Oxford cyclists too dim to take the break that was offered

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

In the Oxford crackdown on unlit cycles which netted 106 unlit bikes in a
very short time, the police issued 30pound FPNs, but agreed to waive that if
a receipt for bike lights was produced in 7 days. The receipt was stamped
by the police. The cyclists have then been returning the lights and asking
for refunds!! The police have asked that any shop that refunds for the
lights get and pass on names and addresses of the serial lawbreakers so that
a 60 pound fpn can be issued.
http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2010/11/18/Oxford+news/8672181.Students_try_dodging_cycling_light_fines/

Mrcheerful

[Doug[_3_]]

On Nov 25, 8:05*am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> In the Oxford crackdown on unlit cycles which netted 106 unlit bikes in a
> very short time, the police issued 30pound FPNs, but agreed to waive that if
> a receipt for bike lights was produced in 7 days. *The receipt was stamped
> by the police. *The cyclists have then been returning the lights and asking
> for refunds!! *The police have asked that any shop that refunds for the
> lights get and pass on names and addresses of the serial lawbreakers so that
> a 60 pound fpn can be issued.http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2010/11/18/Oxford+news/8672181.St...
>
Pity the police do not conduct a similar campaign against faulty cars,
probably because they are motorists themselves and therefore hate
cyclists anyway, like the motorists who infest this cycling newsgroup

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[FrengaX]

On Nov 25, 8:43*am, Doug > wrote:
> On Nov 25, 8:05*am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:> In the Oxford crackdown on unlit cycles which netted 106 unlit bikes in a
> > very short time, the police issued 30pound FPNs, but agreed to waive that if
> > a receipt for bike lights was produced in 7 days. *The receipt was stamped
> > by the police. *The cyclists have then been returning the lights and asking
> > for refunds!! *The police have asked that any shop that refunds for the
> > lights get and pass on names and addresses of the serial lawbreakers so that
> > a 60 pound fpn can be issued.http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2010/11/18/Oxford+news/8672181.St...
>
> Pity the police do not conduct a similar campaign against faulty cars,
> probably because they are motorists themselves and therefore hate
> cyclists anyway, like the motorists who infest this cycling newsgroup

But they do have such campaigns. The fact that they are so common
means they are not reported.

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

"Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> In the Oxford crackdown on unlit cycles which netted 106 unlit bikes
> in a
> very short time, the police issued 30pound FPNs, but agreed to waive
> that if
> a receipt for bike lights was produced in 7 days. The receipt was
> stamped
> by the police. The cyclists have then been returning the lights and
> asking
> for refunds!! The police have asked that any shop that refunds for
> the
> lights get and pass on names and addresses of the serial lawbreakers
> so that
> a 60 pound fpn can be issued.
> http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2010/11/18/Oxford+news/8672181.Students_try_dodging_cycling_light_fines/
>
> Mrcheerful

Order them on-line and return them under the 7 day rule. Bypasses the
local police and shops completely. I think Oxford students might be a
tad less dim than you.

--
Tony

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Tony Raven wrote:
> "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>> In the Oxford crackdown on unlit cycles which netted 106 unlit bikes
>> in a
>> very short time, the police issued 30pound FPNs, but agreed to waive
>> that if
>> a receipt for bike lights was produced in 7 days. The receipt was
>> stamped
>> by the police. The cyclists have then been returning the lights and
>> asking
>> for refunds!! The police have asked that any shop that refunds for
>> the
>> lights get and pass on names and addresses of the serial lawbreakers
>> so that
>> a 60 pound fpn can be issued.
>> http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2010/11/18/Oxford+news/8672181.Students_try_dodging_cycling_light_fines/
>>
>> Mrcheerful
>
> Order them on-line and return them under the 7 day rule. Bypasses the
> local police and shops completely. I think Oxford students might be a
> tad less dim than you.

aah, so you have to be clever to be a serial law breaking cyclist, glad I am
not in that case.

[JMS]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 08:05:50 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
> wrote:

>In the Oxford crackdown on unlit cycles which netted 106 unlit bikes in a
>very short time, the police issued 30pound FPNs, but agreed to waive that if
>a receipt for bike lights was produced in 7 days. The receipt was stamped
>by the police. The cyclists have then been returning the lights and asking
>for refunds!! The police have asked that any shop that refunds for the
>lights get and pass on names and addresses of the serial lawbreakers so that
>a 60 pound fpn can be issued.
>http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2010/11/18/Oxford+news/8672181.Students_try_dodging_cycling_light_fines/
>
>Mrcheerful
>



Wicked

"During a three-hour operation in High Street, Oxford, on Monday,
November 1, 106 cycles were issued with £30 fines for riding without
lights."

I think this is quite unfair.

The majority will have had working lights when they set off - but the
batteries will have failed en-route.

[JMS]

On 25 Nov 2010 08:55:16 GMT, Tony Raven > wrote:

>"Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>> In the Oxford crackdown on unlit cycles which netted 106 unlit bikes
>> in a
>> very short time, the police issued 30pound FPNs, but agreed to waive
>> that if
>> a receipt for bike lights was produced in 7 days. The receipt was
>> stamped
>> by the police. The cyclists have then been returning the lights and
>> asking
>> for refunds!! The police have asked that any shop that refunds for
>> the
>> lights get and pass on names and addresses of the serial lawbreakers
>> so that
>> a 60 pound fpn can be issued.
>> http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2010/11/18/Oxford+news/8672181.Students_try_dodging_cycling_light_fines/
>>
>> Mrcheerful
>
>Order them on-line and return them under the 7 day rule. Bypasses the
>local police and shops completely. I think Oxford students might be a
>tad less dim than you.


Good job you're not dim.

Good point I will forward you letter to the police and suggest that
they hang on to the receipts for at least seven days and the cyclists
have to make a second journey to the police station after 7 days if
they want them back.

Thanks for grassing them up.


--


Latest figures from DfT: KSI per billion passenger kilometres:

Van: 5 people
Bus/Coach: 9 people
Car : 18 people
Pedestrians: 358 people

Oh : and of course cyclists:
Cyclists: 541 people

Of those four modes of transport - which is the most dangerous?

(With thanks to Justin Lewis for asking me to find out the figures)

[bod]

On 25/11/2010 10:01, JMS wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 08:05:50 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
> > wrote:
>
>> In the Oxford crackdown on unlit cycles which netted 106 unlit bikes in a
>> very short time, the police issued 30pound FPNs, but agreed to waive that if
>> a receipt for bike lights was produced in 7 days. The receipt was stamped
>> by the police. The cyclists have then been returning the lights and asking
>> for refunds!! The police have asked that any shop that refunds for the
>> lights get and pass on names and addresses of the serial lawbreakers so that
>> a 60 pound fpn can be issued.
>> http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2010/11/18/Oxford+news/8672181.Students_try_dodging_cycling_light_fines/
>>
>> Mrcheerful
>>
>
>
>
> Wicked
>
> "During a three-hour operation in High Street, Oxford, on Monday,
> November 1, 106 cycles were issued with £30 fines for riding without
> lights."
>
> I think this is quite unfair.
>
> The majority will have had working lights when they set off - but the
> batteries will have failed en-route.
>
>

More likely, is that when the cyclists set off, there was no power going
to their brains.

--
Bod

[Jethro[_3_]]

On Nov 25, 10:01*am, JMS > wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 08:05:50 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
>
> > wrote:
> >In the Oxford crackdown on unlit cycles which netted 106 unlit bikes in a
> >very short time, the police issued 30pound FPNs, but agreed to waive that if
> >a receipt for bike lights was produced in 7 days. *The receipt was stamped
> >by the police. *The cyclists have then been returning the lights and asking
> >for refunds!! *The police have asked that any shop that refunds for the
> >lights get and pass on names and addresses of the serial lawbreakers so that
> >a 60 pound fpn can be issued.
> >http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2010/11/18/Oxford+news/8672181.St...
>
> >Mrcheerful
>
> Wicked
>
> "During a three-hour operation in High Street, Oxford, on Monday,
> November 1, 106 cycles were issued with 30 fines for riding without
> lights."
>
> I think this is quite unfair.
>
> The majority will have had working lights when they set off - but the
> batteries will have failed en-route.

Police recently (well, now I come to think about it 2-3 years ago) did
a similar thing with child seats. They turned up at schools, and
*warned* the parents who were driving illegally (no FPNs - just
verbally) what they needed to do. They then went back a month later,
and issued almost as many FPNs as they had warnings. I.e. people had
ignored them.

