Cyclists given safety advice and a police penalty ticket

Sgt Matt Sulley discusses bicycle safety with students Helen Please, 24, left, and Julia Graham, 25. Picture: OX62637 Ric Mellis

Sgt Matt Sulley discusses bicycle safety with students Helen Please, 24, left, and Julia Graham, 25. Picture: OX62637 Ric Mellis Buy this photo

First published in News Oxford Mail: Photograph of the Author by , Crime Reporter, also covering Barton and Wood Farm. Call me on (01865) 425427

A POLICE campaign to teach cyclists the risks of breaking road rules is to become a regular event in Oxford.

Operation Bike was launched in June for the first time to teach cyclists about the law and how to prevent their bikes being stolen.

Sgt Matt Sulley, the officer behind the safety drive, said: “The idea is to keep people safe. We are here for their benefit.

“Ultimately we want to reduce casualties. Only by education can we do that.”

The campaign has seen police stop cyclists in Broad Street and point out the importance of sticking to road rules, wearing a helmet and using lights.

Sgt Sulley said cyclists had also been given tickets for ignoring red lights, zebra crossings, and no entry road signs.

He said: “We do find some cyclists just do not know what road signs mean. Some cyclists consciously break the laws, but some just don’t know what is going on.”

Police have also been running four-hour operations in Broad Street every Wednesday and have this year registered more than 1,400 bicycles on a national database.

There were 1,041 cycle thefts between April and September this year – a fall of 13 per cent on the 1,202 stolen in the same period last year.

Police were in Broad Street Thursday and yesterday.

Sgt Sulley, of the city centre neighbourhood police team, said the operation would start up again in the spring.

He said: “We are going to keep it running indefinitely now. It has been working really well. There has been a massive interest from the public.”

An Oxford Mail survey in February found one in five cyclists ignored red lights, three out of five were not using lights properly and about half were not wearing a helmet.

Related links

Figures on how many tickets had been given out to cyclists across the summer were last night unavailable.

Oxfordshire County Council’s Fire and Rescue Service also took part in the operation this week and demonstrated the benefits of wearing a helmet to cyclists.

Firefighter Mick Clarke, the service’s road safety manager, said the campaign carried potential lifesaving messages for cyclists.

He said: “There are a range of practical steps cyclists can take to be safe on the road.

“They are simple and can be lifesavers.

“It’s essential that cyclists pay attention to what is going on around them so they are aware of potential dangers.

“It’s also important for them to be visible by wearing appropriate clothing and by using lights.

“Cyclists should also wear a properly-fitted cycle helmet to protect their head in case of a fall.

“Cyclists should also obey signs and traffic lights.

“The Highway Code applies to all road users – not just motorists.”

Comments (38)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:23am Sat 12 Oct 13

Danny A says...

Unlike stopping at red lights, It's not a lawful requirement to wear a cycle helmet. It's not about what you stick on your head it's how you use what's inside it. A helmet will protect your head whether on a bike or not. So if OCC really want to "protect" the most people they should be encouraging pedestrians to wear them, particularly the elderly. And for a whole host of activities including DIY where the evidence shows proportionately more head injuries.
Unlike stopping at red lights, It's not a lawful requirement to wear a cycle helmet. It's not about what you stick on your head it's how you use what's inside it. A helmet will protect your head whether on a bike or not. So if OCC really want to "protect" the most people they should be encouraging pedestrians to wear them, particularly the elderly. And for a whole host of activities including DIY where the evidence shows proportionately more head injuries. Danny A
  • Score: 14

9:13am Sat 12 Oct 13

museli says...

Yes I agree with Danny. This sort of campaign could be brilliant and just what is needed if only the police would restrict themselves to educating cyclists about the laws that are regularly broken. As soon as they start to bring controversial stuff like helmet use into it they sabotage their own efforts.

If they stop me cycling down Broad Street and start going on about helmets they'll get short shrift. I've read the research and almost certainly cycled more miles in my life than they have without banging my head and I have concluded I don't want to wear one as the evidence shows that doing so has the overall effect of reducing the amount of cyclists and thereby making roads more dangerous for cyclists in general.

How would motorists respond if they got stopped and 'educated' for breaking the speed limit or having a light out and the copper starts going on about how they ought to drive a white car as they are more visible! There is a BIG different between law and opinion however well meant.
Yes I agree with Danny. This sort of campaign could be brilliant and just what is needed if only the police would restrict themselves to educating cyclists about the laws that are regularly broken. As soon as they start to bring controversial stuff like helmet use into it they sabotage their own efforts. If they stop me cycling down Broad Street and start going on about helmets they'll get short shrift. I've read the research and almost certainly cycled more miles in my life than they have without banging my head and I have concluded I don't want to wear one as the evidence shows that doing so has the overall effect of reducing the amount of cyclists and thereby making roads more dangerous for cyclists in general. How would motorists respond if they got stopped and 'educated' for breaking the speed limit or having a light out and the copper starts going on about how they ought to drive a white car as they are more visible! There is a BIG different between law and opinion however well meant. museli
  • Score: 23

10:24am Sat 12 Oct 13

WestQuarterJ says...

Yep, same as above. A good project with a bizarre message crowbarred in.

Research is clear - helmets are pretty much useless (at best) for the kind of slow urban cycling most people would do around town, and pushing for everyone to wear them is actively damaging, as a lot of people would rather just not get on a bike at all.

Pop over to YouTube for a video of the Cambridge University Professor of Risk Studies - featuring him cycling with no helmet. I know it's only Cambridge, but he probably knows a thing or two all the same.
Yep, same as above. A good project with a bizarre message crowbarred in. Research is clear - helmets are pretty much useless (at best) for the kind of slow urban cycling most people would do around town, and pushing for everyone to wear them is actively damaging, as a lot of people would rather just not get on a bike at all. Pop over to YouTube for a video of the Cambridge University Professor of Risk Studies - featuring him cycling with no helmet. I know it's only Cambridge, but he probably knows a thing or two all the same. WestQuarterJ
  • Score: 18

3:27pm Sat 12 Oct 13

Ian Perry says...

