Should police swoop on cyclists who ignore red lights? (ES poll)

[User482]

I disagree. Remember damage is not just measured in injuries and deaths, it is also measured in perception and animosity.

Far to often car drivers throw the old line at you about RLJing. They hate cyclists because they see us breaking the laws that they (and we) have to stick by. That 'bloody cyclists' attitude can lead to dangers for cyclists when the drivers take their animosity out on the next cyclist they see.


So yes I think it is worth the police taking time to catch these cyclists. It might just improve things for us all.

I agree with this. It is a grossly irrational, hypocritical and unfair attitude, but we've all heard it. My commute to work involves three crossings at cycle/ pedestrian pelicans - it's very noticeable that cars RLJ much more often when I'm there on my own, as opposed to when pedestrians are waiting.

 

[magnatom]

Funniest post of the year so far mate that!!! Absolute cracker!

A little test for you, how many car trips do NOT involve breaking the speed limit at least once do you think?

Your a little confrontational today aren't you Dom

Indeed they do, but does that make it right. Does that mean that it should be allowed. I think you will find that the police come down quite hard on speeding (although the courts don't always).

Perception plays a big part, especially as we are a minority. If we want to improve the perception of cyclists then we have to follow the laws of the land.

At the moment speeding is culturally acceptable. Drink driving was once acceptable. I think/hope that one day this will change.

 

[Tetedelacourse]

Police setting out to specifically catch cycling RLJers is not best use of their time.

I've been reluctantly convinced that RLJing gets motorists' backs up, but I've yet to be convinced that it's dangerous, or at least as dangerous as other motoring offences that are committed routinely on the roads eg speeding, mobile phones, RLJ in cars, tailgating, lack of insurance etc etc etc.

The fuzz should prioritise their overstretched resources accordingly.

 

[wafflycat]

The police should do every red light jumper, and not focus on one particular type. I suspect they would then get a lot of bus drivers, some car drivers, and lots of cyclists.

Well said. Where I live, I see far more motorists jumping red lghts than cyclists, yet the meeja would have us believe it's only cyclists who are the problem. All RLJ'ers irrespective of mode of transport should be targeted, not just one little group within the RLJ'ers.

 

[domtyler]

Do I win a prize?

Not a prize as such, but you do get a clip round the ear

 

[domtyler]

Your a little confrontational today aren't you Dom

Unfortunately I have been given work to do today so only had a few seconds to offend as many people as possible get my points across.

 

[tdr1nka]

a cycle clip is that?




T x

 

[tdr1nka]

If you have Police stopping cycle RLJ's, it surely stands to reason their presence at a junction should not only deter motorists from jumping the lights, they'd be able to catch them at it too?

T x

 

[domtyler]

I blame the press.

Surely it's mostly down to Global Warming?

 

[Cab]

I disagree. Remember damage is not just measured in injuries and deaths, it is also measured in perception and animosity.

Far to often car drivers throw the old line at you about RLJing. They hate cyclists because they see us breaking the laws that they (and we) have to stick by. That 'bloody cyclists' attitude can lead to dangers for cyclists when the drivers take their animosity out on the next cyclist they see.


So yes I think it is worth the police taking time to catch these cyclists. It might just improve things for us all.

True, at a personal level I'd love to see cyclists who RLJ get caught and fined, its an irritating thing that they do! And yes, they do get us all a bad name, and I'd love to see them stopped from doing that. But thats as far as I can go and still agree with you

Blitzing cyclists on a single issue doesn't work, at least not when I've seen it done. I've seen this happen with RLJing, I've seen it with lights, and a month after the blitz the streets here in Cambridge are as infested with RLJers or unlit cyclists as they were before. Therefore I don't accept that the problem isnt solveable with a crack down.

And even if it was, there are more worthy targets that cause more harm and distress.

To solve this you have to address what the cause of the problem is, just fining those you catch over a fortnights period doesn't do that. And the cause of this problem on our roads, like many others, is that there is an endemic opinion that if you're not obviously causing any harm it is okay to break the rules. So its the same as motorists RLJing, speeding, etc. You can't have a once in a while crackdown and expect it to cause a cultural change.

 

[Cab]

My guess is that if the Police didn't get any complaints about RLJing they wouldn't be targeting RLJers, which would suggest to me that it is justified.

Yep, they get complaints about it (I'd be fascinated to see a demographic breakdown of those complaining about it). That in itself doesn't justify spending resources on it though. Why should it?

 

[Cab]

A little test for you, how many car trips do NOT involve breaking the speed limit at least once do you think?

While you're right that speeding is an endemic crime, its less visible because it is so endemic. Cyclists getting to the front of the queue of traffic and crossing the white line in front of motorists is way mote visible. Re-read the post you were responding to, the point was correct in that context.

 

[Cab]

Or rather, the fact as you choose to see it.

No, the 'fact' being derived from the oft-discussed data on RLJing. The 'fact' being that RLJers are not reported as being responsible for accidents or as causing serious injury.

The many drivers I see every day, at every junction, RLJing aren't causing carnage either.

Interesting, isn't it? And do you notice that the police largely ignore them, even though there are more of them than cyclists and they have the potential to cause much more harm? Rather makes the claim that RLJing cyclists are a problem seem... I dunno... rather petty.

You haven't picked a very good defence.

What is it that you think I'm defending?

 

[PrettyboyTim]

Police setting out to specifically catch cycling RLJers is not best use of their time.

I've been reluctantly convinced that RLJing gets motorists' backs up, but I've yet to be convinced that it's dangerous, or at least as dangerous as other motoring offences that are committed routinely on the roads eg speeding, mobile phones, RLJ in cars, tailgating, lack of insurance etc etc etc.

The fuzz should prioritise their overstretched resources accordingly.

Yeah, yeah - the same old excuse used by speeding motorists. "Why are you bothering me doing my <insert allegedly 'minor' offence here> when you could be off catching rapists and murderers?" I could almost be on a SafeSpeed forum.

Let's get things in perspective here: RLJing by cyclists is rife among a sizeable minority - and the Police have decided to do a limited-time crackdown on it. What's the problem? It's not as if they're suddenly dedicating a quarter of their annual budget to the problem. RLJing is illegal, it is dangerous and it is anti-social. Are you seriously suggesting it should be completely ignored by the Police?

 

[Cab]

You'd say the same then about a police swoop to catch drivers using bus lanes then? Too many resources to hide a couple of bobbies behind a wall for an hour in the morning rush-hour? Why?

Depends on the bus lane. I can think of one in Cambridge where they'd be mad to do so, its almost unavoidable that those not intimitely familiar with Newmarket Road will end up in the bus lane at some point.

But yeah, fair question, and I don't know whether I'd object or not. Got any data that says that using bus lanes is causing an increase in accidents or adversely affecting other road users in any way? If not, I'd say that a blitz is uncalled for but nick'em if you catch 'em (as for RLJing cyclists). If yes, then depending on the increase in risk I'd say yeah, spend resources that way.