And the top three police priorities are ...
Philip Shore
The top three police priorities for Cambridge in March were:
1. Antisocial Behaviour.
2. Burglary.
3. Cycling offences - cycling without lights and jumping red traffic
lights, around Addenbrookes.
(http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/south-cambridge-police-priorities-0210.html)
Rewind ! Cycling offences ?!?!? At number 3 ?!?
There is something wrong with the system here. I know that some cyclists
are breaking the law etc etc but the adverse effects cycling crime is
low compared to so many other crimes I can think of.
As far as I can work out this seems to be an effect of community led
policing.
"Police forces are now obliged by central government to tackle issues
flagged up by local communities. In the City, this tends to bring
complaints about rough sleepers and law-flouting cyclists."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/16/police-cyclists-red-lights
Crazy !
How do you get the system changed ?
Phil.
Shanks
>
> The top three police priorities for Cambridge in March were:
>
> 1. Antisocial Behaviour.
> 2. Burglary.
> 3. Cycling offences - cycling without lights and jumping red traffic
> lights, around Addenbrookes.
What a joke
Alun
>
> The top three police priorities for Cambridge in March were:
>
> 1. Antisocial Behaviour.
> 2. Burglary.
> 3. Cycling offences - cycling without lights and jumping red traffic
> lights, around Addenbrookes.
What the new gov't must do in its first 100 days is pass a Dangerous
Bikes Act (Kneejerk Provisions) to outlaw aggressive breeds of bike.
Alun
Andrew May
<NRA> Bikes don't kill people. People kill people </NRA>
The Natural Philosopher
>
> The top three police priorities for Cambridge in March were:
>
> 1. Antisocial Behaviour.
> 2. Burglary.
> 3. Cycling offences - cycling without lights and jumping red traffic
> lights, around Addenbrookes.
>
> (http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/south-cambridge-police-priorities-0210.html)
>
>
>
> Rewind ! Cycling offences ?!?!? At number 3 ?!?
>
> There is something wrong with the system here. I know that some cyclists
> are breaking the law etc etc but the adverse effects cycling crime is
> low compared to so many other crimes I can think of.
>
makes a change from cars doing 35mph down newmarket road.
Calvin Sambrook
news:hs0nae$4er$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> As far as I can work out this seems to be an effect of community led
> policing.
>
> "Police forces are now obliged by central government to tackle issues
> flagged up by local communities. In the City, this tends to bring
> complaints about rough sleepers and law-flouting cyclists."
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/16/police-cyclists-red-lights
>
> Crazy !
>
> How do you get the system changed ?
>
You get one chance at least every 5 years, sometimes more often. That would
have been yesterday.
Andrew May
District Council elections.
Calvin Sambrook
news:84iedi...@mid.individual.net...
The whole push towards "community led policing" has come from central
government. That's the "system" the poster was asking how to change.
David Woodhouse
"One chance"? I didn't get that much. I only got 0.122 of a chance,
according to http://www.voterpower.org.uk/braintree
--
dwmw2
The Natural Philosopher
administered apart from a few liberal anomalies.
But its policies are dictated by a labour government whose power base is
the decayed industrial northern towns.
Thanks guys.
Philip Shore
I have been thinking about writing to my MP - Andrew Lansley (as usual).
I wonder if he would be interested given he is South Cambs and not City.
I must admit I don't have a lot of energy for changing the system when I
have little faith in politics or police. When you see something like
'cycling without lights' in the top three priorities you wonder how much
intelligence the people running the system actually have.
I can imagine senior police officers giving the same excuse - it has
come from central government. To me this argument is no different to
'computer says no' when it is so obvious that the policy doesn't work in
practice.
Phil.
Jennifer Liddle
> I must admit I don't have a lot of energy for changing the system when I
> have little faith in politics or police. When you see something like
> 'cycling without lights' in the top three priorities you wonder how much
> intelligence the people running the system actually have.
These priorities are set at the Area Committees following discussions with
members of the public. You may wonder at the intelligence of the public,
but I'm not sure who you mean by 'people running the system'.
--
Jennifer Liddle http://www.jsquared.co.uk/jennyl
PGP Key: http://www.jsquared.co.uk/jennyl/pgpkey.html
A nation ... is just a society for hating foreigners. - Olaf Stapledon
Andrew May
or the priorities that get set by the 'community'.
John Burnham
> When you see something like
> 'cycling without lights' in the top three priorities you wonder how much
> intelligence the people running the system actually have.
>
The priorities are set at meetings between the police and the local
community. If you want to change this, then turn up and discuss it at one
of these meetings. It's not the police you'll have to deal with, it's
members of the public. If you can educate them that actually, in the
overall scheme of things, cycling without lights shouldn't perhaps be one
of the top three concerns then you'll have achieved what you wish to
achieve. A word of friendly warning though - as has been found in studies,
the general public doesn't react that favourably to cold, hard statistics.
Look at the analysis of the debates between Gore and Bush in the run up to
the 2000 election - Gore was factually correct much more often and relied
on hard evidence and look at the outcome of that....