It was quite an amusing radio piece, as this gobby "innit" chavvy
women tried to go on about how the police was "persecuting" them, but
couldn't answer the reporters (fair point) about why they chose to do
nothing despite having had a months notice.

[Max Demian]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 10:01:03 +0000, JMS >
wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 08:05:50 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
> wrote:
>
>>In the Oxford crackdown on unlit cycles which netted 106 unlit bikes in a
>>very short time, the police issued 30pound FPNs, but agreed to waive that if
>>a receipt for bike lights was produced in 7 days. The receipt was stamped
>>by the police. The cyclists have then been returning the lights and asking
>>for refunds!! The police have asked that any shop that refunds for the
>>lights get and pass on names and addresses of the serial lawbreakers so that
>>a 60 pound fpn can be issued.
>>http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2010/11/18/Oxford+news/8672181.Students_try_dodging_cycling_light_fines/

As a matter of interest, are you still allowed to use dynamo lights on
bikes? They were a really good idea from a practical point of view,
even though they didn't produce much light (and none when the vehicle
was stationary). Especially good were the 'dynohubs' as they didn't
significantly increase the drag. No flat batteries, theft resistant.

--
Max Demian

[al Mossah[_2_]]

On Nov 25, 11:01*am, Max Demian > wrote:

> As a matter of interest, are you still allowed to use dynamo lights on
> bikes? They were a really good idea from a practical point of view,
> even though they didn't produce much light (and none when the vehicle
> was stationary). Especially good were the 'dynohubs' as they didn't
> significantly increase the drag. No flat batteries, theft resistant.
>
> --
> Max Demian

Yes, you are "allowed" to. And a combination of low current LEDs and
high capacitance capacitors means that they produce copious amounts of
light both when moving and when stationary.

[Cynic]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 11:01:51 +0000, Max Demian
> wrote:

>As a matter of interest, are you still allowed to use dynamo lights on
>bikes? They were a really good idea from a practical point of view,
>even though they didn't produce much light (and none when the vehicle
>was stationary). Especially good were the 'dynohubs' as they didn't
>significantly increase the drag. No flat batteries, theft resistant.

Now we have LED lights that have a good output for far less power, and
good rechargeable battery technology, ISTM that it would be a doddle
to make a light that runs from a battery (and so is on all the time),
but the battery is recharged from a bicycle dynamo and so never needs
changing.

It is such an obvious device that I would be very surprised if such a
thing does not exist. You can buy extremely cheap wind-up torches.

--
Cynic

[Sara[_2_]]

In article <4cee5b36.6052796@localhost>, (Cynic)
wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 11:01:51 +0000, Max Demian
> > wrote:
>
> >As a matter of interest, are you still allowed to use dynamo lights on
> >bikes? They were a really good idea from a practical point of view,
> >even though they didn't produce much light (and none when the vehicle
> >was stationary). Especially good were the 'dynohubs' as they didn't
> >significantly increase the drag. No flat batteries, theft resistant.
>
> Now we have LED lights that have a good output for far less power, and
> good rechargeable battery technology, ISTM that it would be a doddle
> to make a light that runs from a battery (and so is on all the time),
> but the battery is recharged from a bicycle dynamo and so never needs
> changing.
>
> It is such an obvious device that I would be very surprised if such a
> thing does not exist. You can buy extremely cheap wind-up torches.

I'd buy them.

--
Sara

Winter in the park can be a bit of a sod.

[Cynic]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 13:03:17 +0000, Sara
> wrote:

>> Now we have LED lights that have a good output for far less power, and
>> good rechargeable battery technology, ISTM that it would be a doddle
>> to make a light that runs from a battery (and so is on all the time),
>> but the battery is recharged from a bicycle dynamo and so never needs
>> changing.
>
>> It is such an obvious device that I would be very surprised if such a
>> thing does not exist. You can buy extremely cheap wind-up torches.

>I'd buy them.

So go ahead and do so.

I felt certain that such an obvious market would be filled, so I just
did a 2 second search. There are entire web sites dedicated to them!

Try here:
http://www.dynamolight.co.uk/

--
Cynic

[Sara[_2_]]

In article <4cee69c4.9779046@localhost>, (Cynic)
wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 13:03:17 +0000, Sara
> > wrote:
>
> >> Now we have LED lights that have a good output for far less power, and
> >> good rechargeable battery technology, ISTM that it would be a doddle
> >> to make a light that runs from a battery (and so is on all the time),
> >> but the battery is recharged from a bicycle dynamo and so never needs
> >> changing.
> >
> >> It is such an obvious device that I would be very surprised if such a
> >> thing does not exist. You can buy extremely cheap wind-up torches.
>
> >I'd buy them.
>
> So go ahead and do so.
>
> I felt certain that such an obvious market would be filled, so I just
> did a 2 second search. There are entire web sites dedicated to them!
>
> Try here:
> http://www.dynamolight.co.uk/

Retraction: No I won't! Somewhat foolishly I had £10-£15 in mind, not
£60-£70. Gulp.

--
Sara

Winter in the park can be a bit of a sod.

[Cynic]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:41:27 +0000, Sara
> wrote:

>> >I'd buy them.

>> So go ahead and do so.

>> I felt certain that such an obvious market would be filled, so I just
>> did a 2 second search. There are entire web sites dedicated to them!

>> Try here:
>> http://www.dynamolight.co.uk/

>Retraction: No I won't! Somewhat foolishly I had £10-£15 in mind, not
>£60-£70. Gulp.

Ah well - perhaps a note to Santa? :-)

A person who does a lot of night time cycling could probably amortise
the additional cost over a few months of saved batteries, and of
course there is the advantage of never being stuck with a flat battery
and no replacements to hand.

OTOH a rechargable torch has almost the same advantages and they are a
lot cheaper. Especially if you buy a hand-held torch instead of a
bicycle light and gaffer-tape it to the handlebars ...

--
Cynic

[Sara[_2_]]

In article <4cee7776.13284921@localhost>, (Cynic)
wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:41:27 +0000, Sara
> > wrote:
>
> >> >I'd buy them.
>
> >> So go ahead and do so.
>
> >> I felt certain that such an obvious market would be filled, so I just
> >> did a 2 second search. There are entire web sites dedicated to them!
>
> >> Try here:
> >> http://www.dynamolight.co.uk/
>
> >Retraction: No I won't! Somewhat foolishly I had £10-£15 in mind, not
> >£60-£70. Gulp.
>
> Ah well - perhaps a note to Santa? :-)
>
> A person who does a lot of night time cycling could probably amortise
> the additional cost over a few months of saved batteries, and of
> course there is the advantage of never being stuck with a flat battery
> and no replacements to hand.
>
> OTOH a rechargable torch has almost the same advantages and they are a
> lot cheaper. Especially if you buy a hand-held torch instead of a
> bicycle light and gaffer-tape it to the handlebars ...

I think the in-laws may have something lovely along those lines for me
in month's time.

--
Sara

Winter in the park can be a bit of a sod.

[AlanG]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:54:33 GMT, (Cynic) wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:41:27 +0000, Sara
> wrote:
>
>>> >I'd buy them.
>
>>> So go ahead and do so.
>
>>> I felt certain that such an obvious market would be filled, so I just
>>> did a 2 second search. There are entire web sites dedicated to them!
>
>>> Try here:
>>> http://www.dynamolight.co.uk/
>
>>Retraction: No I won't! Somewhat foolishly I had £10-£15 in mind, not
>>£60-£70. Gulp.
>
>Ah well - perhaps a note to Santa? :-)
>
>A person who does a lot of night time cycling could probably amortise
>the additional cost over a few months of saved batteries, and of
>course there is the advantage of never being stuck with a flat battery
>and no replacements to hand.
>
>OTOH a rechargable torch has almost the same advantages and they are a
>lot cheaper. Especially if you buy a hand-held torch instead of a
>bicycle light and gaffer-tape it to the handlebars ...

