Met Police crackdown on law breaking cyclists

[Derek C]

Yesterday (24th June) the Metropolitan Police had a one day crackdown
on red light jumping, pavement riding, road sign ignoring, etc, etc,
cyclists. Any law breakers were issued with a £60 spot fine, but this
was refundable if they agreed to attend a road safety course. What an
excellent idea that might sort out some of the worst cyclists. Why
don't the Police do this more often?

I listened to parts of a phone in on LBC radio on this subject. All
the usual tales of reckless and dangerous cycling were trotted out by
motorists and pedestrians. Although I didn't listen to all of the
debate due to other commitments, I didn't hear any cyclists trying to
justify red light jumping. But then, how do you justify the
unjustifiable anyway?

Derek C

[pk]

"Derek C" > wrote in message
...
I didn't hear any cyclists trying to
justify red light jumping. But then, how do you justify the
unjustifiable anyway?

Derek C

>>>>

I heard one, along the lines "it is safer to RLJ than stay alongside an
HGV".

That might well be true: Having made the error of cycling up the inside of
an HGV or stopping by the kerb and allowing an HGV to come along side in the
same lane, breaking the law might be the lease worst option.

But that does not alter the fact that the best and safest option is to
follow the guidance of cycle craft and stay behind HGVs at junctions or stop
in the middle of the lane to prevent one coming along side in the same lane.

The lady making the comment would have benefitted from one of the cycle
safety courses.

pk

[Derek C]

On Jun 25, 8:56*am, "pk" > wrote:
>I heard one, along the lines "it is safer to RLJ than stay alongside an
> HGV".
>
> That might well be true: Having made the error of cycling up the inside of
> an HGV or stopping by the kerb and allowing an HGV to come along side in the
> same lane, breaking the law might be the lease worst option.
>

I see plenty of cyclists jumping red lights when there is no HGV
waiting to turn left, so what is their excuse?

Derek C

[bugbear]

Derek C wrote:
> Yesterday (24th June) the Metropolitan Police had a one day crackdown
> on red light jumping, pavement riding, road sign ignoring, etc, etc,
> cyclists. Any law breakers were issued with a £60 spot fine, but this
> was refundable if they agreed to attend a road safety course. What an
> excellent idea that might sort out some of the worst cyclists. Why
> don't the Police do this more often?
>
> I listened to parts of a phone in on LBC radio on this subject. All
> the usual tales of reckless and dangerous cycling were trotted out by
> motorists and pedestrians. Although I didn't listen to all of the
> debate due to other commitments, I didn't hear any cyclists trying to
> justify red light jumping. But then, how do you justify the
> unjustifiable anyway?

Some drivers are selfish, ignorant stupid arseholes.

Some cyclists are selfish, ignorant stupid arseholes.

Posters might want to bear these facts in mind.

BugBear

[pk]

"Derek C" > wrote in message
...
On Jun 25, 8:56 am, "pk" > wrote:
>I heard one, along the lines "it is safer to RLJ than stay alongside an
> HGV".
>
> That might well be true: Having made the error of cycling up the inside of
> an HGV or stopping by the kerb and allowing an HGV to come along side in
> the
> same lane, breaking the law might be the lease worst option.
>

I see plenty of cyclists jumping red lights when there is no HGV
waiting to turn left, so what is their excuse?

Derek C

>>>>

None.

pk

[mileburner]

Derek C wrote:
> On Jun 25, 8:56 am, "pk" > wrote:
>> I heard one, along the lines "it is safer to RLJ than stay alongside
>> an HGV".
>>
>> That might well be true: Having made the error of cycling up the
>> inside of an HGV or stopping by the kerb and allowing an HGV to come
>> along side in the same lane, breaking the law might be the lease
>> worst option.
>>
>
> I see plenty of cyclists jumping red lights when there is no HGV
> waiting to turn left, so what is their excuse?

No traffic coming?

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

mileburner wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
>> On Jun 25, 8:56 am, "pk" > wrote:
>>> I heard one, along the lines "it is safer to RLJ than stay alongside
>>> an HGV".
>>>
>>> That might well be true: Having made the error of cycling up the
>>> inside of an HGV or stopping by the kerb and allowing an HGV to come
>>> along side in the same lane, breaking the law might be the lease
>>> worst option.
>>>
>>
>> I see plenty of cyclists jumping red lights when there is no HGV
>> waiting to turn left, so what is their excuse?
>
> No traffic coming?

