Speed cameras catch 69 cyclists

[shunter]

I think the problem here is that the police are using a piece of equipment that is also used to enforce the law and punish a crime to deal with a situation that could be better addressed by other means ie stopping 'perceived' speeding cyclists and having a polite word with them. The issues I can see are these:

1 - using camera, stopping cyclist for speeding even if no pedestrians about ie speeding is the 'crime' rather than inappropriate speed for the conditions. Cyclist being stopped is regarded as habitual speeder even when there would be pedestrians about.

2 - use of the camera is inappropriate and not suitable for accurately measuring the speed of cyclists. Some cyclists are being blamed in the wrong.

3 - targeting cyclists alone - because they have fancy equipement which is fun to use - without taking into consideration that pedestrians have a responsibility as well if this is a shared facility.

4 - as cyclists are the group being targetted and not pedestrians then the general public is being sent the message that cyclists do not have an equal share of the facility but nevertheless a greater responsibility and therefore Joe Pedestrian can act like a right tit with no consequences because the police don't have a 'spot an idiot pedestrian' camera to play with.

5 - This shared facility is not suitable for pedestrians and cyclists at the same time or should be redesigned to make it safer.

 

[J4CKO]

So it was 69 individual cyclists, I initially read it as 2 cyclists commiting an act that must be fairly tricky on a bike.

 

[jimboalee]

So it was 69 individual cyclists, I initially read it as 2 cyclists commiting an act that must be fairly tricky on a bike.

Those two cyclists were in Cockermouth.

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

So it was 69 individual cyclists, I initially read it as 2 cyclists commiting an act that must be fairly tricky on a bike.

... but not impossible??? Wow, I'm impressed...

 

[arallsopp]

Easier on a recumbent, especially if you have a rear rack.

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

Easier on a recumbent, especially if you have a rear rack.

still an issue with balancing, I would imagine...

 

[Crankarm]

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?

So HF2300 they should take some action that is enforceable not waste their time and local tax payers' money. Presumably a cyclist that has been stopped for travelling quite legally in excees of this arbitary limit set by the plods and council could politely tell them where to get off.

I take your point that if it were busy it would be prudent to take extra care, but not if it is fairly quiet at 11.30am on a sunny weekday morning and some fat plods and council officials are waiving this thing around stopping cyclists giving the impression they are acting with in the law, because they are not. They are literally making it up as they go along .

 

[Twanger]

If everything is looked at from the point of view of rights and obligations, we'll turn the world into an unwearable straitjacket. Every single decision requires us to turn to the rule book and decide who's right and who's wrong. If the issue is a shared route, such as this promenade is supposed to be, then it's not just a matter of whether or not cyclists rights are being violated or whether cyclists are being victimised. It's a matter of managing a shared environment, where peds and cyclists all mosey around the same bit of ground. If people are going over 10 mph, then this is (it would seem) worth making a fuss about. Stop the cyclist and have a word about safety? Damn right! Make a fuss and point out that there are other people in the world too. This is no waste of money.

 

[Twanger]

this arbitary limit set by the plods and council .

How do you know it's arbitrary? Councils have by-laws.

 

[PBancroft]

I take your point that if it were busy it would be prudent to take extra care, but not if it is fairly quiet at 11.30am on a sunny weekday morning ...

You need to go to Bournemouth beach on a sunny weekday morning. It's never "fairly quiet."

 

[HF2300]

So HF2300 they should take some action that is enforceable not waste their time and local tax payers' money ... giving the impression they are acting with in the law, because they are not. They are literally making it up as they go along .

Well, though there's no such thing as speed offences for cyclists in the RTA / RTRA, my understanding is the seafront is regulated under local authority byelaws, so it will be enforceable under those byelaws - if they were choosing to enforce the offence in law, which they're not.

Having said that, what made me bite was the 'why don't they go and catch some real criminals' level of debate, from others as well as you. Would you sympathise with similar comments on a motorists' or truckers' forum? If said motorists were complaining about speed cameras at an accident blackspot? Perhaps one where a cyclist had been injured or killed?

I'll repeat; there is simply no evidence in the original article of 'bully boy' tactics, of people being 'done' or 'ticketed'. OK, perhaps the use of speed cameras is a bit inflammatory (as this thread has shown!), but all that's happening is that people apparently using a (frequently very busy) shared use facility inappropriately are being told to be a bit more careful.

Twanger's already said it more eloquently than me. Waste of money or time? Probably not.