"And make no mistake, cyclists are criminals"

[workhard]

but the cops do. you try explaining to a cop about the grey areas when youre stopped for driving at 32mph at 6am ....

real or hypothetical? traffic cop or regular plod? spotty young copper or grey beard? 32mph honestly or bit faster/other infringement before plod were spotted? Accident black spot or residential cul-de-sac? On going zero tolerance plod blitz or normal tolerances in operation? Humble, apologetic driver or Victor Meldrew/John McEnroe attitude?

In the absence of some form of aggravating circumstances a short polite letter to the divisional inspector cc'd to the chief constable and chair of local police authority pointing out 2mph (assuming 30mph limit) is within legal margin of error for a speedo and mentioning overzealous enforcement would often see any charge/penalty notice being waved.

A good mate is a traffic sergeant, cousin a traffic inspector, their comments on colleagues pulling someone for 32 in a 30 zone without any other contributing factors could not be repeated in a family forum.

My experience is somewhat different. In 30+ years of driving/motorcycling "hands up" I've been stopped a fair few times for minor infringements, esp on my motorbikes, but have never, yet, been 'done'. There will always be some legal pedants policing our streets with targets to meet I guess but most times - for something minor - an experienced plod will give me a talking to and, if I seem to be taking it on board, let me go on my way. On a motorbike once it's established you're insured and road legal and the conversation turns to the bike itself you know you are more or less in the clear. Of course, there are things I can say and do that guarantee me a conviction/penalty notice however minor the actual offence so I don't go there.

[pigman]

but the cops do. you try explaining to a cop about the grey areas when youre stopped for driving at 32mph at 6am ....

real or hypothetical? traffic cop or regular plod? spotty young copper or grey beard? 32mph honestly or bit faster/other infringement before plod were spotted? Accident black spot or residential cul-de-sac? On going zero tolerance plod blitz or normal tolerances in operation? Humble, apologetic driver or Victor Meldrew/John McEnroe attitude?

I give in ... work to do an all that ...

In 30+ years of driving/motorcycling "hands up" I've been stopped a fair few times for minor infringements, esp on my motorbikes, but have never, yet, been 'done'.

and

A good mate is a traffic sergeant, cousin a traffic inspector,

a link perhaps .... only joking, nothing like that ever happens

[workhard]

That's bad luck - probably had a target to meet (and no RLJ cyclists when he needs them). I had a friend who drove an unmarked car, towards the end he hated it, the targets meant he had to book people sometimes for the most trivial offences just to reach them. That was a few years ago, perhaps it's all changed now...

I did get stopped once for 43 in a 30, I knew there was a copper behind me but genuinely believed the road was a 40. I said this and they replied "yeah but you were still doing over 40!", to which I said "I didn't want you to think I was drunk!".
(They told me off and let me go).

you blagger!

More llkely PC 3230 probably on his first turn in traffic with no experience. Even in the bad old days of pure target driven policing very little could be done to penalise officers who exercised discretion and thus didn't meet them - old bill is far to unionised for that to happen if my families experience is anything to go by.

Most Chief Constables seem to regard policing "targets" like this with horror and ACPO have gone on record against them in the past. They know they do their job only with our consent, alienate the public and it all gets much much more difficult for them.

[workhard]

but the cops do. you try explaining to a cop about the grey areas when youre stopped for driving at 32mph at 6am ....

real or hypothetical? traffic cop or regular plod? spotty young copper or grey beard? 32mph honestly or bit faster/other infringement before plod were spotted? Accident black spot or residential cul-de-sac? On going zero tolerance plod blitz or normal tolerances in operation? Humble, apologetic driver or Victor Meldrew/John McEnroe attitude?

I give in ... work to do an all that ...

In 30+ years of driving/motorcycling "hands up" I've been stopped a fair few times for minor infringements, esp on my motorbikes, but have never, yet, been 'done'.

and

A good mate is a traffic sergeant, cousin a traffic inspector,

a link perhaps .... only joking, nothing like that ever happens

LOL! Nice one. No they serve in other jurisdictions as it happensl

[david143]

Is there anyone here who honestly thinks the roads are getting safer?

How do we get safer roads if not by having rules that everyone needs to abide by.

There is far too much traffic to have individualised rules, besides, that would only lead to further confusion for the average and less than average driver of which we know there are too many.....

Sorry, but it is one of those things that the rules must apply to all so that all understand they do.....

so when other road users see cyclists persistently breach the rules of the road, it is going to make them think they don't care, and in that case why should they?

[kwackers]

you blagger!

More llkely PC 3230 probably on his first turn in traffic with no experience. Even in the bad old days of pure target driven policing very little could be done to penalise officers who exercised discretion and thus didn't meet them - old bill is far to unionised for that to happen if my families experience is anything to go by.

