road engineers or other sorts of engineers on here who would know better?


MARKINGS
ADVANCED STOP LINES FOR CYCLISTS
.
16.20 Figure 16-7 shows typical layouts for an advanced stop line (diagram 1001.2) forming a reservoir space for cyclists at signalled junctions.They may not be used at level crossings or standalonesignal-controlled crossings (for pedestrians, cyclists or equestrians).
.
*16.21 Vehicles other than cycles must stop at the first line when signalled to do so. An advisory or mandatory cycle lane, preferably 1.5m wide, must be provided to enable cyclists to enter the reservoir lawfully, i.e. without crossing the first stop line.* The two Stop lines must be between 4 and 5 m apart; the area between them across the full width of the approach is available for cyclists to wait at the red light. This area and the approach lane may be highlighted using coloured surfacing (see also para 16.12). The Stop lines should be 200 mm or 300 mmwide (see para 3.7) and the boundary line should be the same width as the centre line of the road (this may be omitted where it is adjacent to a kerb).
.
16.22 Where there is a significant left turn flow ofmotor vehicles, but cyclists travel straight ahead, theapproach cycle lane may be positioned centrally (seefigure 16-7). The lane will be advisory, as it can thenbe indicated using markings to diagram 1057 and1004 or 1004.1 without the need for an upright sign.
.
16.12 Cycle lanes and cycle reservoirs (seeparas16.20 to 16.22) may be surfaced in coloured material in order to demarcate them more emphatically and to discourage encroachment by motor vehicles. However, coloured surfacing has no legal significance; it is the prescribed traffic signs and road markings that establish the legal status of a cycle lane.
.


----------



## glenn forger (21 Nov 2013)

It's complete bullshit, in other words.


----------



## TheJDog (21 Nov 2013)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I rely on good observation/anticipation, making eye contact with emerging drivers where possible,



"Eye contact" is just false hope. You might believe that they have looked you right in the eyes, and seen you, but I don't believe it. They could be looking anywhere, and it might appear that they are gazing longingly into your baby blues.

My mate got stopped this morning, and the policeman told him it was illegal to cycle without a helmet. B****cks he said, and rode off.


----------



## TheJDog (21 Nov 2013)

2781559 said:


> Where did this occur?



not sure, somewhere in west London, though that is a pretty big area.


----------



## Pale Rider (21 Nov 2013)

glasgowcyclist said:


> PS Weren't you on Channel 5 the other night?



Yes.

I find my white horse useful in preventing SMIDSYs.

That, and the last person who tried it won't see his next birthday, so I think my reputation also helps keep the trail clear.


----------



## Chris-H (21 Nov 2013)

Frood42 said:


> I disagree, setup roadside signs and stopping areas, go to peoples work places, go to schools, if people want to stop voluntarily for that safety advice about hi viz and helmets that are NOT A LEGAL REQUIREMENT then great.
> 
> It is a LEGAL REQUIREMENT not to speed and to drive/ride safely around more vunerable people even if they are going at a "turtles pace".
> 
> ...


Yeah ok


----------



## glasgowcyclist (21 Nov 2013)

TheJDog said:


> "Eye contact" is just false hope.


 
'Tis but one small element in my approach to urban commuting and has served me fairly well. Remember, I also have a Plan B.

GC


----------



## martint235 (21 Nov 2013)

Frood42 said:


> I disagree, setup roadside signs and stopping areas, go to peoples work places, go to schools, if people want to stop voluntarily for that safety advice about hi viz and helmets that are NOT A LEGAL REQUIREMENT then great.
> 
> It is a LEGAL REQUIREMENT not to speed and to drive/ride safely around more vunerable people even if they are going at a "turtles pace".
> 
> ...


 I can sort out all the ASL problems really quickly. Paint 'em black and stick a solid white line at the front. They are a waste of space, they allow cyclists who don't know better to put themselves in dodgy positions (come on, I can't be the only one to notice that an ASL is almost exactly the same size and shape as the blind spot of an HGV).. Then when we've got rid of them, let's start work on educating EVERYONE that there are rules to be followed on the road and that respect should be given to all road users.

Right I'm off to sort world peace next. Back in a bit.


----------



## Twelve Spokes (21 Nov 2013)

No sign of the cops on the rounderbout at 6am,bloody lightweights.


----------



## Frood42 (21 Nov 2013)

martint235 said:


> I can sort out all the ASL problems really quickly. Paint 'em black and stick a solid white line at the front. They are a waste of space, they allow cyclists who don't know better to put themselves in dodgy positions (come on, I can't be the only one to notice that an ASL is almost exactly the same size and shape as the blind spot of an HGV).. Then when we've got rid of them, let's start work on educating EVERYONE that there are rules to be followed on the road and that respect should be given to all road users.
> 
> Right I'm off to sort world peace next. Back in a bit.


 
I don't disagree with you on that, I have seen a few people filter to an ASL, which they then find has a vehicle in it, so then sit ahead of the second stop line.
I prefer to sit in primary in the traffic flow unless I know that the ASL is clear and it is to my advantage to use it.

With the feeder lanes on the left they are inviting less experienced people to go up the nearside of trucks and buses (hence the invention of "cyclists stay back" signs on buses).

However there are those who are not confident enough or do not want to ride like a vehicle and so we need to find alternatives, as they have every right to use the road as well.

Good luck with sorting world peace, not sure you are off to the best start 
.


----------



## Markymark (21 Nov 2013)

Twelve Spokes said:


> No sign of the cops on the rounderbout at 6am,bloody lightweights.


You probably didn't seem them waving their arms for you to stop as they didn't have any lights on!!


----------



## Twelve Spokes (21 Nov 2013)

0-markymark-0 said:


> You probably didn't seem them waving their arms for you to stop as they didn't have any lights on!!



good point,dude.


----------



## Dmcd33 (21 Nov 2013)

Frood42 said:


> I don't disagree with you on that, I have seen a few people filter to an ASL, which they then find has a vehicle in it, so then sit ahead of the second stop line.
> I prefer to sit in primary in the traffic flow unless I know that the ASL is clear and it is to my advantage to use it.
> 
> With the feeder lanes on the left they are inviting less experienced people to go up the nearside of trucks and buses (hence the invention of "cyclists stay back" signs on buses).
> ...


I was beeped twice by two different drivers in the last week for taking a primary position in a lane after stopping in an ASL for a couple of seconds and navigating around a parked truck. Guess what? Met them both at the next set of lights about 20 seconds later!


----------



## Frood42 (21 Nov 2013)

Dmcd33 said:


> I was beeped twice by two different drivers in the last week for taking a primary position in a lane after stopping in an ASL for a couple of seconds and navigating around a parked truck. Guess what? Met them both at the next set of lights about 20 seconds later!


 
Yes, there is satisfaction having drivers watch you go by, especially those that have only overtaken you a few seconds earlier in an impatient manner, and in London that usually means they won't see you again as they have to get past the queue of cars they just joined as well as the lights... 
.


----------



## Davidsw8 (21 Nov 2013)

Dmcd33 said:


> I was beeped twice by two different drivers in the last week for taking a primary position in a lane after stopping in an ASL for a couple of seconds and navigating around a parked truck. Guess what? Met them both at the next set of lights about 20 seconds later!


 
Shoulda said 'You can't hurry, love!'


----------



## Twelve Spokes (21 Nov 2013)

TheJDog said:


> "Eye contact" is just false hope. You might believe that they have looked you right in the eyes, and seen you, but I don't believe it. They could be looking anywhere, and it might appear that they are gazing longingly into your baby blues.
> 
> My mate got stopped this morning, and the policeman told him it was illegal to cycle without a helmet. B****cks he said, and rode off.



Or the lights are on but nobody is at home.
© Emma Way 2013.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (21 Nov 2013)

Funny thing to occur to me, but I haven't seen any police on bikes recently. Have any been sighted on this road exercise? Because there's a fighting chance that they would know something about the law regarding cycling and will have experience of cycling in the metropolis.


----------



## stowie (21 Nov 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Funny thing to occur to me, but I haven't seen any police on bikes recently. Have any been sighted on this road exercise? Because there's a fighting chance that they would know something about the law regarding cycling and will have experience of cycling in the metropolis.



I was walking back from Walthamstow Central when I saw two police bikes unlocked and unattended on the pavement with the policemen in a cake shop picking out refreshments. Maybe there had been some cake related emergency in E17.


----------



## Frood42 (21 Nov 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Funny thing to occur to me, but I haven't seen any police on bikes recently. Have any been sighted on this road exercise? Because there's a fighting chance that they would know something about the law regarding cycling and will have experience of cycling in the metropolis.



Not the ones I have seen, I even saw 2 PCSO's going up the inside of a bus at red lights, where there was no ASZ!
This was in Barkingside during the warmer months...

I was sat further back in primary waiting in the traffic queue, as it was not a set of lights where you want to be in secondary.
I was not completely shocked by this, which says it all.

I have also seen other police cycle officers, or maybe PCSO's, in Ilford whose decision making process seemed to be similarly impaired when it came to checking the road ahead and using a road position which meant they would be seen, this time I was on foot.

I have not seen the Central London officers on bikes, probably due to going through in the earlier/later hours, when it is darker and chillier.
I have seen the ambulance cycles, they look heavy 


Hence a lot of my cynicism about these people handing out advice when they cannot even use the road properly themselves, or have little to no experience themselves when it comes to riding in rush hour, I really wish I had my camera at that time to catch those PCSO's in Barkingside though, that bus and that pedestrian barrier made a really bad squeeze space!

There is even a bus on the Google Maps street view:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/preview?hl=en#!q=barkingside&data=!1m8!1m3!1d3!2d0.080722!3d51.587745!2m2!1f2.35!2f69.13!4f75!2m7!1e1!2m2!1sdAkOTdfT3YD0Bx67fYgU5g!2e0!5m2!1sdAkOTdfT3YD0Bx67fYgU5g!2e0!4m15!2m14!1m13!1s0x47d8a6a35883bc7b:0xd5b5d24bddb86888!3m8!1m3!1d399559!2d-0.0881897!3d51.4893095!3m2!1i1920!2i965!4f13.1!4m2!3d51.588711!4d0.081188&fid=5

.


----------



## Frood42 (21 Nov 2013)

stowie said:


> I was walking back from Walthamstow Central when I saw two police bikes unlocked and unattended on the pavement with the policemen in a cake shop picking out refreshments. Maybe there had been some cake related emergency in E17.



Cake 
I suppose our stereotype for the doughnut 
.


----------



## stowie (21 Nov 2013)

Frood42 said:


> Cake
> I suppose our stereotype for the doughnut
> .



They had left the bikes unlocked on the pavement on Hoe Street, E17 and had their backs turned busy pointing to different cakes. I felt that they were being hugely - possibly naively - trusting. I had an almost overwhelming desire to run off with one of the bikes which I would have found rather amusing. Until they called in the cars. And the helicopter. And the dogs...


----------



## ianrauk (21 Nov 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Funny thing to occur to me, but I haven't seen any police on bikes recently. Have any been sighted on this road exercise? Because there's a fighting chance that they would know something about the law regarding cycling and will have experience of cycling in the metropolis.




@deptfordmarmoset suddenly realised how silly his post sounds


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (21 Nov 2013)

ianrauk said:


> @deptfordmarmoset suddenly realised how silly his post sounds


I know, I had to take off my pair of scepticles so I could do a bit of open thinking and forgot to put them back on again.


----------



## Twelve Spokes (22 Nov 2013)

Pale Rider said:


> I am surprised at the number of posters who think a couple of decent lights is a licence to wear dark clothing.
> 
> Contrasting, light or reflective clothing is an enormous help to a driver in picking out a cyclist, particularly from the front or 'in the mirror'.



Down with this common sense.


----------



## theclaud (22 Nov 2013)

Twelve Spokes said:


> Down with this common sense.


Ah - "common sense".


----------



## Frood42 (22 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2782826, member: 1314"]At the Oval, 2 coppers. And a cycling campaigner giving these out, which is now on our canteen noticeboard:

View attachment 32916
[/quote]

Thanks CoG, do you know who's organising it?
or "would you google that for me?" 

What does it say after "Mass" ? Mass ____ -In & Vigil @ TFL Headquarters.... I cannot quite make out that third letter, is it an "e"?
.


----------



## Frood42 (22 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2782826, member: 1314"]At the Oval, 2 coppers. And a cycling campaigner giving these out, which is now on our canteen noticeboard:

View attachment 32916
[/quote]


Ah found it...
https://www.facebook.com/events/568751353179586/


----------



## Trickedem (22 Nov 2013)

It's happening everywhere. Spotted in Vienna last night. No idea what heinous crime he had committed. No lights, no helmet, no hi viz


----------



## Dmcd33 (22 Nov 2013)

Lots of police about this morning on CS7 around Tooting, Balham, Clapham. Saw one of them giving advice to a van driver who pulled about half a metre into an ASL. Van driver looked out as if he had no idea (yeah right). Nice to see and I do feel safer with this presence. 
One guy tried to Jump a light at Tooting Bec, but he soon noticed the yellow jackets and held back. Good all round really!

Even as a driver I find it encouraging to see people being pulled up for there selective use of the highway code and general road use.