J
Chris Jones
> The top three police priorities for Cambridge in March were:
>
> 1. Antisocial Behaviour.
> 2. Burglary.
> 3. Cycling offences - cycling without lights and jumping red traffic
> lights, around Addenbrookes.
>
> (http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/south-cambridge-police-priorities-0210.html)
>
> Rewind ! Cycling offences ?!?!? At number 3 ?!?
>
> There is something wrong with the system here.
I don't see why.
Cyclists flouting the law is really annoying to a lot of people, and the
arrogant and/or dismissive attitudes of some cyclists (witness numerous
discussions on cam.* passim) are even more annoying, not least to good
cyclists who do make the effort to use the roads legally and sociably. It
isn't surprising that since these are a high visibility offences, local
people want something done about them.
As certain cyclists are so fond of reminding motorists who object to being
done for driving at 35mph in complete safety on a clear road at night,
there is an easy way to make this problem go away: don't break the law. If
the law is penalising something that doesn't really do any harm, campaign
to get it changed, not just ignored.
Cheers,
Chris
--
My name isn't really Chris Jones, but I play him on Usenet.
Paul Rudin
> Cyclists flouting the law is really annoying to a lot of people...
JOOI why does this annoy people any more that motorists flouting the
law?
The Natural Philosopher
Because ever since I nearly killed a cyclist who was cycling the wrong
way down a one way street, its been apparent that in cambridge, any
minor infringement of any law in a car nets you a swingeing fine,
whereas cyclists regularly flout the law and never ever get even a caution.
Andrew May
The Natural Philosopher
Many.
Just about every time I park in cambridge, it cots me a fortune, either
in parking fines, or in car park fees.
Chris Jones
I don't know that it does, but we do at least see the police taking action
against illegal motorists occasionally, so maybe fewer people want to see
the priority of dealing with this group raised. It's pretty clear that
these "priorities" are being decided on some sort of emotional basis rather
than hard facts, after all.
Meanwhile, when was the last time you actually saw a cyclist getting pulled
up by the police for breaking the rules and penalised, other than the
annual "bash the students without lights" week some time around October? I
suspect it's the "getting away with it" factor that irritates people more
than the offences themselves.
The Natural Philosopher
It's a bit more than that. Its when you nearly kill some cyclist that is
riding without lights, or going the wrong way up a one-way street, that
you get to feeling that if the law was applied, a cyclist might not die
and some motorist won't have it on their conscience for the rest of
their lives.
In an ideal world, cars and cycles should not be sharing the same road
space: However the cost of implementing that is crazy. The rules are
there to ensure that at some level they can, with some degree of safety.
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
magwitch
service vehicles answering urgent calls at speed in the area.
Unlit bikes are not only a danger to themselves under these
circumstances, but also to patients being rushed to hospital and
paramedics/police drivers who may be accompanying them.
Paul Rudin
> I suspect it's the "getting away with it" factor that irritates people
> more than the offences themselves.
>
I'm certain that there are many, many more unpunished motorists offences
committed every day than those by cyclists. Speeding is the obvious
one... most motorists exceed the speed limit a bit every time they make
a trip - a tiny fraction of those offences are prosecuted. But bus lane,
MCL, pavement driving, parking, mobile phone, insurance,
road-worthiness, VED,... offences are all extremely common place.
Espen Koht
When is the last time you saw a motorist cautioned or fined around here
for passing "no entry" or "no motor vehicle" signs, speeding in the city
centre or running red lights for that matter?
Martin
Martin
On Fri, 7 May 2010, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> in cambridge, any minor infringement of any law in a car nets you a
> swingeing fine
What a load of complete and utter rubbish.
Martin
magwitch
Buses and taxis were the most aggressive and unforgiving of the lot. A
friend had to give up her career for 2 years after a bus squished her
and broke her neck.
I was nearly crushed by a taxi which didn't slow down on the Embankment
just as the lights had changed and I was getting under way again.
Lyn
> He hasn't cycled in London.
>
> Buses and taxis were the most aggressive and unforgiving of the lot. A
> friend had to give up her career for 2 years after a bus squished her
> and broke her neck.
>
> I was nearly crushed by a taxi which didn't slow down on the Embankment
> just as the lights had changed and I was getting under way again.
Magwich,
I am so sorry to hear re your friend and also your cycling incident.
I used to be a keen cyclist in Cambridge many years ago until I
skidded on some unlit speed cobbles (designed to slow vehicles with
4 wheels down) and had an painful and damaging fall .
As a car driver I am very wary of cyclists and treat them with the
same respect as children, cats * dogs and ducks on the road, i.e.
stop & give way to them.
But it does not seem unreasonable for a cyclist to buy lights for
their bikes or a reflective jacket. I wonder about the parents of
young cyclists , don't they care for them?
Or maybe Cambridge council funding free reflective jackets for
cyclists, a possible sensible spend of council tax as every one
benefits, inc car drivers.
They might need a bit of styling, but I am sure some one skilled could
do it.
Lyn
* I only got a cat after ensuring I live in a quiet cul de sac.
tony sayer
<t...@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
On which Newmarket road did you achieve that incredibly velocity;?.
