Cyclists refute claim website encourages speeding (From Banbury Cake)

Once again James 'cyclists do no wrong' Styring shows what he really is. He again refuses to condem cyclists for riding dangerously and instead goes on the defensive again blaming another campaign against cyclists. When ever there is a true negative story against cyclists he never admits to it. He really is typical of cyclists in Oxford. No wonder they have a bad name with him as their unelected leader. No doubt if one of these cyclists were in an accident according to Styring it would be the car drivers fault!!!

Once again James 'cyclists do no wrong' Styring shows what he really is. He again refuses to condem cyclists for riding dangerously and instead goes on the defensive again blaming another campaign against cyclists. When ever there is a true negative story against cyclists he never admits to it. He really is typical of cyclists in Oxford. No wonder they have a bad name with him as their unelected leader. No doubt if one of these cyclists were in an accident according to Styring it would be the car drivers fault!!!

James Styring is talking crap when he says these people are not representative of the majority. MOST cyclists in Oxford are a bl**dy manace and have no clue how to ride safely. There is one group who have no lights, wear headphones so they are in their own little world, totally ignoring red traffic lights and pedestrian crossings etc. and another group - the ones with expensive bikes and all the gear - who think they own the road, refuse to use cycle paths specially made for their own safety, and everyone has to just get out of their way.
They do all this, then if are involved in any sort of accident they play hell - blaming it always on the motorist or pedestrian !
Bunch of ****** There needs to be a serious clampdown by the police to make sure these idiots follow the rules of the road. But do you think the police will do anything ?
I'll now wait for the usual cyclists response that there are plenty of bad motorists (which of course there are). This is no excuse for ignoring pedestrian crossings !

James Stryring is simply lying about the speeding.

The problem with cyclists on the roads is that they tend to think and react like pedestrians even while they are interfacing with motor vehicles.

Put the same persons in a car or lorry and they react entirely differently.

So a lot of criticism on here of Styring again from the anti-cycling brigade a lot of which I have to agree with - just because it isn't illegal for a cyclist to exceed the speed limit doesn't mean it's sensible, considerate or safe. What about James Dawton though whose quoted opinion is much more representative of mine and many cyclists? Some of you guys are so ready to tar all our cyclists with the same brush even when the article gives a balance of opinions.

Strava is riddled with data errors due to poor GPS signals and poor algorithms used by the site.

If you use Veloviewer's alternative leaderboard, which uses more accurate distances, the fastest descent on Gidley Way is more like 65 km/h (40 mph). This rider also had bad GPS reception on that stretch so was likely to be slower than that. You could do the same for any of the fastest rides on any Strava segment.

I suggest the author reads this article (http://veloviewer.c
om/blog/41mph-the-ev
idence-against-the-s
unday-times-article/
) which explains the problems with taking Strava data at face value. But he's achieved his aim of winding up motorists even more against cyclists so they drive even more aggressively towards us in the future. Well done.

jochta wrote:
Strava is riddled with data errors due to poor GPS signals and poor algorithms used by the site.

If you use Veloviewer's alternative leaderboard, which uses more accurate distances, the fastest descent on Gidley Way is more like 65 km/h (40 mph). This rider also had bad GPS reception on that stretch so was likely to be slower than that. You could do the same for any of the fastest rides on any Strava segment.

I suggest the author reads this article (http://veloviewer.c

om/blog/41mph-the-ev

idence-against-the-s

unday-times-article/

) which explains the problems with taking Strava data at face value. But he's achieved his aim of winding up motorists even more against cyclists so they drive even more aggressively towards us in the future. Well done.

Perhaps if cyclists didn't ride in such an irresponsible way - as fast as possible in residential areas, ignoring red lights, have some decent lights on their bike so you they can be seen after dark, etc - perhaps then motorists would be a bit more tolerant.
What makes you lot think it is ok for you to go through a red light, or race across a pedestrian crossing ? Cyclists never seem to want to answer these sort of questions, they just complain about motorists driving aggressively without ever thinking THEY may be the ones who have broken the rules !!

livid99 wrote:

jochta wrote:
Strava is riddled with data errors due to poor GPS signals and poor algorithms used by the site.

If you use Veloviewer's alternative leaderboard, which uses more accurate distances, the fastest descent on Gidley Way is more like 65 km/h (40 mph). This rider also had bad GPS reception on that stretch so was likely to be slower than that. You could do the same for any of the fastest rides on any Strava segment.

