Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: The Medway Handyman on 19 Dec 2009 15:07 DavidR wrote: > "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote > >>>> Perhaps you could tell us why you object so strongly to a perfectly >>>> reasonable concept? >>> >>> Asking the person making the proposals to give their reasoning first >>> is a strong objection is it? >> >> Not at all, but they are so clearly written there is no need to. > > The requests are clearly written, true... I still don't see any > reasoning. I would have thought it glaringly obvious; >> 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 are in charge of a vehicle capable of 30mph, which could pose a danger to pedestrians & motorists. Untrained cyclists in particular pose a greater danger. "Novices have about five times the crash rate as experienced riders even though they are much less likely to ride in rush-hour traffic in foul weather or after dark". (http://www.bicyclinglife.com/PracticalCycling/commuteguide.htm) Training and the requirement to pass a written & practical test would improve safety for pedestrians & other vehicle users. >>Cyclists over the age of 16 must not ride on public roads unless they >>possess a cycle licence.<< I would add 'and diplaying their registration number'. A cyclist registration number would enable a cyclist breaking traffic laws or the speed limit to be traced and the law to be enforced. Cyclists regularly break traffic laws such as jumping lights, riding on pavements, ignoring one way systems, riding on the wrong side of the road etc. They do so with impunity knowing they are untraceable. A displayed registration number would greatly reduce such dangerous and anti social behaivior because the cyclist could be traced & have his licence endorsed or be disqualified. >>Cyclists over the age of 16 must not ride on public roads unless they >>possess third party liability insurance.<< Although most cyclists posting here claim to have insurance or claim that household insurance covers them (doubtful) the majority don't seem to. Perhaps someone could provide the figures. Insurance is designed to protect the victim against loss. All other types of vehicle carry compulsory insurance for this reason. Why shouldn't a cyclist? >>Cyclists over the age of 16 must only ride cycles which conform to some >>required standards when on public roads<< An unsafe, badly modified or badly maintained vehicle represents a danger to other road users. >>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.<< This would protect cyclists. See also motorcycle crash helmets & seat belts in cars. The displayed registration number would enable law breaking cyclists to be traced & dealt with - see above. >>The cycles of habitual cycling law breakers will be confiscated and >>crushed.<< Habitual motoring law breakers can be fined, imprisoned & banned. Those without the correct documentation can have vehicles consiscated & crushed. Again, why not cyclists? >> The almost hysterical rection from the BMX brigade needs examination >> though. > > When a proposer can't put a case forward and just resorts to > attacking an opponent for merely asking questions, what term should > be used to describe that emotion? I've been accused of a serious criminal offence and had numerous personal attacks on my name, my business & the area I live in - simply for having an opinion that conflicts with that of cyclists. Perhaps you should ask that of my numerous & vitriolic attackers? > So it remains a wishlist needing no response. Now it has reasoning. I look forward to your response. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: The Medway Handyman on 19 Dec 2009 15:14 MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: > On 19 Dec, 17:17, Conor <co...(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: >> In article <59f26541-7ca4-45b9-8db5-35eeb70303e2 >> @b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Mas...(a)BP.com says... >> >>> What would you put in your lorry's tank, eh? >>> Do think before engaging gear. >> >> Diesel which, unfortunately for you, doesn't need to come from crude >> oil. >> >> -- >> Conorwww.notebooks-r-us.co.uk >> >> I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally. > > That's why our site is building a world scale biodiesel plant - got to > keep you going when the oil runs out. And to keep you going as well. No lorries & you starve to death. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: MasonS on 19 Dec 2009 15:26 On 19 Dec, 20:07, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > Cyclists are in charge of a vehicle capable of 30mph, which could pose a > danger to pedestrians & motorists. How odd. When motorists want to attack cyclists for "getting in their way", they say we only tootle about at 5 mph on public roads. When they want to attack us for being a danger due to "excessive speed", then suddenly we are all capable of riding at Olympic class speeds. Just decide on the one and stick to it. -- Simon Mason
From: Conor on 19 Dec 2009 16:49 In article <6fa61301-830a-4334-a526-eed018885134 @l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, MasonS(a)BP.com says... > That's why our site is building a world scale biodiesel plant - got to > keep you going when the oil runs out. And I wonder how the materials and equipment to build the plant arrive.... -- Conor www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.
From: JNugent on 19 Dec 2009 18:09
Phil W Lee wrote: > "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> considered > Sat, 19 Dec 2009 20:07:59 GMT the perfect time to write: > >> Now it has reasoning. I look forward to your response. > > No it doesn't. > You clearly wouldn't know reasoning if it came in the form of a 2"x4" > cluebat. > > For any of this to make sense, you'd have to show a need. > This means quantifying the danger that cyclists pose to others. > > I look forward to you attempting this (or more likely, claiming that > it isn't necessary), given that more cyclists are killed by > pedestrians than the reverse, and the total of both is outweighed by > several orders of magnitude by the number of victims of motor vehicle > use. Absolute *rubbish*. No-one needs to be able to "quantify" the risk of being shot in order to support the control of firearms. No-one needs to be able to "quantify" the risk of being injured or killed by a driver who is over the blood alcohol limit in order to support the enforcement of drink-drive laws. No-one needs to be able to "quantify" the risk of being stabbed, hacked or battered in order to support the case for control of offensive weapons. No-one needs to be able to "quantify" the risk of being attacked by a lion in Esher High Street in order to support the objectives of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act. Why does anyone need to be able to "quantify" the risk of being killed by a cyclist to be against footway cycling? Why does anyone need to be able to "quantify" the risks involved in cyclists' contempt for red traffic lights? Your request for quantification is an attempted deployment of a red herring, isn't it? |