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

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Caught on CCTV 300 times a day on average...monitoring on a scale unimaginable a generation ago...we are all behind bars these days...only difference between Eric Blair's vision and our reality is that our Big Brothers and Sisters believe this surveillance is for our benefit...

Georgie Org's mob had no such agenda.

p.s.Talking of orwellian themes ...did anyone see Johnny Vegas on Room 101 last night?

Am I the only Guy thinking him one of the 2 unfunniest Guys in The Business?

[Administrator]

Please stay on topic

[Huguenot]

There are plenty of case studies that demonstrate that an inflexible approach to minor crime - littering, graffiti, road traffic offences etc. - has a substantial influence on the reduction in major crime.

These PCSOs may well be doing us a favour by introducing 6 years olds to the concept of social responsibility.

Whereas the Chav approach ('I have my own moral compass and will only obey the laws I choose') leads to dangerous relativism and crims who percieve their heinous crimes to be somehow justified.

[lard]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> So who do you want dealing with the low level

> crime and stuff? I would like to live somewhere

> that people didn't treat as a rubbish bin (re:

> litter) for example. Do countries with low levels

> of litter have every serious criminal behind bars?

> Or shall we just let things go to pot until the

> (unattainable) day when every criminal is behind

> bars?

Well in your example I would rather pay for 5 streetcleaners than 3 people to give tickets to cyclists.

I don't believe riding on the pavement in general is a "crime" worth bothering about at all.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Whoop de doo. You appear to be confusing prejudice with logic

PCSO's can multitask and look out for not just cyclists but your litter droppers as well (plus whatever other low-level stuff is going on) - in the short term it has an effect and in the longer term it might even change people perception about the acceptability of dropping the f****ing litter in the first place. Then we won't need to pay for streetcleaners

Bargain, no?

[lard]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> >

> Whoop de doo. You appear to be confusing prejudice

> with logic

>

> PCSO's can multitask and look out for not just

> cyclists but your litter droppers as well (plus

> whatever other low-level stuff is going on) - in

> the short term it has an effect and in the longer

> term it might even change people perception about

> the acceptability of dropping the f****ing litter

> in the first place. Then we won't need to pay for

> streetcleaners

>

> Bargain, no?

Whoop de doo.

Bargain? No.

You appear to be confusing opinion with common sense. Your PCSOs have to actually see the person committing the "crime". The chances of this are pretty small, they spend most of the day walking round doing nothing because most of the time people aren't committing any crime. My streetcleaners "work" much more productively as they can deal with the consequence of the crime at any time after it occurred.

Plus, people who drop litter will continue to drop litter, even if they are fined once. People still speed despite all the cameras around. They just speed in areas without cameras.

If you gave the PCSOs some brushes they could multitask by cleaning the streets too. Best idea, no?

[david_carnell]

Not to mention the Broken Windows theory which would seem to suggest that if you tackle low level aesthetic based crimes like litter/vandalism etc it encourages a low-crime atmosphere that extends to more serious issues such as burglary.

It really is very simple. You know dropping litter/cycling on the pavement is illegal. Don't do it. And if you continue to, don't be surprised when someone actually enforces the law.

[Huguenot]

Aren't the PCSOs a direct result of research showing that a visible police presence 'on the beat' has a positive effect on crime and public confidence?

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Huguenot Wrote:

Aren't the PCSOs a direct result of research showing that a visible police presence 'on the beat' has a positive effect on crime and public confidence?

PCSO's are the eyes and the ears of The Metropolitan Police...

[SeanMacGabhann]

Basically, last 3 posts have answered for me Lard.

[Moos]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> >

> Whoop de doo.

Whoop de doo doo? If there were more people around who cleaned up after their dogs, we wouldn't have to.

Oh sorry, am I on the wrong thread?

[DaveR]

"Not to mention the Broken Windows theory which would seem to suggest that if you tackle low level aesthetic based crimes like litter/vandalism etc it encourages a low-crime atmosphere that extends to more serious issues such as burglary.

It really is very simple. You know dropping litter/cycling on the pavement is illegal. Don't do it. And if you continue to, don't be surprised when someone actually enforces the law."

I think this theory has been over-simplified. If low-level laws are not enforced at all, it doesn't take a smart theory to predict that a culture of lawlessness is likely to prevail. This does not address the issue of how laws are enforced. If methods of enforcement are inappropriate or disproportionate you lose public support and you are unlikely to achieve what you really want i.e. changing behaviour.

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it has to be enforced by a criminal or quasi-criminal penalty; the vast majority of enforcement authorities have policies which set out what they are likely to do if they catch you breaking the law, ranging from a quiet word all the way through to prosecution. Cycling on the pavement is exactly the sort of 'offence' that needs a properly considered approach to enforcement, otherwise people will be (rightly) p!ssed off.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

chris Wrote:

From The Evening Standard NEARLY 400 cyclists have been given on-the-spot fines for flouting the law

Absolutely Spiffing!:)-D

One of the joys of our local Bexley Council is their NON-interference in our everyday lives(thats Tory/Libs and Labour Administrations in my time to be fair)...until recently.

So they built a nice little cycle lane 4 months ago..

Since then the (former) free-flowing traffic(usually) has ground to a halt,costing probably endless thousands of wasted hours for those unfortunate motorists caught up in this with the lanes rduced from 2 to 1..and for the benefit of??

6 Cyclists that I have seen in 4 months...nice touch(6)

[david_carnell]

Should we not be trying to encourage increased usage of cycles in ED and elsewhere (Bexley for eg) by building the adequate facilities needed (like a cycle lane) in the vein of "if you build it, they will come..."?

If some of those car drivers swapped onto a bike there would be less traffic and the cycle lane would get more use than your anecdotally low statistic.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

I understand the point,of course David but like most things its all about balance and its so frustrating when two of the joys of being here are the (relatively) non-interference of our Local Council in its various political hues over the last 25 years and also the (relatively) flowing traffic.

Two of those "6" were actually within seconds of each other in one journey as well.

How do you measure that against probably costing 7/8 minutes extra per journey to maybe 600/700 Motorists a day over 4 months?

Seems a poor return and trade-off.

Naturally it would be better,though,if more people did cycle,I agree.

[david_carnell]

The trouble is that that way of looking at things merely allows for increased road building. We're lucky in ED that there isn't any room to do so and thus the traffic can only reach a finite number but elsewhere in this green and pleasant land (Bexley, say) where commuting is a way of life the increase in traffic is oft followed by calls for wider roads, by-passes and driver-friendly town planning.

IMHO this is a fatalistically flawed way of thinking. It merely results in a vicious circle of increased car use. Something, for a variety of reasons I don't have time to list here, we should seek to discourage. I once worked in a transport planning consultancy, for a short period, on a team that specialised in looking at cycling. It was often a difficult balance to maintain between cyclist, pedestrian and driver and one that never leaves every party happy.

Whislt I wouldn't be so brazen as to openly question your cycle lane = increased congestion argument I wonder whether the number of car users of that particular stretch of road may have also increased at the same time. I also wonder whether you are on the road at the right time to see the numbers of cyclists who do use it. Trust me when I tell you that endless surveys will have been conducted to test whether the cycle lane was warranted.

In the meantime, however, enough of this seriousness....

[Tony.London Suburbs]

david_carnell Wrote:

Whislt I wouldn't be so brazen as to openly question your cycle lane = increased congestion argument I wonder whether the number of car users of that particular stretch of road may have also increased at the same time.

It immediately changed and its easy to see why. The road that leads into my small Town Centre from my direction had sufficient width to allow 2 lanes to go down to the Town and one uphill(where the Cycle Lane is on the side of the pavement with no impact on the traffic.)..The 2 "downhill" lanes then,effectively became 1, with the revised restrictive width and the right-hand traffic could no longer filter into the right-hand lane at the traffic lights at The Town junction until the last moment so you now have a single file line snaking back right up the hill beyond my turning with the existing problem of traffic entering and leaving the supermarket and the bus stop for the only bus route also b4 the junction at the traffic lights!

I also wonder whether you are on the road at the right time to see the numbers of cyclists who do use it. Trust me when I

tell you that endless surveys will have been conducted to test whether the cycle lane was warranted.

They said it was a Government instruction to encourage cycling and out of their hands.::o

[Huguenot]

The thing that gets my goat on the subject is that all the people complaining talk about their 'rights' to do whatever the hell they please never talk about their responsibilities to other people.

They talk about conceptual 'clubs' thay they belong to (for example fellow motorists), and use this as a show of strength to support their often niggly selfish pursuits.

I can't make up my mind whether their mind-boggling short termism is because they're so self-obsessed that they think the rest of the world is a plaything for their indulgences, or whether in fact they're so stupid they struggle to put on their trousers the right way round.

The real people pissing you off aren't the people who are trying to develop a more effective long term society, they're the selfish prats in your club.

If you recognise yourself, then this is aimed at you:

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!

Consider instead restricting the motorists putting your life in danger and the criminals who disrupt our neighborhoods.

But you probably won't will you, you'll probably make up all sorts of snivelling excuses why not? It's not because you're clever, it's because you're a coward ;-)

[BJL]

Excellent post, Huguenot.

[SeanMacGabhann]

ooh you beat me to it BJL

A top post indeed, the sound of nail being hit firmly on head. Plenty of lines to pick out but I'm going to go with

[SteveT]

Huguenot if only I could express myself as eloquently and as succinctly as you. 10/10 full marks.

[Zebedee Tring]

I too fully endorse what Huguenot says. I wonder what the people who ride bikes on the pavement say when someone allows their dog to crap on their doorstep. No doubt double standards apply.

[blinder999]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> I too fully endorse what Huguenot says. I wonder

> what the people who ride bikes on the pavement say

> when someone allows their dog to crap on their

> doorstep. No doubt double standards apply.

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 cunt"

it's all about rights and not responsibilities for a sizeable percentage of the population regardless of their mode of transport etc.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Never one to toe the party line per se sooo...:))

Which decision shall I make tonight Guys to get from Bexley to Chadwell Heath/Romford around 7.00 PM?,,,and back at 11,00PM!

Option 1: Public Transport:

1/ Walk to nearest Bus Stop=10 mins

2/ Wait for solitary bus to Station=10 mins(Yeah! Right!)

3/ Bus Journey:7 minutes-walk to Station 3 minutes

4/ Wait for train to London Bridge(every half-hour)

5/ Train journey to LB-25 Minutes.

6/ Walk to Undergtound-Get Jubilee Line to Stratford...

7/ Walk to BR Stratford wait for Romford Train

8/ Train to Romford from Stratford.

9/ Walk Romford Station to local bus stop and wait for local bus to destination.

10/ 10 minute local bus journey.Short walk other end.

Then repeat,in reverse at late hour!

Journey Time,if every connection goes well=2 Hours(+).includes Walking/Buses/Tubes/BR Overground.

OR:-

1/ Walk 5 feet to my car.Enter.Depart playing my music with the company I choose.Stopping if and when I decide,in the warmth of the car.(It IS going to be colder this evening!).if its wet then I'm dry etc...

2/ Arrive 5 feet from destination.

Journey Time(including "rush hour" effect=40-50 mins.

Return Journey Time=30 Minutes.

Its a difficult one..any suggestions Guys:))

[SeanMacGabhann]

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