Hampshire Police stop 20 drivers and 185 cyclists during close pass operation

beigemaster wrote:

I worked and commuted by bike in Southampton for 6 months, to be honest I'm not supprised so many cyclists were stopped for jumping red lights- every "cyclist" there would jump them- (they're not really cyclists, just t*ats who have access to bikes.)

 

The amount of time I would catch up with them to challenge them on this- and seemed very shocked that someone would actually call them out on this. As far as I'm concerned, if you want to jump the lights and risk being run down then that's up to you- however every time drivers see this then that's just one more justification (in their minds) that all cyclists are terrible and therefore there's no need to give them extra room on the road- which then puts us all at risk.  

Utter bollocks, where were you working? I've commuted either by car or bike in Southampton for 8 years and its incredibly rare to see cyclists jump lights and on the whole cycling behaviour is good - good lane discipline on shared use paths etc.

Not using lights is another matter though, and seriously hacks me off considering there's a Decathlon selling perfectly adequate urban lights for £2.99

kil0ran wrote:

beigemaster wrote:

I worked and commuted by bike in Southampton for 6 months, to be honest I'm not supprised so many cyclists were stopped for jumping red lights- every "cyclist" there would jump them- (they're not really cyclists, just t*ats who have access to bikes.)

 

The amount of time I would catch up with them to challenge them on this- and seemed very shocked that someone would actually call them out on this. As far as I'm concerned, if you want to jump the lights and risk being run down then that's up to you- however every time drivers see this then that's just one more justification (in their minds) that all cyclists are terrible and therefore there's no need to give them extra room on the road- which then puts us all at risk.  

Utter bollocks, where were you working? I've commuted either by car or bike in Southampton for 8 years and its incredibly rare to see cyclists jump lights and on the whole cycling behaviour is good - good lane discipline on shared use paths etc.

Not using lights is another matter though, and seriously hacks me off considering there's a Decathlon selling perfectly adequate urban lights for £2.99

I commute by bike into Southampton, the above ratio of bikes without lights and red light jumping to close passing seems consistant with what I see every week.

kil0ran wrote:

beigemaster wrote:

I worked and commuted by bike in Southampton for 6 months, to be honest I'm not supprised so many cyclists were stopped for jumping red lights- every "cyclist" there would jump them- (they're not really cyclists, just t*ats who have access to bikes.)

 

The amount of time I would catch up with them to challenge them on this- and seemed very shocked that someone would actually call them out on this. As far as I'm concerned, if you want to jump the lights and risk being run down then that's up to you- however every time drivers see this then that's just one more justification (in their minds) that all cyclists are terrible and therefore there's no need to give them extra room on the road- which then puts us all at risk.  

Utter bollocks, where were you working? I've commuted either by car or bike in Southampton for 8 years and its incredibly rare to see cyclists jump lights and on the whole cycling behaviour is good - good lane discipline on shared use paths etc.

Not using lights is another matter though, and seriously hacks me off considering there's a Decathlon selling perfectly adequate urban lights for £2.99

Shirley High Street is a big hot spot along with the roads that connect to it (ironic because the pavement is easily wide enough for a segregated cycle lane along).

The cross roads at Bellemoor road where it meets the common, I promise I'm not exaggerating when I say that literally almost every time I used that junction, at least one person would jump the lights when they were red to allow pedestrians to go through -I assume mainly students heading back to campus over the common.  I'd also see people jumping the lights/mounting the pavement where Oakley road meets the Winchester road- so in short, pretty much most of the junctions controlled by traffic lights on my relatively short commute.

If we're not seeing the same thing, then logically either we have been cycling in different parts of the city or at different times, or perhaps the standards of what we expect on our commute are quite different?

 I'm back in Sheffield now, and I hardly ever see anyone jumping lights or mounting pavements and so perhaps that's the standard I'm used to- but that could be because there are much less casual cyclists in Sheffield as it's not an easy city to cycle around in- you will at some point have to ride up a big hill! 

beigemaster wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, if you want to jump the lights and risk being run down then that's up to you- however every time drivers see this then that's just one more justification (in their minds) that all cyclists are terrible and therefore there's no need to give them extra room on the road- which then puts us all at risk.  

The collective responsibility nonsense aside, where are you going with this?

Drivers seeing cyclists jumping red lights mean they give us all more close passes? Yeah, a link to this research, if you will.

davel wrote:

beigemaster wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, if you want to jump the lights and risk being run down then that's up to you- however every time drivers see this then that's just one more justification (in their minds) that all cyclists are terrible and therefore there's no need to give them extra room on the road- which then puts us all at risk.  

The collective responsibility nonsense aside, where are you going with this? Drivers seeing cyclists jumping red lights mean they give us all more close passes? Yeah, a link to this research, if you will.

You'll find as much evidence as you need in the comments section of any cycling story of most of the tabloid tripe that plagues the internet. 

I didn't say it was a logical argument- hence why I put the caveat "in their minds" into it, human beings are not as rational as we like to believe we are, so a simple mind set of "us and them, 'they' do bad stuff so I don't need to treat them better" is unfortunately very apparent in our consciousness- hell that's what the whole tabloid press is based on! 

How many times have you challenged a driver for a close pass and their response has been something like "well you lot jump red lights all the time!"? I know it's been a fair few for me, and I'm pretty sure I could scroll a through a few helmet cams on YouTube to find similar. 

For the sake of argument, even if I'm wrong, jumping a red light on a bike or in a car is illegal, and I don't want to be tarnished with the same brush as those cyclist to believe themselves to be above the law. 

Note, I'm not talking about helmets, high viz or headphone what-aboutery, I'm talking about people who break the law in broad daylight in front of other road users which IMO, you lose the moral high ground when expecting other road users to also comply with the rules of the road- not a justification, but simply a logical inconsistency. 

beigemaster wrote:

davel wrote:

beigemaster wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, if you want to jump the lights and risk being run down then that's up to you- however every time drivers see this then that's just one more justification (in their minds) that all cyclists are terrible and therefore there's no need to give them extra room on the road- which then puts us all at risk.  

The collective responsibility nonsense aside, where are you going with this? Drivers seeing cyclists jumping red lights mean they give us all more close passes? Yeah, a link to this research, if you will.

You'll find as much evidence as you need in the comments section of any cycling story of most of the tabloid tripe that plagues the internet. 

I didn't say it was a logical argument- hence why I put the caveat "in their minds" into it, human beings are not as rational as we like to believe we are, so a simple mind set of "us and them, 'they' do bad stuff so I don't need to treat them better" is unfortunately very apparent in our consciousness- hell that's what the whole tabloid press is based on! 

How many times have you challenged a driver for a close pass and their response has been something like "well you lot jump red lights all the time!"? I know it's been a fair few for me, and I'm pretty sure I could scroll a through a few helmet cams on YouTube to find similar. 

For the sake of argument, even if I'm wrong, jumping a red light on a bike or in a car is illegal, and I don't want to be tarnished with the same brush as those cyclist to believe themselves to be above the law. 

Note, I'm not talking about helmets, high viz or headphone what-aboutery, I'm talking about people who break the law in broad daylight in front of other road users which IMO, you lose the moral high ground when expecting other road users to also comply with the rules of the road- not a justification, but simply a logical inconsistency. 

I can agree with the argument regarding drivers making excuses - that's their whataboutery.

Where I fundamentally disagree is that if 'we' stopped running red lights, there would be any decrease in close passes. It'd just result in different tabloid troll excuses, which, as you say, lack logic. It'd be lycra, it'd be holding them up, it'd be road tax.

craigstitt wrote:

But to be told to wear Hi-Viz during the day is ridiculous.

On the contrary. If by hi-viz you mean dayglo stuff, then it is useless in the dark. (The clue is in the name). It is only intended to be used during the day.

At night what you need is retroreflective stuff. Most hi-viz things also included retroflective patches, but so too do many jackets etc in less lurid colours.

That said, I agree with you that being told to wear hi-viz is ridiculous.

Pub bike wrote:

So the motorists were stopped (for a chat??) but the cyclists were given FPNs?

Although they will be cancelled if they prove they have then gone on to buy some lights, so really it's probably a good idea.

I don't think they should be stopping cyclists for the clothes they are wearing though, which does seem to be the case here.

Leviathan wrote:

I wince when I see almost invisible lights and think back to using two AA batteries. USB charging is work of genius. As for clothes, yeah, none of their business.

You you did SEE then? Yet again more victim blaming nonsense, increasing output of lights for defensive/safety as a vulnerable road user only further serves to erode the responsibility of those presenting the harm.

There is no law on the minimum amount of light except if it is flashing and that is 4 Candela, I suggest people go at a speed you can (fully) stop well within the ditance you can see to be clear, it should be applied by all. Rear lights and indeed front lights would not be needed by people on bikes (if not needing to see by) if motorists adhered to this.

That rule alone if acted out by more would save thousands of lives and billions from the taxpayer.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Leviathan wrote:

I wince when I see almost invisible lights and think back to using two AA batteries. USB charging is work of genius. As for clothes, yeah, none of their business.

You you did SEE then? Yet again more victim blaming nonsense, increasing output of lights for defensive/safety as a vulnerable road user only further serves to erode the responsibility of those presenting the harm.

There is no law on the minimum amount of light except if it is flashing and that is 4 Candela, I suggest people go at a speed you can (fully) stop well within the ditance you can see to be clear, it should be applied by all. Rear lights and indeed front lights would not be needed by people on bikes (if not needing to see by) if motorists adhered to this.

That rule alone if acted out by more would save thousands of lives and billions from the taxpayer.

Bullshit. See my previous comment as to why.

StoopidUserName wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Leviathan wrote:

I wince when I see almost invisible lights and think back to using two AA batteries. USB charging is work of genius. As for clothes, yeah, none of their business.

You you did SEE then? Yet again more victim blaming nonsense, increasing output of lights for defensive/safety as a vulnerable road user only further serves to erode the responsibility of those presenting the harm.

There is no law on the minimum amount of light except if it is flashing and that is 4 Candela, I suggest people go at a speed you can (fully) stop well within the ditance you can see to be clear, it should be applied by all. Rear lights and indeed front lights would not be needed by people on bikes (if not needing to see by) if motorists adhered to this.

That rule alone if acted out by more would save thousands of lives and billions from the taxpayer.

Bullshit. See my previous comment as to why.

Your previous post seems to suggest that someone not having a light on a shared-use path is a gateway to them committing more crimes.

How does that refute the point that thousands of lives are lost due to people not being able to stop within the distance they see to be clear?

davel wrote:

StoopidUserName wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Leviathan wrote:

I wince when I see almost invisible lights and think back to using two AA batteries. USB charging is work of genius. As for clothes, yeah, none of their business.

You you did SEE then? Yet again more victim blaming nonsense, increasing output of lights for defensive/safety as a vulnerable road user only further serves to erode the responsibility of those presenting the harm.

There is no law on the minimum amount of light except if it is flashing and that is 4 Candela, I suggest people go at a speed you can (fully) stop well within the ditance you can see to be clear, it should be applied by all. Rear lights and indeed front lights would not be needed by people on bikes (if not needing to see by) if motorists adhered to this.

That rule alone if acted out by more would save thousands of lives and billions from the taxpayer.

Bullshit. See my previous comment as to why.

Your previous post seems to suggest that someone not having a light on a shared-use path is a gateway to them committing more crimes.

How does that refute the point that thousands of lives are lost due to people not being able to stop within the distance they see to be clear?

You were defending cyclists not having lights in the dark basically as they cause no harm. I'm pointing out they do - to other cyclists and pedestrians. Of course motorists cause vastly more casualties on our roads...but relatively little on the segregated cycle path...where a minority of idiot and selfish cyclists take over. That's my point. They shouldn't be defended, ever. My other point was if they're happy to ignore one Very, very important rule then they're more likely to ignore others - which i often observe them doing. Doesnt meann all of them do, but in my experience a large proportion do. They are a danger to others, once again I'm calling them out for what they are.

StoopidUserName wrote:

davel wrote:

StoopidUserName wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Leviathan wrote:

I wince when I see almost invisible lights and think back to using two AA batteries. USB charging is work of genius. As for clothes, yeah, none of their business.

You you did SEE then? Yet again more victim blaming nonsense, increasing output of lights for defensive/safety as a vulnerable road user only further serves to erode the responsibility of those presenting the harm.

There is no law on the minimum amount of light except if it is flashing and that is 4 Candela, I suggest people go at a speed you can (fully) stop well within the ditance you can see to be clear, it should be applied by all. Rear lights and indeed front lights would not be needed by people on bikes (if not needing to see by) if motorists adhered to this.

That rule alone if acted out by more would save thousands of lives and billions from the taxpayer.

Bullshit. See my previous comment as to why.

Your previous post seems to suggest that someone not having a light on a shared-use path is a gateway to them committing more crimes.

How does that refute the point that thousands of lives are lost due to people not being able to stop within the distance they see to be clear?

You were defending cyclists not having lights in the dark basically as they cause no harm. I'm pointing out they do - to other cyclists and pedestrians. Of course motorists cause vastly more casualties on our roads...but relatively little on the segregated cycle path...where a minority of idiot and selfish cyclists take over. That's my point. They shouldn't be defended, ever. My other point was if they're happy to ignore one Very, very important rule then they're more likely to ignore others - which i often observe them doing. Doesnt meann all of them do, but in my experience a large proportion do. They are a danger to others, once again I'm calling them out for what they are.

Actually, *I* wasn't... But I didn't interpret BTBS as defending that kind of behaviour, either. More having a go at the prioritisation and focus of resources by under-staffed police forces.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

You you did SEE then? Yet again more victim blaming nonsense, increasing output of lights for defensive/safety as a vulnerable road user only further serves to erode the responsibility of those presenting the harm.

I am almost amused by the people you hear complaining about all the invisible cyclists they see.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Leviathan wrote:

I wince when I see almost invisible lights and think back to using two AA batteries. USB charging is work of genius. As for clothes, yeah, none of their business.

You you did SEE then? Yet again more victim blaming nonsense, increasing output of lights for defensive/safety as a vulnerable road user only further serves to erode the responsibility of those presenting the harm.

There is no law on the minimum amount of light except if it is flashing and that is 4 Candela, I suggest people go at a speed you can (fully) stop well within the ditance you can see to be clear, it should be applied by all. Rear lights and indeed front lights would not be needed by people on bikes (if not needing to see by) if motorists adhered to this.

That rule alone if acted out by more would save thousands of lives and billions from the taxpayer.

Wöt? Ridiculous, no victim blaming. It is a simple fact that some older bike lights are feeble. Reflectives and good lights are more important that clothing. Having been T-boned twice by drivers not looking at forward pointing lights, I am glad of brighter more defuse lights I have now.

You say there is no law, except for the law you quote. Also what has stopping distance got to do with it? Most of us are in a lit urban area where bike lights are to be seen, not to see by. You really seem to be advocating people driving and riding at 10kph or less after dark; even on a bike I have places to go fast than that, how you expect drivers to adhere to this I don't know.

Bonkers, BehindTheBikesheds leading us back to the Land of the Blind.

SculturaD wrote:

Good that operation close Pass is still gaining momentum albeit at a bit of a no starter a part from 2 areas in Scotland. It's only right those cycling without lights etc are held to account as the law is clear in regards to lights, reflectors etc. Why should we have one rule for motorists and then ignore the blatant disregard of the ignorant cyclist. And I am both. Motorist and cyclist, but have a 65 lumen rear lamp along with a Knog for daytime use and a 1800 lumen 3 cree led for darker times.

But stopping cyclists to tell them about their clothing whilst cars continue to speed by at close distances is akin to stopping drivers to tell them their radio is too loud whilst a maniac attacks them with a machete...