----------



## Davidsw8 (22 Nov 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25052674

Interesting that Bernard Hogan-Howe wouldn't consider cycling in London. The fact that he doesn't have to cos he's loaded and probably gets driven around anyway is maybe irrelevant .

In spite of that I'm kinda glad he said it though.


----------



## Markymark (22 Nov 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> Interesting that Bernard Hogan-Howe wouldn't consider cycling in London.


Then why doesnt he do his (insert bad word)ing job and get the (insert bad word)ing police to enforce the (insert bad word)ing law to make it safer for us (insert bad word)ing cyclists!!!!


----------



## Frood42 (22 Nov 2013)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Then why doesnt he do his (insert bad word)ing job and get the (insert bad word)ing police to enfore the (insert bad word)ing law to make it safer for us (insert bad word)ing cyclists!!!!


 
I just did a quick google for this person, WTF!!!!  
Does this guy have no clue, I cannot work out if he is more out of touch than "our" politicians. 

Twonk! 
I don't cycle because I cannot afford a car, or the train,or the bus...
I cycle because it's quicker, easier and gets me fitter than if I were to use my car, any money I might save from the train comes back into the economy, either from buying bike stuff  or from being able to afford to go out more often as I am not paying for an overpriced, overly expense piece of metal.

I used to take the Central Line into work, hot, crowded and full of smelly sweaty armpits. Not to mention that going home you might have to wait for three or four trains to go through the station before you could get on one... Missing that all out by taking the bike has been so much better.
On the bike I also have the choice to go on an adventure in the morning or evening and go the long way home or to work, without having to worry about how much petrol I was putting into the car, or how many miles I was clocking up in regards to insurance... The direct route home/into work is just as quick by bike as it is by bus, and all because the bus is held up by all those private cars...

Has this guy even looked at some of the bikes during the rush hour commutes?
I have seen some rather nice road bikes that are easily worth more than two or three grand... as well as bikes worth less, but they are all mixing it in together.

Again, Twonk!  


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-i-would-not-feel-safe-on-a-bike-8957639.html



> The debate over cycle safety was reignited today as Met police chief Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said he wouldn’t ride a bike in London.
> He also expressed sympathy with Londoners who were forced to cycle because they couldn’t afford to drive or take public transport.
> His comments came after six cyclists were killed in a fortnight.
> Sir Bernard told BBC London radio that “if the driver gets it wrong, the person that’s going to pay is the cyclist”.
> He added: “It seems to me that there’s a lot of traffic and personally I wouldn’t [cycle]. But some people don’t have the choice, economically it’s not easy.”


.


----------



## Ganymede (22 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2782826, member: 1314"]At the Oval, 2 coppers. And a cycling campaigner giving these out, which is now on our canteen noticeboard:

View attachment 32916
[/quote]

I would go to this but I shall be out of the country. I hope they get a good turn-out.


----------



## Davidsw8 (22 Nov 2013)

Frood42 said:


> I just did a quick google for this person, WTF!!!!
> Does this guy have no clue, I cannot work out if he is more out of touch than "our" politicians.
> 
> Twonk!
> ...



I agree. I cycle because it save me about 90 mins a day (I used to walk the 4 miles and back to work every day) and I can now go to the gym I like rather than the shoddy one near where I live.

That I save over a grand in travel costs and don't have to crush on to the tube are added bonuses.


----------



## VamP (22 Nov 2013)

Trickedem said:


> It's happening everywhere. Spotted in Vienna last night. No idea what heinous crime he had committed. No lights, no helmet, no hi viz
> View attachment 32917


 
What kind of a ninja would let themselves get taken alive by a couple of Austrian plod? Loser!


----------



## Frood42 (22 Nov 2013)

Trickedem said:


> It's happening everywhere. Spotted in Vienna last night. No idea what heinous crime he had committed. No lights, no helmet, no hi viz
> View attachment 32917


 
Well I don't know about Vienna, but here in the UK, no rear red reflector, no orange pedal reflectors, no white front light and no red rear light...
Other than that I can see him standing there having a nice chat with those officers.

Hmmm, I see the problem now, where's the Hi Viz for the officer on the right? Why is he not wearing a helmet? Where is the Hi Viz and helmet for the officer in the car? That pedestrian, oh my, they also have no Hi Viz or Helmet, quick FPN them, now!

Lets not forget to ticket the officers for blocking the flow of traffic as well! I mean look, that car is parked right in the middle of the road way, it's blocking the progress of everyone else, well I never!
.


----------



## martint235 (22 Nov 2013)

Frood42 said:


> I just did a quick google for this person, WTF!!!!
> Does this guy have no clue, I cannot work out if he is more out of touch than "our" politicians.
> 
> Twonk!
> ...


Maybe the twonk wasn't talking about you. Maybe there are people who work in London who have no choice but to cycle? Just a chance perhaps? But don't worry, feel free to carry on Police bashing. I bet you're the one who when you do get pulled for the "advice" stand there meekly not even able to engage in conversation with the police officer. Now where's that avatar photo I'm looking for for you.....


----------



## martint235 (22 Nov 2013)

2783404 said:


> Did you order the raw red meat feast pizza for lunch?


Nope chicken roll sandwiches. why?


----------



## martint235 (22 Nov 2013)

2783413 said:


> You don't normally tend towards being quite so forthright.


Yeah but keyboard warriors tend to get on my nerves at times like this. All how bad and stupid the police are but no practical ideas for a better way


----------



## Dismount (22 Nov 2013)

While the police presence is doing something to little to late for the ones who've passed away. This is a not an issue that's just arised , long know issue. Successive governments have had ample opportunity to do something, bury the head in the sands.


----------



## Frood42 (22 Nov 2013)

martint235 said:


> Maybe the twonk wasn't talking about you. Maybe there are people who work in London who have no choice but to cycle? Just a chance perhaps? But don't worry, feel free to carry on Police bashing. I bet you're the one who when you do get pulled for the "advice" stand there meekly not even able to engage in conversation with the police officer. Now where's that avatar photo I'm looking for for you.....


 
I am bashing *this officer* for making *a blanket statement* which gives the impression on face value in that article *that only poor people ride bikes*, this is clearly not true. It enforces the whole "I can afford to own a car and have right of way as I pay road tax for this car, your a freeloader" crap you get from ignorant drivers.

I am more than aware there are people who are in situations where they have to make a choice between heating the house or running a car, or choosing to ride a bike and then being able to heat the house as well. I happily grew up without double glazing and without central heating, spending nights in the front room next to a gas powered fire, I do not know if growing up we were considered to be poor, I never really thought about it like that... and I do not feel the need to say that "my parents did their best", I was happy.

I am more than aware of the unequality that is happening in London.

I have only been "pulled over" once, and that was to be asked if I wanted a free bike check and to register my bike, I kindly declined, explained my reasoning why, he wished me good day and I returned the complement.

As with all things, there are good and bad, that includes within the Police.
.


----------



## Frood42 (22 Nov 2013)

martint235 said:


> Yeah but keyboard warriors tend to get on my nerves at times like this. All how bad and stupid the police are but no practical ideas for a better way


 
Where did this keyboard warrior bash the Police?

I bashed this persons out of date and poorly informed opinion, an opinion that is his, but decided to share publicly, he represents our Police force and I am sorry if I expect more from those in such a respected public position... 

Hows that world peace plan coming along, where you take away cycle lanes, segregated lanes and ASL's?
Meaning, those who do not like vehicular cycling or mixing with fast traffic are left out..?
I do not mind riding in traffic, and taking primary, but I am hardly the majority in that.

Lets see London go Dutch, lets see People First and Traffic Second.
.


----------



## Frood42 (22 Nov 2013)

2783404 said:


> Did you order the raw red meat feast pizza for lunch?


 
No, but I did, along with a bag of keys for my Laptop so I could replace out the worn ones.
.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (22 Nov 2013)

I don't know about anybody else but my head feels a bit like it's part of a thunderstorm. I'm putting it down to it being Fractious Friday.


----------



## martint235 (22 Nov 2013)

Frood42 said:


> I am bashing *this officer* for making *a blanket statement* which gives the impression on face value in that article *that only poor people ride bikes*, this is clearly not true. It enforces the whole "I can afford to own a car and have right of way as I pay road tax for this car, your a freeloader" crap you get from ignorant drivers.
> 
> .


"He also expressed sympathy with Londoners who were forced to cycle because they couldn’t afford to drive or take public transport."

Where does that say all Londoners are so poor they have to cycle?

It appears all the way through this thread that you have an issue with how the police have behaved but you haven't come up with any sensible alternative.

I may be completely wrong about you. Can't say I care either way.

As to the ASLs I refer to my earlier point about them being almost exactly the same shape and size as the blind spot on your average truck.


----------



## Mugshot (22 Nov 2013)

martint235 said:


> Maybe the twonk wasn't talking about you. Maybe there are people who work in London who have no choice but to cycle? Just a chance perhaps? But don't worry, feel free to carry on Police bashing. I bet you're the one who when you do get pulled for the "advice" stand there meekly not even able to engage in conversation with the police officer. Now where's that avatar photo I'm looking for for you.....


Yeah.....and he fell off his bike!


----------



## Frood42 (22 Nov 2013)

Mugshot said:


> Yeah.....and he fell off his bike!



I did, yes!
And there wasn't even a motor vehicle involved. 
.

.


----------



## Frood42 (22 Nov 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> I don't know about anybody else but my head feels a bit like it's part of a thunderstorm. I'm putting it down to it being Fractious Friday.





Don't we just love Fridays!
 
.


----------



## Frood42 (22 Nov 2013)

martint235 said:


> "He also expressed sympathy with Londoners who were forced to cycle because they couldn’t afford to drive or take public transport."
> Where does that say all Londoners are so poor they have to cycle?
> It appears all the way through this thread that you have an issue with how the police have behaved but you haven't come up with any sensible alternative.
> I may be completely wrong about you. Can't say I care either way.
> As to the ASLs I refer to my earlier point about them being almost exactly the same shape and size as the blind spot on your average truck.



I assume you are referring to the feeder lanes?
Well head start traffic lights, ASL's with no feeder lanes, or trucks re-worked to have a lower position, would be my good or bad suggestions as an off the head start.

Go Dutch. I want to see London flooded with people cycling in "normal" attire, like I see in the videos about the place, I don't expect those people to have to "take the lane", especially not 5 year olds.

I want police officers that have been informed by work from scientists, cycling groups, doctors, and I want officers who ride in traffic, and have done national standards bike training, they should be out there advising cyclists.
If they were would they really be telling people to wear Hi Viz because a driver might not be wearing their glasses?

When your interaction with officers is very limited and then you read things like this, is it any wonder I come across as a keyboard warrior or as police bashing? 


> One cyclist, Harriet Lamb, told us in an email of her experience of being stopped by police as she rode across Vauxhall Bridge, with an officer telling her: “Hi, we’re stopping all cyclists in light of the recent cyclist fatalities, to make sure that you’re making yourselves as safe as possible. Obviously it’s great that you have lights on and are wearing a helmet, but have you considered wearing a hi-viz jacket?”
> She replied: “No, I’ve got really bright lights, reflective material on my coat and my bike, and I position myself in the road so that I can be seen.”
> The officer then said: “I just think that if a driver wasn’t wearing their glasses then they might not be able to see you.”
> Harriett asked him: “Do you not think that a driver driving around half-blind is more the problem?”
> ...



Or that I am unhappy that poorly informed police officers are being sent out and are giving poor advice?
It may be only one poorly informed or poorly opinionated officer, but they are police officers, and so one is enough. 
Its the same with "cyclists", we don't all jump red lights, but we are marked with that same brush, wrongly or rightly, but a poorly informed officers advice could cause much more of a problem as they are in a position of power.


Back to the person I labelled a silly name, to me what he said obviously read/suggested differently to you, and we can agree to disagree on that quote, he may not have meant it in the way he said it or in a bad way, but to me personally... well you already know what I think.



> He added: “It seems to me that there’s a lot of traffic and personally I wouldn’t [cycle]. But some people don’t have the choice, economically it’s not easy.”




As to whether you got me wrong or right, probably a bit of both, I have my flaws and I continue to learn...
Overly passionate, too literal, too black and white, take things too much to heart, too bull in a china shop, too opinionated, check and check... I know my flaws and will get there some day.

Thankfully this is only the internet   

I shall stop digging the hole and try to restrain myself from further hurting my poor keyboard   
.


----------



## stowie (22 Nov 2013)

martint235 said:


> "He also expressed sympathy with Londoners who were forced to cycle because they couldn’t afford to drive or take public transport."
> 
> Where does that say all Londoners are so poor they have to cycle?
> 
> ...



The issue is that Bernard Hogan-Howe is the chief constable of the MET, a job which is part operational and part political. He sets the tone and influences the culture of the policing. Currently that tone and culture towards cycling appears to be, at best, slightly misplaced, well intentioned focus on plastic hats and yellow jackets. At worst it is utter apathy and willful obstruction. Think I am being hyperbolic? Look at the CTC report "roadjustice" and then come back to me.


----------



## Frood42 (22 Nov 2013)

martint235 said:


> Where does that say all Londoners are so poor they have to cycle?



Where did I say that?



> I am bashing *this officer* for making *a blanket statement* which gives the impression on face value in that article *that only poor people ride bikes*


.


