Votes needed

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message 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.

You have misread the survey then. Its not "should cyclists be fined for
riding without lights", its whether the fine should be more than the
current £30. Personally I think it would be disproportionate to the
fines levied on far more serious motoring offences that injure or kill
pedestrians and cyclists to increase it over £30

Quoted message said:

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

Which do you think are unhelpful to the cause - not supporting helmets,
not supporting cycle facilities ........ ?

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

Quoted message said:

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.

Not necessarily. I believe, for example, that you're unlikely to be
released from a life prison sentence unless you demonstrate remorse.
Rehabilitation (one of the goals of sentencing) is all about making the
offender a better member of society, and observing the law "going
forward" is part of that.

Otherwise we wouldn't bother tracking recidivism rates.

-dan

I remember cycling home form work when I were an apprentice (1984ish),
it was around five pm and getting a bit dim... I got pulled up by de
babylon who stood in front of my bike, astride the front wheel, and told
me in no uncertain terms that if he "kept me here another ten minutes"
he'd be able to do me for no lights. I think I had initially annoyed him
by having the temerity to push my velo over a motorway footbridge he was
crossing, rather than riding over and therby denying him an easy collar.
Of course if I hadn't have seen him just before I got onto said bridge,
I'd have ridden over as well...

BTW despite the mention of coppers, bicycles and bridges this is not a
troll :-)

T

Marc Brett said:

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? :-)

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

STOP PRESS!

READ ALL ABOUT IT!

Cyclist compares himself to a member of a persecuted racial or
religious group.

Argues that there's no point in obeying traffic law because cyclists
are bound to suffer and die whether they obey the law or not.

[cont'd on p 27]

Tony Raven said:

[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

"Paul Boyd" <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Can't you decide for yourself?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

... 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.

Quoted message said:

You have misread the survey then. Its not "should cyclists be fined for
riding without lights", its whether the fine should be more than the
current £30. Personally I think it would be disproportionate to the
fines levied on far more serious motoring offences that injure or kill
pedestrians and cyclists to increase it over £30

Fines are supposed to be painful (for the average person). There is no
point in them otherwise. I doubt whether £30 *is* painful (enough) to
the affluent group who ride bicycles [I take that from the fact that
we are constantly told that they have higher incomes than average].

I can remember when a parking ticket was just £2. I also remember when
it was increased to £6 (a whopping 200% increase). I don't know what
it is nowadays, but £60 rings a bell. That thirty-fold increase was
judged necessary in order to maintain the deterrent value. Since
overstaying in a car-park space or on a meter causes no danger, it's
hard to see why offences connected with safety (such as the offence of
riding at night without lights) don't require at least equally
stringent deterrent fines. The number of cases being reported (dozens
of unlit bikes being caught within a short period in one spot) would
indicate that the deterrent effect of that fine (at £30) is inadequate.

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 15:23:32 +0000 someone who may be TonyB
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I remember cycling home form work when I were an apprentice (1984ish),
it was around five pm and getting a bit dim... I got pulled up by de
babylon who stood in front of my bike, astride the front wheel, and told
me in no uncertain terms that if he "kept me here another ten minutes"
he'd be able to do me for no lights.

I once saw one of these bods deliberately step out into the road, in
their dark clothing, as a cyclist approached [1]. No doubt the bod
intended to then use threatening words and behaviour on the cyclist
after they had crashed into him [2].

The cyclist had presumably seen his assailant while he was standing
on the pavement and was able to swerve round the bod and continue on
his journey with very little time penalty.

And some people think nobody should ever question the actions of the
police, but instead praise them no matter what they do.

[1] it was after dark and the cyclist's front and rear lights were
shining brightly.

[2] the bod had been standing on the pavement for a while. It was
certainly not a case of him hurrying across the road and "not
seeing" the cyclist's lights.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 2 Nov, 17:17, JNugent <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

. I doubt whether £30 *is* painful (enough) to

the affluent group who ride bicycles [

So you stereotype all cyclists as being rich in the very next post
after you sneer at them for saying they are persecuted group.

Quoted message said:

I can remember when a parking ticket was just £2. I also remember when
it was increased to £6 (a whopping 200% increase).

<Gets calculator> that would be 300% then.

On 02/11/2007 17:17, JNugent said,

Quoted message said:

Fines are supposed to be painful (for the average person). There is no
point in them otherwise. I doubt whether £30 *is* painful (enough) to
the affluent group who ride bicycles

The catch with that theory is that the more affluent groups who ride
bicycles are the type who not only have lights, but have the best and
brightest lights available.

The type of cyclist that tends not to have lights are the more average
people who use a bike purely as a means of getting from one place to
another cheaper than buses and for them perhaps a £30 fine is painful.
Not painful enough though...

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

On 02/11/2007 15:23, TonyB said,

Quoted message said:

de babylon

There's an expression I haven't heard for about 30 years :-)

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

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message 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.

You have misread the survey then. Its not "should cyclists be fined for
riding without lights", its whether the fine should be more than the
current £30. Personally I think it would be disproportionate to the
fines levied on far more serious motoring offences that injure or kill
pedestrians and cyclists to increase it over £30

Personally I think £30 is a pointless fine - too small to be either
economic to levy, or painful to pay. How about £150, but you get it back
provided you take an approved cycling course within three months?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
; ... of course nothing said here will be taken notice of by
; the W3C. The official place to be ignored is on www-style or
; www-html. -- George Lund

raisethe said:

On 2 Nov, 17:17, JNugent <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I can remember when a parking ticket was just £2. I also remember when
it was increased to £6 (a whopping 200% increase).

<Gets calculator> that would be 300% then.

300% of £2 is £6. A 300% increase on £2 would take the value to £8.

200% of £2 is £4. A 200% increase on £2 takes it to £6.

An increase from £2 to £6 is a 200% increase.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

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

Quoted message said:

You have misread the survey then. Its not "should cyclists be fined
for riding without lights", its whether the fine should be more than
the current £30.

I didn't, but I'm more interested in your angle.

Quoted message said:

Personally I think it would be disproportionate to
the fines levied on far more serious motoring offences that injure or
kill pedestrians and cyclists to increase it over £30

If you're stupid enough to venture out without lights you deserve it - 30
quid isn't a fine it's a joke. Bringing other crimes into it is just
irrelevant - they aren't punished enough either, but that's not the point,
is it...

Quoted message said:

Which do you think are unhelpful to the cause - not supporting
helmets, not supporting cycle facilities ........ ?

Making excuses for bad cyclist behaviour - it's getting like a velocipede
version of SS in here.

I'm not a helmet wearer and I don't support compulsion. Some facilities,
like the Tissington Trail, High Peak trail etc, are excellent. The problem
you have seems to be that to you, there's no grey area...

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

In article said:

raisethe said:

On 2 Nov, 17:17, JNugent <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I can remember when a parking ticket was just £2. I also remember when
it was increased to £6 (a whopping 200% increase).

<Gets calculator> that would be 300% then.

300% of £2 is £6. A 300% increase on £2 would take the value to £8.

300% of £2 is £6. A 300% increase of £2 would take the value to £6.

Alan Braggins said:

In article said:

raisethe said:

On 2 Nov, 17:17, JNugent <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>I can remember when a parking ticket was just £2. I also remember when
>it was increased to £6 (a whopping 200% increase).

<Gets calculator> that would be 300% then.

300% of £2 is £6. A 300% increase on £2 would take the value to £8.

300% of £2 is £6. A 300% increase of £2 would take the value to £6.

Then, I take it, since 100% of 2 is 2, an increase of 100% is no increase
at all?

I must inform the exchequer...

On 02 Nov 2007 23:05:58 +0000 (GMT), [email hidden] (Alan Braggins)

Quoted message said:

In article said:

raisethe said:

On 2 Nov, 17:17, JNugent <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>I can remember when a parking ticket was just £2. I also remember when
>it was increased to £6 (a whopping 200% increase).

<Gets calculator> that would be 300% then.

300% of £2 is £6. A 300% increase on £2 would take the value to £8.

300% of £2 is £6. A 300% increase of £2 would take the value to £6.

300% of £2 is indeed £6, However a 300% *increase* on £2 take the value to £8.

Are you saying a 50% increase on £2 take the value to £1 🙂

Alan Braggins said:

300% of £2 is £6. A 300% increase of £2 would take the value to £6.

No, a threefold increase of £2 would take the value to £6. A 300%
increase is not the same as a threefold increase. A 300% increase means
adding 300%.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

raisethe said:

JNugent <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

. I doubt whether £30 *is* painful (enough) to

the affluent group who ride bicycles [

Quoted message said:

So you stereotype all cyclists as being rich in the very next post
after you sneer at them for saying they are persecuted group.

My dear sir... I stereotype nobody.

I merely take note of what is *insisted* upon by the senior members of
this NG. Ask them if you don't believe me.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I can remember when a parking ticket was just £2. I also remember when
it was increased to £6 (a whopping 200% increase).

Quoted message said:

<Gets calculator> that would be 300% then.

Arithmetic isn't your long suit, then?

Paul Boyd said:

On 02/11/2007 17:17, JNugent said,

Quoted message said:

Fines are supposed to be painful (for the average person). There is no
point in them otherwise. I doubt whether £30 *is* painful (enough) to
the affluent group who ride bicycles

The catch with that theory is that the more affluent groups who ride
bicycles are the type who not only have lights, but have the best and
brightest lights available.

The type of cyclist that tends not to have lights are the more average
people who use a bike purely as a means of getting from one place to
another cheaper than buses and for them perhaps a £30 fine is painful.
Not painful enough though...

I think that's what I said.

On Nov 3, 9:20 am, JNugent <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Paul Boyd said:

On 02/11/2007 17:17, JNugent said,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Fines are supposed to be painful (for the average person). There is no
point in them otherwise. I doubt whether £30 *is* painful (enough) to
the affluent group who ride bicycles

Quoted message said:

The catch with that theory is that the more affluent groups who ride
bicycles are the type who not only have lights, but have the best and
brightest lights available.

Quoted message said:

The type of cyclist that tends not to have lights are the more average
people who use a bike purely as a means of getting from one place to
another cheaper than buses and for them perhaps a £30 fine is painful.
Not painful enough though...

I think that's what I said.

Do you think the typical speeding fine is a sufficient deterrent?

James

Quoted message said:

On Nov 3, 9:20 am, JNugent <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Paul Boyd said:

On 02/11/2007 17:17, JNugent said,

Quoted message said:

>Fines are supposed to be painful (for the average person). There is no
>point in them otherwise. I doubt whether £30 *is* painful (enough) to
>the affluent group who ride bicycles

Quoted message said:

The catch with that theory is that the more affluent groups who ride
bicycles are the type who not only have lights, but have the best and
brightest lights available.

Quoted message said:

The type of cyclist that tends not to have lights are the more average
people who use a bike purely as a means of getting from one place to
another cheaper than buses and for them perhaps a £30 fine is painful.
Not painful enough though...

I think that's what I said.

Do you think the typical speeding fine is a sufficient deterrent?

How is that relevant to the topic? I understand that speed limits
don't apply to bicycles.