The camera masts are indeed four feet high
and, to be honest, if you fail to notice a white Smart with a four foot camera mast on the roof, you're probably already well on your way to a due care and attention offence anyway...
A band of bikers have recently taken to helping motorists in Westminster identify the London borough's fleet of CCTV smart cars. The ominous grinding sound in the background is either the sound of gears being changed – or Westminster council welcoming the move from between gritted teeth. The present confrontation follows a …
and, to be honest, if you fail to notice a white Smart with a four foot camera mast on the roof, you're probably already well on your way to a due care and attention offence anyway...
To see how these cars are far from a 'visible deterrent' and are deployed where signs are inadequate for maximum revenue, check out some of these videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/ShibariShamster?feature=mhum#g/u
More likely a telescopic pole. If it is a telescopic pole and in its extended state is so high than it will clearly violate a couple of regs regarding peeking into people's private property. Not that the council CCTV drones do not do it anyway by directing the cameras to "spots of interest" anyway.
Had a mate who was assigned to monitor the CCTV footage for a while. Heard plenty of stories of abusing them - zooming them in on hot women (even capturing a few "up the skirt" shots. They jokingly called them "health checks".
Also heard 1 story of it saving some poor sailor from a lot of trouble with the law... the guys in the CCTV room filmed the sailor and a young lass late night antics as they wandered through a deserted mall.... later the young lady made a complaint of rape to the police. Long story short, the CCTV footage showed it was consensual and the complaint was dropped.
"(even capturing a few "up the skirt" shots."
With a 4' mast on top of car? I had heard there were some very long legged ladies in the city, but a skirt higher than about 9' from the ground? I am feeling intimidated! :-)
the way that it was parked on double lines.
People to watch the watchers. I'm pretty sure the driversof the cars hate be followed and spied upon.
Now join the club.
I once - somewhat naively - argued the case for cameras, believing that the underlying motive was a desire to prevent death and injury. But harsh experience has proved to me that the people who behind this are equipped with nothing more than a cash register.
I was photographed pulling into a carpark, which necessitated crossing a bus lane, and received a penalty notice for driving in a bus lane. I objected, pointing out that I was merely parking and had not travelled any significant distance in the lane. Reality arrived in the form of a standard rejection notice basically setting out how I could spend huge amounts of time and money taking the complaint to appeal (in the knowledge that practically no one would want to do so).
This event has not merely demolished my illusion that cameras having something to do with safety. What can you think of a governing body that penalises citizens who are striving to uphold the rules we have agreed on? It makes a mockery - an ass - of the whole system.
.. if you have failed to notice this trend over the last, say, 15 odd years or so.
The golden rule is simple: if anything CAN be abused it WILL. Rules and ethics be damned, the only behaviour management is called "getting away with it or not".
Now, back on your head.
... but how long before the bikers are arrested for "obstruction of justice" or some similar nonsense?
Still love it, though.
Like leaving your CCTV Camera car sat on double yellows?
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that.
Although i've spotted similar cars where I live and have had to photograph them for parking on double yellows or making a junction unpassable because the smart car driver has done a runner!
That T-junction is left turn only except for cyclists who can turn right through a chicane. It's also a known spot for Wockney Canker cab drivers to dummy left and then whip around to the right. I've almost been taken out by the twats twice. Fine by me if the council sits and ticket the lot of them.
Is there any evidence that these camera cars do actually turn a profit for the council after the cost of the cars, the cameras, the drivers' wages, the monitoring and billing, the ripoff contract with the private company?
"3. Will the Smart Cars have to be parked legally?
The vehicles have Parking Identifier Boards which exempt parking on paid for parking places, resident bays, and single and double yellow lines. They may not park anywhere else and only obtain the exemption by means of carrying out a statutory function. "
In response to the comment titled "these guys on motorbikes are bellends":
The reason the taxi drivers (and other vehicles) turn left and then do a U-turn is because it's perfectly legal - they are not breaking the law so the council cannot fine them! They can only fine people who don't comply with the 'no right turn' sign, ie. motorists that turn right (which, I'm sure you'll agree, is less dangerous than turning left and then doing a U-turn). The 'no right turn' is not there for safety reasons, it's purely an attempt to stop vehicles using the road as a "short-cut", which just causes more congestion on neighbouring roads.
Westminster City Council make more money from parking charges and fines than any other council in the UK so they are obviously making a profit, even though they pay NSL Services Ltd, the company that holds the parking enforcement contract and operates the CCTV cars, over £100,000.00 per month for each camera car!