I bought my daughter a set of windup LED cycle lights for about a
tenner. A 1 minute wind lasts about 30 minutes. Quite enough for most
journeys around town.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bike-Front-Bicycle-Cycling-Lights/dp/B0016GOTZ4/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1290698836&sr=8-2

[Mr Pounder]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
On Nov 25, 8:05 am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> In the Oxford crackdown on unlit cycles which netted 106 unlit bikes in a
> very short time, the police issued 30pound FPNs, but agreed to waive that
> if
> a receipt for bike lights was produced in 7 days. The receipt was stamped
> by the police. The cyclists have then been returning the lights and asking
> for refunds!! The police have asked that any shop that refunds for the
> lights get and pass on names and addresses of the serial lawbreakers so
> that
> a 60 pound fpn can be
> issued.http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2010/11/18/Oxford+news/8672181.St...
>
Pity the police do not conduct a similar campaign against faulty cars,
probably because they are motorists themselves and therefore hate
cyclists anyway, like the motorists who infest this cycling newsgroup

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Skint merchants are cyclists.

Mr Pounder

[Mr Pounder]

"bod" > wrote in message
...
> On 25/11/2010 10:01, JMS wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 08:05:50 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> In the Oxford crackdown on unlit cycles which netted 106 unlit bikes in
>>> a
>>> very short time, the police issued 30pound FPNs, but agreed to waive
>>> that if
>>> a receipt for bike lights was produced in 7 days. The receipt was
>>> stamped
>>> by the police. The cyclists have then been returning the lights and
>>> asking
>>> for refunds!! The police have asked that any shop that refunds for the
>>> lights get and pass on names and addresses of the serial lawbreakers so
>>> that
>>> a 60 pound fpn can be issued.
>>> http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2010/11/18/Oxford+news/8672181.Students_try_dodging_cycling_light_fines/
>>>
>>> Mrcheerful
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Wicked
>>
>> "During a three-hour operation in High Street, Oxford, on Monday,
>> November 1, 106 cycles were issued with £30 fines for riding without
>> lights."
>>
>> I think this is quite unfair.
>>
>> The majority will have had working lights when they set off - but the
>> batteries will have failed en-route.
>>
> >
>
> More likely, is that when the cyclists set off, there was no power going
> to their brains.
>
> --
> Bod

Wot brains?

Mr Pounder
>

[bod]

On 25/11/2010 16:15, Mr Pounder wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 25/11/2010 10:01, JMS wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 08:05:50 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> In the Oxford crackdown on unlit cycles which netted 106 unlit bikes in
>>>> a
>>>> very short time, the police issued 30pound FPNs, but agreed to waive
>>>> that if
>>>> a receipt for bike lights was produced in 7 days. The receipt was
>>>> stamped
>>>> by the police. The cyclists have then been returning the lights and
>>>> asking
>>>> for refunds!! The police have asked that any shop that refunds for the
>>>> lights get and pass on names and addresses of the serial lawbreakers so
>>>> that
>>>> a 60 pound fpn can be issued.
>>>> http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2010/11/18/Oxford+news/8672181.Students_try_dodging_cycling_light_fines/
>>>>
>>>> Mrcheerful
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Wicked
>>>
>>> "During a three-hour operation in High Street, Oxford, on Monday,
>>> November 1, 106 cycles were issued with £30 fines for riding without
>>> lights."
>>>
>>> I think this is quite unfair.
>>>
>>> The majority will have had working lights when they set off - but the
>>> batteries will have failed en-route.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> More likely, is that when the cyclists set off, there was no power going
>> to their brains.
>>
>> --
>> Bod
>
> Wot brains?
>
> Mr Pounder
>>
>
>
The one in their trousers.

--
Bod

[Tony Dragon]

On 25/11/2010 08:43, Doug wrote:
> On Nov 25, 8:05 am, > wrote:
>> In the Oxford crackdown on unlit cycles which netted 106 unlit bikes in a
>> very short time, the police issued 30pound FPNs, but agreed to waive that if
>> a receipt for bike lights was produced in 7 days. The receipt was stamped
>> by the police. The cyclists have then been returning the lights and asking
>> for refunds!! The police have asked that any shop that refunds for the
>> lights get and pass on names and addresses of the serial lawbreakers so that
>> a 60 pound fpn can be issued.http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2010/11/18/Oxford+news/8672181.St...
>>
> Pity the police do not conduct a similar campaign against faulty cars,
> probably because they are motorists themselves and therefore hate
> cyclists anyway, like the motorists who infest this cycling newsgroup
>
> -- .
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
>
>

You mean like the one that's makes you take the car for a MOT test which
you then have to produce the certificate to the police.

--
Tony Dragon

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 25/11/2010 08:55, Tony Raven wrote:
> > wrote:
>> In the Oxford crackdown on unlit cycles which netted 106 unlit bikes
>> in a
>> very short time, the police issued 30pound FPNs, but agreed to waive
>> that if
>> a receipt for bike lights was produced in 7 days. The receipt was
>> stamped
>> by the police. The cyclists have then been returning the lights and
>> asking
>> for refunds!! The police have asked that any shop that refunds for
>> the
>> lights get and pass on names and addresses of the serial lawbreakers
>> so that
>> a 60 pound fpn can be issued.
>> http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2010/11/18/Oxford+news/8672181.Students_try_dodging_cycling_light_fines/
>>
>> Mrcheerful
>
> Order them on-line and return them under the 7 day rule. Bypasses the
> local police and shops completely. I think Oxford students might be a
> tad less dim than you.

Do you mean that you regard it as acceptable to subvert the rule of law in
that way - or even "clever"?

[Marc[_5_]]

On 25/11/2010 14:41, Sara wrote:
> In article<4cee69c4.9779046@localhost>, (Cynic)
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 13:03:17 +0000, Sara
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> Now we have LED lights that have a good output for far less power, and
>>>> good rechargeable battery technology, ISTM that it would be a doddle
>>>> to make a light that runs from a battery (and so is on all the time),
>>>> but the battery is recharged from a bicycle dynamo and so never needs
>>>> changing.
>>>
>>>> It is such an obvious device that I would be very surprised if such a
>>>> thing does not exist. You can buy extremely cheap wind-up torches.
>>
>>> I'd buy them.
>>
>> So go ahead and do so.
>>
>> I felt certain that such an obvious market would be filled, so I just
>> did a 2 second search. There are entire web sites dedicated to them!
>>
>> Try here:
>> http://www.dynamolight.co.uk/
>
> Retraction: No I won't! Somewhat foolishly I had £10-£15 in mind, not
> £60-£70. Gulp.
>
Best £60-£70 you will spend....
I diverted on the way home , just to find a darker lane I could light up!

[Marc[_5_]]

On 25/11/2010 15:28, AlanG wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:54:33 GMT, (Cynic) wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:41:27 +0000, Sara
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>> I'd buy them.
>>
>>>> So go ahead and do so.
>>
>>>> I felt certain that such an obvious market would be filled, so I just
>>>> did a 2 second search. There are entire web sites dedicated to them!
>>
>>>> Try here:
>>>> http://www.dynamolight.co.uk/
>>
>>> Retraction: No I won't! Somewhat foolishly I had £10-£15 in mind, not
>>> £60-£70. Gulp.
>>
>> Ah well - perhaps a note to Santa? :-)
>>
>> A person who does a lot of night time cycling could probably amortise
>> the additional cost over a few months of saved batteries, and of
>> course there is the advantage of never being stuck with a flat battery
>> and no replacements to hand.
>>
>> OTOH a rechargable torch has almost the same advantages and they are a
>> lot cheaper. Especially if you buy a hand-held torch instead of a
>> bicycle light and gaffer-tape it to the handlebars ...
>
> I bought my daughter a set of windup LED cycle lights for about a
> tenner. A 1 minute wind lasts about 30 minutes. Quite enough for most
> journeys around town.
>
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bike-Front-Bicycle-Cycling-Lights/dp/B0016GOTZ4/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1290698836&sr=8-2

I have something like the font light as a handtorch, it's OK as that,
but only OK nowhere near as good a Maglite, but it's certainly no bike light

[AlanG]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 18:35:01 +0000, Marc > wrote:

>On 25/11/2010 15:28, AlanG wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:54:33 GMT, (Cynic) wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:41:27 +0000, Sara
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> I'd buy them.
>>>
>>>>> So go ahead and do so.
>>>
>>>>> I felt certain that such an obvious market would be filled, so I just
>>>>> did a 2 second search. There are entire web sites dedicated to them!
>>>
>>>>> Try here:
>>>>> http://www.dynamolight.co.uk/
>>>
>>>> Retraction: No I won't! Somewhat foolishly I had £10-£15 in mind, not
>>>> £60-£70. Gulp.
>>>
>>> Ah well - perhaps a note to Santa? :-)
>>>
>>> A person who does a lot of night time cycling could probably amortise
>>> the additional cost over a few months of saved batteries, and of
>>> course there is the advantage of never being stuck with a flat battery
>>> and no replacements to hand.
>>>
>>> OTOH a rechargable torch has almost the same advantages and they are a
>>> lot cheaper. Especially if you buy a hand-held torch instead of a
>>> bicycle light and gaffer-tape it to the handlebars ...
>>
>> I bought my daughter a set of windup LED cycle lights for about a
>> tenner. A 1 minute wind lasts about 30 minutes. Quite enough for most
>> journeys around town.
>>
>> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bike-Front-Bicycle-Cycling-Lights/dp/B0016GOTZ4/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1290698836&sr=8-2
>
>I have something like the font light as a handtorch, it's OK as that,
>but only OK nowhere near as good a Maglite, but it's certainly no bike light

It's quite adequate round town where there are street lights and the
aim is more to help motorists avoid hitting you than lighting your way

[Marc[_5_]]

On 25/11/2010 19:28, AlanG wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 18:35:01 +0000, > wrote:
>
>> On 25/11/2010 15:28, AlanG wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:54:33 GMT, (Cynic) wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:41:27 +0000, Sara
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd buy them.
>>>>
>>>>>> So go ahead and do so.
>>>>
>>>>>> I felt certain that such an obvious market would be filled, so I just
>>>>>> did a 2 second search. There are entire web sites dedicated to them!
>>>>
>>>>>> Try here:
>>>>>> http://www.dynamolight.co.uk/
>>>>
>>>>> Retraction: No I won't! Somewhat foolishly I had £10-£15 in mind, not
>>>>> £60-£70. Gulp.
>>>>
>>>> Ah well - perhaps a note to Santa? :-)
>>>>
>>>> A person who does a lot of night time cycling could probably amortise
>>>> the additional cost over a few months of saved batteries, and of
>>>> course there is the advantage of never being stuck with a flat battery
>>>> and no replacements to hand.
>>>>
>>>> OTOH a rechargable torch has almost the same advantages and they are a
>>>> lot cheaper. Especially if you buy a hand-held torch instead of a
>>>> bicycle light and gaffer-tape it to the handlebars ...
>>>
>>> I bought my daughter a set of windup LED cycle lights for about a
>>> tenner. A 1 minute wind lasts about 30 minutes. Quite enough for most
>>> journeys around town.
>>>
>>> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bike-Front-Bicycle-Cycling-Lights/dp/B0016GOTZ4/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1290698836&sr=8-2
>>
>> I have something like the font light as a handtorch, it's OK as that,
>> but only OK nowhere near as good a Maglite, but it's certainly no bike light
>
> It's quite adequate round town where there are street lights and the
> aim is more to help motorists avoid hitting you than lighting your way
I'll take your word for it, it seem expensive for a poor light.

[NM]

On Nov 25, 2:41*pm, Sara > wrote:
> In article <4cee69c4.9779046@localhost>, (Cynic)
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 13:03:17 +0000, Sara
> > > wrote:
>
> > >> Now we have LED lights that have a good output for far less power, and
> > >> good rechargeable battery technology, ISTM that it would be a doddle
> > >> to make a light that runs from a battery (and so is on all the time),
> > >> but the battery is recharged from a bicycle dynamo and so never needs
> > >> changing.
>
> > >> It is such an obvious device that I would be very surprised if such a
> > >> thing does not exist. *You can buy extremely cheap wind-up torches..
>
> > >I'd buy them.
>
> > So go ahead and do so.
>
> > I felt certain that such an obvious market would be filled, so I just
> > did a 2 second search. *There are entire web sites dedicated to them!
>
> > Try here:
> >http://www.dynamolight.co.uk/
>
> Retraction: No I won't! Somewhat foolishly I had 10- 15 in mind, not
> 60- 70. Gulp.
>
> --
> Sara
>
> Winter in the park can be a bit of a sod.

Check out the pound shop or Tesco three for the price of two at the
moment (though why one would need three bike lights isn't explained)

[Max Demian]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 13:52:59 GMT, (Cynic) wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 13:03:17 +0000, Sara
> wrote:
>
>>> Now we have LED lights that have a good output for far less power, and
>>> good rechargeable battery technology, ISTM that it would be a doddle
>>> to make a light that runs from a battery (and so is on all the time),
>>> but the battery is recharged from a bicycle dynamo and so never needs
>>> changing.
>>
>>> It is such an obvious device that I would be very surprised if such a
>>> thing does not exist. You can buy extremely cheap wind-up torches.
>
>>I'd buy them.
>
>So go ahead and do so.
>
>I felt certain that such an obvious market would be filled, so I just
>did a 2 second search. There are entire web sites dedicated to them!
>
>Try here:
>http://www.dynamolight.co.uk/

It's rather retrograde going back to things rubbing on the side of the
wheel - lots of friction.

And it loses the build-in security aspect of a fully-integrated system
with a dynamo built into the wheel.

--
Max Demian

[roger merriman]

Marc > wrote:

> On 25/11/2010 14:41, Sara wrote:
> > In article<4cee69c4.9779046@localhost>, (Cynic)
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 13:03:17 +0000, Sara
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Now we have LED lights that have a good output for far less power, and
> >>>> good rechargeable battery technology, ISTM that it would be a doddle
> >>>> to make a light that runs from a battery (and so is on all the time),
> >>>> but the battery is recharged from a bicycle dynamo and so never needs
> >>>> changing.
> >>>
> >>>> It is such an obvious device that I would be very surprised if such a
> >>>> thing does not exist. You can buy extremely cheap wind-up torches.
> >>
> >>> I'd buy them.
> >>
> >> So go ahead and do so.
> >>
> >> I felt certain that such an obvious market would be filled, so I just
> >> did a 2 second search. There are entire web sites dedicated to them!
> >>
> >> Try here:
> >> http://www.dynamolight.co.uk/
> >
> > Retraction: No I won't! Somewhat foolishly I had £10-£15 in mind, not
> > £60-£70. Gulp.
> >
> Best £60-£70 you will spend....
> I diverted on the way home , just to find a darker lane I could light up!

how much kick do they have? I have found that the fenix torches work
well, though the beam is fairly narrow it's very bright so for pitch
black nights it allows one to see, plus the same power, keeps cars there
distance as you don't get lost, and any car that cuts in too close will
be in beam....

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Mike Causer[_5_]]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 12:12:16 -0800 (PST)
NM > wrote:

> Check out the pound shop or Tesco three for the price of two at the
> moment (though why one would need three bike lights isn't explained)

A cycling family of three members? Or one person with multiples of
three bikes.

My six bike solution is two sets of lights and six sets of brackets,
plus a few universal-fit spares.



Mike

[Mr Pounder]

"AlanG" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 18:35:01 +0000, Marc > wrote:
>
>>On 25/11/2010 15:28, AlanG wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:54:33 GMT, (Cynic) wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:41:27 +0000, Sara
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd buy them.
>>>>
>>>>>> So go ahead and do so.
>>>>
>>>>>> I felt certain that such an obvious market would be filled, so I just
>>>>>> did a 2 second search. There are entire web sites dedicated to them!
>>>>
>>>>>> Try here:
>>>>>> http://www.dynamolight.co.uk/
>>>>
>>>>> Retraction: No I won't! Somewhat foolishly I had £10-£15 in mind, not
>>>>> £60-£70. Gulp.
>>>>
>>>> Ah well - perhaps a note to Santa? :-)
>>>>
>>>> A person who does a lot of night time cycling could probably amortise
>>>> the additional cost over a few months of saved batteries, and of
>>>> course there is the advantage of never being stuck with a flat battery
>>>> and no replacements to hand.
>>>>
>>>> OTOH a rechargable torch has almost the same advantages and they are a
>>>> lot cheaper. Especially if you buy a hand-held torch instead of a
>>>> bicycle light and gaffer-tape it to the handlebars ...
>>>
>>> I bought my daughter a set of windup LED cycle lights for about a
>>> tenner. A 1 minute wind lasts about 30 minutes. Quite enough for most
>>> journeys around town.
>>>
>>> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bike-Front-Bicycle-Cycling-Lights/dp/B0016GOTZ4/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1290698836&sr=8-2
>>
>>I have something like the font light as a handtorch, it's OK as that,
>>but only OK nowhere near as good a Maglite, but it's certainly no bike
>>light
>
> It's quite adequate round town where there are street lights and the
> aim is more to help motorists avoid hitting you than lighting your way

You have a torch as a light on your bike.
That says it all.

Mr Pounder

[Marc[_5_]]

On 25/11/2010 21:11, Roger Merriman wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>> On 25/11/2010 14:41, Sara wrote:
>>> In article<4cee69c4.9779046@localhost>, (Cynic)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 13:03:17 +0000, Sara
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Now we have LED lights that have a good output for far less power, and
>>>>>> good rechargeable battery technology, ISTM that it would be a doddle
>>>>>> to make a light that runs from a battery (and so is on all the time),
>>>>>> but the battery is recharged from a bicycle dynamo and so never needs
>>>>>> changing.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is such an obvious device that I would be very surprised if such a
>>>>>> thing does not exist. You can buy extremely cheap wind-up torches.
>>>>
>>>>> I'd buy them.
>>>>
>>>> So go ahead and do so.
>>>>
>>>> I felt certain that such an obvious market would be filled, so I just
>>>> did a 2 second search. There are entire web sites dedicated to them!
>>>>
>>>> Try here:
>>>> http://www.dynamolight.co.uk/
>>>
>>> Retraction: No I won't! Somewhat foolishly I had £10-£15 in mind, not
>>> £60-£70. Gulp.
>>>
>> Best £60-£70 you will spend....
>> I diverted on the way home , just to find a darker lane I could light up!
>
> how much kick do they have?

It's obviously very subjective, but, I think the IQ cyo is better than
the 2/10W Smart lights I was using last year

I have found that the fenix torches work
> well, though the beam is fairly narrow it's very bright so for pitch
> black nights it allows one to see, plus the same power, keeps cars there
> distance as you don't get lost, and any car that cuts in too close will
> be in beam....
I'm sorry I don't understand any of that...

[Doug[_3_]]

On Nov 25, 8:47*am, FrengaX > wrote:
> On Nov 25, 8:43*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > On Nov 25, 8:05*am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:> In the Oxford crackdown on unlit cycles which netted 106 unlit bikes in a
> > > very short time, the police issued 30pound FPNs, but agreed to waive that if
> > > a receipt for bike lights was produced in 7 days. *The receipt was stamped
> > > by the police. *The cyclists have then been returning the lights and asking
> > > for refunds!! *The police have asked that any shop that refunds for the
> > > lights get and pass on names and addresses of the serial lawbreakers so that
> > > a 60 pound fpn can be issued.http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2010/11/18/Oxford+news/8672181.St...
>
> > Pity the police do not conduct a similar campaign against faulty cars,
> > probably because they are motorists themselves and therefore hate
> > cyclists anyway, like the motorists who infest this cycling newsgroup
>
> But they do have such campaigns. The fact that they are so common
> means they are not reported.
>
So it follows then that because crackdowns on cyclists are not needed
very often they are reported?

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Doug wrote:
> On Nov 25, 8:47 am, FrengaX > wrote:
>> On Nov 25, 8:43 am, Doug > wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 25, 8:05 am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:> In
>>> the Oxford crackdown on unlit cycles which netted 106 unlit bikes
>>> in a
>>>> very short time, the police issued 30pound FPNs, but agreed to
>>>> waive that if
>>>> a receipt for bike lights was produced in 7 days. The receipt was
>>>> stamped
>>>> by the police. The cyclists have then been returning the lights
>>>> and asking
>>>> for refunds!! The police have asked that any shop that refunds for
>>>> the
>>>> lights get and pass on names and addresses of the serial
>>>> lawbreakers so that
>>>> a 60 pound fpn can be
>>>> issued.http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2010/11/18/Oxford+news/8672181.St...
>>
>>> Pity the police do not conduct a similar campaign against faulty
>>> cars,
>>> probably because they are motorists themselves and therefore hate
>>> cyclists anyway, like the motorists who infest this cycling
>>> newsgroup
>>
>> But they do have such campaigns. The fact that they are so common
>> means they are not reported.
>>
> So it follows then that because crackdowns on cyclists are not needed
> very often they are reported?

or that although they are needed it is rare that they occur.

[Tom Anderson]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Sara wrote:

> In article <4cee7776.13284921@localhost>, (Cynic)
> wrote:
>
>> OTOH a rechargable torch has almost the same advantages and they are a
>> lot cheaper. Especially if you buy a hand-held torch instead of a
>> bicycle light and gaffer-tape it to the handlebars ...
>
> I think the in-laws may have something lovely along those lines for me
> in month's time.

Following Mr Tosspot's advice, i recently bought an equivalent of the
gaffer tape which is slightly more acceptable in polite company:

http://www.fenixtorch.co.uk/led_torches/lockblock.html

It's working very well so far (Tosspot - thanks for the suggestion, by the
way!). I've had bad experiences with velcro on bikes before (my rack bag
is held on with it - flipping useless), but this shows no sign of coming
adrift. The straps are a bit long, given the small size of the light it's
holding, but it's a very minor annoyance.

In terms of the torch itself, like Mr Merriman ...

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Roger Merriman wrote:

> I have found that the fenix torches work well,

Specifically the PD30:

http://www.fenixtorch.co.uk/led_torches/fenix-pd30-r4.html

Although that price is more than you want to spend, i think. You could try
this (30 lumens is more than enough to be seen, even if not really enough
to navigate at speed on pitch-black country lanes):

http://www.fenixtorch.co.uk/led_torches/fenix-e05-r4.html

But it might actually be too small to fit in that mounting. Maybe stick it
behind one ear?

Anyway, for the PD30, i can confirm that ...

> though the beam is fairly narrow it's very bright so for pitch black
> nights it allows one to see,

It's fantastic for navigation in the dark, even at the lower-power
settings. I am slightly concerned that there isn't enough spillage of
light to the side to make you visible to cars which aren't directly in
front, thought. I am thinking about fitting some sort of diffuser.

My only worry is about the bezel: to switch from full-power to
reduced-power mode, which you need to do if you're not going to blind
people about town, you twist the bezel, but this actually means unscrewing
the lamp end slightly from the battery holder. It's a tiny bit, and there
is an O-ring in there, but i am concerned that i am reducing the
waterproofness by doing this. It seems like a bit of a shoddy design,
really; i'd expect a sealed or magnetic adjuster of some sort, really, or
to have all the power options selected by the switch on the back.

tom

--
Virtually everything you touch has been mined. -- Prof Keith Atkinson

[Doug[_3_]]

On Nov 27, 2:16*pm, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On Nov 25, 8:47 am, FrengaX > wrote:
> >> On Nov 25, 8:43 am, Doug > wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 25, 8:05 am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:> In
> >>> the Oxford crackdown on unlit cycles which netted 106 unlit bikes
> >>> in a
> >>>> very short time, the police issued 30pound FPNs, but agreed to
> >>>> waive that if
> >>>> a receipt for bike lights was produced in 7 days. The receipt was
> >>>> stamped
> >>>> by the police. The cyclists have then been returning the lights
> >>>> and asking
> >>>> for refunds!! The police have asked that any shop that refunds for
> >>>> the
> >>>> lights get and pass on names and addresses of the serial
> >>>> lawbreakers so that
> >>>> a 60 pound fpn can be
> >>>> issued.http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2010/11/18/Oxford+news/8672181.St...
>
> >>> Pity the police do not conduct a similar campaign against faulty
> >>> cars,
> >>> probably because they are motorists themselves and therefore hate
> >>> cyclists anyway, like the motorists who infest this cycling
> >>> newsgroup
>
> >> But they do have such campaigns. The fact that they are so common
> >> means they are not reported.
>
> > So it follows then that because crackdowns on cyclists are *not needed
> > very often they are reported?
>
> or that although they are needed it is rare that they occur.
>
But as the harm caused by motorists is much greater than the harm
caused by cyclists why do you single out the latter for your special
attention? Are you trying to compensate for something?

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Derek C]

On Nov 28, 7:14*am, Doug > wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2:16*pm, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Doug wrote:
> > > On Nov 25, 8:47 am, FrengaX > wrote:
> > >> On Nov 25, 8:43 am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > >>> On Nov 25, 8:05 am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:> In
> > >>> the Oxford crackdown on unlit cycles which netted 106 unlit bikes
> > >>> in a
> > >>>> very short time, the police issued 30pound FPNs, but agreed to
> > >>>> waive that if
> > >>>> a receipt for bike lights was produced in 7 days. The receipt was
> > >>>> stamped
> > >>>> by the police. The cyclists have then been returning the lights
> > >>>> and asking
> > >>>> for refunds!! The police have asked that any shop that refunds for
> > >>>> the
> > >>>> lights get and pass on names and addresses of the serial
> > >>>> lawbreakers so that
> > >>>> a 60 pound fpn can be
> > >>>> issued.http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2010/11/18/Oxford+news/8672181.St...
>
> > >>> Pity the police do not conduct a similar campaign against faulty
> > >>> cars,
> > >>> probably because they are motorists themselves and therefore hate
> > >>> cyclists anyway, like the motorists who infest this cycling
> > >>> newsgroup
>
> > >> But they do have such campaigns. The fact that they are so common
> > >> means they are not reported.
>
> > > So it follows then that because crackdowns on cyclists are *not needed
> > > very often they are reported?
>
> > or that although they are needed it is rare that they occur.
>
> But as the harm caused by motorists is much greater than the harm
> caused by cyclists why do you single out the latter for your special
> attention? Are you trying to compensate for something?
>
> -- .
Motorists (and pedestrians) are less likely to harm cyclists if they
can actually see and avoid them at night. That is one of the main
purposes of lights on bicycles. The front light also allows the
cyclist to see where he (or she) is going, and to avoid all the
potholes in our appallingly maintained roads. Why are many cyclists so
reluctant to fit lights when it's in their own interests to do so?

Derek C

[Doug[_3_]]

On Nov 28, 8:03*am, Derek C > wrote:
> On Nov 28, 7:14*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > On Nov 27, 2:16*pm, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
> > > Doug wrote:
> > > > On Nov 25, 8:47 am, FrengaX > wrote:
> > > >> On Nov 25, 8:43 am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > >>> On Nov 25, 8:05 am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:> In
> > > >>> the Oxford crackdown on unlit cycles which netted 106 unlit bikes
> > > >>> in a
> > > >>>> very short time, the police issued 30pound FPNs, but agreed to
> > > >>>> waive that if
> > > >>>> a receipt for bike lights was produced in 7 days. The receipt was
> > > >>>> stamped
> > > >>>> by the police. The cyclists have then been returning the lights
> > > >>>> and asking
> > > >>>> for refunds!! The police have asked that any shop that refunds for
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>> lights get and pass on names and addresses of the serial
> > > >>>> lawbreakers so that
> > > >>>> a 60 pound fpn can be
> > > >>>> issued.http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2010/11/18/Oxford+news/8672181.St...
>
> > > >>> Pity the police do not conduct a similar campaign against faulty
> > > >>> cars,
> > > >>> probably because they are motorists themselves and therefore hate
> > > >>> cyclists anyway, like the motorists who infest this cycling
> > > >>> newsgroup
>
> > > >> But they do have such campaigns. The fact that they are so common
> > > >> means they are not reported.
>
> > > > So it follows then that because crackdowns on cyclists are *not needed
> > > > very often they are reported?
>
> > > or that although they are needed it is rare that they occur.
>
> > But as the harm caused by motorists is much greater than the harm
> > caused by cyclists why do you single out the latter for your special
> > attention? Are you trying to compensate for something?
>
> > -- .
>
> Motorists (and pedestrians) are less likely to harm cyclists if they
> can actually see and avoid them at night. That is one of the main
> purposes of lights on bicycles. The front light also allows the
> cyclist to see where he (or she) is going, and to avoid all the
> potholes in our appallingly maintained roads. Why are many cyclists so
> reluctant to fit lights when it's in their own interests to do so?
>
Probably for the same reasons they see the futility of wearing hi-viz
vests and helmets when in the presence of dangerous drivers,
particularly those who have lost control. Also, and this seems to be
an accepted fact if government adverts are anything to go by, some
drivers just do not pay enough attention and thereby put other road
users at serious risk, including cyclists complete with lights, vest
and a helmet.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Derek C > wrote:

> Motorists (and pedestrians) are less likely to harm cyclists if they
> can actually see and avoid them at night. That is one of the main
> purposes of lights on bicycles. The front light also allows the
> cyclist to see where he (or she) is going, and to avoid all the
> potholes in our appallingly maintained roads. Why are many cyclists so
> reluctant to fit lights when it's in their own interests to do so?
>

Actually the front lights specified to be fitted at night by law are
pretty useless for seeing where you are going and most of us here
supplement them with lights more suited to that purpose.

But I suspect the real reason for the reluctance is they get stolen if
you leave them on the bike so you have to remember to bring them with
you and take them off whenever you leave the bike. It would be much
better if manufacturers took the German approach and fitted decent
dynamo sets to all their bikes.


--
Tony

[PeterG]

On Nov 28, 8:12*am, Doug > wrote:
> On Nov 28, 8:03*am, Derek C > wrote:
>
> > On Nov 28, 7:14*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 27, 2:16*pm, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
> > > > Doug wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 25, 8:47 am, FrengaX > wrote:
> > > > >> On Nov 25, 8:43 am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > > >>> On Nov 25, 8:05 am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:> In
> > > > >>> the Oxford crackdown on unlit cycles which netted 106 unlit bikes
> > > > >>> in a
> > > > >>>> very short time, the police issued 30pound FPNs, but agreed to
> > > > >>>> waive that if
> > > > >>>> a receipt for bike lights was produced in 7 days. The receipt was
> > > > >>>> stamped
> > > > >>>> by the police. The cyclists have then been returning the lights
> > > > >>>> and asking
> > > > >>>> for refunds!! The police have asked that any shop that refunds for
> > > > >>>> the
> > > > >>>> lights get and pass on names and addresses of the serial
> > > > >>>> lawbreakers so that
> > > > >>>> a 60 pound fpn can be
> > > > >>>> issued.http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2010/11/18/Oxford+news/8672181.St...
>
> > > > >>> Pity the police do not conduct a similar campaign against faulty
> > > > >>> cars,
> > > > >>> probably because they are motorists themselves and therefore hate
> > > > >>> cyclists anyway, like the motorists who infest this cycling
> > > > >>> newsgroup
>
> > > > >> But they do have such campaigns. The fact that they are so common
> > > > >> means they are not reported.
>
> > > > > So it follows then that because crackdowns on cyclists are *not needed
> > > > > very often they are reported?
>
> > > > or that although they are needed it is rare that they occur.
>
> > > But as the harm caused by motorists is much greater than the harm
> > > caused by cyclists why do you single out the latter for your special
> > > attention? Are you trying to compensate for something?
>
> > > -- .
>
> > Motorists (and pedestrians) are less likely to harm cyclists if they
> > can actually see and avoid them at night. That is one of the main
> > purposes of lights on bicycles. The front light also allows the
> > cyclist to see where he (or she) is going, and to avoid all the
> > potholes in our appallingly maintained roads. Why are many cyclists so
> > reluctant to fit lights when it's in their own interests to do so?
>
> Probably for the same reasons they see the futility of wearing hi-viz
> vests and helmets when in the presence of dangerous drivers,
> particularly those who have lost control. Also, and this seems to be
> an accepted fact if government adverts are anything to go by, some
> drivers just do not pay enough attention and thereby put other road
> users at serious risk, including cyclists complete with lights, vest
> and a helmet.
>
> -- .
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> *http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

When I used to live in a country area & had to walk down unlit lanes
at night, I used to wear a coat with reflective stripes with suitable
cycle lights clipped to me, you seem to be saying that I wasted my
money.

[Tony Dragon]

On 28/11/2010 08:12, Doug wrote:
> On Nov 28, 8:03 am, Derek > wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 7:14 am, > wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 27, 2:16 pm, > wrote:
>>
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 25, 8:47 am, > wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 25, 8:43 am, > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Nov 25, 8:05 am, > wrote:> In
>>>>>>> the Oxford crackdown on unlit cycles which netted 106 unlit bikes
>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>> very short time, the police issued 30pound FPNs, but agreed to
>>>>>>>> waive that if
>>>>>>>> a receipt for bike lights was produced in 7 days. The receipt was
>>>>>>>> stamped
>>>>>>>> by the police. The cyclists have then been returning the lights
>>>>>>>> and asking
>>>>>>>> for refunds!! The police have asked that any shop that refunds for
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> lights get and pass on names and addresses of the serial
>>>>>>>> lawbreakers so that
>>>>>>>> a 60 pound fpn can be
>>>>>>>> issued.http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2010/11/18/Oxford+news/8672181.St...
>>
>>>>>>> Pity the police do not conduct a similar campaign against faulty
>>>>>>> cars,
>>>>>>> probably because they are motorists themselves and therefore hate
>>>>>>> cyclists anyway, like the motorists who infest this cycling
>>>>>>> newsgroup
>>
>>>>>> But they do have such campaigns. The fact that they are so common
>>>>>> means they are not reported.
>>
>>>>> So it follows then that because crackdowns on cyclists are not needed
>>>>> very often they are reported?
>>
>>>> or that although they are needed it is rare that they occur.
>>
>>> But as the harm caused by motorists is much greater than the harm
>>> caused by cyclists why do you single out the latter for your special
>>> attention? Are you trying to compensate for something?
>>
>>> -- .
>>
>> Motorists (and pedestrians) are less likely to harm cyclists if they
>> can actually see and avoid them at night. That is one of the main
>> purposes of lights on bicycles. The front light also allows the
>> cyclist to see where he (or she) is going, and to avoid all the
>> potholes in our appallingly maintained roads. Why are many cyclists so
>> reluctant to fit lights when it's in their own interests to do so?
>>
> Probably for the same reasons they see the futility of wearing hi-viz
> vests and helmets when in the presence of dangerous drivers,
> particularly those who have lost control.

If a driver has lost control then such gear would be no good, but as
most drivers do not lose control, anything that makes you more visible
has to be a good thing.(up to a point)

> Also, and this seems to be
> an accepted fact if government adverts are anything to go by, some
> drivers just do not pay enough attention and thereby put other road
> users at serious risk, including cyclists complete with lights, vest
> and a helmet.
>
> -- .
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>


--
Tony Dragon

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 28/11/2010 08:16, Tony Raven wrote:
> Derek C > wrote:
>
>> Motorists (and pedestrians) are less likely to harm cyclists if they
>> can actually see and avoid them at night. That is one of the main
>> purposes of lights on bicycles. The front light also allows the
>> cyclist to see where he (or she) is going, and to avoid all the
>> potholes in our appallingly maintained roads. Why are many cyclists so
>> reluctant to fit lights when it's in their own interests to do so?
>>
>
> Actually the front lights specified to be fitted at night by law are
> pretty useless for seeing where you are going and most of us here
> supplement them with lights more suited to that purpose.
>
> But I suspect the real reason for the reluctance is they get stolen if
> you leave them on the bike so you have to remember to bring them with
> you and take them off whenever you leave the bike. It would be much
> better if manufacturers took the German approach and fitted decent
> dynamo sets to all their bikes.

That would also bring down the price of dynamo lights, which wouldn't
hurt. The dynamo hub on my Brom cost more than most people spend on an
entire bike.

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM8ik+AAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/TAEH/2WvPR1LpXeKXXpTIPD3To83
L0umpsQUXA8wB4wIxVW59Qm+tq8QZEOrJ59MW+2GFr4e4Fbp7O/YYm9ufOmttVw1
PfmnXo2KXc2PPHu7kgr5TULHHkuGo9iU8xcChCv36ns2kku4od qaHFCdGhkjWLLz
a0uPW5pk/3gJjJSvdnZGO3azu/DZlYgGTn57ULHduaW/Sdin5ARdpxsweKpePlz5
cGvuQCxkBCkeXztw/ojoFq8D3n5cLfD79NmXphe0/BDARCuE13uS283DhP5GBh3M
6nN0ugFnarvSAgvn7ANGClJMH10TAK/A33359Exjg4sxEOqtn4HwBXsV5IPHN0k=
=Iv1G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Marc[_5_]]

On 28/11/2010 07:14, Doug wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2:16 pm, > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On Nov 25, 8:47 am, > wrote:
>>>> On Nov 25, 8:43 am, > wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Nov 25, 8:05 am, > wrote:> In
>>>>> the Oxford crackdown on unlit cycles which netted 106 unlit bikes
>>>>> in a
>>>>>> very short time, the police issued 30pound FPNs, but agreed to
>>>>>> waive that if
>>>>>> a receipt for bike lights was produced in 7 days. The receipt was
>>>>>> stamped
>>>>>> by the police. The cyclists have then been returning the lights
>>>>>> and asking
>>>>>> for refunds!! The police have asked that any shop that refunds for
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> lights get and pass on names and addresses of the serial
>>>>>> lawbreakers so that
>>>>>> a 60 pound fpn can be
>>>>>> issued.http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2010/11/18/Oxford+news/8672181.St...
>>
>>>>> Pity the police do not conduct a similar campaign against faulty
>>>>> cars,
>>>>> probably because they are motorists themselves and therefore hate
>>>>> cyclists anyway, like the motorists who infest this cycling
>>>>> newsgroup
>>
>>>> But they do have such campaigns. The fact that they are so common
>>>> means they are not reported.
>>
>>> So it follows then that because crackdowns on cyclists are not needed
>>> very often they are reported?
>>
>> or that although they are needed it is rare that they occur.
>>
> But as the harm caused by motorists is much greater than the harm
> caused by cyclists why do you single out the latter for your special
> attention?

How much greater than dead by cycle is dead by car? How much more broken
is a broken arm caused by a cyclist than one by a car driver?

[Tony Dragon]

On 28/11/2010 10:10, Marc wrote:
> On 28/11/2010 07:14, Doug wrote:
>> On Nov 27, 2:16 pm, > wrote:
>>> Doug wrote:
>>>> On Nov 25, 8:47 am, > wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 25, 8:43 am, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 25, 8:05 am, > wrote:> In
>>>>>> the Oxford crackdown on unlit cycles which netted 106 unlit bikes
>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>> very short time, the police issued 30pound FPNs, but agreed to
>>>>>>> waive that if
>>>>>>> a receipt for bike lights was produced in 7 days. The receipt was
>>>>>>> stamped
>>>>>>> by the police. The cyclists have then been returning the lights
>>>>>>> and asking
>>>>>>> for refunds!! The police have asked that any shop that refunds for
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> lights get and pass on names and addresses of the serial
>>>>>>> lawbreakers so that
>>>>>>> a 60 pound fpn can be
>>>>>>> issued.http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/archive/2010/11/18/Oxford+news/8672181.St...
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Pity the police do not conduct a similar campaign against faulty
>>>>>> cars,
>>>>>> probably because they are motorists themselves and therefore hate
>>>>>> cyclists anyway, like the motorists who infest this cycling
>>>>>> newsgroup
>>>
>>>>> But they do have such campaigns. The fact that they are so common
>>>>> means they are not reported.
>>>
>>>> So it follows then that because crackdowns on cyclists are not needed
>>>> very often they are reported?
>>>
>>> or that although they are needed it is rare that they occur.
>>>
>> But as the harm caused by motorists is much greater than the harm
>> caused by cyclists why do you single out the latter for your special
>> attention?
>
> How much greater than dead by cycle is dead by car? How much more broken
> is a broken arm caused by a cyclist than one by a car driver?

Somebody might be able to provide the link, but I believe that Doug has
posted that you are a different sort of dead if you are killed by a bike.


--
Tony Dragon

[Marc[_5_]]

On 28/11/2010 19:01, Phil W Lee wrote:
> > considered Sun, 28 Nov 2010 10:10:17 +0000
> the perfect time to write:
>
>> On 28/11/2010 07:14, Doug wrote:
>>> But as the harm caused by motorists is much greater than the harm
>>> caused by cyclists why do you single out the latter for your special
>>> attention?
>>
>> How much greater than dead by cycle is dead by car? How much more broken
>> is a broken arm caused by a cyclist than one by a car driver?
>
> You are being intentionally thick.
>
> The number of broken bones and deaths caused by cyclists pales into
> insignificance when compared to the number or each caused by motor
> vehicles.
>
> Even ignoring sheer numbers, there are types of injury that a cycle
> just does not have sufficient energy to inflict, yet which are caused
> by motor vehicles with depressing regularity.

You mean more than fatal injuries?

[Tony Dragon]

On 28/11/2010 19:01, Phil W Lee wrote:
> > considered Sun, 28 Nov 2010 10:10:17 +0000
> the perfect time to write:
>
>> On 28/11/2010 07:14, Doug wrote:
>>> But as the harm caused by motorists is much greater than the harm
>>> caused by cyclists why do you single out the latter for your special
>>> attention?
>>
>> How much greater than dead by cycle is dead by car? How much more broken
>> is a broken arm caused by a cyclist than one by a car driver?
>
> You are being intentionally thick.
>
> The number of broken bones and deaths caused by cyclists pales into
> insignificance when compared to the number or each caused by motor
> vehicles.
>
> Even ignoring sheer numbers, there are types of injury that a cycle
> just does not have sufficient energy to inflict, yet which are caused
> by motor vehicles with depressing regularity.

And there was me thinking dead was dead, I must be intentionally thick.

--
Tony Dragon

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 28/11/2010 19:23, Marc wrote:
> On 28/11/2010 19:01, Phil W Lee wrote:
>> > considered Sun, 28 Nov 2010 10:10:17 +0000
>> the perfect time to write:
>>
>>> On 28/11/2010 07:14, Doug wrote:
>>>> But as the harm caused by motorists is much greater than the harm
>>>> caused by cyclists why do you single out the latter for your special
>>>> attention?
>>>
>>> How much greater than dead by cycle is dead by car? How much more broken
>>> is a broken arm caused by a cyclist than one by a car driver?
>>
>> You are being intentionally thick.
>>
>> The number of broken bones and deaths caused by cyclists pales into
>> insignificance when compared to the number or each caused by motor
>> vehicles.
>>
>> Even ignoring sheer numbers, there are types of injury that a cycle
>> just does not have sufficient energy to inflict, yet which are caused
>> by motor vehicles with depressing regularity.
>
> You mean more than fatal injuries?


You can hardly fail to be aware by now that the number of pedestrians
killed on the footway by cyclists is tiny. Most years, zero. I think
you'll find that pedestrians kill as many cyclists as the other way
round, and tiny numbers in both cases.

Drivers kill one or two pedestrians per fortnight *on the pavement*.
That's in addition to all those they kill while crossing the road.

There are risks to pedestrians on pavements, as far as can objectively
quantified cyclists are not a significant risk.

They are a source of annoyance. Cycling on the pavement is a terrible
idea for lots of reasons, and we in thie groupa re mystified why
councils encourage it, but as far as the data goes it's more of a risk
to the cyclist than to the pedestrians. Riding on the footway against he
direction of traffic is one of the most dangerous things a cyclist can
do, as far as I recall.

If you want to make a fuss about nuisance, go right ahead, you'll not
find a lot of dissent here. But danger? Come back when you have credible
evidence of a significant problem.
- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM8t44AAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/NNwH/A3yl54tJ3YvN78l0QxRV3DJ
PMUjMAd1gMdJ9QcjHGSXdcKVWI77a7JE/25ckndwHiMKsed0hOriyXWRdbmYF4yr
LIAjbTu105iNpxL7hirotWx0DXHMp+z60WZYGaMuKgq1NWJAik 9bZuTVCgVs6RVj
0RUfXssQ09XQiZjvuLNjzK1Wm+agbGdQ+B/z8P7bNT8MAy/CIva8oIF8BTj6dmof
4P6kvUimrjbvC9+6b0J/pVzQXqOIPb0jPo9TQL7iNqiGEC57qJsFI7sk8yNoW2+P
521ACrHYgVvYBzEvH/SpfNnqRFW40QricncHIDYp62XuVJTpRZGU5hzXIvrz5h8=
=BOyc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Marc[_5_]]

On 28/11/2010 22:56, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 28/11/2010 19:23, Marc wrote:
>> On 28/11/2010 19:01, Phil W Lee wrote:
>>> > considered Sun, 28 Nov 2010 10:10:17 +0000
>>> the perfect time to write:
>>>
>>>> On 28/11/2010 07:14, Doug wrote:
>>>>> But as the harm caused by motorists is much greater than the harm
>>>>> caused by cyclists why do you single out the latter for your special
>>>>> attention?
>>>>
>>>> How much greater than dead by cycle is dead by car? How much more broken
>>>> is a broken arm caused by a cyclist than one by a car driver?
>>>
>>> You are being intentionally thick.
>>>
>>> The number of broken bones and deaths caused by cyclists pales into
>>> insignificance when compared to the number or each caused by motor
>>> vehicles.
>>>
>>> Even ignoring sheer numbers, there are types of injury that a cycle
>>> just does not have sufficient energy to inflict, yet which are caused
>>> by motor vehicles with depressing regularity.
>>
>> You mean more than fatal injuries?
>
>
> You can hardly fail to be aware by now that the number of pedestrians
> killed on the footway by cyclists is tiny. Most years, zero. I think
> you'll find that pedestrians kill as many cyclists as the other way
> round, and tiny numbers in both cases.
>
> Drivers kill one or two pedestrians per fortnight *on the pavement*.
> That's in addition to all those they kill while crossing the road.
>
> There are risks to pedestrians on pavements, as far as can objectively
> quantified cyclists are not a significant risk.
>
> They are a source of annoyance. Cycling on the pavement is a terrible
> idea for lots of reasons, and we in thie groupa re mystified why
> councils encourage it, but as far as the data goes it's more of a risk
> to the cyclist than to the pedestrians. Riding on the footway against he
> direction of traffic is one of the most dangerous things a cyclist can
> do, as far as I recall.
>
> If you want to make a fuss about nuisance, go right ahead, you'll not
> find a lot of dissent here. But danger? Come back when you have credible
> evidence of a significant problem.
> - --

I think you have got your attributions mixed again.

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> They are a source of annoyance. Cycling on the pavement is a terrible
> idea for lots of reasons, and we in thie groupa re mystified why
> councils encourage it

According to a Cambridge Councillor, its because of popular demand from
his constituents. Which kind of makes a nonsense of the argument that
the population is against it. Ill-informed maybe but against it?
Apparently quite the opposite.

Tony

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 28/11/2010 23:07, Marc wrote:


>>> You mean more than fatal injuries?

>> You can hardly fail to be aware by now that the number of pedestrians
>> killed on the footway by cyclists is tiny. Most years, zero. I think
>> you'll find that pedestrians kill as many cyclists as the other way
>> round, and tiny numbers in both cases.
>>
>> Drivers kill one or two pedestrians per fortnight *on the pavement*.
>> That's in addition to all those they kill while crossing the road.
>>
>> There are risks to pedestrians on pavements, as far as can objectively
>> quantified cyclists are not a significant risk.
>>
>> They are a source of annoyance. Cycling on the pavement is a terrible
>> idea for lots of reasons, and we in thie groupa re mystified why
>> councils encourage it, but as far as the data goes it's more of a risk
>> to the cyclist than to the pedestrians. Riding on the footway against he
>> direction of traffic is one of the most dangerous things a cyclist can
>> do, as far as I recall.
>>
>> If you want to make a fuss about nuisance, go right ahead, you'll not
>> find a lot of dissent here. But danger? Come back when you have credible
>> evidence of a significant problem.
>> - --
>
> I think you have got your attributions mixed again.

Snipped to show the comment I was responding to. I read that as the
usual "somebody died once, therefore all pavement cyclists are murdering
scum" twaddle; if that was not what you meant then feel free to amplify
and clarify what you /did/ mean.

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM8uTfAAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/bHEH/jDyVibzZ/QVP+3AWjTOJSVc
sUIMgi/KH7BC5HBjELHJVZShrUaxg1lZ//XhQxrp6TWmJINqY6MSBFQwhRQF83pR
8eQDFqG3Oi16THlgAu2o3RHQlZF6iv7gEN+4V6h63Eov1EZECb jO/hmamWz2YRZx
11CJC4jOt2y0KcYhxZrZ5d/7kimEzeqRfz/HkdiJfeWbZn6qwfHC5RhJJxHhmtcl
bhoSbNzYn+fn5ZiP/2JYZjTlyNtMwd0a53HVitRM7OpctwCGn8sfktHA0sNszuu/
8ua/UpKbPztHodIRmUEQoHlw28nJkzZPxmBIr9OSF91whR2f1it7OU i+jS/7jH4=
=G33/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 28/11/2010 23:07, Tony Raven wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>
>> They are a source of annoyance. Cycling on the pavement is a terrible
>> idea for lots of reasons, and we in thie groupa re mystified why
>> councils encourage it
>
> According to a Cambridge Councillor, its because of popular demand from his
> constituents. Which kind of makes a nonsense of the argument that the
> population is against it.

Alternatively, it just makes a nonsense of what that Cambridge councillor
says (especially since, as you report it, what he says is ambiguous anyway).