Oxford second highest number of those cycling to work

Witney Gazette: Cyclists in Botley Road Cyclists in Botley Road

The proportion of residents who cycle to work in the city is the second highest in the country.

New census data by the Office of National Statistics shows 17 per cent – more than 11,000 people – cycle to work in the city, a 33 per cent increase between 2001 and 2011. This is only behind Cambridge at 29 per cent.

But there are fewer bike users in more rural areas with a nine per cent drop in West Oxfordshire, seven per cent less in Cherwell and a three per cent drop in the Vale of White Horse. There was no change in South Oxfordshire, at four per cent.

Related links

Comments (56)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:24am Mon 7 Apr 14

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

No wonder when they can break every traffic law in the book and get away with it!
No wonder when they can break every traffic law in the book and get away with it! HomerSimpsonDoh
  • Score: -24

9:32am Mon 7 Apr 14

Madi50n says...

My word, anti-cyclist gets in less than 15 minutes after the story is posted.

Let me give you a hand with some of the standard rubbish people say about cyclists, maybe you can come up with something new?

1. They "all" jump red lights
2. They "all" ride on pavements
3. They "all" ride the wrong way down one way streets
4. They all ride in packs causing traffic jams
5. They should have licences
6. They should all be marked with visible IDs
7. They should all have insurance
8. They should all wear helmets
9. They are "all" arrogant
10. They are the most dangerous people in the world
11. They don't pay road tax
12. They routinely damage cars

Sam old, same old rubbish, get a life.
My word, anti-cyclist gets in less than 15 minutes after the story is posted. Let me give you a hand with some of the standard rubbish people say about cyclists, maybe you can come up with something new? 1. They "all" jump red lights 2. They "all" ride on pavements 3. They "all" ride the wrong way down one way streets 4. They all ride in packs causing traffic jams 5. They should have licences 6. They should all be marked with visible IDs 7. They should all have insurance 8. They should all wear helmets 9. They are "all" arrogant 10. They are the most dangerous people in the world 11. They don't pay road tax 12. They routinely damage cars Sam old, same old rubbish, get a life. Madi50n
  • Score: 20

9:38am Mon 7 Apr 14

grandconjuration says...

Imagine the gridlock if all of those cycling commuters used their car instead.

Next time you see a cyclist, say thank you.
Imagine the gridlock if all of those cycling commuters used their car instead. Next time you see a cyclist, say thank you. grandconjuration
  • Score: 25

9:38am Mon 7 Apr 14

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe says...

Madi50n wrote:
My word, anti-cyclist gets in less than 15 minutes after the story is posted.

Let me give you a hand with some of the standard rubbish people say about cyclists, maybe you can come up with something new?

1. They "all" jump red lights
2. They "all" ride on pavements
3. They "all" ride the wrong way down one way streets
4. They all ride in packs causing traffic jams
5. They should have licences
6. They should all be marked with visible IDs
7. They should all have insurance
8. They should all wear helmets
9. They are "all" arrogant
10. They are the most dangerous people in the world
11. They don't pay road tax
12. They routinely damage cars

Sam old, same old rubbish, get a life.
You forgot :

13 They should all have lights.
[quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: My word, anti-cyclist gets in less than 15 minutes after the story is posted. Let me give you a hand with some of the standard rubbish people say about cyclists, maybe you can come up with something new? 1. They "all" jump red lights 2. They "all" ride on pavements 3. They "all" ride the wrong way down one way streets 4. They all ride in packs causing traffic jams 5. They should have licences 6. They should all be marked with visible IDs 7. They should all have insurance 8. They should all wear helmets 9. They are "all" arrogant 10. They are the most dangerous people in the world 11. They don't pay road tax 12. They routinely damage cars Sam old, same old rubbish, get a life.[/p][/quote]You forgot : 13 They should all have lights. Sandy Wimpole-Smythe
  • Score: 14

9:56am Mon 7 Apr 14

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

Why is it anti-cyclist when you point out how they break the law?????????
So if I noted how many times burglars break the law, I'm being anti-burglar???
Why is it anti-cyclist when you point out how they break the law????????? So if I noted how many times burglars break the law, I'm being anti-burglar??? HomerSimpsonDoh
  • Score: -22

10:06am Mon 7 Apr 14

livid99 says...

HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
Why is it anti-cyclist when you point out how they break the law?????????
So if I noted how many times burglars break the law, I'm being anti-burglar???
Don't worry Homer, the reaction to your post was totally predictable. The one thing missing from the accurate list is "They are very sensitive and over-react to ANY criticism "
[quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: Why is it anti-cyclist when you point out how they break the law????????? So if I noted how many times burglars break the law, I'm being anti-burglar???[/p][/quote]Don't worry Homer, the reaction to your post was totally predictable. The one thing missing from the accurate list is "They are very sensitive and over-react to ANY criticism " livid99
  • Score: -13

10:33am Mon 7 Apr 14

Madi50n says...

I see Livid's turned up, haven't seen it criticising any of the drivers caught breaking the law in another story in the OM (or any dangerous driver in any story in the OM) but hey, why expect anything but hypocrisy from the cycle hating crew?

As I've pointed out before Livid, I'm not a cyclist, I'm a motorist, I don't cycle in Oxford because there are drivers, and people like you, out there who either treat cyclists like obstacles to be put in danger because they think they are in the way, or simply don't pay attention to them on the roads.

I am quite happy for cyclists to go about their business, because they are absolutely no danger to me in my car, and I have never once had my life put in danger by a cyclist.

I have, however, had my life put in danger on numerous occasions when on a cycle (in the past), in my car or as a pedestrian.

So, to be honest, this is the last time I'll get involved in a "discussion" with any of the unbelievably stupid anti-cyclist brigade, because anyone who's ignorant enough to think cyclists are a problem is not worth even engaging with.
I see Livid's turned up, haven't seen it criticising any of the drivers caught breaking the law in another story in the OM (or any dangerous driver in any story in the OM) but hey, why expect anything but hypocrisy from the cycle hating crew? As I've pointed out before Livid, I'm not a cyclist, I'm a motorist, I don't cycle in Oxford because there are drivers, and people like you, out there who either treat cyclists like obstacles to be put in danger because they think they are in the way, or simply don't pay attention to them on the roads. I am quite happy for cyclists to go about their business, because they are absolutely no danger to me in my car, and I have never once had my life put in danger by a cyclist. I have, however, had my life put in danger on numerous occasions when on a cycle (in the past), in my car or as a pedestrian. So, to be honest, this is the last time I'll get involved in a "discussion" with any of the unbelievably stupid anti-cyclist brigade, because anyone who's ignorant enough to think cyclists are a problem is not worth even engaging with. Madi50n
  • Score: 29

10:34am Mon 7 Apr 14

Madi50n says...

HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
Why is it anti-cyclist when you point out how they break the law?????????
So if I noted how many times burglars break the law, I'm being anti-burglar???
I think the difference there, dimboid, is that all burglars are breaking the law (clue's in the name) and you're claiming "all" cyclists break the law.
[quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: Why is it anti-cyclist when you point out how they break the law????????? So if I noted how many times burglars break the law, I'm being anti-burglar???[/p][/quote]I think the difference there, dimboid, is that all burglars are breaking the law (clue's in the name) and you're claiming "all" cyclists break the law. Madi50n
  • Score: 16

10:43am Mon 7 Apr 14

livid99 says...

Strange that you react in such an abusive and defensive way on all these discussions Madi50n, and then claim you are not a cyclist. Anyway, thanks for proving my point...""They are very sensitive and over-react to ANY criticism ".
Strange that you react in such an abusive and defensive way on all these discussions Madi50n, and then claim you are not a cyclist. Anyway, thanks for proving my point...""They are very sensitive and over-react to ANY criticism ". livid99
  • Score: -21

10:46am Mon 7 Apr 14

Madi50n says...

grandconjuration wrote:
Imagine the gridlock if all of those cycling commuters used their car instead.

Next time you see a cyclist, say thank you.
Dude, I wish, for a week, all 11,000 cyclists got off their bikes and traveled in to oxford in their cars.

Total gridlock day one. Just to make it clear to those out there who think cyclists are the problem that it's actually the cars.

By day 3 the council, bus companies, Oxford's businesses and every driver that normally drives into Oxford would be begging for cyclists to get back on their bikes.
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: Imagine the gridlock if all of those cycling commuters used their car instead. Next time you see a cyclist, say thank you.[/p][/quote]Dude, I wish, for a week, all 11,000 cyclists got off their bikes and traveled in to oxford in their cars. Total gridlock day one. Just to make it clear to those out there who think cyclists are the problem that it's actually the cars. By day 3 the council, bus companies, Oxford's businesses and every driver that normally drives into Oxford would be begging for cyclists to get back on their bikes. Madi50n
  • Score: 28

10:51am Mon 7 Apr 14

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

Have to agree...."They are very sensitive and over-react to ANY criticism ".
as comments above prove the point.
Have to agree...."They are very sensitive and over-react to ANY criticism ". as comments above prove the point. HomerSimpsonDoh
  • Score: -18

10:56am Mon 7 Apr 14

grandconjuration says...

HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
Have to agree...."They are very sensitive and over-react to ANY criticism ".
as comments above prove the point.
Yawn. Have you ever brought a fact to an argument?
[quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: Have to agree...."They are very sensitive and over-react to ANY criticism ". as comments above prove the point.[/p][/quote]Yawn. Have you ever brought a fact to an argument? grandconjuration
  • Score: 19

11:23am Mon 7 Apr 14

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

Yep, all the above statements on what cyclists do are FACT. Doh
Yep, all the above statements on what cyclists do are FACT. Doh HomerSimpsonDoh
  • Score: -18

11:37am Mon 7 Apr 14

Floflo says...

HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
Yep, all the above statements on what cyclists do are FACT. Doh
Thanks for your diligence Bart in often being the first to respond to stories about cycling.

Despite the banal content your, and any other comments drive up page views. Partly thanks to you there are now more cycling stories in our local paper.
[quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: Yep, all the above statements on what cyclists do are FACT. Doh[/p][/quote]Thanks for your diligence Bart in often being the first to respond to stories about cycling. Despite the banal content your, and any other comments drive up page views. Partly thanks to you there are now more cycling stories in our local paper. Floflo
  • Score: 12

11:39am Mon 7 Apr 14

grandconjuration says...

HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
Yep, all the above statements on what cyclists do are FACT. Doh
Please provide the source for your claims.
[quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: Yep, all the above statements on what cyclists do are FACT. Doh[/p][/quote]Please provide the source for your claims. grandconjuration
  • Score: 11

12:03pm Mon 7 Apr 14

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

Police checks have found cyclists do all of below! Doh
They jump red lights
They ride on pavements
They ride the wrong way down one way streets
They don't pay road vechicle duty
They damage cars
They have no lights

FACT
Police checks have found cyclists do all of below! Doh They jump red lights They ride on pavements They ride the wrong way down one way streets They don't pay road vechicle duty They damage cars They have no lights FACT HomerSimpsonDoh
  • Score: -20

12:17pm Mon 7 Apr 14

King Joke says...

HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
Police checks have found cyclists do all of below! Doh
They jump red lights
They ride on pavements
They ride the wrong way down one way streets
They don't pay road vechicle duty
They damage cars
They have no lights

FACT
Police have found that SOME cyclists do the above things (fact), which is very clearly different from ALL cyclists doing them (fact).

Could you please explain to the class the difference between 'some' and 'all', as you understand it?
[quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: Police checks have found cyclists do all of below! Doh They jump red lights They ride on pavements They ride the wrong way down one way streets They don't pay road vechicle duty They damage cars They have no lights FACT[/p][/quote]Police have found that SOME cyclists do the above things (fact), which is very clearly different from ALL cyclists doing them (fact). Could you please explain to the class the difference between 'some' and 'all', as you understand it? King Joke
  • Score: 18

12:26pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Floflo says...

HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
Police checks have found cyclists do all of below! Doh
They jump red lights
They ride on pavements
They ride the wrong way down one way streets
They don't pay road vechicle duty
They damage cars
They have no lights

FACT
Thanks for your thoughtful insight. Keep up the good work!
[quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: Police checks have found cyclists do all of below! Doh They jump red lights They ride on pavements They ride the wrong way down one way streets They don't pay road vechicle duty They damage cars They have no lights FACT[/p][/quote]Thanks for your thoughtful insight. Keep up the good work! Floflo
  • Score: 2

1:06pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Madi50n says...

HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
Police checks have found cyclists do all of below! Doh
They jump red lights
They ride on pavements
They ride the wrong way down one way streets
They don't pay road vechicle duty
They damage cars
They have no lights

FACT
Hey, dimboid, I have a band A car so don't pay vehicle excise duty either, FACT!
[quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: Police checks have found cyclists do all of below! Doh They jump red lights They ride on pavements They ride the wrong way down one way streets They don't pay road vechicle duty They damage cars They have no lights FACT[/p][/quote]Hey, dimboid, I have a band A car so don't pay vehicle excise duty either, FACT! Madi50n
  • Score: 11

1:16pm Mon 7 Apr 14

King Joke says...

A police operation last week picked up a load of people in cars driving without seat belts and talking on their phones? Does this mean ALL car drivers are dangeous? No.

People driving pre-1973 vehicles pay no VED. Does this mean they have less right to use the road? No.

Buses pay up to £500 pa VED. Does this mean they have more right to use the road? No.

I'm afraid when some people see the word 'cyclist' in a story, the red mist descends immediately.
A police operation last week picked up a load of people in cars driving without seat belts and talking on their phones? Does this mean ALL car drivers are dangeous? No. People driving pre-1973 vehicles pay no VED. Does this mean they have less right to use the road? No. Buses pay up to £500 pa VED. Does this mean they have more right to use the road? No. I'm afraid when some people see the word 'cyclist' in a story, the red mist descends immediately. King Joke
  • Score: 15

1:37pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Major Rhode-Werks says...

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote:
Madi50n wrote:
My word, anti-cyclist gets in less than 15 minutes after the story is posted.

Let me give you a hand with some of the standard rubbish people say about cyclists, maybe you can come up with something new?

1. They "all" jump red lights
2. They "all" ride on pavements
3. They "all" ride the wrong way down one way streets
4. They all ride in packs causing traffic jams
5. They should have licences
6. They should all be marked with visible IDs
7. They should all have insurance
8. They should all wear helmets
9. They are "all" arrogant
10. They are the most dangerous people in the world
11. They don't pay road tax
12. They routinely damage cars

Sam old, same old rubbish, get a life.
You forgot :

13 They should all have lights.
Has anyone stopped to think why there are so many anti-cyclist comments?
More than 50% of cyclists jump red lights, ride without lights etc therefore THE MAJORITY of cyclists are dangerous.
Less than 50% of motorists drive while on mobiles phones and jump red lights etc, therefore THE MAJORITY of motorists do not have these dangerous habits.
In my opinion anyone caught driving while on the phone or jumping red lights should get a life ban. Any cyclist riding without lights should have their cycle confiscated and sold off.
[quote][p][bold]Sandy Wimpole-Smythe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: My word, anti-cyclist gets in less than 15 minutes after the story is posted. Let me give you a hand with some of the standard rubbish people say about cyclists, maybe you can come up with something new? 1. They "all" jump red lights 2. They "all" ride on pavements 3. They "all" ride the wrong way down one way streets 4. They all ride in packs causing traffic jams 5. They should have licences 6. They should all be marked with visible IDs 7. They should all have insurance 8. They should all wear helmets 9. They are "all" arrogant 10. They are the most dangerous people in the world 11. They don't pay road tax 12. They routinely damage cars Sam old, same old rubbish, get a life.[/p][/quote]You forgot : 13 They should all have lights.[/p][/quote]Has anyone stopped to think why there are so many anti-cyclist comments? More than 50% of cyclists jump red lights, ride without lights etc therefore THE MAJORITY of cyclists are dangerous. Less than 50% of motorists drive while on mobiles phones and jump red lights etc, therefore THE MAJORITY of motorists do not have these dangerous habits. In my opinion anyone caught driving while on the phone or jumping red lights should get a life ban. Any cyclist riding without lights should have their cycle confiscated and sold off. Major Rhode-Werks
  • Score: -17

1:55pm Mon 7 Apr 14

natox78 says...

Where did you get 50% from?
Where did you get 50% from? natox78
  • Score: 11

1:57pm Mon 7 Apr 14

livid99 says...

natox78 wrote:
Where did you get 50% from?
Yes, seems a bit low. More like 75%
[quote][p][bold]natox78[/bold] wrote: Where did you get 50% from?[/p][/quote]Yes, seems a bit low. More like 75% livid99
  • Score: -12

2:00pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Madi50n says...

natox78 wrote:
Where did you get 50% from?
He saw three cyclists one day, 2 went through red lights, one didn't. Did the math and concluded that more than 50% of all cyclists jump red lights.

Either that or he's making it up, I wonder which one it is?
[quote][p][bold]natox78[/bold] wrote: Where did you get 50% from?[/p][/quote]He saw three cyclists one day, 2 went through red lights, one didn't. Did the math and concluded that more than 50% of all cyclists jump red lights. Either that or he's making it up, I wonder which one it is? Madi50n
  • Score: 11

2:01pm Mon 7 Apr 14

grandconjuration says...

Major Rhode-Werks wrote:
Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote:
Madi50n wrote:
My word, anti-cyclist gets in less than 15 minutes after the story is posted.

Let me give you a hand with some of the standard rubbish people say about cyclists, maybe you can come up with something new?