I suggest the author reads this article (http://veloviewer.c


om/blog/41mph-the-ev


idence-against-the-s


unday-times-article/


) which explains the problems with taking Strava data at face value. But he's achieved his aim of winding up motorists even more against cyclists so they drive even more aggressively towards us in the future. Well done.

Perhaps if cyclists didn't ride in such an irresponsible way - as fast as possible in residential areas, ignoring red lights, have some decent lights on their bike so you they can be seen after dark, etc - perhaps then motorists would be a bit more tolerant.
What makes you lot think it is ok for you to go through a red light, or race across a pedestrian crossing ? Cyclists never seem to want to answer these sort of questions, they just complain about motorists driving aggressively without ever thinking THEY may be the ones who have broken the rules !!

So tell us then livid99 where does jochta say it's ok to ignore red lights or race across a pedestrian crossing then? Nowhere - you are just making stupid accusations and letting your ignorance and prejudice hang out for all to see. Your arguments are just as pathetic as that of a cyclist who claims all motorists think it is ok to drive round use phones while driving and run down pedestrians. The majority of motorists and cyclists manage to share the road in a perfectly reasonable fashion. We cyclists don't want or need motorists tolerance, if you are not tolerant of fellow road users you should not be allowed to control a ton of deadly metal on our rights of way. Your sort of inflammatory bile has no place in reasoned discussion.

The 41-year-old, of Auto Taxis, said: “They are the bane of motorists. another considerate taxi driver, what a joke.

museli wrote:

livid99 wrote:

jochta wrote:
Strava is riddled with data errors due to poor GPS signals and poor algorithms used by the site.

If you use Veloviewer's alternative leaderboard, which uses more accurate distances, the fastest descent on Gidley Way is more like 65 km/h (40 mph). This rider also had bad GPS reception on that stretch so was likely to be slower than that. You could do the same for any of the fastest rides on any Strava segment.

I suggest the author reads this article (http://veloviewer.c



om/blog/41mph-the-ev



idence-against-the-s



unday-times-article/



) which explains the problems with taking Strava data at face value. But he's achieved his aim of winding up motorists even more against cyclists so they drive even more aggressively towards us in the future. Well done.

Perhaps if cyclists didn't ride in such an irresponsible way - as fast as possible in residential areas, ignoring red lights, have some decent lights on their bike so you they can be seen after dark, etc - perhaps then motorists would be a bit more tolerant.
What makes you lot think it is ok for you to go through a red light, or race across a pedestrian crossing ? Cyclists never seem to want to answer these sort of questions, they just complain about motorists driving aggressively without ever thinking THEY may be the ones who have broken the rules !!

So tell us then livid99 where does jochta say it's ok to ignore red lights or race across a pedestrian crossing then? Nowhere - you are just making stupid accusations and letting your ignorance and prejudice hang out for all to see. Your arguments are just as pathetic as that of a cyclist who claims all motorists think it is ok to drive round use phones while driving and run down pedestrians. The majority of motorists and cyclists manage to share the road in a perfectly reasonable fashion. We cyclists don't want or need motorists tolerance, if you are not tolerant of fellow road users you should not be allowed to control a ton of deadly metal on our rights of way. Your sort of inflammatory bile has no place in reasoned discussion.

Haha...ok I must be imagining it all then. Spend a few hours driving round Oxford and its plain to see - I don't have to rely on someone here specifically saying it FFS !.
Ok - Do you deny that cyclists ride straight through red lights, ride straight across pedestrian crossings while people are waiting to cross and cars have stopped, and ride around after dark in without any lights ? If you deny this, then you are deluded. If you agree, then you have to accept why people get angry about cyclists, and you therefore cannot accuse me of making "stupid accusations".If you think thats all they are, then you obviously pay no attention on the roads. This is not a case of ignorance or prejudice, its a case of pointing out simple observable facts which people like you pretend don't happen.
Your second from last sentence kind of sums it all up - "We cyclists don't want or need motorists tolerance, if you are not tolerant of fellow road users you should not be allowed to control a ton of deadly metal on our rights of way."
Cyclists like you, displaying this kind of arrogance are exactly the problem. You say we motorists should not be on the road if we are not tolerant, and by being tolerant we are expected to tolerate you IGNORING red lights, risking hitting pedestrians by IGNORING pedestrian crossings, risking death or causing accidents by IGNORING the basic rule of lighting up while on the road after dark.
And then you have the nerve to accuse me of inflammatory bile ???
FW...

livid99 wrote:

museli wrote:

livid99 wrote:

jochta wrote:
Strava is riddled with data errors due to poor GPS signals and poor algorithms used by the site.