Surely not the car park one in Cambridge?.....
--
Tony Sayer
Jonathan Anderson
> "One chance"? I didn't get that much. I only got 0.122 of a chance,
> according to http://www.voterpower.org.uk/braintree
That explains why the candidate with an "address in the Braintree
constituency" stood in the election for Cambridge then.
We're clearly more democratic.
Jon
Jonathan Anderson
> On which Newmarket road did you achieve that incredibly velocity;?.
>
> Surely not the car park one in Cambridge?.....
Between the sets of really irritating lights it is possible to do that
speed.
Jon
Alan Braggins
It's not that it annoys people more, it's that it annoys more people.
That's because most adult cyclists are also motorists, but most
motorists aren't cyclists.
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Andrew May) wrote:
> Were there any elections to the County Council yesterday? We only
> had District Council elections.
County elections are only held every four years. The last ones were last
year. District/Borough/City elections are either held once in four years
(like East Cambs and Fenland round here) or in the three years out of four
when there are no county elections, each time for one third of the
councillors (plus any casual vacancies caused by councillor resignations,
of which there were three in the City this year).
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Chris Jones
> But of course, the decision making process is deliberately skewed by
> refusing to accept reports of dangerous driving, much less act on
> them, even when adequate evidence is available for a prosecution.
[...]
> In the case of dangerous driving, it's the threat to life and limb
> that "irritates", but that does not seem to be sufficient for the
> police to act, even when injury has been caused and adequate evidence
> is available etc.
The problem with this argument is that a lot of driving that certain
cyclists complain is dangerous on cam.* appears to be no more harmful in
reality than those technical cycling offences when you look at the accident
statistics. Of course there are drivers who really do crazy things and they
should be dealt with accordingly, but doing 35mph in a 30 limit on an open
road in the middle of the night is no more a "threat to life and limb" than
cycling the wrong way up a deserted one-way street under the same conditions.
The Natural Philosopher
Its not a car pack late at night. The speed cameras still operate though.
The Natural Philosopher
If it was deserted, I wouldnt have nearly hit him.
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
Ian Bidwell
"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:hs2i4i$7bh$3...@news.albasani.net...
>> On which Newmarket road did you achieve that incredibly velocity;?.
>>
>> Surely not the car park one in Cambridge?.....
>
> Its not a car pack late at night. The speed cameras still operate though.
You mean when the drunks and boy racers are about?- good time to catch
antisocial behavior.
You're not one of those are you?
Ian
rmer...@cix.compulink.co.uk
phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk (Phil W Lee) wrote:
> *From:* Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
> *Date:* Fri, 07 May 2010 22:07:04 +0100
>
> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> considered Fri, 07 May
> 2010 18:11:41 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
> >Chris Jones wrote:
> >> Paul Rudin wrote:
> >>> Chris Jones <n...@this.address> writes:
> >>>> Cyclists flouting the law is really annoying to a lot of
> people...
> >>>
> >>> JOOI why does this annoy people any more that motorists flouting
> the
> >>> law?
> >>
> >> I don't know that it does, but we do at least see the police
> taking >> action against illegal motorists occasionally, so maybe
> fewer people >> want to see the priority of dealing with this group
> raised. It's pretty >> clear that these "priorities" are being
> decided on some sort of >> emotional basis rather than hard facts,
> after all.
> >>
> >> Meanwhile, when was the last time you actually saw a cyclist
> getting >> pulled up by the police for breaking the rules and
> penalised, other than >> the annual "bash the students without
> lights" week some time around >> October? I suspect it's the "getting
> away with it" factor that irritates >> people more than the offences
> themselves.
> >>
> >
> >It's a bit more than that. Its when you nearly kill some cyclist
> that is >riding without lights, or going the wrong way up a one-way
> street, that >you get to feeling that if the law was applied, a
> cyclist might not die >and some motorist won't have it on their
> conscience for the rest of >their lives.
> >
> >In an ideal world, cars and cycles should not be sharing the same
> road >space:
>
> Indeed, motor vehicles should be restricted to those roads which were
> created specifically for them.
>
> > However the cost of implementing that is crazy. The rules are
> >there to ensure that at some level they can, with some degree of
> safety.
> >
> It would be nice if the dangerous minority of motorists who flout the
> laws were dealt with adequately and the standard of driving raised so
> that drivers took their responsibilities seriously.
>
> That wouldn't actually be expensive at all, except to those who refuse
> to drive to safe standards.
It always used to be an axiom that responsibility for safety was shared, not
the sole responsibility of a single party: in the case of road safety, the
driver is required to drive with due consideration for other road users, but
the cyclist is equally responsible for ensuring their own safety. That
includes ensuring that they can easily be seen - if a cyclist is cycling in
a way that means he can't easily be seen, he has to bear at least some share
of the blame if he gets hit.
Cycling without lights at night is /not/ ensuring you're cycling safely; a
driver who knocks over a cyclist doing that is /not/ necessarily to blame,
but what is for sure that if a careful, conscientious driver does have an
accident with such a cyclist through no fault of their own and the cyclist
is killed or badly injured is going to have a very difficult time coming to
terms with the fact and indeed may never fully do so.
That's why there are laws about things like lights; to protect other road
users being protected from the consequences if there is an accident as a
result. As such, the laws need to be enforced as rigorously for one as the
other, and the insistence from some parts of the cycling community that it's
/always/ the driver who's at fault is even more tedious than it's wrong.
If the law regarding car drivers isn't being properly enforced, then perhaps
it should be tightened up; but it should also be recognised that cyclists
are not saints either, and the laws that appy to them should be equally well
enforced.
tony sayer
<j...@durge.org> scribeth thus
Yes suppose at around 3 AM on a Sunday morning you'd manage that;?...
--
Tony Sayer
Duncan Wood
& they're nearly all pedestrians.
--
Duncan Wood
Philip Shore
> Philip Shore wrote:
>> The top three police priorities for Cambridge in March were:
>>
>> 1. Antisocial Behaviour.
>> 2. Burglary.
>> 3. Cycling offences - cycling without lights and jumping red traffic
>> lights, around Addenbrookes.
>>
>> (http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/south-cambridge-police-priorities-0210.html)
>>
>> Rewind ! Cycling offences ?!?!? At number 3 ?!?
>>
>> There is something wrong with the system here.
>
>
> Cyclists flouting the law is really annoying to a lot of people, and the
> arrogant and/or dismissive attitudes of some cyclists (witness numerous
> discussions on cam.* passim) are even more annoying, not least to good
> cyclists who do make the effort to use the roads legally and sociably.
> It isn't surprising that since these are a high visibility offences,
> local people want something done about them.
>
> As certain cyclists are so fond of reminding motorists who object to
> being done for driving at 35mph in complete safety on a clear road at
> night, there is an easy way to make this problem go away: don't break
> the law. If the law is penalising something that doesn't really do any
> harm, campaign to get it changed, not just ignored.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
I was hoping this thread wouldn't turn into the usual driver/cyclist
flame war.
The point I was trying to make was someone should be able to see that
cycling offences should come below crimes that have a more severe effect.
What do you think the police should spend more time tackling ?
Abusive drunks Fri/Sat night
Community event policing (eg strawberry fair)
Credit card fraud
Cycling offences
Domestic violence
Dangerous driving
Drug dealing
Drug usage
Gun crime
Knife crime
Loan Sharks
MPs expenses
Prostitution
Slave labour
The list could be endless. If you ask the community what should the
police tackle then most people will probably only select from crimes (or
annoyances!) that they have experienced. Hence why I believe cycling
offences made it to the top three.
Explain the effects of the above crimes to a reasonable person and get
them to order them. I cannot believe that cycling offences would appear
in the top three.
Phil.
Tim Ward
news:hs4495$92j$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> The point I was trying to make was someone should be able to see that
> cycling offences should come below crimes that have a more severe effect.
And ... surprise surprise ... they do!
There are national police priorities, and then several other layers. One
layer is set by the community safety partnership (or whatever it's called
this week) at city level, and the absolute bottom layer is the neighbourhood
priorities set by area committees, which is what's being discussed here.
Many of the things on your list are priorities at higher layers in the
process.
What the area committees are being asked is, roughly, "given that all the
important stuff is being done anyway, what extras particular to this
neighbourhood would you like some work done on?".
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Roland Perry
May 2010, Philip Shore <pm...@cam.ac.uk> remarked:
>What do you think the police should spend more time tackling ?
>
>Abusive drunks Fri/Sat night
>Community event policing (eg strawberry fair)
>Credit card fraud
>Cycling offences
>Domestic violence
>Dangerous driving
>Drug dealing
>Drug usage
>Gun crime
>Knife crime
>Loan Sharks
>MPs expenses
>Prostitution
>Slave labour
Of that list, two aren't dealt with in the first instance by the police:
Credit Card Fraud and Loan Sharks. The former is done by the banks (with
some cases being referred to the NFIB), the latter by Trading Standards.
--
Roland Perry
Jonathan Anderson
>>> Surely not the car park one in Cambridge?.....
>> Between the sets of really irritating lights it is possible to do that
>> speed.
I managed it for months in a car around 8.20am.
But in all that time I can only recall hitting green on all the lights
ones. It was never a smooth journey.
Jon
Andrew May
> Andrew May wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> Paul Rudin wrote:
>>>> Chris Jones <n...@this.address> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Cyclists flouting the law is really annoying to a lot of people...
>>>>
>>>> JOOI why does this annoy people any more that motorists flouting the
>>>> law?
>>>>
>>>
>>> wrong way down a one way street, its been apparent that in cambridge,
>>> any minor infringement of any law in a car nets you a swingeing fine,
>>> whereas cyclists regularly flout the law and never ever get even a
>>> caution.
>>>
>>>
>> Did you get a swingeing fine? How much?
>
> Many.
>
> Just about every time I park in cambridge, it cots me a fortune, either
> in parking fines, or in car park fees.
>
Odd. I was under the impression that you keep telling us that you never
visit Cambridge.
Philip Shore
> "Philip Shore" <pm...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:hs4495$92j$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>> The point I was trying to make was someone should be able to see that
>> cycling offences should come below crimes that have a more severe effect.
>
> And ... surprise surprise ... they do!
>
> There are national police priorities, and then several other layers. One
> layer is set by the community safety partnership (or whatever it's called
> this week) at city level, and the absolute bottom layer is the neighbourhood
> priorities set by area committees, which is what's being discussed here.
> Many of the things on your list are priorities at higher layers in the
> process.
>
So somebody has decided that there are more more important priorities.
That does beg the question why have the police resources not been used
to tackle the more important priorities ?
> What the area committees are being asked is, roughly, "given that all the
> important stuff is being done anyway, what extras particular to this
> neighbourhood would you like some work done on?".
>
It a nice idea, but I am still convinced that a large amount of people
worried about petty annoyances will be heard above others.
I'd also be interested in the demographic of people involved in voicing
their concerns. Is is retired folk ? Less likely to cycle, walk to
school, be out at 11pm ?
Bringing this back to a driver/cyclist example. How can it be that say
cycling offences which result in a few deaths per year gets more
priority that motoring offences of which there are more motorists and
the effect is more severe ?
Phil.
magwitch
Not in any commercial or professional sense no, only to see friends -
even western Berliners at the height of the Cold War were allowed to do
that. ;-)
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Shore) wrote:
> The top three police priorities for Cambridge in March were:
>
> 1. Antisocial Behaviour.
> 2. Burglary.
> 3. Cycling offences - cycling without lights and jumping red
> traffic lights, around Addenbrookes.
>
> (http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/south-cambridge-police-priorities-0210.html)
>
> Rewind ! Cycling offences ?!?!? At number 3 ?!?
>
> There is something wrong with the system here. I know that some
> cyclists are breaking the law etc etc but the adverse effects
> cycling crime is low compared to so many other crimes I can think of.
>
> As far as I can work out this seems to be an effect of community
> led policing.
>
> "Police forces are now obliged by central government to tackle
> issues flagged up by local communities. In the City, this tends to
> bring complaints about rough sleepers and law-flouting cyclists."
>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/16/police-cyclists-red-light
s
>
> Crazy !
>
> How do you get the system changed ?
For a start, come to your Area Committee, assuming you are in the City.
The police report to them every second meeting, so about every four months
and that is where local priorities are discussed.
And note what Tim Ward wrote.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Duncan Wood
That survey doesn't say they do.
The Natural Philosopher
I do have to occasionally take in food parcels and poor relief for the
few friends who are left there.
Frederick Williams
>
> The top three police priorities for Cambridge in March were:
>
> 1. Antisocial Behaviour.
> 2. Burglary.
> 3. Cycling offences - cycling without lights and jumping red traffic
> lights, around Addenbrookes.
>
> (http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/south-cambridge-police-priorities-0210.html)
>
> Rewind ! Cycling offences ?!?!? At number 3 ?!?
>
> There is something wrong with the system here. I know that some cyclists
> are breaking the law etc etc but the adverse effects cycling crime is
> low compared to so many other crimes I can think of.
>
> As far as I can work out this seems to be an effect of community led
> policing.
>
> "Police forces are now obliged by central government to tackle issues
> flagged up by local communities. In the City, this tends to bring
> complaints about rough sleepers and law-flouting cyclists."
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/16/police-cyclists-red-lights
>
> Crazy !
>
> How do you get the system changed ?
>
That antisocial behaviour is at the top (or anywhere) bothers me. It is
usually an excuse for demonizing young people for doing such terrible
things as hanging around on street corners and wearing hoodies.
I'm pleased that the non-problems of terrorism and drug dealing aren't
mentioned.
--
I can't go on, I'll go on.
Philip Shore
There is actually quite a lot of good information in this document I
have just found:
(Police) NATIONAL COMMUNITY SAFETY PLAN 2008–11
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/activecommunities/activecommunities088.pdf
> 3. DELIVERING THE GOVERNMENT’S COMMUNITY SAFETY
> OBJECTIVES: KEY POLICIES AND PROGRAMMES, AND
> WHAT THEY MEAN FOR PARTNERSHIPS
>
> MAKE COMMUNITIES SAFER (PSA 23)
> PRIORITY ACTION 1: REDUCE THE MOST
> SERIOUS VIOLENCE
>
> What does it mean for the public?
>
>
> â– a reduction in the number of murders, attempted
> murders and serious violent assaults (including
> those that are gang related);
> â– a reduction in gun and knife crime;
> â– a more effective and appropriate response by police,
> criminal justice agencies and other partners to
> incidents of domestic violence and serious sexual
> violence (including ensuring appropriate support
> for victims);
> â– a reduction in deaths and serious injuries on our
> roads, especially as a result of the most serious
> offences (e.g. drink driving, speeding or driving
> while disqualified, uninsured or without a licence,
> among other offences); and
> â– an increase in the conviction rate for rape in the CJS.
>
It somewhat target based in places rather than based on real reductions
in crime. Such as:
> INCREASE THE PROPORTION OF PEOPLE OVER 65 WHO ARE SATISFIED WITH
THEIR HOME AND THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD
I can see how cycling offences came to be in the top three local issues
but I am still sure it is wrong to have it so high.
Phil.
Philip Shore
I am not in the city, just a passer through because I work there and
have observed how much regular effort is put into policing cyclists
within the city but not drivers.
'Cycling offences' was referring to cyclists without lights and jumping
red lights at the Addenbrookes roundabout.
To get some balance it would be interesting to study how many offences
there were from all road users in that area.
Eg:
Mobile phone usage, no lights. parking in MCL (easy)
No MOT/insurance/unroadworthy, overtaking without sufficient room (more
tricky)
I am sure that would go someway to proving that cycling offences not
such a big problem in comparison to other road offences.
Phil.
I say these things as someone who regularly cycles, drives, walks and
walks the school run with children.
Philip Shore
Something that is bugging me.
How is it that 'the community' have got red light jumping and no lights
onto the police priorities list, but, the Cambridge Cycling Campaign
have a number of issues that they are unable to get addressed by the
Police ?
If their members shout loud enough at area committee meetings does that
mean the roads will get policed equally for drivers and cyclists ?
Call me a cynic, but if the CCC cannot get their voice heard, how could
my lone voice make any difference ?
Phil.
Andrew May
Thank you. That is the single most enlightening post you have made in
while.
Duncan Wood
How are you defining equally?
--
Duncan Wood
J. Chisholm
> "Philip Shore" <pm...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:hs4495$92j$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>> The point I was trying to make was someone should be able to see that
>> cycling offences should come below crimes that have a more severe effect.
>
> And ... surprise surprise ... they do!
>
> There are national police priorities, and then several other layers. One
> layer is set by the community safety partnership (or whatever it's called
> this week) at city level, and the absolute bottom layer is the neighbourhood
> priorities set by area committees, which is what's being discussed here.
> Many of the things on your list are priorities at higher layers in the
> process.
>
> What the area committees are being asked is, roughly, "given that all the
> important stuff is being done anyway, what extras particular to this
> neighbourhood would you like some work done on?".
>
behaviour' they seem to miss off the list of options the two that came
top in a major Home Office study. see:
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/antisocialbehaviour/antisocialbehaviour43.htm
(Perceptions and experiences of anti-social behaviour )
43% percieved speeding traffic as a issue
31% percieved cars parked inconviently or illegally as an issue
only 19% considered people being drunk or rowdy an issue (9th place)
There is also the ACPO/Home Office/DfT publication:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/drs/roadpolicingcommitment.pdf
(ROADS POLICING STRATEGY )
"With 30 million vehicles in Great Britain, the roads are busy and
hazardous. Their unlawful and anti-social use affects people's safety
and sense of security. Bad road use also contributes to the 3,500
people killed and 35,000 people seriously injured each year on the roads. "
I sometimes wonder if selective amnesia is a requirement for senior
posts in Cambrigeshire Constabulary.
Jim Chisholm
Martin
On Mon, 10 May 2010, J. Chisholm wrote:
> 43% percieved speeding traffic as a issue
> 31% percieved cars parked inconviently or illegally as an issue
both of which are widespread problems all around the city.
> only 19% considered people being drunk or rowdy an issue (9th place)
which is an isolated problem that can be dealt with mostly by having a few
police out on St Andrew's Street on a few nights and in a few other areas
where there are trouble hot-spots.
Martin
magwitch
I give you their addresses so you can send the Stasi round if you like.
J. Chisholm
So which crash statistics are you using?
Have you seen:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study
(Risky cycling rarely to blame for bike accidents, study finds)
Perhaps more useful is:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/Cycling/Cycle_Safety_Action_Plan.pdf
Page 16 has a summary (Types of Conflict -KSI 2007)
With more details of 460 crashes in Appendix 2
Jim Chisholm
David Woodhouse
> That's why there are laws about things like lights; to protect other road
> users being protected from the consequences if there is an accident as a
> result. As such, the laws need to be enforced as rigorously for one as the
> other, and the insistence from some parts of the cycling community that it's
> /always/ the driver who's at fault is even more tedious than it's wrong.
It's not just cyclists who often fail to use their lights when they
should. Car drivers, especially in towns, are often guilty of the same.
--
dwmw2
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(magwitch) wrote:
Aha! Magwitch is finally exposed as TNP's sock puppet!
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Richard Meredith
(David Woodhouse) wrote:
> *From:* David Woodhouse <dw...@infradead.org>
> *Date:* Mon, 10 May 2010 18:19:56 +0100
I know. It's an easy mistake to make when there are lots of street lights around;
I've done it myself. Fortunately, without attracting the attentions of the local
constabulary - but that doesn't make it right, or that I think a prosecution
wouldn't have been justified if I had been.
I just don't think that cyclists without lights should be treated any more
leniently than anyone else who is breaking generally sensible and well-justified
traffic laws.
The Natural Philosopher
> Chris Jones wrote:
>> Phil W Lee wrote:
>>> But of course, the decision making process is deliberately skewed by
>>> refusing to accept reports of dangerous driving, much less act on
>>> them, even when adequate evidence is available for a prosecution.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> In the case of dangerous driving, it's the threat to life and limb
>>> that "irritates", but that does not seem to be sufficient for the
>>> police to act, even when injury has been caused and adequate evidence
>>> is available etc.
>>
>> The problem with this argument is that a lot of driving that certain
>> cyclists complain is dangerous on cam.* appears to be no more harmful
>> in reality than those technical cycling offences when you look at the
>> accident statistics. Of course there are drivers who really do crazy
>> things and they should be dealt with accordingly, but doing 35mph in a
>> 30 limit on an open road in the middle of the night is no more a
>> "threat to life and limb" than cycling the wrong way up a deserted
>> one-way street under the same conditions.
>>
>
> So which crash statistics are you using?
>
> Have you seen:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study
>
> (Risky cycling rarely to blame for bike accidents, study finds)
>
that's the guardian tho.
"showed that more than a quarter of all cycling deaths in 2005-07
happened when a vehicle ran into the rear of a bike."
because they didn't have any lights on? deliberately cut in front of
traffic they had undertaken?
"With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in
about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time."
so 17%-25% is 'rarely'
Hmm.
The Natural Philosopher
at all, it has to be headlights.
And I HATE motorists with (front) foglamps when there is no fog.
Duncan Wood
<t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> David Woodhouse wrote:
>> On Sat, 2010-05-08 at 04:14 -0500, rmer...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>> That's why there are laws about things like lights; to protect other
>>> road users being protected from the consequences if there is an
>>> accident as a result. As such, the laws need to be enforced as
>>> rigorously for one as the other, and the insistence from some parts of
>>> the cycling community that it's /always/ the driver who's at fault is
>>> even more tedious than i7 all the talk at's wrong.
>> It's not just cyclists who often fail to use their lights when they
>> should. Car drivers, especially in towns, are often guilty of the same.
>>
> Indeed. sidelights are NOT legal. To drove on, ever. If you need lights
> at all, it has to be headlights.
>
i'd agree it's not sensible about dipped beams being dazzling is bollocks,
but it's completely legal in a road with streetlights.
> And I HATE motorists with (front) foglamps when there is no fog.
Yup, although personally I hate rear foglamps or no lights at all in the
rain more.
--
Duncan Wood
magwitch
exactly eye level - not sure what it was.
I remember 15 minutes of torture going down a hill in a jam with these
bloody lights going on and off in my face.
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Frederick Williams) wrote:
> That antisocial behaviour is at the top (or anywhere) bothers me. It is
> usually an excuse for demonizing young people for doing such terrible
> things as hanging around on street corners and wearing hoodies.
It's mainly to do with Street Life problems in Cambridge.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
magwitch
Duncan Wood
You're developing an odd obsession.
magwitch
I forgot, we're still living in the Land of McDoom. Sorry.
Philip Shore
I am just comparing how many times I have seen, with my own eyes, the
police putting great effort with groups of officers on the ground to
monitor and catch offenders.
For example over winter.
Catching cyclists: 10+ times with 6-8 officers each time.
Catching motorists: 0.
I can remember a ride home on my motorcycle over winter where 1 in 5
cars outside of the city had fog lights on when it was not foggy. (This
_is_ a problem when you are trying to see through a visor with rain
drops on it)
It was quite typical to see cars with one headlight not working. I would
estimate about 1 in 12. Bulbs don't fail every year so obviously the
yearly MOT is not enough of a check.
Mobile phone usage. Occasionally monitored. A widespread real problem
that is not being effectively cracked down on. (I am carrying a minor
but permanent back injury after being crashed into by a phone user)
So, in terms of policing cars, I never see it happen but I do hear of
the occasional speed/phone/seatbelt monitoring through ecops.
As a road user I have been affected by drivers in a real way. Have I
been affected by cyclists with no lights ? Actually no, because almost
all of the offending is done in areas with street lights and I can see
them anyway.
I remember in my yoof, that there used to be a 'police census' regularly
near my school. I guess they have been replaced with automatic ANPR
checks.
Phil.
Philip Shore
> Jennifer Liddle <jenn...@jsquared.co.uk> considered Fri, 07 May 2010
> 14:52:57 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>> Philip Shore wrote:
>>
>>> I must admit I don't have a lot of energy for changing the system when I
>>> have little faith in politics or police. When you see something like
>>> 'cycling without lights' in the top three priorities you wonder how much
>>> intelligence the people running the system actually have.
>> These priorities are set at the Area Committees following discussions with
>> members of the public. You may wonder at the intelligence of the public,
>> but I'm not sure who you mean by 'people running the system'.
>
> And from crime questionnaires sent to the local residents, which only
> give multiple choice type options of the things the surveyors think
> the residents should be concerned about (or may just exclude the
> things they don't want to be brought up for consideration).
>
> When they only give a limited list of possible concerns, it may well
> be that antisocial cycling comes near to the top.
>
> Policy based evidence making, I think they call it.
I am starting to think of it as legalised vigilante-ism.
"Who shall we send the boys round to?".
"Bloody cyclists."
"OK, we're on it."
