Votes needed

On 01/11/2007 13:44, Tony Raven said,

Quoted message said:

Should the fine for riding a bike without lights be more than £30
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/ (bottom right corner)

Currently 65% Yes, 35% No.

It's now gone to 67%. Good!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Paul Boyd said:

On 01/11/2007 13:44, Tony Raven said,

Quoted message said:

Should the fine for riding a bike without lights be more than £30
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/ (bottom right corner)

Currently 65% Yes, 35% No.

It's now gone to 67%. Good!

What they should be asking is:

Should the fine for killing a cyclist with your car be more than £500?

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 20:08:17 GMT, Martin Dann <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Paul Boyd said:

On 01/11/2007 13:44, Tony Raven said,

Quoted message said:

Should the fine for riding a bike without lights be more than £30
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/ (bottom right corner)

Currently 65% Yes, 35% No.

It's now gone to 67%. Good!

What they should be asking is:

Should the fine for killing a cyclist with your car be more than £500?

No. What they should be asking is:
Should cyclists found to be cycling at night without lights be
compelled to show a receipt for bike lights at a local police station
within 48 hours or face a fine?

Tom Crispin said:

Should cyclists found to be cycling at night without lights be
compelled to show a receipt for bike lights at a local police station
within 48 hours or face a fine?

Of course not. What if they had a set at home and had merely omitted
to fit them?

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Should the fine for riding a bike without lights be more than £30
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/ (bottom right corner)

And what do you think my vote should be, Tony?

Tim

--
Sent from Birmingham, UK... Check out www.nervouscyclist.org
'I find sometimes it's easy to be myself, but sometimes I find it's
better to be somebody else.' - Dave Matthews 'So Much To Say'
My 'reply to' address is valid, mail to the posting address is dumped

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 20:56:20 GMT, [email hidden] (Neil

Williams) said:

Tom Crispin said:

Should cyclists found to be cycling at night without lights be
compelled to show a receipt for bike lights at a local police station
within 48 hours or face a fine?

Of course not. What if they had a set at home and had merely omitted
to fit them?

Perhaps they could wheel their bike into the LPS.

While a fine is quick and easy to impose, compelling the
purchase/fitting of lights will do far more to reform behaviour.

Tom Crispin said:

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 20:56:20 GMT, [email hidden] (Neil

Williams) said:

Tom Crispin said:

Should cyclists found to be cycling at night without lights be
compelled to show a receipt for bike lights at a local police station
within 48 hours or face a fine?

Of course not. What if they had a set at home and had merely omitted
to fit them?

Perhaps they could wheel their bike into the LPS.

While a fine is quick and easy to impose, compelling the
purchase/fitting of lights will do far more to reform behaviour.

Indeed. They should be fined for riding illegally and then obliged to
demonstrate that they have fitted effective lights.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Neil Williams said:

Tom Crispin said:

Should cyclists found to be cycling at night without lights be
compelled to show a receipt for bike lights at a local police station
within 48 hours or face a fine?

Of course not. What if they had a set at home and had merely omitted
to fit them?

Then they obviously already knew they were supposed to display lights at
night, and arguably deserve the fine. The receipt-for-bike-lights thing
is, ISTM, aimed at educating new cyclists who had not been aware of
their legal responsibilities, not as a get-out clause for dozy pillocks
who had no excuse to be.

Which is not to say I haven't had the lack of foresight to end up
cycling unlit at night myself sometimes, but if I was caught at it I
hope I wouldn't grumble.

-dan

Tim Dunne said:

And what do you think my vote should be, Tony?

Vote MRLP, the only sane choice.

p.s. Rather apt choice from the sig generator.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

One tentacle, one vote.

Tom Crispin said:

Perhaps they could wheel their bike into the LPS.

Whilst I agree in principle, I can see a flaw in that plan.
Local sunset tonight is 16.45, and most shops shut at 17.30
(Although the nearest halfords shuts at 20.00)

Quoted message said:

While a fine is quick and easy to impose, compelling the
purchase/fitting of lights will do far more to reform behaviour.

Martin Dann said:

Paul Boyd said:

On 01/11/2007 13:44, Tony Raven said,

Quoted message said:

Should the fine for riding a bike without lights be more than £30
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/ (bottom right corner)

Currently 65% Yes, 35% No.

It's now gone to 67%. Good!

What they should be asking is:

Should the fine for killing a cyclist with your car be more than £500?

Fines should bear some relation to the harm or potential harm caused
to others by the offence. Also not having lights on a lit city street
is very different from not having them on a dark country lane. In the
former case, about 3p would be in line with the £500 mentioned above.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

Having just got back from the centre of cambridge it was surprising
how many people were riding without lights.

But, having said that, they were perfectly visible. I'd rather the
police took action against those that are killing and injuring through
not paying enough attention or travellign too fast.

...d

Tony Raven said:

Should the fine for riding a bike without lights be more than £30http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/(bottom right corner)

Currently 65% Yes, 35% No.

Aptly, it is now running:

Do you think petitions make a difference?

No 55%
Yes 45%

:-)

James

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 22:08:44 GMT,

(Ekul Namsob) said:

Tom Crispin said:

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 20:56:20 GMT, [email hidden] (Neil

Williams) said:

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 20:45:41 +0000, Tom Crispin
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>Should cyclists found to be cycling at night without lights be
>compelled to show a receipt for bike lights at a local police station
>within 48 hours or face a fine?

Of course not. What if they had a set at home and had merely omitted
to fit them?

Perhaps they could wheel their bike into the LPS.

While a fine is quick and easy to impose, compelling the
purchase/fitting of lights will do far more to reform behaviour.

Indeed. They should be fined for riding illegally and then obliged to
demonstrate that they have fitted effective lights.

By far the biggest beneficiary of lights on a bike is the rider. The
biggest danger they face is from motorists not seeing them. So, it
could be argued that if it wasn't for motorists there'd be no law
requiring bikes to have lights. Perhaps, therefore, motorists should
fund the cost of bicycle lights.

Tim Dunne said the following on 01/11/2007 21:26:

Quoted message said:

And what do you think my vote should be, Tony?

Can't you decide for yourself?

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Martin Dann said the following on 01/11/2007 20:08:

Quoted message said:

What they should be asking is:
Should the fine for killing a cyclist with your car be more than £500?

There's lots of things they could and should have been asking, but I
find it's so much easier to tick the box for the question that is being
asked instead of ticking a box that isn't there because it's not being
asked.

I totally agree that the "punishments" meted out to car drivers for
killing people is pathetic, but that wasn't the subject under discussion.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

"Paul Boyd" <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Can't you decide for yourself?

Yes, certainly. I'm just wondering what Tony's angle was... the fact is the
law is the law, lights make sense, and it's those guys without lights that
affect the general view of all of us. So the police are quite correct in
their actions - the continuous mewling about other road crimes is like
S*f*sp**d and does us no favours whatsover.

Having read some of Mr. Raven's arguments lately, like a couple of other
posters here, they're not helpful to the cycling cause.

Tim
--
Sent from Birmingham, UK... Check out www.nervouscyclist.org
'I find sometimes it's easy to be myself, but sometimes I find it's
better to be somebody else.' - Dave Matthews 'So Much To Say'
My 'reply to' address is valid, mail to the posting address is dumped

Tim Dunne said:

"Paul Boyd" <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Can't you decide for yourself?

Yes, certainly. I'm just wondering what Tony's angle was... the fact is the
law is the law, lights make sense, and it's those guys without lights that
affect the general view of all of us. So the police are quite correct in
their actions - the continuous mewling about other road crimes is like
S*f*sp**d and does us no favours whatsover.

Having read some of Mr. Raven's arguments lately, like a couple of other
posters here, they're not helpful to the cycling cause.

What's this "us" you're talking about, paleface? :-)

I don't know about you, but I don't obey the law because it makes "us"
look better, or because it advances our "cause". You, me, and everybody
else can obey the HC until we're blue in the face, and it won't affect a
single iota of the goal of unraveling the bigotry against cyclists
espoused by the Jeremy Clarkson wannabes of this world.

Throughout history, there have been millions of victims of racial or
religious bigotry who have suffered and died. Whether they were
law-abiding or not made absolutely no difference to the final outcome.

The tribal bigotry against the "out" group of cyclists has absolutely
nothing to do with their adherence or non-adherence to the law.

On Nov 1, 10:08 pm, [email hidden] (Ekul

Namsob) said:

Tom Crispin said:

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 20:56:20 GMT, [email hidden] (Neil
Williams) wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 20:45:41 +0000, Tom Crispin
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Should cyclists found to be cycling at night without lights be
>compelled to show a receipt for bike lights at a local police station
>within 48 hours or face a fine?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course not. What if they had a set at home and had merely omitted
to fit them?

The the fine is teh chosen method of underlining the point of
reembering next time (or pushing the bike home). You could look on
buying an extra set of lights as a optional discount to the fine
(with a spare set of cheap lights thrown in)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps they could wheel their bike into the LPS.

Quoted message said:

While a fine is quick and easy to impose, compelling the
purchase/fitting of lights will do far more to reform behaviour.

Indeed. They should be fined for riding illegally and then obliged to
demonstrate that they have fitted effective lights.

Surely the bulk of the justice system is based on Do The Crime, Serve
The Time, without some arbitrary extra Mea Culpa Promise Not To Do It
Again step at the end. An offender who has paid their fine (or taken
an optional get out such as that offered here) has no greater
obligation to observe the law going forward than anyone else and even
if they did a demonstation as you suggest that is no better guaruntee
than a current MOT is of roadworthyness of a car other than at that
point in time. What if the offender does not own the bike for
example?

best wishes
james