PCSO's stopping and fining cyclists (on ED Road)

[Ted Max]

I don't think there's a party line that says you can't use your car for a long journey at off peak times where no viable public transport alternative exists.

But you keep sticking it to The Man, Tony.Woman Magnet.

[Zebedee Tring]

blinder999 Wrote:

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

> what do you think pedestrians who step into the

> road in front of cyclists without looking say?

> From experience, I can tell you it's "Eff off you

> cyclist @#$%&"

I deplore that sort of behaviour as well. I do try to be consistent.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Ted Max Wrote:

But you keep sticking it to The Man, Tony.Woman Magnet.

Now THIS I like..maybe it should be TonyWM Not TonyLS in future!

It will be a "given" what the "WM" is short for...::o

[Tony.London Suburbs]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

Tone, love.. what does any of that unfortunate side-effect of living in the sticks have to do with PCSOs?

Nuffink if Da Truth be told Boss.:-$.....thinking this fred was about "Cycling/Modes of preferred Transport" not about the "PCSO's" which,of course,it DID start life as..:))

Police Community Support Officers are the eyea and ears of The Metroplitan Police...

Sorry about the spelling of eyea but my eyea are beginning to struggle with small print now..

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Ted Max Wrote:

But you keep sticking it to The Man..

Ironical that you encompass the term "The Man" as when reading the much deserved eulogies thrust upon you by ED's cognescenti its crystal clear that there is only one worthy recipient of the affectionate term "The Man" and its you Gungedin!B)

[Administrator]

Please stay on topic

[DaveR]

"If you dont' ride on the pavement, don't jump red lights, don't let your dogs crap where children play, don't drop litter, don't drive your car just because you can, and don't attack the people trying to uphold the laws we create.... you'll be happier!"

What's the point of comparing these activities? Cyclists ride on pavements and/or jump red lights which is (i) illegal and (ii) happens in lots of different circumstances with lots of different potential and actual consequences. Dogs crap, and dog owners exercise varying degrees of care and control - whether it is an offence will depend on a myriad of circumstances. Dropping litter is a simple, deliberate wrong. Driving a car is neither illegal nor inherently wrong, but driving in a certain way or in certain circumstances may be either or both.

When people say - "it's the law" - it conveniently ignores the fact that no state has ever sought to enforce all it's laws, and certainly not in an absolute way, and the public know and expect that discretion will be exercised. It's no answer to the charge that, for instance, PCSOs stopping and fining cyclists indiscriminately at a particular place and time is disproportionate and likely to be ineffective in securing the desired outcome i.e. pedestrian safety. "Trying to uphold the laws we create" is something that can be done well or badly, and when it is done badly people are right to be critical.

[Huguenot]

It's probably me DaveR, but I find your objections weasely.

It's not about the law, it's about your responsibilities. Chuntering on about about the PCSOs is offering dinner party support to twonks who will commit escalating crimes in your name.

The point about your niggling is that it doesn't make anyone want to help you. The PCSOs (and by extension the police) are pursuing strategies that have been proven in numerous case studies to cut crime, even if you're not informed enough to be aware of it.

Instead your position degrades public service and lowers the application rate from high quality recruits. You'll end up with the services that you deserve, and they won't be good.

[david_carnell]

It happens so rarely I need to highlight it.

Huguenot - I could not agree more.

You, sir, are on fire.

[lard]

If you believe that every single law should be enforced at every single opportunity without any discretion, or that the police never make any mistakes on an individual level in enforcing all these laws, then you really will get the services and the nation you deserve.

Life isn't black and white, merely different shades of grey.

DaveR is merely stating that some discretion should be allowed in differing circumstances. Not every crime classified on paper deserves the same punishment.

It's not weasely, it is just common sense.

The discussion seems to be going round in circles..so I'm going to leave it by pointing you to the video of the pcso officers riding on the pavement.

[PeckhamRose]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, that cyclists know that when they come off in a smack they will get hurt. They "jump" red lights when they know they will be able to safely get across. They are seen to do so a lot which merely highlights what I honestly believe is the case that there are too many traffic lights in London. That is the issue, not the fact cyclists jump them. I am not a cyclist. PCSOs should concentrate their activities on street crime where they can. Littering and drug dealing and theft and kids bullying and dog fouling and stuff like that where people can be hurt and suffer.

[DaveR]

Huguenot,

You refer to "strategies that have been proven in numerous case studies to cut crime, even if you're not informed enough to be aware of it"

I would be grateful for references - I never like to be ill-informed.

Re the distinction between law and "responsibilities" - the former is at least objectively discernible, the latter merely the product of the particular views/prejudices of the individual seeking to apportion them. You, for example, think people have a responsibility not to "drive your car just because you can". Many might disagree with you.

[Huguenot]

Ah, the old 'everything is relative so nothing is wrong' argument.

I don't suffer from such moral flexibility I'm afraid. Anything that deliberately puts another person at a disadavantage for personal gain falls into my naughty naughty book. There are degrees of malfeasance of course, but screwing with the global ecology because you can't be bothered to walk to the newsagent is pretty stinky.

Logically you can only argue otherwise either by elevating your own petty indulgences over the impact on third parties, or by supporting a reductionist approach to the impact your actions have. The former is known as being a selfish b@stard, to embrace the latter you'd need to be stupid or in denial.

Famous case studies of Zero-Tolerance can be found in examples such as New York. From 1993 to 1997 (and subsequent to the ZT policy) the number of felony complaints in New York City dropped by 44.3 percent: a 60.2 percent drop in murders and nonnegligent homicides, a 12.4 percent drop in forcible rape, a 48.4 percent drop in robbery, and a 45.7 drop in burglary.

Zero tolerance has also been successfully applied in schools and work-places and you'll find plenty of other case studies.

"In the end, those kids who receive less than firm, fair, and consistent discipline end up being taught that there are no consequences for inappropriate --- and sometimes illegal --- behavior"

I fully expect someone to come up with a ridiculous and unworkable example of zero-tolerance to prove that it doesn't work. That's part of the weasely thing ;-) Zero tolerance wouldn't even need to be discussed if we took responsibility for our own actions.

[DaveR]

Huguenot, you're quoting "zero tolerance" in relation to the marketing of outsourcing services to prove a point in relation to law enforcement and/or social responsibility? The zero-tolerance policy famously adopted by the NYPD did not mean zero discretion; rather it involved consistent enforcement against low-level offending where previously there had been none.

It's nothing to do with moral relativity, and everything to do with adopting the most effective approach to changing behaviour. I'm no expert but a reasonable starting point in terms of current theory might be the Hampton Review of Regulatory Enforcement, which, whilst primarily aimed at the regulation of businesses nevertheless has been widely adopted by all manner of regulatory agencies. In particular it advocates a risk-based approach to enforcement (which seems to have been adopted in the City where cyclists jumping red lights (inherently more dangerous) got fines but those riding on the pavement generally got warnings).

"Anything that deliberately puts another person at a disadavantage for personal gain falls into my naughty naughty book. There are degrees of malfeasance of course, but screwing with the global ecology because you can't be bothered to walk to the newsagent is pretty stinky. "

That's my point - your book, your rules, your prejudices. Is that needless trip to the shops still a sin if it's raining, or if I've got to take my kid who will whinge all the way there and back if we walk, or if I'm intending to buy a few things that will be a bit heavy? Where do you draw the line, H, and why should I or anyone else care? It's not unlawful so how is it relevant to the subject of this thread? Might it just be "dinner party twonkery"?

[Huguenot]

It's moral relativity if you reckon that disadvantaging someone else for personal gain is a question of perspective.

As you well know I was using zero tolerance as an example of targeting low level behaviours to achieve more substantial purpose. I'm pleased to see both that you agree with me, and have employed such a quality debating strategy to imply that you don't.

I'm also impressed that you recognise that strategies of fining cyclists for illegal and/or risky behviour pays dividends. I remain in your debt for sourcing your own case study. ;-)

As for where the line lies, tragically I have no idea. However, secretly in our heart of hearts, we know when we're doing it don't we? The more we know it, the louder we bray our denials.

However, attacking 'whinging' pedestrians (and the legal system that protects them) for being endangered by the use of vehicles on the pavement is definitely on the wrong side of it.

[DaveR]

No attacks on pedestrians from me - and if the fining of cyclists riding on pavements was based on evidence of endangerment (or even likely endangerment in the particular circumstances) we wouldn't be having this debate.

If you go through a red light and get fined you can't complain, because a red light is unambiguous and needs to be unambiguous for an effective road safety policy. Cycling on the pavement is different and was recognised as such when the relevant legislation was introduced - see Home Office/ACPO quotes on page 2 or 3 of this thread.

PS - disadvantaging someone else for personal gain is always a matter of perspective - it's the difference between trade and theft.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

DaveR for Mayor!!

[Huguenot]

Chav - I was always under the impression that property was theft for you, is that a support network with the opposition that you're forging? A strange alliance in these strange days.

Once again DaveR, for supporting the cause, many thanks. I should add that it is the very nature of road traffic accidents that those involved thought that their actions weren't threatening anyone. 3,000 dead last year at the hands of those who erroneously decided there was no evidence of endangerment.

That's why we legislate to minimise risk, and to ensure confidence that we're all playing from the same rulebook. Saves lives.

Im aware that some of us struggle to empathise with the human cost, so in terms we may be more familar with, road traffic accidents have an estimated cost to the economy of GBP 8bn annually (the Audit Commission). The campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan cost around GBP 1bn annually.

Think what wonderful schools and hospitals we could have if we didn't cycle on the blinkin' pavement!

Hence those who support upholding road safety legislation are demonstrating the most enlightened self interest. It will make you rich, rich I tell you!

... and for those who don't, you'll be the poorer for it ;-)

[RosieH]

Huguenot for Mayor!!

[DaveR]

I'll have one last go.

It is an offence to display a red light at the front of your vehicle (don't ask me why). The relevant legislation provides for a fine, and allows a fixed penalty to be imposed. However, police policy is to give a verbal warning, because although this is a road safety issue, they recognise that this is a low risk infraction. What the driver thinks is irrelevant - the enforcer decides. In this case, most would agree it is the right decision.

In other circumstances, the risk and hence the seriousness of the infraction depends on the circumstances. Speeding is a good example. In those now rare cases where you are stopped by the police rather than being caught on camera, you might get anything from a verbal warning to an arrest. The penalty legislation also allows a discretion as to whether points are endorsed or not, and even as we speak (type?) fixed penalty procedures are being reconsidered to give effect to this.

Discretionary enforcement is nothing to do with moral relativity, dinner parties, saving the world, or Afghanistan. A failure by an enforcement authority (or indeed any public authority) to exercise discretion properly may makes its actions unlawful. The most obvious example of a failure is the absence of a policy which takes into account relevant factors. If you treat someone cycling the length of Lordship Lane on a Saturday afternoon the same as someone who nips onto the pavement to avoid getting stuck alongside a bus at a junction, either you don't have such a policy or it is not being applied properly.

In both human and economic terms risk management now underpins almost every important decision. To use your example, how much of the ?8 billion cost and how many of the 3,000 lives will be saved by fining cyclists who ride on the pavement in circumstances where there is no apparent objective risk? And at what cost?

[Huguenot]

For sure, DaveR, and it is precisely this discretion that is being applied in this situation.

The junction where the cyclists were targeted is an accident blackspot, carrying wreaths for the victims twice or more a year. It's busy with cars, buses, lorries, cyclists and pedestrians throughout the day, and its role as a nexus for the three villages makes it a hotbed of petty infractions and unpredictable actions with fatal consequences. That includes bikes on pavements.

Your view on the cost of policing petty transgressions makes the point entirely.

I don't view this issue as one of legislation and policing, but one of personal responsibility.

I don't believe that we should educate the next generation that laws are there for when it suits us, or when we might get caught. Instead we should be demonstrating why and how laws are created, how to go about addressing legal issues in a democratic society, and the benefits of a stable and predictable relationship with our neighbours.

I don't believe in slagging of PCSOs and others we employ to help us.

[blinder999]

The reason the PCSOs were there picking on cyclists is simple - very little to do with road safety, the mob just doesn't like cyclists, so the cops send out a hi-viz crowd-pleasing message to them.

It won't have any impact on the ten people dying every day on UK roads, but the Daily Mail readers will be happy, as will the podestrians(involved in 1 in 10 road accidents according to the Telegraph) , any PCSOs offering them advice any time soon? I doubt it)

[Mark]

Blinder999, I believe it's the mob just doesn't like cyclists on pavements, not cyclists as a whole.

[blinder999]

Mark Wrote:

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

> Blinder999, I believe it's the mob just doesn't

> like cyclists on pavements, not cyclists as a

> whole.

I disagree

[Moos]

Isn't that a bit of a silly argument?