Oxford cyclists too dim to take the break that was offered

On Nov 28, 8:12*am, Doug wrote:
On Nov 28, 8:03*am, Derek C wrote:

On Nov 28, 7:14*am, Doug wrote:

On Nov 27, 2:16*pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

Doug wrote:
On Nov 25, 8:47 am, FrengaX wrote:
On Nov 25, 8:43 am, Doug wrote:

On Nov 25, 8:05 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote: In
the Oxford crackdown on unlit cycles which netted 106 unlit bikes
in a
very short time, the police issued 30pound FPNs, but agreed to
waive that if
a receipt for bike lights was produced in 7 days. The receipt was
stamped
by the police. The cyclists have then been returning the lights
and asking
for refunds!! The police have asked that any shop that refunds for
the
lights get and pass on names and addresses of the serial
lawbreakers so that
a 60 pound fpn can be
issued.http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/...ews/8672181.St...

Pity the police do not conduct a similar campaign against faulty
cars,
probably because they are motorists themselves and therefore hate
cyclists anyway, like the motorists who infest this cycling
newsgroup

But they do have such campaigns. The fact that they are so common
means they are not reported.

So it follows then that because crackdowns on cyclists are *not needed
very often they are reported?

or that although they are needed it is rare that they occur.

But as the harm caused by motorists is much greater than the harm
caused by cyclists why do you single out the latter for your special
attention? Are you trying to compensate for something?

-- .

Motorists (and pedestrians) are less likely to harm cyclists if they
can actually see and avoid them at night. That is one of the main
purposes of lights on bicycles. The front light also allows the
cyclist to see where he (or she) is going, and to avoid all the
potholes in our appallingly maintained roads. Why are many cyclists so
reluctant to fit lights when it's in their own interests to do so?

Probably for the same reasons they see the futility of wearing hi-viz
vests and helmets when in the presence of dangerous drivers,
particularly those who have lost control. Also, and this seems to be
an accepted fact if government adverts are anything to go by, some
drivers just do not pay enough attention and thereby put other road
users at serious risk, including cyclists complete with lights, vest
and a helmet.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
*http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

When I used to live in a country area & had to walk down unlit lanes
at night, I used to wear a coat with reflective stripes with suitable
cycle lights clipped to me, you seem to be saying that I wasted my
money.

On 28/11/2010 08:12, Doug wrote:
On Nov 28, 8:03 am, Derek wrote:
On Nov 28, 7:14 am, wrote:

On Nov 27, 2:16 pm, wrote:

Doug wrote:
On Nov 25, 8:47 am, wrote:
On Nov 25, 8:43 am, wrote:

On Nov 25, 8:05 am, wrote: In
the Oxford crackdown on unlit cycles which netted 106 unlit bikes
in a
very short time, the police issued 30pound FPNs, but agreed to
waive that if
a receipt for bike lights was produced in 7 days. The receipt was
stamped
by the police. The cyclists have then been returning the lights
and asking
for refunds!! The police have asked that any shop that refunds for
the
lights get and pass on names and addresses of the serial
lawbreakers so that
a 60 pound fpn can be
issued.http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/...ews/8672181.St...

Pity the police do not conduct a similar campaign against faulty
cars,
probably because they are motorists themselves and therefore hate
cyclists anyway, like the motorists who infest this cycling
newsgroup

But they do have such campaigns. The fact that they are so common
means they are not reported.

So it follows then that because crackdowns on cyclists are not needed
very often they are reported?

or that although they are needed it is rare that they occur.

But as the harm caused by motorists is much greater than the harm
caused by cyclists why do you single out the latter for your special
attention? Are you trying to compensate for something?

-- .

Motorists (and pedestrians) are less likely to harm cyclists if they
can actually see and avoid them at night. That is one of the main
purposes of lights on bicycles. The front light also allows the
cyclist to see where he (or she) is going, and to avoid all the
potholes in our appallingly maintained roads. Why are many cyclists so
reluctant to fit lights when it's in their own interests to do so?

Probably for the same reasons they see the futility of wearing hi-viz
vests and helmets when in the presence of dangerous drivers,
particularly those who have lost control.

If a driver has lost control then such gear would be no good, but as
most drivers do not lose control, anything that makes you more visible
has to be a good thing.(up to a point)

Also, and this seems to be
an accepted fact if government adverts are anything to go by, some
drivers just do not pay enough attention and thereby put other road
users at serious risk, including cyclists complete with lights, vest
and a helmet.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.



--
Tony Dragon

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 28/11/2010 08:16, Tony Raven wrote:
Derek C wrote:

Motorists (and pedestrians) are less likely to harm cyclists if they
can actually see and avoid them at night. That is one of the main
purposes of lights on bicycles. The front light also allows the
cyclist to see where he (or she) is going, and to avoid all the
potholes in our appallingly maintained roads. Why are many cyclists so
reluctant to fit lights when it's in their own interests to do so?


Actually the front lights specified to be fitted at night by law are
pretty useless for seeing where you are going and most of us here
supplement them with lights more suited to that purpose.