If you use Veloviewer's alternative leaderboard, which uses more accurate distances, the fastest descent on Gidley Way is more like 65 km/h (40 mph). This rider also had bad GPS reception on that stretch so was likely to be slower than that. You could do the same for any of the fastest rides on any Strava segment.

I suggest the author reads this article (http://veloviewer.c




om/blog/41mph-the-ev




idence-against-the-s




unday-times-article/




) which explains the problems with taking Strava data at face value. But he's achieved his aim of winding up motorists even more against cyclists so they drive even more aggressively towards us in the future. Well done.

Perhaps if cyclists didn't ride in such an irresponsible way - as fast as possible in residential areas, ignoring red lights, have some decent lights on their bike so you they can be seen after dark, etc - perhaps then motorists would be a bit more tolerant.
What makes you lot think it is ok for you to go through a red light, or race across a pedestrian crossing ? Cyclists never seem to want to answer these sort of questions, they just complain about motorists driving aggressively without ever thinking THEY may be the ones who have broken the rules !!

So tell us then livid99 where does jochta say it's ok to ignore red lights or race across a pedestrian crossing then? Nowhere - you are just making stupid accusations and letting your ignorance and prejudice hang out for all to see. Your arguments are just as pathetic as that of a cyclist who claims all motorists think it is ok to drive round use phones while driving and run down pedestrians. The majority of motorists and cyclists manage to share the road in a perfectly reasonable fashion. We cyclists don't want or need motorists tolerance, if you are not tolerant of fellow road users you should not be allowed to control a ton of deadly metal on our rights of way. Your sort of inflammatory bile has no place in reasoned discussion.

Haha...ok I must be imagining it all then. Spend a few hours driving round Oxford and its plain to see - I don't have to rely on someone here specifically saying it FFS !.
Ok - Do you deny that cyclists ride straight through red lights, ride straight across pedestrian crossings while people are waiting to cross and cars have stopped, and ride around after dark in without any lights ? If you deny this, then you are deluded. If you agree, then you have to accept why people get angry about cyclists, and you therefore cannot accuse me of making "stupid accusations".If you think thats all they are, then you obviously pay no attention on the roads. This is not a case of ignorance or prejudice, its a case of pointing out simple observable facts which people like you pretend don't happen.
Your second from last sentence kind of sums it all up - "We cyclists don't want or need motorists tolerance, if you are not tolerant of fellow road users you should not be allowed to control a ton of deadly metal on our rights of way."
Cyclists like you, displaying this kind of arrogance are exactly the problem. You say we motorists should not be on the road if we are not tolerant, and by being tolerant we are expected to tolerate you IGNORING red lights, risking hitting pedestrians by IGNORING pedestrian crossings, risking death or causing accidents by IGNORING the basic rule of lighting up while on the road after dark.
And then you have the nerve to accuse me of inflammatory bile ???
FW...

I don't do any of these things you accuse me of and to make out that just because some cyclists break the law, in much the same way that some motorists break the law, means they all do is indeed inflammatory bile. If you just read back to yourself that drivel you posted here replacing the word 'cyclist' with 'motorist' you might see what I mean. Doubt you'll do this though as you come across as one of those people who think by repeating nonsense often and loud enough it will somehow become true. I leave you to your delusions.

museli wrote:

livid99 wrote:

museli wrote:

livid99 wrote:

jochta wrote:
Strava is riddled with data errors due to poor GPS signals and poor algorithms used by the site.

If you use Veloviewer's alternative leaderboard, which uses more accurate distances, the fastest descent on Gidley Way is more like 65 km/h (40 mph). This rider also had bad GPS reception on that stretch so was likely to be slower than that. You could do the same for any of the fastest rides on any Strava segment.

I suggest the author reads this article (http://veloviewer.c





om/blog/41mph-the-ev





idence-against-the-s





unday-times-article/





) which explains the problems with taking Strava data at face value. But he's achieved his aim of winding up motorists even more against cyclists so they drive even more aggressively towards us in the future. Well done.

Perhaps if cyclists didn't ride in such an irresponsible way - as fast as possible in residential areas, ignoring red lights, have some decent lights on their bike so you they can be seen after dark, etc - perhaps then motorists would be a bit more tolerant.
What makes you lot think it is ok for you to go through a red light, or race across a pedestrian crossing ? Cyclists never seem to want to answer these sort of questions, they just complain about motorists driving aggressively without ever thinking THEY may be the ones who have broken the rules !!

