Police Campaign on Lights on Bicycles

[Cab]

I always think of it as a bit like those food chain/diagram thingies:

The blitz is like one of the carnivores; it keeps the population of the prey (dim-witted-lightless cyclists) down. Sure lots of them will lapse, but if there wasn't a "cull" then there would be loads more.

Doesn't fit with my own observations in the city. Back in the late '90s the police were less hot on stopping cyclists here and fining them for a lack of lights, whereas since some time around 2003/4 there seems to have been an annual crack down. By January every winter, there has been no apparent improvement in cyclists having lights on their bikes. It just doesn't seem to work, and the reasoning seems obvious (transient cyclist population). I think its quite telling that plod have not been forthcoming with relevant stats showing that their policy works.

(cut)

Well I'm formerly from one of the ones you've listed and we certainly had the message hammered home! The college still takes the same attitude so it might be that some of your friends haven't been listening. I agree that more could be done though. Let's face it, it always can!

The point is that you can't get that message across by making them sit through a talk at the start of the year. If the college fellows cycle off home that day on bikes without lights, if the message is otherwise left to pamphlets left in the porters lodge, its just not going to sink in. Its part of the year-start information overload, its forgotten by the end of October.

Make it a 'college offense' to be caught on the streets of Cambridge without lights. Treat it as a serious issue; other criminal activities reflect badly on people studying at both universities here, why not this one? Stigmatise it.

And do the same thing with the language colleges.

All of this is do-able, and if Plod were to be conctentrating less resources in such a targetted way they'd have a far greater impact. Ain't rocket science.

It's the two female PCSOs who are always out on bikes you've got to chat to. They do quite a bit of the liaison stuff. The police got the ball rolling on the lights discount ages ago. Now it's all done by colleges/departments.

Theres a heck of a lot more than two female PCSOs riding bikes in Cambridge.

As for said discount... None of the students here I know or who I've worked with have (apparently) known about it; I've lost track of how many times I've been asked for advice on bike lights and where to get them at a decent price.

Yup, I agree the other way around would make more sense but I suppose it has it's advantages:

a) actually being fined is more likely to make you get around to doing it rather than "forgetting" and hoping the police won't catch up on their paperwork;
actually being fined will leave a more lasting impression; and
c) it might be more straightforward administratively.

Yet walking around Cambridge in the evening now is the same experience as walking around here ten years ago; you can construct a set of reasons why such fining should work, but it is blatantly the case that it hasn't.

Getting an answer from the poice on an issue like this is very easy! Go to the cambs police website, go to "contact us" and then click on the FOI request box. Public bodies get so many information requests these days that they only tend to respond to the ones they've got to, i.e. the FOI ones.

With respect, they've had this request in writing from me, and no response has been forthcoming. Its easy not to answer a question, you just ignore it, you don't answer it.

I can't comment about ARU but generally if you cycle when you're at cambridge you start on day one and take it from there. I think I probably only knew 2 or 3 students who didn't use bikes for the whole of the time they were at university.

Gosh, I know (and have known) dozens who didn't cycle. Many from Downing, St. Johns, Emma, Trinity Hall... It all really depends on where they're living and where they end up having to travel to in the University. Many take up cycling in their second year when they get into a college house and out of halls. I suppose it'll depend on the college, but I know more who have cycled for two years than for three.

In all honesty, I think the reason it doesn't work is laziness. People forget to take lights off their bikes and they get pinched or the batteries run out and they don't get replaced. Sad isn't it!

I don't think the manpower requirements for the blitz are exactly massive! You can cycle around town all night and not bump into the police. Yes the actions you've suggested would be good but iI guess we're going to have to give the police more money and cut the red tape before we'll see it!

I've seen them out stopping cyclists three times last week. For comparison, I haven't seen that many motorists stopped by plod here in Cambridge in the entire time since I moved here in '99. In the last couple of months I've seen cyclists stopped on Carlton Way, Mill Road, St. Andrews Street, Sidney Street, and a couple of other places the names of which I don't recall. Realistically, they're not going to extend this further, and it isn't going to work any better than it currently is. I would offer that this simply isn't a worthwhile way for them to spend their time, there are better targets.

 

[Cab]

Cab, i guess the issue is far more important to you than it is me. Fair play to you...youre probably a better person than me.
I see thing very simply...theres a law, it should be obeyed (and heaven knows, i'm no angel, but i know if i transgress, i deserve whats coming)

I would doubt whether anyone here would say that its okay to ride without lights; the question is whether stopping and fining cyclists is a good way to prevent that in a town like Cambridge. I maintain that it is not, as evidence for that I put forward the fact that we see this crack down every year and we still se hoards of cyclists without lights.

My argument has nothing to do with excusing people who are breaking the law. I'm concerned with whether this is simply a complete waste of police time, whether it is going to work, and whether in targetting cyclists in this way plod is turning a blind eye to more serious indiscretions on the road.

