Cyclist stopped 3 times by police
-
- Posts: 3693
- Joined: 22 Jun 2019, 12:27pm
Re: Cyclist stopped 3 times by police
Gosh, there’s some pedantic talk here. Motorist rings up and says “I nearly hit eyz”, that actually means: I avoided this hazard (‘cause I’m watching what I’m doing) and am reporting the hazard because someone else might not manage to avoid it. What the motorist is saying is: “I don’t want anyone get hurt so is there anything that can be done about stopping a potential accident?” The pedant would of course reply: “drive more carefully”. Which would be a pointless - and potentially antagonistic - thing to say to someone who’s already safely negotiated the hazard.
Don’t fret, it’s OK to: ride a simple old bike; ride slowly, walk, rest and admire the view; ride off-road; ride in your raincoat; ride by yourself; ride in the dark; and ride one hundred yards or one hundred miles. Your bike and your choices to suit you.
Re: Cyclist stopped 3 times by police
That's how this feels to me.Carlton green wrote: ↑22 Mar 2023, 11:09am Gosh, there’s some pedantic talk here. Motorist rings up and says “I nearly hit eyz”, that actually means: I avoided this hazard (‘cause I’m watching what I’m doing) and am reporting the hazard because someone else might not manage to avoid it. What the motorist is saying is: “I don’t want anyone get hurt so is there anything that can be done about stopping a potential accident?” The pedant would of course reply: “drive more carefully”. Which would be a pointless - and potentially antagonistic - thing to say to someone who’s already safely negotiated the hazard.
But I wouldn't describe it as pedantry... isn't it bringing pre-existing positions/ axe-grinding/ outgroup hatred to the particular problem?
Jonathan
Re: Cyclist stopped 3 times by police
My problem with all of this is both the drivers and the police addressing this as if the cyclist was the problem. I dont think 'driver more carefully' is the right response. It's not likely to help. But helping the driver become more aware of other perspectives and how to think about the situation differently would be beneficial.Carlton green wrote: ↑22 Mar 2023, 11:09am Gosh, there’s some pedantic talk here. Motorist rings up and says “I nearly hit eyz”, that actually means: I avoided this hazard (‘cause I’m watching what I’m doing) and am reporting the hazard because someone else might not manage to avoid it. What the motorist is saying is: “I don’t want anyone get hurt so is there anything that can be done about stopping a potential accident?” The pedant would of course reply: “drive more carefully”. Which would be a pointless - and potentially antagonistic - thing to say to someone who’s already safely negotiated the hazard.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Re: Cyclist stopped 3 times by police
Yes.Carlton green wrote: ↑22 Mar 2023, 11:09am Gosh, there’s some pedantic talk here. Motorist rings up and says “I nearly hit eyz”, that actually means: I avoided this hazard (‘cause I’m watching what I’m doing) and am reporting the hazard because someone else might not manage to avoid it. What the motorist is saying is: “I don’t want anyone get hurt so is there anything that can be done about stopping a potential accident?” The pedant would of course reply: “drive more carefully”. Which would be a pointless - and potentially antagonistic - thing to say to someone who’s already safely negotiated the hazard.
I don't think we have exact transcripts of these calls, so I think we're all speculating; but anyone suggesting a more malevolent view for these callers is without evidence; they only have their own preconceptions about motorists in general.
Re: Cyclist stopped 3 times by police
Thanks for that.Vorpal wrote: ↑22 Mar 2023, 11:39am My problem with all of this is both the drivers and the police addressing this as if the cyclist was the problem. I dont think 'driver more carefully' is the right response. It's not likely to help. But helping the driver become more aware of other perspectives and how to think about the situation differently would be beneficial.
I see the actions as being in response to perceptions that the person on the bike is vulnerable, and then trying to avoid any harm.
Are we saying the same thing, or do you see "the drivers and the police addressing this as if the cyclist was the problem" as something other than that?
