Jeremy Vine highlights grim reality of gridlocked London route where cycle lane was ripped out... as council due in court over early removal; Chilly commutes; Manchester to host 2023 Tour of Britain Grand Départ + more on the live blog

hawkinspeter wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Do you think that the police should stop people who tailgate on the motorway at high speed?

They should stop and prosecute them for careless driving. It's very dangerous behaviour.

Interesting. Rule 125 only has 'should' for stopping distances. So that one isn't a 'moral' issue?

https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/driving-offences

Some examples of careless or inconsiderate driving are:

-  driving too close to another vehicle;

HC Rule 125

"Dangerous and careless driving offences, such as tailgating, are enforced by the police."

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Interesting. Rule 125 only has 'should' for stopping distances. So that one isn't a 'moral' issue?

People do die from motorway crashes where someone has been tailgating. It's clearly careless driving and is prosecuted as such. You seem to be trying to straw-man your way around the issue of police wasting time stopping cyclists that are not going to cause any injury to other people.

hawkinspeter wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Interesting. Rule 125 only has 'should' for stopping distances. So that one isn't a 'moral' issue?

People do die from motorway crashes where someone has been tailgating.

People do die from falling off their bike and hitting their head without a helmet on.

How are the police supposed to know which parts of the highway code some people on the internet think is important, and which bits they don't think is important, and how should they temper their approach to policing to reflect your personal moral code?

Stop complaining and write to your MP about it. I already have.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

People do for from falling off their bike and hitting their head without a helmet on. How are the police supposed to know which parts of the highway code some people on the internet think is important, and which bits they don't think is important, and how should they temper their approach to policing to reflect your personal moral code? Stop complaining and write to your MP about it. I already have.

Okay, this is getting tedious now.

You're equating a multi-vehicle pile up on a motorway with someone falling off their bike without a helmet? I can explain the difference to you, but I can't understand it for you.

You're focusing on the differences, but I'm focusing on the similarities. They are both in the highway code, along with quite a lot else.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

How are the police supposed to know which parts of the highway code some people on the internet think is important, and which bits they don't think is important, and how should they temper their approach to policing to reflect your personal moral code?

The Highway Code is not actually law, although much of what it contains reflects the law. It is the duty of the police to uphold and enforce the law as contained in the RTA, not the Highway Code and particularly not those parts of it that are voluntary.

Rendel Harris wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

How are the police supposed to know which parts of the highway code some people on the internet think is important, and which bits they don't think is important, and how should they temper their approach to policing to reflect your personal moral code?

The Highway Code is not actually law, although much of what it contains reflects the law. It is the duty of the police to uphold and enforce the law as contained in the RTA, not the Highway Code and particularly not those parts of it that are voluntary.

So the police shouldn't get involved in close passes then? (Again, only a 'should' in rule 163)

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

 So the police shouldn't get involved in close passes then? (Again, only a 'should' in rule 163)

They should get involved with close passes, but not under the Highway Code which, again, is not law. They can charge people for close passes with careless driving, which does come under the RTA, and that is indeed what close passers are charged with.

This epitomises the double standard of you and so many posters on here. There are so many complaints on NMotDs about police failing to follow up on driving that you lot consider to be dangerous/careless because it contravenes the guidance in the highway code as though the Rule 163 is the eleventh commandment, but when the police provide advice about the bits of the highway code you don't agree with, you complain! Pick a lane, for goodness' sake!

And remember, in the Twitter post there was no suggestion that someone was charged with not wearing a helmet, so it's not like they were overstepping or misinterpreting the law, unlike the recent Public Order Act example we had on here a couple of weeks ago, where clearly the police were in the wrong.

No because in NMOTD the driving contravenes RTAs and SIs and constitutes an offence for which you can be prosecuted.

Stopping someone in an attempt to enforce something you can't is overstepping the law.

hirsute wrote:

No because in NMOTD the driving contravenes RTAs and SIs and constitutes an offence for which you can be prosecuted.

Stopping someone in an attempt to enforce something you can't is overstepping the law.

 

So the police are correct in ignoring Rule 163 of the highway code and making up their own interpretation of what constitutes careless/dangerous driving? After all, the road traffic act doesn't provide a limit for a safe pass.

Do you think the police should ignore the highway code or not? You can't have it both ways.

False dichotomy

Road users are charged with offences such as careless driving, dangerous driving.

The definition of these are broad because Acts do not generally anticipate every possible activity and use such things as reasonable or standard

"The offence of driving without due care and attention (careless driving) under section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is committed when the defendant's driving falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver - section 3ZA(2) of the RTA 1988."

In order to present a case, the highway code would be adduced to demonstrate why the driving fell below the standard.

There is no offence of cycling without a helmet, so the highway code will not be adduced.

Police should not be stopping people for things that are not offences.

So some parts of the highway code are more important than others, and some deserve police oversight while others don't?

I wonder if Charlie Cornick's family think that Rule 59 is less important than any other rule. Or anyone else who has lost a loved one due to a head injury sustained while cycling without a helmet, which is a group by the way that I am part of, so I can speak for my own authority on the subject at the very least

I'm sorry that you're part of that group, and can understand your stance in the circumstances. The reality though is that the police do have to prioritise what they enforce. There are others who have lost loved ones who were wearing helmet, who would think Rule 59 is not a priority.

For others like me who didn't immediately recognise the name, Charlie Cornick died when he was hit by a driver from behind at somewhere around 50mph. It appears he didn't have lights (though there's some uncertainty about that) and the driver says she was dazzled by oncoming headlights. Had the police seen him that fateful night, I would expect them to have a word about lights. But when I put a helmet on, it's not in the expectation that it will save me in a 50mph collision.           

You must mean rule 60 which is under pinned by specific legislation.

As it is, you are the only one going on about the highway code, everyone else is talking about legislation and actual prosecutable offences.

hirsute wrote:

You must mean rule 60 which is under pinned by specific legislation.

As it is, you are the only one going on about the highway code, everyone else is talking about legislation and actual prosecutable offences.

Ummm. No. I mean rule 59.

And I'm not the only one 'going on about' the highway code. The police in the tweet were too. Or did you forget what we were talking about?

Is there anything else you'd like to be condescending about?

Do you think the police should ignore the highway code or not? You can't have it both ways

The police already ignore the Highway Code when it suits them, which is most of the time. It is ilegal to pass a traffic light at red, yet Lancashire Constabulary ignores every proven RLJ offence I report. What the police want is to be the de facto legislature for the country, independent of Parliament and the Judiciary. In Lancashire they have achieved this aim already, aided and abetted by the CPS. When they ignore the law about RLJs, MOTs and insurance for motor vehicles, handheld mobile use while driving, double unbroken white lines etc, they are, like Judge Dredd, The Law. These offences are uniformly forgiven here by the provision of an unpublished Universal Dispensation for all except people the police don't like, and I have no doubt they are kept out of the statistics.

wtjs wrote:

Do you think the police should ignore the highway code or not? You can't have it both ways

The police already ignore the Highway Code when it suits them, which is most of the time.

I fully agree and find it very frustrating. I am pleased to see the police interpreting and applying UK law and the highway code correctly and I am displeased to see it being interpreted or applied incorrectly.

I am pleased to see them give advice to cyclists about helmets. I would be pleased if they gave advice about hi-viz to cyclists or pedestrians. I am pleased when they give advice about safe passing distances and I'm even more pleased when they prosecute when a close pass is demonstrably careless, purposeful or vindictive.

And frankly I'm fed up of people insisting that the police interpret and apply some parts while insisting that they don't interpret and apply others.

You have correctly identified a double standard.

One I'm very happy with - and I believe most people who think about it would be.  After recognising and putting aside our emotional "but it's not fair!  One rule for them and a different one for me!" responses.  Because there is a fundamental asymmetry in both risk and danger presented.

A vulnerable road user not following the rules is in almost every circumstance primarily a danger to themselves.  Even when a danger to others there is a fairly low limit to the harm you can cause - albeit that includes death and serious injury so we should take this seriously.

A driver in a motor vehicle not driving within the rules is a danger to the public at large, including other motorists, people inside buildings etc. but very much to vulnerable road users.  It's not unheard of for a crash to kill and/or injure multiple people.  In addition the driver is protected to a much greater degree so in a collision which kills someone else they may be totally unscathed.  This is possible - but much less likely - in e.g. a cyclist - pedestrian collision.

I'm very happy for cyclists - like anyone else - to be policed.  And the police have to deal as best they can with the law-breaking they're faced with.  Which they'll never have enough time to police completely. So if they really didn't have anything more important to do at the time then fine!

chrisonatrike wrote:

A vulnerable road user not following the rules is in almost every circumstance primarily a danger to themselves.

One could say the same thing about a driver without a seatbelt. Yet driving without a seatbelt is illegal.

Regardless, it doesn't matter our opinions on the matter. Riding without a helmet is not following the a recommendation in the highway code. The police have given advice about it.

Some of us are happy about that. Perhaps the fact that a family member of mine has died following a head injury sustained while cycling makes me more happy that this particular rule is being communicated by the police. I think it's within their gift to do so and I'm happy that they are.

In my opinion, it is police time well spent.

Yours may differ, but I'm glad they're doing it.

Ah - I understand, it is the personal experience here that's focussed this for you.

Happy if police are giving out advice - if they have nothing more pressing.  Could someone else (without the training and quals) be found to deliver advice though?

chrisonatrike wrote:

Ah - I understand, it is the personal experience here that's focussed this for you.

Happy if police are giving out advice - if they have nothing more pressing.  Could someone else (without the training and quals) be found to deliver advice though?

Good idea. Perhaps they could cut out the necessity to get people involved at all though, and just tell the cyclists that they would be better off with a helmet within a single authoritative source, applicable to road users. We could call it a 'code for using the highway' or perhaps something slightly punchier.

Unfortunately though, even if you do that, people who think they know better will still complain that you mentioned it in that authoritative source, and will complain even louder if a police officer dares mention the little snippet of advice therein contained.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

A vulnerable road user not following the rules is in almost every circumstance primarily a danger to themselves.

One could say the same thing about a driver without a seatbelt. Yet driving without a seatbelt is illegal.

(a) A driver not wearing a seatbelt may well be at greater risk of injury than one who is wearing one. But the act of driving poses a risk not only to the driver, but to passengers and others they might affect - true also of cycling, but to a lower degree. Mandatory seatbelts therefore stand to protect others from harm, not just the driver.  

(b) That's precisely the distinction people are getting at. Nobody has legislated to mandate cycle helmets. Which is why it should arguably be lower policing priority.

Now to really set the cat among the pigeons, should police be enforcing mandatory pedal reflectors... 

quiff wrote:

Now to really set the cat among the pigeons, should police be enforcing mandatory pedal reflectors... 

I hope not - my pedals don't have reflectors.

That requirement should be changed to also allow reflective shoes/trousers. There's more room for reflective material on shoes and trousers than there is on pedals.

Well I'm an outlaw again.  Not only don't I have pedal reflectors on one of my bikes but you can't see my feet from the rear of it.

TBF it's almost always a daylight bike and so far "too obvious" seems to be more of a thing than SMIDSY.

If I install a reflective windmill on the back so there's something moving would that cover it?

Would that device come under pedal assist? 

Exactly - it's easy to criticise the police for being heavy handed and having the wrong priority here, because what they've given advice on isn't illegal. A more interesting case would be if they started clamping down on something which is actually illegal but which many of us (me included) flout.

Agree that it should be changed though. Doing more utility cycling recently and have discovered the joys of reflective trouser clips. Getting old.    

quiff wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

A vulnerable road user not following the rules is in almost every circumstance primarily a danger to themselves.

One could say the same thing about a driver without a seatbelt. Yet driving without a seatbelt is illegal.

(a) A driver not wearing a seatbelt may well be at greater risk of injury than one who is wearing one. But the act of driving poses a risk not only to the driver, but to passengers and others they might affect - true also of cycling, but to a lower degree. Mandatory seatbelts therefore stand to protect others from harm, not just the driver.  

(b) That's precisely the distinction people are getting at. Nobody has legislated to mandate cycle helmets. Which is why it should arguably be lower policing priority.

Now to really set the cat among the pigeons, should police be enforcing mandatory pedal reflectors... 

Wrt a, it's not just the driver who is required to wear a seatbelt though, is it. People are required by law to wear a seatbelt for their own safety. So that when the bad news comes it's "your relative was involved in a collision. They were wearing their seatbelt and are in hospital" and not " your relative was involved in a collision. They were not wearing a seatbelt. We need you to confirm their identity, please come with me to the morgue".

Wrt b, no one was charged for not wearing a helmet though, so that distinction appears to not be lost on the police officer (s) concerned.

And on the final point, should they? Yes. It's illegal not to iaw RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24. In my opinion, the law in this area is overkill. But the law is the law is the law.

Yes, each seatbelt protects an individual. But you started by suggesting you could say that a driver not wearing a seatbelt is a risk only to themselves. That's not correct - a driver not wearing a seatbelt is a risk to themselves and many others, and that is why seatbelts are mandatory. My point is that everyone wears a seatbelt because of the risks driving (and crashing) a car present. The lower risks presented by cycling are the reason there is no such mandation for helmets.  

As for pedal reflectors, that was my point - the criticism here is because the police have given advice on something which is not illegal, and some people feel that's overstepping the mark. It would be interesting to see how people react if the police started enforcing something which is illegal and which very many cyclists (myself included) flout.