Cambridge Police crackdown

According to the Cambridge Evening News, police are launching a
crackdown on cyclists in the city.

"Law-breaking riders face fine

CYCLISTS who flout the law are to be hit in the pocket by a police
crackdown in Cambridge.

Officers are under instruction to stop cyclists riding after dark
without lights or committing other offences such as ignoring road signs
and signals or cycling the wrong way down one-way streets, and issue £30
on-the-spot fines.

Cyclists behaving suspiciously will also be stopped by police to check
if the bikes they are riding have been stolen.

Sgt Simon Cross, from Parkside police station, said: "We have received a
lot of complaints from other road users about cyclists not behaving
responsibly and it is a major issue in the city centre.

"Neighbourhood officers, and in particular the west city team, will be
stopping cyclists and motorists who are putting themselves and other
road users at risk and, where appropriate, issuing penalty notices."

A similar campaign held in the city after the clocks went back last year
saw 37 fixed-penalty notices issued to cyclists in four days."
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news...86c99458a6.lpf

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

On 04/11/2006 17:31, Tony Raven said,
According to the Cambridge Evening News, police are launching a
crackdown on cyclists in the city.

Seems fair enough to me. Presumably they'll also be cracking down on
other road users who flout the laws whilst they're at it.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

"Paul Boyd" wrote in message
...
On 04/11/2006 17:31, Tony Raven said,
According to the Cambridge Evening News, police are launching a crackdown
on cyclists in the city.

Seems fair enough to me. Presumably they'll also be cracking down on
other road users who flout the laws whilst they're at it.

Your imagination is over-active, other road users are perfect ;-)

Paul Boyd wrote:
On 04/11/2006 17:31, Tony Raven said,

According to the Cambridge Evening News, police are launching a
crackdown on cyclists in the city.

Seems fair enough to me. Presumably they'll also be cracking down on
other road users who flout the laws whilst they're at it.

No, this is part of the ongoing campaign to get cyclists into proper
means of transport by all means necessary.

Everything else has been tried - aggressive driving, long detours
round 1-way systems, dangerous facilities, exaggeration of the
dangers, forcing them to use ineffective 'safety' equipment,
relentless vilification in the press. Now it's time to hit them in the
wallet.

A slight exaggeration, but a large slice of the population would much
prefer it if no-one ever used bicycles for transport. Many of them
call themselves transport or road safety professionals.

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 wrote:

CYCLISTS who flout the law are to be hit in the pocket by a police
crackdown in Cambridge.


My experience of Cambridge police is that they are not too bright as
far as bicycles are concerned. They recovered my bike a few weeks after
it had been stolen but sold it at one of their auctions despite my
registration mark being very clear on the mudguard. This was not long
after I had received an Alex Ferguson type verbal assault from one of
them for being careless enough to have my locked bike stolen!

"Colin McKenzie" wrote in message
...
Paul Boyd wrote:
Everything else has been tried - aggressive driving, long detours round
1-way systems, dangerous facilities, exaggeration of the dangers, forcing
them to use ineffective 'safety' equipment, relentless vilification in the
press. Now it's time to hit them in the wallet.


You are sailing dangerously close to the "speeders justification argument"
here.

The response is analogous:

If you cycle within the law, you won't get fined.

Adam Lea wrote:
"Colin McKenzie" wrote in message
...
Everything else has been tried - aggressive driving, long detours round
1-way systems, dangerous facilities, exaggeration of the dangers, forcing
them to use ineffective 'safety' equipment, relentless vilification in the
press. Now it's time to hit them in the wallet.

You are sailing dangerously close to the "speeders justification argument"
here.

The response is analogous:
If you cycle within the law, you won't get fined.

If you have limited resources for law enforcement, you concentrate on
what causes most danger to others. Concentrating on cycling as
Cambridge Police propose is an anti-cycling measure.

It requires several serious injuries or deaths for speed cameras to be
installed. If the same criteria applied to enforcement of the law
against cyclists, there would be none.

And yes, I would like all road law enforced in an ideal world.

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.

"raisethe" wrote in message
ups.com...

Tony Raven wrote:

CYCLISTS who flout the law are to be hit in the pocket by a police
crackdown in Cambridge.


My experience of Cambridge police is that they are not too bright as
far as bicycles are concerned. They recovered my bike a few weeks after
it had been stolen but sold it at one of their auctions despite my
registration mark being very clear on the mudguard. This was not long
after I had received an Alex Ferguson type verbal assault from one of
them for being careless enough to have my locked bike stolen!

Should have sued them for handling stolen goods! :P

Seriously, I hope you raised the roof.
--
David Lloyd,
The pub is responsible for my opinions.

On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Adam Lea wrote:

"Colin McKenzie" wrote in message
...
Paul Boyd wrote:

press. Now it's time to hit them in the wallet.

You are sailing dangerously close to the "speeders justification argument"
here.

The response is analogous:

If you cycle within the law, you won't get fined.


No, I don't think he is. He's using an argument that can be countered
with a similar response, but the 'speeders' have not been subject to a
zero-tolerance campaign.

If the police actually launched a zero-tolerance-of-speeding crackdown
on motorists there'd be uproar - after all, there's been uproar when
they propose to stick closely to the 10%+2mph criterion (or whatever
it is - since I obey the speed limit it doesn't concern me so I don't
actually know, but I understand there is a published level of
criminality the police officially sanction). Further, it simply
wouldn't work - more than half of motorists speed, the police would
need to prosecute over half the motoring population.

Law-breaking amongst motorists is both much more prevalent than
amongst cyclists, and much more dangerous.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

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 - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.


Is it not safer per mile? My recollection of figures quoted by others
here was that it was some 30% safer.


Sniper8052