CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Police clampdown on cyclists and maybe other infringers?

(148 posts)
  • Started 12 years ago by gembo
  • Latest reply from Murun Buchstansangur

No tags yet.


12345

  1. Instography
    Member

    Although all offences might be equally illegal if you treat illegality as a legal / illegal dichotomy, if you take a broader view of the whole process, all offences are not equal. At least, that seems to be the essence of the complaint that cyclist deaths are not treated seriously. Sure, it's illegal to run down a cyclist but in its application - its prosecution and sentencing - the criminal justice system says that killing a cyclist with your car is not as illegal as, say, burning down a furniture shop.

    I don't think you forfeit the right to complain about other infringements just because you infringe some laws yourself. If, for instance, the police are singling out cyclists because they are slow and relatively easy to stop but ignoring the infringements of motorists because they are fast and following them up would involve a lot of effort, you have a legitimate complaint that they are picking on soft targets rather than going after people with much greater potential to cause harm.

    You can't complain just about getting caught but it is still reasonable to ask why your actions are illegal, to question how you were caught and why the police have chosen to enforce one law and not another.

    For the record, I cheerfully cycle on little bits of pavement near the office in the morning (around 7.30am) when it's quiet. When I have Ellen on her tagalong or in her trailer, I unapologetically cycle on miles of pavement. Always with consideration for pedestrians, of course.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  2. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "Although all offences might be equally illegal if you treat illegality as a legal / illegal dichotomy, if you take a broader view of the whole process, all offences are not equal"

    Hence the Mars Bar/£1M difference. It doesn't affect the legality, it affects the seriousness, because illegality is a legal/illegal dichotomy. In much the same way as you can only be dead or not dead and not just a little bit dead. Being torn apart by rabid wolves would, in most people's eyes, be seen as worse than dying peacefully in your sleep. But both leave you exactly the same amount of deadness.

    "If, for instance, the police are singling out cyclists because they are slow and relatively easy to stop but ignoring the infringements of motorists because they are fast and following them up would involve a lot of effort, you have a legitimate complaint..."

    Definitely. But if you're complaining about the actions of the drivers themselves where they align quite well with your own actions and use the same excuses, that is complaining about thew action itself, which in those circumstances I believe you lose; whereas your example is complaining about how enforcement of those actions is dealt with.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  3. Instography
    Member

    Since almost everything can be judged to be illegal (unlike deadness) as a defined offence or as an incitement, a conspiracy, a breach of the peace or any other vague and/or trumped up infringement, the basic fact of illegality doesn't take us very far, I don't think. I don't find it a very useful guide to how I should behave in general and certainly not when I'm on my bike.

    But you said:

    And you also lose the right to complain about bad driving if in a particular circumstance that driver believes their actions were justified. Maybe he knows it's wrong, and he's just taking the chance.

    which has nothing to do with any equality in the cyclist's / driver's behaviour. It relies only in the driver's personal assessment of whether their behaviour is justified. You lose the right to complain because of what they think. Not even what you think. Never mind what you did.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  4. wingpig
    Member

    The "only slightly illegal" thing is a slippery continuum along which one also finds going through the red light of a pedestrian crossing at night when there is no other living soul within three miles, no cameras and no omniscient mythical entities. Before you know it someone will say "accepted risk" or "victimless crime".

    Posted 12 years ago #

  5. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Which is the whole point. Flip it round. People here are saying that they will take the chance breaking the law because they think it's justified. But complain about the actions of other people (drivers) when that person is adopting the exact same mindset.

    Seems to me to be slightly hypocritical, and a little superior, to essentially say "I can do this because I think it's right, but they can't do that even if they think it's right because I don't think it's right". Why is the cyclist right and the motorist wrong? Both are breaking a traffic law, both are doing something illegal, both feel they can justify it, but here we say that the cyclist is right and the motorist is wrong.

    And we're talking about traffic laws, so those indefinable offences like breach of the peace have no place. Traffic offences are offences or not. Dichotomy. Legal or illegal...

    Posted 12 years ago #

  6. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "... going through the red light of a pedestrian crossing at night when there is no other living soul within three miles..."

    I'm beginning to wonder if I'm more conditioned than most others. Obviously you're not saying you do that, it's certainly not something I do. even when I'm driving, at 3am in the morning, on deserted roads with no-one else around, I'll indicate to turn into a junction.

    P'raps I'm too boring and predictable. Need to put some excitement into my life. I've often pondered riding for a week ni the way that people say we do. Run lights, on pavements, the whole shebang, for a bit of research for citycycling.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  7. Smudge
    Member

    "So, is breaking the law on a bike justified because drivers don't have to put up with what we put up with?"

