400 quid fine for RLJ

one in three cyclists jump red lights, but the Police got this one.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/cy..._200_1_4634487

On 28/07/2016 08:51, MrCheerful wrote:
one in three cyclists jump red lights, but the Police got this one.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/cy..._200_1_4634487


Brilliant comments. The man is fined for riding through a pedestrian
crossing. However the comments from Superintendent Dave Marshal seem to
relate to riding though a light controlled junction.

We also have the release of a report citing the increase in injuries to
cyclists but "the report showed no injuries had 
been caused by cyclists
running red lights"

Apparently Superintendent Dave Marshal is worried car drivers might not
like seeing cyclist get away with it. Perhaps it would be better if he
concentrated on trying to prevent the actual damage that car drivers do
to cyclists and other people.

What are the educational requirements to become a Police Superintendent?

On 28-Jul-16 9:32 AM, Nick wrote:
On 28/07/2016 08:51, MrCheerful wrote:
one in three cyclists jump red lights, but the Police got this one.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/cy..._200_1_4634487



Brilliant comments. The man is fined for riding through a pedestrian
crossing. However the comments from Superintendent Dave Marshal seem to
relate to riding though a light controlled junction.

We also have the release of a report citing the increase in injuries to
cyclists but "the report showed no injuries had 
been caused by cyclists
running red lights"


I am sure the pedestrian who had a collision with a cyclist running a
red light earlier this year was injured (they were knocked down), but it
was unlikely that the incident was reported.

Apparently Superintendent Dave Marshal is worried car drivers might not
like seeing cyclist get away with it. Perhaps it would be better if he
concentrated on trying to prevent the actual damage that car drivers do
to cyclists and other people.

One of the results of RLJ is other people having to take avoiding
action, that could result in injuries to people.

What are the educational requirements to become a Police Superintendent?



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 28/07/2016 08:51, MrCheerful wrote:

one in three cyclists jump red lights, but the Police got this one.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/cy..._200_1_4634487

Perhaps police forces should receive the fines levied on cyclists as a
way of part-compensating for the "cuts" some of them claim to have
suffered. That would undoubtedly have the effect of putting enforcement
into sharper focus.

In this case, the £200 in the headline is misleading (and inaccurate).

QUOTE:
The cyclist, [ ... ], from Rose Lane, Norwich, was fined *£220* for
failing to stop at the lights. He was also ordered to pay a £22 victim
surcharge and £85 in court costs.
ENDQUOTE

So he had to cough up £327 in total. If that were normal and to be
expected (and also the outcome of cycling on footways and in
contravention of other signage), we'd see more cyclists behaving like
reasonable, responsible people.

And if the £220 was going to the police, perhaps this sort of welcome
effort by them would be more frequent and consistent.

On 28/07/2016 09:32, Nick wrote:

On 28/07/2016 08:51, MrCheerful wrote:

one in three cyclists jump red lights, but the Police got this one.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/cy..._200_1_4634487

Brilliant comments. The man is fined for riding through a pedestrian
crossing. However the comments from Superintendent Dave Marshal seem to
relate to riding though a light controlled junction.

Traditional zebra crossings with Belisha Beacons are nowadays quite rare.

This one - I'll bet - is a pelicon (which is what it takes for the
report to be 100% accurate).

In fact, let's see...

http://tinyurl.com/zomle3d

Ah yes... I *thought* it sounded familiar...

We also have the release of a report citing the increase in injuries to
cyclists but "the report showed no injuries had 
been caused by cyclists
running red lights"

You could argue exactly the same thing in respect of an over-the-limit
driver who gets home without incident (as the vast majority actually
do), but I expect you'd explain that that is somehow Totally and
Completely Different [TM].

On 28/07/2016 10:11, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 28-Jul-16 9:32 AM, Nick wrote:
On 28/07/2016 08:51, MrCheerful wrote:
one in three cyclists jump red lights, but the Police got this one.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/cy..._200_1_4634487




Brilliant comments. The man is fined for riding through a pedestrian
crossing. However the comments from Superintendent Dave Marshal seem to
relate to riding though a light controlled junction.

We also have the release of a report citing the increase in injuries to
cyclists but "the report showed no injuries had 
been caused by cyclists
running red lights"


I am sure the pedestrian who had a collision with a cyclist running a
red light earlier this year was injured (they were knocked down), but it
was unlikely that the incident was reported.


Yes, I'm actually in favour of stopping cyclists running pedestrian
lights. However the policeman and news paper seemed to be a bit confused
about what the actual offence was.

