Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GastronomicKleptomaniac]

I'm still trying to get nicked for "wanton and furious cycling"...

[JamesV6CDX]

Sorry to any responsible cyclists on here, but it's exactly the situation that I see daily and NO police action is ever taken against them

If it were enforced more, I suspect there would be numerous allegations of "easy targets", "revenue raising", and comments that the police should be  better using their resources in times of national austerity as opposed to booking cyclists for road traffic offences.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't .................. 

[Bigron]

James, truly I am on your side; I don't think you would be damned, because so many people despair of the irresponsible activities and attitudes of a growing number of "don't-give-a-f*ck" riders - and they are not always the young.
Allowing them greater priority on the roads (WHEN they actually use them rather than the pavements) will only exacerbate the situation and lead to more accidents/deaths from a group who already believe themselves to be above the law.

Ron.

[biggriffin]

Mamils should be lined up on front of there families and shot. vote TB 

[Rods2]

James, truly I am on your side; I don't think you would be damned, because so many people despair of the irresponsible activities and attitudes of a growing number of "don't-give-a-f*ck" riders - and they are not always the young.
Allowing them greater priority on the roads (WHEN they actually use them rather than the pavements) will only exacerbate the situation and lead to more accidents/deaths from a group who already believe themselves to be above the law.

Ron.

Lord Denning: "Be you ever so high, you are not above the law". The only exception is the Queen.

I don't think many people have a problem with people breaking the law being brought to book.

Bearing in mind that the police have finite, NOT infinite resources, perspective and looking at the big picture on how best to use those limited resources are important:

In 2012:

Cyclists killed 0 (yes zero) motorists and injured 79 (which is 79 too many) other road users. So there is clearly a major problem here. Maybe Ron should start a petition on change.org for a major police clampdown on cyclists. If this can halve deaths from 0 to 0 and injuries from 79 to 40 per year, just image the difference this would make to road safety!

In comparison: Vehicle drivers injured 195,723, seriously injured 23,039 and killed 1,754. Clearly, in Ron's world, this mass carnage is totally acceptable and the police should look the other way while the carnage continues. After all say a massive clampdown like he thinks should be applied to cyclists was applied to motorists with a 50% reduction in accident statistics. This would save 97,862 injuries, 11520 serious injuries and 877 deaths.

In Ron's world clearly using the police to clamp down on cyclists would be a good use of police time and resources, not sure that wiser people with a better perspective will agree though.

[Lizzie Zoom]

mmmm Rod..  I have seen these figure for 2014:

http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/pedal-cyclists/facts-figures/

...and also noticed this report for 2017 about London.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-38923734

Now obviously this is nowhere near a complete picture, but it does indicate many cyclists are badly injured with more than zero killed, with 2012 being perhaps just a  good times year.

[RobG]

Sorry to any responsible cyclists on here, but it's exactly the situation that I see daily and NO police action is ever taken against them

If it were enforced more, I suspect there would be numerous allegations of "easy targets", "revenue raising", and comments that the police should be  better using their resources in times of national austerity as opposed to booking cyclists for road traffic offences.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't .................. 

Such as booking motorists for RTO`s

What`s good for the goose...............

[ronnyd]

James, truly I am on your side; I don't think you would be damned, because so many people despair of the irresponsible activities and attitudes of a growing number of "don't-give-a-f*ck" riders - and they are not always the young.
Allowing them greater priority on the roads (WHEN they actually use them rather than the pavements) will only exacerbate the situation and lead to more accidents/deaths from a group who already believe themselves to be above the law.

Ron.

Lord Denning: "Be you ever so high, you are not above the law". The only exception is the Queen.

I don't think many people have a problem with people breaking the law being brought to book.

Bearing in mind that the police have finite, NOT infinite resources, perspective and looking at the big picture on how best to use those limited resources are important:

In 2012:

Cyclists killed 0 (yes zero) motorists and injured 79 (which is 79 too many) other road users. So there is clearly a major problem here. Maybe Ron should start a petition on change.org for a major police clampdown on cyclists. If this can halve deaths from 0 to 0 and injuries from 79 to 40 per year, just image the difference this would make to road safety!

In comparison: Vehicle drivers injured 195,723, seriously injured 23,039 and killed 1,754. Clearly, in Ron's world, this mass carnage is totally acceptable and the police should look the other way while the carnage continues. After all say a massive clampdown like he thinks should be applied to cyclists was applied to motorists with a 50% reduction in accident statistics. This would save 97,862 injuries, 11520 serious injuries and 877 deaths.