Most Chief Constables seem to regard policing "targets" like this with horror and ACPO have gone on record against them in the past. They know they do their job only with our consent, alienate the public and it all gets much much more difficult for them.

I don't think there was any hard and fast targets, as in do this or else, just pressure. Add to that the amount of paperwork, general public attitudes and he was more of the opinion that a job he once enjoyed doing was becoming more and more disagreeable. He had been in the job 30 years though, I suspect things could just have changed to much for him.
He did have some good stories to tell though.

In general if you don't micturate them about I've never had any problems with the police, as you said earlier quite often they'll pull someone and issue a ticket not necessarily because that particular offence is actually ticket worthy but more because they've took exception to your standard of driving or may have spotted you earlier caning it or some other (but impossible to prove) offence.

If I learned anything from my mate it was be polite and as long as what you've done wasn't too bad most will let it go, give it large and expect them to issue a ticket. (Plus the big give away for people half cut on their way home from the pub was to drive under the speed limit in an attempt to 'look legal'...)

[kwackers]

Is there anyone here who honestly thinks the roads are getting safer?

How do we get safer roads if not by having rules that everyone needs to abide by.

There is far too much traffic to have individualised rules, besides, that would only lead to further confusion for the average and less than average driver of which we know there are too many.....

Sorry, but it is one of those things that the rules must apply to all so that all understand they do.....

so when other road users see cyclists persistently breach the rules of the road, it is going to make them think they don't care, and in that case why should they?

Less deaths this year than since the 30's apparently so, yes they are.

Rules will only be obeyed when people stand out to loose by disobeying them and at the moment few do.
One of the reasons deaths fall overall is because cars are safer, once if you hit something at 30mph you were probably a gonna. Now people frequently walk away from 60 & 70 mph impacts. Perceived safety means risk taking no longer carries the death penalty...

The mobile phone rule for example, never a day goes past when I don't see a least a couple of people on them. Fines and points won't stop these people, even a £1000 fine would have little impact, because they infrequently get caught. However if everytime they picked up the phone there was just a £20 fine, it would pretty much stop overnight.

We've already got the rules, but we don't have the manpower to police them, 99% of motorist probably break a rule on every journey and the majority probably don't even know what those rules are!

IMO the system is broken.

[david143]

Less deaths this year than since the 30's apparently so, yes they are.

Rules will only be obeyed when people stand out to loose by disobeying them and at the moment few do.
One of the reasons deaths fall overall is because cars are safer, once if you hit something at 30mph you were probably a gonna. Now people frequently walk away from 60 & 70 mph impacts. Perceived safety means risk taking no longer carries the death penalty...

The mobile phone rule for example, never a day goes past when I don't see a least a couple of people on them. Fines and points won't stop these people, even a £1000 fine would have little impact, because they infrequently get caught. However if everytime they picked up the phone there was just a £20 fine, it would pretty much stop overnight.

We've already got the rules, but we don't have the manpower to police them, 99% of motorist probably break a rule on every journey and the majority probably don't even know what those rules are!

IMO the system is broken.

I agree that the system has been allowed to break down, and on the whole due to less enforcement when more is needed. However, that doesn't excuse individuals breaking the rules either....

I very much doubt if even 1% of road users even bother to look at the Highway code updates that come out regularly.....so the last time most would have seen the rules were just before sitting their test, anything up to 70 plus years ago.

[kwackers]

I agree that the system has been allowed to break down, and on the whole due to less enforcement when more is needed. However, that doesn't excuse individuals breaking the rules either....

I very much doubt if even 1% of road users even bother to look at the Highway code updates that come out regularly.....so the last time most would have seen the rules were just before sitting their test, anything up to 70 plus years ago.

Actually thinking about this a bit more, it's not so much the actual breaking of rules that bothers me (although anything that distracts from the action of paying attention is a big no no).
It's more the general decline in politeness and thoughtlessness. Less people may well be dying, but what about the number of minor bumps? And a minor bump in a car is potentially death to a cyclist/pedestrian.
The people who pull across my path (and do other stupid acts) I'm sure aren't actually trying to kill me, they're just not thinking.

Am I right??? If so, how do you fix that? Car drivers are so far removed from their environment and so unlikely to suffer in an accident that I'm not sure you can...

[david143]

I agree that the system has been allowed to break down, and on the whole due to less enforcement when more is needed. However, that doesn't excuse individuals breaking the rules either....

I very much doubt if even 1% of road users even bother to look at the Highway code updates that come out regularly.....so the last time most would have seen the rules were just before sitting their test, anything up to 70 plus years ago.

Actually thinking about this a bit more, it's not so much the actual breaking of rules that bothers me (although anything that distracts from the action of paying attention is a big no no).
It's more the general decline in politeness and thoughtlessness. Less people may well be dying, but what about the number of minor bumps? And a minor bump in a car is potentially death to a cyclist/pedestrian.
The people who pull across my path (and do other stupid acts) I'm sure aren't actually trying to kill me, they're just not thinking.