    No.

    Anth is right, to criticise drivers for driving above 30 (for example) when they think it is "safe" of "ok" and then break traffic laws applicable to cyclists on the same justification is hypocritical.
    If you get caught speeding by a camera or caught riding the wrong way up a one way street, it doesn't matter if it's 0400 in the middle of nowhere or knocking off time outside the local school, you are guilty, the severity of the offence may vary, but it is still choosing to break a law and you can't then (imo) criticise anyone else for using the same or similar justifications that you use for your decision to break a law.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  8. Kirst
    Member

    So, how many of you have actually reported the problem to the council and asked them to sort it out then?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  9. steveo
    Member

    P'raps I'm too boring and predictable.

    I'm curious do you only enter the ASL at the feeder lane? No? See you're not that dull!

    Posted 12 years ago #

  10. Dave
    Member

    "it is still choosing to break a law and you can't then (imo) criticise anyone else for using the same or similar justifications that you use for your decision to break a law."

    Well, you can do so, it's just hypocritical. I don't think this in any way reduces the validity of the original request.

    To illustrate, say my gran continues to drive at 30mph in the new 20 zones due to a fear of road rage from following drivers. She might still campaign for better enforcement of the 20 zones despite breaking the law on speeding.

    Alternatively, she might campaign for better enforcement of the 20 zones even though she parks illegally (since to do otherwise would involve a long walk through a dodgy neighbourhood). You could rightly call that out as hypocrisy - asking other motorists to follow the rules while she does not because it's less convenient.

    I'm not sure in what way hypocrisy is an argument against any particular action though. We could all be busting red lights but any sane cost/benefit analysis would still have the police ignore that and target drivers.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  11. Instography
    Member

    I confess I've always been perplexed by the deference to an authority, set of rules and system of applying those rules that was designed for the benefit of motorists and to the general disadvantage cyclists. The argument seems to be that we should adhere strictly to those rules (even if everyone else is brazenly flouting them) while asking nicely if they could please change them a little and look out for us a bit more.

    I can see Min's point (or at least what I thought was implied by her point. She might not agree that this was her point) in saying 'stuff them'. If the roads infrastructure in general, or specific parts of it, do not accommodate or are not safe for cycling then we should use the parts that can accommodate or are safe for cycling.

    That, at least, is my argument for unapologetically cycling on the pavement when I'm hauling a trailer containing my dearest daughter at 10mph where otherwise I would be on 30/40 or 60mph roads. It is most certainly illegal but, in those circumstances, that's not even a minor consideration for me. Tell me I should be on the road.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  12. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    I'm not going to tell you you should be on the road. I'm going to tell you that if your collar gets felt by the law that there's no real defence but it is your choice, and ask if you've campaigned for better cycling provision on that route that would mean you wouldn't have to break the law?

    "The argument seems to be that we should adhere strictly to those rules (even if everyone else is brazenly flouting them) while asking nicely if they could please change them a little and look out for us a bit more"

    Nope. I adhere while shouting that they should be changed. As for 'even if everyone else is brazenly flouting them' - I'd forgotten about the 'two wrongs make a right' defence. ;)

    Posted 12 years ago #

  13. Roibeard
    Member

    Maybe the distinction needs to be made between the probability of incident and the consequence of an incident. That way accusations of hypocrisy might be avoided!

    Let's stick with red light jumping, rather than bus lanes for this one, and leaving aside the pedestrian phase for clarity.

    The cyclist and the driver both consider that there's a certain probability of something going wrong when they jump the red light. The probability is the same (for the sake of argument), and both of them are breaking the law.

    The difference is, perhaps, that the potential adverse affects are different. The cyclist takes a chance with their life, the driver risks someone else's life (mostly, usually, etc).

    Surely someone performing an illegal act, risking their own life, can criticise another who performs an illegal act, risking a third party's life, without hypocrisy.

    Clearly, they don't have the moral high ground, yet there is nothing two faced about arguing that risking self harm is more socially and ethically acceptable than risking harm to others.

    Full disclosure - I stop at red, but I've been known to consider it safer not to stop on amber, for example to avoid separation from the kids [1].

    Actually, I'd thought that amber meant stop if it is safe to do so, whereas the current wording is stop unless "to stop might cause a collision", which would preclude the child safety rationale above.

    I've been repeatedly unnerved by stopping on amber at Cameron Toll, only to have a car proceed through by my elbow (usually accelerating...), so I've probably stopped on amber, when actually I should have proceeded!

