Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: BazaJT on 05 May 2017, 07:50:02
-
Watched one of those police shows about NZ force this morning.They pulled over a cyclist,no front light,no rear light and not wearing a helmet.Result? $165 in fines.They'd make millions if they did that over here ::)
-
Cycling fines? Fines for cycling. I like the sound of that. UKIP should get it in before the election. :y
-
Cycling fines? Fines for cycling. I like the sound of that. UKIP should get it in before the election. :y
If they just fined the ones creeping through red lights that would raise a fortune >:(
-
Talking of bicycling, where's Guffer? ??? :-\
Maybe he'll pop up when he sees this thread! :y
-
There has recently been in the newspaper's, information about an MPs report, and talk of a new law and revision of the highway code to help cyclists, where ALL UK motorist regardless of priority must give way to cyclists at junctions. ;)
[tinhat_on]Once the General Election is over, I will be emailing my MP urging its adoption sooner rather than later to save unnecessary cyclist's deaths.[/tinhat_on] :P :P :P
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/change-highway-code-give-cyclists-42460 (http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/change-highway-code-give-cyclists-42460)
-
Most cyclists that I encounter on the road flout existing traffic laws arrogantly and without consideration for other road users and/or pedesrians; allow them this priority and they will become even more insufferable and think that they are beyond all laws and accountability.
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, which parallels the situation complained about by those out-of-touch MPs.
Ron.
-
8594 drivers didn't get a ban when they accrued 12 points! :o
Now the article dosn't say over what time period this occurred, but even so that's what's concerning about this story to me TBH. :(
The cyclist angle is irrelevant really, just good copy to sell the Bristol Evening Post. ;)
-
This outlines how cyclists can break the law and be fined for it when caught:
http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/cycling-offences-riding-dangerously-recklessly-carelessly-or-inconsiderately
;)
-
Sir Tigger, can we have a little perspective here, please? What proportion of the total number of motorits is 8594? I'm guessing that you might argue that I've chosen the wrong parameter to calculate the ratio and would probably prefer it to be 8594 against the number of motorists arreigned, but I don't think that would give a true perspective - argue away!
I won't accept Lizzie as your legal representative - she's too clever!
Ron.
-
Sir Tigger, can we have a little perspective here, please? What proportion of the total number of motorits is 8594? I'm guessing that you might argue that I've chosen the wrong parameter to calculate the ratio and would probably prefer it to be 8594 against the number of motorists arreigned, but I don't think that would give a true perspective - argue away!
I won't accept Lizzie as your legal representative - she's too clever!
Ron.
;D ;D I'd loved to have been a barrister; they are clever and a joy to watch :D ;)
-
Sir Tigger, can we have a little perspective here, please? What proportion of the total number of motorits is 8594? I'm guessing that you might argue that I've chosen the wrong parameter to calculate the ratio and would probably prefer it to be 8594 against the number of motorists arreigned, but I don't think that would give a true perspective - argue away!
I won't accept Lizzie as your legal representative - she's too clever!
Ron.
I don't think it matters what the proportion is to be honest Ron. That's 8594 drivers who should have been banned are still driving. ::)
But maybe that's 8594 over a 100 years.... :P
-
don't start me on having a form of road tax , insurance banning cyclists from wearing headphones whilst riding ;D ;D
-
Yes, please do, raywilb; the infrastructure is already in place to require cyclists to be taxed, insured and not be distracted by electronic devices whilst on the road - ask ANY motorist!
A simple extention of the system to include cyclists and maybe motorists wouldn't have to pay so much tax and if they had to wear number plates they would also be accountable for their misdemeanours - or be given points, leading to a ban if they collect a sufficient number of points.
Does that sound familiar?
Ron.
-
Sorry, Sir Tigger, I wasn't dismissing the enormity of that number of drivers who escaped a ban, just trying to take a step back and look at the bigger picture: and as you rightly suggest - over what period was this?
Ron.
-
don't start me on having a form of road tax , insurance banning cyclists from wearing headphones whilst riding ;D ;D
Yes Ray, i,m a keen cyclist and to me it beggars belief that they dare to go out on the roads with headphones stuck in their lugholes. ::) It,s the same with pedestrians though, why have a bell on your bike cause they can,t hear it. :P
-
I'm still trying to get nicked for "wanton and furious cycling"...
-
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 .................. ::)
-
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.
-
Mamils should be lined up on front of there families and shot. :) vote TB :y
-
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. :o :o :o
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. :-[ :-[ :-[
-
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. :y
-
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...............
-
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. :o :o :o
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. :-\
-
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. :o :o :o
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 ;)
-
Reads that cyclists were responsible for killing NO motorists, but injuring 79, most probably through violence ::)...
Read it once and it's pretty clear. ;)
-
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. :y :y
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 :D :D :D
Now someone will no doubt give me an example of a cyclist killing a motorist ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
-
Ok, you are right. :y :y
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 :D :D :D
Now someone will no doubt give me an example of a cyclist killing a motorist ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
I've wanted to on several occasions ::)
-
Ok, you are right. :y :y
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 :D :D :D
Now someone will no doubt give me an example of a cyclist killing a motorist ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
I've wanted to on several occasions ::)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Oh yes Nick, I am sure certain you are not alone! There is always another side to the story :y :y
-
Ok, you are right. :y :y
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 :D :D :D
Now someone will no doubt give me an example of a cyclist killing a motorist ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
I've wanted to on several occasions ::)
+1 ;D ;D ;D
-
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 ;D ;D and any true cyclist would surely just consider that a training aid ;)