;-)
Andrew May
meant, as Magwitch assumed, to be sarcastic.
Duncan Wood
Even ignoring ststic speed cameras I've seen the traffic police at least
once a week & the ANPR squad out in those numbers. I've not seen the 6-8
officers catching cyclists, where do they do that? Actually I think I've
only seen a cyclist stopped in Cambridge once.
>
> I can remember a ride home on my motorcycle over winter where 1 in 5
> cars outside of the city had fog lights on when it was not foggy. (This
> _is_ a problem when you are trying to see through a visor with rain
> drops on it)
>
> It was quite typical to see cars with one headlight not working. I would
> estimate about 1 in 12. Bulbs don't fail every year so obviously the
> yearly MOT is not enough of a check.
>
> Mobile phone usage. Occasionally monitored. A widespread real problem
> that is not being effectively cracked down on. (I am carrying a minor
> but permanent back injury after being crashed into by a phone user)
>
>
> So, in terms of policing cars, I never see it happen but I do hear of
> the occasional speed/phone/seatbelt monitoring through ecops.
>
You don't know anyone who's been convicted of a driving offence? I've not
met anyone who's been convicted of a cycling offence.
> As a road user I have been affected by drivers in a real way. Have I
> been affected by cyclists with no lights ? Actually no, because almost
> all of the offending is done in areas with street lights and I can see
> them anyway.
>
>
> I remember in my yoof, that there used to be a 'police census' regularly
> near my school. I guess they have been replaced with automatic ANPR
> checks.
>
> Phil.
Wheras the only time I've been knocked off a bike was another cyclist.
Philip Shore
I do see speed cameras and ANPR and mobile camera vans. I have not seen
the groups of officers that go with them however. Where do they hang out?
It is my perception that the police will only bother convicting when a
computer can say yes or no to the offence, hence my focus on groups of
officers making checks.
> I've not seen the 6-8
> officers catching cyclists, where do they do that? Actually I think I've
> only seen a cyclist stopped in Cambridge once.
>
Sydney Street. It's been in the CEN plenty of times and on the local TV
news.
> You don't know anyone who's been convicted of a driving offence? I've
> not met anyone who's been convicted of a cycling offence.
Other than speeding tickets issued by fixed cameras, no in either case.
If you have your paperwork in order and know where cameras are, I would
say it is highly unlikely that you will get caught for any offending as
a motorist. Same for cyclists really.
The point I was trying to make in this thread was that the risk to the
public from motoring offences outweighs the risk to the public from
cycling offences.
When I think of risk I think:
risk = quantity of offences X potential outcome
Somehow, we have ended up with a group of citizens (more likely to be
motorists than cyclists?) controlling local bobbies and convincing them
that they should spend more time policing the lower threat. That cannot
be right.
I am not a great reader of the KSI stats, but I doubt there can be many
deaths attributed to motorists where the cyclist had no lights or jumped
a red (right of way violation).
My expectation is that the police should filter the public's requests
intelligently and should not assist in polarising two groups of road
users. If they monitor cyclists, monitor motorists at the same time.
It's a simple solution and fair.
Phil.
Duncan Wood
They're just down the road, that's how they stop people after they've read
the number plate.
> It is my perception that the police will only bother convicting when a
> computer can say yes or no to the offence, hence my focus on groups of
> officers making checks.
>
>> I've not seen the 6-8 officers catching cyclists, where do they do
>> that? Actually I think I've only seen a cyclist stopped in Cambridge
>> once.
>>
>
> Sydney Street. It's been in the CEN plenty of times and on the local TV
> news.
>
Ah, despite using it rehgularly I've never actually seen this. I can't
ever recall cycling it at night without meeting at least 1 cyclist going
the wrong way though.
>> You don't know anyone who's been convicted of a driving offence? I've
>> not met anyone who's been convicted of a cycling offence.
>
> Other than speeding tickets issued by fixed cameras, no in either case.
>
> If you have your paperwork in order and know where cameras are, I would
> say it is highly unlikely that you will get caught for any offending as
> a motorist. Same for cyclists really.
>
> The point I was trying to make in this thread was that the risk to the
> public from motoring offences outweighs the risk to the public from
> cycling offences.
>
> When I think of risk I think:
> risk = quantity of offences X potential outcome
>
> Somehow, we have ended up with a group of citizens (more likely to be
> motorists than cyclists?) controlling local bobbies and convincing them
> that they should spend more time policing the lower threat. That cannot
> be right.
>
Nowhere does it say they're going to spend more time doing this than
monitoring motorists though
> I am not a great reader of the KSI stats, but I doubt there can be many
> deaths attributed to motorists where the cyclist had no lights or jumped
> a red (right of way violation).
Probably not, & none due to driving without insurance but I still think it
should be enforced. The penalty for riding without lights is somewhat
smaller in recognition of that.
>
> My expectation is that the police should filter the public's requests
> intelligently and should not assist in polarising two groups of road
> users. If they monitor cyclists, monitor motorists at the same time.
> It's a simple solution and fair.
>
> Phil.
Yup, but as a cyclist I only ever see them monitoring motorists.
--
Duncan Wood