----------



## Frood42 (22 Nov 2013)

stowie said:


> The issue is that Bernard Hogan-Howe is the chief constable of the MET, a job which is part operational and part political. He sets the tone and influences the culture of the policing. Currently that tone and culture towards cycling appears to be, at best, slightly misplaced, well intentioned focus on plastic hats and yellow jackets. At worst it is utter apathy and willful obstruction. Think I am being hyperbolic? Look at the CTC report "roadjustice" and then come back to me.



Yes I read that, and signed the petition (a small thing I know).

http://www.roadjustice.org.uk/sites...CTC Road Justice - the role of the police.pdf

Perhaps reading that and the case studies left me somewhat biased, especially the pieces on "Quality of road collision investigations" and "Investigations procedures".
To know they have an RDIM and its not always used was not something I wanted to read...


Do you get the LCC newsletter?
10,000 people sent emails abut the CS2.
http://lcc.org.uk/articles/london-cycling-death-toll-is-utterly-intolerable
http://lcc.org.uk/articles/london-c...emand-to-upgrade-cs2-to-continental-standards

I would really like to see crossings at Bow, as it is really horrible on foot around there.
.


----------



## Rouge79 (24 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2779704, member: 1314"]Me and @clarion were cycling together towards Stockwell about a year ago, one rush-hour moring. About 50 metres in front was a parked bus. We watched as a cyclist rode into the back of it. Said cyclist then looked up in shock as though the bus had just appeared from nowhere![/quote]

I've almost done that to the back of a white van before


----------



## subaqua (24 Nov 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> They're not focussing on helmets and hi-viz, they're giving general safety advice to everyone and clamping down on traffic offences when they see them. If you choose to ignore the advice, that's entirely your choice but the intention is good.


the problem is that they are doing the " do what i say not what i do " thing. the amount of PCSOs i see cycling along riding incorrectly or wiothout lights on when they should have them on and ignoring the advice they dish out is just un beleivable.


----------



## Rouge79 (24 Nov 2013)

glasgowcyclist said:


> It might.
> 
> I rely on good observation/anticipation, making eye contact with emerging drivers where possible, and always having a plan B. In my nightly commutes home, the amount of light pollution from motorvehicles all around me (in 30mph, built-up areas, so unnecessary) is so great that my silhouette is non-existent. Plus, I prefer _not_ to be obviously a cyclist from the front, my light setup makes me look more like a small motorcycle until I'm too close. I like that because, in my experience, the earlier an emerging driver identifies me as a cyclist, the more likely he is to SMIDGAF me.
> 
> ...



I found that too. When i switched over to magic shine lights cars immediately stopped pulling out on me. They obviously thought they would come off worse


----------



## marcusjb (25 Nov 2013)

Girlfriend pulled over for the lack of helmet lecture this morning. 

Next to a sign that read out traffic speed. 

She pointed out every car that went past at above the speed limit (including a whopping 43mph) and asked what they were doing about that? Policeman had nothing to really say in response. 

Boris and co need everyone to read about how bad cyclists are this week to bring everything back towards his point of view.


----------



## MichaelO (25 Nov 2013)

I must admit, I'm quite enjoying having the police at junctions - the improvement in behaviour (of both cyclists & vehicles) at those with officers on is fantastic!! Shame it all falls apart at the next one that doesn't have coppers loitering on it


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (25 Nov 2013)

MichaelO said:


> I must admit, I'm quite enjoying having the police at junctions - the improvement in behaviour (of both cyclists & vehicles) at those with officers on is fantastic!! Shame it all falls apart at the next one that doesn't have coppers loitering on it


Though the post immediately above yours shows that the deterrence effect does not always work. ''Oh look, the cops have stopped one of those cycling menaces, I can continue driving as I normally do while they're distracted....''


----------



## thefollen (25 Nov 2013)

Lots of community support officers out in London this morn! At least two at most major junctions. Saw a couple of scooters pulled over and I'm sure they bagged a few cyclists too. I'm quite a patient, well behaved cyclist so didn't face their wrath. Was wondering though whether a bollocking would come my way as I sat at the front of a traffic queue around 2-3 feet over the white line


----------



## Frood42 (25 Nov 2013)

thefollen said:


> Was wondering though whether a bollocking would come my way as I sat at the front of a traffic queue around 2-3 feet over the white line


 


< tries really hard to say nothing, bites tongue, steps away from the keyboard, all goes very quiet >
.


----------



## stowie (25 Nov 2013)

Had a huge argument with a cabbie this morning, not particularly proud of it, but he close passed at speed. In the end he apologised for the pass and I said sorry for completely losing my rag.

Then I saw a car sideswipe two cyclists by moving into the cycle lane without looking, I had a car drift into my path rounding a corner and a van do the same later on.

I did see that the police had stopped some cyclists - one got "stopped" as he was wheeling his cycle on the pavement. Presumably to push a cycle on the pavement you now need a helmet and high viz.

And to cap it all, I saw a policeman pull over a car at Bow and direct him to park in the mandatory cycle lane just as you are coming off the roundabout east bound after the little bit marked at pavement height. So I had to cycle around the car watching out for traffic coming off the roundabout at speed.

I wish I could be something other than deeply cynical over the deployment of police by Boris. I think his comments in the last week has probably done more harm to cycling than any "ninja" cyclist ever could.


----------



## Davidsw8 (25 Nov 2013)

I didn't see a single policeman this morning, in fact I saw less! The last week, there's been 2 in by Kennington Lane/Kennington Road and they weren't there today.

A police van did pass me on Albert Embankment and I think there might have been some down at Vauxhall Cross as I saw some blue lights flashing in the distance when I looked behind. But given that my route takes me up over Lambeth Bridge and round Parliament Square up in to the West End, I'm a bit nonplussed by the invisible police really...


----------



## Frood42 (25 Nov 2013)

2787515 said:


> It looked like just motorcycles and scooters this morning.
> Friday I saw two blokes each with a dog being spoken with. The cyclist in front of me suggested it was a lack of Hi-Viz dog coats.


----------



## Davidsw8 (25 Nov 2013)

2787515 said:


> It looked like just motorcycles and scooters this morning.
> Friday I saw two blokes each with a dog being spoken with. The cyclist in front of me suggested it was a lack of Hi-Viz dog coats.



I saw 2 police on horseback last week going down the Mall, the horses had special horsey hi-viz jackets on


----------



## Davidsw8 (25 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2787593, member: 1314"]I pulled up next to a girl at Stockwell this morning. About 40 cyclists, just me and her with not helmet. I had no cap either, just dark, dense curly locks blowing gently in the slight breeze, carelessly combed by the breeze generated by the ride. Anyway...

...she had a decent looking hybrid and wore cloth plimsoles, grey thin cloth leggings and a sewtshirt with the hoodie up. Woollen gloves. Looked like someone who’d just started cycling and hadn’t got all the gear yet, or who only cycled a few miles so didn’t need all the gear. Mid-20s. Copper came over wafting some leaftlets and started talking to her.

“Not a legal requirement but we advise wearing a helmet, 6 cyclists killed...etc” He ignored me. She looked embarrassed.

As lights greened he went off and I followed lid-less girl round the corner and thought I’d say something.

“Don’t think they’re supposed to advise that” I said as I drew alongside.

“No. It was a bit silly” she said.

Saw 2 or 4 cyclists pulled over today, a couple of cars.

The North side of Blackfriars was jammed all the way to Clerkenwell. Clerkenwell / Farringdon closed off, debris on the floor, bloodied hi-vis jacket in the middle of the road, a driverless parked double-decker, loads of cops, I mean loads of them. Had a copper bark at me as I dismounted and walked across the busy Farrindgon/Smithfield junction, him ignoring the traffic clogging the crossing barring the pedestrians.

The atmosphere seemed to me to be quite frenetic, not considered, with the coppers not properly briefied.[/quote]

As the chap on the radio said this morning, no amount of hi-viz or helmet wearing is going to stop a cyclist getting crushed by 20 tons of metal and rubber.

Even though I choose to wear a helmet, until (if) it ever becomes law, it's up to the individual to choose and police time could be better spent having a go at the many other actual offences committed routinely across London by all road users.


----------



## 400bhp (25 Nov 2013)

TheJDog said:


> "Eye contact" is just false hope. You might believe that they have looked you right in the eyes, and seen you, but I don't believe it. They could be looking anywhere, and it might appear that they are gazing longingly into your baby blues.
> 
> My mate got stopped this morning, and the policeman told him it was illegal to cycle without a helmet. B****cks he said, and rode off.



I'm glad you mentioned this as I was about to type the same.

Case in point - saturday morning. Guy comes straight off the A562 Speke Road roundabout. Must have looked straight through me as he plowed straight through. Another 10ft forward and I would probably have been 10ft under.


----------



## gaz (25 Nov 2013)

Had a bus try to squeeze me this morning. He didn't appreciate me going rather slow after that in the centre of the lane as we approached a red light, so much so that he told me to "F off" Too which I replied rather similar.

We don't need police officers at junctions, we need them on the bloody roads!!!


----------



## 400bhp (25 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2787821, member: 30090"]Him: I'm a qualified driver
.[/quote]

Wow - confirming he has a driving licence


----------



## Beebo (25 Nov 2013)

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tran...-stopped-him-during-safety-blitz-8962080.html
This fella wasnt very pleased at being pulled over.
We need more parents like this, and the balance has to swing back in favour of the casual cyclist.


----------



## Davidsw8 (25 Nov 2013)

Beebo said:


> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tran...-stopped-him-during-safety-blitz-8962080.html
> This fella wasnt very please at being pulled over.
> We need more parents like this, and the balance has to swing back in favour of the casual cyclist.



Might not be doing anything illegal but I wouldn't put my kids in that and cycle round Euston, crikey... Mind you, I've seen worse.


----------



## ianrauk (25 Nov 2013)

Beebo said:


> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tran...-stopped-him-during-safety-blitz-8962080.html
> This fella wasnt very pleased at being pulled over.
> We need more parents like this, and the balance has to swing back in favour of the casual cyclist.




Quite pathetic really....
Oi copper..do something useful. See that bin by the junction? Well someone has dumped a load of cardboard next to it. Litterbugs. Go find out who.


----------



## Frood42 (25 Nov 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> Might not be doing anything illegal but I wouldn't put my kids in that and cycle round Euston, crikey... Mind you, I've seen worse.


 
"Seen worse" makes it sound like there is something wrong with doing this (don't know if you meant it that way ).

I would agree with @Beebo , in that we need more people like this out and about.

I had to laugh though, they just had to get in the obligatory driver quote about how cyclists take liberties. 


> But lorry driver, Ian Arnold, 58, from Essex, disagreed. He said: “Cyclists take liberties, they drive all over the place and come up down the side of the road, they go through red lights, everything. When the police are here they behave but usually they’re all over the place. I drive in central London so I see it all the time.”


 
I suppose they had to balance out the more sensible comment from earlier:


> Matthew Gidley, 42, who works in marketing and commutes by train from Birmingham before getting on his bike, said: “I’ve always felt safe cycling in London, but what the Mayor said about cyclists needing to be more aware sends a coded message to drivers that cyclists are in the wrong.
> “There’s the feeling that the ‘swarms of cyclists’ have somehow got out of control and now they deserve this or something. That needs to be reigned in a bit.”


 

Although the lorry drivers comments looks somewhat out of place when you then read:


> Last Monday, the Met carried out spot-checks on cyclists and HGVs in Vauxhall.
> In four hours, the officers stopped 70 lorries and issued 15 fixed penalty notices for offences such as the vehicles not being fit for the road.


.


----------



## Davidsw8 (25 Nov 2013)

Frood42 said:


> "Seen worse" makes it sound like there is something wrong with doing this (don't know if you meant it that way ).



I kinda did...

If he's confident that they're safe and the kids are fine about it then great, it just wouldn't be my first choice method for ferrying my kids to school. They do look pretty squished in there and helmet debate aside, why has one got one on (incorrectly) but the other doesn't?

I'm all for leading by example and getting more people on bikes but not like this, it's just too dangerous and so not worth it... Maybe a pretty unpopular thing to say on here but what the hey


----------



## Frood42 (25 Nov 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> I kinda did...
> 
> If he's confident that they're safe and the kids are fine about it then great, it just wouldn't be my first choice method for ferrying my kids to school. They do look pretty squished in there and helmet debate aside, why has one got one on (incorrectly) but the other doesn't?
> 
> I'm all for leading by example and getting more people on bikes but not like this, it's just too dangerous and so not worth it... Maybe a pretty unpopular thing to say on here but what the hey


 
Ok, we can agree to disagree, but I shall have to give you a thumbs down  and a shake of the head 
I would love to see 4x4's gone and more people using these on the school run and around town.
.


----------



## jowwy (25 Nov 2013)

Most of my commute cycling, well 95% at least is done on cycle paths - but there is a stretch off road that i have to use on the way home thats uphill and about 1/4mile long that can be a bit hairy. but then i wear this to wrk in the winter





and these overshoes




i also wear these 




my work colleagues thank me for making myself look so visable to other road users, along with my lights.

now if they can't see a 16.5stone cyclist wearing this gear, then maybe they shouldnt be driving


----------



## Markymark (25 Nov 2013)

jowwy said:


> now if they can't see a 16.5stone cyclist wearing this gear, then maybe they shouldnt be driving


They shouldn't be driving if they can't see you without it either.