Jonathan
Re: Cyclist stopped 3 times by police
Telling the vulnerable to do something differently is basically the road safety strategy of the last 6 or 7 decades. All it's done is discourage most people form doing it at all.Jdsk wrote: ↑22 Mar 2023, 11:47amThanks for that.Vorpal wrote: ↑22 Mar 2023, 11:39am My problem with all of this is both the drivers and the police addressing this as if the cyclist was the problem. I dont think 'driver more carefully' is the right response. It's not likely to help. But helping the driver become more aware of other perspectives and how to think about the situation differently would be beneficial.
I see the actions as being in response to perceptions that the person on the bike is vulnerable, and then trying to avoid any harm.
Are we saying the same thing, or do you see "the drivers and the police addressing this as if the cyclist was the problem" as something other than that?
Jonathan
It's no different than telling kids cycling to school that they shouldn't cycle because of the school run drivers who are always in a hurry and park badly around the school gates every morning.
The cyclist is not the problem, here. If the conditions are really that bad, close the road. If they aren't that bad, the drivers may have been driving too fast for conditions or lack awareness. At the very least, they don't seem to understand that the cyclist has the right to be there, and that drivers need to take especial care to watch out for vulnerable road users in the fog.
I fully understand what the actions are in response to. I just think it's a motor-centric response.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Re: Cyclist stopped 3 times by police
Yes the police did! They didn't stop the cyclist continuing his ride.Vorpal wrote: ↑22 Mar 2023, 12:06pmAt the very least, they don't seem to understand that the cyclist has the right to be there.Jdsk wrote: ↑22 Mar 2023, 11:47amThanks for that.Vorpal wrote: ↑22 Mar 2023, 11:39am My problem with all of this is both the drivers and the police addressing this as if the cyclist was the problem. I dont think 'driver more carefully' is the right response. It's not likely to help. But helping the driver become more aware of other perspectives and how to think about the situation differently would be beneficial.
I see the actions as being in response to perceptions that the person on the bike is vulnerable, and then trying to avoid any harm.
Are we saying the same thing, or do you see "the drivers and the police addressing this as if the cyclist was the problem" as something other than that?
Jonathan
Would you as a Manx police woman have spoken to the cyclist at all ? How would you have felt if he'd been hit by a not so concerned or careful motorist after receiving phone calls by concerned drivers ?
I am here. Where are you?
-
- Posts: 7898
- Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm
Re: Cyclist stopped 3 times by police
Just as the police usually emphasise the need for cyclists to wear hiviz and lights at night, but never mention HC p.126.Vorpal wrote: ↑22 Mar 2023, 12:06pm
The cyclist is not the problem, here. If the conditions are really that bad, close the road. If they aren't that bad, the drivers may have been driving too fast for conditions or lack awareness. At the very least, they don't seem to understand that the cyclist has the right to be there, and that drivers need to take especial care to watch out for vulnerable road users in the fog.
I fully understand what the actions are in response to. I just think it's a motor-centric response.
This cyclist was taking all the recommended measures, but these are not enough, it seems.
On Twitter he wrote
“I’ve two lights on the back, a 1200 lumen front light, had a bright orange jacket on, and hi viz overshoes and gloves.
“All was okay for the first 29 miles, if horrible and wet and windy, then I started the climb out of Ramsey. The road was busyish, but no more than say Holme Moss back home, and while visibility wasn’t great, it was about 200 yards so fine to be seen.”6
Last edited by Mike Sales on 22 Mar 2023, 12:31pm, edited 1 time in total.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
Re: Cyclist stopped 3 times by police
Would your actions discourage obviously concerned and obviously careful drivers who avoided hitting the cyclist in thick fog from reporting their concern for the cyclist because all that happened was them getting a lecture from a police woman called Vorpal ?Vorpal wrote: ↑22 Mar 2023, 10:25amHonestly? I'd try to speak to the drivers that called to report 'nearly hitting' the cyclists & try to find out the specific circumstances from their perspectives. After that, it would depend on their responses. But I would think that at the very least, it could be an opportunity to get them to see it from the cyclist's point of view, and perhaps a teaching moment.
I am here. Where are you?
Re: Cyclist stopped 3 times by police
ThankyouVorpal wrote: ↑22 Mar 2023, 12:06pmTelling the vulnerable to do something differently is basically the road safety strategy of the last 6 or 7 decades. All it's done is discourage most people form doing it at all.Jdsk wrote: ↑22 Mar 2023, 11:47amThanks for that.Vorpal wrote: ↑22 Mar 2023, 11:39am My problem with all of this is both the drivers and the police addressing this as if the cyclist was the problem. I dont think 'driver more carefully' is the right response. It's not likely to help. But helping the driver become more aware of other perspectives and how to think about the situation differently would be beneficial.
I see the actions as being in response to perceptions that the person on the bike is vulnerable, and then trying to avoid any harm.
Are we saying the same thing, or do you see "the drivers and the police addressing this as if the cyclist was the problem" as something other than that?
It's no different than telling kids cycling to school that they shouldn't cycle because of the school run drivers who are always in a hurry and park badly around the school gates every morning.
The cyclist is not the problem, here. If the conditions are really that bad, close the road. If they aren't that bad, the drivers may have been driving too fast for conditions or lack awareness. At the very least, they don't seem to understand that the cyclist has the right to be there, and that drivers need to take especial care to watch out for vulnerable road users in the fog.
I fully understand what the actions are in response to. I just think it's a motor-centric response.
Jonathan
Re: Cyclist stopped 3 times by police
Thanks for that:Mike Sales wrote: ↑22 Mar 2023, 12:23pm ...
On Twitter he wrote“I’ve two lights on the back, a 1200 lumen front light, had a bright orange jacket on, and hi viz overshoes and gloves.
“All was okay for the first 29 miles, if horrible and wet and windy, then I started the climb out of Ramsey. The road was busyish, but no more than say Holme Moss back home, and while visibility wasn’t great, it was about 200 yards so fine to be seen.”6
https://twitter.com/chrissyglenc/status ... nts-299999
Jonathan
Re: Cyclist stopped 3 times by police
The key thing is this particular case were the multiple reports by drivers that they nearly hit the cyclist due to the heavy fog. With the same individual cyclist being a common demoninator in all those reports, that would raise the possibility that the cyclist is doing something wrong, e.g. crossing the centre line when descending the mountain, but that was not the case here (the cyclist was ascending and there is no mention of 'dangerous cycling'). Neverthless, I can understand the police sending a vehicle to investigate further and find out exactly what was happening. Offering to transport the cyclist off the mountain in their van was considerate, but the concern is that the police might think they had done their job and that was the end of the matter.
The fact that there were multiple reports is strongly indicative that people were driving inappropriately for the conditions. It is very possible that some of the drivers were over-stating it, but very unlikely that all were (and I note the comment in the OP: "It wasn't during a race meeting but in thick fog where there are idiots race round in cars.").
Properly assessing and acting on near miss reports is a fundamental part of safety management, including road safety. IoM police officers will be at a disadvantage to the experienced specialist traffic constables and sergeants in many UK forces, but neverthless I would expect an inspector or higher rank on the IoM to appreciate the importance of such near miss reports.
- If multiple drivers reported nearly hitting the cyclist, there were probably as many or more drivers who came similarly close to the cyclist and did not report. They and their driving would not be addressed by challenging those drivers who did report.
- Removing that one cyclist from the equation by transporting him off the mountain in a van does not address the underlying problem. It seems likely that there will be similar incidents whenever a cyclist rides over the mountain in fog, and the point with near misses is that it is only a matter of time and luck before there is a collision and serious injury or fatality. Sending a police van up to investigate every time there are similar reports involving a cyclist in fog is not a good solution - not only is it a burden on police resources, it is reactive instead of pro-active. Pro-active measures are far better and cheaper for preventing harm actually happening.
