Hackney council and RLJ cyclists

[simongt]

Apparently Hackney borough police force have recently been criticised ( 'aven't you got anything better to do - ? ) for having a 'blitz' recently and nabbing cyclists who run red lights, giving out £50 FPTs. Whether said critics would have the same view if they were hit by a red light running cyclist is of course, a moot point.
However, the issue here is that for very many years, various police forces have had blitzs on certain problem issues; it would be cyclists running red lights one time, then drivers using hand held phones another, then cyclists riding on footpaths, then drivers not wearing seatbelts another. And so it goes on. It's a way of utilising slender recources to focus on problem areas and saying to the offenders that they aren't always going to get away with it.

 

[cyberknight]

poor timing maybe with regards to cyclists given the recent changes which will only reinforce drivers predjudice.

 

[mjr]

But were they only nabbing cyclists or also motorists who jumped reds during their blitz? And were they only compulsory reds (on tricolour lights), or were they ticketing cyclists who rode through advisory reds at toucan/puffin crossings, like the Met notoriously did on Quietway 11 a few years ago?

I doubt many criticise general enforcement of red lights and other junction rules; it's more often a criticism when cyclists are targetted while motorists are allowed to get away with offences right under the officers' noses. After all, motorists have far more ability to do serious harm and damage, and why do they pick one offence and let others go? Do we have roads policing or distinct cycling-red-light policing, motorist-red-light policing, phoney-driving policing, ...?

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Perhaps the OP can provide a link to what they have been reading to give context.

 

[simongt]

Perhaps the OP can provide a link to what they have been reading to give context.

It was simply a Google headline that came up on my phone yesterday. Interesting how many cycle related headlines come up though; maybe my phone is telling Google that it goes for a bike ride most days - !

 

[Milkfloat]

From what I read on road.cc the Police were on foot and said that only the traffic officers could stop the motorists, so god knows how many people were on their phone, rolling a spliff and jumping lights. However, I have no problem with the Police catching red light jumping cyclists especially ones who do it dangerously. I would prefer that cyclists are allowed to treat Red lights as a give way, or even allow a red turn on red. As for broken lights that don't detect cyclists - as far as I am concerned they are fair game.

 

[mjr]

From what I read on road.cc the Police were on foot and said that only the traffic officers could stop the motorists, so god knows how many people were on their phone, rolling a spliff and jumping lights.

Well, that deserves criticism, then. It's obviously unjust if any police officer can enforce the law for cyclists but only specialist traffic officers can enforce it for motorists, bordering on contrary to shedloads of official policies to encourage cycling. If it transpires that they have also been ticketing for non-offences again, then whatever equivalent of an elected police commissioner they have should tell them to stop being daffodils.

 

[Jody]

It was simply a Google headline that came up on my phone yesterday. Interesting how many cycle related headlines come up though; maybe my phone is telling Google that it goes for a bike ride most days - !

Or cookies stored from visiting cycle forums?

 

[Jody]

Perhaps the OP can provide a link to what they have been reading to give context.

https://road.cc/content/news/police-catch-18-red-light-jumping-cyclists-90-minutes-289991

This is the only thing I could find

 

[DCLane]

I'm OK with them doing it on foot to cyclists, as long as it's a proper junction.

But to make it fair they also have to be doing it to motorists at the same time using traffic cars, etc. Otherwise they're picking on one group rather than the rest.

 

[swansonj]

.... As for broken lights that don't detect cyclists - as far as I am concerned they are fair game.

Would I be right that the only strictly legal thing to do is to get off and lift your bike over the stop line?😯

 

[DCLane]

Would I be right that the only strictly legal thing to do is to get off and lift your bike over the stop line?😯

 

[fair weather cyclist]

My take on this?

I am 100% OK with police doing their job and giving fines if the law is broken. Whoever breaks the law, cyclists/motorists/pedestrians, should pay.

After all, out taxes pay for their salaries so it's good to see them do their job.

 

[mjr]

Would I be right that the only strictly legal thing to do is to get off and lift your bike over the stop line?😯

No, the offence is about propelling a vehicle past the stop, not driving it, so Mr Bean's trick of pushing his car through was still an offence (as was the cyclist before him: if there had been a cycle track bypassing the light, it would have been legal).

IIRC, if the lights have failed and you've confirmed that right then by waiting long enough, you have a defence that the lights are themselves not legal, but should proceed cautiously and carefully... and I'd suggest that faffing about pushing your bike in the middle of the road would be neither.

 

[mjr]

My take on this?

I am 100% OK with police doing their job and giving fines if the law is broken. Whoever breaks the law, cyclists/motorists/pedestrians, should pay.

After all, out taxes pay for their salaries so it's good to see them do their job.

Taking it to the extreme, would you also be 100% OK with the police spending all their time issuing fines to litterers and loiterers while pleading insufficient resources to investigate assaults and murders?