 

[Cab]

I agree with GBB, we should have a zero tolerance approach to traffic offences. Target RLJers, speeders, all the same.

You don't really break the law 'a little bit' or 'a big bit'.

target all road users the same.

Capital idea.

If thats what was happening here in Cambridge I'd be right behind you. It ain't though. Whats happening is that Plod are targetting cyclists largely as a publicity stunt, to be seen to be doing something 'about it'. Go on, try driving through Cambridge with dodgy lights, see what happens. Drive past the police station with one broken headlight. See if they stop you; I'll bet you a mars bar that they don't.

 

[gbb]

[Trying not to say anthing inflammatory] Your sentiments are admirable Cab, i keep saying you are quite right in theory.

Before i start, let me make it clear i dont think youre wrong. Education in some form or other has its place. We should never stop looking for alternatives when the usual ones apparently dont work.

The problem you have is not just confined to cycling. The same can be said for example drink driving.
Why do we have an annual blitz at christmas ?. God knows, everyone knows drink drivings against the law and downright illegal and dangerous, and yet despite years of Police and government initiatives and advertising campaigns, coupled with spot checks...we still have quite a drink driving problem.

You of course may say that it just proves your point...annual blitz's dont work. It may be true to a point.
I would say it proves, despite whatever initiatives are in place, people are downright thick or are prepared to break the law.

So why have the finest minds in the country not come up with a viable alternative. Because some members of the public, cyclists, drivers, anyone...will consistently break the law, whatever punishment, education, laws are in place.

Punishment is the ultimate and most effective deterrent.

I have no desire to keep coming back to the same things. Neither of us is wrong, neither is right. Theres a middle ground.

I come to this post with a simple ethic in life, and its served me well.
I do my very best in whatever it is i'm called to do. I do that for personal pride and satisfaction and hopefully set a good example to others. I'm not perfect, but have no illusions that if i transgress and get caught, i have no-one to blame but myself. I deserve and will take whats coming.
I also know whats right and wrong.

So, when people wantonly break the law, i treat them as i would be treated. Punishment deserved.

Look for alternatives by all means, theres nothing wrong with that. But i say again, these are supposedly intelligent people.


I feel i'm allowing myself to be being pulled into an arguement on principle, not because i particually disagree with what youre trying to achieve.

 

[Cab]

[Trying not to say anthing inflammatory] Your sentiments are admirable Cab, i keep saying you are quite right in theory.

Before i start, let me make it clear i dont think youre wrong. Education in some form or other has its place. We should never stop looking for alternatives when the usual ones apparently dont work.

The problem you have is not just confined to cycling. The same can be said for example drink driving.
Why do we have an annual blitz at christmas ?. God knows, everyone knows drink drivings against the law and downright illegal and dangerous, and yet despite years of Police and government initiatives and advertising campaigns, coupled with spot checks...we still have quite a drink driving problem.

The incidence of drink driving is far lower than it once was, due to a concerted campaign of education and enforcement. Had plod merely nibbled away at it with an annual arrest spree, odds are very little would have improved. Rather makes my point for me, don't you think?

Although the comparison isn't watertight to be honest; you campaign against drink driving by hilighting the dangers to others, you campaign against cycling without lights by hilighting the danger to the cyclist. People will always take individual risks, the social responsibilities are quite different when you're endangering so many other people.

You of course may say that it just proves your point...annual blitz's dont work. It may be true to a point.
I would say it proves, despite whatever initiatives are in place, people are downright thick or are prepared to break the law.

No, I wouldn't say that it proves that annual blitzes don't work, I'd say that the annual blitz on cycling without lights here hasn't worked, and comparing it with the massive concerted educational and enforcement efforts that have given us a reduction in drink driving (still fluctuates up and down, but from a lower level than it was at one time) point out to us that you need more than just intermittent enforcement to get the point across. The lesson from drink driving is that such a blitz shouldn't be expected to work all alone.

So why have the finest minds in the country not come up with a viable alternative. Because some members of the public, cyclists, drivers, anyone...will consistently break the law, whatever punishment, education, laws are in place.

Punishment is the ultimate and most effective deterrent.

But alone it isn't enough. You don't just get people to wear seatbelts through punishing those who don't wear them. You don't just get people to obey speed limits outside of schools by punishing them if they don't obey. A deterrent alone is way less effective than a deterrent backed up by a good educational campaign, which needs to be accompanied by some sensible policing that encourages people to comply. Stop and fine... Hasn't worked, isn't working, our lessons from history is that it isn't going to work (unless you have a massive deployment of plod on the streets).

But then theres more to it than that... Police time is a finite resource. You could either have coppers on the street enforcing laws they see being broken more generally (which should include stopping cars with defective lights, people who overtake cyclists too closely, etc.) or you could tell them to target a specific group who are visibly breaking the law but actually, when it comes down to it, doing very little harm. Personally, I'd put the emphasis on catching those most likely to cause harm (if emphasis has to be placed on any sub-group at all). That ain't whats happening though.