So tell us then livid99 where does jochta say it's ok to ignore red lights or race across a pedestrian crossing then? Nowhere - you are just making stupid accusations and letting your ignorance and prejudice hang out for all to see. Your arguments are just as pathetic as that of a cyclist who claims all motorists think it is ok to drive round use phones while driving and run down pedestrians. The majority of motorists and cyclists manage to share the road in a perfectly reasonable fashion. We cyclists don't want or need motorists tolerance, if you are not tolerant of fellow road users you should not be allowed to control a ton of deadly metal on our rights of way. Your sort of inflammatory bile has no place in reasoned discussion.

Haha...ok I must be imagining it all then. Spend a few hours driving round Oxford and its plain to see - I don't have to rely on someone here specifically saying it FFS !.
Ok - Do you deny that cyclists ride straight through red lights, ride straight across pedestrian crossings while people are waiting to cross and cars have stopped, and ride around after dark in without any lights ? If you deny this, then you are deluded. If you agree, then you have to accept why people get angry about cyclists, and you therefore cannot accuse me of making "stupid accusations".If you think thats all they are, then you obviously pay no attention on the roads. This is not a case of ignorance or prejudice, its a case of pointing out simple observable facts which people like you pretend don't happen.
Your second from last sentence kind of sums it all up - "We cyclists don't want or need motorists tolerance, if you are not tolerant of fellow road users you should not be allowed to control a ton of deadly metal on our rights of way."
Cyclists like you, displaying this kind of arrogance are exactly the problem. You say we motorists should not be on the road if we are not tolerant, and by being tolerant we are expected to tolerate you IGNORING red lights, risking hitting pedestrians by IGNORING pedestrian crossings, risking death or causing accidents by IGNORING the basic rule of lighting up while on the road after dark.
And then you have the nerve to accuse me of inflammatory bile ???
FW...

I don't do any of these things you accuse me of and to make out that just because some cyclists break the law, in much the same way that some motorists break the law, means they all do is indeed inflammatory bile. If you just read back to yourself that drivel you posted here replacing the word 'cyclist' with 'motorist' you might see what I mean. Doubt you'll do this though as you come across as one of those people who think by repeating nonsense often and loud enough it will somehow become true. I leave you to your delusions.

Point proved. No denial, just twisting my words and misrepresenting me.
Prat....

livid, "no denial" read the 1st line of Museli's post again. i think that may be a denial.

This is brilliant! :)

I can categorically say that 'we' don't all run red lights... I don't! Some of 'us' do have bright lights, even in the daytime & I do ride sensibly-albeit fairly quickly when it's safe to do so... Hasn't stopped me almost getting knocked off a number of times over the past few months...

We've all got to share the roads & look out for each other rather than fighting about it... Yes, done cyclists don't wear the correct gear & don't have lights at night but please, don't take that to mean that EVERYONE who cycles is a ****! It drives me mad too to see it...

Can you honestly say you've never glanced at your mobile phone whist driving or been distracted by the radio and had the hairs on the back of your neck stand up, preventing an accident?! I doubt it!

Regardless of what is said here though, or in any other forum,there are always going to be differences of opinion and there are always going to be selfish and inconsiderate motorists AND cyclists it's a fact of life but please, let's stop hating each other - just be sensible & look after each other eh? :)

well said, a bit of give from everyone makes a happy place

Yeah, all you cyclists going around killing people. Barely a day goes by without another news report is someone being killed by a law-breaking cyclist. Oh, hang on a minute.

grandconjuration!!!!
!

If the number of people you kill is your only benchmark then you are a bloody idiot . You should be sent to a place of safety for our protection.

You disgust me!

What other metrics would you like to measure in order to demonstrate that cyclists are a minimal danger compared to motorists? The number of serious injuries? Child deaths? The number of pedestrians killed while walking on pavements (an extremely rare event in the case of cyclists, typically about 60-80 per year for motor vehicles)? The number of old ladies killed when motor vehicles crash into their homes (as in the news last week)? Damage to public-funded property e.g. road signs, traffic lights, crash barriers.

Or, rather than using evidence and statistics, you would prefer it if we use anecdotes?

Taxi driver Jason Atherton said he was angered by the concept of the website and felt cyclists should be bound by road laws. ........oh the irony!

Kevin Webster Iffley Fields wrote:

grandconjuration wrote:
What other metrics would you like to measure in order to demonstrate that cyclists are a minimal danger compared to motorists? The number of serious injuries? Child deaths? The number of pedestrians killed while walking on pavements (an extremely rare event in the case of cyclists, typically about 60-80 per year for motor vehicles)? The number of old ladies killed when motor vehicles crash into their homes (as in the news last week)? Damage to public-funded property e.g. road signs, traffic lights, crash barriers.

Or, rather than using evidence and statistics, you would prefer it if we use anecdotes?

So by your morals, then all lawbreakers should be judged by the damage that they do. That is brilliant, because by me stealing £20 worth of wine from The Grog Shop there is no damage done because they make £2k a week, of if I drive my car at 100mph down The A40 at 4am there is no damage because the road is deserted, or how about I only declare 5k on my tax return instead of 10k, no problem when big companies declare £millions less. This story is about obeying the LAW, or did that fly over your head. If you think that it is ok for cyclists to break the law Mr Grandconjuration, can you tell me which LAWS it is ok for others to break? THE LAW APPLIES TO ALL OF US.

No the story isn't about obeying the law - speed limits don't apply to push bikes - you seem to have totally missed the point. All this stuff about you shoplifting and corporate tax evasion is totally irrelevant. How can you compare a cyclist legally, if perhaps foolishly, descending a hill as fast as possible with driving a motor vehicle down Iffley Road at 65mph? The roads would be much safer all round if they made people pass some sort of intelligence test before handing out driving licences.

while we're at it can we ban those really annoying strobe flashing lights that cyclists seem to get turned on wearing at the moment? they are dangerous, distracting to other road users and some of the brighter models are headache inducing. most of them put out so much fast frequent flashing lights when they are merrily peddling down the road that its like they have a mobile disco strapped to their stupid backs..

EricTheRed wrote:
while we're at it can we ban those really annoying strobe flashing lights that cyclists seem to get turned on wearing at the moment? they are dangerous, distracting to other road users and some of the brighter models are headache inducing. most of them put out so much fast frequent flashing lights when they are merrily peddling down the road that its like they have a mobile disco strapped to their stupid backs..

First they complain when someone doesn't use lights (fair enough), then they complain because the lights are too bright or flashing?! Make your mind up treacle.
It's good practice to have a strobe and constant light, front and rear. The strobe to attract attention, and the steady light for road users to gauge position and distance.

Fantomas wrote:

EricTheRed wrote:
while we're at it can we ban those really annoying strobe flashing lights that cyclists seem to get turned on wearing at the moment? they are dangerous, distracting to other road users and some of the brighter models are headache inducing. most of them put out so much fast frequent flashing lights when they are merrily peddling down the road that its like they have a mobile disco strapped to their stupid backs..

First they complain when someone doesn't use lights (fair enough), then they complain because the lights are too bright or flashing?! Make your mind up treacle.
It's good practice to have a strobe and constant light, front and rear. The strobe to attract attention, and the steady light for road users to gauge position and distance.

Its also a health risk to people that suffer migraines.. i frequently end up with head aches because of a stupid cyclist that seems determined to cycle down a dark country lane with a strobe light that is almost as bright as xenon headlights on cars (which also give me headaches due to dazzle) that flashes about 3 times a second. I hate it when he stops behind me as it makes the interior of my car light up like a nightclub. so before you ask me to make my mind up "treacle" i suggest you get off your high (cycle) horse.

EricTheRed wrote:

Fantomas wrote:

EricTheRed wrote:
while we're at it can we ban those really annoying strobe flashing lights that cyclists seem to get turned on wearing at the moment? they are dangerous, distracting to other road users and some of the brighter models are headache inducing. most of them put out so much fast frequent flashing lights when they are merrily peddling down the road that its like they have a mobile disco strapped to their stupid backs..

First they complain when someone doesn't use lights (fair enough), then they complain because the lights are too bright or flashing?! Make your mind up treacle.
It's good practice to have a strobe and constant light, front and rear. The strobe to attract attention, and the steady light for road users to gauge position and distance.

Its also a health risk to people that suffer migraines.. i frequently end up with head aches because of a stupid cyclist that seems determined to cycle down a dark country lane with a strobe light that is almost as bright as xenon headlights on cars (which also give me headaches due to dazzle) that flashes about 3 times a second. I hate it when he stops behind me as it makes the interior of my car light up like a nightclub. so before you ask me to make my mind up "treacle" i suggest you get off your high (cycle) horse.

Eric, hopefully you have seen from my earlier comment on this subject, that I am able to look at things from both perspectives and not get into an us/them argument (I do drive too,as do most cyclists so actually I guess it's more of an 'us Vs us' bizarrely)...

But might I suggest that you inform the DVLA of your issue with flashing lights causing you migraines (or someone do it for you)? Especially given the short exposure periods which you mention - I'm fairly certain that if you are this sensitive then it bordering on 'Photosensitive Epilepsy' which would thence lead to you having to surrender your license as YOU are a danger to other road users...

Just a thought before you go throwing huge lumps of concrete in a seemingly small glass house!

Kevin Webster. You put together a completely irrelevant response. I was under the impression that those that break the law generally are punished in proportion to the severity of their crimes. For example, a murderer tends to receive a longer custodial sentence than someone who steals £20 worth of wine. Interestingly, one of the crimes where the sentence rarely matches the crime is when a motorist kills a cyclist. In this case a defence of, "I couldn't see properly, it was sunny" or "there was a wasp in my car " means a few points on their licence and a few pounds fine. Scarily, I haven't just made these two examples up.

You appear to completely miss the point behind my previous two posts. At no point did I support the breaking of any laws; if I did then please direct me to the relevant statement. I didn't defend cyclists or directly attack motorists (I am both, by-the-way). I actually would like to see the much more rigorous enforcement of laws for all road users. I simply wished to highlight the completely disproportionate way in which cyclists are portrayed in the media as dangerous, law-breaking thrill-seekers.

Barely a day goes by without some tabloid or local news hack publishing an article on dangerous cycling, serving to whip the anti-cycling lobby into a mouth-frothing rage, and in my opinion, make it more dangerous on the roads for cyclists. But why? The article above has absolutely no substance, it even states that cycling above the speed limit isn't actually illegal. Every day I see news reports about motorists being killed, killing other motorists, killing pedestrians and causing great harm. Why aren't all the columnists writing about this? Where is the rage and anger about this?

Media coverage should be proportional the the scale of the problem. The number of deaths and injuries due to cyclists is minimal compared that of motorists; a ratio of 1:2000-1:4000 is probably in the right ballpark. So, I would like to see 1 news article on dangerous cycling for every 2000 on dangerous driving.

EricTheRed. Cyclists use bright lights so they stand a good chance of being seen. This is even more important now that many cars have bright xenon headlights and bright LED daytime running lights. I note that you refer to these 'annoying' flashing lights as being 'almost as bright as xenon lights on cars'. So what's the problem then?

Kevin Webster Iffley Fields wrote:

museli wrote:

Kevin Webster Iffley Fields wrote:

grandconjuration wrote:
What other metrics would you like to measure in order to demonstrate that cyclists are a minimal danger compared to motorists? The number of serious injuries? Child deaths? The number of pedestrians killed while walking on pavements (an extremely rare event in the case of cyclists, typically about 60-80 per year for motor vehicles)? The number of old ladies killed when motor vehicles crash into their homes (as in the news last week)? Damage to public-funded property e.g. road signs, traffic lights, crash barriers.

Or, rather than using evidence and statistics, you would prefer it if we use anecdotes?

So by your morals, then all lawbreakers should be judged by the damage that they do. That is brilliant, because by me stealing £20 worth of wine from The Grog Shop there is no damage done because they make £2k a week, of if I drive my car at 100mph down The A40 at 4am there is no damage because the road is deserted, or how about I only declare 5k on my tax return instead of 10k, no problem when big companies declare £millions less. This story is about obeying the LAW, or did that fly over your head. If you think that it is ok for cyclists to break the law Mr Grandconjuration, can you tell me which LAWS it is ok for others to break? THE LAW APPLIES TO ALL OF US.

No the story isn't about obeying the law - speed limits don't apply to push bikes - you seem to have totally missed the point. All this stuff about you shoplifting and corporate tax evasion is totally irrelevant. How can you compare a cyclist legally, if perhaps foolishly, descending a hill as fast as possible with driving a motor vehicle down Iffley Road at 65mph? The roads would be much safer all round if they made people pass some sort of intelligence test before handing out driving licences.