    Robert

    [1] Incidentally some phasing is such that, even if proceeding over the stop line on green, the lights can be green for side roads before the kids have cleared the junction - Liberton Road/Lady Road, I'm looking at you!

    Posted 12 years ago #

  14. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "I've been repeatedly unnerved by stopping on amber at Cameron Toll, only to have a car proceed through by my elbow (usually accelerating...), so I've probably stopped on amber, when actually I should have proceeded!"

    Twice in the last two days I've seen drivers swerve out from behind a car stopping for the amber light in front of them in order to go through. The one last night almost took me out as I was slowing in the lane to his left for the same amber.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  15. Instography
    Member

    That's not an answer. To say "it's your choice" and "have you campaigned" is avoiding the question. I'm asking for your opinion of my behaviour in that specific real-world circumstance. Where should I be with my bike and my child - on the road or on the pavement (or in the car)?

    Anyway, I don't think there's the remotest possibility of me ever having my collar felt. I have been passed by police cars and happily ridden past and waved to patrolling coppers who smiled and waved back to Ellen.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  16. Smudge
    Member

    "even if everyone else is brazenly flouting them"

    I used to think that about speeding in motor vehicles, then I slowed down and discovered that it is a visible minority, certainly out of the built up areas. I believe the same is true about pavement cycling, RLJing, undertaking etc etc.
    Yes I believe we should stick as far as possible to the rules, to choose not to undermines our position in asking the law to deal harshly with others who don't.

    That said, I am nobodies keeper (on here) and it's up to every one of us to make their own decisions and if those decisions involve knowingly breaking the law then you have no complaint if you are caught and someone throws the book at you.
    "The difference is, perhaps, that the potential adverse affects are different. The cyclist takes a chance with their life, the driver risks someone else's life (mostly, usually, etc)."
    Nope, that statement presumes hitting a more vulnerable user, they are far more likely to hit/be hit by another motor vehicle, and no matter how safe we may feel in a little tin box, a 3/4 hard impact is highly likely to see the occupants in hospital, either upstairs or downstairs if they are unlucky!

    "Surely someone performing an illegal act, risking their own life, can criticise another who performs an illegal act, risking a third party's life, without hypocrisy.

    Clearly, they don't have the moral high ground, yet there is nothing two faced about arguing that risking self harm is more socially and ethically acceptable than risking harm to others."

    But taking your RLJ example, it doesn't just affect them, and even if we ignore the family, get hit and then what about the effect of friends of mine in the Ambulance service who have to clear up the mess? The (this time) innocent vehicle driver who has to mentally deal with having crippled / killed someone? My friend the Policeman who has to go and tell the family, take statements, generally deal with the awful mess? Just because (hypothetically) you endanger yourself by commiting a crime and are maimed/killed doesn't mean no-one else suffers. and that is assuming the car hits you, what if they get a fright (because you are suddenly where you shouldn't be), swerve to save you and hit someone else?

    And for what, to save a few seconds?? Sorry, no more justifiable than punishment passes, smidsys and all the other stuff that appalls me.

    @Instography, re the tagalong on the pavement question, I don't know, I believe that pavement cycling is allowed for very young children (anyone have the legal detail?) but I don't know how it is used when said child is on a tagalong. Clearly the Police have looked at you and decided that you are making the best overall decision for safety and are content that you are doing it in a safe/considerate manner. As I say, I am not certain of the legal side and would have to look it up.
    Very different from an adult riding on the pavement however.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  17. Nelly
    Member

    I sometimes think these debates might be better F2F, t'internet forums can make debate black and white.

    I get the legal argument entirely - but you need to ride the route to 'get' the problem - google shots are out of date, and as i have been off, may now be fixed.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  18. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    In my opinion, you should be on the road, your daughter should be on the pavement. That's what my 'don't break the law' mindset tells me. But that's my point, I'm simpoly not saying to anyone else don't break the law, but rather be ready to accept the consequences if you do.

    Of course the further information in your second post there, about the police cars passing by and waving etc etc etc. lends authority-justification to your action that was missing from the first post asking my opinion, therefore my opinion might change to 'keep doing what you're doing, but obviously there might be a different cop who passes with a different attitude one day'.

    I guess there's just something in my genes or formative years that has placed an 'obey the law' automatic response in me. Maybe that's wrong, and I shouldn't comply with laws I see as daft in the circumstances. Personally I prefer not to run the risk and instead campaign for the changes to make what I want to do legal.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  19. chdot
    Admin

    "Anyway, I don't think there's the remotest possibility of me ever having my collar felt. I have been passed by police cars and happily ridden past and waved to patrolling coppers who smiled and waved back to Ellen."

    This is of course another 'problem'!

