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

Except they need to give you their name, station and state why and what necessitates the search. They also have to offer you a report of the search. 

I wonder how many lawbreaking vehicles/drivers passed the police while they were busy ticking off cyclists

Doesn't matter, because they would ensure that they didn't notice the offending vehicles whatever they were doing.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Presumably that's to crack down on THEM (car drivers) doing illegal things rather than US (cyclists) doing illegal things?

Dangerous things. We want them to crack down on illegal things that are dangerous to others. 

It's a pretty simple concept mate, you shouldn't have to be a rocket surgeon to understand it.

Wingguy wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Presumably that's to crack down on THEM (car drivers) doing illegal things rather than US (cyclists) doing illegal things?

Dangerous things. We want them to crack down on illegal things that are dangerous to others. 

It's a pretty simple concept mate, you shouldn't have to be a rocket surgeon to understand it.

Speak for yourself. I don't want them to just apply the law when it comes to dangerous things. I'm quite happy that people get investigated/charged/prosecuted/punished for other things. Stealing, for example.

And it's not my decision, nor yours, to decide what is important and what isn't.

And it's not my decision, nor yours, to decide what is important and what isn't

It bloody well is our job to have a go at deciding, because otherwise it will be down to the unbalanced decisions of the notoriously cyclist-ist, inept and ineffectual police to decide unopposed- before cases even get to the notoriously pro-motorist courts

wtjs wrote:

And it's not my decision, nor yours, to decide what is important and what isn't

It bloody well is our job to have a go at deciding, because otherwise it will be down to the unbalanced decisions of the notoriously cyclist-ist, inept and ineffectual police to decide unopposed- before cases even get to the notoriously pro-motorist courts

My apologies to the RT Hon wtjs MP.

Perhaps you could raise the issue at the next Prime Minister's Questions, instead of here, on an internet forum?

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

 Speak for yourself.

I literally just replied to you speaking for 'US'. In capitals, so it was impossible to miss.

Quote:

And it's not my decision, nor yours, to decide what is important and what isn't.

Then why are you talking?

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Speak for yourself. I don't want them to just apply the law when it comes to dangerous things. I'm quite happy that people get investigated/charged/prosecuted/punished for other things. Stealing, for example. And it's not my decision, nor yours, to decide what is important and what isn't.

And by the way, for clarity, you know full well we are talking about something that isn't against the law and that no-one can or will be investigated, charged, prosecuted or punished for.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Productive in what sense? Cycling while drunk is a crime (RTA 1988). Is catching people doing illegal things not a 'productive' use of police time? I may have misunderstood what the police are for...

Yes it's a crime, but I doubt that it's worth trying for a prosecution with it unless the person is obviously drunk (in which case the breathalyser is just to put  a number to it). I'd consider police targetting drunk cyclists as a waste of time as drunk cyclists very rarely cause anyone else any harm and the activity is often self-limiting - get too drunk and you keep falling off.

Obviously, if police see a cyclist wobbling around and getting beeped at by other traffic etc. then they should stop and talk to them and in extreme cases even prosecute them, but just picking out random cyclists and breathalysing them is clearly a waste of time as drunk cyclists are not a big problem at all.

Police have limited time and budgets, so they could just enforce every single crime they encounter without any consideration about wider effects or they could prioritise their efforts. Do you understand now why we despair when some police forces don't bother enforcing dangerous driving footage provided by the public, but instead go around and harass cyclists?

hawkinspeter wrote:

Do you understand now why we despair when some police forces don't bother enforcing dangerous driving footage provided by the public, but instead go around and harass cyclists?

I already did, but two wrongs don't make a right. In fact, by suggesting that the police should ignore a lack of helmets, one rather undermines the argument that they should crack down on other road-related issues.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

I already did, but two wrongs don't make a right. In fact, by suggesting that the police should ignore a lack of helmets, one rather undermines the argument that they should crack down on other road-related issues.

You seem to miss the point of road safety.

Someone not wearing a helmet has very little chance of causing injury to someone else. Someone driving carelessly has a high chance of causing injury to someone else.

In order to get to Vision Zero, the priority has to be to stop drivers from killing people. You can enforce as many helmets as you like, but it's not going to reduce road casualties.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

I already did, but two wrongs don't make a right. In fact, by suggesting that the police should ignore a lack of helmets, one rather undermines the argument that they should crack down on other road-related issues.

I fail to see how it undermines anything. We're saying "stop putting effort into helmet charades when you should be preventing road deaths instead by stopping dangerous driving"

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

I already did, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Tailgating = careless driving = an offence

Not wearing certain attire <> an offence.

So no, they are no both wrong as you claim.

Not sure if that is an tacit admission from you that tailgating is an offence.

It's not the job of the police to enforce things that are not the law.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

I already did, but two wrongs don't make a right. In fact, by suggesting that the police should ignore a lack of helmets, one rather undermines the argument that they should crack down on other road-related issues.

Or from an alternate point of view, it absolutely doesn't and it is absurd to suggest it does.

I've no beef with the police stopping a cyclist who appears unsteady or has committed an offence resulting in requesting a breath test or just simply arresting them as they appear to be drunk. What seems to have happened here is that cyclists have been randomly stopped and tested for no apparent reason. 

This is Edinburgh.

"Why are you wobbling around?"

"This is the effing Leith Walk Slalom Cycle Track, Officer. I'm trying not to effing cycle on the effing pavement."

hawkinspeter wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

From the tweet (and bearing in mind I have no more info than the tweet) it sounds like they were stopped for a lack of lights, or perhaps just stopped routinely to breathalyse like they do for cars this time of year (to crack down on road users still inebriated after the office party). I think pointing out their diversion (s) from the highway code is appropriate.

If they're stopping them for a lack of lights at night-time, then I'd be okay with that. During daytime seems stupid to me - it's like pulling over a car and telling them "you can't park here".

I'm not convinced that breathalysing cyclists is productive, unless they spot someone wobbling around barely in control.

The police cannot randomly breathalyse a cyclist. The cyclist can refuse and unless they are obviously drunk only then can the police arrest them. Even then the CPS cannot use a refusal against the cyclist as evidence. 

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

or perhaps just stopped routinely to breathalyse like they do for cars this time of year (to crack down on road users still inebriated after the office party)

You can't breathalyse cyclists, or at least cyclists are entitled to refuse to take a breathalyser without any penalty. Stupid law in my opinion but that is the law.

Thank you.
We spend far too much time on this site discussing helmets and no time discussing modal separation.

maybe even checking MOTs/Tax for vehicles

You blackguard! They should be arresting you for police time wasting. It seems to be Axiom No 1 in police training that on no account should valuable police cyclist-hostility time be wasted on the war on the hard-working, hard-pressed....Saints of the Road

wtjs wrote:

maybe even checking MOTs/Tax for vehicles

You blackguard! They should be arresting you for police time wasting. It seems to be Axiom No 1 in police training that on no account should valuable police cyclist-hostility time be wasted on the war on the hard-working, hard-pressed....Saints of the Road

You ommitted "otherwise law abiding"

However doesn't the routes go where councils ask. So councils approach ToB committee and state, come to us, we have these routes, will close these roads (for free) but we would like you to start (or finish) in this area for maximum local gain. So GMC probably even have a team now planning these ahead of time, hence them getting more stages over the years.

(Are brown envelopes / enticements also involved?)

brooksby wrote:

Did anyone else notice that the Office Christmas Parties seem to have started early this year?  There were lots of crowds of people wandering around the city centre during my evening commute yesterday (men and women in novelty jumpers, men wearing santa hats).

According to press reports, there have been as many cancellations of Christmas parties - because of the rail strikes - as there were because of Omicron.  Though one of the teams at my office has brought there's forward to today because of the strikes, so that may be why you are seeing more?  

Steve K wrote:

-2 according to my Garmin when I set off this morning.  There were definitely fewer cyclists out than normal (though still a decent number).  There were also fewer motorists.  I suspect, with wfh more of an option for more people these days, a lot of people just decided it's freezing, I'll work from home.

I have WFO (worked from office) all the time - I never WFH.

The only thing I've noticed with the proliferation of WFH and its associated tech is that its impossible to have a 'real' sick day any more - it is just assumed that you'll be home because you're ill but can carry on working through the wonders of modern technology...

Your mileage may vary, but this isn’t my personal experience. If I’m sick enough to not have gone into the office, I have no issue affirming that I’m too sick to WFH. What WHF does do is cut down on the weird self-sacrificial presenteeism thing where people would be sick and still come into the office anyway and give their virus to the whole workforce – because now they can just stay at home until they’re over it.

Again, your mileage may vary, but WFH also allows me to “flexi-time” in a way that I couldn’t in the office – if I’m in the office but I’m stuck due to waiting on someone else, I can’t really do much because I’m stuck in the office. If I’m WFH I can go and do something else (productive or otherwise) until the work's ready. It also makes staying back on busier days easier to tolerate as I’m not being held back onsite only to cycle home in the dark - I already am home.

I've had to advise people in my team that if you are too ill to work in the office, don't just WFH.
I actually find WFH more mentally draining then WFO. With the latter, I would have a walk around the office once every 90 mins (we are on two floors) to get blood flowing and take a break from the screen. At home I fear being away from the device and someone trying to contact me as I don't want to appear to be "skiving".