The usual rubbish from the police who do no research. In the Netherlands few one-way streets do not permit cyclists to cycle both way, and yet their streets are safer for cyclists and pedestrians...

If the "cyclists" do not know what the sighs by the street mean, then perhaps there is a problem with the signage - and ow do towns that have removed all their signs cope? The German town of Bohmte has removed every road sign...

Highly opinionated, but poorly informed police officers, do not provide the service to the public that is required. Strong opinions will never make streets safe - we need evidence based decision-making and better streets.
The usual rubbish from the police who do no research. In the Netherlands few one-way streets do not permit cyclists to cycle both way, and yet their streets are safer for cyclists and pedestrians... If the "cyclists" do not know what the sighs by the street mean, then perhaps there is a problem with the signage - and ow do towns that have removed all their signs cope? The German town of Bohmte has removed every road sign... Highly opinionated, but poorly informed police officers, do not provide the service to the public that is required. Strong opinions will never make streets safe - we need evidence based decision-making and better streets. Ian Perry
  • Score: 13

4:16pm Sat 12 Oct 13

oafie says...

same old same old cyclists just will not accept that they just cannot do as they wish................
....motorists are frequented stopped educated and fined
same old same old cyclists just will not accept that they just cannot do as they wish................ ....motorists are frequented stopped educated and fined oafie
  • Score: -33

4:27pm Sat 12 Oct 13

museli says...

oafie wrote:
same old same old cyclists just will not accept that they just cannot do as they wish................

....motorists are frequented stopped educated and fined
No - it is a good campaign but they have spoilt it by tacking on opinionated stuff about wearing helmets which is nothing to do with the law. If the police treat a perfectly normal, common, legal, activity like cycling without a helmet in the same way as they do a genuine crime such as cycling through a red light or on the pavement or at night with no lights they are just going to confuse people and miss the chance to make it clear what is and what isn't a crime.

You don't want to hear any of that thought do you though oaf, you just want to have a dig at cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]oafie[/bold] wrote: same old same old cyclists just will not accept that they just cannot do as they wish................ ....motorists are frequented stopped educated and fined[/p][/quote]No - it is a good campaign but they have spoilt it by tacking on opinionated stuff about wearing helmets which is nothing to do with the law. If the police treat a perfectly normal, common, legal, activity like cycling without a helmet in the same way as they do a genuine crime such as cycling through a red light or on the pavement or at night with no lights they are just going to confuse people and miss the chance to make it clear what is and what isn't a crime. You don't want to hear any of that thought do you though oaf, you just want to have a dig at cyclists. museli
  • Score: 20

6:03pm Sat 12 Oct 13

seamusl says...

Oxford Mail and Police, butt out of the "not wearing helmets" comments, the benefits are completely disputable and the legal obligation to wear them is non existent so let us comment on the legally enforceable offences please, by the way there are more serious head injuries to pedestrians. Lets have more consistent policing re cyclists obeying the law, the police car that overtook me (and the cyclist without lights at 04-10 the other morning did not pay a blind bit of notice, I followed the lightless one up the Woodstock Rd (he was going in my direction, not that zealous), the police car came back down past us both, again not a bit of notice. Complete hypocrisy. Seamus Leahy
Oxford Mail and Police, butt out of the "not wearing helmets" comments, the benefits are completely disputable and the legal obligation to wear them is non existent so let us comment on the legally enforceable offences please, by the way there are more serious head injuries to pedestrians. Lets have more consistent policing re cyclists obeying the law, the police car that overtook me (and the cyclist without lights at 04-10 the other morning did not pay a blind bit of notice, I followed the lightless one up the Woodstock Rd (he was going in my direction, not that zealous), the police car came back down past us both, again not a bit of notice. Complete hypocrisy. Seamus Leahy seamusl
  • Score: 14

9:36pm Sat 12 Oct 13

faatmaan says...

normally this forum is full of cyclists in denial, the highway code is effectively law, as enshrined in the road traffic act of the day. Obedience of all road users is the key to safety for all.
normally this forum is full of cyclists in denial, the highway code is effectively law, as enshrined in the road traffic act of the day. Obedience of all road users is the key to safety for all. faatmaan
  • Score: -21

10:41pm Sat 12 Oct 13

seamusl says...

faatmaan wrote:
normally this forum is full of cyclists in denial, the highway code is effectively law, as enshrined in the road traffic act of the day. Obedience of all road users is the key to safety for all.
In fact The Highway Code is not law BUT if prosecuted will be used against the offender. Why this animosity toward cyclists, I drove professionally for 26 years and saw idiots from all spheres, remember those in glasshouses etc. Press for the police to be funded so they can do their job and we will all be happier and safer. Law breaking is endemic in todays society as the do gooders say it is against the civil rights to punish the law breaker, witness any daily paper, unfortunately faatman when do your antagonistic comments spill over into direct action, worrying.
[quote][p][bold]faatmaan[/bold] wrote: normally this forum is full of cyclists in denial, the highway code is effectively law, as enshrined in the road traffic act of the day. Obedience of all road users is the key to safety for all.[/p][/quote]In fact The Highway Code is not law BUT if prosecuted will be used against the offender. Why this animosity toward cyclists, I drove professionally for 26 years and saw idiots from all spheres, remember those in glasshouses etc. Press for the police to be funded so they can do their job and we will all be happier and safer. Law breaking is endemic in todays society as the do gooders say it is against the civil rights to punish the law breaker, witness any daily paper, unfortunately faatman when do your antagonistic comments spill over into direct action, worrying. seamusl
  • Score: 14

10:47am Sun 13 Oct 13

museli says...

faatmaan wrote:
normally this forum is full of cyclists in denial, the highway code is effectively law, as enshrined in the road traffic act of the day. Obedience of all road users is the key to safety for all.
I think you've done a typo there - presumably you mean to say 'normally this forum is full of motorists in denial ... ' which is stating the obvious really.
[quote][p][bold]faatmaan[/bold] wrote: normally this forum is full of cyclists in denial, the highway code is effectively law, as enshrined in the road traffic act of the day. Obedience of all road users is the key to safety for all.[/p][/quote]I think you've done a typo there - presumably you mean to say 'normally this forum is full of motorists in denial ... ' which is stating the obvious really. museli
  • Score: 9

1:17pm Sun 13 Oct 13

seamusl says...

