Bike sales surge as Tour de France approaches

York Press: A bike try-out event hosted by Get Cycling at the York Cycling Festival A bike try-out event hosted by Get Cycling at the York Cycling Festival

BIKE shops in York have recorded a big rise in sales as the region prepares to welcome the Tour de France.

Various shops and related businesses across the city said business is booming as North Yorkshire prepares to welcome the Grand Depart.

Businesses have noticed a marked increase in the popularity of cycling in recent months and years and said they hope the trend will continue.

Nicola Doody, of Giant Store York in Lord Mayor's Walk said it had noticed a "significant growth in sales" which has exceeded expectations, with the Grand Depart playing a part with some customers.

She said: "The type of sales that have increased as a result of the pros coming to the roads of Yorkshire tend to be road bike sales to newcomers to road cycling, and functional cyclists who have been inspired to take up cycling as a recreational sport rather just as a way of commuting."

Bernie Cullen, founder and director of the Bike Rescue Project in Wellington Row, said it has been inundated with customers.

She said: "There has been a non stop queue of people asking for bikes, who knows if this is just a bubble. It will take long term changes in infrastructure and attitude to make cycling a first class choice of transport, and it would be great if the Tour de France was part of that shift in Yorkshire".

They have been deluged with people donating bikes as they are getting new ones, enabling the organisation to give bikes to the Margaret Carey Foundation which are fixed by prisoners and sent to third world countries. Meanwhile, its scrap bikes have been sprayed yellow and are now all over North Yorkshire.

Jim McGurn, the chief executive of Get Cycling in Hospital Fields Road, said it had noticed that sales were up a little, however he said: "The big story is our events department: our bike try-out roadshows for local authorities and corporate are up by 30 per cent. On some days we are running six roadshows in different parts of the country on the same day. We’re back to pre-2008 levels of bookings and have taken on six extra members of staff to cope."

Meanwhile, Carol Walker, of Shannons Cycle Centre in Boroughbridge Road, said: "We do think the tour has helped boost people’s interest in cycling but there also has a definite increase in sales since the Olympics and the increased mainstream coverage of the tour over the last few years and people becoming familiar with personalities involved in the tour such as Bradley Wiggins and of course their success recently had helped with that."

She said the business had seen a rise in families cycling together and more people doing charity rides and getting involved in sporting events such as sprint triathlons.

- The Bike Rescue Project currently has some apprenticeships running, and there is funding for mechanical training available via the Tour de France legacy fund.

As there is a marked lack of women involved in cycling, the organisation has emphasised that girls or women wanting mechanical training will be made to feel welcomed and supported. Anyone who is interested should visit www.yorkshire.com/tdfworkshops or call the project on 01904 733789.

Comments (18)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:11am Thu 26 Jun 14

pedalling paul says...

All music to my ears........
All music to my ears........ pedalling paul
  • Score: 38

8:30am Thu 26 Jun 14

Micklegate says...

They don't actually tell us the level that 'booming' or the rather different 'marked increase' equate to though. Sales are bound to rise, not least to replace all the bikes everyone seems to have painted yellow!
They don't actually tell us the level that 'booming' or the rather different 'marked increase' equate to though. Sales are bound to rise, not least to replace all the bikes everyone seems to have painted yellow! Micklegate
  • Score: 8

8:52am Thu 26 Jun 14

smudge2 says...

pedalling paul wrote:
All music to my ears........
Sensible comment at last Paul ..After your last spy camera comment mistake you are finally learning hopefully.???
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: All music to my ears........[/p][/quote]Sensible comment at last Paul ..After your last spy camera comment mistake you are finally learning hopefully.??? smudge2
  • Score: -2

9:01am Thu 26 Jun 14

Woody G Mellor says...

I bought a brand new bike a couple of weeks ago. And It had absolutely nothing, whatsoever to do with the Tour de France.
I bought a brand new bike a couple of weeks ago. And It had absolutely nothing, whatsoever to do with the Tour de France. Woody G Mellor
  • Score: 12

10:04am Thu 26 Jun 14

Dave Ruddock says...

Cycle sales increase due ti the Cycle Thieves in full swing, Tour De fragle rock event,. As for the Yellow Bike Plague, when dose the council or whoever going to take down and dispose of those bikes . York has during the last 100 years been a great cycle city.

Get the Police to Investigate these cycle thefts,

do people remember the days of cycle mayhem (2 Chocolate factories, BR Engine, Carriage works etc etc )
Cycle sales increase due ti the Cycle Thieves in full swing, Tour De fragle rock event,. As for the Yellow Bike Plague, when dose the council or whoever going to take down and dispose of those bikes . York has during the last 100 years been a great cycle city. Get the Police to Investigate these cycle thefts, do people remember the days of cycle mayhem (2 Chocolate factories, BR Engine, Carriage works etc etc ) Dave Ruddock
  • Score: 3

10:55am Thu 26 Jun 14

sheps lad says...

Cycle mayhem? I well remember the days when cyclists forced their way into the traffic on Holgate Rd when leaving the carriage works. It was the ultimate game of chicken!
Cycle mayhem? I well remember the days when cyclists forced their way into the traffic on Holgate Rd when leaving the carriage works. It was the ultimate game of chicken! sheps lad
  • Score: 8

11:21am Thu 26 Jun 14

bolero says...

I don't class all cyclists the same but I have noticed an increase in cycle usage. Every purchaser of a new cycle should by law be issued with a copy of the Highway Code; and this could equally apply to all users of road vehicles; but for some reason cyclists seem to think that they are totally immune to accidents and can just ride along two abreast in situations where the Highway Code specifically instructs on the correct manner of cycling. Cycles loaded down with shopping and various other items which again are advised against in the interests of safety. Cycling whilst phoning and texting. It's also time that wearing of safety helmets and the attachment of a bell or horn to the cycle was made compulsory. Yes, as a motorist I do respect other road users whatever their mode of transport but please cyclists stop just being plain stupid and remember that you are in a very vulnerable situation when you take to the road and start acting responsibly.
I don't class all cyclists the same but I have noticed an increase in cycle usage. Every purchaser of a new cycle should by law be issued with a copy of the Highway Code; and this could equally apply to all users of road vehicles; but for some reason cyclists seem to think that they are totally immune to accidents and can just ride along two abreast in situations where the Highway Code specifically instructs on the correct manner of cycling. Cycles loaded down with shopping and various other items which again are advised against in the interests of safety. Cycling whilst phoning and texting. It's also time that wearing of safety helmets and the attachment of a bell or horn to the cycle was made compulsory. Yes, as a motorist I do respect other road users whatever their mode of transport but please cyclists stop just being plain stupid and remember that you are in a very vulnerable situation when you take to the road and start acting responsibly. bolero
  • Score: 9

3:11pm Thu 26 Jun 14

pedalling paul says...

Perhaps the day will come when car occupants have to wear helmets. After al, they suffer a far greater amount of head injury in collisions. And pedestrians are not far behind cyclists in the bonce bashing stakes, so maybe suits of armour for them.
Perhaps the day will come when car occupants have to wear helmets. After al, they suffer a far greater amount of head injury in collisions. And pedestrians are not far behind cyclists in the bonce bashing stakes, so maybe suits of armour for them. pedalling paul
  • Score: -6

5:21pm Thu 26 Jun 14

smudge2 says...

After Al. ??..Who is Al and did he suffer form a head injury..Please explain.
After Al. ??..Who is Al and did he suffer form a head injury..Please explain. smudge2
  • Score: 0

6:30pm Thu 26 Jun 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Micklegate wrote:
They don't actually tell us the level that 'booming' or the rather different 'marked increase' equate to though. Sales are bound to rise, not least to replace all the bikes everyone seems to have painted yellow!
You obviously know very little about where most of the yellow bikes are coming from.

And if very few folk are painting up their knackered and useless ones that they can't ride and then having to buy decent new ones after, then all the good.

Soooo.... Political bias for you? Or anti-bike bias? Just asking...
[quote][p][bold]Micklegate[/bold] wrote: They don't actually tell us the level that 'booming' or the rather different 'marked increase' equate to though. Sales are bound to rise, not least to replace all the bikes everyone seems to have painted yellow![/p][/quote]You obviously know very little about where most of the yellow bikes are coming from. And if very few folk are painting up their knackered and useless ones that they can't ride and then having to buy decent new ones after, then all the good. Soooo.... Political bias for you? Or anti-bike bias? Just asking... Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: -4

9:09pm Thu 26 Jun 14

bolero says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Perhaps the day will come when car occupants have to wear helmets. After al, they suffer a far greater amount of head injury in collisions. And pedestrians are not far behind cyclists in the bonce bashing stakes, so maybe suits of armour for them.
A typical defensive but senseless reply. I take it that you do not agree with cyclists abiding by the law or acting in a sensible manner. Shame on you and a bad example to your fellow cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Perhaps the day will come when car occupants have to wear helmets. After al, they suffer a far greater amount of head injury in collisions. And pedestrians are not far behind cyclists in the bonce bashing stakes, so maybe suits of armour for them.[/p][/quote]A typical defensive but senseless reply. I take it that you do not agree with cyclists abiding by the law or acting in a sensible manner. Shame on you and a bad example to your fellow cyclists. bolero
  • Score: 3

7:21am Fri 27 Jun 14

pedalling paul says...

bolero wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Perhaps the day will come when car occupants have to wear helmets. After al, they suffer a far greater amount of head injury in collisions. And pedestrians are not far behind cyclists in the bonce bashing stakes, so maybe suits of armour for them.
A typical defensive but senseless reply. I take it that you do not agree with cyclists abiding by the law or acting in a sensible manner. Shame on you and a bad example to your fellow cyclists.
I support all measures that encourage the law breaking minority of cyclists to obey the law & Highway Code. I was commenting specifically above about helmets whose limited and oft overstated effectiveness must remain a personal choice

May I commend to first time cyclists the extensive advice on the iTravel York website. A programme of local rides is run during the year by CoYC with volunteer support. 1 to 1 urban riding training sessions are also available.
Also some valuable security advice. Don't let your new bike end up inthe hands of the local thieves
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Perhaps the day will come when car occupants have to wear helmets. After al, they suffer a far greater amount of head injury in collisions. And pedestrians are not far behind cyclists in the bonce bashing stakes, so maybe suits of armour for them.[/p][/quote]A typical defensive but senseless reply. I take it that you do not agree with cyclists abiding by the law or acting in a sensible manner. Shame on you and a bad example to your fellow cyclists.[/p][/quote]I support all measures that encourage the law breaking minority of cyclists to obey the law & Highway Code. I was commenting specifically above about helmets whose limited and oft overstated effectiveness must remain a personal choice May I commend to first time cyclists the extensive advice on the iTravel York website. A programme of local rides is run during the year by CoYC with volunteer support. 1 to 1 urban riding training sessions are also available. Also some valuable security advice. Don't let your new bike end up inthe hands of the local thieves pedalling paul
  • Score: 0

12:27pm Fri 27 Jun 14

bolero says...

Yet another blinkered reply from PP. for a start he would not be able to support his belief that the majority of cyclists are law abiding. Neither could I prove the reverse but certainly observation suggests that their are more law breakers than he would like to believe. But of course with those blinkers on he would not see them. His comment about helmets and motorists is just plain stupid. Remember this Paul, the motorist by law is required to` belt up` whether he/she likes it or not and I suggest you do the same.
Yet another blinkered reply from PP. for a start he would not be able to support his belief that the majority of cyclists are law abiding. Neither could I prove the reverse but certainly observation suggests that their are more law breakers than he would like to believe. But of course with those blinkers on he would not see them. His comment about helmets and motorists is just plain stupid. Remember this Paul, the motorist by law is required to` belt up` whether he/she likes it or not and I suggest you do the same. bolero
  • Score: 3

6:09pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

bolero wrote:
Yet another blinkered reply from PP. for a start he would not be able to support his belief that the majority of cyclists are law abiding. Neither could I prove the reverse but certainly observation suggests that their are more law breakers than he would like to believe. But of course with those blinkers on he would not see them. His comment about helmets and motorists is just plain stupid. Remember this Paul, the motorist by law is required to` belt up` whether he/she likes it or not and I suggest you do the same.
I'm not in the habit of backing up boring Paul, I do like to stick up for facts and sense.

certainly observation suggests...

Yes well certainly observation suggests all bus and taxi drivers are dangerous psychopaths.
Anecdotal waste of time.

His comment about helmets and motorists is just plain stupid. Remember this Paul, the motorist by law is required to` belt up`

Seat belts are irrelevant. Strap a rider to their bike and you would be signing their death warrant. They need to be able to get clear of their machine should anything happen. Think about it.

I believe what Paul is ineptly referring to regarding helmets is that a far higher percentage of casualties and deaths occur due to head injuries in motor vehicle accidents than the percentage for cyclist accidents. Something like 80% of motorists if I remember correctly.
The figures make a really good case for compulsory helmets for drivers.

Everyone's little peeves and prejudices aside, facts are good.
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: Yet another blinkered reply from PP. for a start he would not be able to support his belief that the majority of cyclists are law abiding. Neither could I prove the reverse but certainly observation suggests that their are more law breakers than he would like to believe. But of course with those blinkers on he would not see them. His comment about helmets and motorists is just plain stupid. Remember this Paul, the motorist by law is required to` belt up` whether he/she likes it or not and I suggest you do the same.[/p][/quote]I'm not in the habit of backing up boring Paul, I do like to stick up for facts and sense. [quote]certainly observation suggests...[/quote] Yes well certainly observation suggests all bus and taxi drivers are dangerous psychopaths. Anecdotal waste of time. [quote]His comment about helmets and motorists is just plain stupid. Remember this Paul, the motorist by law is required to` belt up`[/quote] Seat belts are irrelevant. Strap a rider to their bike and you would be signing their death warrant. They need to be able to get clear of their machine should anything happen. Think about it. I believe what Paul is ineptly referring to regarding helmets is that a far higher percentage of casualties and deaths occur due to head injuries in motor vehicle accidents than the percentage for cyclist accidents. Something like 80% of motorists if I remember correctly. The figures make a really good case for compulsory helmets for drivers. Everyone's little peeves and prejudices aside, facts are good. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 1

6:27pm Fri 27 Jun 14

bolero says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
bolero wrote:
Yet another blinkered reply from PP. for a start he would not be able to support his belief that the majority of cyclists are law abiding. Neither could I prove the reverse but certainly observation suggests that their are more law breakers than he would like to believe. But of course with those blinkers on he would not see them. His comment about helmets and motorists is just plain stupid. Remember this Paul, the motorist by law is required to` belt up` whether he/she likes it or not and I suggest you do the same.
I'm not in the habit of backing up boring Paul, I do like to stick up for facts and sense.

certainly observation suggests...

Yes well certainly observation suggests all bus and taxi drivers are dangerous psychopaths.
Anecdotal waste of time.

His comment about helmets and motorists is just plain stupid. Remember this Paul, the motorist by law is required to` belt up`

Seat belts are irrelevant. Strap a rider to their bike and you would be signing their death warrant. They need to be able to get clear of their machine should anything happen. Think about it.

I believe what Paul is ineptly referring to regarding helmets is that a far higher percentage of casualties and deaths occur due to head injuries in motor vehicle accidents than the percentage for cyclist accidents. Something like 80% of motorists if I remember correctly.
The figures make a really good case for compulsory helmets for drivers.

Everyone's little peeves and prejudices aside, facts are good.
I am not accountable for your peeves and prejudices. If it was deemed sensible to make the wearing of helmets by motorists mandatory then who's complaining? Of course there are going to be more injuries recorded as being sustained by motorists than by cyclists by virtue of the simple fact that there are many more motorists than cyclists. Another case, i'm afraid of desparation in defence of the cyclist and a sad desire to deny the facts and the truth.
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: Yet another blinkered reply from PP. for a start he would not be able to support his belief that the majority of cyclists are law abiding. Neither could I prove the reverse but certainly observation suggests that their are more law breakers than he would like to believe. But of course with those blinkers on he would not see them. His comment about helmets and motorists is just plain stupid. Remember this Paul, the motorist by law is required to` belt up` whether he/she likes it or not and I suggest you do the same.[/p][/quote]I'm not in the habit of backing up boring Paul, I do like to stick up for facts and sense. [quote]certainly observation suggests...[/quote] Yes well certainly observation suggests all bus and taxi drivers are dangerous psychopaths. Anecdotal waste of time. [quote]His comment about helmets and motorists is just plain stupid. Remember this Paul, the motorist by law is required to` belt up`[/quote] Seat belts are irrelevant. Strap a rider to their bike and you would be signing their death warrant. They need to be able to get clear of their machine should anything happen. Think about it. I believe what Paul is ineptly referring to regarding helmets is that a far higher percentage of casualties and deaths occur due to head injuries in motor vehicle accidents than the percentage for cyclist accidents. Something like 80% of motorists if I remember correctly. The figures make a really good case for compulsory helmets for drivers. Everyone's little peeves and prejudices aside, facts are good.[/p][/quote]I am not accountable for your peeves and prejudices. If it was deemed sensible to make the wearing of helmets by motorists mandatory then who's complaining? Of course there are going to be more injuries recorded as being sustained by motorists than by cyclists by virtue of the simple fact that there are many more motorists than cyclists. Another case, i'm afraid of desparation in defence of the cyclist and a sad desire to deny the facts and the truth. bolero
  • Score: 0

8:03pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

bolero wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
bolero wrote:
Yet another blinkered reply from PP. for a start he would not be able to support his belief that the majority of cyclists are law abiding. Neither could I prove the reverse but certainly observation suggests that their are more law breakers than he would like to believe. But of course with those blinkers on he would not see them. His comment about helmets and motorists is just plain stupid. Remember this Paul, the motorist by law is required to` belt up` whether he/she likes it or not and I suggest you do the same.
I'm not in the habit of backing up boring Paul, I do like to stick up for facts and sense.

certainly observation suggests...

Yes well certainly observation suggests all bus and taxi drivers are dangerous psychopaths.
Anecdotal waste of time.

His comment about helmets and motorists is just plain stupid. Remember this Paul, the motorist by law is required to` belt up`

Seat belts are irrelevant. Strap a rider to their bike and you would be signing their death warrant. They need to be able to get clear of their machine should anything happen. Think about it.

I believe what Paul is ineptly referring to regarding helmets is that a far higher percentage of casualties and deaths occur due to head injuries in motor vehicle accidents than the percentage for cyclist accidents. Something like 80% of motorists if I remember correctly.
The figures make a really good case for compulsory helmets for drivers.

Everyone's little peeves and prejudices aside, facts are good.
I am not accountable for your peeves and prejudices. If it was deemed sensible to make the wearing of helmets by motorists mandatory then who's complaining? Of course there are going to be more injuries recorded as being sustained by motorists than by cyclists by virtue of the simple fact that there are many more motorists than cyclists. Another case, i'm afraid of desparation in defence of the cyclist and a sad desire to deny the facts and the truth.
Not *my* peeves and prejudices - yours and Paul's as it happens.
You *are* accountable for your words here.

Of course there are going to be more injuries recorded as being sustained by motorists than by cyclists by virtue of the simple fact that there are many more

Key word in my post - percentage. OK?
Please don't demean and patronise us both by making me spell it out like a primary school teacher, Google is so accessible these days.

Another case, i'm afraid of desparation in defence of the cyclist and a sad desire to deny the facts and the truth.

Like I say, facts are good. I like facts. I like them a whole lot more than prejudice. Truth too, that's good n'all.
You are free to look at them both if you want, without your peeves and prejudices.
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: Yet another blinkered reply from PP. for a start he would not be able to support his belief that the majority of cyclists are law abiding. Neither could I prove the reverse but certainly observation suggests that their are more law breakers than he would like to believe. But of course with those blinkers on he would not see them. His comment about helmets and motorists is just plain stupid. Remember this Paul, the motorist by law is required to` belt up` whether he/she likes it or not and I suggest you do the same.[/p][/quote]I'm not in the habit of backing up boring Paul, I do like to stick up for facts and sense. [quote]certainly observation suggests...[/quote] Yes well certainly observation suggests all bus and taxi drivers are dangerous psychopaths. Anecdotal waste of time. [quote]His comment about helmets and motorists is just plain stupid. Remember this Paul, the motorist by law is required to` belt up`[/quote] Seat belts are irrelevant. Strap a rider to their bike and you would be signing their death warrant. They need to be able to get clear of their machine should anything happen. Think about it. I believe what Paul is ineptly referring to regarding helmets is that a far higher percentage of casualties and deaths occur due to head injuries in motor vehicle accidents than the percentage for cyclist accidents. Something like 80% of motorists if I remember correctly. The figures make a really good case for compulsory helmets for drivers. Everyone's little peeves and prejudices aside, facts are good.[/p][/quote]I am not accountable for your peeves and prejudices. If it was deemed sensible to make the wearing of helmets by motorists mandatory then who's complaining? Of course there are going to be more injuries recorded as being sustained by motorists than by cyclists by virtue of the simple fact that there are many more motorists than cyclists. Another case, i'm afraid of desparation in defence of the cyclist and a sad desire to deny the facts and the truth.[/p][/quote]Not *my* peeves and prejudices - yours and Paul's as it happens. You *are* accountable for your words here. [quote]Of course there are going to be more injuries recorded as being sustained by motorists than by cyclists by virtue of the simple fact that there are many more [/quote] Key word in my post - percentage. OK? Please don't demean and patronise us both by making me spell it out like a primary school teacher, Google is so accessible these days. [quote] Another case, i'm afraid of desparation in defence of the cyclist and a sad desire to deny the facts and the truth.[/quote] Like I say, facts are good. I like facts. I like them a whole lot more than prejudice. Truth too, that's good n'all. You are free to look at them both if you want, without your peeves and prejudices. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 1

9:14pm Fri 27 Jun 14

bolero says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
bolero wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
bolero wrote:
Yet another blinkered reply from PP. for a start he would not be able to support his belief that the majority of cyclists are law abiding. Neither could I prove the reverse but certainly observation suggests that their are more law breakers than he would like to believe. But of course with those blinkers on he would not see them. His comment about helmets and motorists is just plain stupid. Remember this Paul, the motorist by law is required to` belt up` whether he/she likes it or not and I suggest you do the same.
I'm not in the habit of backing up boring Paul, I do like to stick up for facts and sense.

certainly observation suggests...

Yes well certainly observation suggests all bus and taxi drivers are dangerous psychopaths.
Anecdotal waste of time.

His comment about helmets and motorists is just plain stupid. Remember this Paul, the motorist by law is required to` belt up`

Seat belts are irrelevant. Strap a rider to their bike and you would be signing their death warrant. They need to be able to get clear of their machine should anything happen. Think about it.

I believe what Paul is ineptly referring to regarding helmets is that a far higher percentage of casualties and deaths occur due to head injuries in motor vehicle accidents than the percentage for cyclist accidents. Something like 80% of motorists if I remember correctly.
The figures make a really good case for compulsory helmets for drivers.

Everyone's little peeves and prejudices aside, facts are good.
I am not accountable for your peeves and prejudices. If it was deemed sensible to make the wearing of helmets by motorists mandatory then who's complaining? Of course there are going to be more injuries recorded as being sustained by motorists than by cyclists by virtue of the simple fact that there are many more motorists than cyclists. Another case, i'm afraid of desparation in defence of the cyclist and a sad desire to deny the facts and the truth.
Not *my* peeves and prejudices - yours and Paul's as it happens.
You *are* accountable for your words here.

Of course there are going to be more injuries recorded as being sustained by motorists than by cyclists by virtue of the simple fact that there are many more

Key word in my post - percentage. OK?
Please don't demean and patronise us both by making me spell it out like a primary school teacher, Google is so accessible these days.

Another case, i'm afraid of desparation in defence of the cyclist and a sad desire to deny the facts and the truth.

Like I say, facts are good. I like facts. I like them a whole lot more than prejudice. Truth too, that's good n'all.
You are free to look at them both if you want, without your peeves and prejudices.
Deny,deny,deny in ignorance.
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: Yet another blinkered reply from PP. for a start he would not be able to support his belief that the majority of cyclists are law abiding. Neither could I prove the reverse but certainly observation suggests that their are more law breakers than he would like to believe. But of course with those blinkers on he would not see them. His comment about helmets and motorists is just plain stupid. Remember this Paul, the motorist by law is required to` belt up` whether he/she likes it or not and I suggest you do the same.[/p][/quote]I'm not in the habit of backing up boring Paul, I do like to stick up for facts and sense. [quote]certainly observation suggests...[/quote] Yes well certainly observation suggests all bus and taxi drivers are dangerous psychopaths. Anecdotal waste of time. [quote]His comment about helmets and motorists is just plain stupid. Remember this Paul, the motorist by law is required to` belt up`[/quote] Seat belts are irrelevant. Strap a rider to their bike and you would be signing their death warrant. They need to be able to get clear of their machine should anything happen. Think about it. I believe what Paul is ineptly referring to regarding helmets is that a far higher percentage of casualties and deaths occur due to head injuries in motor vehicle accidents than the percentage for cyclist accidents. Something like 80% of motorists if I remember correctly. The figures make a really good case for compulsory helmets for drivers. Everyone's little peeves and prejudices aside, facts are good.[/p][/quote]I am not accountable for your peeves and prejudices. If it was deemed sensible to make the wearing of helmets by motorists mandatory then who's complaining? Of course there are going to be more injuries recorded as being sustained by motorists than by cyclists by virtue of the simple fact that there are many more motorists than cyclists. Another case, i'm afraid of desparation in defence of the cyclist and a sad desire to deny the facts and the truth.[/p][/quote]Not *my* peeves and prejudices - yours and Paul's as it happens. You *are* accountable for your words here. [quote]Of course there are going to be more injuries recorded as being sustained by motorists than by cyclists by virtue of the simple fact that there are many more [/quote] Key word in my post - percentage. OK? Please don't demean and patronise us both by making me spell it out like a primary school teacher, Google is so accessible these days. [quote] Another case, i'm afraid of desparation in defence of the cyclist and a sad desire to deny the facts and the truth.[/quote] Like I say, facts are good. I like facts. I like them a whole lot more than prejudice. Truth too, that's good n'all. You are free to look at them both if you want, without your peeves and prejudices.[/p][/quote]Deny,deny,deny in ignorance. bolero
  • Score: -1

11:10am Sat 28 Jun 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

bolero wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
bolero wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
bolero wrote:
Yet another blinkered reply from PP. for a start he would not be able to support his belief that the majority of cyclists are law abiding. Neither could I prove the reverse but certainly observation suggests that their are more law breakers than he would like to believe. But of course with those blinkers on he would not see them. His comment about helmets and motorists is just plain stupid. Remember this Paul, the motorist by law is required to` belt up` whether he/she likes it or not and I suggest you do the same.
I'm not in the habit of backing up boring Paul, I do like to stick up for facts and sense.

certainly observation suggests...

Yes well certainly observation suggests all bus and taxi drivers are dangerous psychopaths.
Anecdotal waste of time.

His comment about helmets and motorists is just plain stupid. Remember this Paul, the motorist by law is required to` belt up`

Seat belts are irrelevant. Strap a rider to their bike and you would be signing their death warrant. They need to be able to get clear of their machine should anything happen. Think about it.

I believe what Paul is ineptly referring to regarding helmets is that a far higher percentage of casualties and deaths occur due to head injuries in motor vehicle accidents than the percentage for cyclist accidents. Something like 80% of motorists if I remember correctly.
The figures make a really good case for compulsory helmets for drivers.

Everyone's little peeves and prejudices aside, facts are good.
I am not accountable for your peeves and prejudices. If it was deemed sensible to make the wearing of helmets by motorists mandatory then who's complaining? Of course there are going to be more injuries recorded as being sustained by motorists than by cyclists by virtue of the simple fact that there are many more motorists than cyclists. Another case, i'm afraid of desparation in defence of the cyclist and a sad desire to deny the facts and the truth.
Not *my* peeves and prejudices - yours and Paul's as it happens.
You *are* accountable for your words here.

Of course there are going to be more injuries recorded as being sustained by motorists than by cyclists by virtue of the simple fact that there are many more

Key word in my post - percentage. OK?
Please don't demean and patronise us both by making me spell it out like a primary school teacher, Google is so accessible these days.

Another case, i'm afraid of desparation in defence of the cyclist and a sad desire to deny the facts and the truth.

Like I say, facts are good. I like facts. I like them a whole lot more than prejudice. Truth too, that's good n'all.
You are free to look at them both if you want, without your peeves and prejudices.
Deny,deny,deny in ignorance.
Woefully deliberate ignorance on your part.
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: Yet another blinkered reply from PP. for a start he would not be able to support his belief that the majority of cyclists are law abiding. Neither could I prove the reverse but certainly observation suggests that their are more law breakers than he would like to believe. But of course with those blinkers on he would not see them. His comment about helmets and motorists is just plain stupid. Remember this Paul, the motorist by law is required to` belt up` whether he/she likes it or not and I suggest you do the same.[/p][/quote]I'm not in the habit of backing up boring Paul, I do like to stick up for facts and sense. [quote]certainly observation suggests...[/quote] Yes well certainly observation suggests all bus and taxi drivers are dangerous psychopaths. Anecdotal waste of time. [quote]His comment about helmets and motorists is just plain stupid. Remember this Paul, the motorist by law is required to` belt up`[/quote] Seat belts are irrelevant. Strap a rider to their bike and you would be signing their death warrant. They need to be able to get clear of their machine should anything happen. Think about it. I believe what Paul is ineptly referring to regarding helmets is that a far higher percentage of casualties and deaths occur due to head injuries in motor vehicle accidents than the percentage for cyclist accidents. Something like 80% of motorists if I remember correctly. The figures make a really good case for compulsory helmets for drivers. Everyone's little peeves and prejudices aside, facts are good.[/p][/quote]I am not accountable for your peeves and prejudices. If it was deemed sensible to make the wearing of helmets by motorists mandatory then who's complaining? Of course there are going to be more injuries recorded as being sustained by motorists than by cyclists by virtue of the simple fact that there are many more motorists than cyclists. Another case, i'm afraid of desparation in defence of the cyclist and a sad desire to deny the facts and the truth.[/p][/quote]Not *my* peeves and prejudices - yours and Paul's as it happens. You *are* accountable for your words here. [quote]Of course there are going to be more injuries recorded as being sustained by motorists than by cyclists by virtue of the simple fact that there are many more [/quote] Key word in my post - percentage. OK? Please don't demean and patronise us both by making me spell it out like a primary school teacher, Google is so accessible these days. [quote] Another case, i'm afraid of desparation in defence of the cyclist and a sad desire to deny the facts and the truth.[/quote] Like I say, facts are good. I like facts. I like them a whole lot more than prejudice. Truth too, that's good n'all. You are free to look at them both if you want, without your peeves and prejudices.[/p][/quote]Deny,deny,deny in ignorance.[/p][/quote]Woefully deliberate ignorance on your part. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: -4

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