Police Campaign on Lights on Bicycles

[BentMikey]

Even better, they'll be educating people who will then spread out over the whole country. Carry on say I.

 

[gbb]

Ok, forget the story from a cyclists point of view.

I wrote to the local paper a couple of years ago re this subject. It related to an incident i was witness to. It obviously touched a point because they put it in their highlighted section.

I was driving home, this time of year, dark and busy roads. Came up to a busy roundabout...lots of traffic on it. I pulled up, waited for a gap, saw it, prepared to go....and at the last second, saw not a cyclist, not the bike, not the guy on it, no lights ...but the merest shadow in the road that caught my eye.
Thankfully i stopped instantly...as a cyclist rode by, completely oblivious to how close he'd just come to being run clean over....by me

The incident happened and was gone in an instant. I wrote to the paper, hoping (and said so in the letter) that the guy would read it, and know how close the pillock came to being a hospital case...or dead.

A cyclist without lights came close to leaving a potential death on MY concience. I dont ever want to live with that. Catch em, do em...just as they should with any other lawbreaker. They need protecting from themselves...and i need protecting from them.....the pillocks.

 

[Cab]

Yes but surely the same tactics are therefor applicable...transient cyclists, how else are you going to get the message to them then,...surely...by doing it over and over.

You're missing my posts here obviously, or just ignoring them. I outlined a far better strategy, one of targetting the two Universities (specifically the colleges where these students are) to ensure that students know that they need lights, to ensure that they have easy access (even bulk discounts), and also targetting the bike shops in the city to ensure that people buying bikes or getting services have this messagereinforced. With some cooperation from the universities we could also have cycling without lights treated as a college offense, I rekon they'd be up for that. But no, rather than having a joined up, thought out strategy to reduce incidence of cycling without lights we've got an annual knee-jerk that makes no difference at all.

Peterborough in my case doesnt have a particually transient cycling fraternity...but historically, the Police have still had to resort to the same tactics every year or so....because people just dont take it in, or dont want to...the answers the same.....if you break the law...you deserve whats coming.

And Peterborough is a very different case; the annual 'crackdown' is tiny in comparison with what the same police force doeshere. The cycling population is different. And the sheer mass of cyclists that Cambridge has dwarfs that of Peterborough (in terms of proportion of trips made by bike). Ain't really analogous.

 

[Cab]

A cyclist without lights came close to leaving a potential death on MY concience. I dont ever want to live with that. Catch em, do em...just as they should with any other lawbreaker. They need protecting from themselves...and i need protecting from them.....the pillocks.

No one has disagreed with getting cyclists to ride safely and visibly. Your point here is therefore irrelevent.

 

[gbb]

Why the fcuk have you not invited answers ONLY from Cambridge residents then. We all bring our experiences to a post, all different experiences, with different viewpoints.

You may well be right. But i cant, and no-one else who doesnt live in Cambridge, can agree or disagree. So whats the point of anyone answering and giving the opinions or viewpoints.

You have some valid points re targetting the uni's...have you put it to them, have you put it to the Police, have you written to the local papers. They are good ideas, i assume you have ?

Apologies for the abrupt entry into the post, but disregarding a honest opinion is not the way to foster 'good relations' for want of a better word.

 

[Cab]

Why the fcuk have you not invited answers ONLY from Cambridge residents then. We all bring our experiences to a post, all different experiences, with different viewpoints.

Theres a vast difference between requesting only examples from a single city and rejecting just a single assertion from another city because it isn't analogous. Surely you see that?

You may well be right. But i cant, and no-one else who doesnt live in Cambridge, can agree or disagree. So whats the point of anyone answering and giving the opinions or viewpoints.

Every point really; its just that very specific examples being repeated here after I've already explained why this town is kind of different are rather tedious. Please, try to keep up with the thread, and don't get upset when if you repeat something that has already been responded to isn't given the full treatment you think it deserves.

You have some valid points re targetting the uni's...have you put it to them, have you put it to the Police, have you written to the local papers. They are good ideas, i assume you have ?

The Universities, no. The police yes, I have. The local press no, as the local paper is so vehemently anti-cyclist.

Apologies for the abrupt entry into the post, but disregarding a honest opinion is not the way to foster 'good relations' for want of a better word.

You haven't been disregarded, I've explained what elements of your experience in Peterbrough don't apply here, and I have explained why. And I have now done so twice.

