Speed camera warners can be prosecuted.

[spindrift]

No, it's not an argument to use cameras at all. It's an argument to have traffic police who are focussed on bad driving, rather than the almost irrelevant minor speeding infractions that cameras can only focus on.

The fact is that cameras were used to replace officers, despite not actually doing the same job and all with the lie that it makes the roads safer...

 

You think a thousand deaths a year are irrelevant?

 

The carnage and misery caused by stupid boy racers using public roads as their own race track is "irrelevant"?

 

The three girls killed by the speeding drivers on the road where Mr Thompson was arrested are "irrelevant" to you?

[brus]

Insurance makes no difference as to whether a claim can be made against them. The vast majority will probably have legal cover from their home insurance anyway, and if the police ever catch them they can have a fine and points on their driving license just as if they did the same thing on their bike.

 

It's a shame that the police who do use bikes can't spend an hour hanging about on Langsett road in a morning, they'd probably catch 4 or 5 red light jumpers who annoy the hell out of me.

That's speaking as a cyclist who pulls up at the red lights to watch these idiots pass me and carry on straight through!

 

Yes i agree some may have insurance cover on their home insurance, but tell me how many of the idiot students in Sheffield that use cycles will have home insurance.

The Isle of Jersey used to have a scheme that ended in the early seventies regarding cyclists, they were trying to reintroduce it last year but it was classed as a no go, dont know what finally happened.

http://www.numberplates.com/articles/cycle_260410.asp

[HeadingNorth]

You think a thousand deaths a year are irrelevant?

 

The carnage and misery caused by stupid boy racers using public roads as their own race track is "irrelevant"?

 

The three girls killed by the speeding drivers on the road where Mr Thompson was arrested are "irrelevant" to you?

 

We've been through all this before, when people used to argue that most drunk drivers didn't kill anybody and therefore should not be considered as serious offenders - to take but one example. Based on past records, it will be another twenty years before speeding is widely accepted as antisocial and criminal behaviour.

[spindrift]

Yes i agree some may have insurance cover on their home insurance, but tell me how many of the idiot students in Sheffield that use cycles will have home insurance.

The Isle of Jersey used to have a scheme that ended in the early seventies regarding cyclists, they were trying to reintroduce it last year but it was classed as a no go, dont know what finally happened.

http://www.numberplates.com/articles/cycle_260410.asp

 

To get an idea of how much the premiums are for a cyclist to provide £3million third party cover you might like to ponder the fact that it is included, free of charge, with any CTC or LCC membership.

 

There is no pressure for insurance for cyclists because there is no need.

[mediman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

Nope,that's taking what I said and turning it into something completely different. A cyclist is more likely to be killed by a driver jumping a red light than killing a pedestrian whilst jumping a red light, it has never happened.

 

 

 

 

 

and a pedestrian is more likely to be killed if a driver is swerving to avoid a lunatic on a bike jumping a red light:loopy::loopy:

 

Carefull with the loopys, he could take offence and get you a 24 hour suspension from the forum.

[Cyclone]

I refer you to the post by ...er, Cyclone, I think it was, which gave ample evidence that it is.

 

You might think it was, I disagree.

[Cyclone]

You think a thousand deaths a year are irrelevant?

 

The carnage and misery caused by stupid boy racers using public roads as their own race track is "irrelevant"?

 

The three girls killed by the speeding drivers on the road where Mr Thompson was arrested are "irrelevant" to you?

 

If you could prove that minor speeding infractions caused any deaths a year I'd be impressed.

But proving that speeding in general, and particularly that that might be affected by cameras (ie not in a stolen car for example) kills a thousand a year. If you can do that I'll buy you a beer.

I'm not going to accept some badly analysed statistics or hot air from one of your pro speed safety websites though, so don't bother getting your copy and paste fingers ready.

 

You could try wiping the spittle from your monitor though and looking at this bit again more closely.

 

almost irrelevant minor speeding

did you spot the words that you ignored before?

[Cyclone]

Yes i agree some may have insurance cover on their home insurance, but tell me how many of the idiot students in Sheffield that use cycles will have home insurance.

The Isle of Jersey used to have a scheme that ended in the early seventies regarding cyclists, they were trying to reintroduce it last year but it was classed as a no go, dont know what finally happened.

http://www.numberplates.com/articles/cycle_260410.asp

 

Which still doesn't stopping you suing them and taking whatever they have.

And most students have home insurance, it's very cheap and sensible to have the extension on your parents policy that's available.

[convert]

Of course, I've said so many, many times:

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=6523574&highlight=red+lights#post6523574

 

I've advocated £60 fines.

 

You advocate treating cyclists with no respect because you claim they are not entitled to use the roads.

 

 

 

That's blinkered, ignorant, dangerous prejudice.

 

So how would you catch these criminals?

 

Once again the straw men come out to play. Show me where I've said they aren't entitled to use the roads.

[spindrift]

Cyclone, why do you think the three girl's deaths are irrelevant?