[Closed] Police fine 400 cyclists for 'dangerous and irresponsible' riding

I might add that the worst offenders are those who look like fairly serious riders, and not the old bloke on his way to the factory.

I do have to say there seems to be an unwritten rule that the roadies round ours try and do a track stand (badly) at the red lights and just seem to trundle slowly through them until they get to the point where they're through anyway and just crank it back up to speed as if somehow it's okay to RLJ if you're going really slowly.

surely the worst are the folk you see riding in the paths on cheapo bikes?
I refer to them as folk who own bikes rather than cyclist

FWIW I got chased by one when I suggested he fit lights to his bike and look before joing the main road after he failed to give way to me and I nearly ran in the back of him

never seen much bad from a lycraed god tbh

[url= http://road.cc/content/news/83104-two-thirds-cyclist-injuries-following-collisions-motor-vehicle-due-driver-says ]Road cc link to injuries[/url]

As I said above, I'm more than happy for illegal road behaviour to be punished. However, if there are collisions involving cyclists, research, reviewed above, shows that it is not cyclists who are to blame in the majority of cases.

Serves them right for not checking there's any polis about before jumping the light! 😆

[i]you now get 'in ride' updates from Strava on your segment times so they're probably just checking their KOM status. [/i]

Maybe the copper in questions holds the KOM along that stretch and is encouraging others not to challenge it.

If you don't play by the rules you should be caught

I'm just gobsmacked that so many people are quite happy to support the police for FINING SOMEONE WHO IS NOT COMMITTING A CRIME.

Talking on a mobile on a bike maybe be silly in your eyes but it is most certainly NOT illegal.

According to you but yet according to the law it comes under not riding with due care and attention, that's where it started with motorists too before it became specific.

Sorry - but it's all wrong and using a phone or running reds SHOULD be crimes, and quite frankly I wonder why cyclists put themselves at risk of injury by doing the above!

That is all well and good but when the police are punishing people for things that SHOULD be a crime but is not then you get on a very slippery slope. After all what SHOULD happen is just a subjective. That daft bint from twitter last month seemed to thing that motorists SHOULD be able to knock cyclists off the road as they "don't pay road tax".

JonR - where exactly did I say that I agreed people should be fined?! I said it should be a crime, that is all.

You should be a politician with the ridiculous spin you've just put on my post, with your skills at taking things out of context you'd be a shoe-in. Please wind your neck in a bit and read what I said again before you blast me for something I clearly didn't say.

I reiterate:

It should be a crime to use a phone on a bike.

It should be a crime to ride through a red light.

Now - are you arguing it shouldn't be illegal?

Morecashthandash +1 trillion

portlyone - Member

Using a hand held mobile phone whilst cycling is not illegal per se, however, you could commit an offence of careless riding or riding without due care and consideration. It is also not advisable for the obvious safety reasons.

So it is illegal.

OK I'll argue. Why shouldn't cyclists be allowed to treat a red light as a give way when turning left?

To add fuel - I think that someone who has a driving licence and is caught doing these things on a bike they should have the points on their licence. After all they passed a test and proved their knowledge of the rules of driving with due care and consideration etc...

Think this is the system in USofA?

If we, as a country, were serious about getting people off their lazy behinds and onto bikes or walking then we'd enforce all the rules for all road users and pedestrians (the walking out without looking kind who scare me daily!) and really make the roads safer to use for everyone.

OK I'll argue. Why shouldn't cyclists be allowed to treat a red light as a give way when turning left?

sas78, that wont work because of the exact reason you stated, why should only a license holder be penalised? the two modes of transport are inherently different, one that requires a test to be on the road, the other, not. Our law system is set up not to unduly penalise certain groups.

According to you but yet according to the law it comes under not riding with due care and attention, that's where it started with motorists too before it became specific.

How do you know that I cannot use a mobile phone and ride a bike without due care and attention? Quite clearly the law makes provision for it by the fact that riding a bike with a mobile phone has not been specifically outlawed.

You are arguing for the enforcement of a law that has not been introduced because it is, in your, opinion correct.

JonR - where exactly did I say that I agreed people should be fined?! I said it should be a crime, that is all.

You should be a politician with the ridiculous spin you've just put on my post, with your skills at taking things out of context you'd be a shoe-in. Please wind your neck in a bit and read what I said again before you blast me for something I clearly didn't say.

I reiterate:

It should be a crime to use a phone on a bike.

It should be a crime to ride through a red light.

Now - are you arguing it shouldn't be illegal?

Where did I say you agree they should be fined?

My opinion on the matter of whther it should be legal to use a mobile phone on a bike is no consequence. The fact that the police are punishing people for a crime they have invented is. Would anyone be so quick to say good if they were fining people for being a bike wearing a helmet? It's just as much against the law as talking on a mobile phone. All it would take is a copper to decide that a helmet restricts head movement and so a cyclist can't look round as fast and therefore is not riding with due care and attention.

we cant moan about drivers not paying heed if we dont

How do you know that I cannot use a mobile phone and ride a bike without due care and attention?

Well, the third option, after "do the safety awareness ting" and "pay the fine" is "go to court and contest it". If you get a ticket under these circumstances and don't think your riding was careless or inattentive, you can go and try and persuade the magistrates.

Although, directly answering your question, "because you're human" as I believe (no, I can't link to sources) that there's been a fair bit of work done on this and the scientific consensus seems to be largely behind the idea that you can't talk on the phone and be properly concentrating on anything else. I am not a scientist.

All it would take is a copper to decide that a helmet restricts head movement and so a cyclist can't look round as fast and therefore is not riding with due care and attention.

I suspect when the cases came to court (and of course they would) the magistrates would be unlikely to back the copper on that one.

we cant moan about drivers not paying heed if we dont

I suspect what we do as cyclists makes not a jot of difference to the behaviour of motorists.

scotroutes - Member

Meanwhile, a blind eye is turned to regular law-breaking on the roads

Which results in millions of speeding fines per year, as you're obviously unaware. 💡

The idea of a focussed campaign seems to be a good one in general. Say they fine 400 people. If they do that over a year it is one a day, no one really notices and nothing changes. Now if they go out and do it in a week it makes the news, people know people who were stopped, it creates an impact and people think "hey, maybe i shouldn't do this, the police are checking".

Next week they move on and target something else to get the same impact. Overall police numbers are the same, number of people caught is the same, cost is the same, effect is larger.

I do hope they go out and do something to stop tailgaiters though. Horrible driving back from Birmingham yesterday in the wet with people feet off my bumper. No way they could have seen what they were doing.

[quote=sbob ] scotroutes - Member
Meanwhile, a blind eye is turned to regular law-breaking on the roads
Which results in millions of speeding fines per year, as you're obviously unaware. So would you conclude that the current penalties are an effective deterrent?

scotroutes - Member

So would you conclude that the current penalties are an effective deterrent?

No, I would draw an entirely different conclusion that is completely off topic to this thread. 🙂

[quote=sbob ] scotroutes - Member
So would you conclude that the current penalties are an effective deterrent?
No, I would draw an entirely different conclusion that is completely off topic to this thread.

The "maximise return" viewpoint by any chance? 🙂

I suspect when the cases came to court (and of course they would) the magistrates would be unlikely to back the copper on that one.

For those who could be arsed to take it to court whilst the rest just accept it because of their total ignorance of what the law actually says.

can't believe anyone is going to try and justify using amobile while cycling!

it is in large part the perception by non-cyclists that we 'get away' with RLJing and using phones that fuels the anticycling sentiment. to a large degree it is jealousy I am sure. seeing some cyclists get done will appease some portion of this, putting us all in the boat to some extent. anything that allows motorists to identify with us must ge a good thing, no matter how small the impact.

let's not overlook that 85% of them weren't fined at all! they took the course instead. these are the cyclists who earn the rest of us such a bad name. a bit education will hopefully do them some good.

And JonR, for you sake I hope you are playing devil's advocate and you don'treally believe you are safe using a phone while cycling on Oxford Road.

JonR - As I recall anyone accused of cycling inconsiderately or without due care and attention (s29 of the RTA) would have to go to court anyway - as it is not (AFAICR) a fixed penalty offence. The court will then decide whether the circumstances of the alleged offence are illegal, not some bobby on the street. That option exists for all offenses even if they are Fixed Penalty - in that you can choose not to accept the fine and go to court.

I suspect there might be a bit of "poetic license" in the press release and actually they've fined people £30 for jumping lights and riding on pavements and dispensed some words of wisdom to those on phones (if they (or CPS) couldn't be bothered to pursue through the courts). It may well be that those people have elected to take the 'skills course' that was offered in place of prosecution. I would suggest that there is a reasonable prospect of a successful conviction for a cyclist on a phone under s29:

[i][u]Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling.[/u]

If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.[/i]

Depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.

Maximum fine is £1000.

GMP do a targeted campaign. Fair enough. Happens all the time to every group. My thoughts are really, with the increase in cyclist deaths on the roads is there an educational system in the schools? Your educating all future road users then. I'm sure the vast majority on here did the cycling proficiency. If the did an overall road awareness course in schools(pedestrians drivers cyclists and horse riders) surely it would be a better place to start. It would also give a commonality to all on the road. The roads are going to get increasingly congested.
The gmp sent them on a road awareness course. Was that specifically set up for that campaign or does that roll all year? I doubt it.

Does the cycling with a mobile phone apply to when your on a cycle path?

creedy - bikeability has replaced Cycling Proficiency. I'm not sure if every school runs it - but the problem is not usually kids not learning the rules its people who are old enough to have done cycling proficiency and very often who hold a driving license ignoring what they know.

frosty125 - s29 of the RTA only applies on roads. Other rules may apply on Cycle Paths which are not roads.

Poly- agree with you. I was thinking more along the lines of an all inclusive road awareness training thingy. Where the consequences of all the actions taken are but into real situations and results shown. On the whole though ignorance is a society problem and we as cyclists are a faction of that. As such I try and do my bit by influencing the people I ride with. Some I've told I'll not ride with again if they continued to ride recklessly on the road. That's what the mtb is for 🙂
I know I sound a rite hoot

"But a cycling campaigner said the operation was ‘one-sided’ – urged police to concentrate on motorists instead."

Ha ha! So the Police don't concentrate on motorists for the other 364 days of the year then?

I suppose the question has to be asked has GMP mounted a similar campaign targeting drivers and tweeted the stats/published the stats? Otherwise isn't it a case of picking on an easy target?

Lost count of the number of times while driving a car that I've avoided an accident with a cyclist jumping red lights or chatting on a phone through me being the only one paying attention.

If you are going to be a d*** then you shouldn't have it, be it a car or a bike or otherwise.

Lower Richmond Road in London last night too

Nick B, a little late but, where abouts? I ride down there everyday but missed the po po last night (I was irresponsibly drinking and riding along upper Richmond road at the time) 😀

Sorry, I haven't read every post, did we get to the bottom of why it was named after that weird clowney guy?!?

Ok, just skimmed the posts, no answer. Is it because Grimaldi rode a unicycle or something? Do the police have a sense of humour after all?!?

What about the car drivers the ones likely to kill folk with their stupidity...are you impressed by them ?
Some road users are idiots some of them are in lorries and cars and some of them are on bikes...i dont see the point in targeting ONLY those on bikes- target RLJ but all of it
Targeting dangerous driving ..all of it etc
Its not like the real danger on roads [the bringers of deaths] are cyclist

Which bit of my post makes you think I'm impressed with offending motorists? I've passed far too many death messages; asked far to many people to identify the body of a loved one; I've been assaulted, sworn at, clung onto, asked to get off their property; I have no sense of humour or levity over road safety and I have no problem in prosecuting [i]any[/i] road user who commits an offence. Ive issued a great many tickets and I say over the years I've only felt the need to issue about 3 or 4 to cyclists; my comments are based on the subject matter of this thread - targeting cyclists. As others have alluded to, it's fairly silly to suggest the Police don't prosecute other road users. Surely you should applaude an initiative that's clearly an adjunct to local Policing; over and above the everyday stuff.