Police behaviour on January's Critical Mass, London

[Creature]

Hello,

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the most recent Critical Mass on the
group. It was my first CM, and certainly an interesting experience.
However, it was very stop-start and slow, in part down to the actions of
the police. They issued at least 2 on-the-spot fines for red light jumping
and were warning people about not having lights. I'm told there were other
tickets issued as well, including at least 3 for not having lights.

The odd thing was that later on, they were waving people through red
lights, and I even heard the megaphone on the police van telling people to
move through.

Is this normal? I thought that the mass was meant to go through red lights
if the "head" of it went through on green - it keeps it all together (for
safety) and keeps it flowing (for minimal impact on other traffic). Surely
there should be either a policeman on every red light directing traffic
("stop here" or "go on through"), or a consistent policy - either "stop at
all lights/go through all lights" or "stop unless told otherwise"/"go
unless told otherwise".

Personally I have two lights both front and back, and have recently fitted
a rear reflector (I'm not getting a £30 fine for the sake of a reflector)
that my local bike shop kindly gave to me free. I was so pleased I bought
an inner tube from them on the spot. Anyway, I thought I would bring it up
to stimulate some discussion.

--
Alex Pounds (Creature) .~. http://www.alexpounds.com/
/V\ http://www.ethicsgirls.com/
// \\
"Variables won't; Constants aren't" /( )\
^`~'^

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Creature
[email protected] says...
> Hello,
>
> I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the most recent Critical Mass on the
> group. It was my first CM, and certainly an interesting experience.
> However, it was very stop-start and slow, in part down to the actions of
> the police. They issued at least 2 on-the-spot fines for red light jumping
> and were warning people about not having lights. I'm told there were other
> tickets issued as well, including at least 3 for not having lights.
>
> The odd thing was that later on, they were waving people through red
> lights, and I even heard the megaphone on the police van telling people to
> move through.
>
> Is this normal? I thought that the mass was meant to go through red lights
> if the "head" of it went through on green - it keeps it all together (for
> safety) and keeps it flowing (for minimal impact on other traffic). Surely
> there should be either a policeman on every red light directing traffic
> ("stop here" or "go on through"), or a consistent policy - either "stop at
> all lights/go through all lights" or "stop unless told otherwise"/"go
> unless told otherwise".
>
> Personally I have two lights both front and back, and have recently fitted
> a rear reflector (I'm not getting a £30 fine for the sake of a reflector)
> that my local bike shop kindly gave to me free. I was so pleased I bought
> an inner tube from them on the spot. Anyway, I thought I would bring it up
> to stimulate some discussion.
>
>
It's always illegal to go through a red light unless the light is faulty
or you are instructed to do so by a police officer (or you're letting an
emergency services vehicle through), so I don't know why you're
surprised at that. It's always illegal to ride at night without lights,
so any CM participants who do so are clearly plonkers. What worthwhile
discussion can be had?

 

[Tony Raven]

Creature wrote on 28/01/2007 12:48 +0100:
>
> Is this normal? I thought that the mass was meant to go through red lights
> if the "head" of it went through on green - it keeps it all together (for
> safety) and keeps it flowing (for minimal impact on other traffic). Surely
> there should be either a policeman on every red light directing traffic
> ("stop here" or "go on through"), or a consistent policy - either "stop at
> all lights/go through all lights" or "stop unless told otherwise"/"go
> unless told otherwise".
>

Do you expect a line of cars to go through on red just because the first
one has? Do you expect every traffic light to have a policeman on
during rush hour to direct traffic? Either Critical Mass is a
spontaneous event, as participants try to claim, in which case riders
should look after themselves and obey the laws or its an organised event
in which case the organisers will have notified the police so
appropriate policing can be done. You can't have it both ways.


> Personally I have two lights both front and back, and have recently fitted
> a rear reflector (I'm not getting a £30 fine for the sake of a reflector)
> that my local bike shop kindly gave to me free. I was so pleased I bought
> an inner tube from them on the spot. Anyway, I thought I would bring it up
> to stimulate some discussion.
>

No discussion needed.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[Creature]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 13:03:51 -0000, Rob Morley wrote:
> It's always illegal to go through a red light unless the light is faulty
> or you are instructed to do so by a police officer (or you're letting an
> emergency services vehicle through), so I don't know why you're
> surprised at that.

I'm surprised because I thought the idea was to keep it in one big, moving
group as much as possible. I understood that the front of the mass was
meant to obey traffic signals, but if a green light changed to red than
the group should follow it through. That way impact on car traffic is
minimised and the group stays together, making it easier to manage, safer,
and quicker.

My main issue is with conflicting signals from the police. They were
stopping some junctions and waving people through, and expecting people to
obey others. At one point I saw a policewoman waving people through some
lights while another police rider was stopped and waiting for them to
change. With conflicting signals like that, what are you supposed to do?


> What worthwhile discussion can be had?

Some suggestions:

* Is this the right way for the police to tackle these issues?
* Are there better areas for the police to focus their attention?
* Is it right to tackle some people for this behaviour and not others?
* Should some people receive a warning only, and others a ticket?
* Should the police be more tolerant or should CM change its behaviour?
* Can CM change its behaviour, given that there are no leaders?
* Is CM a good thing or a bad thing? Why?
* Is CM worth bothering with? Why?
* Does this represent a chance in tactics for the police with regards to
Critical Mass? If so, does it matter, and is it warranted?

Maybe you can come up with your own ideas. Or not, if the topic bores you.

As mentioned, I had not been on a critical mass before. I wasn't sure if
it was for me, or if it would be fun, or if it was even a good idea. I'm
still undecided. Thus I don't feel right opining on the issue, but other
people with more experience and different viewpoints may have something
interesting to say.

--
Alex Pounds (Creature) .~. http://www.alexpounds.com/
/V\ http://www.ethicsgirls.com/
// \\
"Variables won't; Constants aren't" /( )\
^`~'^

 

[Tony Raven]

Creature wrote on 28/01/2007 13:36 +0100:
>
> My main issue is with conflicting signals from the police. They were
> stopping some junctions and waving people through, and expecting people to
> obey others. At one point I saw a policewoman waving people through some
> lights while another police rider was stopped and waiting for them to
> change. With conflicting signals like that, what are you supposed to do?
>

Not conflicting at all. The law says you stop at a red light unless
instructed otherwise by a police officer. So stop at the red lights
unless there is a police officer there telling you to do otherwise.
Quite simple really and just like the rest of the time.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[mb]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 07:36:22 -0600, Creature wrote:

>
> Some suggestions:
>
> * Is this the right way for the police to tackle these issues?

What issues? Police are law enforcement.

> * Are there better areas for the police to focus their attention?
> * Is it right to tackle some people for this behaviour and not others?

"Ever go fishing"? "Ever catch all the fish"?

> * Is CM a good thing or a bad thing? Why?
> * Is CM worth bothering with? Why?

Dunno. What's it for?

--
Mike
Van Tuyl titanium Dura Ace 10
Fausto Coppi aluminium Ultegra 10
Raleigh Record Sprint mongrel

 

[Paul - xxx]

Creature <[email protected]> typed:

> They issued at least 2 on-the-spot fines
> for red light jumping and were warning people about not having
> lights. I'm told there were other tickets issued as well, including
> at least 3 for not having lights.

Which is fair enough as they are legal requirements.

> The odd thing was that later on, they were waving people through red
> lights, and I even heard the megaphone on the police van telling
> people to move through.
>
> Is this normal?

Yup. Red light means stop, unless instructed otherwise by the Police.

> I thought that the mass was meant to go through red
> lights if the "head" of it went through on green

You thought wrong.

Just 'cos you think something should be done doesn't mean it will be.
CM is supposed to be a 'spontaneous event' so can't really be expected
to be organised fully. Any rider who joins ought to be aware that an
event like this will attract Police attention so it's prety damn stupid
to do something illegal, especially something as simple as lights ...

--
Paul - ***

 

[Pyromancer]

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Creature
<[email protected]> gently breathed:
>On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 13:03:51 -0000, Rob Morley wrote:
>> It's always illegal to go through a red light unless the light is faulty
>> or you are instructed to do so by a police officer (or you're letting an
>> emergency services vehicle through), so I don't know why you're
>> surprised at that.

>I'm surprised because I thought the idea was to keep it in one big, moving
>group as much as possible. I understood that the front of the mass was
>meant to obey traffic signals, but if a green light changed to red than
>the group should follow it through. That way impact on car traffic is
>minimised and the group stays together, making it easier to manage, safer,
>and quicker.

Where does this idea come from - is it stated by the police? Are there
any organisers for the events who state this? If it's a disorganised
mass of cyclists all riding the same route, then they should act as
individuals and stop when the lights change. Yes, that breaks things
up, but it also more effectively demonstrates to non-cyclists that
cyclists are traffic just like cars are. The broken up clumps will
mostly join back up again later on anyway.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

 

[Kenneth Clements]

"Rob Morley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
In article <[email protected]>, Creature
[email protected] says...

Snip

It's always illegal to go through a red light unless the light is faulty
or you are instructed to do so by a police officer (or you're letting an
emergency services vehicle through), so I don't know why you're
surprised at that. It's always illegal to ride at night without lights,
so any CM participants who do so are clearly plonkers. What worthwhile
discussion can be had?

I seem to recall that drivers have been fined for crossing red lights to let
an emergency vehicle through.

Ken.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Creature
[email protected] says...
> I'm surprised because I thought the idea was to keep it in one big, moving
> group as much as possible. I understood that the front of the mass was
> meant to obey traffic signals, but if a green light changed to red than
> the group should follow it through. That way impact on car traffic is
> minimised and the group stays together, making it easier to manage, safer,
> and quicker.

What bit of "It's always illegal to go through a red light unless the
light is faulty or you are instructed to do so by a police officer" did
you not understand?
>
> My main issue is with conflicting signals from the police. They were
> stopping some junctions and waving people through, and expecting people to
> obey others. At one point I saw a policewoman waving people through some
> lights while another police rider was stopped and waiting for them to
> change. With conflicting signals like that, what are you supposed to do?
>
If a police officer tells you to cross against the light then you do,
otherwise you don't. That's hardly rocket science is it?
>
> > What worthwhile discussion can be had?
>
> Some suggestions:
>
<snip>
>
> Maybe you can come up with your own ideas. Or not, if the topic bores you.

I already did, but you didn't seem to understand them (or the Highway
Code).
>
> As mentioned, I had not been on a critical mass before. I wasn't sure if
> it was for me, or if it would be fun, or if it was even a good idea. I'm
> still undecided. Thus I don't feel right opining on the issue, but other
> people with more experience and different viewpoints may have something
> interesting to say.
>
What issue? You expressed surprise that people were cautioned/ticketed
for doing illegal things, and that a large group of people on bikes
couldn't ignore other road users. The only thing that possibly merits
discussion is why you were surprised that these things are not
acceptable.

 

[DavidR]

"Creature" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> I'm surprised because I thought the idea was to keep it in one big,
> moving
> group as much as possible. I understood that the front of the mass was
> meant to obey traffic signals, but if a green light changed to red than
> the group should follow it through.

Hmmm.
Interesting concept. We could make a new rule of the road - you can
continue past a red light as long as the vehicle in front hasn't cleared
the junction.

 

[Jim Ley]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 15:32:33 GMT, "Kenneth Clements"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I seem to recall that drivers have been fined for crossing red lights to let
>an emergency vehicle through.

I certainly believe there have been camera sourced fixed penalties
issued for doing it, I would be more surprised if people hadn't
successfully challenged the penalty (or decided it was just less
hassle to pay)

Jim.

 

[Creature]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 15:31:04 +0000, Pyromancer wrote:
> Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Creature
><[email protected]> gently breathed:
>>I understood that the front of the mass was meant to obey traffic
>>signals, but if a green light changed to red than the group should
>>follow it through. That way impact on car traffic is minimised and the
>>group stays together, making it easier to manage, safer, and quicker.
>
> Where does this idea come from - is it stated by the police? Are there
> any organisers for the events who state this? If it's a disorganised
> mass of cyclists all riding the same route, then they should act as
> individuals and stop when the lights change.

The idea came from what I'd read about Critical Mass rides before
embarking on my first. http://guest.xinet.com/bike/newrider/ is one such
place; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Mass#.22Corking.22 has some
info too. I'm pretty much a law-abiding cyclist - I stop for red lights,
but have been known to skip a couple (for instance) of pedestrian
crossings at 3AM when I can see that there's nobody around, pedestrian or
traffic. I always stop at junctions. If the ride is going to stop at red
lights, then that's fine by me - I just understood this to be a
significant change from the normal behaviour with the rides.


--
Alex Pounds (Creature) .~. http://www.alexpounds.com/
/V\ http://www.ethicsgirls.com/
// \\
"Variables won't; Constants aren't" /( )\
^`~'^

 

[Daniel Barlow]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Either Critical Mass is a
> spontaneous event, as participants try to claim, in which case riders
> should look after themselves and obey the laws or its an organised event
> in which case the organisers will have notified the police so
> appropriate policing can be done. You can't have it both ways.

Google is not throwing up the actual report of the Des Kay case for me -
just the news stories - and foolishly I haven't bookmarked it. However,
from memory I believe the judge declined to go into the question of
whether the event was spontaneous or not, but ruled that as it's been
held every month for over ten years it is by now "commonly and
customarily held" and therefore not a "notifiable procession" under the
terms of the Public Order Act.

So, never mind "having it both ways": in fact it's /neither/ ;-)

I don't know of very much law at all governing the conduct of
processions on the roads (although as most processions are composed of
pedestrians, perhaps there's just not previously been any need to make
special exemptions from traffic law for them as most of it doesn't apply
anyway). I'd be interested to learn of such.


-dan

--
http://www.coruskate.net/

 

[Mark Thompson]

> Surely
> there should be either a policeman on every red light directing traffic
> ("stop here" or "go on through")

The 'problem' that CM has it that 'it' deliberately declines to notify the
police of the intended route beforehand, so the police are unlikely to be
able to do this.

 

[[email protected]]

On 28 Jan, 19:53, Creature <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 15:31:04 +0000, Pyromancer wrote:
> > Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Creature
> ><[email protected]> gently breathed:
> >>I understood that the front of the mass was meant to obey traffic
> >>signals,

> > Where does this idea come from - is it stated by the police?

> The idea came from what I'd read about Critical Mass rides before
> embarking on my first. .... If the ride is going to stop at red
> lights, then that's fine by me - I just understood this to be a
> significant change from the normal behaviour with the rides.

I have a dim and distant memory of legislation which says essentially
that a procession of many vehicles should behave as one long one
for the purposes of traffic signals - ie the head obeys, and the tail
follows. No source, no citation, just a vague and probably erroneous
memory.

And from equally distant memory, inconsistent behaviour at red
lights, and inconsistent policing, always struck me as one of the
defining characteristics of CM.

John

 

[John Pitcock]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Creature wrote on 28/01/2007 13:36 +0100:
>>
> Not conflicting at all. The law says you stop at a red light unless
> instructed otherwise by a police officer. So stop at the red lights
> unless there is a police officer there telling you to do otherwise. Quite
> simple really and just like the rest of the time.

Yes.

When I went on a Critical Mass (in Birmingham), on the briefing we were
advised to follow through lights even if they changed to red. I was not
happy with this advice. It could be dangerous, inflame other road users &
lead to confusion.

When I did come to a red light I tried to stop but was hassled by following
riders. The situation was worsened when pedestrians tried to exercise their
right to cross when their light became green.

Continuing on red is a not a good idea: it gives cyclists a bad name.

www.JohnPitcock.com

 

[Creature]

On 29 Jan 2007 12:07:18 GMT, Mark Thompson wrote:
> Creature wrote:
>> Surely there should be either a policeman on every red light directing
>> traffic ("stop here" or "go on through")
>
> The 'problem' that CM has it that 'it' deliberately declines to notify
> the police of the intended route beforehand, so the police are unlikely
> to be able to do this.

If they were stationary policemen, you are right - it would be a problem.
However, almost all police are on bicycles themselves. From what I saw
from Friday, there was one police van and at least 20 police cyclists.
Bearing in mind there are far more red lights than junctions in London
(ie. there are a lot of pedestrian crossings) you could easily do a kind
of "caterpillar tread" thing with the police - riders at the front stop at
a set of lights and direct the mass and other traffic as necessary. When
the tail end of the mass has passed through the lights, they can cycle up
to the head of the mass to take the next set of lights.

It's not a case of "deliberately declining", by the way - there are no
organisers or leaders to do so. Nobody chooses the route beforehand - it's
up to the whims of the people at the front at that time.

--
Alex Pounds (Creature) .~. http://www.alexpounds.com/
/V\ http://www.ethicsgirls.com/
// \\
"Variables won't; Constants aren't" /( )\
^`~'^

 

[Don Whybrow]

Daniel Barlow wrote:
>
> Google is not throwing up the actual report of the Des Kay case for me -
> just the news stories - and foolishly I haven't bookmarked it. However,
> from memory I believe the judge declined to go into the question of
> whether the event was spontaneous or not, but ruled that as it's been
> held every month for over ten years it is by now "commonly and
> customarily held" and therefore not a "notifiable procession" under the
> terms of the Public Order Act.

A Google on "Des Kay" gives as one of the hits, the following. Which,
while not being a court transcript, does agree with you.

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/critical_mass_cyclist_wins_27062006.html


--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"I suppose they are vicious rascals, but it scarcely matters
what they are. I'm after what they know." (Gibson-Sterling, The
Difference Engine)

 

[Mark Thompson]

> It's not a case of "deliberately declining", by the way - there are no
> organisers or leaders to do so. Nobody chooses the route beforehand -
> it's up to the whims of the people at the front at that time.

So the peeps that put flyers on my bike advertising CM and saying it'll end
up in Such-n-such park for a picnic/BBQ and some live music are just
predicting the whims of a random person that happens to be at the front in
a few weeks time. No organisers, no leaders. I think I get it now.