Let us not start the they do this and don't do that, it demeans the argument already made by others than myself on here that helmet use is not a legal requirement, unlike seatbelts in cars and (properly constructed) helmets on motorcycles cycle helmets are not proven and can (especially the oval shaped ones) exacerbate neck injuries. However, I always view dramatic comments by journalists on helmet use designed to alarm the uninformed with dismay as said journalists are supposed to be intelligent people who research their subject thoroughly (Oxford Mail take note), up your game please and let us have the required standard from reports leaving needless alarmist comments out, it cheapens the article.
Let us not start the they do this and don't do that, it demeans the argument already made by others than myself on here that helmet use is not a legal requirement, unlike seatbelts in cars and (properly constructed) helmets on motorcycles cycle helmets are not proven and can (especially the oval shaped ones) exacerbate neck injuries. However, I always view dramatic comments by journalists on helmet use designed to alarm the uninformed with dismay as said journalists are supposed to be intelligent people who research their subject thoroughly (Oxford Mail take note), up your game please and let us have the required standard from reports leaving needless alarmist comments out, it cheapens the article. seamusl
  • Score: 12

6:25pm Sun 13 Oct 13

Andrew on the S3 says...

museli wrote:
oafie wrote:
same old same old cyclists just will not accept that they just cannot do as they wish................


....motorists are frequented stopped educated and fined
No - it is a good campaign but they have spoilt it by tacking on opinionated stuff about wearing helmets which is nothing to do with the law. If the police treat a perfectly normal, common, legal, activity like cycling without a helmet in the same way as they do a genuine crime such as cycling through a red light or on the pavement or at night with no lights they are just going to confuse people and miss the chance to make it clear what is and what isn't a crime.

You don't want to hear any of that thought do you though oaf, you just want to have a dig at cyclists.
Get off your high horse please, all that the police and fire service are doing is giving advice on helmets, much in the same way that they did to motor cyclists with helmets, and motorists and seatbelts before they were made compulsory, what is wrong with that?
[quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]oafie[/bold] wrote: same old same old cyclists just will not accept that they just cannot do as they wish................ ....motorists are frequented stopped educated and fined[/p][/quote]No - it is a good campaign but they have spoilt it by tacking on opinionated stuff about wearing helmets which is nothing to do with the law. If the police treat a perfectly normal, common, legal, activity like cycling without a helmet in the same way as they do a genuine crime such as cycling through a red light or on the pavement or at night with no lights they are just going to confuse people and miss the chance to make it clear what is and what isn't a crime. You don't want to hear any of that thought do you though oaf, you just want to have a dig at cyclists.[/p][/quote]Get off your high horse please, all that the police and fire service are doing is giving advice on helmets, much in the same way that they did to motor cyclists with helmets, and motorists and seatbelts before they were made compulsory, what is wrong with that? Andrew on the S3
  • Score: -142

6:42pm Sun 13 Oct 13

seamusl says...

Quite simply that the inference is that a cyclist is acting illegally and irresponsibly by not wearing an inferior product made of polystyrene that in any serious impact is useless and by way of marketing leads people to believe it is the magic cure all to save your life ie; a cycle helmet. I personally would advocate their use for children whose young brains are still growing and (according to research I have read) are more prone to damage for accidental knocks, however with the epidemic of obesity the media is screaming about is it worth a child not cycling because a helmet kills the "cool" element that is essential to us all, a minefield as I am sure we would all agree (did I really type that). A car and motorcycle travel at quite amazing speeds (well, compared to some from my youth) and a cycle normally travels at around or less than the "magic" government figure of 20mph that is causing such a blight of restricted speed on our urban streets so theoretically cyclists are safe, unless of course they are hit by a chunk of scrap metal travelling at a speed far in excess of that, an all to common occurrence, I am off for a pint and yes, I am walking, hope I don't fall over and bang my head (refrain if possible from mentally pushing me all ye dissenters ;-) )
Quite simply that the inference is that a cyclist is acting illegally and irresponsibly by not wearing an inferior product made of polystyrene that in any serious impact is useless and by way of marketing leads people to believe it is the magic cure all to save your life ie; a cycle helmet. I personally would advocate their use for children whose young brains are still growing and (according to research I have read) are more prone to damage for accidental knocks, however with the epidemic of obesity the media is screaming about is it worth a child not cycling because a helmet kills the "cool" element that is essential to us all, a minefield as I am sure we would all agree (did I really type that). A car and motorcycle travel at quite amazing speeds (well, compared to some from my youth) and a cycle normally travels at around or less than the "magic" government figure of 20mph that is causing such a blight of restricted speed on our urban streets so theoretically cyclists are safe, unless of course they are hit by a chunk of scrap metal travelling at a speed far in excess of that, an all to common occurrence, I am off for a pint and yes, I am walking, hope I don't fall over and bang my head (refrain if possible from mentally pushing me all ye dissenters ;-) ) seamusl
  • Score: 18

4:14pm Mon 14 Oct 13

Arnold.Brewer says...

The police say they want to keep this going indefinitely - well returning to it next spring with a gap of six months or so through the winter is really of no use at all.

I have no gripes with helmets - well used to wearing them on a motorcycle, but cyclists without lights really do need education and not just a few days in October!!
The police say they want to keep this going indefinitely - well returning to it next spring with a gap of six months or so through the winter is really of no use at all. I have no gripes with helmets - well used to wearing them on a motorcycle, but cyclists without lights really do need education and not just a few days in October!! Arnold.Brewer
  • Score: -72

8:39pm Mon 14 Oct 13

seamusl says...