I've got one, there are not many: When directed to do so by a police
officer.

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 10:23:15 +0100 someone who may be "Mrcheerful"
> wrote this:-

>>> I see plenty of cyclists jumping red lights when there is no HGV
>>> waiting to turn left, so what is their excuse?
>>
>> No traffic coming?
>
>I've got one, there are not many: When directed to do so by a police
>officer.

"If the traffic lights are not working, treat the situation as you
would an unmarked junction and proceed with great care." Highway
Code Rule 176.

I'm sure that not every cyclist (or motorist) who ignores traffic
lights is following this rule, but there are cases when they are.
Note in particular that a set of signals which does not detect bikes
is not working.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54

[Colin McKenzie]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 09:41:03 +0100, bugbear
> wrote:

> Some drivers are selfish, ignorant stupid arseholes.
>
> Some cyclists are selfish, ignorant stupid arseholes.

The former are far more likely to endanger others than the latter. What is
the best use of valuable police time?

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

[Rob Morley]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 23:00:57 +0100
"Colin McKenzie" > wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 09:41:03 +0100, bugbear
> > wrote:
>
> > Some drivers are selfish, ignorant stupid arseholes.
> >
> > Some cyclists are selfish, ignorant stupid arseholes.
>
> The former are far more likely to endanger others than the latter.
> What is the best use of valuable police time?
>
Doughnuts.

[Derek C]

On Jun 25, 11:00*pm, "Colin McKenzie" > wrote:
>
> --
> No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the *
> population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking..
> Make an informed choice - visitwww.cyclehelmets.org.

You seem to be a factor of two out! Cycling is at least twice as
dangerous as walking as a pedestrian, according to the DfT statistics:

Total Casualties per billion passenger kilometres:
Bus or coach 142, Car 244, Pedestrian 1666, Pedal Cycle 3814,
Motorcycle 3887.

KSI per billion passenger kilometres:
Bus or Coach 9, Car 20, Pedestrian 382, Pedal Cycle 541, Motorcycle
1116.


Derek C

[Squashme]

On 26 June, 02:19, Derek C > wrote:
> On Jun 25, 11:00*pm, "Colin McKenzie" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > --
> > No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the *
> > population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
> > Make an informed choice - visitwww.cyclehelmets.org.
>
> You seem to be a factor of two out! Cycling is at least twice as
> dangerous as walking as a pedestrian, according to the DfT statistics:
>
> Total Casualties per billion passenger kilometres:
> Bus or coach 142, Car 244, Pedestrian 1666, Pedal Cycle 3814,
> Motorcycle 3887.
>
> KSI per billion passenger kilometres:
> Bus or Coach 9, Car 20, Pedestrian 382, Pedal Cycle 541, Motorcycle
> 1116.
>
> Derek C

Do they have any chapter and verse on cyclist-killed old ladies in
your area, which you mentioned yesterday?

[Mr Pounder]

"Derek C" > wrote in message
...
On Jun 25, 8:56 am, "pk" > wrote:
>I heard one, along the lines "it is safer to RLJ than stay alongside an
> HGV".
>
> That might well be true: Having made the error of cycling up the inside of
> an HGV or stopping by the kerb and allowing an HGV to come along side in
> the
> same lane, breaking the law might be the lease worst option.
>

I see plenty of cyclists jumping red lights when there is no HGV
waiting to turn left, so what is their excuse?

Derek C

Being a ******?

Mr Pounder

[Squashme]

On 26 June, 20:13, "Mr Pounder" > wrote:
> "Derek C" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Jun 25, 8:56 am, "pk" > wrote:
>
> >I heard one, along the lines "it is safer to RLJ than stay alongside an
> > HGV".
>
> > That might well be true: Having made the error of cycling up the inside of
> > an HGV or stopping by the kerb and allowing an HGV to come along side in
> > the
> > same lane, breaking the law might be the lease worst option.
>
> I see plenty of cyclists jumping red lights when there is no HGV
> waiting to turn left, so what is their excuse?
>
> Derek C
>
> Being a ******?
>
> Mr Pounder

Is Derek C?

[Colin McKenzie]

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 02:19:08 +0100, Derek C >
wrote:
> You seem to be a factor of two out! Cycling is at least twice as
> dangerous as walking as a pedestrian, according to the DfT statistics:
>
> Total Casualties per billion passenger kilometres:
> Bus or coach 142, Car 244, Pedestrian 1666, Pedal Cycle 3814,
> Motorcycle 3887.

