|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Oxford motorists immune from crackdowns.
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. |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Oxford motorists immune from crackdowns.
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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Oxford cyclists too dim to take the break that was offered.
-----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----- |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Oxford motorists immune from crackdowns.
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? |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Oxford motorists immune from crackdowns.
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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Oxford motorists immune from crackdowns.
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? |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Oxford motorists immune from crackdowns.
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 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Oxford motorists immune from crackdowns.
-----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----- |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Oxford motorists immune from crackdowns.
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. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Oxford motorists immune from crackdowns.
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
one in 5 cyclists in westminster break the law | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 27 | August 14th 10 09:47 AM |
This is better than any excuse VDB ever offered | Carl Sundquist | Racing | 11 | April 12th 09 11:06 AM |
Cyclists break the road rules... | scotty72[_106_] | Australia | 56 | January 16th 08 10:41 AM |
Has Tyler H. Offered any Explanation? | steve | Racing | 9 | July 22nd 05 04:26 PM |
Oxford cyclists win again | Colin Blackburn | UK | 20 | June 21st 04 03:16 PM |