Arnold.Brewer wrote:
The police say they want to keep this going indefinitely - well returning to it next spring with a gap of six months or so through the winter is really of no use at all.

I have no gripes with helmets - well used to wearing them on a motorcycle, but cyclists without lights really do need education and not just a few days in October!!
Swot I said consistent policing not paying lip service to the press, the odd police person stood on the corner of Banbury Rd and Parks Rd around 15-30 to 17-30 (preferably just round the corner/edge of Norham Gardens would be best) to get the consistent red light jumpers who hurl abuse when I shout "oh colour blind then" at them, big stick of intense attention on this and the no lights/riding on pavement sort of thing needed for about three months then the odd top up at irregular intervals, why am I, a cyclists ranting on this ? Because I (and all the other many responsible cyclists) am fed up with being lumped in with the idiots who feel it is their right to say "the law doesn't apply to me, oh and yes this also applies to jay walking pedestrians, and all the other hypocritical law breaking cyclists and motorists out there.
[quote][p][bold]Arnold.Brewer[/bold] wrote: The police say they want to keep this going indefinitely - well returning to it next spring with a gap of six months or so through the winter is really of no use at all. I have no gripes with helmets - well used to wearing them on a motorcycle, but cyclists without lights really do need education and not just a few days in October!![/p][/quote]Swot I said consistent policing not paying lip service to the press, the odd police person stood on the corner of Banbury Rd and Parks Rd around 15-30 to 17-30 (preferably just round the corner/edge of Norham Gardens would be best) to get the consistent red light jumpers who hurl abuse when I shout "oh colour blind then" at them, big stick of intense attention on this and the no lights/riding on pavement sort of thing needed for about three months then the odd top up at irregular intervals, why am I, a cyclists ranting on this ? Because I (and all the other many responsible cyclists) am fed up with being lumped in with the idiots who feel it is their right to say "the law doesn't apply to me, oh and yes this also applies to jay walking pedestrians, and all the other hypocritical law breaking cyclists and motorists out there. seamusl
  • Score: 14

11:29am Wed 16 Oct 13

livid99 says...

"Sgt Sulley said cyclists had also been given tickets for ignoring red lights, zebra crossings, and no entry road signs. "

At last - that is what we want to see !!
They need to abide by the rules of the road the same as everyone else, and if they don't they need to be punished the same as everyone else.
"Sgt Sulley said cyclists had also been given tickets for ignoring red lights, zebra crossings, and no entry road signs. " At last - that is what we want to see !! They need to abide by the rules of the road the same as everyone else, and if they don't they need to be punished the same as everyone else. livid99
  • Score: -115

12:03pm Wed 16 Oct 13

seamusl says...

They need to abide by the rules of the road the same as everyone else

Who pray are "they" and for that matter who are "everyone else", I think "we" that is everyone contributing on here want to say the laws obeyed whether it is a cyclist jumping a light or indeed and potentially more lethal a car , it happens often that at least 2 cars come from Sterling Road Approach onto the main road in Kidlington after the lights have changed often on the incorrect side of the road and sometimes using a mobile phone, I am not trying to say that because a car does it that is ok for someone else to just that law breaking is (unfortunately) very common. Why though does a cyclist stupidly breaking a law cause such an uproar and nobody comments so emotively and violently when for example a speed trap is reported in St Giles, no hate filled comments against those road users.
They need to abide by the rules of the road the same as everyone else Who pray are "they" and for that matter who are "everyone else", I think "we" that is everyone contributing on here want to say the laws obeyed whether it is a cyclist jumping a light or indeed and potentially more lethal a car , it happens often that at least 2 cars come from Sterling Road Approach onto the main road in Kidlington after the lights have changed often on the incorrect side of the road and sometimes using a mobile phone, I am not trying to say that because a car does it that is ok for someone else to just that law breaking is (unfortunately) very common. Why though does a cyclist stupidly breaking a law cause such an uproar and nobody comments so emotively and violently when for example a speed trap is reported in St Giles, no hate filled comments against those road users. seamusl
  • Score: 11

12:21pm Wed 16 Oct 13

livid99 says...

seamusl wrote:
They need to abide by the rules of the road the same as everyone else

Who pray are "they" and for that matter who are "everyone else", I think "we" that is everyone contributing on here want to say the laws obeyed whether it is a cyclist jumping a light or indeed and potentially more lethal a car , it happens often that at least 2 cars come from Sterling Road Approach onto the main road in Kidlington after the lights have changed often on the incorrect side of the road and sometimes using a mobile phone, I am not trying to say that because a car does it that is ok for someone else to just that law breaking is (unfortunately) very common. Why though does a cyclist stupidly breaking a law cause such an uproar and nobody comments so emotively and violently when for example a speed trap is reported in St Giles, no hate filled comments against those road users.
""Who pray are "they" and for that matter who are "everyone else",.........

THEY are cyclists, "EVERYONE ELSE" is non-cyclists.......w
ould have thought that was fairly obvious really .......
[quote][p][bold]seamusl[/bold] wrote: They need to abide by the rules of the road the same as everyone else Who pray are "they" and for that matter who are "everyone else", I think "we" that is everyone contributing on here want to say the laws obeyed whether it is a cyclist jumping a light or indeed and potentially more lethal a car , it happens often that at least 2 cars come from Sterling Road Approach onto the main road in Kidlington after the lights have changed often on the incorrect side of the road and sometimes using a mobile phone, I am not trying to say that because a car does it that is ok for someone else to just that law breaking is (unfortunately) very common. Why though does a cyclist stupidly breaking a law cause such an uproar and nobody comments so emotively and violently when for example a speed trap is reported in St Giles, no hate filled comments against those road users.[/p][/quote]""Who pray are "they" and for that matter who are "everyone else",......... THEY are cyclists, "EVERYONE ELSE" is non-cyclists.......w ould have thought that was fairly obvious really ....... livid99
  • Score: -109

12:41pm Wed 16 Oct 13

grandconjuration says...