1. They "all" jump red lights
2. They "all" ride on pavements
3. They "all" ride the wrong way down one way streets
4. They all ride in packs causing traffic jams
5. They should have licences
6. They should all be marked with visible IDs
7. They should all have insurance
8. They should all wear helmets
9. They are "all" arrogant
10. They are the most dangerous people in the world
11. They don't pay road tax
12. They routinely damage cars

Sam old, same old rubbish, get a life.
You forgot :

13 They should all have lights.
Has anyone stopped to think why there are so many anti-cyclist comments?
More than 50% of cyclists jump red lights, ride without lights etc therefore THE MAJORITY of cyclists are dangerous.
Less than 50% of motorists drive while on mobiles phones and jump red lights etc, therefore THE MAJORITY of motorists do not have these dangerous habits.
In my opinion anyone caught driving while on the phone or jumping red lights should get a life ban. Any cyclist riding without lights should have their cycle confiscated and sold off.
Can you provide the source of your data?

A recent study found greater than two-thirds of drivers admitting to breaking the law and being a danger.

http://www.brake.org
.uk/news/1133-091013


If cyclists are so dangerous, especially the red light jumpers and those with out lights, how is it that they rarely hurt or kill anyone? Why are the vast majority of road casualties, even in a city with a high level of cycle use such as Oxford, a result of motorists?

Anybody got anything nice to say? Oxford should be proud of having such a high proportion of cycle use, and it should seek to increase this further through the provision of better infrastructure for cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]Major Rhode-Werks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandy Wimpole-Smythe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: My word, anti-cyclist gets in less than 15 minutes after the story is posted. Let me give you a hand with some of the standard rubbish people say about cyclists, maybe you can come up with something new? 1. They "all" jump red lights 2. They "all" ride on pavements 3. They "all" ride the wrong way down one way streets 4. They all ride in packs causing traffic jams 5. They should have licences 6. They should all be marked with visible IDs 7. They should all have insurance 8. They should all wear helmets 9. They are "all" arrogant 10. They are the most dangerous people in the world 11. They don't pay road tax 12. They routinely damage cars Sam old, same old rubbish, get a life.[/p][/quote]You forgot : 13 They should all have lights.[/p][/quote]Has anyone stopped to think why there are so many anti-cyclist comments? More than 50% of cyclists jump red lights, ride without lights etc therefore THE MAJORITY of cyclists are dangerous. Less than 50% of motorists drive while on mobiles phones and jump red lights etc, therefore THE MAJORITY of motorists do not have these dangerous habits. In my opinion anyone caught driving while on the phone or jumping red lights should get a life ban. Any cyclist riding without lights should have their cycle confiscated and sold off.[/p][/quote]Can you provide the source of your data? A recent study found greater than two-thirds of drivers admitting to breaking the law and being a danger. http://www.brake.org .uk/news/1133-091013 If cyclists are so dangerous, especially the red light jumpers and those with out lights, how is it that they rarely hurt or kill anyone? Why are the vast majority of road casualties, even in a city with a high level of cycle use such as Oxford, a result of motorists? Anybody got anything nice to say? Oxford should be proud of having such a high proportion of cycle use, and it should seek to increase this further through the provision of better infrastructure for cyclists. grandconjuration
  • Score: 19

2:03pm Mon 7 Apr 14

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

Where does it say in any of my comments 'All cyclists' ????? Once again proving the cyclist lobby only sees what they want, and can not accept any critisism.
Where does it say in any of my comments 'All cyclists' ????? Once again proving the cyclist lobby only sees what they want, and can not accept any critisism. HomerSimpsonDoh
  • Score: -17

2:14pm Mon 7 Apr 14

King Joke says...

Homer, you said that pointing out cyclists break the law was like pointing out burglars break the law. This implies you think all cyclists are guilty, in the same way all burglars are. This is not the case, so you are wrong.
Homer, you said that pointing out cyclists break the law was like pointing out burglars break the law. This implies you think all cyclists are guilty, in the same way all burglars are. This is not the case, so you are wrong. King Joke
  • Score: 17

2:19pm Mon 7 Apr 14

livid99 says...

Madi50n wrote:
natox78 wrote:
Where did you get 50% from?
He saw three cyclists one day, 2 went through red lights, one didn't. Did the math and concluded that more than 50% of all cyclists jump red lights.

Either that or he's making it up, I wonder which one it is?
Most likely the first option.
[quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]natox78[/bold] wrote: Where did you get 50% from?[/p][/quote]He saw three cyclists one day, 2 went through red lights, one didn't. Did the math and concluded that more than 50% of all cyclists jump red lights. Either that or he's making it up, I wonder which one it is?[/p][/quote]Most likely the first option. livid99
  • Score: 8

2:23pm Mon 7 Apr 14

natox78 says...

Yea, I'd like to see the statistical evidence that over half of us break the law ALL THE TIME. I don't even make that claim of drivers.
Yea, I'd like to see the statistical evidence that over half of us break the law ALL THE TIME. I don't even make that claim of drivers. natox78
  • Score: 10

2:25pm Mon 7 Apr 14

grandconjuration says...

livid99 wrote:
Madi50n wrote:
natox78 wrote:
Where did you get 50% from?
He saw three cyclists one day, 2 went through red lights, one didn't. Did the math and concluded that more than 50% of all cyclists jump red lights.

Either that or he's making it up, I wonder which one it is?
Most likely the first option.
So you've agreed that the sample size was three. You're not the sharpest tool in the box.
[quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]natox78[/bold] wrote: Where did you get 50% from?[/p][/quote]He saw three cyclists one day, 2 went through red lights, one didn't. Did the math and concluded that more than 50% of all cyclists jump red lights. Either that or he's making it up, I wonder which one it is?[/p][/quote]Most likely the first option.[/p][/quote]So you've agreed that the sample size was three. You're not the sharpest tool in the box. grandconjuration
  • Score: 8

2:27pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Madi50n says...

grandconjuration wrote:
livid99 wrote:
Madi50n wrote:
natox78 wrote:
Where did you get 50% from?
He saw three cyclists one day, 2 went through red lights, one didn't. Did the math and concluded that more than 50% of all cyclists jump red lights.

Either that or he's making it up, I wonder which one it is?
Most likely the first option.
So you've agreed that the sample size was three. You're not the sharpest tool in the box.
Nope, it's definitely a blunt tool.
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]natox78[/bold] wrote: Where did you get 50% from?[/p][/quote]He saw three cyclists one day, 2 went through red lights, one didn't. Did the math and concluded that more than 50% of all cyclists jump red lights. Either that or he's making it up, I wonder which one it is?[/p][/quote]Most likely the first option.[/p][/quote]So you've agreed that the sample size was three. You're not the sharpest tool in the box.[/p][/quote]Nope, it's definitely a blunt tool. Madi50n
  • Score: 6

2:30pm Mon 7 Apr 14

livid99 says...

grandconjuration wrote:
Major Rhode-Werks wrote:
Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote:
Madi50n wrote:
My word, anti-cyclist gets in less than 15 minutes after the story is posted.

Let me give you a hand with some of the standard rubbish people say about cyclists, maybe you can come up with something new?

1. They "all" jump red lights
2. They "all" ride on pavements
3. They "all" ride the wrong way down one way streets
4. They all ride in packs causing traffic jams
5. They should have licences
6. They should all be marked with visible IDs
7. They should all have insurance
8. They should all wear helmets
9. They are "all" arrogant
10. They are the most dangerous people in the world
11. They don't pay road tax
12. They routinely damage cars

Sam old, same old rubbish, get a life.
You forgot :

13 They should all have lights.
Has anyone stopped to think why there are so many anti-cyclist comments?
More than 50% of cyclists jump red lights, ride without lights etc therefore THE MAJORITY of cyclists are dangerous.
Less than 50% of motorists drive while on mobiles phones and jump red lights etc, therefore THE MAJORITY of motorists do not have these dangerous habits.
In my opinion anyone caught driving while on the phone or jumping red lights should get a life ban. Any cyclist riding without lights should have their cycle confiscated and sold off.
Can you provide the source of your data?

A recent study found greater than two-thirds of drivers admitting to breaking the law and being a danger.

http://www.brake.org

.uk/news/1133-091013



If cyclists are so dangerous, especially the red light jumpers and those with out lights, how is it that they rarely hurt or kill anyone? Why are the vast majority of road casualties, even in a city with a high level of cycle use such as Oxford, a result of motorists?

