Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: mileburner on 27 Nov 2009 07:33 "NM" <nik.morgan(a)mac.com> wrote in message news:2f6f6db0-624c-481b-86fa-5b5f2b56f2da(a)m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On 27 Nov, 09:35, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> >> I agree, if you force them onto the roads, it will slow down the traffic >> and >> make it safer for everyone. > > And the attrition rate amoungst cyclists will increase. Would it? I am not convinced. I know there is a strong argument for creating cycle facilities to encourage timid cyclists and children to cycle, but for the majority of commuter and sport cyclists they do not use the footpaths anyway. The footpaths really are too dangerous for any speed much faster than walking pace.
From: mileburner on 27 Nov 2009 07:37 "Peter Grange" <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:apcvg5hk8ofq8in9cdc8oe0098v2uoeilq(a)4ax.com... > > Not if the traffic speed decreases enough it won't. Heart attacks at > the wheel for drivers might increase though, if a silly argument is > what you want. Interestingly, the most common excuse that I hear from people not to cycle is that it is too dangerous because "the traffic goes too fast". Personally I find that the traffic often only goes as fast as you allow it to and the danger comes from drivers getting *too close* and not driving *too fast*.
From: Adrian on 27 Nov 2009 07:39 "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > In relation to "Road Tax" The cyclist may have already paid it for the > years when he ran a car (In fact they may still run a car but is using a > bicycle by choice). So why should they not get priority over younger > drivers? So, by extension, I should be able to use a car from hereon in without renewing my VED, because I've paid in the past? > Bizarre isn't it? Your logic certainly is.
From: Adrian on 27 Nov 2009 07:40 "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > Interestingly, the most common excuse that I hear from people not to > cycle is that it is too dangerous because "the traffic goes too fast". > Personally I find that the traffic often only goes as fast as you allow > it to and the danger comes from drivers getting *too close* and not > driving *too fast*. You think that, yes - because you're a competent cyclist with a clue about how to ride defensively. That's the basic problem. Most people don't know how to ride safely. Because they've never been taught to. It's good to see that you agree that some form of "cyclist licence", granted after passing a test, is a good idea.
From: mileburner on 27 Nov 2009 07:49
"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:7n9vj9F3l653pU17(a)mid.individual.net... > "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much > like they were saying: > >> In relation to "Road Tax" The cyclist may have already paid it for the >> years when he ran a car (In fact they may still run a car but is using a >> bicycle by choice). So why should they not get priority over younger >> drivers? > > So, by extension, I should be able to use a car from hereon in without > renewing my VED, because I've paid in the past? > >> Bizarre isn't it? > > Your logic certainly is. Exactly! You pay VED to allow you to put a vehicle on public roads for the duration of the licence. The roads are available to all to use. You pay NI contributions according to your earned income. NHS healthcare is available to all. |