Come on seamusl, you can't expect to be taken seriously on here when you are writing sense.

Cyclist gets killed by sandwich-eating driver; a certain group of people make comments defending the driver.

Drivers get caught speeding and therefore breaking the law; the same set of people defend the drivers.

The subject of law-breaking cyclists come up; the same set of people dish up hatred towards cyclists and state that everyone needs to comply with the laws of the road. It's pathetic.

A three-car crash was reported today, it caused long delays. No comments!
Come on seamusl, you can't expect to be taken seriously on here when you are writing sense. Cyclist gets killed by sandwich-eating driver; a certain group of people make comments defending the driver. Drivers get caught speeding and therefore breaking the law; the same set of people defend the drivers. The subject of law-breaking cyclists come up; the same set of people dish up hatred towards cyclists and state that everyone needs to comply with the laws of the road. It's pathetic. A three-car crash was reported today, it caused long delays. No comments! grandconjuration
  • Score: 47

12:51pm Wed 16 Oct 13

seamusl says...

Head and brick wall come to mind, I was rather hoping that "they" would come to mean all law breaking users of the road and everyone else the decent law abiding citizen whatever they use however after years of motor cycling (amazingly there used to the same rabid reaction to motor cyclists as there is now against cyclists)and cycling and driving professionally I should curb my optimism and realise that there are far to many peoples out there who have tunnel vision and will sit and listen/look at an argument waiting for the other person to finish then start up exactly where they were before with the same diatribe against whatever it is they want to dislike. I shall continue to ride (and drive) observing both the laws and the spirit of them, thank you and good night. :-)
Head and brick wall come to mind, I was rather hoping that "they" would come to mean all law breaking users of the road and everyone else the decent law abiding citizen whatever they use however after years of motor cycling (amazingly there used to the same rabid reaction to motor cyclists as there is now against cyclists)and cycling and driving professionally I should curb my optimism and realise that there are far to many peoples out there who have tunnel vision and will sit and listen/look at an argument waiting for the other person to finish then start up exactly where they were before with the same diatribe against whatever it is they want to dislike. I shall continue to ride (and drive) observing both the laws and the spirit of them, thank you and good night. :-) seamusl
  • Score: 13

2:01pm Wed 16 Oct 13

livid99 says...

Seems very strange that any comment which simply says cyclists should obey the same rules as other road users, and should be punished if they don't, provokes such a reaction from said cyclists. Seems like a bit of a nerve has been touched.....
Seems very strange that any comment which simply says cyclists should obey the same rules as other road users, and should be punished if they don't, provokes such a reaction from said cyclists. Seems like a bit of a nerve has been touched..... livid99
  • Score: -109

2:23pm Wed 16 Oct 13

WestQuarterJ says...

seamusl wrote:
Arnold.Brewer wrote:
The police say they want to keep this going indefinitely - well returning to it next spring with a gap of six months or so through the winter is really of no use at all.

I have no gripes with helmets - well used to wearing them on a motorcycle, but cyclists without lights really do need education and not just a few days in October!!
Swot I said consistent policing not paying lip service to the press, the odd police person stood on the corner of Banbury Rd and Parks Rd around 15-30 to 17-30 (preferably just round the corner/edge of Norham Gardens would be best) to get the consistent red light jumpers who hurl abuse when I shout "oh colour blind then" at them, big stick of intense attention on this and the no lights/riding on pavement sort of thing needed for about three months then the odd top up at irregular intervals, why am I, a cyclists ranting on this ? Because I (and all the other many responsible cyclists) am fed up with being lumped in with the idiots who feel it is their right to say "the law doesn't apply to me, oh and yes this also applies to jay walking pedestrians, and all the other hypocritical law breaking cyclists and motorists out there.
Are you sure you're in Oxford? "Jaywalking" is an American law. It is legal to cross the road in England.
[quote][p][bold]seamusl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arnold.Brewer[/bold] wrote: The police say they want to keep this going indefinitely - well returning to it next spring with a gap of six months or so through the winter is really of no use at all. I have no gripes with helmets - well used to wearing them on a motorcycle, but cyclists without lights really do need education and not just a few days in October!![/p][/quote]Swot I said consistent policing not paying lip service to the press, the odd police person stood on the corner of Banbury Rd and Parks Rd around 15-30 to 17-30 (preferably just round the corner/edge of Norham Gardens would be best) to get the consistent red light jumpers who hurl abuse when I shout "oh colour blind then" at them, big stick of intense attention on this and the no lights/riding on pavement sort of thing needed for about three months then the odd top up at irregular intervals, why am I, a cyclists ranting on this ? Because I (and all the other many responsible cyclists) am fed up with being lumped in with the idiots who feel it is their right to say "the law doesn't apply to me, oh and yes this also applies to jay walking pedestrians, and all the other hypocritical law breaking cyclists and motorists out there.[/p][/quote]Are you sure you're in Oxford? "Jaywalking" is an American law. It is legal to cross the road in England. WestQuarterJ
  • Score: 4

2:49pm Wed 16 Oct 13

AndyontheS3 says...

livid99 wrote:
Seems very strange that any comment which simply says cyclists should obey the same rules as other road users, and should be punished if they don't, provokes such a reaction from said cyclists. Seems like a bit of a nerve has been touched.....
A bit of a nerve been touched? It seems like somebody must have gone into The Sciatic Nerve with an electric drill to provoke that reaction mate.
[quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: Seems very strange that any comment which simply says cyclists should obey the same rules as other road users, and should be punished if they don't, provokes such a reaction from said cyclists. Seems like a bit of a nerve has been touched.....[/p][/quote]A bit of a nerve been touched? It seems like somebody must have gone into The Sciatic Nerve with an electric drill to provoke that reaction mate. AndyontheS3
  • Score: -133

3:02pm Wed 16 Oct 13

grandconjuration says...

I don't see any comments stating that cyclists shouldn't obey the rules of the road that apply to them.

Read the comments! The first two from Danny A and museli fully support the policing of cyclist behavior. However, they do object to comments in this article relating to helmet use; as discussed above, the wearing of a cycling helmet is not mandatory and helmet use should not be included in a news article in a way that presents it has being illegal.

"The campaign has seen police stop cyclists in Broad Street and point out the importance of sticking to road rules, wearing a helmet and using lights." Sticking to road rules, yes. Using lights, yes. Wearing a helmet - not a reason for police to stop cyclists or provide any advice because it is entirely lawful not to wear one.
I don't see any comments stating that cyclists shouldn't obey the rules of the road that apply to them. Read the comments! The first two from Danny A and museli fully support the policing of cyclist behavior. However, they do object to comments in this article relating to helmet use; as discussed above, the wearing of a cycling helmet is not mandatory and helmet use should not be included in a news article in a way that presents it has being illegal. "The campaign has seen police stop cyclists in Broad Street and point out the importance of sticking to road rules, wearing a helmet and using lights." Sticking to road rules, yes. Using lights, yes. Wearing a helmet - not a reason for police to stop cyclists or provide any advice because it is entirely lawful not to wear one. grandconjuration
  • Score: 45

5:25pm Wed 16 Oct 13

shippondame says...

There is not a single adult on this earth who does not know that a red traffic light means STOP.

I regularly see an adult riding his bicycle through a particular red light in Abingdon. I recently discovered he is a Health & Safety officer!
There is not a single adult on this earth who does not know that a red traffic light means STOP. I regularly see an adult riding his bicycle through a particular red light in Abingdon. I recently discovered he is a Health & Safety officer! shippondame
  • Score: -76

7:56am Thu 17 Oct 13

livid99 says...

grandconjuration wrote:
I don't see any comments stating that cyclists shouldn't obey the rules of the road that apply to them.

Read the comments! The first two from Danny A and museli fully support the policing of cyclist behavior. However, they do object to comments in this article relating to helmet use; as discussed above, the wearing of a cycling helmet is not mandatory and helmet use should not be included in a news article in a way that presents it has being illegal.

"The campaign has seen police stop cyclists in Broad Street and point out the importance of sticking to road rules, wearing a helmet and using lights." Sticking to road rules, yes. Using lights, yes. Wearing a helmet - not a reason for police to stop cyclists or provide any advice because it is entirely lawful not to wear one.
"I don't see any comments stating that cyclists shouldn't obey the rules of the road that apply to them."
So ? Maybe no-one has said that here......doesn't mean it doesn't happen does it ? The number of minus points that any comment here criticising cyclists get is quite interesting. It clearly confirms that many of those who ride bicycles think they can do what they want on the road (go through red lights, not stop at crossings etc) and then get all offended and defensive and if anyone dares to suggest they should obey the same rules that other road users have to abide by. You can deny it all you like, but many cyclists in Oxford clearly think they are above the law, and if the police start cracking down on them and handing out fines then its only what they deserve.
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: I don't see any comments stating that cyclists shouldn't obey the rules of the road that apply to them. Read the comments! The first two from Danny A and museli fully support the policing of cyclist behavior. However, they do object to comments in this article relating to helmet use; as discussed above, the wearing of a cycling helmet is not mandatory and helmet use should not be included in a news article in a way that presents it has being illegal. "The campaign has seen police stop cyclists in Broad Street and point out the importance of sticking to road rules, wearing a helmet and using lights." Sticking to road rules, yes. Using lights, yes. Wearing a helmet - not a reason for police to stop cyclists or provide any advice because it is entirely lawful not to wear one.[/p][/quote]"I don't see any comments stating that cyclists shouldn't obey the rules of the road that apply to them." So ? Maybe no-one has said that here......doesn't mean it doesn't happen does it ? The number of minus points that any comment here criticising cyclists get is quite interesting. It clearly confirms that many of those who ride bicycles think they can do what they want on the road (go through red lights, not stop at crossings etc) and then get all offended and defensive and if anyone dares to suggest they should obey the same rules that other road users have to abide by. You can deny it all you like, but many cyclists in Oxford clearly think they are above the law, and if the police start cracking down on them and handing out fines then its only what they deserve. livid99
  • Score: -114

9:42am Thu 17 Oct 13

grandconjuration says...

Livid99 says "maybe no one has said that here....doesn't mean it doesn't happen does it?"

Exactly, you just made it up.

Carry on writing your meaningless drivel.
Livid99 says "maybe no one has said that here....doesn't mean it doesn't happen does it?" Exactly, you just made it up. Carry on writing your meaningless drivel. grandconjuration
  • Score: 46

10:00am Thu 17 Oct 13

livid99 says...

grandconjuration wrote:
Livid99 says "maybe no one has said that here....doesn't mean it doesn't happen does it?"

Exactly, you just made it up.

Carry on writing your meaningless drivel.
What ??
Touched the nerve again.......I'm not writing drivel, I am pointing out the truth as seen by motorists in Oxford every day. You are looking foolish trying to deny these things.
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: Livid99 says "maybe no one has said that here....doesn't mean it doesn't happen does it?" Exactly, you just made it up. Carry on writing your meaningless drivel.[/p][/quote]What ?? Touched the nerve again.......I'm not writing drivel, I am pointing out the truth as seen by motorists in Oxford every day. You are looking foolish trying to deny these things. livid99
  • Score: -113

10:20am Thu 17 Oct 13

grandconjuration says...

A34 currently closed due to incident involving car transporter. Are you going to start some rantings on the comments section? All car transporter drivers are...
A34 currently closed due to incident involving car transporter. Are you going to start some rantings on the comments section? All car transporter drivers are... grandconjuration
  • Score: 46

11:00am Thu 17 Oct 13

livid99 says...

grandconjuration wrote:
A34 currently closed due to incident involving car transporter. Are you going to start some rantings on the comments section? All car transporter drivers are...
This has nothing to do with cyclists in Oxford, so if you are just going to try diversion tactics, go ahead if it makes you feel better.
No-one is saying motorists, lorries, buses etc do not cause accidents, so I fail to see why you keep on about it. No one is denying this, but the bizarre thing is why cyclists react in such an extremely defensive way whenever they are criticised. Telling a cyclist they have done something wrong is like lighting a firework.
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: A34 currently closed due to incident involving car transporter. Are you going to start some rantings on the comments section? All car transporter drivers are...[/p][/quote]This has nothing to do with cyclists in Oxford, so if you are just going to try diversion tactics, go ahead if it makes you feel better. No-one is saying motorists, lorries, buses etc do not cause accidents, so I fail to see why you keep on about it. No one is denying this, but the bizarre thing is why cyclists react in such an extremely defensive way whenever they are criticised. Telling a cyclist they have done something wrong is like lighting a firework. livid99
  • Score: -119

12:13pm Thu 17 Oct 13

livid99 says...

Then they all come out and hammer the negative vote button rather than thinking about trying to ride more carefully.........
Then they all come out and hammer the negative vote button rather than thinking about trying to ride more carefully......... livid99
  • Score: -118

12:20pm Thu 17 Oct 13

museli says...

livid99 wrote:
"Sgt Sulley said cyclists had also been given tickets for ignoring red lights, zebra crossings, and no entry road signs. "

At last - that is what we want to see !!
They need to abide by the rules of the road the same as everyone else, and if they don't they need to be punished the same as everyone else.
The reason sensible people protest so much at your nonsense is that it is so blatantly prejudiced and biased. Above is your original snipe on this thread where you imply that there are 2 types of road user - 'them' by which you mean cyclists - and 'everyone else' who get punished for their transgressions while cyclists don't. This is not really going to go down well with those of us that are regularly put at risk by criminal motorists using their phones and speeding knowing full well there is next to no chance they will get caught and punished.

There is no point in posting crap like this then accusing people of getting defensive - of course people will react when you poke them and it is to the credit of the cyclists in this group that they haven't taken the bait and continue to post truth while you try and make out it's everyone else who is 'bizarre', touchy, 'defensive and offended'.

Why don't you try seeing the world as it is instead of trying to bend it to fit your uninformed prejudices!
[quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: "Sgt Sulley said cyclists had also been given tickets for ignoring red lights, zebra crossings, and no entry road signs. " At last - that is what we want to see !! They need to abide by the rules of the road the same as everyone else, and if they don't they need to be punished the same as everyone else.[/p][/quote]The reason sensible people protest so much at your nonsense is that it is so blatantly prejudiced and biased. Above is your original snipe on this thread where you imply that there are 2 types of road user - 'them' by which you mean cyclists - and 'everyone else' who get punished for their transgressions while cyclists don't. This is not really going to go down well with those of us that are regularly put at risk by criminal motorists using their phones and speeding knowing full well there is next to no chance they will get caught and punished. There is no point in posting crap like this then accusing people of getting defensive - of course people will react when you poke them and it is to the credit of the cyclists in this group that they haven't taken the bait and continue to post truth while you try and make out it's everyone else who is 'bizarre', touchy, 'defensive and offended'. Why don't you try seeing the world as it is instead of trying to bend it to fit your uninformed prejudices! museli
  • Score: 21

12:47pm Thu 17 Oct 13

livid99 says...

You clearly miss the point.....
You clearly miss the point..... livid99
  • Score: -106

2:41pm Thu 17 Oct 13

seamusl says...

Quite a few people on here are deliberately ignoring the fact that the pedal powered contributors are all stating that ALL road users including cyclists should conform to the law,
Cycles (including tri cycles) were granted the right to use the roads in 1888 which makes cycling the senior group (possibly why cyclists are ranting the least here ? ), When cars came on the road the government had to introduce a man with a red flag walking in front of a car to make them conform, advancement has made this obsolete, what unfortunately cannot be made obsolete is the pathetic attitude of (all) groups to not be reasonable and co exist on the roads, when I drove (taxis if you need to know, another much maligned group) I only existed safely with the co-operation of the majority of other road users, idiots exist some of them on cyclers others in all types of transport, anyway, why for once not stop ranting about cyclists when one (or two) happen to point out the inaccuracy of the articles insinuation that it was illegal not to wear a helmet, and when you next see someone breaking the law take your ire out on the police for their inaction then something just might be done.
Quite a few people on here are deliberately ignoring the fact that the pedal powered contributors are all stating that ALL road users including cyclists should conform to the law, Cycles (including tri cycles) were granted the right to use the roads in 1888 which makes cycling the senior group (possibly why cyclists are ranting the least here ? ), When cars came on the road the government had to introduce a man with a red flag walking in front of a car to make them conform, advancement has made this obsolete, what unfortunately cannot be made obsolete is the pathetic attitude of (all) groups to not be reasonable and co exist on the roads, when I drove (taxis if you need to know, another much maligned group) I only existed safely with the co-operation of the majority of other road users, idiots exist some of them on cyclers others in all types of transport, anyway, why for once not stop ranting about cyclists when one (or two) happen to point out the inaccuracy of the articles insinuation that it was illegal not to wear a helmet, and when you next see someone breaking the law take your ire out on the police for their inaction then something just might be done. seamusl
  • Score: 18

9:55am Fri 18 Oct 13

TobyB1960 says...

oafie wrote:
same old same old cyclists just will not accept that they just cannot do as they wish................

....motorists are frequented stopped educated and fined
Really! I wish that was the case in Oxford. Sitting in the bus on the way to work I see many motorists on the phone, putting on their make-up, reading the paper, eating their breakfast while driving. Yet I don't see any police officer pulling them over and giving them a penalty ticket.
[quote][p][bold]oafie[/bold] wrote: same old same old cyclists just will not accept that they just cannot do as they wish................ ....motorists are frequented stopped educated and fined[/p][/quote]Really! I wish that was the case in Oxford. Sitting in the bus on the way to work I see many motorists on the phone, putting on their make-up, reading the paper, eating their breakfast while driving. Yet I don't see any police officer pulling them over and giving them a penalty ticket. TobyB1960
  • Score: 7

9:57am Fri 18 Oct 13

TobyB1960 says...

faatmaan wrote:
normally this forum is full of cyclists in denial, the highway code is effectively law, as enshrined in the road traffic act of the day. Obedience of all road users is the key to safety for all.
Same old couch potato with nothing new to added to the debate.
[quote][p][bold]faatmaan[/bold] wrote: normally this forum is full of cyclists in denial, the highway code is effectively law, as enshrined in the road traffic act of the day. Obedience of all road users is the key to safety for all.[/p][/quote]Same old couch potato with nothing new to added to the debate. TobyB1960
  • Score: 6

10:18am Fri 18 Oct 13

TobyB1960 says...

livid99 wrote:
grandconjuration wrote:
I don't see any comments stating that cyclists shouldn't obey the rules of the road that apply to them.

Read the comments! The first two from Danny A and museli fully support the policing of cyclist behavior. However, they do object to comments in this article relating to helmet use; as discussed above, the wearing of a cycling helmet is not mandatory and helmet use should not be included in a news article in a way that presents it has being illegal.

"The campaign has seen police stop cyclists in Broad Street and point out the importance of sticking to road rules, wearing a helmet and using lights." Sticking to road rules, yes. Using lights, yes. Wearing a helmet - not a reason for police to stop cyclists or provide any advice because it is entirely lawful not to wear one.
"I don't see any comments stating that cyclists shouldn't obey the rules of the road that apply to them."
So ? Maybe no-one has said that here......doesn't mean it doesn't happen does it ? The number of minus points that any comment here criticising cyclists get is quite interesting. It clearly confirms that many of those who ride bicycles think they can do what they want on the road (go through red lights, not stop at crossings etc) and then get all offended and defensive and if anyone dares to suggest they should obey the same rules that other road users have to abide by. You can deny it all you like, but many cyclists in Oxford clearly think they are above the law, and if the police start cracking down on them and handing out fines then its only what they deserve.
Some cyclists do break the law and so do some motorists. The problem is when a motorist breaks the law the consequences are much greater.

Take the example of cycling on footways which some younger and inexperienced cyclists do. Yet 40-50 pedestrians are killed each because a motor vehicle was driving on a footway. Yet it’s clear to everybody a motor vehicle shouldn’t be on a footway and some motorists still persist.

What concerns cyclists is the focus on bad behaviour by some cyclists is an excuse to ignore the lethal behaviour by some motorists. Yes cycling standards of behaviour do need to improve but before you start throwing stones, do have a look at the standards of motorists around you who kill 2,500 each year.
[quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: I don't see any comments stating that cyclists shouldn't obey the rules of the road that apply to them. Read the comments! The first two from Danny A and museli fully support the policing of cyclist behavior. However, they do object to comments in this article relating to helmet use; as discussed above, the wearing of a cycling helmet is not mandatory and helmet use should not be included in a news article in a way that presents it has being illegal. "The campaign has seen police stop cyclists in Broad Street and point out the importance of sticking to road rules, wearing a helmet and using lights." Sticking to road rules, yes. Using lights, yes. Wearing a helmet - not a reason for police to stop cyclists or provide any advice because it is entirely lawful not to wear one.[/p][/quote]"I don't see any comments stating that cyclists shouldn't obey the rules of the road that apply to them." So ? Maybe no-one has said that here......doesn't mean it doesn't happen does it ? The number of minus points that any comment here criticising cyclists get is quite interesting. It clearly confirms that many of those who ride bicycles think they can do what they want on the road (go through red lights, not stop at crossings etc) and then get all offended and defensive and if anyone dares to suggest they should obey the same rules that other road users have to abide by. You can deny it all you like, but many cyclists in Oxford clearly think they are above the law, and if the police start cracking down on them and handing out fines then its only what they deserve.[/p][/quote]Some cyclists do break the law and so do some motorists. The problem is when a motorist breaks the law the consequences are much greater. Take the example of cycling on footways which some younger and inexperienced cyclists do. Yet 40-50 pedestrians are killed each because a motor vehicle was driving on a footway. Yet it’s clear to everybody a motor vehicle shouldn’t be on a footway and some motorists still persist. What concerns cyclists is the focus on bad behaviour by some cyclists is an excuse to ignore the lethal behaviour by some motorists. Yes cycling standards of behaviour do need to improve but before you start throwing stones, do have a look at the standards of motorists around you who kill 2,500 each year. TobyB1960
  • Score: 6

2:10pm Fri 18 Oct 13

seamusl says...

By the way I stopped at the wee police tent in Broad Street on the first of the two days and got a leaflet off an officer (immobilise web site), whilst in conversation with her the only conversations I overheard between officers and cyclists were of the importance of registering their cycles on the national immobilise web site to make them more traceable, I look forward to a police road block on The Plain for all road users (including pedestrians) to have the errors of their ways explained to them. Future rants to include Bus drivers going through red lights (I am also a bus user and have witnessed this), bus drivers leaving their engines running for longer than the recommended maximum and so on, I shall have to give up work to handle all the comments postings. :-)
By the way I stopped at the wee police tent in Broad Street on the first of the two days and got a leaflet off an officer (immobilise web site), whilst in conversation with her the only conversations I overheard between officers and cyclists were of the importance of registering their cycles on the national immobilise web site to make them more traceable, I look forward to a police road block on The Plain for all road users (including pedestrians) to have the errors of their ways explained to them. Future rants to include Bus drivers going through red lights (I am also a bus user and have witnessed this), bus drivers leaving their engines running for longer than the recommended maximum and so on, I shall have to give up work to handle all the comments postings. :-) seamusl
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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