> KSI per billion passenger kilometres:
> Bus or Coach 9, Car 20, Pedestrian 382, Pedal Cycle 541, Motorcycle
> 1116.

Which year and which report?

According to RCGB 2008, figures for cyclists and motorcyclists (total,
KSI, K) per 100 million Km are:
Cyclists 344 54 2.5
Motorcyclists 419 118 9.6

As far as I can see that document contains no comparable figures for
pedestrians.

My sig is based on older data (2005 DfT report), for fatalities and KSI.
KSI rate is somewhat greater for cyclists than pedestrians, but the
difference is about 25% - hardly a factor of two. Fatality rates are
somewhat lower for cyclists than pedestrians, by over 20% between 1995 and
2004.

Slight injuries are not a good basis for comparison because (1) they're
not important enough, and (2) their reporting is known to be inaccurate.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

[Derek C]

On Jun 26, 9:16*pm, "Colin McKenzie" > wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 02:19:08 +0100, Derek C > *
> wrote:
>
> > You seem to be a factor of two out! Cycling is at least twice as
> > dangerous as walking as a pedestrian, according to the DfT statistics:
>
> > Total Casualties per billion passenger kilometres:
> > Bus or coach 142, Car 244, Pedestrian 1666, Pedal Cycle 3814,
> > Motorcycle 3887.
> > KSI per billion passenger kilometres:
> > Bus or Coach 9, Car 20, Pedestrian 382, Pedal Cycle 541, Motorcycle
> > 1116.
>
> Which year and which report?
>
> According to RCGB 2008, figures for cyclists and motorcyclists (total, *
> KSI, K) per 100 million Km are:
> Cyclists * * * 344 *54 2.5
> Motorcyclists *419 118 9.6
>
> As far as I can see that document contains no comparable figures for *
> pedestrians.
>
> My sig is based on older data (2005 DfT report), for fatalities and KSI. *
> KSI rate is somewhat greater for cyclists than pedestrians, but the *
> difference is about 25% - hardly a factor of two. Fatality rates are *
> somewhat lower for cyclists than pedestrians, by over 20% between 1995 and *
> 2004.
>
> Slight injuries are not a good basis for comparison because (1) they're *
> not important enough, and (2) their reporting is known to be inaccurate.
>
> Colin McKenzie
>
The figures I reported are shown in 'Pedal cyclist casualties in
reported road accidents: 2008
Road Accident Statistics Factsheet No. 4 – January 2010' Table 1. They
are for the year 2007.

It is accepted that there is some under reporting of minor injuries,
but that would make the total casualty figure even worse.

Derek C

[Colin McKenzie]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 01:34:46 +0100, Phil W Lee <phil lee-family me <"uk>">
wrote:
> "Colin McKenzie" > considered Sat, 26 Jun 2010
> 21:16:03 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>> According to RCGB 2008, figures for cyclists and motorcyclists (total,
>> KSI, K) per 100 million Km are:
>> Cyclists 344 54 2.5
>> Motorcyclists 419 118 9.6
>>
>> As far as I can see that document contains no comparable figures for
>> pedestrians.
>>
>> My sig is based on older data (2005 DfT report), for fatalities and KSI.
>> KSI rate is somewhat greater for cyclists than pedestrians, but the
>> difference is about 25% - hardly a factor of two. Fatality rates are
>> somewhat lower for cyclists than pedestrians, by over 20% between 1995
>> and
>> 2004.
>>
>> Slight injuries are not a good basis for comparison because (1) they're
>> not important enough, and (2) their reporting is known to be inaccurate.
>>
> Even serious injuries seem to suffer from the same problem, at least
> when they are drawn from police stats, rather than hospital ones.

Not least because opinions differ on what counts as serious.

> And of course if you include cyclist injuries that don't involve any
> other vehicle, then you should include pedestrian injuries that don't
> involve any vehicle as well, or it isn't a valid comparison.

Which is why you can't rely on hospital stats, because they have no
concept of a pedestrian injury, whereas they do record when a cycle is
involved in an injury. And you still aren't counting injuries treated
elsewhere.

And all the above is why I say "about as safe", rather than "exactly as
safe", or "a bit safer" etc.

Cycling in Britain is safer per mile than driving in some other countries.
In other words, whichever way you look at it, the level of risk in cycling
for transport is similar to the level that people are happy to accept when
using other modes of transport. Everyone who claims otherwise is deterring
people from cycling.