Surely the plucky Motorcyclingists are free to 'waste' their own time as they please?
It'll be an offence to follow the cars soon, you wait.
... and intention will be irrelevant, as with so many other truly wrong strict liability crimes. Thus, merely being within sight of the camera will make you liable to a fine. That will keep roads safe/generate revenue (delete as appropriate). It will probably apply to merely walking past one too, bringing a whole new range of people into the money-grasping claws of Westminster council (and then all the others that will quickly follow suit once they see the chance to make money).
I hate our current society, I really do.
Well done those bikers. In my opinion those cars do not seem very visible and so, how are they a deterant?
"The council's two CCTV cars both have 15 foot cameras and large signage to make them clearly visible and easy for motorists to spot, so I'm not sure that this is the best use of the motorcyclists' time."
Where was the mentioned signage? I did not see any.
And this comes from someone that thinks people speeding should be caught by cameras (as long as they are there as a deterant with signage).
the only place cameras should be used in enforcement is if they are in a human's hands.
It's outrageous infringement of the civil liberties of the utter nutcases who decide to scream down bus lanes passing stationary traffic just to cut in at the next junction or park on double yellow lines making a two lane road into one ( just to get a paper or whatever) or heaven forbid those 30minute phone conversations that commuting shouldnt get in the way of ( obviously so important that hands free just doesnt cut it). Yes , terrible infringement..
Obviously these people have much more important jobs than everyone else including the pedestrians , cyclists and other car/wagon/van drivers who have to get out of their way when they barge back into traffic or swing suddenly down a side road.
tbh I'd have thought motorcyclists would have thanked the council for trying to clamp down on the idiots. The irony being, you know if you can't actually see those things, then you know maybe you're not paying enough attention to the driving?
I have seen them in Manchester - pity they throw their Highway Code out the window and park where ever the f**k they like. Never any scallies about when you need them, i'm sure they could topple those cars over ha ha
...that thinks a motorcycle pollutes more than a Hummer (20mpg, CO2 327g/km)! "motorcycles, even small ones, pollute more than Hummers" (Susie Burbridge, Conservative Councillor)
Now I will grant you that rose petals do not come tumbling out the zorst of a GSX-R, but they do not pollute more than a Hummer. An MP3 Hybrid will do 165mpg and only produce CO2 40g/km!
Why Westminster are hell-bent on discouraging part of the solution to their congestion problems is completely beyond me. One person on a bike is one less person in a cage.
The main criticism I have of the biking world (this includes all magazines and manufacturers) is that they make it so hard to find out MPG, CO2 emissions etcs. This should be easily available and the real-world figures made available by the magazines in every article/review. I'm looking at you Bauer.
...CO2 emissions are not the entirety of 'pollution'. Not necessarily even the most important element.
"...CO2 emissions are not the entirety of 'pollution'. Not necessarily even the most important element."
No, they aren't. However, most studies showing the average modern fuel injected motorcycles performing so poorly do so in terms of ppm pollutant in the exhaust stream. Oddly enough, they never seem to break this out into a per-mile comparison. Since a Hummer has a /slightly/ larger engine than, for example, my Burgman 400 (only about an entire order of magnitude!), this unsurprisingly starts to level those numbers out quite a bit.
That's not to say that motorcycle exhaust is great, or that every bike is a winner - just that this automatic assumption that just because it's a gasoline engine on two wheels that it must be spewing out 10, 20, 50, 90 (whatever number comes from your favorite, probably biased, study) times the pollution is flawed. Yes, the worst of the worst is pretty damn bad, but in the small and mid-sized bike markets it's actually quite easy to get something which will beat a Hummer on /every/ pollutant level in the real world.
"Parts Per Million != Grams Per Mile"
Yup. Your bikes PPM could be 10 times worse than a Hummer's, but if you produre 1,000 times less particles you're on to a winner.
One problem facing use two-wheeled-hooligans is that there is little space on a bike to fit a Cat, particle filters etc that one can do on larger vehicles. The other issue is that almost all bike engines are race derived. They want to rev high and that does not always lead to good economy or efficiency. Some cars are approaching bikes for efficiency (especially in the urban cycle) and this is due to them being specifically targeted at efficiency. Low MPG sells in the car world, it's hidden information in the bike world.
Of course, bikes still take less material to make, reduce wear on roads and take less space when driven/parked.
