Letter to Jenny Jones from the Met Police on Operation Safeway

=====Quote=====
Dear Jenny

You will probably be aware of a report in The Times this morning
concerning an email sent by one of my inspectors and hopefully you
will have seen my response as printed by the paper. I wanted to write
to you personally to give you a more complete account of the relevant
facts.

On the 18th of November I issued an instruction which was a direct
response to the recent number of cycling fatalities which had occurred
in quick succession. That instruction was intended to direct the
attention of patrolling officers to a greater enforcement of cycle
lanes, ASL's, failures to comply with red traffic lights and careless
cycling. You will note the first two objectives relate to offences
that can only be committed by motorists. The third is dangerous and
unlawful regardless of who commits it. Careless cycling, like careless
driving, can result in death or serious injury.

Whilst the majority of my supervisors passed my direction on either
without amendment or with some reinforcing message one inspector added
his own interpretation of my instruction. His interpretation was
contrary to my intention and he has published a correction.

From the 18th of November The Traffic Command and the Safer Transport
Command deployed additional resources to the Cycle Super Highways.
From Monday 25th November our resources were focused on key junctions
which analysis showed had a higher incidence of people being injured
in collisions or where cyclists had been killed. We have been
supported in this operation (Operation Safeway) by officers from
numerous other departments.

Throughout this operation I have been at pains to stress the focus is
on enforcement against dangerous road use and not against any specific
group of road users.

On the figures I have today I can tell you that a total of just over
2,100 Fixed Penalty Notices have been issued as part of the operation
of which 755 were issued to cyclists and almost 1400 to motorists.
Many of those issued to cyclists concerned not having lights after
dark and there is a system for cancelling these if the cyclists
evidence rectifying the problem within 3 days.

This operation has been put together in order to try and reduce
cyclist injuries and deaths. Between 5th November and 18th November
there were 6 such deaths in the Metropolitan Police District. From the
19th of November until now there have not been any. I would like to
think that what we are doing has made a significant contribution to
that turn around. I hope that these further facts will help to
reassure you of our commitment to reduce deaths on London's roads and
enforce the law in respect of all road users.

Yours Sincerely
Glyn Jones
Detective Chief Superintendent Glyn Jones
OCU Commander
=====/Quote=====

Bertie Wooster wrote:

Quoting a letter from Detective Chief Superintendent Glyn Jones
OCU Commander:

On the figures I have today I can tell you that a total of just over
2,100 Fixed Penalty Notices have been issued as part of the operation
of which 755 were issued to cyclists and almost 1400 to motorists.
Many of those issued to cyclists concerned not having lights after
dark and there is a system for cancelling these if the cyclists
evidence rectifying the problem within 3 days.

So 36% of offences were committed by cyclists, 'many' of which
related to a significant safety measure (not having lights after
dark).

This is close to the 54% of cyclists who ignored red traffic lights in
the LTDA survey, and suggests that cyclists as a group are
unwisely ignoring or are ignorant of the few legal requirements placed
on them.

--
Kim Bolton

On 30/11/2013 12:05, Kim Bolton wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:

This is close to the 54% of cyclists who ignored red traffic lights in
the LTDA survey, and suggests that cyclists as a group are
unwisely ignoring or are ignorant of the few legal requirements placed
on them.


lol I love the way that people try to make their point by conflating two
statements one of which is obviously true and the other dubious and is
pretty much the point they are trying to prove. Its as if the dubious
point becomes true by association.

We see you did it with the conflation of *unwisely* and *ignoring* and
we see Glyn Jones do it with *dangerous* and *unlawful*, in the sentence
about cyclist failures to comply with red traffic lights.

There is a fair amount of evidence which points to it being safer for
cyclists to go through red lights in certain circumstances. Indeed it
was part of this evidence that gave rise to ASLs.

Unsurprisingly this Thursday I saw the police out at the traffic lights
on Lewisham's Loampit vale where a cyclist was killed in July. This is a
place where I believe it often is safer for a cyclist to go through on
red in order to be able to safely manoeuvre to the right hand lane to
make a right turn into Jerrard Street, just past the lights. I know
Bertie is familiar with this junction.

AIUI most of the recent cyclist fatalities have involved HGVs and in
particular short wheel base HGV's of the dump truck variety. If the
police and politicians were really interested in tackling the problems
it seems to me that short wheel base HGV's is where they should start.

Nick wrote:

On 30/11/2013 12:05, Kim Bolton wrote:

This is close to the 54% of cyclists who ignored red traffic lights in
the LTDA survey, and suggests that cyclists as a group are
unwisely ignoring or are ignorant of the few legal requirements placed
on them.

lol I love the way that people try to make their point by conflating two
statements one of which is obviously true and the other dubious and is
pretty much the point they are trying to prove. Its as if the dubious
point becomes true by association.

We see you did it with the conflation of *unwisely* and *ignoring* and
we see Glyn Jones do it with *dangerous* and *unlawful*, in the sentence
about cyclist failures to comply with red traffic lights.

To ignore something implies a choice in whatever the variants
exist in the relevant situation. In this case, it's red traffic
lights, and as we have seen 1 in 2 cyclists *choose* to ignore the red
phase. Given the function of traffic lights at junctions, such as
separating streams of traffic or providing a safe phase for
pedestrians to cross the road) it is manifestly obvious that it is
*unwise* to do so due to the possible consequences, so the use of that
word in this circumstance has nothing to do with conflating the
terms, and is an entirely appropriate qualifier.

I can't speak for Jones, but my view is that his letter was not well
drafted.

There is a fair amount of evidence which points to it being safer for
cyclists to go through red lights in certain circumstances. Indeed it
was part of this evidence that gave rise to ASLs.

None showed up on the LTDA survey.

AIUI most of the recent cyclist fatalities have involved HGVs and in
particular short wheel base HGV's of the dump truck variety. If the
police and politicians were really interested in tackling the problems
it seems to me that short wheel base HGV's is where they should start.

You could say, *with equal justification*, that the situation
of the untrained cyclist that fails to obey the relevant laws, of
which there is mounting evidence of its widespread nature, would be an
even better place to start.

--
Kim Bolton

On 30/11/2013 13:09, Nick wrote:
On 30/11/2013 12:05, Kim Bolton wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:

This is close to the 54% of cyclists who ignored red traffic lights in
the LTDA survey, and suggests that cyclists as a group are
unwisely ignoring or are ignorant of the few legal requirements placed
on them.


lol I love the way that people try to make their point by conflating two
statements one of which is obviously true and the other dubious and is
pretty much the point they are trying to prove. Its as if the dubious
point becomes true by association.

We see you did it with the conflation of *unwisely* and *ignoring* and
we see Glyn Jones do it with *dangerous* and *unlawful*, in the sentence
about cyclist failures to comply with red traffic lights.

There is a fair amount of evidence which points to it being safer for
cyclists to go through red lights in certain circumstances. Indeed it
was part of this evidence that gave rise to ASLs.

Unsurprisingly this Thursday I saw the police out at the traffic lights
on Lewisham's Loampit vale where a cyclist was killed in July. This is a
place where I believe it often is safer for a cyclist to go through on
red in order to be able to safely manoeuvre to the right hand lane to
make a right turn into Jerrard Street, just past the lights. I know
Bertie is familiar with this junction.

AIUI most of the recent cyclist fatalities have involved HGVs and in
particular short wheel base HGV's of the dump truck variety. If the
police and politicians were really interested in tackling the problems
it seems to me that short wheel base HGV's is where they should start.


why not just stop all undertaking by cyclists? It would be easier and
cheaper.

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...


AIUI most of the recent cyclist fatalities have involved HGVs and in
particular short wheel base HGV's of the dump truck variety. If the
police and politicians were really interested in tackling the problems
it seems to me that short wheel base HGV's is where they should start.


why not just stop all undertaking by cyclists? It would be easier and
cheaper.

Come on now, it's been shown that waiting safely behind an HGV instead of
getting squished underneath it, costs the average cyclist 13.6 seconds per
week.

And you know full well that legislating against cyclists' stupidity is only
going to encourage them to do it more. It's their pathetic faux-anarchist
tendencies that make them deliberately break the law (when they're not
grassing everyone else up to the rozzers).

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 11:13:43 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

snip

"Many of those issued to cyclists concerned not having lights after
dark and there is a system for cancelling these if the cyclists
evidence rectifying the problem within 3 days"

Oh - so the cyclists can get away with no lights if they have some fitted later
and demonstrate same to the police.

I wonder, does the same rule apply to motorists with illegal tyre treads; can
they just get new tyres fitted and show them to the police: thus being let off
the charge?

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:09:54 +0000, Nick wrote:

snip

This is a
place where I believe it often is safer for a cyclist to go through on
red in order to be able to safely manoeuvre to the right hand lane to
make a right turn into Jerrard Street


I think the same rule should apply to motorists : don't you?

If it is possibly "safer" for you to do so: just ignore the law and the red
lights.


And you wonder why psycholists are become more and more disliked, day by day.

On 30/11/2013 14:56, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...


AIUI most of the recent cyclist fatalities have involved HGVs and in
particular short wheel base HGV's of the dump truck variety. If the
police and politicians were really interested in tackling the problems
it seems to me that short wheel base HGV's is where they should start.


why not just stop all undertaking by cyclists? It would be easier and
cheaper.

Come on now, it's been shown that waiting safely behind an HGV instead
of getting squished underneath it, costs the average cyclist 13.6
seconds per week.

And you know full well that legislating against cyclists' stupidity is
only going to encourage them to do it more. It's their pathetic
faux-anarchist tendencies that make them deliberately break the law
(when they're not grassing everyone else up to the rozzers).

well , how about banning all cycling in London, public transport would
get more customers, pedestrians would be safer, there would be no messy
bicycles dumped all over the place, traffic could flow better, all those
silly asl boxes could go, they would save a fortune in painting cycle
lanes, some roads could be widened, Police and NHS would save a fortune .

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 14:42:31 +0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:

snip


why not just stop all undertaking by cyclists? It would be easier and
cheaper.


I don't think that that is fair to the undertakers