    The police are supposed to enforce all laws 'without favour'. I'm not clear where discretion comes in (in a legal sense).

    But I do know that the police in Porty wouldn't charge people for cycling on the Prom (unless they were being 'reckless') because the police view was that it was 'safer than the High Street'.

    I suspect Gembo was partly thinking (in quas-motorist mode) 'why aren't they out catching burglars'.

    QUESTION - does the public have right to know what is written down/recorded in such encounters? Obviously more applicable if they actually asked your name.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  20. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "I sometimes think these debates might be better F2F, t'internet forums can make debate black and white."

    True dat, true.

    Though I suspect even if I was to ride the route I might be irritatingly 'proper' ;). The NCN route along the coast in East Lothian has a bit heading west where you come out of a junction, have to cross the orad, ride for thirty yards, then cross back to take the path behind the power station (at least it did, rode this a few years back with Mel and her dad).

    For the sake of thirty yards, and faced with the hassle of having to cross the road then back again I.... got off and walked the thirty yards.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  21. Baldcyclist
    Member

    I once 'stole' a loaf of bread from a corner shop when I was a wee boy, almost got home before I realised I still had the 50p in my hand.

    Ran all the way back and paid for it, even though 'I had gotten away with it', and could have bought sweets instead. I really thought I was going to go to prison!

    Still think like that today, I recently forgot about (sorry!) car tax, it was about 4 days late when I remembered and bought it, really was expecting the Police at the door! I'm definitely *programmed* to do what I'm told!

    Posted 12 years ago #

  22. chdot
    Admin

    "I believe that pavement cycling is allowed for very young children (anyone have the legal detail?)"

    Simple answer has to be "under 12" as that is the age of criminal responsibility.

    No idea what the law is for any accompanying adult (not riding on pavement) if child rides in 'anti-social' manner.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  23. Roibeard
    Member

    @Smudge - absolutely, real world consequences are never so easily contained, however for illustrating the debate...

    I did toy with using base jumping as the illustration, but found the leap (!) to driving too far a stretch!

    ;-)

    Anyway, I don't think one can necessarily be called a hypocrite when making a distinction based on consequences, however one can still be called selfish, sinful and criminal...

    Oh and there isn't an exemption for children cycling on the pavement, just that under 12 years old someone can't be held criminally responsible.

    As chdot pointed out, just as I was typing...

    Robert

    Posted 12 years ago #

  24. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Ah, missed the tagalong aspect. D'oh.

    Hmmmm, that I'm not sure about. Hmmmm. Stumped on that...

    Posted 12 years ago #

  25. chdot
    Admin

    "there isn't an exemption for children cycling on the pavement, just that under 12 years old someone can't be held criminally responsible"

    Yes, that's my understanding - but I don't actually understand what it means!

    Is a 'parent' responsible if nearby? or nowhere in sight??

    Posted 12 years ago #

  26. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Effectively it means that a child under 12 cannot be charged with a criminal offence. The parent would be unlikely to be charged with the exact offence the child is committing, but could be done for all sorts of other things if it was inciting or neglecting the child which caused the offence to be committed for example.

    Not sure what the actual law is on parents being 'directly' responsible - I seem to remember it being mooted as an idea years back, but not sure anything ever came to pass...

    *hello google*

    Posted 12 years ago #

  27. Smudge
    Member

    As pointed out, this debate would be much better f2f!!

    Not a hypocrite for making a ditinction based on consequences, but yes a hypocrite if one was to complain about another road user breaking a law (which the law breaker believe endangers no-one) and then breaking a law oneself using the "I'm only endangering myself/not endangering anyone" justification.

    IMO, no offence to anyone intended ymmv etc etc!

    Posted 12 years ago #

  28. cb
    Member

    So, what we're saying is that Baldcyclist could have got away with stealing that loaf of bread after all.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  29. Min
    Member

    Insto - "I can see Min's point (or at least what I thought was implied by her point. She might not agree that this was her point) in saying 'stuff them'. If the roads infrastructure in general, or specific parts of it, do not accommodate or are not safe for cycling then we should use the parts that can accommodate or are safe for cycling."

    Looks like the debate has moved on very swiftly but yes, that looks like the point I was trying to make! There is no analogy in driving because drivers are never ignored, are always considered when road works are put up, never have entire roads blocked off for works without warning or diversions. And, in your particular case, are never expected to put themselves and their children in harms way just so they can obey the law. It just doesn't happen.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  30. Baldcyclist
    Member

    @cb, he he, yes I diverged a little ;), was more talking about my *programmed to obey without question* mentality...

    Posted 12 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12345

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin