|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
Vancouver Police Crackdown on Scofflaw Cyclists
In article ,
Opus writes: What nobody has been talking about, were the laws they were handing out tickets for. One in particular makes it illegal to stand on the pedals, or at least that is the way the law was interpreted. You can't stand on the pedals to get going at an intersection, or to climb a hill, or for any reason except to go from standing beside the bike to putting your butt on the seat. Actually there's no physical way a recumbent rider could sit or stand astride the seat and still make the bike go. So this law effectively outlaws recumbent bicycles. I'm in favor of laws that make things safer, but this just makes things more dangerous. I don't think laws in and of themselves make anything safer. That comes from our collective personal conduct. Laws may however serve as reminders or guidelines. The car equivalent would be outlawing putting your foot on the gas. Y'know how physicists refer to laser light as "coherent"? Some idealists figure traffic movements should be equally coherent, and traffic law is The Way to effect that. But, especially in urban environments, there are always ... oh, heck, there's certain a scientific word that escapes me: it describes the effect of introducing substances to "dope" semiconductors. Oh, well. Anyways, there are always dopes around to make sure traffic doesn't go coherently. And following the law to the letter doesn't make the dopes go away. Sometimes it just provokes 'em. Mostly for the benefit of Tom Sherman: Dealing with a densely populated urban area brings, not new considerations to bear, but a whole bunch of the same old ones, but all flooding in at once, rapidfire. It's like the difference between cooking for two, and cooking for fifty. The proportions of the ingredients change. Some of the ingredients themselves might change. For example, a recumbent bike probably won't fit on a front-mounted public transit city bus's bike rack (yes, we have those in Vancouver.) City riding is not especially difficult, but it is most definitely a different take than the open road. I'll furthermore declare that so-called Vehicular Cycling is an arbitrary & dogmatic extrapolation of John Forester's /Effective/ Cycling, not even intended by Forester himself. There seems to be some confusion between (definitions of) Effective Cycling and Vehicular Cycling, transcending syntax or context. Forester is about Effective Cycling, not Vehicular Cycling. It's kind of like: Queen Victoria herself was not a Victorian prude. And Charles Darwin was not a sociologist. Maybe you'd be better off being an Effective Cyclist than a Vehicular Cyclist. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca |
Ads |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
Vancouver Police Crackdown on Scofflaw Cyclists
In article ,
Peter Cole writes: Opus wrote: What nobody has been talking about, were the laws they were handing out tickets for. One in particular makes it illegal to stand on the pedals, or at least that is the way the law was interpreted. You can't stand on the pedals to get going at an intersection, or to climb a hill, or for any reason except to go from standing beside the bike to putting your butt on the seat. I'm in favor of laws that make things safer, but this just makes things more dangerous. The car equivalent would be outlawing putting your foot on the gas. It's not clear whether pedaling standing is an actual violation, or has even ever been interpreted as such. The actual statute says must ride "on or astride a regular seat". I would think pedaling standing would clearly be "astride". The last 2 rules sound much more abusable. Here's the list (copied from a ticket form, I believe): "Some cycling offences Offence Ticket amount Cycle without helmet $29 Ride cycle on sidewalk $109 Ride two abreast on roadway $109 Ride while not astride seat $109 Carry passengers on cycle $109 Ride while attached to vehicle $109 Ride without hands on handlebar $109 Cycle without due care $109 and attention Cycle without reasonable $109 consideration Source: Vancouver Police Department Information Ticket © Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun" A bunch of the rules & regs we have to deal with involve riding technique & accessories, rather than downright "Rules Of The Road," as in conventions to deal with ROW. It's not about "same roads, same rules." It's about using The Law to encumber and limit cyclists. And now the cops are threatening to lower the boom on us, 'cuz we're such a bunch of bad boyz 'n grrls. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
Vancouver Police Crackdown on Scofflaw Cyclists
On Jun 9, 7:23*pm, Peter Cole wrote:
The "Cyclists fare best..." yadda, yadda, is the core of his position. I disagree with the core principle. I don't think cyclists "fare best" his way at all. Forester is a throwback to a time and place where cyclists were taken as people playing in the streets. That time has not ended. *When was the last time you were told to keep out of the way of a car? *For me it was about five days ago - and it wasn't one brief shout. *It was a running lecture from a car driver motoring along next to me. VC really ****es motorists off, it's the dark side of the force. The irritating VC technique I was using was riding in the middle of a nine-foot-wide lane, preventing him passing until the lane widened two blocks later. Since you won't answer in general, perhaps you'll answer in this specific case: What non-VC technique would you use instead? The three other choices I had were to ride facing traffic in the opposite lane, since there were no oncoming cars*, ride on the sidewalk, or stop riding until he passed. (* The street had center islands that prevented him from passing.) - Frank Krygowski |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
Vancouver Police Crackdown on Scofflaw Cyclists
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jun 9, 7:23 pm, Peter Cole wrote: The "Cyclists fare best..." yadda, yadda, is the core of his position. I disagree with the core principle. I don't think cyclists "fare best" his way at all. Forester is a throwback to a time and place where cyclists were taken as people playing in the streets. That time has not ended. When was the last time you were told to keep out of the way of a car? For me it was about five days ago - and it wasn't one brief shout. It was a running lecture from a car driver motoring along next to me. VC really ****es motorists off, it's the dark side of the force. The irritating VC technique I was using was riding in the middle of a nine-foot-wide lane, preventing him passing until the lane widened two blocks later. There ya go. Since you won't answer in general, perhaps you'll answer in this specific case: What non-VC technique would you use instead? The three other choices I had were to ride facing traffic in the opposite lane, since there were no oncoming cars*, ride on the sidewalk, or stop riding until he passed. (* The street had center islands that prevented him from passing.) - Frank Krygowski Sometimes cyclists are just in the way of motorists and that's that. It has nothing to do with "vehicular cycling", it's just using the road. Forester's issue was "legitimatizing" cycling. His approach was to argue that bikes were vehicles, and, since vehicles belong in the street, cyclists belong in the street. I know, he split hairs with "treated as vehicles", rather than "are vehicles", but that's just word play. I think that "vehicular" cycling in principle erodes civic freedom. I don't want to contort myself into "vehicular" status just to be allowed on the street. That argument supports the premise that the street is for vehicles, which I think is a suburban, auto-era mindset. I loathe the very concept. "Effective" cycling, as Tom Keats points out, is a bit of a different slant on the theme. It basically holds that there are rules of the road, and to fit in and be safe, one should follow them. That's relatively benign in theory, but in fact, it gets restricting and coercive. The distinction I make between cyclists and vehicle operators is both historical and physical. Vehicle operators represent significant social hazards and so, have been appropriately (in principle if not always in degree) regulated. While it's true that observing conventions (for right of way, etc.) is both convenient and polite, putting cyclists with their 30lb vehicles on the same legal footing as 3,000lb+ vehicles, crosses a line into nonsense. I can go up an escalator the wrong way, elbow my way through a crowd, or cut in lines, and I'm being rude, but that's all, there's no law against it, nor should there be. Yes, a cyclist can obtain lethal (to a pedestrian) velocity, under some circumstances, so can a roller skater or a runaway baby buggy for that matter. These are exceptional situations covered by laws for exceptional situations. I deeply oppose categorizing bicycles as "vehicles", particularly as merely a tactic to justify presence in the street. That was a right, determined by historical precedence, only periodically attempted to be withheld under pressure from automotive interests. Accepting "vehicular" status is just a caving in to that pressure, and in doing so, undermines the rights of other non-motorist, non-cycling, citizens, and reinforces the idea that streets are for vehicles exclusively. When I ride my bicycle, I try to maximize my own convenience where not in conflict with courtesy. I'll observe conventions accordingly. When courtesy is not a concern, I'll ride any way I want. I am not a "vehicular" cyclist, nor an "effective" cyclist, I'm a polite cyclist. I have not found a conflict between courtesy and safety, either my own or that of others. On the other hand, you can't regulate courtesy. Emphasis on law over courtesy only results in rude, but legal, behavior, examples abound. With the operation of routinely lethal equipment, courtesy is not sufficient, nor is convention, hence the need to regulate, by law and penalty if no other method is effective. This is not reasonable for cycling. It is wrong to accept it and worse to ask for it. |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
Vancouver Police Crackdown on Scofflaw Cyclists
On Jun 10, 10:16*am, Peter Cole wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote: The irritating VC technique I was using was riding in the middle of a nine-foot-wide lane, preventing him passing until the lane widened two blocks later. Since you won't answer in general, perhaps you'll answer in this specific case: *What non-VC technique would you use instead? *The three other choices I had were to ride facing traffic in the opposite lane, since there were no oncoming cars*, ride on the sidewalk, or stop riding until he passed. (* The street had center islands that prevented him from passing.) - Frank Krygowski Sometimes cyclists are just in the way of motorists and that's that. It has nothing to do with "vehicular cycling", it's just using the road.... When I ride my bicycle, I try to maximize my own convenience where not in conflict with courtesy. I'll observe conventions accordingly. When courtesy is not a concern, I'll ride any way I want. I am not a "vehicular" cyclist, nor an "effective" cyclist, I'm a polite cyclist. I have not found a conflict between courtesy and safety, either my own or that of others. On the other hand, you can't regulate courtesy. Emphasis on law over courtesy only results in rude, but legal, behavior, examples abound. With the operation of routinely lethal equipment, courtesy is not sufficient, nor is convention, hence the need to regulate, by law and penalty if no other method is effective. This is not reasonable for cycling. It is wrong to accept it and worse to ask for it. I note your steadfast refusal to provide any specifics; for example, to respond to my direct question above. Seem you're either ashamed of your riding style, or you're unwilling to admit the degree to which you operate as a vehicle operator. I can't guess which. Should I have pulled off the road to be "courteous"? - Frank Krygowski |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
Vancouver Police Crackdown on Scofflaw Cyclists
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jun 10, 10:16 am, Peter Cole wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: The irritating VC technique I was using was riding in the middle of a nine-foot-wide lane, preventing him passing until the lane widened two blocks later. Since you won't answer in general, perhaps you'll answer in this specific case: What non-VC technique would you use instead? The three other choices I had were to ride facing traffic in the opposite lane, since there were no oncoming cars*, ride on the sidewalk, or stop riding until he passed. (* The street had center islands that prevented him from passing.) - Frank Krygowski Sometimes cyclists are just in the way of motorists and that's that. It has nothing to do with "vehicular cycling", it's just using the road.... When I ride my bicycle, I try to maximize my own convenience where not in conflict with courtesy. I'll observe conventions accordingly. When courtesy is not a concern, I'll ride any way I want. I am not a "vehicular" cyclist, nor an "effective" cyclist, I'm a polite cyclist. I have not found a conflict between courtesy and safety, either my own or that of others. On the other hand, you can't regulate courtesy. Emphasis on law over courtesy only results in rude, but legal, behavior, examples abound. With the operation of routinely lethal equipment, courtesy is not sufficient, nor is convention, hence the need to regulate, by law and penalty if no other method is effective. This is not reasonable for cycling. It is wrong to accept it and worse to ask for it. I note your steadfast refusal to provide any specifics; for example, to respond to my direct question above. Seem you're either ashamed of your riding style, or you're unwilling to admit the degree to which you operate as a vehicle operator. I can't guess which. Should I have pulled off the road to be "courteous"? - Frank Krygowski Frank, I think you're picking a fight. I can't say exactly what I would have done in that specific circumstance. My general guideline is to be courteous. Sometimes I'll pull over as far as I can and even wave a driver by, other times I'll hold my ground and even return the abuse. It's not simply a matter of mood, but likewise it isn't a matter of dogma. I adapt to time and place, with perhaps a big dollop of mood thrown in. In that vein, I think I answered your question as best I could by saying "sometimes cyclists are just in the way of motorists, and that's that". If that wasn't clear, I'm sorry. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't unnecessarily inconveniencing the driver, and understood, from many similar incidents, that motorists often don't see things that way. I would be unwilling to admit that I "operate as a vehicle operator", because, besides the strange circular reference, I don't think of my bike as a vehicle any more than I do my sneakers. I am not ashamed of the way I ride, I don't think courtesy is shameful -- OK, I get a little embarrassed by my language sometimes, but that's not too often. I am famous in my bike club for chasing down motorists and giving them a piece of my mind (usually in a non-abusive way). I have gotten into more than one heated exchange with an office of the peace to the point of once being threatened with arrest. So, I'm outspoken perhaps, but not discourteous or rigid. To get back to the subject of this thread, I'd say that I'm against every one of those listed bike infractions. That doesn't mean I would do all of them regularly, it also doesn't mean I wouldn't do any of them sometimes. Forester waffles about being treated as a vehicle operator without actually operating a vehicle (or something like that, it's too convoluted for me to say for sure). That tangle represents the inherent contradictions. If you're a vehicle operator, you get thrown in the category, and then all kinds of rules that apply to motor vehicle operation start being applied. Yes, you shouldn't drive a truck "no hands", nor a car on the sidewalk. There is no safe speed or set of circumstances for those behaviors. Bikes are different. I can appreciate the motives of vehicular cycling proponents. They see vehicular status as some sort of assurance of cycling legitimacy (vehicle means not a toy). I can also understand your resistance (and, like you, be surprised by the lack of resistance among some advocates) for segregated solutions like lanes & sidepaths. While I'm mildly opposed myself, I'm vehemently opposed to mandatory lanes and sidepaths, but I can see how the first can easily morph to the second. From my POV, vehicular cycling is a Faustian deal. You may get some protection under the law, but you also get the full burden of the law, which, like the military, is a blunt tool, to say the least. Inevitably, you wind up with crackdowns like Vancouver. Just as you can't segregate your way to safety, you can't legislate your way to courtesy. Cycling should fall under the rules of courtesy, not civic responsibility. I'm not usually shy about expressing my irritation with rude behavior in public. There are lots of people less inhibited (and more expressive) than I. When I do get honked or yelled at, I try to honestly evaluate if I was out of line. Nearly 100% of the incidents were, like yours, cases where some one felt obstructed, in a "take the lane" situation or otherwise. I usually won't take the lane to prevent a passing attempt unless it's a blatantly unsafe situation. I will change my "sharing" position depending on how close I'm being passed, that's a judgment thing I learned long before I ever heard of vehicular cycling. I don't find that particular constant "negotiation" to be all that relaxing, so I tend to avoid streets where it's likely. In urban gridlock, I'll pass lines of cars on the right or left. I'll ride on the sidewalks or contra-flow for short distances sometimes, I'll ride in crosswalks. I treat stops as yields and reds as stops, generally. I'll break speed limits where I can, but switch to walking speed around peds and dismount in crowds. I never play chicken or force my right of way, whether I legally have it or not. I don't assume people will yield, eye contact or not. I don't trust motorists to stop on signals, look before opening doors, or use turn signals. I don't expect pedestrians to look before crossing or use crosswalks. I don't take more of a lane than I absolutely need, but won't ride on even a wide shoulder if there's any debris. I watch out for cyclists, particularly wrong way & unlit ones. Ditto for walkers and runners in the street. I believe I ride courteously and safely, though rarely strictly legally. I have taught my children to ride the way I ride. Next town over is Cambridge, MA. The bike committee there has been very active. They've installed absolutely lethal bike lanes and lobbied for crackdowns on scofflaw cyclists (which the cops have been only too happy to oblige). I used to like to ride in Cambridge, now I avoid it as much as possible. |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Vancouver Police Crackdown on Scofflaw Cyclists
On Jun 10, 4:42*pm, Peter Cole wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote: On Jun 10, 10:16 am, Peter Cole wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: I note your steadfast refusal to provide any specifics; for example, to respond to my direct question above. Seem you're either ashamed of your riding style, or you're unwilling to admit the degree to which you operate as a vehicle operator. *I can't guess which. Should I have pulled off the road to be "courteous"? - Frank Krygowski Frank, I think you're picking a fight. I'm not trying to. I'm trying to understand your views, which I can't do without some description of your riding style. I see you've now done that below. While I won't necessarily agree with all of your riding style, I can at least visualize what you have in mind when you criticize vehicular cycling. I'm not usually shy about expressing my irritation with rude behavior in public. There are lots of people less inhibited (and more expressive) than I. When I do get honked or yelled at, I try to honestly evaluate if I was out of line. Nearly 100% of the incidents were, like yours, cases where some one felt obstructed, in a "take the lane" situation or otherwise. I usually won't take the lane to prevent a passing attempt unless it's a blatantly unsafe situation. I will change my "sharing" position depending on how close I'm being passed, that's a judgment thing I learned long before I ever heard of vehicular cycling. I don't find that particular constant "negotiation" to be all that relaxing, so I tend to avoid streets where it's likely. In urban gridlock, I'll pass lines of cars on the right or left. I'll ride on the sidewalks or contra-flow for short distances sometimes, I'll ride in crosswalks. I treat stops as yields and reds as stops, generally. I'll break speed limits where I can, but switch to walking speed around peds and dismount in crowds. I never play chicken or force my right of way, whether I legally have it or not. I don't assume people will yield, eye contact or not. I don't trust motorists to stop on signals, look before opening doors, or use turn signals. I don't expect pedestrians to look before crossing or use crosswalks. I don't take more of a lane than I absolutely need, but won't ride on even a wide shoulder if there's any debris. I watch out for cyclists, particularly wrong way & unlit ones. Ditto for walkers and runners in the street. I believe I ride courteously and safely, though rarely strictly legally. I have taught my children to ride the way I ride. When you've described extra-legal behavior, you've done a good job of inserting qualifiers like "generally" or "sometimes" etc. Since all of us are certain to do some of those things in at least extreme situations, I think many readers would be inclined to say "Oh, me too." I won't pursue the issue of how often, under what circumstances, etc. those extra-legal move occur. I'll also note that everything from "I don't assume people will yield" to "runners in the street" is absolutely normal for the vast majority of vehicular cyclists, so there's certainly no conflict there. I think if there is a disagreement, it would be with your statement "I never ... force my right of way, whether I legally have it or not." If I rode by that principle, I'd have to walk my bike to get out of town, and I would have had to pull over and stop to let that rude motorist I described get by me. That strategy doesn't work in my world. Since I'm legally entitled to use the road, I use it as the law allows. Any other strategy makes my cycling far worse. This, if anything, is the most fundamental principle of vehicular cycling; and I'm quite committed to it. The rest is details. - Frank Krygowski |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
Vancouver Police Crackdown on Scofflaw Cyclists
Frank Krygowski wrote:
When you've described extra-legal behavior, you've done a good job of inserting qualifiers like "generally" or "sometimes" etc. Since all of us are certain to do some of those things in at least extreme situations, I think many readers would be inclined to say "Oh, me too." I won't pursue the issue of how often, under what circumstances, etc. those extra-legal move occur. Of course I qualify, since my practices vary depending on circumstance, consistent with my criteria of being polite and my own convenience. An explicit example is traveling in urban traffic, where "platooning" of vehicles is common from traffic lights, and, depending on traffic speed and light timing, you can find yourself either being constantly passed by the same drivers, or ride in mostly empty streets ahead of the platoon. Both involve "jumping" the light (treating it like a stop sign), while one is actually polite, the other is not. Typically, the impolite option doesn't gain any convenience, either. If it's discourteous or unproductive, there's no reason to do it, & I won't. I think if there is a disagreement, it would be with your statement "I never ... force my right of way, whether I legally have it or not." If I rode by that principle, I'd have to walk my bike to get out of town, and I would have had to pull over and stop to let that rude motorist I described get by me. That strategy doesn't work in my world. Since I'm legally entitled to use the road, I use it as the law allows. Any other strategy makes my cycling far worse. This, if anything, is the most fundamental principle of vehicular cycling; and I'm quite committed to it. The rest is details. I know I'm legally entitled to use the road, but I'm not defensive about it. I don't have Forester's & other's fear that cyclists will be kicked off the road. I don't claim my "right" to be a vehicle, my right is to be in the street, walking, jogging, roller skating or dancing the mambo, and I'm not going to let that be infringed upon without a fight. I'm not going to go around picking fights, either. By "forcing my right of way" I meant forcing the other person to yield. In the case of being followed as you were, I wouldn't call that forcing my right of way, but I don't mean to split hairs. I may not yield in that situation, or I may, it's a gray area. The law is usually vaguely worded ("as far to the right as practicable" is what we have), so even the law is fuzzy. Again, my main point is that I don't think cyclists and motorists should both be equally subject to a uniform vehicle code. I think bicycle behavior based on courtesy and convention is sufficient to protect public safety and convenience. If cyclists flagrantly violate that principle there are plenty of ways to charge them under non-traffic laws. Asking for "same rules, same roads" in a legal sense, even if only trying to protect bicycle access, is a dangerous game where the consequences outweigh the benefits. Not the least of which are the inevitable harassments so induced as described by this thread's title. The convention for behavior can be established by using statutes with effectively no penalty. An example of this is "jaywalking" in Boston -- illegal, but a $1 fine. The convention is established, but it is accepted that it won't be universally followed or vigorously enforced. A cop is still free to give a lecture and even write a ticket, especially for flagrant violations, but it's a legal way of saying "This is the official policy, but as long as you use judgment, you can ignore it". That was the same attitude towards cyclists historically. The official position was essentially that cyclists should obey traffic signals in the same manner as motorists, but since the fines were minuscule, it was assumed there was a tolerance for infractions as long as they weren't flagrant. It was a compromise position, establishing convention formally while at the same time allowing for adaptive, realistic behavior. Such compromises are common, only Idaho went so far as to actually formally define substantially different rules for cyclists, essentially recognizing a sensible modification and formalizing what was typically the unwritten law most other places. Changing this unwritten arrangement, whether by dramatically increasing the fines, enforcement level or both, may not have come from the lobbying of cycling "advocates" in Vancouver, I don't really know, but it did in Massachusetts. It was specifically cited in the "same rules, same roads" context. It's been my experience that some cyclists take the complaints of motorists seriously -- the "wild in the streets" argument. Such motorists are not supporters of cyclists, lawful or not. They pounce on any justification to express their dislike for cyclists, attempting to build arguments to restrict or ban cycling. Trying to mollify those critics by accepting, or worse, calling for crack downs, just strengthens their position as it blesses the "it's a jungle out there" premise. Cyclists who buy into it are dupes. The "it's because of cyclists like you that motorists hate us" reproach divides cyclist against cyclist besides being utter nonsense. The reality is those motorists who hate cyclists do so because they get in the way. Those motorists do not want to "share the road" no matter how many signs you put up. Trying to appease them is a symptom of true "cyclist inferiority complex". |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
Dragon? [was: Vancouver Police Crackdown...]
On Jun 11, 2:08*pm, Peter Cole wrote:...
lots! I think we've thoroughly exhausted the topic, at least for now. But your posts have made me curious about one last thing: Their length! Do you just type extremely fast, or do you use voice recognition software like Dragon Naturally Speaking? Just curious. (Seriously!) - Frank Krygowski |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
Mass. Biking
I wrote:
I wouldn't even describe myself as "generally disagreeing" with most of their stance on advocacy. The little bit that I wasn't in lockstep with that they absolutely would not accept. Frank Krygowski replied: We'll need some specifics to evaluate what you're talking about. For all I know, the VCs were telling you not to ride facing traffic, and you're offended they wouldn't see things your way. =v= I saw this as flamebait and decided to drop the thread, but I've changed my mind. I hope everyone reads that, because it perfectly illustrates exactly what I'm talking about. This absurd scenario in which I would be so extremely in the wrong is the first thing that jumps to his belittling, condescending keyboard. That's *precisely* the attitude I'm referring to. =v= That's just not the way to build a coalition. _Jym_ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Scofflaw | Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_] | UK | 2 | February 22nd 09 11:04 PM |
Paris: Police Crackdown on Bad Cycling after Velib Success | Artemisia[_2_] | General | 11 | September 3rd 07 02:04 AM |
Paris: Police Crackdown on Bad Cycling after Velib Success | Artemisia[_2_] | UK | 10 | September 2nd 07 11:39 PM |
Crackdown on cyclists | wafflycat | UK | 3 | August 7th 07 09:05 AM |
Cambridge Police crackdown | Tony Raven | UK | 40 | November 8th 06 03:00 AM |