 

[Cab]

Here in the tranquil Cheddar Valley the local initiative is to stop cyclists with no lights and issue them with a pack on road safety, which also contains a 10% discount voucher for lights at the LBS.

See, thats a nice, simple approach that I'd be hard put to find anything wrong with. Get lights on, show us your lights, we're here to support you and we'll show you sufficient leniency such that you can show us you're willing to comply with the law, but if you don't then we'll fine you. Far better than stop-and-fine.

 

[gbb]

I'm really in a quandry with this one Cab.
I admire your passion on the subject, you have some good points, but you undo it all with your lack of understanding that someone MAY have an alternative point of view.
It took 34 posts and 4 pages before you stated an alternative to the blitz. Your thoughts therefor were not immediately apparent to everyone.

You then state more specific targetting may be the way.
Very good....i agree in principle. I'm sure it has a place in educating cyclists.

But i go back to my earlier post...most people are remarkably thick. They KNOW its illegal to ride without lights, but they still do it.
THEY KNOW, they shouldnt need further education and arm twisting, they should simply obey the law just like the majority of people do.

Just like red light jumpers in cars KNOW its illegal.
Just like car owners with a defective light KNOW its illegal...and so on, and so on.
In short....i agree targetted education has its place, your points are valid.
But every one of those cyclists without lights are conciously breaking the law. They know it....no sympathy.

Pare away the emotive issues here, RLJers, cars with defective lights, car is king, unfairness to cyclists etc etc etc....Its illegal to ride without lights.

I'm not against you Cab....i just dont see it the way you do.

 

[Cab]

I'm really in a quandry with this one Cab.
I admire your passion on the subject, you have some good points, but you undo it all with your lack of understanding that someone MAY have an alternative point of view.

I understand that you may have a different point of view, which is why I took time to respond to that and explain why the reasoning you gave does not apply well in Cambridge.

It took 34 posts and 4 pages before you stated an alternative to the blitz. Your thoughts therefor were not immediately apparent to everyone.

Having a better alternative or not is irrelevent to whether I believe that this is a good way for the police to spend their time. It won't work, it hasn't work, in the past and nothing has changed, so whether or not I give an alternative suggestion is irrelevent to the fact that their current strategy doesn't work. Not sure why you're linking having an alternative suggestion to stating that something doesn't work; you don't need another strategy to drop something that is blatantly ineffective.

You then state more specific targetting may be the way.
Very good....i agree in principle. I'm sure it has a place in educating cyclists.

But i go back to my earlier post...most people are remarkably thick. They KNOW its illegal to ride without lights, but they still do it.
THEY KNOW, they shouldnt need further education and arm twisting, they should simply obey the law just like the majority of people do.

Which in itself sounds good, until you use the second part of this statement to question the first part, namely...

Just like red light jumpers in cars KNOW its illegal.
Just like car owners with a defective light KNOW its illegal...and so on, and so on.

Yes, and so on... Like the 'majority' of drivers who obey the speed limit, who overtake cyclists safely when the cyclist is in secondary position (or closer to the kerb), who never park on the pavement, who never forget to turn their lights on, who never talk on mobile phones... Face reality, the majority of road users are not angels. So to start enforcing laws on the roads does seem like a great idea, but lets have some common sense; don't start out by picking a transient population who won't demonstrably learn the lesson because they've buggered off by next year. When the 'herd' opinion is that traffic rules don't really apply (go on, walk down a narrow street where every car is parked on the pavement and tell me otherwise) then the correct approach cannot be to pick that part of the herd that is least capable of harming others, that is least disruptive and that is least likely to take the lesson on board because they're giving up that mode of transport in a while anyway. Its a stupid idea, it doesn't work, as we have seen from this annual blitz in the past.

In short....i agree targetted education has its place, your points are valid.
But every one of those cyclists without lights are conciously breaking the law. They know it....no sympathy.

I've not got a great deal of sympathy for them either... Doesn't mean that specifically targetting them is either effective of appropriate expenditure of resources.

Pare away the emotive issues here, RLJers, cars with defective lights, car is king, unfairness to cyclists etc etc etc....Its illegal to ride without lights.

I'm not against you Cab....i just dont see it the way you do.

No, lets not pare those away! Lets leave them in the mix. Lets say that road users should be expected to obey the rules. Lets also say that police resources should be targetted on those road users who they can change the behaviour of, and who are causing most harm by breaking the rules. The campaign here neither targets a group who are going to change (transient population of cyclists), nor is it a group who are causing as much harm as others on our roads. Its a crazy priority.

 

[ejls2]

Cab,

You do seem to have a bit of a thing about this The below is absolutely not intended as a rant. It is intended to set a few facts straight based on my personal, recent experience of being a student in Cambridge. I agree that more could be done but I believe that quite a lot is being done already! I’m afraid I’m also in favour of the blitz as I believe it does have an impact. I think we’ll just have to agree to differ on that one. Hope you find the below useful.

The Colleges DO educate students about cycling safety. In fact they go on about it all the time. Most, if not all of, the colleges give a talk which includes, inter alia, cycling safety just after matriculation and many colleges run schemes where you can get cheap bike lights etc… My old college had a deal with Townsends where you could get helmets, reflectives and lights at hugely marked down prices and I think quite a few of the central colleges have similar deals with Ben Haywards and that place next to Jet Photographic.

In Cambridge, the University doesn’t do much with regard to cycling safety because it doesn’t really interface with individuals much except for lectures, exams etc. That’s not how it works. Colleges take care of that side of university life.

Cambridgeshire Constabulary was actually the driving force behind quite a few of the college’s schemes. They also come in to the colleges every year to promote the "immobilise" type schemes where you enter the frame number of your bike onto a database and the police mark an i.d. number onto it as well.

Guess what leaflets are given out when they run this service? Yup, more cycling safety leaflets – the same ones which are in all of the college’s porter’s lodges all year round. None of these make as big an impact as they should. One of the few ways of getting students to buy lights which seems to work is doing exactly what the police are doing now: giving cyclists tickets which do not need paying if you can prove that you’ve bought lights within the next few days. A few of my friends have had these and they ALL now have lights

As for transient population, I believe that your average Cambridge student is around for a bit over three years (including grads). Probably about the same for ARU, maybe a bit closer to three given a smaller proportion of grads. If there is a blitz every year then they’re going to be exposed to it at least three times. No it isn’t perfect, but it does make quite a few people buy lights. Go and speak to the staff in any of the bike shops in Cambridge and ask them when they sell the most lights! I personally don’t really care if someone has lights because they don’t want to get a ticket or because they’re sensible. As long as they have lights it’s a good thing!

Just my tuppence,

Cheers,

Ed

P.S. Saw a Porsche pulled over by the train station the other day. Thought it would made you smile

 

[Elmer Fudd]

Couldn't current legislation be altered to say that a bike has to be sold with lights as it does reflectors, a bell etc. ?
I know the lights are going to be the "two for £3" type of thing but anything has got to be better than nothing.

 

[Cab]

Cab,

You do seem to have a bit of a thing about this The below is absolutely not intended as a rant. It is intended to set a few facts straight based on my personal, recent experience of being a student in Cambridge. I agree that more could be done but I believe that quite a lot is being done already! I’m afraid I’m also in favour of the blitz as I believe it does have an impact. I think we’ll just have to agree to differ on that one. Hope you find the below useful.

May I ask why you think that this annual blitz helps? I ask because every year it seems to happen, and every year by January it is clear that the number of cyclists without lights is pretty much the same as it was in November, and by next autumn its the same again. What is it about this blitz that works? What is there that demonstrates that it works?

The Colleges DO educate students about cycling safety. In fact they go on about it all the time. Most, if not all of, the colleges give a talk which includes, inter alia, cycling safety just after matriculation and many colleges run schemes where you can get cheap bike lights etc… My old college had a deal with Townsends where you could get helmets, reflectives and lights at hugely marked down prices and I think quite a few of the central colleges have similar deals with Ben Haywards and that place next to Jet Photographic.

In Cambridge, the University doesn’t do much with regard to cycling safety because it doesn’t really interface with individuals much except for lectures, exams etc. That’s not how it works. Colleges take care of that side of university life.

True, and for Cambridge University it would be the colleges you'd deal with, but with Anglia Ruskin you have a different kind of organisation, you'd deal more with the University.

And while I agree that theres a certain amount of help there from Colleges, I don't believe its enough; talking to people I know who are members of various colleges, the students I know in Churchill, Sydney Sussex, Trinity Hall and St. Johns have managed to scrape through without being told a thing about cycle safety. I'd like Plod to go and talk with those colleges more, I'd like the colleges to treat infringements of cycle safety as a bad reflection of the colleges themselves. Difficult to see that happening while many of the old college fellows are amongst the most insanely careless cyclists you'll ever meet

Cambridgeshire Constabulary was actually the driving force behind quite a few of the college’s schemes. They also come in to the colleges every year to promote the "immobilise" type schemes where you enter the frame number of your bike onto a database and the police mark an i.d. number onto it as well.

When I've talked to plod here in Cambridge (last winter was last time I talked to a bobby about this) there was awareness of immobilise type stuff but not, apparently, any deal whereby plod was advising colleges on bike lights.

Guess what leaflets are given out when they run this service? Yup, more cycling safety leaflets – the same ones which are in all of the college’s porter’s lodges all year round. None of these make as big an impact as they should. One of the few ways of getting students to buy lights which seems to work is doing exactly what the police are doing now: giving cyclists tickets which do not need paying if you can prove that you’ve bought lights within the next few days. A few of my friends have had these and they ALL now have lights

I agree that such leaflets don't help.

But from what I've seen plod aren't stopping and warning, they're stopping and issuing fines. Thats what they've come out with in the press, and thats the tale I've heard from other cyclists too. Issuing a 'get lights, show us you have lights, you have seven days to do so or we'll fine you' warning would seem like a good idea. Issuing a fine straight off seems over the top. And concentrating on this issue and not enforcing other traffic issues (go on, see if you can get an answer from Cambridge plod on how many people they've pulled over for driving with mobile phones in their hands) is clearly missing the point.

As for transient population, I believe that your average Cambridge student is around for a bit over three years (including grads). Probably about the same for ARU, maybe a bit closer to three given a smaller proportion of grads. If there is a blitz every year then they’re going to be exposed to it at least three times.

While thats true, they're not all cyclists for three years. Hence the comment about a transient population; but I accept that many are cyclists for two years, and some few more for three. Still pretty transient by any standards, though!

No it isn’t perfect, but it does make quite a few people buy lights. Go and speak to the staff in any of the bike shops in

Cambridge and ask them when they sell the most lights! I personally don’t really care if someone has lights because they don’t want to get a ticket or because they’re sensible. As long as they have lights it’s a good thing!

Just my tuppence,

Cheers,

Ed

If this was working, by December you'd see more people with lights on their bikes. Doesn't happen though; theres a week and a half after the clocks change when things are really bad, then it settles down rather, with no visible improvement through winter. This blitz idea just hasn't been shown to be effective; spend the same police time at junctions stopping people in whatever vehicle going through red lights. Spend that time at roundabouts ticketing people for dangerous driving/riding. Spend it liasing more closely with colleges to achieve the best practice that your college seemed to have been approaching. Picking out individuals and ticketing them when its getting dark... Sorry, just doesn't seem to work on the ground at all.

P.S. Saw a Porsche pulled over by the train station the other day. Thought it would made you smile

Doubt I'd know a Porsche if it knocked me off my bike, to be honest

But if you want 'insane expensive car driving', try going down towards Shelford from the city centre around school kicking out time.

 

[ejls2]

May I ask why you think that this annual blitz helps? I ask because every year it seems to happen, and every year by January it is clear that the number of cyclists without lights is pretty much the same as it was in November, and by next autumn its the same again. What is it about this blitz that works? What is there that demonstrates that it works?

I always think of it as a bit like those food chain/diagram thingies:

The blitz is like one of the carnivores; it keeps the population of the prey (dim-witted-lightless cyclists) down. Sure lots of them will lapse, but if there wasn't a "cull" then there would be loads more.

True, and for Cambridge University it would be the colleges you'd deal with, but with Anglia Ruskin you have a different kind of organisation, you'd deal more with the University.

Completely true. No idea about ARU organisation personally so haven't commented on it.

And while I agree that theres a certain amount of help there from Colleges, I don't believe its enough; talking to people I know who are members of various colleges, the students I know in Churchill, Sydney Sussex, Trinity Hall and St. Johns have managed to scrape through without being told a thing about cycle safety. I'd like Plod to go and talk with those colleges more, I'd like the colleges to treat infringements of cycle safety as a bad reflection of the colleges themselves. Difficult to see that happening while many of the old college fellows are amongst the most insanely careless cyclists you'll ever meet

Well I'm formerly from one of the ones you've listed and we certainly had the message hammered home! The college still takes the same attitude so it might be that some of your friends haven't been listening. I agree that more could be done though. Let's face it, it always can!

When I've talked to plod here in Cambridge (last winter was last time I talked to a bobby about this) there was awareness of immobilise type stuff but not, apparently, any deal whereby plod was advising colleges on bike lights.

It's the two female PCSOs who are always out on bikes you've got to chat to. They do quite a bit of the liaison stuff. The police got the ball rolling on the lights discount ages ago. Now it's all done by colleges/departments.

I agree that such leaflets don't help.

But from what I've seen plod aren't stopping and warning, they're stopping and issuing fines. Thats what they've come out with in the press, and thats the tale I've heard from other cyclists too. Issuing a 'get lights, show us you have lights, you have seven days to do so or we'll fine you' warning would seem like a good idea. Issuing a fine straight off seems over the top. And concentrating on this issue and not enforcing other traffic issues (go on, see if you can get an answer from Cambridge plod on how many people they've pulled over for driving with mobile phones in their hands) is clearly missing the point.

Yup, I agree the other way around would make more sense but I suppose it has it's advantages:

a) actually being fined is more likely to make you get around to doing it rather than "forgetting" and hoping the police won't catch up on their paperwork;
actually being fined will leave a more lasting impression; and
c) it might be more straightforward administratively.

Getting an answer from the poice on an issue like this is very easy! Go to the cambs police website, go to "contact us" and then click on the FOI request box. Public bodies get so many information requests these days that they only tend to respond to the ones they've got to, i.e. the FOI ones.

While thats true, they're not all cyclists for three years. Hence the comment about a transient population; but I accept that many are cyclists for two years, and some few more for three. Still pretty transient by any standards, though!

I can't comment about ARU but generally if you cycle when you're at cambridge you start on day one and take it from there. I think I probably only knew 2 or 3 students who didn't use bikes for the whole of the time they were at university.

If this was working, by December you'd see more people with lights on their bikes. Doesn't happen though; theres a week and a half after the clocks change when things are really bad, then it settles down rather, with no visible improvement through winter. This blitz idea just hasn't been shown to be effective; spend the same police time at junctions stopping people in whatever vehicle going through red lights. Spend that time at roundabouts ticketing people for dangerous driving/riding. Spend it liasing more closely with colleges to achieve the best practice that your college seemed to have been approaching. Picking out individuals and ticketing them when its getting dark... Sorry, just doesn't seem to work on the ground at all.
!

In all honesty, I think the reason it doesn't work is laziness. People forget to take lights off their bikes and they get pinched or the batteries run out and they don't get replaced. Sad isn't it!

I don't think the manpower requirements for the blitz are exactly massive! You can cycle around town all night and not bump into the police. Yes the actions you've suggested would be good but iI guess we're going to have to give the police more money and cut the red tape before we'll see it!

Doubt I'd know a Porsche if it knocked me off my bike, to be honest

But if you want 'insane expensive car driving', try going down towards Shelford from the city centre around school kicking out time.

Been there, done that, got the door marks to prove it

 

[gbb]

Couldn't current legislation be altered to say that a bike has to be sold with lights as it does reflectors, a bell etc. ?
I know the lights are going to be the "two for £3" type of thing but anything has got to be better than nothing.

Dont know whether its a legal requirement, but my Via Nirone came with bells and lights.....cheap and nasty of course...the guy at the shop said 'i'll leave you to decide whether you fit them or not'.....with a wry smile.

Anyone know out of interest ?

Cab, i guess the issue is far more important to you than it is me. Fair play to you...youre probably a better person than me.
I see thing very simply...theres a law, it should be obeyed (and heaven knows, i'm no angel, but i know if i transgress, i deserve whats coming)

I dont cloud issues with alter arguements because you can do that all day, every arguement, with any outcome you choose.

I keep it simple...you have to because it just goes to show, even the universities have a contingent of thick individuals who choose to break the law. The supposed cream of the future.....and they cant even be bothered, or havnt got the brains to obey a simple law....jeeeesus.

Please, please dont be so 'angry' about other views. I dont particually disagree with what you say, but these people are grown men, supposedly intelligent and KNOW what the law is.
Personally, i believe education has its place, but lets not make excuses for wanton lawbreaking by people that should know better.

 

[gambatte]

I agree with GBB, we should have a zero tolerance approach to traffic offences. Target RLJers, speeders, all the same.

You don't really break the law 'a little bit' or 'a big bit'.

target all road users the same.