Why are Police now enforcing laws & advising cyclists?

[Devil2575]

S. Gonzales Esq. said:

Devil2575 said:

D4MJT said:

In all honesty, I don't really understand why anyone who cycles would choose not to wear a helmet, whether cycling on or indeed off road.

I agree.

Just because you don't understand it, it doesn't mean other people will act the way you would. Just look at the popularity of The X-Factor.

Again, Wikipedia has the info.

It's hardly conclusive though is it.

It has been hypothesised that the wearing of helmets may make cyclists feel safer and thus take more risks. This hypothetical effect is known as risk compensation or risk homeostasis. Some authors have suggested that risk compensation occurs with other road safety interventions such as seat belts and anti-lock braking systems,but these views are disputed by other road safety experts.

So it's a hypothesis.

[Devil2575]

Rude-boy said:

Devil2575 said:

Do they?

Is financial loss a major consideration for cyclists or if the primary concern not getting killed? Or do some people just not think at all?

Of course not getting killed is a major concern, but how many think they are going to get killed in a 'worst case' error of judgement. Cuts, brusies and perhaps a broken bone if they are unlucky is in their heads if they are thinking about the risk at all. I know that when I was bombing around on my bike I never thought about dying but often about crashing and breaking my wrists.

But how often did you think "it's ok, I won't be held liable for any damaged caused"?

[BGarside]

Devil2575 said:

But how often did you think "it's ok, I won't be held liable for any damaged caused"?

Somehow I can't imagine many cyclists enjoy bouncing off cars because they will evade liability for panel damage.

Personally I maintain as much space between myself and the idiots that are trying to kill me as possible (i.e: the average British driver), at least when I have the ability to...

[Devil2575]

BGarside said:

Devil2575 said:

But how often did you think "it's ok, I won't be held liable for any damaged caused"?

Somehow I can't imagine many cyclists enjoy bouncing off cars because they will evade liability for panel damage.

Personally I maintain as much space between myself and the idiots that are trying to kill me as possible (i.e: the average British driver), at least when I have the ability to...

Which is my point. Liability is non issue in terms of the behaviour of cyclists IMHO. People driving in cars feel far less exposed, which is possibly why some drivers seem to have a pre-occupation with the issue of liability.

[mybrainhurts]

If the police zap every single bicyclist with a big scary laser, there wouldn't be any more bicyclists to become casualties.

Why is a common sense approach like this never considered? You know it makes sense.

[Rude-boy]

Devil2575 said:

But how often did you think "it's ok, I won't be held liable for any damaged caused"?

Honest answer? Never because I was brought up to face my mistakes and know what I was responsible for and what not.

Did I ever think that if I made a sharp exit I could get away with the results of accidents I had caused? Damn right - big bloke on a mountain bike isn't going to get plod very far. This was never put to the test though due to point 1.

[Mill Wheel]

BGarside said:

Devil2575 said:

But how often did you think "it's ok, I won't be held liable for any damaged caused"?

Somehow I can't imagine many cyclists enjoy bouncing off cars because they will evade liability for panel damage.

Personally I maintain as much space between myself and the idiots that are trying to kill me as possible (i.e: the average British driver), at least when I have the ability to...

This isn't you then?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mypFV_tQSrc

What I find puzzling about this clip is the manner in which other cyclists who take the route between the bus and the 4x4, or travel up the inside of the bus after the collision!

[Devil2575]

Rude-boy said:

Devil2575 said:

But how often did you think "it's ok, I won't be held liable for any damaged caused"?

Honest answer? Never because I was brought up to face my mistakes and know what I was responsible for and what not.

Me too.

[otolith]

Devil2575 said:

Which is my point. Liability is non issue in terms of the behaviour of cyclists IMHO. People driving in cars feel far less exposed, which is possibly why some drivers seem to have a pre-occupation with the issue of liability.

I wonder if people would drive their cars more carefully if any minor collision resulted in someone coming round to their house afterwards with a baseball bat and some dice to decide whether to give them cuts and bruises or broken bones?

[streaky]

SmoothCriminal said:

It's probably not costing the the met anything extra because tfl already pay for I think circa 2,600 officers so rather than them doing duties that they'd normally do like being in stations and on trains and busses they're standing at the side of the road advising cyclists.

Trains are the domain of BTP, not the Mets, as are railway stations.

Streaky

[rambo19]

I read somewhere that the police were offering 'words of advice'.
I wonder if they issued any FPN's to cyclists.

[Mill Wheel]

rambo19 said:

I read somewhere that the police were offering 'words of advice'.
I wonder if they issued any FPN's to cyclists.

I think not - there seems to be very little they can be ticketed for, hence the "words of advice".

There have been calls to have helmets made compulsory, and some hear have said that this would lead to less cyclists taking to the road.
Nothing wrong with that - less cyclists = less incidents involving cyclists, and those that are involved would be better protected.

You don't hear many people calling for drink driving to be allowed to help rural pubs, or people saying they WOULD drive, but object to wearing a seatbelt!
Motorcyclists have had to wear helmets for years for perfectly good reasons.

[JMGS4]

Police should be checking cyclist more often, and applying fines, advice etc for
cycling without lights at night and wearing nothing reflective (suicide cyclists
riding on the footpath when over 12
ignoring road laws i.e. riding on the wrong road side,
riding against traffic,
riding dangerously whether for themselves or others
weaving through traffic
and
and
and
and also for the following reason
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10477154/Cy...

[jodypress]

JMGS4 said:

Police should be checking cyclist more often, and applying fines, advice etc for
cycling without lights at night and wearing nothing reflective (suicide cyclists
riding on the footpath when over 12
ignoring road laws i.e. riding on the wrong road side,
riding against traffic,
riding dangerously whether for themselves or others
weaving through traffic
and
and
and
and also for the following reason
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10477154/Cy...

really? Just like they should be checking motorists and bikers for going through reds, driving dangerously, going up the motorway the wrong way etc... the debate ranges on endlessly.

RE: the Telegraph link above, hit and run is never acceptable, whether it be on a bike, car or whatever. Luckily he handed himself in to the Police.

[Rude-boy]

jodypress said:

really? Just like they should be checking motorists and bikers for going through reds, driving dangerously, going up the motorway the wrong way etc... the debate ranges on endlessly.

RE: the Telegraph link above, hit and run is never acceptable, whether it be on a bike, car or whatever. Luckily he handed himself in to the Police.

I think that at least part of the point is that the people you suggest they should be checking on are already checked on to a far higher standard and degree than cyclists. A cyclist goes the wrong way up a one way street - how do you report that? How to the Police identify the rider other than if they were a known face? They can't, and a lot of cyclists know this. They know that 99.9% of the time nothing will happen to them and the worst they are likely to ever get is an earful.

And then we hear the bleating about how it would be the end of the world if cyclists were compelled to take basic safety measures such as lighting up and wearing helmets. So sad that again we have vocal members of yet another group who know all their rights but will accept no responsibility and in doing so drag those who are just quietly getting on with it down.

[IroningMan]

Rude-boy said:

jodypress said:

really? Just like they should be checking motorists and bikers for going through reds, driving dangerously, going up the motorway the wrong way etc... the debate ranges on endlessly.

RE: the Telegraph link above, hit and run is never acceptable, whether it be on a bike, car or whatever. Luckily he handed himself in to the Police.

I think that at least part of the point is that the people you suggest they should be checking on are already checked on to a far higher standard and degree than cyclists. A cyclist goes the wrong way up a one way street - how do you report that? How to the Police identify the rider other than if they were a known face? They can't, and a lot of cyclists know this. They know that 99.9% of the time nothing will happen to them and the worst they are likely to ever get is an earful.

And then we hear the bleating about how it would be the end of the world if cyclists were compelled to take basic safety measures such as lighting up and wearing helmets. So sad that again we have vocal members of yet another group who know all their rights but will accept no responsibility and in doing so drag those who are just quietly getting on with it down.

The 'worst they are ever likely to get' is crushed to death under the wheels of a tipper truck.

Are you more worried about identifying a cyclist going the wrong way up a one-way street, or a mugger who's just snatched your wife's bag? The exact same tools are available to the authorities in both cases.

[ewenm]

IroningMan said:

Are you more worried about identifying a cyclist going the wrong way up a one-way street, or a mugger who's just snatched your wife's bag? The exact same tools are available to the authorities in both cases.

Depends, is the mugger using a bike to get away or not?

[creampuff]

IroningMan said:

The 'worst they are ever likely to get' is crushed to death under the wheels of a tipper truck.

Are you more worried about identifying a cyclist going the wrong way up a one-way street, or a mugger who's just snatched your wife's bag? The exact same tools are available to the authorities in both cases.

I'd put it to you that a cyclist going the wrong way up a one way street, or riding on the footpath which is being used by pedestrians, or going through a red light causing other traffic to avoid them or riding through a pedestrian crossing is at least 10,000 times more likely than a mugger stealing a bag.

The 10,000 is probably conservative. It is based on seeing some cyclist do something stupid several times a day in London vs never having seen a mugging or know anyone who has been mugged in England.

[otolith]

creampuff said:

I'd put it to you that a cyclist going the wrong way up a one way street, or riding on the footpath which is being used by pedestrians, or going through a red light causing other traffic to avoid them or riding through a pedestrian crossing is at least 10,000 times more likely than a mugger stealing a bag.

The 10,000 is probably conservative. It is based on seeing some cyclist do something stupid several times a day in London vs never having seen a mugging or know anyone who has been mugged in England.

Yet despite this the casualty rate remains low, and those accidents which do occur tend not to be in the circumstances you describe. Perhaps if these things happen all the time and nothing happens, they should be legalised?

[Rude-boy]

IroningMan said:

The 'worst they are ever likely to get' is crushed to death under the wheels of a tipper truck.

Ah, the old move the goal posts trick. Nice.

You are right they might get hit by a tipper (I always see them lurking at the end of one way streets), so might a car driver. Should they come blindly round a corner and turn the wrong way up a one way street causing the tipper to swerve into parked cars to miss them is it more likely that the cyclist will dismount and offer their details or ride on into the sunset knowing that it is more likely they will win the lottery than be identified? If it had been a car that had caused the accident who that be likely or would they be spending a lot of time talking to insurance companies and Plod?

Again how may cyclists do you see doing this compared to car drivers?

IroningMan said:

Are you more worried about identifying a cyclist going the wrong way up a one-way street, or a mugger who's just snatched your wife's bag? The exact same tools are available to the authorities in both cases.

Sorry I thought we were talking about making things safer for cyclists, not about muggers.