Musli, read the highway code, it is not legal for a cyclist to do what you said on that hill, 2 offences spring to mind, furious cycling, and not being in full control of your cycle, both not statutory offences as in breaking the speed limit, but still offences. But for your information and all those above that critisize the court for sending killer drivers to jail for only a few years. Darren Hall was racing down the pavement on his cycle and hit and KILLED an 84 year old pensioner innocently going about his daily business, and looking forward to a spot of lunch. The punishment for this serious crime. 7 months prison, so the next time you bang on and on about killer drivers just remember the Darren Hall case and poor Ron Turner, there are others as well when the cyclist got just a fine for killing another Human Being.

Yes I'm well aware of the law - furious cycling is an offence, speeding on a push bike is not an offence and does not constitue furious cycling without other factors.

I certainly wouldn't defend riding a bike dangerously and would agree that both motorists and drivers should be punished properly for avoidably killing people. The statistics speak for themselves though and motorists kill far, far more people than cyclists. If every law regarding cycling was enforced 100% maybe a couple of lives would be saved each year. If every law relating to motoring were so enforced I would expect over a 1,000 lives would be saved. We need to keep these things in proportion.

museli wrote:

Kevin Webster Iffley Fields wrote:

museli wrote:

Kevin Webster Iffley Fields wrote:

grandconjuration wrote:
What other metrics would you like to measure in order to demonstrate that cyclists are a minimal danger compared to motorists? The number of serious injuries? Child deaths? The number of pedestrians killed while walking on pavements (an extremely rare event in the case of cyclists, typically about 60-80 per year for motor vehicles)? The number of old ladies killed when motor vehicles crash into their homes (as in the news last week)? Damage to public-funded property e.g. road signs, traffic lights, crash barriers.

Or, rather than using evidence and statistics, you would prefer it if we use anecdotes?

So by your morals, then all lawbreakers should be judged by the damage that they do. That is brilliant, because by me stealing £20 worth of wine from The Grog Shop there is no damage done because they make £2k a week, of if I drive my car at 100mph down The A40 at 4am there is no damage because the road is deserted, or how about I only declare 5k on my tax return instead of 10k, no problem when big companies declare £millions less. This story is about obeying the LAW, or did that fly over your head. If you think that it is ok for cyclists to break the law Mr Grandconjuration, can you tell me which LAWS it is ok for others to break? THE LAW APPLIES TO ALL OF US.

No the story isn't about obeying the law - speed limits don't apply to push bikes - you seem to have totally missed the point. All this stuff about you shoplifting and corporate tax evasion is totally irrelevant. How can you compare a cyclist legally, if perhaps foolishly, descending a hill as fast as possible with driving a motor vehicle down Iffley Road at 65mph? The roads would be much safer all round if they made people pass some sort of intelligence test before handing out driving licences.

Musli, read the highway code, it is not legal for a cyclist to do what you said on that hill, 2 offences spring to mind, furious cycling, and not being in full control of your cycle, both not statutory offences as in breaking the speed limit, but still offences. But for your information and all those above that critisize the court for sending killer drivers to jail for only a few years. Darren Hall was racing down the pavement on his cycle and hit and KILLED an 84 year old pensioner innocently going about his daily business, and looking forward to a spot of lunch. The punishment for this serious crime. 7 months prison, so the next time you bang on and on about killer drivers just remember the Darren Hall case and poor Ron Turner, there are others as well when the cyclist got just a fine for killing another Human Being.

Yes I'm well aware of the law - furious cycling is an offence, speeding on a push bike is not an offence and does not constitue furious cycling without other factors.

I certainly wouldn't defend riding a bike dangerously and would agree that both motorists and drivers should be punished properly for avoidably killing people. The statistics speak for themselves though and motorists kill far, far more people than cyclists. If every law regarding cycling was enforced 100% maybe a couple of lives would be saved each year. If every law relating to motoring were so enforced I would expect over a 1,000 lives would be saved. We need to keep these things in proportion.

All I want is a level playing field. Everybody treated equally, break the law on the road and get a ticket. The police in Oxford do at least 3 zero tolerance checks on motorists a day in various locations (speed, Mobile Phones, Seatbelts etc) and motorists just accept they have broken the law and take the fine and points. But the 3 or 4 times a year that the police do the same to cyclists, then the cyclists are up in arms that they have been nicked and that they should be allowed to break the law. I think that is the main reason for the comments regarding law breaking cyclists. Do you agree that that breaking the law should be punished for all? I do, whether driver or cyclist.

I've just looked at my strava data for my rides around oxfordshire. Amazingly my speed seems to be at most 25 mph, and it drops to zero at points in the ride where there are lights, or roundabouts, or dangerous junctions.

In fact, rather than showing me to be a speed freak, it demonstrates rather nicely my safe riding

As for the Kennington bombhole, well I am safely out of the top 50 for that. It's no different to map my run or similar software that allows you to keep track of how far you are cycling (in excess of 200 miles in Feb, which is nice).

This story is actually quite old and based on a lawsuit in San Francisco that has been adapted for local use by the OM.

The next article may be on aggressive joggers who are using map my run.

James Styring, is in my view, a terrible spokesman, but this is based on his red lights response last month. I am sure Auto Taxis will be loving the extra publicity. The only people that have run me off the road, whilst I was wearing hi vis with lights, was a taxi. SMIDSY. I still quite like taxis and wouldn't tar them all with the same brush

museli wrote:
So a lot of criticism on here of Styring again from the anti-cycling brigade a lot of which I have to agree with - just because it isn't illegal for a cyclist to exceed the speed limit doesn't mean it's sensible, considerate or safe. What about James Dawton though whose quoted opinion is much more representative of mine and many cyclists? Some of you guys are so ready to tar all our cyclists with the same brush even when the article gives a balance of opinions.

James Dawton sounds a sensible guy, Cyclox should have him as chairman and Oxford Mail should quote him more often than using that idiot Styring, who does the cycling community he claims to represent no good with his stupid comments. A balanced view is whats needed and seems to be shown by Dawton and not Styring.

Exactly right Sabby, a balanced view and a level playing field for all road users. That way all this bickering could stop. And as you say about Mr Styring, his interview on Radio Oxford the other day was shocking, god help him if he ever has to debate with a professional, as the 70 year old man on the other end of the phone made him look unintelligent, ill-informed, and totally unwilling to accept that cyclists can do any wrong. As you correctly ascertain, he is not the right person to be in the position that he is.

A couple of points:
1. The anti-cycling brigade generalising as usual
2. But they do have a point - a lot of cyclists do cycle dangerously
3. We need to invest serious money in improving our cycle infrastructure. Proper cycle lanes - not just a painted line on the road, but seperate safe lanes that get their own turn at traffic lights at junctions.
Cycling more is in everyones benefit - less congestion, less pollution, healthier lifestyles. Whereas driving is the opposite. But cycllists need to obey the rules and should be punished if they don't.

andy1975 wrote:
A couple of points:
1. The anti-cycling brigade generalising as usual
2. But they do have a point - a lot of cyclists do cycle dangerously
3. We need to invest serious money in improving our cycle infrastructure. Proper cycle lanes - not just a painted line on the road, but seperate safe lanes that get their own turn at traffic lights at junctions.
Cycling more is in everyones benefit - less congestion, less pollution, healthier lifestyles. Whereas driving is the opposite. But cycllists need to obey the rules and should be punished if they don't.

Yes to points 1 and 2.

Unfortunately improving our cycle infrastructure in the ways you suggest is unrealistic. There is just not enough room on most of our roads to create separate facilities and what actually happens is that authorities take the easy option and pedestrian space, rather than car space, gets reallocated to cycles. We can't rebuild a road structure that basically consists of rights of way and turnpikes dating back hundreds of years, the best we can do is share it until pollution, crowding and cost eventually kill off the private motor car.

wont be long with the cost of fuel, insurance. my treader saves me £50 a week. works out well for holidays

Hello...

museli wrote:

andy1975 wrote:
A couple of points:
1. The anti-cycling brigade generalising as usual
2. But they do have a point - a lot of cyclists do cycle dangerously
3. We need to invest serious money in improving our cycle infrastructure. Proper cycle lanes - not just a painted line on the road, but seperate safe lanes that get their own turn at traffic lights at junctions.
Cycling more is in everyones benefit - less congestion, less pollution, healthier lifestyles. Whereas driving is the opposite. But cycllists need to obey the rules and should be punished if they don't.

Yes to points 1 and 2.

Unfortunately improving our cycle infrastructure in the ways you suggest is unrealistic. There is just not enough room on most of our roads to create separate facilities and what actually happens is that authorities take the easy option and pedestrian space, rather than car space, gets reallocated to cycles. We can't rebuild a road structure that basically consists of rights of way and turnpikes dating back hundreds of years, the best we can do is share it until pollution, crowding and cost eventually kill off the private motor car.

Others countries have done it. Holland, Denmark etc and I'm sure they had similar issues with space. The problems can be overcome if the ambition is there at government level otherwise as you say, authorities just look for the easy option..