Call for bicycles to be licensed
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Wiltshire gang jailed for 'half UK's caravan thefts'
Next: Compare the Market dot com are pants.
From: S on 21 Mar 2010 13:09 On Mar 18, 1:03 am, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam- blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > S wrote: > > On Mar 15, 11:30 pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam- > > blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >> S wrote: > >>> On Mar 13, 4:27 pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam- > >>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >>>> Mike Smith wrote: > >>>>> I will never pay a licence fee to ride my bicycle. Let the wimps > >>>>> fall in line if they feel bullied into doing so. > > >>>> Shouldn't be surprised by this comment. Cyclists are habitual law > >>>> breakers. > > >>> As are motorists. > > >> Only in your weird deluded mind. > > > Are you a member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists to make such a > > diagnosis? > > Are you a member of the human race? Sorry, my mistake, you are a cyclist & > therefore scum. > > > I assure you that law breaking by motorists is common, if you open > > your eyes, you will see plenty of it. > > I used to cover 40,000 miles a year. I trust your views are based on > similar experience? You don't even need to drive yourself to see how other people drive. I can see from my living room the people driving the wrong way on my street or going through the red light. > > 1. Running red lights. Amber to most motorists seems to mean "speed > > up" instead of "stop", and people accelerate even when it is clear > > that they will never make it before the light turns red. There are > > also many who *start* to turn right just after the light turns red. > > Red to 100% of psycholists means "it doesn't apply to me". Motorists can be > identified on camera & prosequted. Cyclists can't. There are no red light cameras around here. If there were, there would not be any bus service left.
From: S on 21 Mar 2010 13:19 On Mar 20, 7:46 pm, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: > S wrote: > > On Mar 18, 8:17 am, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: > >> S wrote: > > >> [ ... ] > > >>> 2. Driving in the wrong direction in a one-way street. I live in a one- > >>> way street and see plenty of it, there have been at least two crashes > >>> as well. Last year the water company dug up the entrance, so there > >>> should have been no traffic except for cars already parked on the > >>> street leaving. Instead of this there was a steady stream of cars > >>> entering at the wrong end, driving down the street, seeing their exit > >>> was blocked and turning around. > >> Whereas, presumably, they should have sat in their vehicles patiently, > >> waiting for the roadworks to end in however many weeks' or months' time, so > >> that they could get out again. Give 'em a chance to lose a bit of weight, at > >> least, eh? > > > Read my post again. The *entrance* was dug up. All the cars came in > > through the exit end, with road markings, no left/right turn signs and > > a big red "No entry" sign. Is it too much to expect of motorists to > > notice at least one these three things? > > I saw that. Is it your position that digging up of one end of a one-way > street effectively closes the whole street to all non-pedestrian traffic for > the duration? And that those who had legitimate business there (perhaps > getting to their driveways/garages or parking outside their homes) simply > could not do so? There are no driveways or garages or parking outside homes, it is an urban area with double yellow lines on both sides. Loading or unloading is allowed, but the people driving on the street in contravention of the "no entry" sign were clearly hoping to use the street as a shortcut, and it was not just a single confused driver, but one every few minutes. > As I asked: > > > > >> Was the one-way order still operative for the duration of the period when the > >> street was a cul-de sac? If o, one has to wonder about the sanity of the > >> authorities in your area
From: The Medway Handyman on 21 Mar 2010 14:08 S wrote: > On Mar 20, 7:46 pm, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >> S wrote: >>> On Mar 18, 8:17 am, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >>>> S wrote: >> >>>> [ ... ] >> >>>>> 2. Driving in the wrong direction in a one-way street. I live in >>>>> a one- way street and see plenty of it, there have been at least >>>>> two crashes as well. Last year the water company dug up the >>>>> entrance, so there should have been no traffic except for cars >>>>> already parked on the street leaving. Instead of this there was a >>>>> steady stream of cars entering at the wrong end, driving down the >>>>> street, seeing their exit was blocked and turning around. >>>> Whereas, presumably, they should have sat in their vehicles >>>> patiently, waiting for the roadworks to end in however many weeks' >>>> or months' time, so that they could get out again. Give 'em a >>>> chance to lose a bit of weight, at least, eh? >> >>> Read my post again. The *entrance* was dug up. All the cars came in >>> through the exit end, with road markings, no left/right turn signs >>> and a big red "No entry" sign. Is it too much to expect of >>> motorists to notice at least one these three things? >> >> I saw that. Is it your position that digging up of one end of a >> one-way street effectively closes the whole street to all >> non-pedestrian traffic for the duration? And that those who had >> legitimate business there (perhaps getting to their >> driveways/garages or parking outside their homes) simply could not >> do so? > > There are no driveways or garages or parking outside homes, it is an > urban area with double yellow lines on both sides. Loading or > unloading is allowed, but the people driving on the street in > contravention of the "no entry" sign were clearly hoping to use the > street as a shortcut, and it was not just a single confused driver, > but one every few minutes. All pigs fed & ready to fly. -- Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.
From: JNugent on 21 Mar 2010 14:43
S wrote: > On Mar 20, 7:46 pm, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >> S wrote: >>> On Mar 18, 8:17 am, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >>>> S wrote: >>>> [ ... ] >>>>> 2. Driving in the wrong direction in a one-way street. I live in a one- >>>>> way street and see plenty of it, there have been at least two crashes >>>>> as well. Last year the water company dug up the entrance, so there >>>>> should have been no traffic except for cars already parked on the >>>>> street leaving. Instead of this there was a steady stream of cars >>>>> entering at the wrong end, driving down the street, seeing their exit >>>>> was blocked and turning around. >>>> Whereas, presumably, they should have sat in their vehicles patiently, >>>> waiting for the roadworks to end in however many weeks' or months' time, so >>>> that they could get out again. Give 'em a chance to lose a bit of weight, at >>>> least, eh? >>> Read my post again. The *entrance* was dug up. All the cars came in >>> through the exit end, with road markings, no left/right turn signs and >>> a big red "No entry" sign. Is it too much to expect of motorists to >>> notice at least one these three things? >> I saw that. Is it your position that digging up of one end of a one-way >> street effectively closes the whole street to all non-pedestrian traffic for >> the duration? And that those who had legitimate business there (perhaps >> getting to their driveways/garages or parking outside their homes) simply >> could not do so? > > There are no driveways or garages or parking outside homes, it is an > urban area with double yellow lines on both sides. Loading or > unloading is allowed, but the people driving on the street in > contravention of the "no entry" sign were clearly hoping to use the > street as a shortcut, and it was not just a single confused driver, > but one every few minutes. Do you think they might have tried entry from the "correct" end, and, finding that not possible because the road was dug up at that end (as you describe it), assumed that the authorities had behaved reasonably and suspended the one-way status of what was now a cul-de-sac? It's never a safe assumption, of course. |