----------



## jowwy (25 Nov 2013)

0-markymark-0 said:


> They shouldn't be driving if they can't see you without it either.


thats very true - but i did have a driver once pull out on me and try and say they never saw me - i was wearing a bright red cycling jersey, riding a red and white bike and at that stage i was 19stone


----------



## Davidsw8 (25 Nov 2013)

Like I say, I personally wouldn't choose to do this but if they're all fine about it then that's fantastic.

I think there's a scale of risk and (depending on the distance), walking or driving them to school is possibly a lower risk then this (going on the assumption that the level of parental competence in each situation is the same).

I don't have any comparative stats on how many children die for each mode of transport but I don't base my perceptions of safety on death stats...


----------



## Davidsw8 (25 Nov 2013)

Frood42 said:


> Ok, we can agree to disagree, but I shall have to give you a thumbs down  and a shake of the head
> I would love to see 4x4's gone and more people using these on the school run and around town.
> .



Completely agree re: the 4x4's, I don't see the 4x4 or that contraption as the only alternatives though.


----------



## Frood42 (25 Nov 2013)

jowwy said:


> but then i wear this to wrk in the winter
> now if they can't see a 16.5stone cyclist wearing this gear, then maybe they shouldnt be driving


 
My eyes! My eyes! Aaarrrggghhh, I cannot see! My eyes! 

Sorry fella, couldn't resist! 

If that is what you want to wear then so be it, but without or without this choice of colours, if they cannot see you, they shouldn't be driving.
If you feel these are the steps you need to take to make you comfortable on the road then that is your personal choice.

Wouldn't you rather go for something like this instead?
With the reflectives?





.


----------



## MichaelO (25 Nov 2013)

Frood42 said:


> "Seen worse" makes it sound like there is something wrong with doing this (don't know if you meant it that way ).


Whatever the legalities of it all are - I wouldn't choose to put my kids in that while cycling through rush hour London. That's not to say others shouldn't have the choice to use that sort of thing (without wrongfully being pulled up by the coppers)


----------



## stowie (25 Nov 2013)

*Let us suppose you are losing an argument. The facts are overwhelmingly against you, and the more people focus on the reality the worse it is for you and your case. Your best bet in these circumstances is to perform a manoeuvre that a great campaigner describes as “throwing a dead cat on the table, mate”.

That is because there is one thing that is absolutely certain about throwing a dead cat on the dining room table – and I don’t mean that people will be outraged, alarmed, disgusted. That is true, but irrelevant. The key point, says my Australian friend, is that everyone will shout “Jeez, mate, there’s a dead cat on the table!”; in other words they will be talking about the dead cat, the thing you want them to talk about, and they will not be talking about the issue that has been causing you so much grief.
*
Who do you suppose wrote this in an article in the Telegraph? None other than Boris (although he was defending banker bonuses).

Well, I think Boris has managed to throw a dead cat squarely on the table. Everything is about whether we should be wearing plastic hats and yellow jackets and if listening to an ipod whilst on a bicycle is just asking to be run over.

And if we now complain that none of this is the point people simply say we are defending law breaking (even though none of the above is against the law). And, by Friday, I suspect the press will be bored of the debate and the TfL cyclist protest will get minimal coverage.

Boris has won this. By basically throwing any promotion of cycling away and playing upon common prejudices against cycling. I don't care how much money he allocates for cycling or how much he cycles himself, he needed to be a calm, rational voice in the last week and chose instead to play to the gallery hoping that everyone would forget exactly where and how these accidents are occurring.

I am very, very angry.


----------



## Frood42 (25 Nov 2013)

MichaelO said:


> Whatever the legalities of it all are - I wouldn't choose to put my kids in that while cycling through rush hour London. That's not to say others shouldn't have the choice to use that sort of thing (without wrongfully being pulled up by the coppers)


 
You should though feel that you have the choice to do so, even in rush hour...
.


----------



## martint235 (25 Nov 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> I kinda did...
> 
> If he's confident that they're safe and the kids are fine about it then great, it just wouldn't be my first choice method for ferrying my kids to school. They do look pretty squished in there and helmet debate aside, why has one got one on (incorrectly) but the other doesn't?
> 
> I'm all for leading by example and getting more people on bikes but not like this, it's just too dangerous and so not worth it... Maybe a pretty unpopular thing to say on here but what the hey


 They are both wearing helmets, badly but wearing them.


----------



## jowwy (25 Nov 2013)

Frood42 said:


> My eyes! My eyes! Aaarrrggghhh, I cannot see! My eyes!
> 
> Sorry fella, couldn't resist!
> 
> ...


No


----------



## Markymark (25 Nov 2013)

But presumably there is a point where it is not safe?
The kids int his appear strapped in and both wearing helmets. Looks a little hairy but once passed that I am sure it is fine. 
There must be setups which are not safe though. I once saw a trailer behind a bike and the kid (arund 7yo) was stood up on it. If the mum had braked, he would have gone flying.


----------



## Frood42 (25 Nov 2013)

jowwy said:


> No


 
ok 

http://road.cc/content/news/95353-s...hemselves-seen-reflective-clothing-not-hi-vis

.


----------



## Davidsw8 (25 Nov 2013)

martint235 said:


> They are both wearing helmets, badly but wearing them.



Oh wow, yeh, you're right, there go my observency skills. They are REALLY badly fitted eh, bit of a waste of time and money having them at all.


----------



## MichaelO (25 Nov 2013)

Frood42 said:


> You should though feel that you have the choice to do so, even in rush hour...
> .


 I have got the choice – and I’m choosing not to


----------



## jowwy (25 Nov 2013)

Frood42 said:


> ok
> 
> http://road.cc/content/news/95353-s...hemselves-seen-reflective-clothing-not-hi-vis
> 
> .


Reason being its not totally dark when i ride, after 7.30am morning commute and just after 3pm evening commute. Lights are on the bike if needed. As i dont ride in the dark. I am in the main home by 4-30pm and the last 3miles is on a cycle path nowhere near any roads or cars


----------



## Frood42 (25 Nov 2013)

jowwy said:


> Reason being its not totally dark when i ride, after 7.30am morning commute and just after 3pm evening commute. Lights are on the bike if needed. As i dont ride in the dark. I am in the main home by 4-30pm and the last 3miles is on a cycle path nowhere near any roads or cars


 
Ah
I have one of these hump back bag covers, for the reflectives and the waterproofing, it's so very trendy and cool  






.


----------



## snailracer (25 Nov 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> Oh wow, yeh, you're right, there go my observency skills. They are REALLY badly fitted eh, *bit of a waste of time and money having them at all*.


Actually, no. They prevent your compensation being reduced for "contributory negligence".


----------



## Davidsw8 (25 Nov 2013)

snailracer said:


> Actually, no. They prevent your compensation being reduced for "contributory negligence".



Ah ok, would that work if they sat in the helmet like a potty?


----------



## jowwy (25 Nov 2013)

Frood42 said:


> Ah
> I have one of these hump back bag covers, for the reflectives and the waterproofing, it's so very trendy and cool
> 
> View attachment 33092
> ...


Would look a bit silly without a backpack to cover though, prefer a rack or better still take clothes into work by car on monday -ride tues, wed, thursday, take car friday and take work clothes home for washing and refreshing and then repeat as necessary. My commute is a 30mile round trip 1200ft climbing on way home. Not doing that 5days a week.


----------



## snailracer (25 Nov 2013)

User said:


> Care to produce any evidence of that having actually happened (and not being lost on appeal)?
> 
> There's lots of talk about 'contributory negligence' and helmets - but little evidence in England and Wales of it being an issue in reality.


Reynolds v Strutt & Parker LLP?


----------



## Buddfox (25 Nov 2013)

I have to confess to becoming increasingly irritated with how the 'increased police presence' appears to be focusing on cyclist behaviour and not on motorists breaking the law. It really is missing the point and giving the wrong impression.


----------



## Spinney (25 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2787821, member: 30090"]I had an interesting conversation with a bus driver last week....I think it personifies some driver attitudes

Was at a red light in primary, bus stopped behind me, lights go green I pull away and the bus overtakes me onto the approach of a pinchpoint, I can see it happening so move to my left and the arse end of the bus ends up being about 2 foot from my handlebars. The driver then pulls into the bus station for a rest (he was not picking up any passengers!!?? so why the rush) Conversation although not word for word goes something like this:-

Me: Can you please give me room on the appraoch to a pinchpoit please,
Him: I gave you room
Me: You did to start off with but you had to pull in early because of the traffic island and the arse end of the bus came a little bit too close to my bike.
Him: Yeah I saw you in my mirror and I take responsiblitly for you
Me: Really, you take responsiblity for me when I'm riding a bike and you're driving a vehicle with a kerb weight of 12t
Him: I'm a qualified driver
Me: And if you'd done that on your test you'd failed.
Him: Where is your high vis, helmet and lights.
Me: I don't have to wear a helmet, I don't need lights because it is daylight and what this has got to do with you overtaking me I'm not quite sure.
Him: Same as before
Me: Whatever, this has nothing to do with your overtake, watch it next time and like I say if you'd have done that on your test you would have failed.

Me thinks the law lecteuring cyclists on wearing hi vis and helmets is doing us f*** all good in the immediate and long term.[/quote]

You should send that to the depot manager/transport manager.

One email may not make a difference, but many of them might.


----------



## glenn forger (25 Nov 2013)

Maybe have a word with this Servo driver? Oh you haven't noticed because you're texting.

https://twitter.com/Iain_Houston


----------



## snailracer (25 Nov 2013)

User said:


> I would have said _Smith v Finch [2009]_ was more relevant but the comments of Martin Porter QC on the case should be noted.
> 
> It should also be noted that in Reynolds v Strut & Parker LLP, Reynolds was claiming that his employers should have made him wear a helmet and they were counterclaiming his contributory negligence in not doing so.
> 
> This is an unlikely situation to occur on the road.


Nonetheless, the argument that _not wearing a helmet = contributory negligence_ won in court and there was no appeal to "correct" it.
Martin Porter QC might well rage about it, but he doesn't influence the interpretation of the law, whereas the judge's rulings in this case do.
I would also say that, if the circumstances of the case were so unusual that it is irrelevant to anything that could likely happen "on the road", then Porter would not have felt the need to write such a lengthy criticism.


----------



## Davidsw8 (25 Nov 2013)

Cycling home tonight, going to turn left into a side road that a police van is waiting to turn left out of. Another cyclist comes in the opposite direction to take a right in front of the police down where I'm going: earphones in, dark clothes, no hi-viz, one really shoddy light on the front, no light on the back and no helmet (sorry if the helmet bit offends anyone, just setting the scene).

I'm hearing about all these cyclists getting stopped for no helmet, no hi-viz, earphones and as we've got a prime candidate for practically everything here, you might assume that the police would have flashed their lights or stopped him, or something, any little thing...

Nah!


----------



## martint235 (25 Nov 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> Cycling home tonight, going to turn left into a side road that a police van is waiting to turn left out of. Another cyclist comes in the opposite direction to take a right in front of the police down where I'm going: earphones in, dark clothes, no hi-viz, one really shoddy light on the front, no light on the back and no helmet (*sorry if the helmet bit offends anyone, just setting the scene*).
> 
> I'm hearing about all these cyclists getting stopped for no helmet, no hi-viz, earphones and as we've got a prime candidate for practically everything here, you might assume that the police would have flashed their lights or stopped him, or something, any little thing...
> 
> Nah!


So why mention it? It's not relevant or important.


----------



## Davidsw8 (25 Nov 2013)

martint235 said:


> So why mention it? It's not relevant or important.



"sorry if the helmet bit offends anyone,* just setting the scene*"


----------



## martint235 (25 Nov 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> "sorry if the helmet bit offends anyone,* just setting the scene*"


"And there was a woman in a pink dress stood nearby " also sets the scene and is just as relevant


----------



## Davidsw8 (25 Nov 2013)

martint235 said:


> "And there was a woman in a pink dress stood nearby " also sets the scene and is just as relevant



Had I seen said lady, I may very well have mentioned her too


----------



## Davidsw8 (25 Nov 2013)

2788572 said:


> You missed out a bit. Buckle in one or both wheels necessitating the detachment of the brake straddle cable and consequent lack of stopping ability.



Well spotted Adrian, he was so poorly lit and it was so dark (and I was so distracted by the lack of helmet) that I missed that!


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (25 Nov 2013)

stowie said:


> *Let us suppose you are losing an argument. The facts are overwhelmingly against you, and the more people focus on the reality the worse it is for you and your case. Your best bet in these circumstances is to perform a manoeuvre that a great campaigner describes as “throwing a dead cat on the table, mate”.
> 
> That is because there is one thing that is absolutely certain about throwing a dead cat on the dining room table – and I don’t mean that people will be outraged, alarmed, disgusted. That is true, but irrelevant. The key point, says my Australian friend, is that everyone will shout “Jeez, mate, there’s a dead cat on the table!”; in other words they will be talking about the dead cat, the thing you want them to talk about, and they will not be talking about the issue that has been causing you so much grief.
> *
> ...


I'm biased of course (because I agree and feel the same) but I just wanted to say thank you for an excellent post. So here goes: thank you for an excellent post! Nobody is owning the problem.


