Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: Adrian on 16 Dec 2009 13:20 "MasonS(a)BP.com" <MasonS(a)BP.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> Why shouldn't cyclists pass a test of competance, be identified easily >> & have compulsory insurance? We could easily cover the admin costs by >> charging a fee - we could call it Road Tax. > Yes, we could call it the "cycling proficiency test" and "home insurance > third part cover". Oh silly me, we've already had them for decades. Since when was a cycle proficiency test compulsory? Does it even still exist as a reasonably popular school-arranged activity? Come to that, since when did home insurance policies - even ignoring those that may not cover cyclists - become compulsory?
From: The Medway Handyman on 16 Dec 2009 13:35 mileburner wrote: > "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in > message news:qVSVm.15623$Ym4.9384(a)text.news.virginmedia.com... > >> More likely it became part of the lexicon becouse so many people >> think cyclists are wankers. > > Sorry to interrupt, I was taking a break from participating in this > mindless inane drivel but I was just wondering, why is it that Mr > Medway is currently the most prolific poster on a cycling group, but > he seems to have little interest in cycling and all he does is deride > cyclists? I like deriding cyclists. > AFAIK its a driving group. > Cycling is not a Bad Thing. Oh yes it is. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: The Medway Handyman on 16 Dec 2009 13:40 MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: > On 15 Dec, 21:12, "The Medway Handyman" > <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> DavidR wrote: >>> "Judith M Smith" <judithmsm...(a)live.co.uk> wrote >>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:44:03 +0000, Peter Grange >> >>>>>> I have written with my suggestions and my MP is very interested - >>>>>> they will be taken up with the DfT: >> >>>>>> All cyclists over 16 who wish to ride on public roads must take >>>>>> and pass a written test based on the Highway Code and basic cycle >>>>>> maintenance; passing the test entitles them to a cycle licence >>>>>> and gives them a cyclist registration number. >> >>>>>> Cyclists over the age of 16 must not ride on public roads unless >>>>>> they possess a cycle licence. >> >>>>>> Cyclists over the age of 16 must not ride on public roads unless >>>>>> they possess third party liability insurance. >> >>>>>> Cyclists over the age of 16 must only ride cycles which conform >>>>>> to some required standards when on public roads >> >>>>>> Cyclists over the age of 16 must not ride on public roads unless >>>>>> they wear a hi-viz outer garment (or slip on vest) on the back of >>>>>> which is clearly displayed their cyclist registration number. >> >>>>>> The cycles of habitual cycling law breakers will be confiscated >>>>>> and crushed. >> >>>>>> (With many thanks to KeithT for the ideas) >> >>>>> And you have every right to do that, but I repeat, why don't you >>>>> put your stupid proposals to them instead of posting like a prat >>>>> here. >> >>>> I am sorry - I thought that cyclists may be interested in ideas >>>> which may affect their future. >> >>>> Is this not the case? >> >>> Well... you have merely produced a child's Christmas present list. >>> For each item in the list, how about telling us what you think the >>> problem is and why you think your idea will help to solve it? >> >> Perhaps you could tell us why you object so strongly to a perfectly >> reasonable concept? >> >> Why shouldn't cyclists pass a test of competance, be identified >> easily & have compulsory insurance? We could easily cover the admin >> costs by charging a fee - we could call it Road Tax. >> >> -- >> Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Yes, we could call it the "cycling proficiency test" and "home > insurance third part cover". Oh silly me, we've already had them for > decades. "cycling proficiency test"? Thats the one ickle kiddies take in the school playground? I told you bikes were for kids not adults. And don't witter on about your home insurance covering you for riding a bike - we all know its bollox. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: The Medway Handyman on 16 Dec 2009 14:26 MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: > On 16 Dec, 10:07, Happi Monday <ha...(a)munday.com> wrote: >> paul george wrote: >>> On 15 Dec, 12:31, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >>>> Peter Grange wrote: >> >>>>> Oi, what's wrong withGillingham? >>>> Nothing. Nice little place in Dorset, on the way to more important >>>> places. >> >>> No, that's Gillingham, he said Gillingham. >> >> I meant gil'ham, home of the Chav, and worse, home of the lovely >> Chavette. > > Chatham is home of the Chav. > > "However one of many suggested 'origins' for the word 'Chav' was that > it is an abbreviation of 'Chatham Average', alluding to a public > perception of a segment of Chatham residents as tracksuit-wearing, > gold hoop-earringed common people with a penchant for hard drinking, > recreational drug use, and aggressive and anti-social behaviour." And if you believe that you really are simple, Simon. If you engaged your brain before posting you would know; "Chav is almost certainly from the Romany word for a child, chavi, recorded from the middle of the nineteenth century". -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: mileburner on 16 Dec 2009 14:30
"The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:OL9Wm.15923$Ym4.15833(a)text.news.virginmedia.com... > mileburner wrote: >> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in >> message news:qVSVm.15623$Ym4.9384(a)text.news.virginmedia.com... >> >>> More likely it became part of the lexicon becouse so many people >>> think cyclists are wankers. >> >> Sorry to interrupt, I was taking a break from participating in this >> mindless inane drivel but I was just wondering, why is it that Mr >> Medway is currently the most prolific poster on a cycling group, but >> he seems to have little interest in cycling and all he does is deride >> cyclists? > > I like deriding cyclists. Fair enough I guess. > AFAIK its a driving group. Maybe you should have a look in your headers, you will see that you have been crossposting your bile to a cycling group. And Mr Medway is the top poster this month. A pair of pink Lycra shorts is on its way to you! (no pockets - obviously). >> Cycling is not a Bad Thing. > > Oh yes it is. The way the government and the opposition are talking, they will soon be paying *us* to cycle :-) |