87% "breaking the highway code"

This sub-forum all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmets will be moved here, if not placed here correctly in the first place.
downfader
Posts: 1074
Joined: 8 Feb 2009, 10:09pm
Contact:

87% "breaking the highway code"

Postby downfader » 7 Dec 2010, 1:23pm

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8 ... ut_lights/

Whilst I fully agree with the clamp down on the great-unlit, I think the comment the officer gave towards helmets is misleading:

Of the passing cyclists, 37 per cent were breaking the law by not using lights, and 87 per cent were breaking the highway code by not wearing helmets and brightly coloured or high visibility clothing. Only four cyclists had all the obligatory and recommended equipment


Forgive me, but until its law - why complain? In fact ..until its proven - why complain? It is a nonsensical comment in all reality.

snibgo
Posts: 4604
Joined: 29 Jun 2010, 4:45am

Re: 87% "breaking the highway code"

Postby snibgo » 7 Dec 2010, 2:18pm

The comment wasn't from a police officer, but the reporter.

thirdcrank
Posts: 28687
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: 87% "breaking the highway code"

Postby thirdcrank » 7 Dec 2010, 2:22pm

Somebody in Dorsetshire or whatever the call it down that way is positioning themselves for the elected police commissioner job.

If that daft policy is implemented, remember - you have been warned.

downfader
Posts: 1074
Joined: 8 Feb 2009, 10:09pm
Contact:

Re: 87% "breaking the highway code"

Postby downfader » 7 Dec 2010, 2:29pm

snibgo wrote:The comment wasn't from a police officer, but the reporter.


Hmm you might be right, but where did the paper get the stats from? :|

snibgo
Posts: 4604
Joined: 29 Jun 2010, 4:45am

Re: 87% "breaking the highway code"

Postby snibgo » 7 Dec 2010, 3:39pm

downfader wrote:Hmm you might be right, but where did the paper get the stats from?

From the previous paragraph. Out of 30 cyclists, 11 (doing the arithmetic) didn't have lights and 26 weren't wearing helmets and bright clothing.

SilverBadge
Posts: 577
Joined: 12 May 2009, 11:28pm

Re: 87% "breaking the highway code"

Postby SilverBadge » 8 Dec 2010, 3:03am

Only a minor cherry pick from the article


Dangerous cyclists are a major complaint for drivers . . . . . . .

Cllr David Smith, cabinet member for communities, and a cyclist himself, said: “Cyclists are nearly always top of the agenda at public meetings, for riding without lights or on the pavements. ”

PC Hammond, a cyclist himself, said: . . . . . “Cyclists on the whole are quite law-abiding. Like in most cases, it’s the minority who give the majority a bad reputation.”

David Brown, a Poole councillor and Echo cycling blogger, said: “The law is probably not enforced enough because there are too many cyclists out there breaking the law on lights. But that number is a drop in ocean compared to the problem of law-breaking motorists.”

Slugonabike
Posts: 14
Joined: 6 Dec 2010, 10:26am
Location: Darzet

Re: 87% "breaking the highway code"

Postby Slugonabike » 8 Dec 2010, 8:14am

downfader wrote:
snibgo wrote:The comment wasn't from a police officer, but the reporter.


Hmm you might be right, but where did the paper get the stats from? :|


To confirm, the article says 'The Echo returned to the same spot 2 evenings later and counted 30 cyclists ...'

Dorset police have already cracked down on speeding and unsafe motorists (the 'No excuses' campaign) so I'm not surprised that cyclists were next on the agenda. The amount of people I see (or almost don't see!) who have no lights is truly frightening.

Reminds me that I must get myself some better lights though! I'm a cycling newbie and accepted Mr Slug's assertation that cheapies were fine - until I started reading cycling fora! I'm currently on the bench so now would be a good time to sort it out ...

downfader
Posts: 1074
Joined: 8 Feb 2009, 10:09pm
Contact:

Re: 87% "breaking the highway code"

Postby downfader » 9 Dec 2010, 10:32am

Slugonabike wrote:
downfader wrote:
snibgo wrote:The comment wasn't from a police officer, but the reporter.


Hmm you might be right, but where did the paper get the stats from? :|


To confirm, the article says 'The Echo returned to the same spot 2 evenings later and counted 30 cyclists ...'

Dorset police have already cracked down on speeding and unsafe motorists (the 'No excuses' campaign) so I'm not surprised that cyclists were next on the agenda. The amount of people I see (or almost don't see!) who have no lights is truly frightening.

Reminds me that I must get myself some better lights though! I'm a cycling newbie and accepted Mr Slug's assertation that cheapies were fine - until I started reading cycling fora! I'm currently on the bench so now would be a good time to sort it out ...


What I see down here makes me think that the unlit cyclists tend to congregate on some routes, whilst the lit will use others. Southampton gets a lot of complaints about unlit cyclists too, but from personal experience the numbers aint that high (iirc I worked it out at around 20% unlit, many being kids)

With lights I think it depends on what you buy... some cheap ones (eg smart, knog) are good, some are naff. You also need to take into account beam pattern and side vis too, actually that makes me wonder - how many cyclists are dubbed unlit when they just have naff lights?

Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: 87% "breaking the highway code"

Postby Tonyf33 » 10 Dec 2010, 9:36pm

Typical local rag innacuracies, pretty sick really because a lot of people will take it as gospel that those not wearing helmets are now breaking the law :evil:

As for lights, I've observed a fair few rears were you could barely tell that they were switched on, same with some of the very early & very feeble LEDs. it's hard not to see a cyclist when approaching from behind at night time whether they have lights or not as the main headlights do that job, however when cyclists come out of side roads and in areas that are totally unlit into your path so you have little time to react it's very dodgy both as a motorist and a cyclist.

I just hope the police are offering the same £30 FPN to all motorists whose lights don't work properly (out or badly misaligned) with the option to 'get off' if they prove they have them fixed, otherwise surely that is unfairly targeting cyclists.

It makes me wonder what is the true definition of 'dangerous' & 'careless', do they have differing meanings when applied to differing modes of transport???

thirdcrank
Posts: 28687
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: 87% "breaking the highway code"

Postby thirdcrank » 10 Dec 2010, 9:45pm

Tonyf33 wrote:... I just hope the police are offering the same £30 FPN to all motorists ...


Try a google on vehicle defects rectification scheme - VDRS for short

downfader
Posts: 1074
Joined: 8 Feb 2009, 10:09pm
Contact:

Re: 87% "breaking the highway code"

Postby downfader » 10 Dec 2010, 9:51pm

Tonyf33 wrote:Typical local rag innacuracies, pretty sick really because a lot of people will take it as gospel that those not wearing helmets are now breaking the law :evil:

As for lights, I've observed a fair few rears were you could barely tell that they were switched on, same with some of the very early & very feeble LEDs. it's hard not to see a cyclist when approaching from behind at night time whether they have lights or not as the main headlights do that job, however when cyclists come out of side roads and in areas that are totally unlit into your path so you have little time to react it's very dodgy both as a motorist and a cyclist.

I just hope the police are offering the same £30 FPN to all motorists whose lights don't work properly (out or badly misaligned) with the option to 'get off' if they prove they have them fixed, otherwise surely that is unfairly targeting cyclists.

It makes me wonder what is the true definition of 'dangerous' & 'careless', do they have differing meanings when applied to differing modes of transport???


I think with transport issues the Police do need to consider cycles at one time, and motorists at another. It could be impracticle and possibly dangerous to pull over the two at the same time imo (not sure if thats what you meant tbh). I think you're always going to get someone going "look, look!! Why arent you stopping them!?"

I think "dangerous/careless" can change meaning on different vehicles. On a cycle you're obviously more likely to injure yourself if you act like a plum.

Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: 87% "breaking the highway code"

Postby Tonyf33 » 10 Dec 2010, 10:36pm

Certainly not at the same time, lets not confuse our overworked boys in hi-vis & stab vest :lol: However street side 'crackdowns' on 'Dangerous' car drivers appear to be very very infrequent given the vast numbers of motor vehicles and the damage they can potentially do.
'Minor defects' such as lights etc can be given a HORT1 plus verbal warning (So no compulsion to get vehicle fixed nor to return the HORT1 form with MOT testers stamp) this is completely at the discretion of an officer. Riding with no lights on a bike is a compulsary FPN with the option within 7 days to rectify as far as I can see.
How is the crackdown on 'dangerous' cyclists deemed to be proportionate?

kwackers
Posts: 14381
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: 87% "breaking the highway code"

Postby kwackers » 11 Dec 2010, 9:25am

Tonyf33 wrote:How is the crackdown on 'dangerous' cyclists deemed to be proportionate?

I think it's in proportion to the number of motorists complaining. :roll:

Coming home from work the other day (by car - brrrr!) it seemed like almost every other vehicle had at least one light out, one vehicle only had the high level brake light working and a single rear light.
Nobody complains about those though, but a cyclist without lights! OMG! What a dangerous lunatic!

With the new publicly appointed police commissioners (or whatever they're going to be) we can expect much more of these sort of crackdowns whilst the crimes of middle England will go largely ignored.