----------



## 400bhp (25 Nov 2013)

glenn forger said:


> Maybe have a word with this Servo driver? Oh you haven't noticed because you're texting.
> 
> https://twitter.com/Iain_Houston



Is that a cat on top of the lampost?


----------



## Davidsw8 (25 Nov 2013)

400bhp said:


> Is that a cat on top of the lampost?



That is the best thing Ive ever seen


----------



## gaz (26 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2788573, member: 1314"]The apparent picking on cyclists above drivers by the current surge of looking bored POs will backfire, but it's only for another day or so apparently. I mean, POs shouting at a cyclist with no lights jumping the reds at Stockwell tubes tonight. Fair enough. What about the motorised vehicles parked across that whole junction that cycles have to navigate? Again. The current action by the Met is tokenistic, car-centric and a political exercise to give Boris a fig leaf. The coppers on the whole didn't know, didn't care and didn't care showing it.

Why haven't the cycling associations been consulting with the cops? Why do we have to go back and rely only on the London Greens to make a political impact in the current campaign? (Who are cool as I vote for them.)

The Met and City police are coming across as being anti-cyclist.[/quote]
It's until christmas!


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (26 Nov 2013)

OK so let's all put on hi viz, helmets, lights, fluffy pink scarves etc, then have the whole lot cancelled out as soon as it's a bit dull by a forest of daytime running LED's, 365 days a year fog lights and Xenons.
Why not just put up a few signs saying "Bloody well look where you're going!, Put down the mobile!, Stop reading the delivery sheet!" etc etc


----------



## EthelF (26 Nov 2013)

User said:


> If the lights and red and the van has encroached on the ASL, then he should also be having a word with both cyclists, who will have RLJed.


Both cyclists? You mean the Boris biker for straddling the white line? I've often wondered about that - are the lines "in", as in tennis, or "out", as in squash?


----------



## Frood42 (26 Nov 2013)

EthelF said:


> Both cyclists? You mean the Boris biker for straddling the white line? I've often wondered about that - are the lines "in", as in tennis, or "out", as in squash?


 
http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Advanced-Stop-Lines/1400018009433/1400018009433


> *Motorists*
> Do not enter the ASL box when the light is red – this space is reserved for the safety of cyclists.
> Crossing the first or second ASL line when the light is red makes you liable for a £100 fixed penalty, three points on your licence, and endangers vulnerable road users.


 
https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/road-junctions-170-to-183


> *178*
> *Advanced stop lines.* Some signal-controlled junctions have advanced stop lines to allow cycles to be positioned ahead of other traffic. Motorists, including motorcyclists, *MUST* stop at the first white line reached if the lights are amber or red and should avoid blocking the way or encroaching on the marked area at other times, e.g. if the junction ahead is blocked. If your vehicle has proceeded over the first white line at the time that the signal goes red, you *MUST* stop at the second white line, even if your vehicle is in the marked area. Allow cyclists time and space to move off when the green signal shows.
> *Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10, 36(1) & 43(2)*


.


----------



## Rouge79 (26 Nov 2013)

Taken in a PITCH black hallway. If i get pulled for not wearing hi-viz i'll tell him/her to foxtrot oscar!!!!


----------



## fatblokish (26 Nov 2013)

http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/Univ...ists-outfits/story-20222781-detail/story.html
So another nail in the coffin for hi-viz?


----------



## srw (26 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2788573, member: 1314"]The apparent picking on cyclists above drivers by the current surge of looking bored POs will backfire, but it's only for another day or so apparently. I mean, POs shouting at a cyclist with no lights jumping the reds at Stockwell tubes tonight. Fair enough. What about the motorised vehicles parked across that whole junction that cycles have to navigate? Again. The current action by the Met is tokenistic, car-centric and a political exercise to give Boris a fig leaf. The coppers on the whole didn't know, didn't care and didn't care showing it.
[/quote]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25100379
150 FPNs issued, mostly for RLJ and mobile phone offences.


----------



## Frood42 (26 Nov 2013)

srw said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25100379
> 150 FPNs issued, mostly for RLJ and mobile phone offences.



So for the passing through a red light, motor or pedal powered?
Don't want to assume it was all cars 
.


----------



## EthelF (27 Nov 2013)

User said:


> The requirement is to stop before the white line.



Squash it is then. Somewhat grimly appropriate.


----------



## ianrauk (27 Nov 2013)

The Police seemed to have disappeared this morning. Perhaps they were all bored and decided to sit in a local cafe instead.


----------



## Davidsw8 (27 Nov 2013)

ianrauk said:


> The Police seemed to have disappeared this morning. Perhaps they were all bored and decided to sit in a local cafe instead.



I haven't seen any police all week, well I saw one cycling down past Kennington Tube yesterday but nothing else and I'm cycling main routes through Westminster...


----------



## Markymark (27 Nov 2013)

fatblokish said:


> http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/Univ...ists-outfits/story-20222781-detail/story.html
> So another nail in the coffin for hi-viz?


Not really. The reasearch was carried out using various outfits, all of which were hi-viz. None of them were dark clothes. As it measrured overtaking it assumes the motorist had already seen them. The point of hi-viz, IMO, is for the extremely rare times when you would not be seen in dark clothes (perhaps a door mirror in the dark when raining with rear car dazzling with its lights) , but I wear it on dark days because I believe these rare occassions have serious enugh consequences to warrent it.


----------



## ManiaMuse (27 Nov 2013)

Bored looking PO in Mortlake this morning on the junction between Clifford Avenue and Mortlake Road.

Didn't do anything about pavement riding cyclist across the road...


----------



## MichaelO (27 Nov 2013)

ianrauk said:


> The Police seemed to have disappeared this morning. Perhaps they were all bored and decided to sit in a local cafe instead.


Saw two at the Tooting Broadway junction, but then no more all the way into Victoria. Maybe they don't like damp mornings..


----------



## Frood42 (27 Nov 2013)

There have been officers in Ilford all this week by Mill House on Ilford Hill (A118), pulling over cars, I think its more of the same insurance/tax/MOT checking rather than anything else, as we regularly see checkpoints set up on the A118 Romford Rd heading towards Stratford, just after the lights where the A406 North Circular entry/exit is.

I have also seen motorbike officers parked up on the A13 (Newham Way)/A117 (High Street South) junction, where there are a whole set of lights and a flyover, they are usually parked on the pedestrian/cycle shared pavement area.

I go from South Woodford to Tower Hill (via CS2/CS3), then Tower Hill to Ilford (via CS3), its about 20 miles, and I do not normally seen any officers about, until I get to Ilford that is... but I suspect they may go soon as well, probably end of the week, but we shall see.
.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Nov 2013)

Rouge79 said:


> Taken in a PITCH black hallway. If i get pulled for not wearing hi-viz i'll tell him/her to foxtrot oscar!!!!
> View attachment 33174


 

Being seen in the pitch black is easy, the challenge is being seen when there are a lot of other lights around you - usually more powerful. Drivers don't need to be using headlights on well-lit 30mph streets, that would let us have a better chance of being seen when appropriately lit.

GC


----------



## Ace Ventura (27 Nov 2013)

PCSO tried telling two cyclists off for waiting in front of the bike box at Tooting Broadway crossroads last night...they ripped her a new one pointing out that it would be more productive if she bollocked the cars parked in the box, preventing them from waiting there, instead.


----------



## Ace Ventura (27 Nov 2013)

2791385 said:


> Did they know that the cars had encroached illegally?


Yes the traffic was stationery when we all arrived at the junction, and as two cars had filled the box, two of the cyclists filtered past them and the box all in view of the PCSO. She was stood stoically with hands in her pocket, like a covent garden mime and only came to life when bikes went through. They weren't looking to jump lights and make it across the junction, just creating their own ASL which they thought entitled to.


----------



## theclaud (27 Nov 2013)

Ace Ventura said:


> Yes the traffic was stationery when we all arrived at the junction, and as two cars had filled the box, two of the cyclists filtered past them and the box all in view of the PCSO. She was stood stoically with hands in her pocket, like a covent garden mime and only came to life when bikes went through. They weren't looking to jump lights and make it across the junction, just creating their own ASL which they thought entitled to.



I think he means that it is possible that they might have been moving slowly through the ASL or stationary within it when the lights changed, so might not have entered it deliberately with the intention of stopping within it. Nevertheless I don't think it's acceptable to harass cyclists for being beyond the ASL when it is occupied by cars.


----------



## Frood42 (27 Nov 2013)

Ace Ventura said:


> Yes the traffic was stationery when we all arrived at the junction, and as two cars had filled the box, two of the cyclists filtered past them and the box all in view of the PCSO. She was stood stoically with hands in her pocket, like a covent garden mime and only came to life when bikes went through. They weren't looking to jump lights and make it across the junction, just creating their own ASL which they thought entitled to.


 
They weren't looking to jump the lights, but the simple act of crossing that second line is jumping the red lights regardless of if a vehicle is in it or not, they are not enititled to do that, yet.
Two wrongs and all that 

I do not like it either when cars take up the ASL, and this behaviour of ignoring them does need stamping out, it really does show poor planning skills from the driver involved, a case of not caring about others safety, or just plain ignorance, all of which are bad, BUT there are cases when it is not illegal to enter the ASL.
http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Advanced-Stop-Lines/1400018009433/1400018009433
https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/road-junctions-170-to-183 (178 - Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10, 36(1) & 43(2)).

My solution is to take up a primary position somewhere in the queue, or to filter up the outside, but if I see a long queue of cars I am always looking for a gap where I can fit in primary or a safe place in a visible position in front of a driver, so as not to be reliant on these ASL's.
I filter down the outside as the drivers seem to be more prone to checking for scooters and motorbikes coming down that side.

A couple of links I like which talk about filtering, communicating and making eye contact (although I find making eye contact seems to work better in queues, than some other scenarios), more for newcomers, this may not be yourself.
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/co...Effective-Traffic-Riding-Part-2---Filtering-0
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/cy...Bitesize-Bikeability-Part-3---Communication-0
.


----------



## Markymark (27 Nov 2013)

theclaud said:


> Nevertheless I don't think it's acceptable to harass cyclists for being beyond the ASL when it is occupied by cars.


It is when it starts getting close to the dotted pedestrian crossing zone who need a clear gap from traffic to be seen and cross safely.


----------



## theclaud (27 Nov 2013)

0-markymark-0 said:


> It is when it starts getting close to the dotted pedestrian crossing zone who need a clear gap from traffic to be seen and cross safely.


Yes fair enough. I really meant that it's a suitable area for exercising discretion, rather than one about the letter of the law. I often stop ahead of the line for one reason and another whether there is an ASL or not, but one shouldn't get in the way of pedestrians or into the path of traffic that has a green signal.


----------



## Frood42 (27 Nov 2013)

So I saw an officer at some lights tonight, so asked him if he thought my front light was too bright, first thing he said was "at least you have one". Okay I thought. He said the light was fine. Tried to give me a leaflet, I kindly declined, I was in primary at the front of traffic and I know the lights will be changing, so don't want to be fiddling with bits of paper...

I had seen no other cyclists that night up to that point, but when I do they all normally have lights, well at least the times I ride the CS3. Some a bit too bright or angled too far up, or some when they come from behind make you wonder if they are a car, but they have them.

Is the no lights thing a rush hour problem mainly? I cycle 1800 to 2000 and very very rarely see a bike without lights. I see more cars with dodgy lights than bikes... Am I blessed on the CS2\CS3 at those times with sensible more experienced commuters I wonder?

At least there was no mention of Hi Viz or Helmets.

I just wanted to make sure I wasn't dazzling people, it looked OK to me, but another perspective helps. 
.


----------



## Rouge79 (28 Nov 2013)

Police instructed to target and fine cyclists!!!!!

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3933789.ece


----------



## MichaelO (28 Nov 2013)

Rouge79 said:


> Police instructed to target and fine cyclists!!!!!
> 
> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3933789.ece


http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3933789.ece[/quote That's not quite true..
"Chief Superintendent Glyn Jones, head of the Met’s Traffic Command, confirmed that he had reviewed performance targets after the cyclist fatalities and set a target of 40 tickets per officer for jumping traffic lights, careless or inconsiderate cycling, stopping in safe zones for cyclists at traffic lights or on cycle superhighways."

So it could be 40 tickets for cars stopping in ASLs or CS's

Nonetheless, I hate seeing these targets set by the police


----------



## Frood42 (28 Nov 2013)

MichaelO said:


> That's not quite true..
> "Chief Superintendent Glyn Jones, head of the Met’s Traffic Command, confirmed that he had reviewed performance targets after the cyclist fatalities and set a target of 40 tickets per officer for jumping traffic lights, careless or inconsiderate cycling, stopping in safe zones for cyclists at traffic lights or on cycle superhighways."
> 
> So it could be 40 tickets for cars stopping in ASLs or CS's
> ...


 

No, it was true, a senior officer did instruct this, even if they were misinterperting what had come down the chain, it still happened.


> “All, can you please cascade this onto your troops,” the e-mail from Inspector Colin Davies of the Metropolitan Police’s South East Area Traffic Garage, began. “Officers have four months to do 40 cycle tickets. Ten per month, 2.5 a week. Most officers are nearing or have even achieved their other targets. This will give them a renewed focus for a while.”


 
Thankfully this miscommunication was found and corrected.


> Chief Superintendent Glyn Jones, head of the Met’s Traffic Command, confirmed that he had reviewed performance targets after the cyclist fatalities and set a target of 40 tickets per officer for jumping traffic lights, careless or inconsiderate cycling, stopping in safe zones for cyclists at traffic lights or on cycle superhighways.


 


> “The e-mail from the inspector was a genuine misinterpretation of my direction. The offences that relate to the cycle highway and advanced stop lines can actually only be committed by motorists; and contravening traffic lights is dangerous regardless of who commits it,” he said.


 
Call me pedantic. 

However I do agree about setting targets, sends the wrong message.
.


----------



## MichaelO (28 Nov 2013)

@Frood42 - pedantic


----------



## Davidsw8 (28 Nov 2013)

Rouge79 said:


> Police instructed to target and fine cyclists!!!!!
> 
> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3933789.ece



It's definitely the wrong tack to take, they need to focus on the larger vehicles that can cause damage, as Mr Boardman says.

Though saying that, if a cyclist isn't doing anything wrong then they can't be fined can they?

Everyone just needs to behave and stop being so damn selfish.


----------



## Frood42 (28 Nov 2013)

Liked for:


Davidsw8 said:


> Everyone just needs to behave and stop being so damn selfish.


 
I'm not a fan of the if you ain't doing anything wrong line though.
Now that would need a seperate thread 
.


----------



## Davidsw8 (28 Nov 2013)

Frood42 said:


> Liked for:
> 
> 
> I'm not a fan of the if you ain't doing anything wrong line though.
> ...



I'm kind of inclined to agree with you, especially when the Govt. uses it when arguing for increased surveillance, ID cards and all that extra big brother rubbish. With regards to this topic, I think they should ticket anyone doing anything that's illegal and not one group.


----------



## Frood42 (28 Nov 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> With regards to this topic, I think they should ticket anyone doing anything that's illegal and not one group.


 

.


----------



## Frood42 (28 Nov 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> I'm kind of inclined to agree with you, especially when the Govt. uses it when arguing for increased surveillance, ID cards and all that extra big brother rubbish. With regards to this topic, I think they should ticket anyone doing anything that's illegal and not one group.


 
Did you hear about the Nice Way Code shutting down?
It was abandoned in the end.

In Edinburgh they decided to change tactics:


> A “softly, softly” approach in Edinburgh has been replaced by a tough crackdown which includes £100 fines and three penalty points on offenders’ licences, and stopping cyclists who ride on pavements.
> 
> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/scotland/article3928390.ece


 
http://road.cc/content/news/94378-n...ambasted-self-congratulatory-farewell-message
http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2013/08/10/the-back-end-of-a-bus/
.


----------



## Frood42 (28 Nov 2013)

2793427 said:


> If you were to downgrade that to warn first then ticket for repeat offences by relatively harmless groups, that's us, I would be in full agreement.


 
The message should be that they are going after everyone, which is what I read in Davidsw8 posting.

I am somewhat skeptical as to if warnings work. Some people do really need a short sharp shock, and a pain in the wallet sadly these days seems to have more effect...
.


----------



## Davidsw8 (28 Nov 2013)

2793427 said:


> If you were to downgrade that to warn first then ticket for repeat offences by relatively harmless groups, that's us, I would be in full agreement.



I don't think people take the blindest bit of notice about warnings, waste of time and effort all round. Also, can a PC tell whether a cyclist had been warned previously?

Do something wrong, get a fine etc. straight off. It's time for zero tolerance.


----------



## Wobblers (28 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2791457, member: 1314"]Any copper tries to talk to me, I ain’t responding. I’ll pretend I can’t speak English.

“New here.Yes. Yes.” I’ll just smile and nod. And if they try and take me in...
...
View attachment 33211
[/quote]

Sorry User, I won't be posting bail for you...


----------



## Wobblers (28 Nov 2013)

Pale Rider said:


> It may matter because the clothing can give you a distinctive silhouette in the eye of the driver, as opposed to being a collection of lights among many.
> 
> The reflective material on your bike must help, although I wonder how much is visible from the front, ie, when the driver is pulling out of a side junction in front of you.



The thing about hi-viz clothing under streetlights is that it appears a sort of dirty orange. The thing about the road surface under streetlights is that it appears a sort of dirty orange. Something orange coloured against an orange background is rather hard to see. I spot hi-viz cyclists at night _by the shadows they cast_. Those who wear black ironically enough are easier to see by the contrast between dark clothing and orange background.


----------



## Beebo (29 Nov 2013)

I saw two cyclists stopped this morning just south of Tower Bridge. I can only guess their offence, but it was probably jumping the lights, or turning right at a no right turn junction.


----------



## Frood42 (29 Nov 2013)

I was followed by a police car this morning...
I hadn't done anything wrong, and he was just going about his business 
.


----------



## Domeo (29 Nov 2013)

[QUOTE 2793133, member: 1314"]I’ve divided the coppers into 4 types.

Type 1: The Clint Eastwood. These are the bikers, they lounge as though the task is below them, in leathers with steel kneecaps, looking bulky and macho, waiting to put their machismo on the line. They don’t hand out flyers as that’s too effeminate.

Type 2: The driver. Normally about 4 foot tall and five foot wide. Stops mini-cabs, smart cars and mopeds and talks a lot to make up for his lack of machismo.

(Sorry but the above 2 types I see have all been blokes).

Type 3: The PCSO. Well, they’re just out shopping. Innit.

Type 4: The plebgate lot at Downing St. I cycled past them this morning and noticed they were the only coppers I’ve seen in London not in hi viz. Hmmm...[/quote]

Type 5: Rambo wanna be with a large gun and small willies as can be seen toteting around mainline train termini


----------



## Roadrider48 (29 Nov 2013)

Frood42 said:


> I was followed by a police car this morning...
> I hadn't done anything wrong, and he was just going about his business
> .


You should've stopped and asked what they wanted....


----------



## Frood42 (29 Nov 2013)

2796028 said:


> And perhaps offered some advice about wearing a helmet in the car.



He was wearing Hi Viz 
.


----------



## Davidsw8 (2 Dec 2013)

Andrew Gilligan on BBC London this morning said he's asked the Met not to focus so much on the non-helmet and non-hi-viz cyclists.


----------



## sazzaa (2 Dec 2013)

Meanwhile, in Aberdeen, the coppers are handing out free bike lights... http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/new...s-and-cyclists-riding-without-lights-1.159461


----------



## Frood42 (2 Dec 2013)

sazzaa said:


> Meanwhile, in Aberdeen, the coppers are handing out free bike lights... http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/new...s-and-cyclists-riding-without-lights-1.159461


 
I personally think it is good they are giving out lights and are targetting speeding drivers.
At least they are not handing out leaflets about pieces of flourescent clothing...

I would love to see more of a crack down on speeders, the number of idiots doing more than 30mph on residential streets beggars belief sometimes here in London, and even more annoying in areas which are 20mph and are known to be popular with walkers, joggers and cyclists... why do they have to speed and use those areas as rat runs  
.


----------



## Frood42 (2 Dec 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> Andrew Gilligan on BBC London this morning said he's asked the Met not to focus so much on the non-helmet and non-hi-viz cyclists.


 
Andrew Gilligan, the more I read, the more I dislike this fellow...
I was just reading about CS5, do they really think those using Vauxhall bridge are suddenly going to switch, especially when the plans seem to mainly call for some blue paint..?

http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/superhighway-5-on-diversion/
.


----------



## Davidsw8 (2 Dec 2013)

Frood42 said:


> Andrew Gilligan, the more I read, the more I dislike this fellow...
> I was just reading about CS5, do they really think those using Vauxhall bridge are suddenly going to switch, especially when the plans seem to mainly call for some blue paint..?
> 
> http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/superhighway-5-on-diversion/
> .



I hadn't seen this. Not sure about the route up to Victoria but the existing cycle lane on the bridge is so narrow that I'm scared to cycle over this bridge, the traffic comes SO close to you and it's travelling at speed...


----------



## Frood42 (2 Dec 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> I hadn't seen this. Not sure about the route up to Victoria but the existing cycle lane on the bridge is so narrow that I'm scared to cycle over this bridge, the traffic comes SO close to you and it's travelling at speed...


 
You use the cycle lane..?
I don't use this bridge very often at all, I have done off peak, and I tend to stick to the right of the cycle lane.

However, if the people who currently using it are willing to do so under "those" conditions, why would they suddenly switch to an alternative that consists of blue paint splattered on the road..?

Just look at the disaster that is the CS2 and the CS2 extension, TFL cannot even get segregated facilities right, whatever happened to "lessons learned"...?
.


----------



## Davidsw8 (2 Dec 2013)

Frood42 said:


> You use the cycle lane..?
> I don't use this bridge very often at all, I have done off peak, and I tend to stick to the right of the cycle lane.
> 
> However, if the people who currently using it are willing to do so under "those" conditions, why would they suddenly switch to an alternative that consists of blue paint splattered on the road..?
> ...



Well, I say use, I've used it twice (going South) and I really didn't feel safe.

Maybe one physically segregated cycle lane would be good over every 2nd or 3rd bridge over the river?


----------



## newfhouse (2 Dec 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> I hadn't seen this. Not sure about the route up to Victoria but the existing cycle lane on the bridge is so narrow that I'm scared to cycle over this bridge, the traffic comes SO close to you and it's travelling at speed...


It's narrow southbound but you do know you can ignore it and take the lane proper, don't you?


----------



## Frood42 (2 Dec 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> Well, I say use, I've used it twice (going South) and I really didn't feel safe.
> 
> Maybe one physically segregated cycle lane would be good over every 2nd or 3rd bridge over the river?


 
I thought the original plans were a good start, but it again comes down to not wanting to interfere with traffic flow of motor vehicles.
sigh.

http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/superhighway-5-on-diversion/

I just think London really needs to start now to lessen its ties to single occupancy motor vehicles, and that we need to start using the stick more...
However the designers at TFL, Boris and Andrew just don't seem to have the drive to do anything expect put in paint...

This quote says it all really, no drive from Andrew at all, and it really does show what is the priority, not space for people, but space for cars...
If they were really worried about rat-running through Pimlico they could also introduce other measures around their to make it less inviting to cars.

Sod congestion, lets use congestion as a way to get people using other forms of transport...



> … cycle superhighway 5 was planned to come from New Cross and Peckham, over Vauxhall Bridge and up Vauxhall Bridge Road, ending at Victoria.
> 
> Nobody liked that idea much, frankly. We would have had to remove some general traffic space on Vauxhall Bridge Road. Both Westminster City Council and local residents feared that that would cause extra congestion on the road itself, and lead to rat-running through Pimlico’s residential streets.
> 
> ...


.


----------



## Davidsw8 (2 Dec 2013)

newfhouse said:


> It's narrow southbound but you do know you can ignore it and take the lane proper, don't you?



Yeh, cycle lanes aren't compulsory. I just don't like that bridge and I hear it's a bit of an incident magnet anyway.


----------



## gaz (2 Dec 2013)

newfhouse said:


> It's narrow southbound but you do know you can ignore it and take the lane proper, don't you?


Easier said than done. Even if you power over it at near 30mph, you will still get some d1ck in a taxi pushing past you.


----------



## Davidsw8 (2 Dec 2013)

I know it'll never happen but wouldn't it be wonderful to have a couple of cyclist-only tunnels under the river? Ahhh nirvana!


----------



## Frood42 (2 Dec 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> I know it'll never happen but wouldn't it be wonderful to have a couple of cyclist-only tunnels under the river? Ahhh nirvana!


 
New bridges instead? I prefer the fresh air and not having to worry about lifts or "youths"...
.


----------



## Davidsw8 (2 Dec 2013)

Frood42 said:


> New bridges instead? I prefer the fresh air and not having to worry about lifts or "youths"...
> .



Yeh, I suppose new bridges are cheaper. We're not supposed to cycle over the Hungerford are we? and I doubt very much they'd allow it over the Millenium one...


----------



## Frood42 (2 Dec 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> We're not supposed to cycle over the Hungerford are we?


 
Never tried, simply for the fact that I have been over them as a walker, and the idea of using them on a bike didn't really appeal (quicker routes abound)...
.


----------



## Markymark (2 Dec 2013)

I remember reading that the cost for the congestion charge cameras was part funded by the Met as they've put high-res cameras on each plate-camera getting the face of the driver for security. Surely it wouldn't cost too much to change to adapt it to check for single occupancy and charge extra? In the US they (or at least used to) have multi-occupancy only lanes. This would help quite a lot with congestion.


----------



## Brains (2 Dec 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> I know it'll never happen but wouldn't it be wonderful to have a couple of cyclist-only tunnels under the river? Ahhh nirvana!


We do already.
Woolwich and Greenwich 
OK, so people are allowed to walk through them as well, but cyclists outnumber walkers ten to one

However I agree we need a few more of these tunnels and with ramps up and down not lifts


----------



## Davidsw8 (2 Dec 2013)

Brains said:


> We do already.
> Woolwich and Greenwich
> OK, so people are allowed to walk through them as well, but cyclists outnumber walkers ten to one
> 
> However I agree we need a few more of these tunnels and with ramps up and down not lifts



I suppose you can cycle through the Rotherhithe too, but these are all East London...


----------



## Frood42 (2 Dec 2013)

Brains said:


> We do already.
> Woolwich and Greenwich
> OK, so people are allowed to walk through them as well, but cyclists outnumber walkers ten to one
> However I agree we need a few more of these tunnels and with ramps up and down not lifts


 
I didn't think you could cycle in either tunnel...
.


----------



## Brains (2 Dec 2013)

Frood42 said:


> I didn't think you could cycle in either tunnel...
> .


You not supposed to actually ride the bike through the tunnels, pushing the bike is actively encouraged, most of the riders seem to be considerate to the walkers, and outside the rush hours there is no harm in riding through


----------



## Frood42 (2 Dec 2013)

Brains said:


> You not supposed to actually ride the bike through the tunnels, pushing the bike is actively encouraged, most of the riders seem to be considerate to the walkers, and outside the rush hours there is no harm in riding through


 
Yes, I just remembered the last time I went through it was no cycling, I was walking at the time, the tunnel was a mess, especially the lifts!
Didn't really tempt me back... either by foot or by bike. I keep looking for updates on the website about the refurbishment, but it doesn't appear to be going well and it looks like they have put in some barriers...
.


----------



## Brains (2 Dec 2013)

Frood42 said:


> Yes, I just remembered the last time I went through it was no cycling, I was walking at the time, the tunnel was a mess, especially the lifts!
> Didn't really tempt me back... either by foot or by bike. I keep looking for updates on the website about the refurbishment, but it doesn't appear to be going well and it looks like they have put in some barriers...
> .


The tunnel WILL be ready for the Olympics !
on a serious note, they have just restarted the refurb, so the barriers have gone, the lifts work most of the time, and they have started to clean up the tunnel.
The stairs are still a complete dogs dinner though, but the Greenwich tunnel at least is fully usable by cyclists (and walkers), I'm not sure of the latest situation with Woolwich though


----------



## Tim Hall (2 Dec 2013)

2800254 said:


> Many years ago I saw a cyclist arrive at the lift in the Greenwich tunnel. The lift operator accused him of having ridden through and refused to let him in the lift. He suggested that, if the bloke didn't like it, he would see him at the top where they could sort it out.


I've carried the Pino up the stairs at the Greenwich tunnel. Not because I was naughty, but the lift was u/s. Find the balance point, hoik the bike and trudge away.


----------



## glenn forger (2 Dec 2013)

2800254 said:


> Many years ago I saw a cyclist arrive at the lift in the Greenwich tunnel. The lift operator accused him of having ridden through and refused to let him in the lift. He suggested that, if the bloke didn't like it, he would see him at the top where they could sort it out.



I've seen a full-on fist fight between a cyclist and the attendant, no idea what it was about.


----------



## Markymark (2 Dec 2013)

glenn forger said:


> I've seen a full-on fist fight between a cyclist and the attendant, no idea what it was about.


If they're anything like my kids....who get to press the button?


----------



## ianrauk (2 Dec 2013)

glenn forger said:


> I've seen a full-on fist fight between a cyclist and the attendant, no idea what it was about.




Then the cyclist must have really peeved off the attendant as they are usually very easy going, friendly chaps.


----------



## glenn forger (2 Dec 2013)

I reckon there's ups and downs to that job.


----------



## Markymark (2 Dec 2013)

Some of it would be quite uplifting


----------



## glasgowcyclist (2 Dec 2013)

glenn forger said:


> I've seen a full-on fist fight between a cyclist and the attendant, no idea what it was about.


 
Maybe it started as a minor disagreement then escalated.

GC


----------



## stowie (2 Dec 2013)

[QUOTE 2801097, member: 1314"]I've got this great idea to improve safety. Why not campaign for Local Authorities to give out cheap lights?[/quote]

Could we not give out night vision goggles to motorists?


----------



## spen666 (3 Dec 2013)

[QUOTE 2801097, member: 1314"]I've got this great idea to improve safety. Why not campaign for Local Authorities to give out cheap lights?[/quote]
Here is an even better idea, how about people take responsibility for their own safety and buy lights themselves.

Why should the tax payer fund those who won't pay to keep themselves safe.

I'd go the opposite way and give the police immediate powers to confiscate bikes without lights


----------



## Scoop940 (3 Dec 2013)

spen666 said:


> I'd go the opposite way and give the police immediate powers to confiscate bikes without lights



Absolutely!


----------



## Davidsw8 (3 Dec 2013)

spen666 said:


> Here is an even better idea, how about people take responsibility for their own safety and buy lights themselves.
> 
> Why should the tax payer fund those who won't pay to keep themselves safe.
> 
> I'd go the opposite way and give the police immediate powers to confiscate bikes without lights



Why don't they just fit all bikes with lights as standard? Same with cars, it's a legal requirement to have them and if you want to change them later to something different or better then you can.


----------



## sazzaa (3 Dec 2013)

What does handing out lights teach anyone? If it's against the law then people cycling without lights should be prosecuted.


----------



## Frood42 (3 Dec 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> Why don't they just fit all bikes with lights as standard? Same with cars, it's a legal requirement to have them and if you want to change them later to something different or better then you can.


 
Thing is, the sort of lights they would most likely fit would end up in the trash!
Would they have to provide the batteries as well..?
.


----------



## Frood42 (3 Dec 2013)

2801762 said:


> How much would that cost us in lost useable police manpower while they take the bike to the bike pound? How much to deal with administration etc?


 
Probably cheaper than putting a car onto a flat bed tow truck..?
Although with the choice between one or the other I would rather see cars taken off the road due to the danger they can present.
.


----------



## Davidsw8 (3 Dec 2013)

Frood42 said:


> Thing is, the sort of lights they would most likely fit would end up in the trash!
> Would they have to provide the batteries as well..?
> .



I guess the difference between a car and a bike is the car's built in ability to power the lights so you have a good point. I still think it'd be good to have a BS minimum set of lights fitted as standard. I mean, you can't make someone fit batteries, you can't even make them switch the damn things on but at least it's one less excuse - and as I say, it's a legal requirement and you can't buy a car without lights/seat belts/air bags etc. these days...


----------



## Davidsw8 (3 Dec 2013)

2801772 said:


> Why should I have to have lights on a bike I have no intention of riding in the dark?



Why should I have lights fitted to my car, I have no intention of driving at night


----------



## Frood42 (3 Dec 2013)

2801777 said:


> Cheaper than a set of lights?


 


Of course not, but someone being given a cheap set of lights is no guarantee that they will use them or replace the batteries even if they did use them...
IMO most people without lights are going to be chancers rather than people ignorant of the law, but that is just my opinion...
.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (3 Dec 2013)

2801772 said:


> Why should I have to have lights on a bike I have no intention of riding in the dark?


 
You wouldn't have to retain them, just as with the bell that's fitted from new nowadays.

GC


----------



## endoman (3 Dec 2013)

[QUOTE 2801097, member: 1314"]I've got this great idea to improve safety. Why not campaign for Local Authorities to give out cheap lights?[/quote]

Local police do just that, along with high vis vest / rucksack cover. Free.


----------



## Frood42 (3 Dec 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> I guess the difference between a car and a bike is the car's built in ability to power the lights so you have a good point. I still think it'd be good to have a BS minimum set of lights fitted as standard. I mean, you can't make someone fit batteries, you can't even make them switch the damn things on but at least it's one less excuse - and as I say, it's a legal requirement and you can't buy a car without lights/seat belts/air bags etc. these days...


 

Yes, but cars need lights so that drivers don't drive into buildings or signs, and so pedestrians can see them coming 

The idea of fitting lights is nice, a bit like fitting reflectors and bells, but as with wheel reflectors they will just get removed.
I don't really see an argument against except the human factor, extra cost on the bike when they only ride during the day, and the trash factor...
.
.


----------



## Davidsw8 (3 Dec 2013)

2801796 said:


> I don't care. Cyclist, writing on a cycling forum, with a cyclist point of view.



Good for you mate, I mean why would anyone ever look at anything outside their own interest? That'd be utter madness.


----------



## Davidsw8 (3 Dec 2013)

2801842 said:


> Along with the comparison to car lights, that is a second irelevancy.



Bicycles are the only vehicles on the road and why should we consider anything else or any other comparable legalities, no I agree with you Adrian.


----------



## Davidsw8 (3 Dec 2013)

2801863 said:


> You are just being silly now. Cars pretty much all* have permanent lights for good reason. Bikes don't for equally good reason. The comparison between them is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ok, thanks for the clarification.


----------



## ManiaMuse (3 Dec 2013)

In Oxford they did a thing where they would stop cyclists without lights at night but would let them off paying the fine if they brought a receipt showing they had bought lights to a police station within 7 days or something like that.


----------



## Dan B (3 Dec 2013)

spen666 said:


> Here is an even better idea, how about people take responsibility for their own safety and buy lights themselves.


Here is an idea which surpasses _both_ of your ideas in goodness: how about people take responsibility for their own safety and for the risks they bring to others' safety: I'll fit the lights and mirrors I need to see where I'm going and stop running into people, and Mr Truck Driver can fit the lights and mirrors _he_ needs to see where he's going and stop running into people.


----------



## theclaud (3 Dec 2013)

Dan B said:


> how about people take responsibility for their own safety and for the risks they bring to others' safety


Far out, man!


----------



## stowie (3 Dec 2013)

I like Adrian's idea of giving out lights. In response to the question why should the taxpayer pay, well because the government (supposedly) wants to encourage cycling to keep the population healthy and congestion down and taking away someone's bike isn't likely to achieve that aim. Give them some lights and they may use them and continue cycling.

I do see a flaw though. What is stopping people deliberately going past checkpoints without lights in order to get a free set? I imagine some people deciding to go out with no lights, clad from head to toe in black and searching out a policeman to stop them to get some free high viz and lights.


----------



## L14M (3 Dec 2013)

I saw a biker getting stopped today, was wearing a POLITE Vest, wonder why lol!


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (3 Dec 2013)

There were cyclists getting fined today for _not_ having lights fitted to their bikes during _daylight_ hours. Pretty sure those fines won't stand up on appeal.


----------



## ianrauk (3 Dec 2013)

TwickenhamCyclist said:


> There were cyclists getting fined today for _not_ having lights fitted to their bikes during _daylight_ hours. Pretty sure those fines won't stand up on appeal.




Really? I can't see how on earth it will stand up to an appeal if it's not illegal.


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (3 Dec 2013)

ianrauk said:


> Really? I can't see how on earth it will stand up to an appeal if it's not illegal.


Chap on FB says he got fined £50 at 08:20 this morning (sunrise was 07:47). Personally I keep my lights on pretty much all the time in the winter - but still no legal imperative to do so according to the CTC


----------



## ianrauk (3 Dec 2013)

TwickenhamCyclist said:


> Chap on FB says he got fined £50 at 08:20 this morning (sunrise was 07:47). Personally I keep my lights on pretty much all the time in the winter - but still no legal imperative to do so according to the CTC




I have been running my lights on my morning commute 7.30 to 9am. Just to cut through the gloom. However, I am still amazed that someone would actually accept a fine. I would kick up such a fuss and probably get arrested lol


----------



## Sara_H (3 Dec 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> Why should I have lights fitted to my car, I have no intention of driving at night


So you can flash drivers out of a junction even if theres a cyclist filtering past you.


----------



## 400bhp (3 Dec 2013)

TwickenhamCyclist said:


> Chap on FB says he got fined £50 at 08:20 this morning (sunrise was 07:47). Personally I keep my lights on pretty much all the time in the winter - but still no legal imperative to do so according to the CTC



IIRC "night" is classed as 1/2 hour after sunrise and 1/2 hour before sunset. Still falls outside it though?


----------



## EthelF (4 Dec 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> Why don't they just fit all bikes with lights as standard? Same with cars, it's a legal requirement to have them and if you want to change them later to something different or better then you can.


In Germany there is a legal reqirement that all new bikes have to be sold fitted with a dynamo and lights, with the exception of bikes under a certain weight limit (around 11kg?) which are classed as racing bikes (so basically road bikes and some MTBs), and which are permitted to use battery lights.
I'm not convinced of the merits of this law, yes, it does mean that most bikes have lights fitted, but on the other hand you still get to hear the usual moaning about all those bloody invisible unlit cyclists, pay no road tax, should be licensed bla bla bla


----------



## snailracer (4 Dec 2013)

400bhp said:


> IIRC "night" is classed as 1/2 hour after sunrise and 1/2 hour before sunset. Still falls outside it though?


Reading the HC, it seems that headlights should be used at night as you have defined it. However, tail lights might be classified as side lights, which are supposed to be used between sunset and sunrise proper. Odd.


----------



## Frood42 (4 Dec 2013)

Laws for cyclists on lights and reflectors apply between sunset and sunrise only.
So you can ride during the day in fog/mist without lights if you really, really want to 

So, I would not be best pleased to get an FPN for committing no offence.


For cars, dipped/registration plate lights from sunset to sunrise, headlights for hours of darkness, with caveats:

https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-all-drivers-riders-103-to-158/lighting-requirements-113-to-116

*113*
You *MUST*

ensure all sidelights and rear registration plate lights are lit between sunset and sunrise
use headlights at night, except on a road which has lit street lighting. These roads are generally restricted to a speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) unless otherwise specified
use headlights when visibility is seriously reduced (see Rule 226).
Night (the hours of darkness) is defined as the period between half an hour after sunset and half an hour before sunrise).
*Laws RVLR regs 3, 24, & 25, (In Scotland - RTRA 1984 sect 82 (as amended by NRSWA, para 59 of sched 8))*


----------



## gaz (4 Dec 2013)

Frood42 said:


> For cars, dipped/registration plate lights from sunset to sunrise, headlights for hours of darkness, with caveats:


It's worth noting that dipped lights are your head lights, just not on full beam.. It's sidelights and registration plates.


----------



## Frood42 (4 Dec 2013)

gaz said:


> It's worth noting that dipped lights are your head lights, just not on full beam.. It's sidelights and registration plates.


 
Yes, my bad there, I did put in the rule though 
.


----------



## Buddfox (4 Dec 2013)

Frood42 said:


> Laws for cyclists on lights and reflectors apply between sunset and sunrise only.
> So you can ride during the day in fog/mist without lights if you really, really want to
> 
> So, I would not be best pleased to get an FPN for committing no offence.
> ...



Hang on... does that mean cars driving around central London don't need to have their headlights on during the night...?! Confused.com


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Dec 2013)

Buddfox said:


> Hang on... does that mean cars driving around central London don't need to have their headlights on during the night...?! Confused.com


 
Yes! 

GC


----------



## Buddfox (4 Dec 2013)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Yes!
> 
> GC



You learn something new every day...


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Dec 2013)

Buddfox said:


> You learn something new every day...


 
Just imagine how good it would be if people did that, we'd no longer be lost in amongst the dazzling light pollution caused by motorised traffic...

GC


----------



## Frood42 (4 Dec 2013)

Buddfox said:


> Hang on... does that mean cars driving around central London don't need to have their headlights on during the night...?! Confused.com


 
?
They have to use headlights during the "hours of darkness", except in the following circumstances (so instead side lights/plate lights as this is *after sunset*):



> except on a road which has lit street lighting. These roads are generally restricted to a speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) unless otherwise specified


 
So in most cases, it is where you have the lighting in urban areas which is equally spaced out which normally denotes a 30mph limit.

http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/speed_markings.html



> Any road with regular street lighting has a default speed limit of 30 mph unless signs indicate otherwise. The entry to a 30 mph zone must be marked by a "30" sign on both sides of the road, but no repeater signs are permitted within the zone (on the grounds that they might be confusing if some roads had them and others didn't). "30" roundels on the road surface are however permitted, with a special dispensation.


 
http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/driving/speed/toptentips/lamp-posts.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Built-up_area_(Highway_Code)

https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-all-drivers-riders-103-to-158/lighting-requirements-113-to-116

*113*
You *MUST*

ensure all sidelights and rear registration plate lights are lit between sunset and sunrise
use headlights at night, except on a road which has lit street lighting. These roads are generally restricted to a speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) unless otherwise specified
use headlights when visibility is seriously reduced (see Rule 226).
Night (the hours of darkness) is defined as the period between half an hour after sunset and half an hour before sunrise).
*Laws RVLR regs 3, 24, & 25, (In Scotland - RTRA 1984 sect 82 (as amended by NRSWA, para 59 of sched 8))
.*


----------



## Buddfox (4 Dec 2013)

Frood42 said:


> ?
> They have to use headlights during the "hours of darkness", except in the following circumstances (so instead side lights/plate lights as this is *after sunset*):
> 
> 
> ...



Right, and streets in central London typically have lighting... I thought you were required to use headlights (dipped) at night time under any circumstance


----------



## Frood42 (4 Dec 2013)

Buddfox said:


> Right, and streets in central London typically have lighting... I thought you were required to use headlights (dipped) at night time under any circumstance


 
Ah, yes,the difference between MUST and SHOULD 

https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-all-drivers-riders-103-to-158/lighting-requirements-113-to-116

*115*
You should also

use dipped headlights, or dim-dip if fitted, at night in built-up areas and in dull daytime weather, to ensure that you can be seen
keep your headlights dipped when overtaking until you are level with the other vehicle and then change to main beam if necessary, unless this would dazzle oncoming road users
slow down, and if necessary stop, if you are dazzled by oncoming headlights


----------



## Buddfox (4 Dec 2013)

Sure, but should is not a legal requirement (hence why I used the word required). I'll stop pointing out to car drivers that they don't have their headlights on!


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Dec 2013)

Recently, while stopped in the outside lane of a city street at traffic lights, I had a young lad in a lowered BMW (who had reversed out of the ASZ to give me the information through my passenger window) tell me, "You've only got your sidelights on."

I replied, "So you can see them then?"

Him, "Yebbut..."

dzzzzzzzz went my window as it closed.


GC


----------



## Frood42 (4 Dec 2013)

Buddfox said:


> Sure, but should is not a legal requirement (hence why I used the word required). I'll stop pointing out to car drivers that they don't have their headlights on!


 
I don't personally think it is a bad idea to remind them to put them on at least dipped, but that's my opinion, and not law.

https://www.gov.uk/highway-code/introduction

The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
Knowing and applying the rules contained in The Highway Code could significantly reduce road casualties. Cutting the number of deaths and injuries that occur on our roads every day is a responsibility we all share. 
.


----------



## snailracer (4 Dec 2013)

Buddfox said:


> Sure, but should is not a legal requirement (hence why I used the word required). I'll stop pointing out to car drivers that they don't have their headlights on!


I'm sure that pointing out those drivers with foglights, no lights, full-beam, wonky or otherwise faulty lights will still keep you busy.


----------



## stowie (18 Dec 2013)

There seems to be now just gaggles of PCSOs loitering around junctions with zero interest in anything that is going on. I was stopped today near Aldgate and 3 of them were chatting away about some new video game. Just after the lights the police had seen fit to park their 4x4 on the "Superhighway" blue point necessitating me to negotiate my way into the traffic flow as it was roaring away from the lights.

It all seems monumentally pointless. No doubt Boris can claim it is a success even though the 6 cyclist deaths in 2 weeks was a statistical blip which thankfully was unlikely to be repeated with or without sullen PCSOs manning random junctions.

In all the time I have been at junctions one thing not policed is traffic blocking pedestrian crossings when in traffic. Yet arguably this is dangerous and certainly anti-social. Near Aldgate the crossing is so blocked that the green man is over by the time the crossing is cleared and anyone with a buggy or wheelchair has to weave inbetween stationary traffic.


----------



## gaz (18 Dec 2013)

stowie said:


> In all the time I have been at junctions one thing not policed is traffic blocking pedestrian crossings when in traffic. Yet arguably this is dangerous and certainly anti-social. Near Aldgate the crossing is so blocked that the green man is over by the time the crossing is cleared and anyone with a buggy or wheelchair has to weave inbetween stationary traffic.


I believe, that crossing points for pedestrian crossings should be left clear, much like the yellow boxes, you should not stop on them.
Highway code rule 192:


> In queuing traffic, you should keep the crossing clear.


----------



## Dan B (18 Dec 2013)

gaz said:


> I believe, that crossing points for pedestrian crossings should be left clear, much like the yellow boxes, you should not stop on them


Yes, but again, "should" != "must".


----------



## RedRider (18 Dec 2013)

stowie said:


> In all the time I have been at junctions one thing not policed is traffic blocking pedestrian crossings when in traffic. Yet arguably this is dangerous and certainly anti-social. Near Aldgate the crossing is so blocked that the green man is over by the time the crossing is cleared and anyone with a buggy or wheelchair has to weave inbetween stationary traffic.


Definitely. If there was a website called PedestrianChat I'd be far more active on threads like this than I am on here.


----------



## stowie (18 Dec 2013)

Dan B said:


> Yes, but again, "should" != "must".



Yes, but considering that the police are lecturing cyclists about helmets and hi-viz, both of which are recommendations then I don't know why they wouldn't advise drivers who are regularly blocking crossings at every phase of the lights.

Interestingly I notice another rule which states

Pelican crossings which go straight across the road are one crossing, even when there is a central island. You MUST wait for pedestrians who are crossing from the other side of the island.

This is a must and yet how many drivers will wait for pedestrians crossing before the island to complete to the other side if there is an island in the middle? I have never seen this happen. It makes me realise what a raw deal we get as pedestrians and that the police aren't really interested in helping them very much - otherwise they would be making sure that their facilities aren't rendered inoperable by other road users.


----------



## gaz (18 Dec 2013)

Dan B said:


> Yes, but again, "should" != "must".


Indeed, they could still try and educate people about it thought


----------



## Frood42 (18 Dec 2013)

stowie said:


> Pelican crossings which go straight across the road are one crossing, even when there is a central island. You MUST wait for pedestrians who are crossing from the other side of the island.



Don't see many of those:


----------



## Twelve Spokes (18 Dec 2013)

bloody pinch points.


----------



## stowie (18 Dec 2013)

Frood42 said:


> Don't see many of those:
> 
> 
> View attachment 34554



There are a few along Kingsland Road which made me think about the rule when I read it.

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=ki...gl=uk&ei=qNGxUvXzHYythQe-5YHwCQ&ved=0CIsBELYD

[aside - how on earth to I get google maps picture into a post?!]


----------



## martint235 (18 Dec 2013)

Frood42 said:


> Don't see many of those:
> 
> 
> View attachment 34554


Really? Loads on my commute. Very few of the zig zag kind


----------



## gaz (18 Dec 2013)

Here is an example of a pelican crossing with an island in the middle


----------



## glasgowcyclist (18 Dec 2013)

gaz said:


> Here is an example of a pelican crossing with an island in the middle



But that one is different from Frood42's which doesn't have a traffic light on the island but yours does. Yours also has a button for peds to press when halfway across. That suggests to me that the crossing is actually two separate crossings. I've got them on my commute but they are staggered to make it clear they are separate.

GC


----------



## sazzaa (18 Dec 2013)

Loads of them here too, usually on duallers in the city though.


----------



## Frood42 (18 Dec 2013)

martint235 said:


> Really? Loads on my commute. Very few of the zig zag kind



Only one or two... cannot remember exactly where though... I will be checking again on my commute tomorrow now.

Ah, maybe here... although you have to check left for buses, and you have buttons on the island...
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/previ...k+Road!5m2!1sEU1oKipNw2baOvt6P9NqeA!2e0&fid=5

I did see them tonight but I don't remember exactly where...
.


----------



## martint235 (18 Dec 2013)

I think you will always have buttons on the island because otherwise a slow ped could get stranded. It's to do with the number of independent sets of green men. If there's only one set, it's one crossing. If there are two sets of independents ones, it is two crossings.


----------



## glenn forger (24 Dec 2013)

Any copper starts lecturing me about plastic bobble hats I swear I'll do time.


----------



## benborp (3 Jan 2014)

They're still there!

I saw several riders being offered advice on the ride home this evening.


----------



## Ganymede (4 Jan 2014)

Pro-cyclist comment about this phenomenon on the comment page of the Evening Standard today. Crivvens.


----------



## mr_cellophane (6 Jan 2014)

Results of the checks are out
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25618915



> Since the beginning of Operation Safeway on 25 November, a total of 13,818 fines have been issued, with 4,085 given to cyclists.
> Police said cyclists were fined for jumping red lights, cycling on footpaths and having incorrect lights.
> Motorists were given fines for offences including driving without insurance and driving without wearing a seatbelt.
> In addition 209 people were arrested during the operation for offences including assault, dangerous driving, driving while disqualified and drink driving.


No motorist caught jumping red lights ?


----------



## gaz (6 Jan 2014)

mr_cellophane said:


> Results of the checks are out
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25618915
> 
> 
> No motorist caught jumping red lights ?


It didn't say that. The wording was offenses including ...


----------



## Beebo (6 Jan 2014)

the Evening Standard report is here, 1056 drivers fined for traffic light offences.


----------



## mr_cellophane (6 Jan 2014)

> Last Monday, the Met carried out spot-checks on cyclists and HGVs in Vauxhall.
> In four hours, the officers stopped 70 lorries and issued 15 fixed penalty notices for offences such as the vehicles not being fit for the road.


Just over one in five. That shows where the real problem is.


----------



## RedRider (6 Jan 2014)

Beebo said:


> the Evening Standard report is here, 1056 drivers fined for traffic light offences.


The paper's stance on cycling has been heartening recently. It's editorial from Jan 2 plugs 'presumed liability' saying the courts need to be tougher on motorists who kill cyclists and pedestrians.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (6 Jan 2014)

Beebo said:


> the Evening Standard report is here, 1056 drivers fined for traffic light offences.


It's hard to get a real feel for the breakdown of offences when the biggest group of offenders - more than all cyclists - is motoring offences classed as other. 



> Other (including driving without insurance and faults with vehicle) = 3,687 FPNs/reports for summons


----------



## mr_cellophane (8 Jan 2014)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> It's hard to get a real feel for the breakdown of offences when the biggest group of offenders - more than all cyclists - is motoring offences classed as other.


 Probably because all a cyclist can do wrong it RLJ, Pavement, no lights. Whereas motoring offences are probably in their thousands.


----------



## fimm (8 Jan 2014)

42 fines for driving in a cycle lane.

_"Det Ch Supt Glyn Jones said: "We've noticed that road users are generally behaving in a much safer manner, and we have issued fewer fixed penalty notices (FPNs) as the operation has progressed." "_
...pretty much goes to show that more enforcement makes everyone behave better.


----------

