Increase in Prison Sentence for Dangerous Driving

It is hypocritical however I would not say the two are equal in terms of risk / danger. If you had the same number of people catching car driving offenses (mobile phones say) then per pound I would expect the risk drop to be greater because of number of peole killed by bike vs people killed in accidents involving mobiles.

It's still hypocritical in terms of excusing yourself from break the law.

Then explain to me the reaction of most of the forum to devolving the power to issue on the spot fines for RLJ to council officers in Westminster?

I obviously cant speak for others on the forum, but personally i take issue with the increasing devolvement of legal powers to "officials", such as pcso's and council officers who will be signifacantly less well trained than a police officer, rather than with the actual fine itself.

The parallel I am trying to draw attention to is that we as cyclists saw a crackdown on RLJ as inimical to us as cyclists.

that's just normal really, people tend to complain when they get caught doing something they shouldn't do.

I obviously cant speak for others on the forum, but personally i take issue with the increasing devolvement of legal powers to "officials", such as pcso's and council officers who will be signifacantly less well trained than a police officer, rather than with the actual fine itself.

good point, I think most of the complaints about in that thread where on this subject, it's defiantly what I feel most nervous about.

I obviously cant speak for others on the forum, but personally i take issue with the increasing devolvement of legal powers to "officials", such as pcso's and council officers who will be signifacantly less well trained than a police officer, rather than with the actual fine itself.

You mean we are complaining that we might be treated in the same way as car drivers?

The most common way to get "caught" for speeding is by a machine- no police involvment.

Can we as cyclists not accept equal treatment?

It ia after all not a taxing situation- rather cut and dried as you either go through on red or you don't/exceed the speed limit or not.

It is hypocritical however I would not say the two are equal in terms of risk / danger. If you had the same number of people catching car driving offenses (mobile phones say) then per pound I would expect the risk drop to be greater because of number of peole killed by bike vs people killed in accidents involving mobiles.

It's still hypocritical in terms of excusing yourself from break the law.

Find an RLJ thread and change the offence from RLJ to speeding- I guarantee you that the arguments and sentiments for RLJing cyclists and speeding motorists are 100% identical.

• I made sure it was safe/it was safe to do it
  
• there was no one else around/coming (the other way)
  
• everyone else does it and they're ok/almost unsafe not too
  
• everyone knows that rule is silly, I don't feel like I'm breaking the law really- it's not the same as mugging an old lady is it?
  
• etc
  

Find an RLJ thread and change the offence from RLJ to speeding- I guarantee you that the arguments and sentiments for RLJing cyclists and speeding motorists are 100% identical.

• I made sure it was safe
  
• there was no one else around/coming (the other way)
  
• everyone else does it and they're ok/almost unsafe not too
  
• everyone knows that rule is silly, I don't feel like I'm breaking the law really- it's not the same as mugging an old lady is it?
  
• etc
  
  

I never said the argument was not the same but that the risk was not the same.

But again- both sides will make the same argument about the risk.

Does this sound familiar?

• it's just a way for the council to make money
  
  

Was that a cyclist or a motorist?

To a motorist exceeding the speed limit in certain circumstances is not a dangerous activity

To a cyclist going through a red light in certain circumstances is not a dangerous activity.

Point out to either the cyclist or the motorist that it can be dangerous and the response will be the same:

• might be when other people do it, not me though, I'm always careful
  

You know that, I don't.

when you're in the car with him, you know he's a 'safe' driver.

when I'm on my bike and the car overtook me 5-7mph over the limit, even if he gave me some room, I'd think "fucking hell, slow down you twat".

he may be a safe driver going over the limit, but it won't win the heart of other commuters.

Moot.

you can be safe without needing to jump red light.

I really doubt you'd be able to tell.

None of those arguments would justify the risk being the same.

When I am referring to risk I am referring to risk of serious injury or death. I agree the argument regarding the justification but it does not take away the fact that the danger involved with one is much greater than then other and over a longer time making the overall risk much greater. This is how decision of what the level of legislation and type of action tobe undertaken should be. If something has a low over all Expected risk (combination of probability of success / failure, duration and frequency) then it does not deserve the same level of attention as something with an overall much higher overall level of expected risk.

This is not to say either side has a good reason for breaking the law but what I am saying is that, consequences / fines / enforcement effort should be much greater for one than the other.

I really doubt you'd be able to tell.

No quite right, that was more of an estimation than me cycling with a speed camera strapped to my back.

or do you mean not being able to tell between a car doing 30mph and a car doing 35-37mph?

We have no maximum speed limit, when they tried to limit us to 60 (we have no motor.dual carriage ways) the police actively discouraged it.

Yes, it would have been detrimental to our tourist industry but if you are driving in a non restricted area at 50 or 100 and the police deem that it was unsuitable for the conditions, then the book will be thrown. It's easier for them to prove dangerous/reckless driving this way.

Driving to slowly causes accidents too.

None of those arguments would justify the risk being the same.

When I am referring to risk I am referring to risk of serious injury or death. I agree the argument regarding the justification but it does not take away the fact that the danger involved with one is much greater than then other and over a longer time making the overall risk much greater. This is how decision of what the level of legislation and type of action tobe undertaken should be. If something has a low over all Expected risk (combination of probability of success / failure, duration and frequency) then it does not deserve the same level of attention as something with an overall much higher overall level of expected risk.

This is not to say either side has a good reason for breaking the law but what I am saying is that, consequences / fines / enforcement effort should be much greater for one than the other.

And never the twain shall meet.

Motorists will never accept that you are speaking the truth about the danger inherent in exceeding the speed limit.

In much the same way that cyclists will never accept that there is any danger in RLJing.

Anyway, enough of this, I'm boring myself now.

I am excepting danger on both sides I'm just not excepting equivalence of danger, which seems to me what you are proposing. Is that right?

We have no maximum speed limit, when they tried to limit us to 60 (we have no motor.dual carriage ways) the police actively discouraged it.

Yes, it would have been detrimental to our tourist industry but if you are driving in a non restricted area at 50 or 100 and the police deem that it was unsuitable for the conditions, then the book will be thrown. It's easier for them to prove dangerous/reckless driving this way.

I can see how that may work on the IOM because of the lack of dual carriage ways and the size of the population and lower overall crime rate.

Driving to slowly causes accidents too.

of course possible but not significant enough a problem otherwise there would be more attention drawn towards it.

I'd agree that they're probably better than the drivers over here, is it true that they have different speed limits for wet & dry weather? I heard that a while back and think it's a great idea.

They probably think it is a rubbish idea as they are all so skilled that they can handle high speed in any circumstances, except of the course the "con" next to them who should not be on the road.

The French always hate being told what to do, especially the seatbelt law.

I can see how that may work on the IOM because of the lack of dual carriage ways and the size of the population and lower overall crime rate.

of course possible but not significant enough a problem otherwise there would be more attention drawn towards it.

It works. The only problem is the lack of consistency with sentencing (universal?).

Checks school tie..................bollocks.

The French always hate being told what to do, especially the seatbelt law.

Should have seen the fuss they kicked up over the smoking ban!

I am excepting danger on both sides I'm just not excepting equivalence of danger, which seems to me what you are proposing. Is that right?

I'm not talking about the actual danger- I'm talking about perception of danger, which I'd say was identical for motorists and cyclists, yet each thinks the other to be a lethal lunatic for speeding/RLJing.

They probably think it is a rubbish idea as they are all so skilled that they can handle high speed in any circumstances, except of the course the "con" next to them who should not be on the road.

You just made my point:

They probably think it is a rubbish idea as they are all so skilled that they can handle jumping a red light in any circumstances, except of the course the "con" next to them who should not be on the road.

I think that part of the bad feeling about the rlj crackdown is that it is not something which is going to actually lead to a reduction in road fatalities and that the resources could be used elsewhere.

Arguably, if the po po decided to crack down on speeding, it may lead to less deaths on the road. When fatalities number in the thousands, ticketing cyclists seems like a waste of time and money.

ticketing cyclists seems like a waste of time and money.
To you, yes. But to the motorist who sees cyclists flouting the law every time they obediently stop at a red light, no.

Edit: Sorry to misqute you there, the point you make is a good one. But the quoted section seems to be a view held by many.

Ok then a quick recap. I don't have the patience to go and quote a bunch of older posts but here goes.

Although this has been compared on a like for like basis rightly or wrongly, bicycle RLJing and motor vehicle speeding are not comparable in any shape or form. A speeding motor vehicle has more to much more embodied energy than a motor vehicle maintaining the speed limit, depending on by how much the speed limit is exceeded by. This is potentially endangering other road users, as motor vehicles are relatively heavy, therefore the energy embodied in them when in motion is very large.

An RLJing cyclist has very low embidied energy and is, bar pedestrians (a low risk of injury or death there to the ped I might add) , only endangering themselves by potentially being hit by one of these motor vehicles with a large embodied energy.

A 1 ton plus motor vehicle does not match a 60kg plus cyclist and bicycle.

Drivers and how good they are, judging road conditions etc. Everyone has a bad day, there is always someone who pushes the envelope too far, is a complete dickhead, is completely clueless, is not thinking, so tired they fall asleep, drunk, is having marriage break-up, is coked up to the eyeballs - life and society basically. These problems people have get taken behind the wheel and will manifest themselves in crashes and the higher the speed, the more likely any mishap, mistake, risky manouvre etc is going to end up a crash, or at the very least a more serious one - due to the large amount of embodied energy in the motor vehicle.

There would appear to be a bunch of statistics related to speed as a factor in motor vehicle crashes saying it is a relatively insignificant factor. After an example crash happened, and as in a lot of cases there were no impartial witnesses, who was asked what speed they were doing? The driver in question. "I was doing 30mph officer, as that's the speed limit. Yes Sir, please Sir, 3 bags full Sir." Everyone is always going to say they were doing the speed limit. Drink drivers always swear they only had 2 drinks. Even if they can't stand up. Your not going to admit an offence when you might get away with it, right? Even with all the crash forensics etc, they will never know exactly what happened. There are so many physical factors and the cops weren't there to see it. The speeds will only be estimated or taken in statements from the drivers. So therefore you end up with a set of statistics that are bogus to some degree, and as such cannot be fully relied upon.

I don't really see how anyone can argue against this point - Speeding is inherently dangerous due to the physics involved. They cannot be disputed. Then there is the issue of there being a standard human reaction time before taking evasive action against an incedent ahead. Speeding means there is less effective time to take evasive action as you arrive faster to said incedent. All this coupled with the human and society factors mean that speed limits are needed and need to be enforced. Thus, a 20 mph speed limit in a built up area can only be a good idea, and all arguements against are baseless blatant fallacies.

Then explain to me the reaction of most of the forum to devolving the power to issue on the spot fines for RLJ to council officers in Westminster?

A bit of a poor choice of thread to highlight forum anti-car sentiment. 82 posts by 36 separate people doesn't really constitute most of the forum. Furthermore the majority of posts seemed to be about devolution of powers of law enforcement and proportionality of activity. There was pointed item against drivers but it was well directed, factual and responding to a particular issue and motivation of policy rather than being anti-car. I can't hope to explain the reactions of 36 individuals acting outside of a mob construct but I feel fairly confident that in general it was not an anti-car thread.

There are definitely some thread out there which demonstrate a higher anti-car sentiment, albeit not without their own justifications including, but not limited to, environmental issues, a core culture of automotive related egotism and a perceptible decline in driving standards. Again, it is hard to equate this as anti-car but anti poor choice of car usage, anti-shit driving and anti-driver arrogance. If anything I would say that this forum is, if not actually pro-car, remarkably car tolerant.

I'll definitely mirror Tommy's sentiments (thanks for all the hard work, I was being a lazy slob last night) and others. I also think you're wrong the position of equitability of risk and proportionality of response.

People are arguing against a point that I have not made.

Using me as an example (and in response to Hoonz), bike and rider weight in at around 90 kg's, car and driver weigh in at around 1,700 kg's.

I would say that anyone in their right mind would prefer to be hit by bike + rider rather than car + driver. In London I am normally faster on the bike than I am in the car- but that's another issue.

What I have been trying to point out is that the perception of speeding to a driver and RLJ'ing to a cyclist are identical, and exactly the same arguments are trotted out for each.