But I suspect the real reason for the reluctance is they get stolen if
you leave them on the bike so you have to remember to bring them with
you and take them off whenever you leave the bike. It would be much
better if manufacturers took the German approach and fitted decent
dynamo sets to all their bikes.

That would also bring down the price of dynamo lights, which wouldn't
hurt. The dynamo hub on my Brom cost more than most people spend on an
entire bike.

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM8ik+AAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/TAEH/2WvPR1LpXeKXXpTIPD3To83
L0umpsQUXA8wB4wIxVW59Qm+tq8QZEOrJ59MW+2GFr4e4Fbp7O/YYm9ufOmttVw1
PfmnXo2KXc2PPHu7kgr5TULHHkuGo9iU8xcChCv36ns2kku4od qaHFCdGhkjWLLz
a0uPW5pk/3gJjJSvdnZGO3azu/DZlYgGTn57ULHduaW/Sdin5ARdpxsweKpePlz5
cGvuQCxkBCkeXztw/ojoFq8D3n5cLfD79NmXphe0/BDARCuE13uS283DhP5GBh3M
6nN0ugFnarvSAgvn7ANGClJMH10TAK/A33359Exjg4sxEOqtn4HwBXsV5IPHN0k=
=Iv1G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 28/11/2010 07:14, Doug wrote:
On Nov 27, 2:16 pm, wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Nov 25, 8:47 am, wrote:
On Nov 25, 8:43 am, wrote:

On Nov 25, 8:05 am, wrote: In
the Oxford crackdown on unlit cycles which netted 106 unlit bikes
in a
very short time, the police issued 30pound FPNs, but agreed to
waive that if
a receipt for bike lights was produced in 7 days. The receipt was
stamped
by the police. The cyclists have then been returning the lights
and asking
for refunds!! The police have asked that any shop that refunds for
the
lights get and pass on names and addresses of the serial
lawbreakers so that
a 60 pound fpn can be
issued.http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/...ews/8672181.St...

Pity the police do not conduct a similar campaign against faulty
cars,
probably because they are motorists themselves and therefore hate
cyclists anyway, like the motorists who infest this cycling
newsgroup

But they do have such campaigns. The fact that they are so common
means they are not reported.

So it follows then that because crackdowns on cyclists are not needed
very often they are reported?

or that although they are needed it is rare that they occur.

But as the harm caused by motorists is much greater than the harm
caused by cyclists why do you single out the latter for your special
attention?

How much greater than dead by cycle is dead by car? How much more broken
is a broken arm caused by a cyclist than one by a car driver?

On 28/11/2010 10:10, Marc wrote:
On 28/11/2010 07:14, Doug wrote:
On Nov 27, 2:16 pm, wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Nov 25, 8:47 am, wrote:
On Nov 25, 8:43 am, wrote:

On Nov 25, 8:05 am, wrote: In
the Oxford crackdown on unlit cycles which netted 106 unlit bikes
in a
very short time, the police issued 30pound FPNs, but agreed to
waive that if
a receipt for bike lights was produced in 7 days. The receipt was
stamped
by the police. The cyclists have then been returning the lights
and asking
for refunds!! The police have asked that any shop that refunds for
the
lights get and pass on names and addresses of the serial
lawbreakers so that
a 60 pound fpn can be
issued.http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/...ews/8672181.St...


Pity the police do not conduct a similar campaign against faulty
cars,
probably because they are motorists themselves and therefore hate
cyclists anyway, like the motorists who infest this cycling
newsgroup

But they do have such campaigns. The fact that they are so common
means they are not reported.

So it follows then that because crackdowns on cyclists are not needed
very often they are reported?

or that although they are needed it is rare that they occur.

But as the harm caused by motorists is much greater than the harm
caused by cyclists why do you single out the latter for your special
attention?

How much greater than dead by cycle is dead by car? How much more broken
is a broken arm caused by a cyclist than one by a car driver?

Somebody might be able to provide the link, but I believe that Doug has
posted that you are a different sort of dead if you are killed by a bike.


--
Tony Dragon

On 28/11/2010 19:01, Phil W Lee wrote:
considered Sun, 28 Nov 2010 10:10:17 +0000
the perfect time to write:

On 28/11/2010 07:14, Doug wrote:
But as the harm caused by motorists is much greater than the harm
caused by cyclists why do you single out the latter for your special
attention?

How much greater than dead by cycle is dead by car? How much more broken
is a broken arm caused by a cyclist than one by a car driver?

You are being intentionally thick.

The number of broken bones and deaths caused by cyclists pales into
insignificance when compared to the number or each caused by motor
vehicles.

Even ignoring sheer numbers, there are types of injury that a cycle
just does not have sufficient energy to inflict, yet which are caused
by motor vehicles with depressing regularity.

You mean more than fatal injuries?

On 28/11/2010 19:01, Phil W Lee wrote:
considered Sun, 28 Nov 2010 10:10:17 +0000
the perfect time to write:

On 28/11/2010 07:14, Doug wrote:
But as the harm caused by motorists is much greater than the harm
caused by cyclists why do you single out the latter for your special
attention?

How much greater than dead by cycle is dead by car? How much more broken
is a broken arm caused by a cyclist than one by a car driver?