"enforce both moving traffic contraventions and parking contraventions through the capture of moving images"
What exactly is the problem with this? As the saying goes "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime".
If drivers are unable to resist jumping red lights, sitting in box junctions, abusing cycle advance areas and parking where they shouldn't then fine them to high heaven. The law abiding majority can rest happy that their council tax is lower and more people are kept in paid employment by another tax on the stupid.
... but a snivelling one at that. Just because it is a law does not make it right (and I am a lawyer).
I'm often tempted to do something similar with our own local mobile speed cameras - have a nice sign warning people to slow down for the camera and put it up a hundred yards from the van - they can't complain as their purpose is to make sure that people don't speed rather than catching them when they do, and if a nice sign does that, well, three cheers!
OK, I REALLY don't get this type of attitude??? Are you also in favor of having someone sat outside your house telling the burglar when you are getting home so they don't get caught breaking the law???
And how the hell are radar detectors legal??? Their ONLY purpose is to warn you that you are about to get caught breaking the law!!!???
Why do soooooo many people have an issue with people getting caught breaking the law (and in a dangerous manner) ????
No wonder the country is going down the crapper when we prefer to make it difficult for people breaking the law to be caught.
"OK, I REALLY don't get this type of attitude??? Are you also in favor of having someone sat outside your house telling the burglar when you are getting home so they don't get caught breaking the law???"
Very, very strange analogy. In one case, a disgruntled citizen performs a perfectly legal action which results in a another citizen /not/ breaking the law, and not getting a perceived to be (important, read what's coming) UNFAIR ticket issued not to increase safety or decrease crime, but rather to increase revenue. In the other, a disgruntled citizen actually becomes an accessory to the crime of burglarizing a home... if after a bit of cool contemplation you still think this is a good comparison, then I probably have nothing more to say to you. Otherwise, keep reading.
"And how the hell are radar detectors legal??? Their ONLY purpose is to warn you that you are about to get caught breaking the law!!!???"
For someone who doesn't own, or want, a radar detector (and frankly considers them to be both a bad idea and a waste of money), this is a rather philosophical question. Do we really think that it should be illegal to modify equipment /you own/ to, for example, run linux, play back ups of your games, run applications of /your/ choosing, not those blessed by the Holy Imprint... yet, nearly all of those examples had at least one phase where the /only/ thing 99% of the people using it were doing with it were breaking the law (or, depending on jurisdiction, civil contract). Personally, I like living in a world where the iphone gets jailbroken, where the ps3 is used to run linux based supercomputing clusters and the xbox has become one of the most economical and useful media center platforms around. This all depends on a world where we let people have things which, hypothetically, have no "legitimate" use. I have no idea what practical use someone could do with a radar detector /other/ than for breaking the law, but I'm sure there's something.
"Why do soooooo many people have an issue with people getting caught breaking the law (and in a dangerous manner) ????"
Well, back to the CCTV cameras, I think the biggest issue that the /majority/ have is simply that they aren't BELIEVED to increase safety AT ALL. They are seen as CASH COWS. People that may well have a "I did the crime, I'll pay the fine" attitude most of the time can get rather irate when they think that the only reason they are paying the fine is to fill someone else's pockets.
And, before we even start to argue about whether the cameras are safety motivated, profit motivated, or some mix, it's important to realize that it doesn't matter. It's what people believe that matters, and people believe they are being ripped off.
Of course, some people are just inconsiderate asses who don't even consider that the safety of other people on the road may be endangered by their driving, or don't care. In my experience, these are the type most likely to own radar detectors, and then drive as if rocket propelled most of the time, then slam on the brakes and come shuddering down to the speed limit on a regular basis. But you don't need a radar detector to drive like an ass, and having one won't automatically convert a good driver into a bad one.
"No wonder the country is going down the crapper when we prefer to make it difficult for people breaking the law to be caught."
Or, it could be because not enough people are making even a token attempt to see the opposition's point? In all sincerity, your post was so party line that it read like an astroturf post*. Assuming you are a private individual, I'd strongly suggest you try to actually pay attention to people when they talk. It's not like I've said anything here that hasn't been posted to El Reg a hundred or more times.
* Of course, if you are an astroturfer, why are you bothering? I would have thought y'all would have figured out those who dwell in the El Reg comment board are not good astroturfing targets. For one thing, as a group we are opinionated and cynical.
If speeding cameras were indeed (a) reducing accidents and (b) were solely placed at locations where they would indeed contribute to safety instead of the liquidity of the relevant owners you'd be right.
However, speed is far from the only issue on the road. IMHO there are more accidents caused by idiots blocking traffic by hanging on the wrong lane and "creative lane use" (idiots "undertaking" and changing lanes at speeds that differ sometimes more than 20 mph with the surrounding traffic), yet the cameras along the road seem not able to record and grab these people by the goolies.
Oh, and that report that claimed speed cameras reduced fatalities? Let me just say that not all is well with that report, yet it is quoted everywhere.. If a report comes to a logic defying conclusion and over 50% of it is dedicated to how the conclusion was calculated you're looking at something that warrants a better look.
In short, people have no problem with the speed - they have a problem with the abuse of the law in the name of profit. It does two things: it creates resentment and, most vitally, it breeds disrespect for the law and its original purpose. Remarkably similar result with privacy laws.. Lose-lose scenario, but it makes money..
@AC, in RE: Radar Detectors:
When a radar detector detects radar, what does the driver do?
Slow down, obviously.
And isn't that supposed to be the entire point of traffic enforcement of speed zones..? To get people to drive at a safe speed? So isn't the radar detector, in fact, aiding in enforcement and safety? What's your problem with them, then?
Or is it... That speed zones are actually supposed to be stealth taxes on motorists, and radar detectors are getting in the way of revenues..? Hmm? If that's the real truth, why don't the councils say so..?
Either the council wants folks nice and safe, or they want to raid your pockets, and are lying about it. Seems to me you've got yourself an untenable position .
Radar speed traps are, more often than not, used to detect and fine drivers who are doing trivial amounts over the speed limit as a revenue raising method. If police and councils did more to actually detect and fine idiot drivers who are driving dangerously instead of sending out hundreds and thousands of automated fines for trivial "offences" then perhaps people would be more accepting of these robocop income generators.
... but here goes. A radar detector is no different from the databases of cameras - they merely inform the driver of an area which the local council or whoever have decided is dangerous enough to warrant a speed camera being put up. This gives advance warning of an upcoming problem - how can you possibly be against that? Equally, they give advance notice of mobile cameras which are sited in areas where there are known to be problems with speeding, perhaps due to the road design (30mph dual carriageway with poor speed signage, for instance), and therefore remind people of the speed limit (which many satnavs do anyway). In both instances, it means that accidents are avoided, since people do not suddenly jump on the brakes when they see the camera. How can you be against that?
Regarding speed and other infractions - well, just see any of my other posts here on the same topic. Black-letter law, and the numpties like you that advocate it, is an affront to everything this country has ever stood for.
I suspect you are just a troll, and I'm regretting answering you already.
... remember Stuart Harding who got a fine and a driving ban for putting up a sign warning about a speed trap! See www.telegraph.co.uk/news/.../Motorist-is-banned-over-speed-trap-alert.html.
I don't quite get your logic on why the burglar analogy is flawed? Maybe it isn't perfect but the point I was trying to make is that anything/anyone who's sole purpose is to let people who are breaking the law know that they are about to get caught is wrong.
The analogy is pretty close. A 'concerned' citizen is letting people who may be breaking the law know they are in danger of getting caught by making it obvious that these camera cars are around. Just like the lorry driver flashing his lights on the motorway. . Where is this analogy wrong? Just because the citizen is not directly related to the crime being committed is irrelevant.
So, if you get a speeding ticket you are not more likely to not speed? I would say this is almost by definition "decreasing crime". If not, then you sound like you might fall into your own subsequently defined "inconsiderate asses" class. I have/had a close friend's family completely wiped out due to some ass doing 98mph in a 40 zone. Killed 2 adults and 2 kids. Speeding, jumping lights etc... are illegal for a reason. I agree, there are plenty of asses out there that will never learn/don't care. Does this mean we need to get rid of the laws then?
As for "unfair", well, it always is unfair when you get caught isn't it !?? Our prisons are FULL of people who didn't do anything wrong and their incarceration is unfair !!
Regarding the modification question... Yes it is philosophical and I think we actually agree here. Unfortunately at the moment modifying your hardware IS illegal (depending on where you are and who the judge of the moment is). Again, unfortunately whether something should be illegal or not is not the issue being discussed here. Turning when you are not supposed to IS illegal. Speeding IS illegal. Driving whilst on a mobile IS illegal. Should they all be??? THAT is the philosophical part. Getting caught doing them is not philosophical. Neither is it 'unfair'. You broke the law. You got caught. End of story.
Regarding radar detectors, I am not quite sure what your stance is here? Their function is in their name. Their sole purpose is to detect radar. Pretty unambiguous I think. I don't know a single person using one for any other purpose. Do I know people who use mod chips or copy DVDs so the originals they own don't get damaged? Yes. Guess which one is illegal though??? The one with the most money behind it.
For the CCTV debate, I expect we probably agree on much more than you would initially think. Obviously cameras DO reduce crime other wise it would not be the billion dollar business it is. Shops have them, warehouses have them etc... to catch thieves/nogooders. Are they abused. Sure. Should they be completely removed because of this? That is another philosophical question? Personally I would much rather see better enforcement of camera abuse. People are liars. Cameras catch them in their lies. I know too many people who have been in, for example, car accidents and both parties say the other was at fault. What is wrong with having an impartial view of those events? Panning those same cameras to look through a bedroom window, well, that is something completely different. The issue is not the cameras but the people controlling them.
The cash cow argument is used all the time, and doesn't hold water for me. So what if they make money too??? You still got busted breaking the law !!! With your logic why do we fine ANYONE for anything? If you break the law there has to be some pain involved otherwise we degrade into anarchy.
Regarding "people believe they are being ripped off"... which people? The ones getting caught !!??? LOL... yeah, I am sure they do feel it is "unfair" and they are "being ripped off". DON"T BREAK THE LAW DUFUS !!
Your statement "attempt to see the opposition's point" is rather ironic I think !!! This is a fairly pleasant discussion, but the first thing YOU say is basically 'If you don't agree with me then I don't want to talk to you' !! OK, whatever. I do think the analogy is fairly good. not perfect, but if you actually think for a little, covers the salient points I was trying to make.
And WTF is the "party line" or "an astroturfer"??? I am just someone who can't understand why we all complain about crime, social security, the weather etc... expecting someone else to fix it but when something, anything catches us in a 'minor' incursion it is all of a sudden a civil liberties invasion. If this is 'party line' then so be it.
Finally, regarding "pay attention to people"... please practice what you preach. All I really said here is that I find it amazing that people are complaining about getting caught breaking the law, somehow believing that the methodology of HOW they got caught should have any bearing at all on the matter. This is yet another philosophical discussion though.
If they slowed down for more than the 10 seconds it takes to not get caught, then I would agree. But they then speed up again. All this does is cause a sudden change in the flow, which is more dangerous than simply driving fast but smooth.
Speed zones themselves are a waste of time for exactly the same reason.
If you want to call getting caught and having to pay a fine a stealth tax, then knock yourself out. I don't think there is really anything stealth about it though. You know if you speed and get caught there is a fine !!!
When you say "got yourself an untenable position" are you talking to me? If so, how? I am not sure what you mean.
So, you would be quite happy if the councils simply said "we are using speed cameras to catch you breaking the law and to make some money in the process" ? If so, then it sounds like you don't really have an issue with the laws/cameras etc... but with the way they are presented to you?
So, because I have an opinion different to yours, which I though I had actually expressed in a fairly civil manner, I am a troll ??!!! OK.
I agree that the speed camera databases are no different. I think they cause exactly the same issues as radar detectors which is drivers suddenly slowing down for the 10 seconds necessary to not get caught, then speed up again to continue breaking the law.
You logic in "local council or whoever have decided is dangerous enough to warrant a speed camera being put up" is so wildly flawed it is laughable !!! THE SPEED LIMIT IS WHAT DOES THIS. The cameras are there because idiots decide that they don't want to abide by either the law nor the council's prior warning. Don't try and justify your own law breaking by saying signs are badly visible !!!
I agree 100% with sat navs warning you about your speed. What is your point here? Warning about speed cameras is completely the opposite !!!
Warning people about speed cameras certainly does NOT mean accidents are avoided since this MAKES people jump on their breaks.
Just what makes me a troll or numptie ??? You are basically saying that just because I don't believe you should be warned that you are about to get caught breaking the law I am somehow anti British !!! Now YOU are being a numptie !!!
What I DO believe is that if you are breaking the law you should pay the fine? How is this an affront to everything this country has ever stood for ???? Idiot.
OK, perhaps a little over the top, but you see my point???
I honestly wasn't sure whether you were troll, which I why I answered (if I was sure, I wouldn't have bothered). You clearly aren't, since you have replied. It doesn't change my opinion of you, though.
Yes, I do honestly believe that anyone who stands behind black letter law has no clue about the history of English law, or why we are far better off with a measured, proportionate response to any infractions. Since you seem to be a "black letter lawyer", to me, means that you do not support what this country has (or at least used to) stand for, and that you are a numptie, and an idiot. Legal absolutists are a plague on society as bad as those who treat the law with contempt.
Regarding people not being warned about potentially law-breaking activity - how far do you want to take that? Is publishing them alright? If yes, what about guides specifically stating laws that may apply to the activity - say, in this case, the Highway Code? What about the speed limit signs? Or are you just saying that people should not arm themselves with the relevant ability to remind themselves.
Your argument that databases of clearly visible street furniture should be banned is beyond laughable, especially since, somewhere else, you claim that satnavs warning the driver about exceeding a posted speed-limit is OK.
Regarding speeding - I have posted on here so many times. If you are interested, the posts are archived. Needless to say, in short, the argument goes that speed is the cause of *all* accidents, and, if you agree that emergency services should be allowed to go over a speed limit, you have immediately undermined the argument about "speeding" being an absolute crime to be punished without mercy.
Oh, and don't assume that I break the laws regarding speed-limits just because I am against the absolutist argument, and I won't assume that you are one of those arrogant bastards that drive as if they own the road because they are doing the speed limit.
It seemed to be on double yellow lines, also the side windows seemed very dark...
These rides started off as a Saturday event and have now expanded to any day people are free. We had a single rider out on Monday who must have saved motorists over £1000 in fines.
There is now a Twitter feed that we update with locations as we find them and people can let us know where the cameras are easily. http://twitter.com/NoToMob
We are also starting to expand operations outside Westminster due to the fact that the Westminster cars have developed a habit of running back to base when we turn up.
... have one on me (when you aren't riding, obviously!)
...if they did generate revenue, they could be reducing local council tax bills at the expense of the people who are holding you up by driving and parking badly.
The mantra that 'all road use law enforcement is bad' is ridiculous. The whole point of this is to make life a little easier and safer for those who can be naffed to drive legally at the expense of those who can't tell the difference between reality and their Playstation.
Nobody minds when burglars get fined, but a guy breaking the law in a car is more likely to kill or injure you or a member of your family than a guy breaking the law by nicking your telly when you are out.
Grow up, pass puberty and lose the 'Top Gear' mentality.
"Nobody minds when burglars get fined, but a guy breaking the law in a car is more likely to kill or injure you or a member of your family than a guy breaking the law by nicking your telly when you are out."
Another poor analogy. A guy following the law (or doing his absolute best) in his car is more likely to kill or injure you than a burglar breaking into your home. It only follows that a person driving illegally is also more likely to kill or injure you.
Grow up, pass basic logic and take a stats course.
I love this idea...but find it ironic that the car is parked on double yellows.
I hope they roll this out nationwide. As a cyclist, I am fed up with ignorant morons parking on bus stops, double yellows, main roads, cycle lanes, bus lanes, pavements and curbs. The insulting thing is they put on their hazards as if this somehow makes them invisible or makes their actions acceptable.
Why is it that this is the only crime where people waffle on about making money? Stop breaking the law! Take responsibily for your anti social actions.
I trust that was _meant_ to be ironic - a cyclist complaining about inattention to the rules of the road!! (Or are you one of the 15% or so that do?)
...well, I am certainly one of the 15% that do.
The problem with your argument Dave 1, is that if I hit a pram with my bike I am more likely to be killed and the baby in the pram is likely not to be. Despite what OAPs (who drive in a disgracefully dangerous fashion) might say.
Lets see what happens when the driver of the tonnage of metal that can go a little bit faster does to a pedestrian, cyclist, granny, pram etc.
My argument is with the people who cause safety hazards (double yellows DO serve a purpose) and the slack, often non existent punishing of such acts. When such acts are punished, I am glad.
Just don't drive like a tosser...where does this sense of entitlement to break the law come from?!!
Bikes VS cars is a fail argument...one weighs a lot of tons, the other is a minor annoyance...lets look at the stats for people killed by cyclists compared to motorists and see where we stand.
"is that if I hit a pram with my bike I am more likely to be killed and the baby in the pram is likely not to be"
Huh? Given that you are fully grown adult, I reckon you will be nursing cuts and bruises (I also assume you wear a helmet). Given hat a baby is not really up to dealing with blunt-force trauma, it is most likely to come off worst. 80+kg Vs 5~kgs? No contest really