- The police could request that the IoM authorities prohibit cycling over the mountain in adverse weather. That would probably be a headache to manage and enforce. More importantly, even removing all cyclists from the equation is unlikely to be an effective solution. If people are driving inappropriately to the conditions, they are also likely to have an accident not involving a cyclist, e.g. nearly hit/collide with other vehicles.
Road safety on the IoM is poor compared with the UK. That is not due just to the various motorcycle festivals and races. The IoM road safety strategy* makes it clear that it wants to significantly improve road safety standards. That requires a systematic approach. In the case of the mountain road, that means pro-active policing to deter significant numbers of people driving inappropriately in fog and other bad weather.
* https://www.gov.im/categories/home-and- ... -strategy/
The fact that there were multiple reports is strongly indicative that people were driving inappropriately for the conditions. It is very possible that some of the drivers were over-stating it, but very unlikely that all were (and I note the comment in the OP: "It wasn't during a race meeting but in thick fog where there are idiots race round in cars.").
Properly assessing and acting on near miss reports is a fundamental part of safety management, including road safety. IoM police officers will be at a disadvantage to the experienced specialist traffic constables and sergeants in many UK forces, but neverthless I would expect an inspector or higher rank on the IoM to appreciate the importance of such near miss reports.
- If multiple drivers reported nearly hitting the cyclist, there were probably as many or more drivers who came similarly close to the cyclist and did not report. They and their driving would not be addressed by challenging those drivers who did report.
- Removing that one cyclist from the equation by transporting him off the mountain in a van does not address the underlying problem. It seems likely that there will be similar incidents whenever a cyclist rides over the mountain in fog, and the point with near misses is that it is only a matter of time and luck before there is a collision and serious injury or fatality. Sending a police van up to investigate every time there are similar reports involving a cyclist in fog is not a good solution - not only is it a burden on police resources, it is reactive instead of pro-active. Pro-active measures are far better and cheaper for preventing harm actually happening.
- The police could request that the IoM authorities prohibit cycling over the mountain in adverse weather. That would probably be a headache to manage and enforce. More importantly, even removing all cyclists from the equation is unlikely to be an effective solution. If people are driving inappropriately to the conditions, they are also likely to have an accident not involving a cyclist, e.g. nearly hit/collide with other vehicles.
Road safety on the IoM is poor compared with the UK. That is not due just to the various motorcycle festivals and races. The IoM road safety strategy* makes it clear that it wants to significantly improve road safety standards. That requires a systematic approach. In the case of the mountain road, that means pro-active policing to deter significant numbers of people driving inappropriately in fog and other bad weather.
* https://www.gov.im/categories/home-and- ... -strategy/
Re: Cyclist stopped 3 times by police
And his blog:Jdsk wrote: ↑22 Mar 2023, 12:32pmThanks for that:Mike Sales wrote: ↑22 Mar 2023, 12:23pm ...
On Twitter he wrote“I’ve two lights on the back, a 1200 lumen front light, had a bright orange jacket on, and hi viz overshoes and gloves.
“All was okay for the first 29 miles, if horrible and wet and windy, then I started the climb out of Ramsey. The road was busyish, but no more than say Holme Moss back home, and while visibility wasn’t great, it was about 200 yards so fine to be seen.”6
https://twitter.com/chrissyglenc/status ... nts-299999
https://cglencorse100greatestcyclingcli ... amsey.html
Jonathan
-
- Posts: 3992
- Joined: 26 Mar 2022, 7:13am
Re: Cyclist stopped 3 times by police
^
^
Post two above.
Yes, that’s the “professional approach”.
Near Miss (or Near Hit, language varies) reports are gold dust and shouldn’t be wasted.
^
Post two above.
Yes, that’s the “professional approach”.
Near Miss (or Near Hit, language varies) reports are gold dust and shouldn’t be wasted.