The City of London Police.......

[Origamist]

Why is it that only "cyclists" are prefixed with "dangerous" on the questionnaire!?

 

[bryce]

While I agree that a red light jumping cyclist getting caught has got no right to complain, you really believe that this should be a priority for policing?

Although I agree that the police shouldn't have to devote resources to stopping RLJers, I think the public would complain if the police turned a blind eye. It would also suggest that RLJing is socially acceptable, which would give the wrong idea to naive cyclists and other road users.

 

[Cab]

Although I agree that the police shouldn't have to devote resources to stopping RLJers, I think the public would complain if the police turned a blind eye. It would also suggest that RLJing is socially acceptable, which would give the wrong idea to naive cyclists and other road users.

I'm sure you'll agree that there is a happy middle ground between turning a blind eye and issuing 600 times more fixed penalty notices the number of related injury causing incidents.

 

[andyfromotley]

Dear Mr XXXXXX
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REF: COL/08/248
I write in connection with your request for information dated 24 June 2008 in which you seek access to the following information:

• 1. How many RTA or other accidents have been caused by cyclists jumping red lights (last 3 years if possible)?
  • The information that you require is contained in several thousand accident record books and in order to extract the data, it is necessary to examine each record manually. Two officers have searched a six-month period in 2005 and identified one such accident. The time taken to conduct this search was 16 hours and the cost of undertaking any additional searching would exceed the prescribed limit. This work has not therefore been completed.
  2. How many injuries are caused by such accidents and a break down as to their seriousness?
  • The accident identified above resulted in minor injury.
  3. How many FPNs for cyclists jumping red lights were issued last year?
  • 1,197 FPNs were issued to pedal cyclists last year.
  4. How much did Operation Alto cost in staff hours and cash?
  • We do not hold information relating to the cost of Operation Alto.

Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying to your request. Should you have any further questions, please contact me via e-mail, letter or telephone, quoting the reference number above.
Yours sincerely




Inspector Dave Lockyear
Information Access Manager


Here is the reply to my information request. It took much longer than the guideline 20 days for a reply but they did keep me informed as to the reason for the delays. I would welcome suggestions for any follow up question. Some comparison with FPN's issued to motorists, or injury accident stats involving motorists may well throw more light on to the situation. (although COLP recording methods do not appear to be as well developed as some forces i have encountered. Breakdown of accident stats in particular seem to be problematical for them.)

I was surprised that they could not supply information for Op Alto (which i thought was an Operation to target RLJ's.?) Nearly every operation i have been involved in (and thats a lot) records cost and hours expended. Otherwise how could one measure its success?

I am going to work on some estimates for the amount of time required to process that many FPN's, based on my experience and knowledge of the process involved. Although not analytically robust it will i am confident be reasonably accurate.

andy

 

[andyfromotley]

http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/CityPolice/About/CrimeFigures/index.htm

this is the link to the crime figures that i used. (april 07 to mar 08)

 

[domtyler]

Hmmm...

I'd like to know a bit more about the wider context of the City of London Police - how they are targetted, who are they answerable to, what long-term strategy they have.

The links below show a more positive side - hopefully they are not just temporary PR exercises. Interesting contact for cyclists in the last link.

http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/CityPolice/Media/News/citycyclesquadcelebratespecialaward.htm

http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/CityPolice/Media/News/towerbridgespeedworkshop.htm

http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/CityPolice/Media/News/safercycling.htm

Oh don't worry there is a widely documented and very long track record of the CoL police's attitude toward cycling, you won't have to look too hard. They are literally a law unto themselves and not answerable to anyone. Until this changes and they have change forced upon them the discrimination toward cycling and ridiculously pro-motoring stance will not change.

 

[srw]

Like avoiding speed camera penalties (see a very boring thread elsewhere), avoiding RLJ penalties is very easy. Just don't do it.

I've been riding through the City for 12 years now, and never seen anything except courtesy towards cyclists from the police.

 

[Cab]

Like avoiding speed camera penalties (see a very boring thread elsewhere), avoiding RLJ penalties is very easy. Just don't do it.

I don't disagree with you. As a non RLJ'er and a non-speeder (and a non-thief, and a non-rapist) I manage to avoid pretty much all of the associated penalties. I think that its fair, from my perspective, to point out that I'd rather those crimes that actually harm a lot of people (careless driving, speeding, theft, assault) are the ones that Plod concentrate on, rather than those crimes where their own figures show that pretty nearly no harm is done. Don't you agree?

 

[spindrift]

They are literally a law unto themselves and not answerable to anyone.

Not even Scotland Yard- they report straight to the Home Sec.

 

[dondare]

If you don't RLJ then you won't get a penalty, also you won't be distracting the police and wasting their time so they'll be able to catch more burgulars and pickpockets.
And motorists using their phones.

 

[bryce]

I'm sure you'll agree that there is a happy middle ground between turning a blind eye and issuing 600 times more fixed penalty notices the number of related injury causing incidents.

No I don't agree - the law's the law, however anal that may sound. If RLJers didn't RLJ (you only save a minute amount of time by doing it), the police wouldn't have to issue a single penalty notice. I'm never saying that's going to happen, but good on the police in trying to educate the RLJers and avoid injuries/ fatalities in the future.

Some of the pro RLJing arguments on here are pretty odd IMHO. It's illegal, potentially dangerous and sets a bad example to the herds of naive cyclists around you.

 

[andyfromotley]

one would think they may like to spend more time educating the 99% of victims who had property stolen from them as to their abysmal performance?

What about letting those cyclists who had their bike stolen know, that in future they will be concentrating on bike theft rather than massively over reacting to a harmless and generally safe act by cyclists?

Of course given their disgracefully loaded questionnaire on what the public is concerned about you will no doubt see a further vindictive crackdown on "dangerous" cyclists.
After all its somewhat easier than dealing with those dangerous rapists, robbers and theives.

Do you think they would get the same results if i wrote the questionnaire?

 

[srw]

I take it that you'd also be happy with them turning a blind eye to the very minor problems of motorised vehicle RLJs, drivers on mobile phones and drivers braking the speed limit? After all, these very rarely result in anything other than minor injury.

 

[andyfromotley]

I take it that you'd also be happy with them turning a blind eye to the very minor problems of motorised vehicle RLJs, drivers on mobile phones and drivers braking the speed limit? After all, these very rarely result in anything other than minor injury.

where is your evidence to back that statement up? i dont agree that they result in only minor injury at all.

i have provided evidence that rlj is on the whole a safe activity. when it does go wrong i dont beleive there is a significant risk of serious injury. Please provide some evidence about your claims, given the amount of people killed and seriously injured in accidents involving motor vehicles i have a feeling that you may find this difficult.

So if you are going to question my beliefs trot off and come back with a sensible argument.

andy

 

[Cab]

I take it that you'd also be happy with them turning a blind eye to the very minor problems of motorised vehicle RLJs, drivers on mobile phones and drivers braking the speed limit? After all, these very rarely result in anything other than minor injury.

The stats for that don't back you up. Drivers on mobile phones are, I gather, about as dangerous as drunk drivers. The accident stats and information for the other problems caused by speeding aren't really contentious. And cars going through red lights... Well, which would you rather be hit by, a car or a bicycle?

Be clear on this; I don't ask for the police to turn a blind eye to cyclists going through red lights, but there is a happy medium to be struck between targetting an activity that causes so little actual harm that its results are hard to measure, and merely stopping and issuing penalties to those who are encountered. You don't hand out 100 penalties a month without trying.