Colin McKenzie


--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

[Colin McKenzie]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 00:06:12 +0100, Derek C >
wrote:

> On Jun 26, 9:16Â*pm, "Colin McKenzie" > wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 02:19:08 +0100, Derek C
>> > Â*
>> wrote:
>>
>> > You seem to be a factor of two out! Cycling is at least twice as
>> > dangerous as walking as a pedestrian, according to the DfT statistics:
>>
>> > Total Casualties per billion passenger kilometres:
>> > Bus or coach 142, Car 244, Pedestrian 1666, Pedal Cycle 3814,
>> > Motorcycle 3887.
>> > KSI per billion passenger kilometres:
>> > Bus or Coach 9, Car 20, Pedestrian 382, Pedal Cycle 541, Motorcycle
>> > 1116.
>>
>> Which year and which report?

> The figures I reported are shown in 'Pedal cyclist casualties in
> reported road accidents: 2008
> Road Accident Statistics Factsheet No. 4 – January 2010' Table 1. They
> are for the year 2007.

Thanks.

The comparative figures for deaths are 32 cyclists and 36 pedestrians.

For 2008 the figures (from
<http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/tsgb/2009edition/>)
are
Pedestrian 31 358 1537
Cyclist 24 541 3435

> It is accepted that there is some under reporting of minor injuries,
> but that would make the total casualty figure even worse.

Yes, but it's not possible to say if the difference between pedestrian and
cyclist injury rates would get bigger or smaller.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Colin McKenzie wrote:
>
> Not least because opinions differ on what counts as serious.
>

Indeed. A study for the DfT in 2006 found that pedestrians turning up
at A&E after a road accident "are the most likely to be admitted" while
cyclists "are rather unlikely to be admitted"

>
> Which is why you can't rely on hospital stats, because they have no
> concept of a pedestrian injury, whereas they do record when a cycle is
> involved in an injury. And you still aren't counting injuries treated
> elsewhere.
>

Actually the RCGB data has nothing to do with hospital stats. Its the
severity of injury as recorded by the (non-medically qualified) police
officer attending the accident. It used to be that the police would
subsequently contact the hospital and amend their records accordingly
but that is no longer done.

Gill's study in the BMJ comparing hospital and DfT stats found:

"According to police statistics, rates of people killed or
seriously injured on the roads fell consistently from 85.9 per
100 000 in 1996 to 59.4 per 100 000 in 2004. Over the same
time, however, hospital admission rates for traffic injuries were
almost unchanged at 90.0 in 1996 and 91.1 in 2004.
<....>
The overall fall seen in police statistics for
non-fatal road traffic injuries probably represents a fall in
completeness of reporting of these injuries."
Changes in safety on England's roads: analysis of hospital statistics
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/rapidpdf/bmj.38883.593831.4Fv1.pdf

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 09:11:50 +0100, "Colin McKenzie"
> wrote:

>> And of course if you include cyclist injuries that don't involve any
>> other vehicle, then you should include pedestrian injuries that don't
>> involve any vehicle as well, or it isn't a valid comparison.
>
>Which is why you can't rely on hospital stats, because they have no
>concept of a pedestrian injury, whereas they do record when a cycle is
>involved in an injury. And you still aren't counting injuries treated
>elsewhere.

The old HASS/LASS data was probably as close as we'll get, because it
went into more detail, but you can use "trips and falls on level
ground" as an indicator in hospital data. That accounts for something
like half of all admissions in the data set I had, Tony has newer data
I think.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 09:11:50 +0100, "Colin McKenzie"
> > wrote:
>
>>> And of course if you include cyclist injuries that don't involve any
>>> other vehicle, then you should include pedestrian injuries that don't
>>> involve any vehicle as well, or it isn't a valid comparison.
>> Which is why you can't rely on hospital stats, because they have no
>> concept of a pedestrian injury, whereas they do record when a cycle is
>> involved in an injury. And you still aren't counting injuries treated
>> elsewhere.
>
> The old HASS/LASS data was probably as close as we'll get, because it
> went into more detail, but you can use "trips and falls on level
> ground" as an indicator in hospital data. That accounts for something
> like half of all admissions in the data set I had, Tony has newer data
> I think.
>

Not newer data but a study by Kings College Hospital on their A&E
attendances for trips and falls on uneven pavements extrapolated 60,000
hospital attendances a year in the UK from that cause. That can be
compared with the approx 28,000 pedestrian injuries of all severities in
road accidents (which are the statistics recorded in the DfT figures).

