Speed cameras catch 69 cyclists

[Jake]

Continuing on from a few weeks ago when the story first came to light and i posted it, here is the followup.

Mobile cameras used to snare speeding cyclists on Bournemouth seafront stopped 69 people in four days.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/8114296.stm

 

[marinyork]

I'd say 69 is probably a very low yield for four days work.

 

[Ben M]

GO AND CATCH SOME REAL CRIMINALS!



Were the cyclists on the road with cars or on a cycle path or what? The article isn't very clear.

 

[HJ]

What a waste of money...

 

[Will1985]

+1. Doubt they stopped any runners.

 

[Jake]

I can see its handy if there are hundreds of people on the prominard with kids etc, and hoodies are riding bikes fast inbetwen them, then its a job for those pretend policemen, or traffic wardens. Otherwise its a waste of time.

 

[HF2300]

Sounds as though it's on the promenade - there's a sea wall / promenade / undercliff drive that runs all the way along the bay, pretty much, and for a lot of its length there are beach huts, ice cream kiosks, cafes etc.

There have been a lot of issues with cyclist vs. pedestrian conflict along there - it's absolutely heaving in the summer even in good weather, so there's a lot of potential for accidents. Doesn't seem unreasonable or a waste of effort (or money) to try to slow people down a bit.

 

[Sheepy1209]

Does anyone know if there's anything special about Bournemouth promenade to justify these restrictions apart from there having been an injury incident? It's not so much the speed thing that bothers me, though annoying, as the 10am to 6pm restrictions.

Here in Blackpool it's not long since you'd get to the prom and be met by 'No Cycling' signs - which everybody ignored. They've gone now, and the whole prom's officially a cycle route with no speed limit that I'm aware of and it's full mixed use with no separation of pedestrians.

It works pretty well to be honest apart from a few pinchpoints where they're still doing construction work - much better than the routes where pedestrians and bikes are 'separated' by a white line.

I just don't understand why one seaside resort is making life hard for cyclists while Blackpool is going the other way (though the rest of Blackpool's roads and cycle 'facilities' are pretty atrocious).

[EDIT: Just saw the post above - guess it's just that Blackpool's got more space]

 

[cannondale boy]

What a waste of money...

+1 I bet you that no cyclist has been killed or injured by going over the speed limit (whats the point). Police have nothing else better to do!

 

[PBancroft]

What a waste of money...

-1 on this occasion. The area they seem to have been targeting is effectively a pavement. The only reason I can see for allowing cyclists on there at all is because Bournemouth is so hilly and there are no other direct routes from one end of the promenade to the other for beach visiting cyclists.

Its certainly not the sort of area you'd want people to be traveling at any sort of speed, and 10mph seems pretty fair for the stretch to me.

 

[shunter]

As far as I am aware there have been lots of issues regarding these hand held cameras and the slippage effect on motorcyclists thus giving false readings. I would suggest that it will be more of a problem with cyclists as they probably present less of a target to accurately focus on. Standing up on pedals, moving side to side etc.

I also wonder have the cameras been tested for this sort of usage . Found this on a solicitors site:

Mobile Laser Speed Guns or Mobile Radar Guns
It is imperative that a police officer can prove that he has operated the device in accordance with the ACPO Code of Practice. This involves demonstrating that the appropriate distance and alignment checks have been carried out at the beginning and end of tour of duty by the police officer. The police officer must aim the gun at a fixed point on your car to ensure an accurate reading to avoid the ‘slippage’ effect. If the gun is accidentally moved away from the fixed point then the reading may become inaccurate as the length of the car will be added on to the distance traveled which will distort the reading.
At Cunninghams we have 20 years of experience in defending clients on a nationwide basis. We will carefully examine the evidence against you and advise you whether you have a speed camera defence. There are various hurdles that the operator of a device must overcome to prove that he has used a device according to the ACPO Code of Practice and the manufacturer’s guidelines and we have complete knowledge of the procedures that a police officer must follow. Again, if there is any doubt, then the Magistrates must acquit a Defendant as it is a matter for the Prosecution to prove the case against you beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

[Mac66]

As a speedo is not a legal requirement on a bike, how can you "Do" cyclists for speeding.

Officer: Scuse me sonny. Do you know how fast you were going?
Sonny: Err No.

I suppose you could be charged with furious cycling?

 

[Crankarm]

A total waste of time and yet more evidence of police making it up as they go along. Bully boy tactics again. Absolutely unenforceable as it is not a requirement in law that pedal cycles are fitted with a speedometer. They cannot rely on yours if you have one fitted as it has not been properly calibrated. As for the speed guns they are using to target cyclists, has the manufactuer of the gun tested and calibrated their cameras on cyclists and have the police validated use of the camera on cyclists? Unlikely. I would love to go down there just to be issued with a ticket if that's what the police or council bully boys are are doing just so I could tell them where to shove it .

 

[HF2300]

OK. There's nothing in the article that says people are being 'done' for speeding. There's nothing that says tickets are being issued. All it says is that those registered above the 10 mph limit using the radar gun are flagged down and being given 'safety advice'. That doesn't sound like bully boy tactics to me.

Nor does it seem unreasonable to attempt to slow cyclists down when using what is essentially a very busy pedestrian area where - in my experience - there are likely to be lots of small children, dogs etc. And is 10 mph so unreasonable anyway?

As for "I bet you that no cyclist has been killed or injured by going over the speed limit" or "Doubt they stopped any runners", I think the point is to avoid pedestrian injuries, not cyclists - and are runners that likely to be vastly in excess of 10 mph?

 

[arallsopp]

Agreed. I cycle through my local pedestrianised high street after the shops are closed. As long as I'm keeping the speed down to just above walking pace and staying away from blind doorways, the police don't seem to mind me. Normally get an 'evening' out of them, in fact.

Problem with hard and fast limits (IMHO) is they seem to replace common sense. On the road, even worse, they suggest an entitlement.