Anybody got anything nice to say? Oxford should be proud of having such a high proportion of cycle use, and it should seek to increase this further through the provision of better infrastructure for cyclists.
The only reason red-light jumping cyclists don't injure more people in Oxford is because pedestrians are generally smart enough to know that when they are given the all clear to cross the road, the chances are some lunatic on 2 wheels with no regard for the highway code is highly likely to be coming straight at them, having ignored the red light. Therefore injury is avoided due to the awareness of pedestrians and other road users. The fact that the cyclists here (and also those who claim not to be cyclists) will deny this is inevitable. Doesn't make it less true. Proof is there for all doubters or deniers - stand outside Tesco in Cowley Road for a few minutes and count how many cyclists go through the red light, then come back here and lie by saying it doesn't happen.
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Major Rhode-Werks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandy Wimpole-Smythe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: My word, anti-cyclist gets in less than 15 minutes after the story is posted. Let me give you a hand with some of the standard rubbish people say about cyclists, maybe you can come up with something new? 1. They "all" jump red lights 2. They "all" ride on pavements 3. They "all" ride the wrong way down one way streets 4. They all ride in packs causing traffic jams 5. They should have licences 6. They should all be marked with visible IDs 7. They should all have insurance 8. They should all wear helmets 9. They are "all" arrogant 10. They are the most dangerous people in the world 11. They don't pay road tax 12. They routinely damage cars Sam old, same old rubbish, get a life.[/p][/quote]You forgot : 13 They should all have lights.[/p][/quote]Has anyone stopped to think why there are so many anti-cyclist comments? More than 50% of cyclists jump red lights, ride without lights etc therefore THE MAJORITY of cyclists are dangerous. Less than 50% of motorists drive while on mobiles phones and jump red lights etc, therefore THE MAJORITY of motorists do not have these dangerous habits. In my opinion anyone caught driving while on the phone or jumping red lights should get a life ban. Any cyclist riding without lights should have their cycle confiscated and sold off.[/p][/quote]Can you provide the source of your data? A recent study found greater than two-thirds of drivers admitting to breaking the law and being a danger. http://www.brake.org .uk/news/1133-091013 If cyclists are so dangerous, especially the red light jumpers and those with out lights, how is it that they rarely hurt or kill anyone? Why are the vast majority of road casualties, even in a city with a high level of cycle use such as Oxford, a result of motorists? Anybody got anything nice to say? Oxford should be proud of having such a high proportion of cycle use, and it should seek to increase this further through the provision of better infrastructure for cyclists.[/p][/quote]The only reason red-light jumping cyclists don't injure more people in Oxford is because pedestrians are generally smart enough to know that when they are given the all clear to cross the road, the chances are some lunatic on 2 wheels with no regard for the highway code is highly likely to be coming straight at them, having ignored the red light. Therefore injury is avoided due to the awareness of pedestrians and other road users. The fact that the cyclists here (and also those who claim not to be cyclists) will deny this is inevitable. Doesn't make it less true. Proof is there for all doubters or deniers - stand outside Tesco in Cowley Road for a few minutes and count how many cyclists go through the red light, then come back here and lie by saying it doesn't happen. livid99
  • Score: -14

2:32pm Mon 7 Apr 14

livid99 says...

Madi50n wrote:
grandconjuration wrote:
livid99 wrote:
Madi50n wrote:
natox78 wrote:
Where did you get 50% from?
He saw three cyclists one day, 2 went through red lights, one didn't. Did the math and concluded that more than 50% of all cyclists jump red lights.

Either that or he's making it up, I wonder which one it is?
Most likely the first option.
So you've agreed that the sample size was three. You're not the sharpest tool in the box.
Nope, it's definitely a blunt tool.
Unlike you eh, who can only resort to insults ?
[quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]natox78[/bold] wrote: Where did you get 50% from?[/p][/quote]He saw three cyclists one day, 2 went through red lights, one didn't. Did the math and concluded that more than 50% of all cyclists jump red lights. Either that or he's making it up, I wonder which one it is?[/p][/quote]Most likely the first option.[/p][/quote]So you've agreed that the sample size was three. You're not the sharpest tool in the box.[/p][/quote]Nope, it's definitely a blunt tool.[/p][/quote]Unlike you eh, who can only resort to insults ? livid99
  • Score: -5

2:32pm Mon 7 Apr 14

grandconjuration says...

Just think, 11,0000 commuters using bicycles. This means less motor traffic, less congestion and more parking spaces for the motorists.

Not only that, a concomitant reduction in the number of cars means less pollution and better air quality for everyone. The wear-and-tear on roads will be less. It's been shown that cycling increases health and reduces the burden on the NHS. So, each and everyone of these commuting cyclists is saving you money.

On top of this, cyclists are safer than motor vehicles, so all of these cyclists are making the city a safer place to live.

Why the hate?
Just think, 11,0000 commuters using bicycles. This means less motor traffic, less congestion and more parking spaces for the motorists. Not only that, a concomitant reduction in the number of cars means less pollution and better air quality for everyone. The wear-and-tear on roads will be less. It's been shown that cycling increases health and reduces the burden on the NHS. So, each and everyone of these commuting cyclists is saving you money. On top of this, cyclists are safer than motor vehicles, so all of these cyclists are making the city a safer place to live. Why the hate? grandconjuration
  • Score: 23

2:36pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Madi50n says...

livid99 wrote:
grandconjuration wrote:
Major Rhode-Werks wrote:
Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote:
Madi50n wrote:
My word, anti-cyclist gets in less than 15 minutes after the story is posted.

Let me give you a hand with some of the standard rubbish people say about cyclists, maybe you can come up with something new?

1. They "all" jump red lights
2. They "all" ride on pavements
3. They "all" ride the wrong way down one way streets
4. They all ride in packs causing traffic jams
5. They should have licences
6. They should all be marked with visible IDs
7. They should all have insurance
8. They should all wear helmets
9. They are "all" arrogant
10. They are the most dangerous people in the world
11. They don't pay road tax
12. They routinely damage cars

Sam old, same old rubbish, get a life.
You forgot :

13 They should all have lights.
Has anyone stopped to think why there are so many anti-cyclist comments?
More than 50% of cyclists jump red lights, ride without lights etc therefore THE MAJORITY of cyclists are dangerous.
Less than 50% of motorists drive while on mobiles phones and jump red lights etc, therefore THE MAJORITY of motorists do not have these dangerous habits.
In my opinion anyone caught driving while on the phone or jumping red lights should get a life ban. Any cyclist riding without lights should have their cycle confiscated and sold off.
Can you provide the source of your data?

A recent study found greater than two-thirds of drivers admitting to breaking the law and being a danger.

http://www.brake.org


.uk/news/1133-091013




If cyclists are so dangerous, especially the red light jumpers and those with out lights, how is it that they rarely hurt or kill anyone? Why are the vast majority of road casualties, even in a city with a high level of cycle use such as Oxford, a result of motorists?

Anybody got anything nice to say? Oxford should be proud of having such a high proportion of cycle use, and it should seek to increase this further through the provision of better infrastructure for cyclists.
The only reason red-light jumping cyclists don't injure more people in Oxford is because pedestrians are generally smart enough to know that when they are given the all clear to cross the road, the chances are some lunatic on 2 wheels with no regard for the highway code is highly likely to be coming straight at them, having ignored the red light. Therefore injury is avoided due to the awareness of pedestrians and other road users. The fact that the cyclists here (and also those who claim not to be cyclists) will deny this is inevitable. Doesn't make it less true. Proof is there for all doubters or deniers - stand outside Tesco in Cowley Road for a few minutes and count how many cyclists go through the red light, then come back here and lie by saying it doesn't happen.
Really, you are as dumb as a stump, aren't you? Please, please, please point out the comment saying cyclists don't jump red lights.

Go on, have a look and see if you can find one? I'll wait......

What? Can't find one?

Maybe that's because you're so wound up you've literally lost the ability to read a sentence and understand it? You see the word cyclists and start frothing so wildly that even though nobody has said cyclists never jump red lights you see is written there.

I'm amazed they let people in padded cells use computers, what with all those sharp corners.
[quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Major Rhode-Werks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandy Wimpole-Smythe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: My word, anti-cyclist gets in less than 15 minutes after the story is posted. Let me give you a hand with some of the standard rubbish people say about cyclists, maybe you can come up with something new? 1. They "all" jump red lights 2. They "all" ride on pavements 3. They "all" ride the wrong way down one way streets 4. They all ride in packs causing traffic jams 5. They should have licences 6. They should all be marked with visible IDs 7. They should all have insurance 8. They should all wear helmets 9. They are "all" arrogant 10. They are the most dangerous people in the world 11. They don't pay road tax 12. They routinely damage cars Sam old, same old rubbish, get a life.[/p][/quote]You forgot : 13 They should all have lights.[/p][/quote]Has anyone stopped to think why there are so many anti-cyclist comments? More than 50% of cyclists jump red lights, ride without lights etc therefore THE MAJORITY of cyclists are dangerous. Less than 50% of motorists drive while on mobiles phones and jump red lights etc, therefore THE MAJORITY of motorists do not have these dangerous habits. In my opinion anyone caught driving while on the phone or jumping red lights should get a life ban. Any cyclist riding without lights should have their cycle confiscated and sold off.[/p][/quote]Can you provide the source of your data? A recent study found greater than two-thirds of drivers admitting to breaking the law and being a danger. http://www.brake.org .uk/news/1133-091013 If cyclists are so dangerous, especially the red light jumpers and those with out lights, how is it that they rarely hurt or kill anyone? Why are the vast majority of road casualties, even in a city with a high level of cycle use such as Oxford, a result of motorists? Anybody got anything nice to say? Oxford should be proud of having such a high proportion of cycle use, and it should seek to increase this further through the provision of better infrastructure for cyclists.[/p][/quote]The only reason red-light jumping cyclists don't injure more people in Oxford is because pedestrians are generally smart enough to know that when they are given the all clear to cross the road, the chances are some lunatic on 2 wheels with no regard for the highway code is highly likely to be coming straight at them, having ignored the red light. Therefore injury is avoided due to the awareness of pedestrians and other road users. The fact that the cyclists here (and also those who claim not to be cyclists) will deny this is inevitable. Doesn't make it less true. Proof is there for all doubters or deniers - stand outside Tesco in Cowley Road for a few minutes and count how many cyclists go through the red light, then come back here and lie by saying it doesn't happen.[/p][/quote]Really, you are as dumb as a stump, aren't you? Please, please, please point out the comment saying cyclists don't jump red lights. Go on, have a look and see if you can find one? I'll wait...... What? Can't find one? Maybe that's because you're so wound up you've literally lost the ability to read a sentence and understand it? You see the word cyclists and start frothing so wildly that even though nobody has said cyclists never jump red lights you see is written there. I'm amazed they let people in padded cells use computers, what with all those sharp corners. Madi50n
  • Score: 3

2:37pm Mon 7 Apr 14

King Joke says...

Re the Tesco's pedestrian crossing experiment - I suspect the result would be nearer 5% than 50%. Whereas 5% is too high, I'll bet it's around the same as the number of drivers who are uninsured, untaxed, un-seat-belted, using a hand-held phone or exceeding the speed limit.

THere are idiots on two wheels and four - there always have been and always will be.
Re the Tesco's pedestrian crossing experiment - I suspect the result would be nearer 5% than 50%. Whereas 5% is too high, I'll bet it's around the same as the number of drivers who are uninsured, untaxed, un-seat-belted, using a hand-held phone or exceeding the speed limit. THere are idiots on two wheels and four - there always have been and always will be. King Joke
  • Score: 18

2:38pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Madi50n says...

grandconjuration wrote:
Just think, 11,0000 commuters using bicycles. This means less motor traffic, less congestion and more parking spaces for the motorists.

Not only that, a concomitant reduction in the number of cars means less pollution and better air quality for everyone. The wear-and-tear on roads will be less. It's been shown that cycling increases health and reduces the burden on the NHS. So, each and everyone of these commuting cyclists is saving you money.

On top of this, cyclists are safer than motor vehicles, so all of these cyclists are making the city a safer place to live.

Why the hate?
Why the hate? This is my reasoning,

Quite a number of drivers have massive entitlement issues, they think the roads were built for them (obviously the Romans were unbelievably good at predicting the future) and that the teeny tiny amount of money they pay in VED pays for all roads in the UK and that it entitles them to exclusive use of them.

They think the driving test is a hurdle to be overcome and forget its purpose is to prove to the authorities that they are capable of driving a machine that can easily kill others, responsibly and safely.

The rules of the road, seat belts, speed limits, mobile use, driving after a drink, driving whilst distracted are all designed to inconvenience them, and can be ignored at some point depending on the circumstances (got to get home quick, been waiting for that phone call, I'm only popping to the shops, my child needs me to pick up that toy they have dropped).

They absolutely hate the fact that cyclists make them accountable; they could do all of the above, and more, if there were no cyclists, in built up areas because at worst they would cause a crash, dent a car a bit and bump up insurance payments. But do any of that with cyclists on the road and they might end up killing someone, losing their precious licence and possibly ending up in jail, and it would be their fault, and their fault alone, and they absolutely hate it.

So some of them vent their spleens on these stories because screaming at cyclists from behind their steering wheels isn't letting enough people know just how stupid they are.
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: Just think, 11,0000 commuters using bicycles. This means less motor traffic, less congestion and more parking spaces for the motorists. Not only that, a concomitant reduction in the number of cars means less pollution and better air quality for everyone. The wear-and-tear on roads will be less. It's been shown that cycling increases health and reduces the burden on the NHS. So, each and everyone of these commuting cyclists is saving you money. On top of this, cyclists are safer than motor vehicles, so all of these cyclists are making the city a safer place to live. Why the hate?[/p][/quote]Why the hate? This is my reasoning, Quite a number of drivers have massive entitlement issues, they think the roads were built for them (obviously the Romans were unbelievably good at predicting the future) and that the teeny tiny amount of money they pay in VED pays for all roads in the UK and that it entitles them to exclusive use of them. They think the driving test is a hurdle to be overcome and forget its purpose is to prove to the authorities that they are capable of driving a machine that can easily kill others, responsibly and safely. The rules of the road, seat belts, speed limits, mobile use, driving after a drink, driving whilst distracted are all designed to inconvenience them, and can be ignored at some point depending on the circumstances (got to get home quick, been waiting for that phone call, I'm only popping to the shops, my child needs me to pick up that toy they have dropped). They absolutely hate the fact that cyclists make them accountable; they could do all of the above, and more, if there were no cyclists, in built up areas because at worst they would cause a crash, dent a car a bit and bump up insurance payments. But do any of that with cyclists on the road and they might end up killing someone, losing their precious licence and possibly ending up in jail, and it would be their fault, and their fault alone, and they absolutely hate it. So some of them vent their spleens on these stories because screaming at cyclists from behind their steering wheels isn't letting enough people know just how stupid they are. Madi50n
  • Score: 15

2:49pm Mon 7 Apr 14

livid99 says...

Madi50n wrote:
livid99 wrote:
grandconjuration wrote:
Major Rhode-Werks wrote:
Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote:
Madi50n wrote:
My word, anti-cyclist gets in less than 15 minutes after the story is posted.

Let me give you a hand with some of the standard rubbish people say about cyclists, maybe you can come up with something new?

1. They "all" jump red lights
2. They "all" ride on pavements
3. They "all" ride the wrong way down one way streets
4. They all ride in packs causing traffic jams
5. They should have licences
6. They should all be marked with visible IDs
7. They should all have insurance
8. They should all wear helmets
9. They are "all" arrogant
10. They are the most dangerous people in the world
11. They don't pay road tax
12. They routinely damage cars

Sam old, same old rubbish, get a life.
You forgot :

13 They should all have lights.
Has anyone stopped to think why there are so many anti-cyclist comments?
More than 50% of cyclists jump red lights, ride without lights etc therefore THE MAJORITY of cyclists are dangerous.
Less than 50% of motorists drive while on mobiles phones and jump red lights etc, therefore THE MAJORITY of motorists do not have these dangerous habits.
In my opinion anyone caught driving while on the phone or jumping red lights should get a life ban. Any cyclist riding without lights should have their cycle confiscated and sold off.
Can you provide the source of your data?

A recent study found greater than two-thirds of drivers admitting to breaking the law and being a danger.

http://www.brake.org



.uk/news/1133-091013





If cyclists are so dangerous, especially the red light jumpers and those with out lights, how is it that they rarely hurt or kill anyone? Why are the vast majority of road casualties, even in a city with a high level of cycle use such as Oxford, a result of motorists?

Anybody got anything nice to say? Oxford should be proud of having such a high proportion of cycle use, and it should seek to increase this further through the provision of better infrastructure for cyclists.
The only reason red-light jumping cyclists don't injure more people in Oxford is because pedestrians are generally smart enough to know that when they are given the all clear to cross the road, the chances are some lunatic on 2 wheels with no regard for the highway code is highly likely to be coming straight at them, having ignored the red light. Therefore injury is avoided due to the awareness of pedestrians and other road users. The fact that the cyclists here (and also those who claim not to be cyclists) will deny this is inevitable. Doesn't make it less true. Proof is there for all doubters or deniers - stand outside Tesco in Cowley Road for a few minutes and count how many cyclists go through the red light, then come back here and lie by saying it doesn't happen.
Really, you are as dumb as a stump, aren't you? Please, please, please point out the comment saying cyclists don't jump red lights.

Go on, have a look and see if you can find one? I'll wait......

What? Can't find one?

Maybe that's because you're so wound up you've literally lost the ability to read a sentence and understand it? You see the word cyclists and start frothing so wildly that even though nobody has said cyclists never jump red lights you see is written there.

I'm amazed they let people in padded cells use computers, what with all those sharp corners.
More insulting words....what a surprise. Shame you cant make your point without name-name calling. Never mind, I guess you can't help it and at least you are not denying the light jumpers. I wonder why your responses are so aggressive against anyone who makes anti-cyclist comments, when you claim to not be a cyclist.....seems odd.
Not that I really care or take much notice of your opinion.
[quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Major Rhode-Werks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandy Wimpole-Smythe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: My word, anti-cyclist gets in less than 15 minutes after the story is posted. Let me give you a hand with some of the standard rubbish people say about cyclists, maybe you can come up with something new? 1. They "all" jump red lights 2. They "all" ride on pavements 3. They "all" ride the wrong way down one way streets 4. They all ride in packs causing traffic jams 5. They should have licences 6. They should all be marked with visible IDs 7. They should all have insurance 8. They should all wear helmets 9. They are "all" arrogant 10. They are the most dangerous people in the world 11. They don't pay road tax 12. They routinely damage cars Sam old, same old rubbish, get a life.[/p][/quote]You forgot : 13 They should all have lights.[/p][/quote]Has anyone stopped to think why there are so many anti-cyclist comments? More than 50% of cyclists jump red lights, ride without lights etc therefore THE MAJORITY of cyclists are dangerous. Less than 50% of motorists drive while on mobiles phones and jump red lights etc, therefore THE MAJORITY of motorists do not have these dangerous habits. In my opinion anyone caught driving while on the phone or jumping red lights should get a life ban. Any cyclist riding without lights should have their cycle confiscated and sold off.[/p][/quote]Can you provide the source of your data? A recent study found greater than two-thirds of drivers admitting to breaking the law and being a danger. http://www.brake.org .uk/news/1133-091013 If cyclists are so dangerous, especially the red light jumpers and those with out lights, how is it that they rarely hurt or kill anyone? Why are the vast majority of road casualties, even in a city with a high level of cycle use such as Oxford, a result of motorists? Anybody got anything nice to say? Oxford should be proud of having such a high proportion of cycle use, and it should seek to increase this further through the provision of better infrastructure for cyclists.[/p][/quote]The only reason red-light jumping cyclists don't injure more people in Oxford is because pedestrians are generally smart enough to know that when they are given the all clear to cross the road, the chances are some lunatic on 2 wheels with no regard for the highway code is highly likely to be coming straight at them, having ignored the red light. Therefore injury is avoided due to the awareness of pedestrians and other road users. The fact that the cyclists here (and also those who claim not to be cyclists) will deny this is inevitable. Doesn't make it less true. Proof is there for all doubters or deniers - stand outside Tesco in Cowley Road for a few minutes and count how many cyclists go through the red light, then come back here and lie by saying it doesn't happen.[/p][/quote]Really, you are as dumb as a stump, aren't you? Please, please, please point out the comment saying cyclists don't jump red lights. Go on, have a look and see if you can find one? I'll wait...... What? Can't find one? Maybe that's because you're so wound up you've literally lost the ability to read a sentence and understand it? You see the word cyclists and start frothing so wildly that even though nobody has said cyclists never jump red lights you see is written there. I'm amazed they let people in padded cells use computers, what with all those sharp corners.[/p][/quote]More insulting words....what a surprise. Shame you cant make your point without name-name calling. Never mind, I guess you can't help it and at least you are not denying the light jumpers. I wonder why your responses are so aggressive against anyone who makes anti-cyclist comments, when you claim to not be a cyclist.....seems odd. Not that I really care or take much notice of your opinion. livid99
  • Score: -12

2:57pm Mon 7 Apr 14

livid99 says...

Madi50n wrote:
grandconjuration wrote:
Just think, 11,0000 commuters using bicycles. This means less motor traffic, less congestion and more parking spaces for the motorists.

Not only that, a concomitant reduction in the number of cars means less pollution and better air quality for everyone. The wear-and-tear on roads will be less. It's been shown that cycling increases health and reduces the burden on the NHS. So, each and everyone of these commuting cyclists is saving you money.

On top of this, cyclists are safer than motor vehicles, so all of these cyclists are making the city a safer place to live.

Why the hate?
Why the hate? This is my reasoning,

Quite a number of drivers have massive entitlement issues, they think the roads were built for them (obviously the Romans were unbelievably good at predicting the future) and that the teeny tiny amount of money they pay in VED pays for all roads in the UK and that it entitles them to exclusive use of them.

They think the driving test is a hurdle to be overcome and forget its purpose is to prove to the authorities that they are capable of driving a machine that can easily kill others, responsibly and safely.

The rules of the road, seat belts, speed limits, mobile use, driving after a drink, driving whilst distracted are all designed to inconvenience them, and can be ignored at some point depending on the circumstances (got to get home quick, been waiting for that phone call, I'm only popping to the shops, my child needs me to pick up that toy they have dropped).

They absolutely hate the fact that cyclists make them accountable; they could do all of the above, and more, if there were no cyclists, in built up areas because at worst they would cause a crash, dent a car a bit and bump up insurance payments. But do any of that with cyclists on the road and they might end up killing someone, losing their precious licence and possibly ending up in jail, and it would be their fault, and their fault alone, and they absolutely hate it.

So some of them vent their spleens on these stories because screaming at cyclists from behind their steering wheels isn't letting enough people know just how stupid they are.
Haha the over-reaction continues and now it is psycho-analysing us !!
[quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: Just think, 11,0000 commuters using bicycles. This means less motor traffic, less congestion and more parking spaces for the motorists. Not only that, a concomitant reduction in the number of cars means less pollution and better air quality for everyone. The wear-and-tear on roads will be less. It's been shown that cycling increases health and reduces the burden on the NHS. So, each and everyone of these commuting cyclists is saving you money. On top of this, cyclists are safer than motor vehicles, so all of these cyclists are making the city a safer place to live. Why the hate?[/p][/quote]Why the hate? This is my reasoning, Quite a number of drivers have massive entitlement issues, they think the roads were built for them (obviously the Romans were unbelievably good at predicting the future) and that the teeny tiny amount of money they pay in VED pays for all roads in the UK and that it entitles them to exclusive use of them. They think the driving test is a hurdle to be overcome and forget its purpose is to prove to the authorities that they are capable of driving a machine that can easily kill others, responsibly and safely. The rules of the road, seat belts, speed limits, mobile use, driving after a drink, driving whilst distracted are all designed to inconvenience them, and can be ignored at some point depending on the circumstances (got to get home quick, been waiting for that phone call, I'm only popping to the shops, my child needs me to pick up that toy they have dropped). They absolutely hate the fact that cyclists make them accountable; they could do all of the above, and more, if there were no cyclists, in built up areas because at worst they would cause a crash, dent a car a bit and bump up insurance payments. But do any of that with cyclists on the road and they might end up killing someone, losing their precious licence and possibly ending up in jail, and it would be their fault, and their fault alone, and they absolutely hate it. So some of them vent their spleens on these stories because screaming at cyclists from behind their steering wheels isn't letting enough people know just how stupid they are.[/p][/quote]Haha the over-reaction continues and now it is psycho-analysing us !! livid99
  • Score: -11

3:04pm Mon 7 Apr 14

The New Private Eye says...

King Joke wrote:
HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
Police checks have found cyclists do all of below! Doh
They jump red lights
They ride on pavements
They ride the wrong way down one way streets
They don't pay road vechicle duty
They damage cars
They have no lights

FACT
Police have found that SOME cyclists do the above things (fact), which is very clearly different from ALL cyclists doing them (fact).

Could you please explain to the class the difference between 'some' and 'all', as you understand it?
Perhaps Jokeman you should read young Bart's comment before posting. He wrote that cyclists do all of the below, not ALL cyclists do all of the below.
[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: Police checks have found cyclists do all of below! Doh They jump red lights They ride on pavements They ride the wrong way down one way streets They don't pay road vechicle duty They damage cars They have no lights FACT[/p][/quote]Police have found that SOME cyclists do the above things (fact), which is very clearly different from ALL cyclists doing them (fact). Could you please explain to the class the difference between 'some' and 'all', as you understand it?[/p][/quote]Perhaps Jokeman you should read young Bart's comment before posting. He wrote that cyclists do all of the below, not ALL cyclists do all of the below. The New Private Eye
  • Score: -9

4:18pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Az Cowley says...

I'm a cyclist, I jump red lights when its safe too, I also ride on the curb to get around them! One way streets are usually universal for cyclists, so yes, I go the wrong way down them, on the correct side of road though! Why should we pay vehicle duty? Its not like my li'l pushbike is damaging the roads! I have lights! Never hit a car! Always ride in single file! A lot of the times they're drivers who won't overtake, thats they're problem, I always try to leave space! I get ignored on roundabouts, some drivers think that we are invisible and don't have to be given way too... I am not arrogant, especially compared with some drivers doing 50mph in 30 zones! We are not dangerous... imagine getting hit by my bike, and then imagine being hit by a car... Enough said on that one! I can drive and know the rules of the road, but to blame all cyclists as being the problem in Oxford is stupid! I don't have a car because I can get to most places in Oxford quicker without one due to the massive congestion problem we have! Its a small overpopulated city with too many drivers so fair play to you cyclists who get around the problem in your own way. If you don't like it then don't moan at me for whizzing past you in a traffic jam... and don't edge as close to the curb as you can to stop me from getting around... I'll just ride on the curb :)
I'm a cyclist, I jump red lights when its safe too, I also ride on the curb to get around them! One way streets are usually universal for cyclists, so yes, I go the wrong way down them, on the correct side of road though! Why should we pay vehicle duty? Its not like my li'l pushbike is damaging the roads! I have lights! Never hit a car! Always ride in single file! A lot of the times they're drivers who won't overtake, thats they're problem, I always try to leave space! I get ignored on roundabouts, some drivers think that we are invisible and don't have to be given way too... I am not arrogant, especially compared with some drivers doing 50mph in 30 zones! We are not dangerous... imagine getting hit by my bike, and then imagine being hit by a car... Enough said on that one! I can drive and know the rules of the road, but to blame all cyclists as being the problem in Oxford is stupid! I don't have a car because I can get to most places in Oxford quicker without one due to the massive congestion problem we have! Its a small overpopulated city with too many drivers so fair play to you cyclists who get around the problem in your own way. If you don't like it then don't moan at me for whizzing past you in a traffic jam... and don't edge as close to the curb as you can to stop me from getting around... I'll just ride on the curb :) Az Cowley
  • Score: -8

4:50pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe says...

Az Cowley wrote:
I'm a cyclist, I jump red lights when its safe too, I also ride on the curb to get around them! One way streets are usually universal for cyclists, so yes, I go the wrong way down them, on the correct side of road though! Why should we pay vehicle duty? Its not like my li'l pushbike is damaging the roads! I have lights! Never hit a car! Always ride in single file! A lot of the times they're drivers who won't overtake, thats they're problem, I always try to leave space! I get ignored on roundabouts, some drivers think that we are invisible and don't have to be given way too... I am not arrogant, especially compared with some drivers doing 50mph in 30 zones! We are not dangerous... imagine getting hit by my bike, and then imagine being hit by a car... Enough said on that one! I can drive and know the rules of the road, but to blame all cyclists as being the problem in Oxford is stupid! I don't have a car because I can get to most places in Oxford quicker without one due to the massive congestion problem we have! Its a small overpopulated city with too many drivers so fair play to you cyclists who get around the problem in your own way. If you don't like it then don't moan at me for whizzing past you in a traffic jam... and don't edge as close to the curb as you can to stop me from getting around... I'll just ride on the curb :)
You are pretty arrogant if you blatantly disobey the rules of the road (meant for all) and come on here and admit it.
[quote][p][bold]Az Cowley[/bold] wrote: I'm a cyclist, I jump red lights when its safe too, I also ride on the curb to get around them! One way streets are usually universal for cyclists, so yes, I go the wrong way down them, on the correct side of road though! Why should we pay vehicle duty? Its not like my li'l pushbike is damaging the roads! I have lights! Never hit a car! Always ride in single file! A lot of the times they're drivers who won't overtake, thats they're problem, I always try to leave space! I get ignored on roundabouts, some drivers think that we are invisible and don't have to be given way too... I am not arrogant, especially compared with some drivers doing 50mph in 30 zones! We are not dangerous... imagine getting hit by my bike, and then imagine being hit by a car... Enough said on that one! I can drive and know the rules of the road, but to blame all cyclists as being the problem in Oxford is stupid! I don't have a car because I can get to most places in Oxford quicker without one due to the massive congestion problem we have! Its a small overpopulated city with too many drivers so fair play to you cyclists who get around the problem in your own way. If you don't like it then don't moan at me for whizzing past you in a traffic jam... and don't edge as close to the curb as you can to stop me from getting around... I'll just ride on the curb :)[/p][/quote]You are pretty arrogant if you blatantly disobey the rules of the road (meant for all) and come on here and admit it. Sandy Wimpole-Smythe
  • Score: 9

4:55pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Az Cowley says...

just telling the truth! Most drivers speed but wouldn't admit it... never once seen a car below 20mph in a 20mph zone!
just telling the truth! Most drivers speed but wouldn't admit it... never once seen a car below 20mph in a 20mph zone! Az Cowley
  • Score: 5

6:27pm Mon 7 Apr 14

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

Here we go again, another cyclist has to lie to make their point. " Never seen a car below 20mph" there were hundreds today! Doh
Here we go again, another cyclist has to lie to make their point. " Never seen a car below 20mph" there were hundreds today! Doh HomerSimpsonDoh
  • Score: -8

8:52pm Mon 7 Apr 14

cuckoo says...

Oh PLEASE! get your (collective) mother's to put your toys back in your (collective) prams!!!
There are and will always be good and careful drivers and cyclists.Likewise, bad ones.
Oxford is a small city with many drivers and cyclists (with only a few routes in to it's centre)............I guess it's always the bad ones that draw attention!
Oh PLEASE! get your (collective) mother's to put your toys back in your (collective) prams!!! There are and will always be good and careful drivers and cyclists.Likewise, bad ones. Oxford is a small city with many drivers and cyclists (with only a few routes in to it's centre)............I guess it's always the bad ones that draw attention! cuckoo
  • Score: 1

7:25am Tue 8 Apr 14

livid99 says...

Az Cowley wrote:
I'm a cyclist, I jump red lights when its safe too, I also ride on the curb to get around them! One way streets are usually universal for cyclists, so yes, I go the wrong way down them, on the correct side of road though! Why should we pay vehicle duty? Its not like my li'l pushbike is damaging the roads! I have lights! Never hit a car! Always ride in single file! A lot of the times they're drivers who won't overtake, thats they're problem, I always try to leave space! I get ignored on roundabouts, some drivers think that we are invisible and don't have to be given way too... I am not arrogant, especially compared with some drivers doing 50mph in 30 zones! We are not dangerous... imagine getting hit by my bike, and then imagine being hit by a car... Enough said on that one! I can drive and know the rules of the road, but to blame all cyclists as being the problem in Oxford is stupid! I don't have a car because I can get to most places in Oxford quicker without one due to the massive congestion problem we have! Its a small overpopulated city with too many drivers so fair play to you cyclists who get around the problem in your own way. If you don't like it then don't moan at me for whizzing past you in a traffic jam... and don't edge as close to the curb as you can to stop me from getting around... I'll just ride on the curb :)
So is it ok for motorists to jump red lights "when it's safe to do so" ???

I think your comments here have, in a nutshell, just proven the point some of us are trying to make. Some cyclists blatantly disobey the rules of the road, and justify it it with the rather arrogant "its ok because we're not doing any harm" attitude. A small child hit by a fast moving cyclist could be fatal, so don't try to compare bikes to cars. As a motorist who does obey the rules of the road, I would hate to injure a cyclist, but they really don't help themselves.
[quote][p][bold]Az Cowley[/bold] wrote: I'm a cyclist, I jump red lights when its safe too, I also ride on the curb to get around them! One way streets are usually universal for cyclists, so yes, I go the wrong way down them, on the correct side of road though! Why should we pay vehicle duty? Its not like my li'l pushbike is damaging the roads! I have lights! Never hit a car! Always ride in single file! A lot of the times they're drivers who won't overtake, thats they're problem, I always try to leave space! I get ignored on roundabouts, some drivers think that we are invisible and don't have to be given way too... I am not arrogant, especially compared with some drivers doing 50mph in 30 zones! We are not dangerous... imagine getting hit by my bike, and then imagine being hit by a car... Enough said on that one! I can drive and know the rules of the road, but to blame all cyclists as being the problem in Oxford is stupid! I don't have a car because I can get to most places in Oxford quicker without one due to the massive congestion problem we have! Its a small overpopulated city with too many drivers so fair play to you cyclists who get around the problem in your own way. If you don't like it then don't moan at me for whizzing past you in a traffic jam... and don't edge as close to the curb as you can to stop me from getting around... I'll just ride on the curb :)[/p][/quote]So is it ok for motorists to jump red lights "when it's safe to do so" ??? I think your comments here have, in a nutshell, just proven the point some of us are trying to make. Some cyclists blatantly disobey the rules of the road, and justify it it with the rather arrogant "its ok because we're not doing any harm" attitude. A small child hit by a fast moving cyclist could be fatal, so don't try to compare bikes to cars. As a motorist who does obey the rules of the road, I would hate to injure a cyclist, but they really don't help themselves. livid99
  • Score: -6

7:28am Tue 8 Apr 14

livid99 says...

Az Cowley wrote:
just telling the truth! Most drivers speed but wouldn't admit it... never once seen a car below 20mph in a 20mph zone!
Exactly - telling the truth that you disobey the rules of the road, therefore putting others in danger. At least you admit it.
[quote][p][bold]Az Cowley[/bold] wrote: just telling the truth! Most drivers speed but wouldn't admit it... never once seen a car below 20mph in a 20mph zone![/p][/quote]Exactly - telling the truth that you disobey the rules of the road, therefore putting others in danger. At least you admit it. livid99
  • Score: -3

10:48am Tue 8 Apr 14

locodogz says...

Az Cowley wrote:
I'm a cyclist, I jump red lights when its safe too, I also ride on the curb to get around them! One way streets are usually universal for cyclists, so yes, I go the wrong way down them, on the correct side of road though! Why should we pay vehicle duty? Its not like my li'l pushbike is damaging the roads! I have lights! Never hit a car! Always ride in single file! A lot of the times they're drivers who won't overtake, thats they're problem, I always try to leave space! I get ignored on roundabouts, some drivers think that we are invisible and don't have to be given way too... I am not arrogant, especially compared with some drivers doing 50mph in 30 zones! We are not dangerous... imagine getting hit by my bike, and then imagine being hit by a car... Enough said on that one! I can drive and know the rules of the road, but to blame all cyclists as being the problem in Oxford is stupid! I don't have a car because I can get to most places in Oxford quicker without one due to the massive congestion problem we have! Its a small overpopulated city with too many drivers so fair play to you cyclists who get around the problem in your own way. If you don't like it then don't moan at me for whizzing past you in a traffic jam... and don't edge as close to the curb as you can to stop me from getting around... I'll just ride on the curb :)
Love this comment - its so absurd that I almost suspect its been written by one of the 'anti cycling' brigade

".. imagine getting hit by my bike, and then imagine being hit by a car... Enough said on that one!"

So that makes it OK then..........as someone else has pointed out its exactly (hopefully minority) views like this that people use to tar all cyclists with the 'arrogant law breaker' brush.

Not helpful
[quote][p][bold]Az Cowley[/bold] wrote: I'm a cyclist, I jump red lights when its safe too, I also ride on the curb to get around them! One way streets are usually universal for cyclists, so yes, I go the wrong way down them, on the correct side of road though! Why should we pay vehicle duty? Its not like my li'l pushbike is damaging the roads! I have lights! Never hit a car! Always ride in single file! A lot of the times they're drivers who won't overtake, thats they're problem, I always try to leave space! I get ignored on roundabouts, some drivers think that we are invisible and don't have to be given way too... I am not arrogant, especially compared with some drivers doing 50mph in 30 zones! We are not dangerous... imagine getting hit by my bike, and then imagine being hit by a car... Enough said on that one! I can drive and know the rules of the road, but to blame all cyclists as being the problem in Oxford is stupid! I don't have a car because I can get to most places in Oxford quicker without one due to the massive congestion problem we have! Its a small overpopulated city with too many drivers so fair play to you cyclists who get around the problem in your own way. If you don't like it then don't moan at me for whizzing past you in a traffic jam... and don't edge as close to the curb as you can to stop me from getting around... I'll just ride on the curb :)[/p][/quote]Love this comment - its so absurd that I almost suspect its been written by one of the 'anti cycling' brigade ".. imagine getting hit by my bike, and then imagine being hit by a car... Enough said on that one!" So that makes it OK then..........as someone else has pointed out its exactly (hopefully minority) views like this that people use to tar all cyclists with the 'arrogant law breaker' brush. Not helpful locodogz
  • Score: 8

10:49am Tue 8 Apr 14

locodogz says...

Madi50n wrote:
My word, anti-cyclist gets in less than 15 minutes after the story is posted.

Let me give you a hand with some of the standard rubbish people say about cyclists, maybe you can come up with something new?

1. They "all" jump red lights
2. They "all" ride on pavements
3. They "all" ride the wrong way down one way streets
4. They all ride in packs causing traffic jams
5. They should have licences
6. They should all be marked with visible IDs
7. They should all have insurance
8. They should all wear helmets
9. They are "all" arrogant
10. They are the most dangerous people in the world
11. They don't pay road tax
12. They routinely damage cars

Sam old, same old rubbish, get a life.
...and anti 'anti-cyclist' gets in within 8 minutes of that post.

The ying & yang of the same nonsense argument.
[quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: My word, anti-cyclist gets in less than 15 minutes after the story is posted. Let me give you a hand with some of the standard rubbish people say about cyclists, maybe you can come up with something new? 1. They "all" jump red lights 2. They "all" ride on pavements 3. They "all" ride the wrong way down one way streets 4. They all ride in packs causing traffic jams 5. They should have licences 6. They should all be marked with visible IDs 7. They should all have insurance 8. They should all wear helmets 9. They are "all" arrogant 10. They are the most dangerous people in the world 11. They don't pay road tax 12. They routinely damage cars Sam old, same old rubbish, get a life.[/p][/quote]...and anti 'anti-cyclist' gets in within 8 minutes of that post. The ying & yang of the same nonsense argument. locodogz
  • Score: -3

11:36am Tue 8 Apr 14

paddy173 says...

I drive and cycle, I cannot understand the anti car/cycle on here.
Regardless of how you get to wherever you are going we all need both.

A little civilty and respect would go well between both sets of numpties.

Bikes move faster through traffic , drivers get over it
Some drivers/cyclist break the laws, get over it or phone the police.
I drive and cycle, I cannot understand the anti car/cycle on here. Regardless of how you get to wherever you are going we all need both. A little civilty and respect would go well between both sets of numpties. Bikes move faster through traffic , drivers get over it Some drivers/cyclist break the laws, get over it or phone the police. paddy173
  • Score: 11

11:39am Tue 8 Apr 14

King Joke says...

Paddy is spot on. I too drive and cycle, and the bile reserved for cyclists on cycling stories is truly surprising.
Paddy is spot on. I too drive and cycle, and the bile reserved for cyclists on cycling stories is truly surprising. King Joke
  • Score: 7

1:03pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Wanchai says...

paddy173 wrote:
I drive and cycle, I cannot understand the anti car/cycle on here.
Regardless of how you get to wherever you are going we all need both.

A little civilty and respect would go well between both sets of numpties.

Bikes move faster through traffic , drivers get over it
Some drivers/cyclist break the laws, get over it or phone the police.
I don't think this anti car/cycle thing is going to change.
My advice for new cyclists in Oxford. Do whatever it takes to survive on the roads and avoid getiing hit. Do not trust any driver to do the right thing. Because while the vast majority are respectful and give cyclists time and room to manoeuvre, there's a high chance that you'll meet at least one on any journey that doesn't give a flying flip for cyclists.

As for breaking the rules of the road - who here hasn't broken the speed limit while driving on the motorway? I wish all drivers in Oxford would just take a deep breath and give cyclists more space. It'll be good for your blood pressure too
[quote][p][bold]paddy173[/bold] wrote: I drive and cycle, I cannot understand the anti car/cycle on here. Regardless of how you get to wherever you are going we all need both. A little civilty and respect would go well between both sets of numpties. Bikes move faster through traffic , drivers get over it Some drivers/cyclist break the laws, get over it or phone the police.[/p][/quote]I don't think this anti car/cycle thing is going to change. My advice for new cyclists in Oxford. Do whatever it takes to survive on the roads and avoid getiing hit. Do not trust any driver to do the right thing. Because while the vast majority are respectful and give cyclists time and room to manoeuvre, there's a high chance that you'll meet at least one on any journey that doesn't give a flying flip for cyclists. As for breaking the rules of the road - who here hasn't broken the speed limit while driving on the motorway? I wish all drivers in Oxford would just take a deep breath and give cyclists more space. It'll be good for your blood pressure too Wanchai
  • Score: 11

9:28am Fri 11 Apr 14

robbo81 says...

my turn my turn.

Cyclists are just poor people who can't afford cars.
Cyclists only eat lentils.
Cyclists are all closeted fetishists and they get their release in lycra.
When nobody else is around all cyclists make motorbike noises and pretend they have engines.
Cyclists are really boring people.
Where normal people have genitals, cyclists have a smooth mound. This is how Mattel came up with the bit between Barbie's legs.
my turn my turn. Cyclists are just poor people who can't afford cars. Cyclists only eat lentils. Cyclists are all closeted fetishists and they get their release in lycra. When nobody else is around all cyclists make motorbike noises and pretend they have engines. Cyclists are really boring people. Where normal people have genitals, cyclists have a smooth mound. This is how Mattel came up with the bit between Barbie's legs. robbo81
  • Score: 3

9:26pm Sat 12 Apr 14

Adastral Yellow says...

ALL cyclists don't break the laws. All drivers are not perfect either. As a cyclist who has to drive for work ther are ONLY inconsiderate / dangerous road users.
Ps for the driving anti cyclist lobby I went for a ride today and counted 10 (thats ten) drivers using mobile phones..... Hmmm may be I should get a cycle helmet camera after all.......
ALL cyclists don't break the laws. All drivers are not perfect either. As a cyclist who has to drive for work ther are ONLY inconsiderate / dangerous road users. Ps for the driving anti cyclist lobby I went for a ride today and counted 10 (thats ten) drivers using mobile phones..... Hmmm may be I should get a cycle helmet camera after all....... Adastral Yellow
  • Score: 2

9:31pm Sat 12 Apr 14

Adastral Yellow says...

Ps I forgot to add my enjoyment of the 'they don't pay road tax' myth. Check out your law........
Ps I forgot to add my enjoyment of the 'they don't pay road tax' myth. Check out your law........ Adastral Yellow
  • Score: 2

9:36pm Sat 12 Apr 14

Adastral Yellow says...

Pps 'they damage cars'???
I suspect most people will agree that most damage done to cars is from other DRIVERS and idiots who dont know how to open their doors in car parks!!
Stopping now.........
Pps 'they damage cars'??? I suspect most people will agree that most damage done to cars is from other DRIVERS and idiots who dont know how to open their doors in car parks!! Stopping now......... Adastral Yellow
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree