Cyclists stopped by police Wed morning - SE15

[Nigello]

Two police officers were stopping cyclists where Rye Lane begins (opposite the library/arch), and where lots of cyclists ride on the pavement. It looked like they were issuing fines.

Cyclists tend to get to the end of the (admittedly naff/camouflaged) cycle lane and then not follow the curved bit but dash across the pedestrian bit but the police were having none of it.

[dirac]

This sort of negative policing toward cycling is really counter productive in my opinion. Such a dick move as it's really confusing what's meant to happen there, because you are allowed to cross that pedestrian crossing. The whole section is a clusterfuck of pedestrians, prams, shopping trolleys and all sorts of crazy things you see on rye lane which only adds to the confusion.

I saw the same thing happening on the newly opened segregated cycle lane back from Blackfriars one night: it was in a part that is completely industrial buildings and there was a red light at a bike crossing. No one was in sight, let alone going to cross the 1 meter section of cycle lane; it was well past midnight, you know like the dead of night sort of thing. The police were watching the few cyclists slow down at the line and then go through it. At which point 5 coppers would jump out, take them out of sight of the cycle lane and fine them, with more waiting to catch the next one to come along. Luckily I stopped and didn't just carry on like I normally would so had no problem, even though they did look ruefully toward me. Yes yes I know rules are rules and all that crap, but no harm would ever come of that particular situation; no one was gunning it through the lights or anything. To think there were 5-10 cops about made me feel it was a waste of time and they could probably be out policing real crimes in the area.

Great way to raise some money I reckon, that's all.

[rendelharris]

Nigello Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Two police officers were stopping cyclists where

> Rye Lane begins (opposite the library/arch), and

> where lots of cyclists ride on the pavement. It

> looked like they were issuing fines.

> Cyclists tend to get to the end of the (admittedly

> naff/camouflaged) cycle lane and then not follow

> the curved bit but dash across the pedestrian bit

> but the police were having none of it.

Thanks for the heads-up...I never use that cycle lane anyway but carry on round the road and up Bellenden Road, simply because it's so poorly designed it's always full of pedestrians and then down Rye Lane nobody really knows what bit's for cyclists and what's not.

Still, good to know that the boys in blue have got their priorities straight, not as if nearly 10% of cars in SE London are being driven without any insurance...

[Passiflora]

Nigello Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Two police officers were stopping cyclists where

> Rye Lane begins (opposite the library/arch), and

> where lots of cyclists ride on the pavement. It

> looked like they were issuing fines.

> Cyclists tend to get to the end of the (admittedly

> naff/camouflaged) cycle lane and then not follow

> the curved bit but dash across the pedestrian bit

> but the police were having none of it.

Maybe pedestrians have been knocked down by cyclists dashing across the pedestrian bit?

So something needs to be done.

[JoeLeg]

Personally if they're going after cyclists (which I agree is probably not the best use of police resources) I'd rather they found a way to get guys like the one who went through two red lights at the crossroads of Peckham Rye and East Dulwich Rd while the green man was showing and I was crossing with my six year old kid and ripped past us at high speed.

When I yelled at him that he'd gone through red lights he just yelled back that he didn't care. Classy.

And yes, I know that cyclists are a lot less dangerous than cars in general, but at that moment it didn't seem so.

I'm all for increasing cycling in London. I'm all for pragmatic and reasonable policing towards cyclists. But when I experience lunacy like jumping red lights it makes me less sympathetic to other 'indescretions'.

But I admit I might be influenced by my kid nearly getting knocked down at what is already a dangerous junction.

[alice]

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1624090,page=1

an excellent suggestion was made in a previous thread

[rendelharris]

alice Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?2

> 0,1624090,page=1

>

> an excellent suggestion was made in a previous

> thread

No Alice, it wasn't an excellent suggestion (how big is your ego, by the way?!) and most people who posted disagreed with it. I particularly liked one very succinct response:

alice Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have had a great idea. but would it be popular?

No you haven't. No it wouldn't.

[rendelharris]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Personally if they're going after cyclists (which

> I agree is probably not the best use of police

> resources) I'd rather they found a way to get guys

> like the one who went through two red lights at

> the crossroads of Peckham Rye and East Dulwich Rd

> while the green man was showing and I was crossing

> with my six year old kid and ripped past us at

> high speed.

They drive me (more) insane - if you ever see me out on the streets I'm easily identifiable as the mad middle-aged bloke on a bike shouting "red light, you ****" at cyclists who ride by me as I wait for the lights to turn green. I'm all for police nicking them (though not in the ridiculous circumstances outlined by Dirac above). However, this sounds more like a sting operation by police to catch people crossing five yards of pavement at a stupidly designed intersection.

[titch juicy]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JoeLeg Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Personally if they're going after cyclists

> (which

> > I agree is probably not the best use of police

> > resources) I'd rather they found a way to get

> guys

> > like the one who went through two red lights at

> > the crossroads of Peckham Rye and East Dulwich

> Rd

> > while the green man was showing and I was

> crossing

> > with my six year old kid and ripped past us at

> > high speed.

>

> They drive me (more) insane - if you ever see me

> out on the streets I'm easily identifiable as the

> mad middle-aged bloke on a bike shouting "red

> light, you ****" at cyclists who ride by me as I

> wait for the lights to turn green. I'm all for

> police nicking them (though not in the ridiculous

> circumstances outlined by Dirac above). However,

> this sounds more like a sting operation by police

> to catch people crossing five yards of pavement at

> a stupidly designed intersection.

I have seen you and applaud you.

[P.O.U.S.theWonderCat]

" Yes yes I know rules are rules and all that crap, but no harm would ever come of that particular situation; no one was gunning it through the lights or anything."

It's this attitude that fosters dangerous road use by both vehicles and cycles. Rules are rules. End of.

[TheArtfulDogger]

Rendleharris wrote

>>Still, good to know that the boys in blue have got their priorities straight, not as if nearly 10% of cars in SE London are being driven without any insurance...

True but it's a case of targeting groups in small batches rather then trying to solve all crime across the capital in one go. This week cyclists breaking the rules, maybe next week uninsured drivers... Sadly the police are stretched thin and it's a case of targeted operations, normally following a complaint from the public or a directive from higher up...

Personally I think it's a good thing to target cyclist as their light jumping antics will get one of them Killed one day soon and then who gets the blame ? The cyclist for jumping the light, the driver for hitting s cyclist or the police for not enforcing the rules ?

[titch juicy]

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> " Yes yes I know rules are rules and all that

> crap, but no harm would ever come of that

> particular situation; no one was gunning it

> through the lights or anything."

>

> It's this attitude that fosters dangerous road use

> by both vehicles and cycles. Rules are rules.

> End of.

Not only that, but it antagonises people and further harms the reputation of cyclists as a larger group.

[Earl Aelfheah]

The cyclist, if they jumped a light.

[DaveR]

There are lots of discussions on here about particular streets, junctions, crossings etc. and one thing that is clear is that perception of risk and historical statistical risk are often very different - lots of near misses and not feeling safe generally does not necessarily correlate with actual accident numbers. Just using accident data, I suspect any enforcement exercise targeting cyclists would be less efficient than almost any comparable exercise targeting motorists. On the other hand, it's never going to be helpful if one section of road users are essentially immune from enforcement - there needs to be some deterrent.

So, some targeted enforcement activity specifically in relation to cyclists is probably a good thing, to make people actually safer, and so that they feel safer. The problem with doing it at this junction is that (as already observed) the underlying problem is the design and layout, so handing out tickets for a week or two is unlikely to achieve anything much at all.

[Blah Blah]

The the condition of the cycle lane is terrible - it's falling apart with missing kerbs stones filled in with tarmac. The whole thing is poorly designed, including the lampost that sits right in the middle of the start of the lane from the crossing. When you put lanes on pavement as shared space, you encourage cyclists to share the whole space.

[Nigello]

I think the best thing is to redesign that bit of Rye Lane and get rid of the hardly-visible cycle path, or refit it with a kerb so that it is seen only as a cycle lane. That area is confusing to pedestrians, some of whom I have seen apologetically get out of the way of speeding cyclists, thinking wheels have priority!

(On a separate note, having a child on the back of your bike or chaperoning them does not allow parents the right to cycle on footpaths, which will confound a fair few mummies and daddies.)

[alice]

commuter cyclists in a pedestrianised area does not work. Couldn't they track it through the bus station somehow

[rendelharris]

alice Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> commuter cyclists in a pedestrianised area does

> not work. Couldn't they track it through the bus

> station somehow

It's not a pedestrianised area, it's a bus and cycle only road - it's badly designed and needs sorting out but Rye Lane is not a pedestrian only area.

[Henry_17]

I would prefer to see them tackle the persistent loiterers who congregate in the area drinking high strength larger and seemingly only able to communicate in swear. Also one of the "shops" on the other side constantly noise pollutes, one can't even make out what the ludicrous sounding lyrics are, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were vulgar and similarly influencing any passing impressionable youngsters in an undesirable manner.

[malumbu]

Lucky me. Been on holiday for a week so missed being tugged by the OB. They have done this in the past. Yes we are a bit naughty but in the scale of things it is pretty near the bottom. The Council people were out doing it the other day so I told them to be useful and stop the pedestrians aimlessly walking across the cycle lane. But at the end of the day it is not a bad route and I never witness any rancour between pedestrians and cyclists (more likely to get bike on bike).

Now, I'd already started thinking about more pressing issues before looking at the post above. But why don't they do more useful things like... catch criminals.... of more relevant do a few fines for cyclists without lights. Ideally a warning first for idiots like me who at this time of year forget that the nights are drawing in.

They could also do the buses for mounting the cycle lanes and the numerous double line parkers.

And those idiots on quad bikes and motorbikes.

And the people who bloke the path by the library selling stuff or doing God bothering.

And every other miscreant whilst they are at it.

This started as a gentle post and now I've become Angry of Mayfair. And I was so chilled after my hols too...

[rendelharris]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But why don't they do more useful things like...

> catch criminals.... of more relevant do a few

> fines for cyclists without lights. Ideally a

> warning first for idiots like me who at this time

> of year forget that the nights are drawing in.

Second that in spades, the number of people in dark clothing on expensive bikes with black helmets who can't be bothered to spend ?10 on a couple of flashing LEDs...suicidal. Noticed my rear light battery had expired the other day, late at night, walked nearly a mile until I reached Greendale cycle path, not from any sense of virtue but because I don't want to end my days as a chalk outline on the South Circular...

[Annasfield]

That bit at the bottom of the lane is ridiculous. It just doesn't flow, which makes it tempting to cut the corner.

As has been said, the "cycle lane" itself needs marking out and also repairing. I had no idea you could cycle there until I actually started riding. I'd happily walk along the pavement/path without realising.

Understand it needs sorting, but I'd be better if they listened to calls to them re men in cars deliberately driving towards cyclists threatening to knock them down!!

[malumbu]

I've ranted about the cycle lane before - even if it was bright orange I am sure that it wouldn't make a difference. But to be fair I've walked into other cycle lanes in the past as it doesn't seem to be in our culture, for example like Denmark and the Netherlands.

As for the kink at the end, it is a pain and does't flow, but then nor does that daft contraflow/gyratory at the Elephant. My main point is that I've not seen any bother between cyclsts and pedestrians in Peckham beyond the odd middle class do-gooder campaigns about our speeds on the canal path. The only conflict I had was when another cyclist got so close to me I clipped a pedestrian - I was the only one bothered as I wished the other cyclist a nice day. Not.

Given up on the damage. Road is too narrow so buses mount the cycle path. Raised it with Southwark but their reply was "am I bothered"

I'd defend cyclists to the hilt but then realised that it seemed to be cool to wear black, on a black bike with no lights.

[binkylilyput]

Ooh, ooh, thanks for the heads up! I find that bit tricky to negotiate- having inched my way through the pedestrians and other bikes at the crossing I admit I often then find my way over the path to the cycle path bit as to follow the cycle path around seemed very awkward. I didn't know I was doing a crime!

I find Rye Lane can be a bit of a minefield with pedestrians, other cyclists (generally more scary than the pedestrians as they weave around me and over take me with little space), motorists and buses.

I take it very slowly and constantly watch for people stepping out, particularly in amongst parked buses.

If the cycle path was painted green like the rest of it that would help pedestrians be more aware maybe? Before I started cycling I was guilty of walking out in the way of cyclists as I hadn't anticipated they would be coming down there.