Am I right??? If so, how do you fix that? Car drivers are so far removed from their environment and so unlikely to suffer in an accident that I'm not sure you can...

Some Countries improved the safety of cyclists by making it a Duty of care for motorised vehicle drivers In France if it can not be proven the cyclists was at fault, I believe the the car driver is automatically as far as Insurance is concerned, so car drivers have a greater cost incentive to play nice around cyclists. The idea got squashed here as it was an On-line E-Petition to do similar and E-Petitions are not listened to unless there are millions signing it.

I do know where you are though as there is hardly a day when I am not cut up, or someone tries to think about overtaking where there is no space or where they can not see if clear.

The only long term answer has got top be education, along with more strict requirements to follow the rules....hitting pockets and taking away licences as much as possible........

perhaps these offenders can get close to funding the extra Police that would be needed to do it properly

[Tom Richardson]

Some Countries improved the safety of cyclists by making it a Duty of care for motorised vehicle drivers In France if it can not be proven the cyclists was at fault, I believe the the car driver is automatically as far as Insurance is concerned, so car drivers have a greater cost incentive to play nice around cyclists. The idea got squashed here as it was an On-line E-Petition to do similar and E-Petitions are not listened to unless there are millions signing it.

it came up in about yr 2000 as the 5th European Insurance Amendment as a proposal to enforce strict liability on the party causing the injury rather than solely on the person causing the incident that lead to it. It has been adopted by several european countries but uk quickly backed away from it under pressure from the motoring lobby - supporting what you say about good manners and civilised society

[workhard]

Good letter in The Times today (my Dad gets it for the sport coverage - I'm an Independent reader) refering to their leader of 27/6 about road safety levels which reminds us all of Smeed's Law, which posits that road deaths per 100,000 vehicles fall as vehicles per 100,000 of population rises. In other words the more cars you have the less KSI accidents there will be. Our Mr Smeed thought the more cars there were then after a certain point the more carefully people would HAVE to drive.

(reasonable decription here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smeed's_law)

Must dash , have to go fix someone's bike!

[Gisen]

David, I was not saying that you jump red lights, I was saying that there are laws which you break- which everyone breaks - knowingly or not.

Little wobble when checking your chain? Driving without due care and attention. Etc.

This slippery slope argument cuts very little ice. You're saying "if people break the law by treating red lights as a give way, whats to stop them breaking the law by going on a murderous rampage and eating babies!?!?"
Well, quite a lot, actually.
Everyone else in this thread has given you examples of what they do and do not consider "ethical" when cycling, most of them admitting to breaking the law. But none of us actually run right through junctions as you keep claiming is the next step, leading to the downfall of civilisation.

This is because we are obeying the rationale behind the law, which I would argue is far safer than just obeying the law blindly.
Drivers/ cyclists should not proceed, even if it is their right of way, if the road is blocked. Also, even if there isn't hatching on a junction, they should try not to block the junction.

[workhard]

I take back all I said about the police and targets. Apparently there is a war on between motorists and the police.


They wouldn't print if it it wasn't true.

[david143]

David, I was not saying that you jump red lights, I was saying that there are laws which you break- which everyone breaks - knowingly or not.

Little wobble when checking your chain? Driving without due care and attention. Etc.

This slippery slope argument cuts very little ice. You're saying "if people break the law by treating red lights as a give way, whats to stop them breaking the law by going on a murderous rampage and eating babies!?!?"
Well, quite a lot, actually.
Everyone else in this thread has given you examples of what they do and do not consider "ethical" when cycling, most of them admitting to breaking the law. But none of us actually run right through junctions as you keep claiming is the next step, leading to the downfall of civilisation.

This is because we are obeying the rationale behind the law, which I would argue is far safer than just obeying the law blindly.
Drivers/ cyclists should not proceed, even if it is their right of way, if the road is blocked. Also, even if there isn't hatching on a junction, they should try not to block the junction.

Hold on here, I did ask for examples of where they believed it was safer to RLJ and I got nothing, at least nothing where there isn't a legal alternative....

Civilisation has nothing to do with breaking a single rule, but a traffic light junction would break down if everyone broke the same rule wouldn't it?...

so when some cyclists choose to take a red as meaning give way, and think it then ok to turn left against the lights, it isn't far to more doing the same, and then what is going to happen at those junctions?

BTW - A wobble is not against the law, but driving without due care and attention is. Personally, I stop to check my chain unless it is a case of it has just popped off, in which case within a few seconds I will be stopping as safely as is possible so I can fix it.

so please tell me, which rules of the road am I breaking each time I ride my bike, current rules in the Highway code please????

You obviously seen me riding, so should know