If £400 pounds is fair for a cyclist running a red light I guess a £1000
is appropriate for a car speeding in a urban environment would be good.


Apparently Superintendent Dave Marshal is worried car drivers might not
like seeing cyclist get away with it. Perhaps it would be better if he
concentrated on trying to prevent the actual damage that car drivers do
to cyclists and other people.

One of the results of RLJ is other people having to take avoiding
action, that could result in injuries to people.

Does it? How many of these are there?

On 28/07/2016 10:36, JNugent wrote:
On 28/07/2016 09:32, Nick wrote:

On 28/07/2016 08:51, MrCheerful wrote:

one in three cyclists jump red lights, but the Police got this one.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/cy..._200_1_4634487


Brilliant comments. The man is fined for riding through a pedestrian
crossing. However the comments from Superintendent Dave Marshal seem to
relate to riding though a light controlled junction.

Traditional zebra crossings with Belisha Beacons are nowadays quite rare.

This one - I'll bet - is a pelicon (which is what it takes for the
report to be 100% accurate).

In fact, let's see...

http://tinyurl.com/zomle3d

Ah yes... I *thought* it sounded familiar...


But if you rotate 180 degrees you will see a pedestrian crossing that is
not part of a traffic junction, by the Santander. I would assume they
are talking about one like that.


We also have the release of a report citing the increase in injuries to
cyclists but "the report showed no injuries had 
been caused by cyclists
running red lights"

You could argue exactly the same thing in respect of an over-the-limit
driver who gets home without incident (as the vast majority actually
do), but I expect you'd explain that that is somehow Totally and
Completely Different [TM].


I doubt I could. Statistics regularly show that drunken driving
significantly increases the risk of accidents, serious accidents.

On 28/07/2016 11:59, Nick wrote:

On 28/07/2016 10:36, JNugent wrote:
On 28/07/2016 09:32, Nick wrote:
On 28/07/2016 08:51, MrCheerful wrote:

one in three cyclists jump red lights, but the Police got this one.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/cy..._200_1_4634487

Brilliant comments. The man is fined for riding through a pedestrian
crossing. However the comments from Superintendent Dave Marshal seem to
relate to riding though a light controlled junction.

Traditional zebra crossings with Belisha Beacons are nowadays quite rare.
This one - I'll bet - is a pelicon (which is what it takes for the
report to be 100% accurate).
In fact, let's see...

http://tinyurl.com/zomle3d

Ah yes... I *thought* it sounded familiar...

But if you rotate 180 degrees you will see a pedestrian crossing that is
not part of a traffic junction, by the Santander. I would assume they
are talking about one like that.

I don't think so. There are exactly two sets of lights in Red Lion
Street proper and both of those incorporate a pedestrian crossing as
well as some element of traffic joining from another street. At the end
farthest from the spot seen at the Google Maps reference above, Red Lion
Street veers right into Frances Avenue and across that corner there is
another set of lights (a Pelicon, since it controls no other traffic
movements).

We also have the release of a report citing the increase in injuries to
cyclists but "the report showed no injuries had 
been caused by cyclists
running red lights"

You could argue exactly the same thing in respect of an over-the-limit
driver who gets home without incident (as the vast majority actually
do), but I expect you'd explain that that is somehow Totally and
Completely Different [TM].

I doubt I could. Statistics regularly show that drunken driving
significantly increases the risk of accidents, serious accidents.

And so does running red lights, so does going the wrong way along one
way streets, so does travelling along the footway and so does failing to
obey No Entry signs.

You cannot excuse one offence on the basis that it didn't cause a
traffic accident and not excuse other offences on the same basis. To do
so is to show bias along the "cyclists should be able to do as they
like" lines.

Are you biased?

I am trying to be even-handed.

On 28/07/2016 17:31, JNugent wrote:


But if you rotate 180 degrees you will see a pedestrian crossing that is
not part of a traffic junction, by the Santander. I would assume they
are talking about one like that.

I don't think so. There are exactly two sets of lights in Red Lion
Street proper and both of those incorporate a pedestrian crossing as
well as some element of traffic joining from another street. At the end
farthest from the spot seen at the Google Maps reference above, Red Lion
Street veers right into Frances Avenue and across that corner there is
another set of lights (a Pelicon, since it controls no other traffic
movements).


Well if you can't be bothered to look at the Google street view link you
have posted there isn't really much more to be said.

I suppose it is silly to expect any sense out of you.