In Ron's world clearly using the police to clamp down on cyclists would be a good use of police time and resources, not sure that wiser people with a better perspective will agree though.

I thick Rods means that no motorists were killed by a cyclist within those statistics Lizzie. Please correct me if i have it wrong.

[Lizzie Zoom]

James, truly I am on your side; I don't think you would be damned, because so many people despair of the irresponsible activities and attitudes of a growing number of "don't-give-a-f*ck" riders - and they are not always the young.
Allowing them greater priority on the roads (WHEN they actually use them rather than the pavements) will only exacerbate the situation and lead to more accidents/deaths from a group who already believe themselves to be above the law.

Ron.

Lord Denning: "Be you ever so high, you are not above the law". The only exception is the Queen.

I don't think many people have a problem with people breaking the law being brought to book.

Bearing in mind that the police have finite, NOT infinite resources, perspective and looking at the big picture on how best to use those limited resources are important:

In 2012:

Cyclists killed 0 (yes zero) motorists and injured 79 (which is 79 too many) other road users. So there is clearly a major problem here. Maybe Ron should start a petition on change.org for a major police clampdown on cyclists. If this can halve deaths from 0 to 0 and injuries from 79 to 40 per year, just image the difference this would make to road safety!

In comparison: Vehicle drivers injured 195,723, seriously injured 23,039 and killed 1,754. Clearly, in Ron's world, this mass carnage is totally acceptable and the police should look the other way while the carnage continues. After all say a massive clampdown like he thinks should be applied to cyclists was applied to motorists with a 50% reduction in accident statistics. This would save 97,862 injuries, 11520 serious injuries and 877 deaths.

In Ron's world clearly using the police to clamp down on cyclists would be a good use of police time and resources, not sure that wiser people with a better perspective will agree though.

I thick Rods means that no motorists were killed by a cyclist within those statistics Lizzie. Please correct me if i have it wrong.

I certainly thought he meant zero cyclists killed Ron, but I have re-read it three times and still come to the same conclusion.

Maybe the man himself can enlighten

[Fraggles Rock]

Reads that cyclists were responsible for killing NO motorists, but injuring 79, most probably through violence ...

Read it once and it's pretty clear.

[Lizzie Zoom]

Reads that cyclists were responsible for killing NO motorists, but injuring 79, most probably through violence ...

Read it once and it's pretty clear.

Ok, you are right.

I was reading it thinking that it could not be motorists killed by cyclists as when does that ever happen and thought their was a grammatical error where obviously there was not one.  Still strange and better put as "no (zero) motorist killed by a cyclist", but Rod was no doubt being cynical and the rest of what was written now makes more sense

Now someone will no doubt give me an example of a cyclist killing a motorist

[Nick W]

Ok, you are right.

I was reading it thinking that it could not be motorists killed by cyclists as when does that ever happen and thought their was a grammatical error where obviously there was not one.  Still strange and better put as "no (zero) motorist killed by a cyclist", but Rod was no doubt being cynical and the rest of what was written now makes more sense

Now someone will no doubt give me an example of a cyclist killing a motorist

I've wanted to on several occasions

[Lizzie Zoom]

Ok, you are right.

I was reading it thinking that it could not be motorists killed by cyclists as when does that ever happen and thought their was a grammatical error where obviously there was not one.  Still strange and better put as "no (zero) motorist killed by a cyclist", but Rod was no doubt being cynical and the rest of what was written now makes more sense

Now someone will no doubt give me an example of a cyclist killing a motorist

I've wanted to on several occasions

    Oh yes Nick, I am sure certain you are not alone! There is always another side to the story

[ronnyd]

Ok, you are right.

I was reading it thinking that it could not be motorists killed by cyclists as when does that ever happen and thought their was a grammatical error where obviously there was not one.  Still strange and better put as "no (zero) motorist killed by a cyclist", but Rod was no doubt being cynical and the rest of what was written now makes more sense

Now someone will no doubt give me an example of a cyclist killing a motorist

I've wanted to on several occasions

+1 

[aaronjb]

I'm all for bicycles being fitted with a 12"x8" standard square number plate, front and rear.

Air drag should slow 'em down a bit and any true cyclist would surely just consider that a training aid