So counting injuries of all severities you should approx triple the
pedestrian figures to make them measured on the same basis as the
cyclist figures (that is if you believe the injuries of all severities
figures at all)

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[pk]

"Tony Raven" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not newer data but a study by Kings College Hospital on their A&E
> attendances for trips and falls on uneven pavements extrapolated 60,000
> hospital attendances a year in the UK from that cause.

That paper, which I have in front of me now, is no more than a wet finger in
the air.

the paper note that streets close to the hospital are over represented in
the data (ie trip over outside a hospital = pop in to get cleaned up. trip
over outside your home = go home to clean up) but makes no attempt to make
allowance for that in the extrapolation.

FFS don't use junk data to try to make your point!

pk

[JNugent[_7_]]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 09:11:50 +0100, "Colin McKenzie"
> > wrote:
>
>>> And of course if you include cyclist injuries that don't involve any
>>> other vehicle, then you should include pedestrian injuries that don't
>>> involve any vehicle as well, or it isn't a valid comparison.

What is a pedestrian for those purposes?

Does it count if you cut your finger whilst standing chopping vegetables in
your kitchen? No? OK, how about if you burn your hand whilst cooking on a
barbecue in the garden? Or if you fall down an escalator at a tube station?
Trip over inside a shop?

Perhaps accidents involving a vehicle and accidents not involving a vehicle
are simply not in the same category?

>> Which is why you can't rely on hospital stats, because they have no
>> concept of a pedestrian injury, whereas they do record when a cycle is
>> involved in an injury. And you still aren't counting injuries treated
>> elsewhere.

> The old HASS/LASS data was probably as close as we'll get, because it
> went into more detail, but you can use "trips and falls on level
> ground" as an indicator in hospital data.

....whether or not they happen during a journey, let alone on a road?

> That accounts for something
> like half of all admissions in the data set I had, Tony has newer data
> I think.

> Guy

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Colin McKenzie wrote:

>
> Cycling in Britain is safer per mile than driving in some other
> countries. In other words, whichever way you look at it, the level of
> risk in cycling for transport is similar to the level that people are
> happy to accept when using other modes of transport. Everyone who
> claims otherwise is deterring people from cycling.

Like Doug you mean?


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 11:02:48 +0100, "pk" > wrote:

>> Not newer data but a study by Kings College Hospital on their A&E
>> attendances for trips and falls on uneven pavements extrapolated 60,000
>> hospital attendances a year in the UK from that cause.
>
>That paper, which I have in front of me now, is no more than a wet finger in
>the air.

As indeed are any figures based on all injuries. Under-reporting is
reckoned to be as close to 100% as makes no odds at the bottom end of
the scale.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

pk wrote:
> "Tony Raven" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Not newer data but a study by Kings College Hospital on their A&E
>> attendances for trips and falls on uneven pavements extrapolated
>> 60,000 hospital attendances a year in the UK from that cause.
>
> That paper, which I have in front of me now, is no more than a wet
> finger in the air.
>
> the paper note that streets close to the hospital are over represented
> in the data (ie trip over outside a hospital = pop in to get cleaned
> up. trip over outside your home = go home to clean up) but makes no
> attempt to make allowance for that in the extrapolation.
>
> FFS don't use junk data to try to make your point!
>
> pk

So were they injuries or not? Of the people in the study 79% needed
radiography for fractures, 40% had sustained a fracture, 49% required
sutures, 7% were admitted to hospital, 74% required bandaging, 21% only
needed advice on self treatment. Most of those apart from the self
treatments hardly sound like they only popped in to get cleaned up
because it was convenient.

What they said of local streets was actually:

"The road names of the accident sites were noted in our study to
identify local high risk areas. Several roads in close proximity to the
hospital were identified but this may be a reflection of easy access to
prompt treatment rather than an indication of a dangerous area.
Excluding localities close to the hospital no one site seemed more
dangerous than another."

So all they are saying is injuries on local streets may be less heavily
under-reported so the 60,000 is likely to be a lower limit.

But we all know that minor injuries are heavily under-reported which is
why Derek's insistence on using them to compare pedestrians with
cyclists is so meaningless. As I said "(that is if you believe the
injuries of all severities figures at all)" But Derek will continue to
believe them despite their near meaninglessness because they are
consistent with his beliefs

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell