Cambridgeshire police commissioner vows to rid roads - and pavements - of "dangerous cyclists"

Promise comes days after County Councillor urges end to divisive bickering over road safety

by Simon_MacMichael   December 31, 2012  

cambridge%20bikes.jpg

Cambridgeshire’s new police commissioner says that one of his priorities is to rid Cambridge of what he terms “dangerous cyclists” ahead of what he believes will be a boom in tourism following a royal visit. Prior to Christmas, a senior councillor at Cambridgeshire City Council had called for a “mature” debate on road safety, rather than what he saw as some motorists and cyclists trying to score points off each other.

In an interview with Cambridge News, former Conservative MP Sir Graham Bright who was elected as the county’s first police commissioner in November, reveals that the pre-Christmas campaign conducted against anti-social cycling which included plain clothes officers being deployed on the streets, was carried out at his behest.

"It was one of the first things I did,” said Sir Graham of the operation, which Cambridge News says resulted in 54 cyclists being ‘caught’ in one night alone.

“During the campaign I had Cambridge Cycling Campaign people after me saying this is something that needs to be addressed,” he went on.

That’s not quite correct. The organisation had mentioned anti-social cycling as part of a wider question put to all candidates in which it asked: “Do you support our view that traffic policing (including fining of cyclists without lights or using pedestrian-only pavements) should become a greater police priority?”

In its questionnaire to candidates for the position of police commissioner, Cambridge Cycling Campaign also said:

In our view, better, safer and more cycling in and around Cambridge requires enforcement of anti-social driving, distracted driving, drunk driving, aggressive driver behaviour, speeding, parking in cycle lanes, etc. We want a police force which has a better understanding of the needs of cyclists in traffic, is well educated about the rights of cyclists, which requires advanced bikeability training for all officers, employs officers on bike patrol to assess and prosecute driver behaviour, is aware of the impact of bike theft, and is explicitly supportive of the bicycle as a means of transport, and helps to educate cyclists about the proper and safe use of the bicycle in traffic. How important would you regard these issues if elected?

Sir Graham’s response to that was:

All these objectives are good and I would like to see the police address them. Most of this is an operational matter which has to be dealt with by the Chief Constable and I would certainly encourage him to address these issues. I would particularly like to see police patrolling Cambridge on bicycles. This has proved quite effective in London. It requires a great deal of education for both cyclist and motorist with a particular emphasis on knowing and obeying the Highway Code.

Returning to the specific police exercise conducted before Christmas, he commented: "It’s operational, so obviously I can’t dictate what will happen, but I had a conversation with the Chief Constable about it and there are some interesting developments on that front that we’ll see more of and I think it’s going to create awareness.

"I think we’ve got to a stage in Cambridge where people have forgotten that cyclists aren’t supposed to cycle on pavements, through red lights and the wrong way up a one-way street which are terribly dangerous – not as dangerous as a car – but if a cyclist hits a child or an elderly person it can be fatal.

"And cyclists also take their own lives in their hands when they cycle without lights. You just have to look at the number of bikes that haven’t got lights in Cambridge and it’s the poor old motorist that gets the blame if they hit one of them,” he added.

"The fantastic visit of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge has really put Cambridge in the spotlight and we can expect more visitors. We want them to see a safe cycling city for both residents and visitors, “ Sir Graham went on.

The city, with attractions including its university colleges, is of course already a major tourist destination and it’s perhaps questionable whether a few headlines and pictures might result in the kind of boost he appears to be anticipating.

Chief Constable Simon Parr backed the police commissioner’s stance, telling Cambridge News: "One of the things Sir Graham spoke to me about was that ringing in his ears right through his campaign in Cambridge was the desire from people for us to do something about cyclists breaking traffic laws.

"As it happened we already had something in stock because the local community had become aware it was a problem.

"It’s not a waste of resources. Officers working on the operation are still available to deal with anything that may come up."

In response to the Cambridge News interview with Sir Graham, Cambridge Cycling Campaign said this evening on its website:

The Campaign supports enforcement, applied in a fair and reasonable manner, of all traffic regulations, for all categories of road user, to reduce conflict and road danger.

Enforcement of the rules is important for all road users. However, the consequences of transgressions by motorists are likely to be far more serious than those by cyclists.

Police resources should in our view be targeted in proportion to the damage and danger created by different types of vehicles. This year there have been 122 cyclists killed around the UK, not to mention scores of other serious collisions. Accordingly, we look forward to hearing what Sir Graham has planned to deal with drivers on mobile phones, those speeding, and how he plans to ensure full redress for those affected by bad driving.

We continue to support the L.I.T. campaign currently being run by the police.

At a meeting of Cambridgeshire County Council’s cabinet shortly before Christmas, Councillor Nick Clarke, who has responsibility for transport in Cambridge, appealed for an end to bickering between some cyclists and other road users over issues related to safety.

“There seems to be a continuing discussion between cyclists and car drivers about who is right and who is wrong, who gets in the way of who and who doesn’t,” he said, quoted on Cambridge News.

“Surely it’s got to be time for society to take a mature approach to this. Everybody on our roads has to be more considerate.

“In order to do that, car drivers have got to think before they turn left at traffic lights and cyclists have got to play their part and give us a chance by having lights on and not going through red lights.

“If this gets raised the wrath of God from the cycling campaign descends on us. What we need are considerate, safe drivers of all vehicles on our roads so we can further drive down accidents.”

Councillor Martin Curtis, who was last year appointed as Cambridge County Council’s first cycling tsar, told the meeting that Cambridge Cycling Campaign already encouraged cyclists to ride within the law, such as ensuring that they displayed lights when required to do so.

In response, Councillor Clarke acknowledged that his criticism was meant for some individuals, rather than Cambridge Cycling Campaign as a whole, which isn't quite what his words suggested, something noted by the organsiation itself on its blog.

Councillor Curtis commented: “There seems to be this huge divide between motorists and cyclists, but 90 per cent of cyclists own a car.

“We have to get somewhere in the middle to move forward.”

Cambridge Cycling Campaign itself backed Councillor Clarke’s comments, with a spokesman reiterating that it had “consistently called for exactly the kind of balanced approach” that he is appealing for.

20 user comments

Oldest firstNewest firstBest rated

Cycling the wrong way up one way streets is not "terribly dangerous". Where does that come from? Cambridge has opened up a number of one way streets to two way cycling, and I'm not aware that they are dangerous.

Interesting to read what Graham Bright said in the Cycling Campaign's election survey.

Quote:
Q: What experience do you have of cycling in the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough area? A: The only cycling I do in Cambridgeshire is in my village to go to the local shop. I used to be a keen cyclist but am not happy in traffic.

So I guess he won't be cycling on the roads next to where pavement cyclists have been prosecuted. Far too dangerous.

two wheels good; four wheels bad

posted by cat1commuter [1270 posts]
31st December 2012 - 17:54

like this
Like (0)

"Dangerous" driving kills or seriously injures other people.

Cycling on pavements, up one way streets, running red lights etc is wrong but it is extremely rare that it kills or seriously injures someone. "Anti-social cycling" is a fair description, "dangerous cycling" is scaremongering and jumping on a Daily Mail bandwagon.

I have no problem with anti-social cycling being tackled, but surely his priorities are completely warped if this comes ahead of tackling dangerous behaviour on the roads.

CraigS's picture

posted by CraigS [135 posts]
31st December 2012 - 18:18

like this
Like (0)

If this initiative is part of an even handed attempt to improve road safety then I think it's fair enough. If he's just targeting irresponsible cyclists and doing nothing to bring bad drivers to account then it's very one-sided especially as we're the ones having our lives regularly put in danger.

Perhaps the police could clamp down on drivers who overtake a cyclist approaching a bend or with oncoming traffic, then pull in sharply before they have completely passed. That would save a few lives for sure as it happens a lot. I expect it is harder to police this kind of offence than it is to stop kids riding on pavements - you would probably need a few plain clothes police on road bikes with helmet cams. Is this guy really after road safety or just trying to impress the anti-cycling lobby and further his own career by going for soft targets?

posted by Jon [34 posts]
31st December 2012 - 18:24

like this
Like (0)

Oh gawd - Cambridgeshire police, now with added nuts.

posted by a.jumper [582 posts]
31st December 2012 - 18:33

like this
Like (0)

It is disturbing that these people implement policies even when reality is not on their side.

Still smiling politely at a persistently flat chain.

velophilia's picture

posted by velophilia [37 posts]
31st December 2012 - 19:49

like this
Like (0)

Good to see. Hope more cities follow this example.

posted by andyp [461 posts]
31st December 2012 - 20:46

like this
Like (0)

Instead of police commissioner add "numb nuts with politically motivated stupid ideas".

Not wanted, not needed, just more govt interference. Angry

Stumpy

posted by stumps [2058 posts]
31st December 2012 - 21:36

like this
Like (0)

At least this Police Commissioner has done something, even if it is a bit pathetic. Mine is keeping his head well down and has not answered any of my emails. I agree with Stumps above; I have no idea what a Police Commissioner does or why we need one Thinking

posted by SideBurn [682 posts]
31st December 2012 - 22:17

like this
Like (0)

stumps wrote:
Not wanted, not needed, just more govt interference. Angry

Police is a tool of government, so that's rather unavoidable.

In theory, elected commissioners are less interference than the old police authorities appointed from various bits of government.

In practice, the £5000 fee to stand and lack of decent campaigning or information seems to mean they're elected idiots who were either independently wealthy or backed by a political party. So expect more reality-ignoring policing to come.

posted by a.jumper [582 posts]
1st January 2013 - 2:28

like this
Like (0)

Good on you Sir Graham Bright, we certainly don't need those bally silly cyclists cluttering up our roads and getting in the way! Angry

FATBEGGARONABIKE's picture

posted by FATBEGGARONABIKE [412 posts]
1st January 2013 - 9:39

like this
Like (0)

a.jumper wrote:
stumps wrote:
Not wanted, not needed, just more govt interference. Angry

Police is a tool of government, so that's rather unavoidable.

In theory, elected commissioners are less interference than the old police authorities appointed from various bits of government.

In practice, the £5000 fee to stand and lack of decent campaigning or information seems to mean they're elected idiots who were either independently wealthy or backed by a political party. So expect more reality-ignoring policing to come.

I would like to disagree with you... but can't. Anyone who wants to stand for this role should be automatically excluded from standing. They are either a busy-body with nothing better to do or in it for the money...

Cyclists can be a nuisance, or to be more precise certain people who ride bikes. But if cyclists were the biggest problem on Britain's roads I would be a very happy road user!

posted by SideBurn [682 posts]
1st January 2013 - 10:28

like this
Like (0)

The thick end of £100k a year equates to 5 new cops a year. Not a lot but they would be more use than these idiots.

Stumpy

posted by stumps [2058 posts]
1st January 2013 - 10:36

like this
Like (0)

As everyone know, cyclists pose a greater threat to humanity than Al Quaida, the Taliban, Somalian pirates and the North Korean Government combined.

Wink

OldRidgeback

posted by OldRidgeback [1756 posts]
1st January 2013 - 14:23

like this
Like (0)

OldRidgeback wrote:
As everyone know, cyclists pose a greater threat to humanity than Al Quaida, the Taliban, Somalian pirates and the North Korean Government combined.

Wink

That is a bit harsh on the Somalian pirates isn't it?

posted by SideBurn [682 posts]
1st January 2013 - 14:53

like this
Like (0)

stumps wrote:
The thick end of £100k a year equates to 5 new cops a year. Not a lot but they would be more use than these idiots.

My thoughts entirely, BUT; the salary is nothing compared to the cost of their election; the election cost an obscene amount of money...

posted by SideBurn [682 posts]
1st January 2013 - 14:56

like this
Like (0)

wonderful to see the priorities that are in place - lets
target something we can actually get results for as they
can't run away too fast or far ... never mind the idiots
in the cars and vans eh ????

ggggrrrrrrrrrrrr Angry

still on the 3rd switch-back of Bwlch !

posted by therevokid [520 posts]
2nd January 2013 - 12:17

like this
Like (0)

SideBurn wrote:
OldRidgeback wrote:
As everyone know, cyclists pose a greater threat to humanity than Al Quaida, the Taliban, Somalian pirates and the North Korean Government combined.

Wink

That is a bit harsh on the Somalian pirates isn't it?

Yeah, you could be right about that. I'll take out Somalian pirates and substitute Greek politicians instead.

OldRidgeback

posted by OldRidgeback [1756 posts]
2nd January 2013 - 17:25

like this
Like (0)

Let me guess what his other priorities are - more bobbys on the beat, the birch for young offenders, a crack down on immigrants and WPCs to make more cups of tea! Oh the 'progressive' right they're just so foul and predictable.

posted by Dropped [32 posts]
2nd January 2013 - 23:04

like this
Like (0)

So I presume Cambridge is also leading on the following

Drivers speeding
Cars parked on pavements or DYL, or bus stops
Drivers using no lights or side lights (and or fogs, illegal btw) at night
Drivers using mobiles
Drivers amber gambling and jumping red lights

Or is it the case that people riding bikes are an easy target for the police, and it is also a vote/populist driven policy.

The PCC should also bring back stoning for thieves and burning of witches at the stake as I am sure that would be popular as well amongst the great unwashed of Cambridge

posted by gazza_d [103 posts]
3rd January 2013 - 17:51

like this
Like (0)

I wondered where that fat fool ended up. Doesn't surprise me to see him spouting bollocks in Cambridgeshire - it's all he was ever good at. My MP for years, the tosser couldn't be arsed to leave the Commons Bar when I really needed to meet him.

posted by Cauld Lubter [99 posts]
3rd January 2013 - 20:46

like this
Like (0)