You are being intentionally thick.

The number of broken bones and deaths caused by cyclists pales into
insignificance when compared to the number or each caused by motor
vehicles.

Even ignoring sheer numbers, there are types of injury that a cycle
just does not have sufficient energy to inflict, yet which are caused
by motor vehicles with depressing regularity.

And there was me thinking dead was dead, I must be intentionally thick.

--
Tony Dragon

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 28/11/2010 19:23, Marc wrote:
On 28/11/2010 19:01, Phil W Lee wrote:
considered Sun, 28 Nov 2010 10:10:17 +0000
the perfect time to write:

On 28/11/2010 07:14, Doug wrote:
But as the harm caused by motorists is much greater than the harm
caused by cyclists why do you single out the latter for your special
attention?

How much greater than dead by cycle is dead by car? How much more broken
is a broken arm caused by a cyclist than one by a car driver?

You are being intentionally thick.

The number of broken bones and deaths caused by cyclists pales into
insignificance when compared to the number or each caused by motor
vehicles.

Even ignoring sheer numbers, there are types of injury that a cycle
just does not have sufficient energy to inflict, yet which are caused
by motor vehicles with depressing regularity.

You mean more than fatal injuries?


You can hardly fail to be aware by now that the number of pedestrians
killed on the footway by cyclists is tiny. Most years, zero. I think
you'll find that pedestrians kill as many cyclists as the other way
round, and tiny numbers in both cases.

Drivers kill one or two pedestrians per fortnight *on the pavement*.
That's in addition to all those they kill while crossing the road.

There are risks to pedestrians on pavements, as far as can objectively
quantified cyclists are not a significant risk.

They are a source of annoyance. Cycling on the pavement is a terrible
idea for lots of reasons, and we in thie groupa re mystified why
councils encourage it, but as far as the data goes it's more of a risk
to the cyclist than to the pedestrians. Riding on the footway against he
direction of traffic is one of the most dangerous things a cyclist can
do, as far as I recall.

If you want to make a fuss about nuisance, go right ahead, you'll not
find a lot of dissent here. But danger? Come back when you have credible
evidence of a significant problem.
- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM8t44AAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/NNwH/A3yl54tJ3YvN78l0QxRV3DJ
PMUjMAd1gMdJ9QcjHGSXdcKVWI77a7JE/25ckndwHiMKsed0hOriyXWRdbmYF4yr
LIAjbTu105iNpxL7hirotWx0DXHMp+z60WZYGaMuKgq1NWJAik 9bZuTVCgVs6RVj
0RUfXssQ09XQiZjvuLNjzK1Wm+agbGdQ+B/z8P7bNT8MAy/CIva8oIF8BTj6dmof
4P6kvUimrjbvC9+6b0J/pVzQXqOIPb0jPo9TQL7iNqiGEC57qJsFI7sk8yNoW2+P
521ACrHYgVvYBzEvH/SpfNnqRFW40QricncHIDYp62XuVJTpRZGU5hzXIvrz5h8=
=BOyc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 28/11/2010 22:56, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 28/11/2010 19:23, Marc wrote:
On 28/11/2010 19:01, Phil W Lee wrote:
considered Sun, 28 Nov 2010 10:10:17 +0000
the perfect time to write:

On 28/11/2010 07:14, Doug wrote:
But as the harm caused by motorists is much greater than the harm
caused by cyclists why do you single out the latter for your special
attention?

How much greater than dead by cycle is dead by car? How much more broken
is a broken arm caused by a cyclist than one by a car driver?

You are being intentionally thick.

The number of broken bones and deaths caused by cyclists pales into
insignificance when compared to the number or each caused by motor
vehicles.

Even ignoring sheer numbers, there are types of injury that a cycle
just does not have sufficient energy to inflict, yet which are caused
by motor vehicles with depressing regularity.

You mean more than fatal injuries?


You can hardly fail to be aware by now that the number of pedestrians
killed on the footway by cyclists is tiny. Most years, zero. I think
you'll find that pedestrians kill as many cyclists as the other way
round, and tiny numbers in both cases.

Drivers kill one or two pedestrians per fortnight *on the pavement*.
That's in addition to all those they kill while crossing the road.

There are risks to pedestrians on pavements, as far as can objectively
quantified cyclists are not a significant risk.

They are a source of annoyance. Cycling on the pavement is a terrible
idea for lots of reasons, and we in thie groupa re mystified why
councils encourage it, but as far as the data goes it's more of a risk
to the cyclist than to the pedestrians. Riding on the footway against he
direction of traffic is one of the most dangerous things a cyclist can
do, as far as I recall.

If you want to make a fuss about nuisance, go right ahead, you'll not
find a lot of dissent here. But danger? Come back when you have credible
evidence of a significant problem.
- --

I think you have got your attributions mixed again.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

They are a source of annoyance. Cycling on the pavement is a terrible
idea for lots of reasons, and we in thie groupa re mystified why
councils encourage it

According to a Cambridge Councillor, its because of popular demand from
his constituents. Which kind of makes a nonsense of the argument that
the population is against it. Ill-informed maybe but against it?
Apparently quite the opposite.

Tony