Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: JNugent on 21 Dec 2009 18:01 Adrian wrote: > "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> gurgled happily, > sounding much like they were saying: > >>> Three ad hominem attacks in one post. What an excellent example you are >>> to your county, Sir I believe I received the same treatment last time I >>> was in Ashford. Very friendly place. NOT. > >> You failed geography 'O' level then? > > Are you suggesting Ashford _isn't_ in the same county as the Medway > towns...? The Medway Towns aren't in Middlesex!
From: The Medway Handyman on 21 Dec 2009 18:05 DavidR wrote: > "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote >> DavidR wrote: >>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote >>>> 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; >>> >>> Not at all. Otherwise I wouldn't be asking. >>> >>> <...> >>> >>>> Now it has reasoning. I look forward to your response. >>> >>> You have replied only in the manner of a religious believer. I can >>> accept that you're not a scientist or statistician. Nor am I. But >>> substance is absent. >> >> I've replied in a perfectly logiocal manner. What 'substance' is >> missing? > > I had hoped you would look beyond my improbable scenario and just > consider the missing elements of the argument rather than attack the > scenario. Never mind. I think we have a clear case here of you being educated far beyond your natural intelligence. > > Your proposals are just so sketchy, there are so many questions. Just > a few:- > > ~ You have the opinion that the behaviour you have occasionally seen > is dangerous. Is it real danger real or merely some anti-social > behavour that gives > you the fear of danger? Not that anti-social considerations should be > taken lightly but since you put the emphasis on supposed dangers, you > need to supply some facts about them. First of all, the proposals are not at all sketchy. They are concise & clear. The dangers of non regulated cyclists are well known. A simple Google search reveals plenty of evidence that cyclists ignore traffic laws. David Cameron & Boris Johnson have recently been spotted breaking the law in this respect. I assume that you are saying that if a cyclist ignores The Road Traffic Act or the guidance in the Highway Code, then that is perfectly accepable? If you are trying to claim that cyclists don't ignore traffic laws on a regular basis, you are a fool. > ~ If a cyclist is inexperienced how does it actually affect "other > road users" more than the cyclist's own skin? It certainly does. If a cyclists wobbles about it might cause a tax paying motorists to 'alter his course or speed' - which is the definition of a hazard. > > ~ How does riding a slightly wonky bicycle actually affect "other road > users" more than the cyclist's own skin? It's probable that most > cyclist casualties from bicycle faults are caused by unpredictable > failures, not from slight wonkiness which is something to consider > when you provide the material to back up your assertions. 'Unpredictable failures' in a vehicle thats been around for 100 years and contains relatively few moving parts? I don't think so. The problem is that cycles are completely untested as to safety, so you can't back up your theory can you? > So, if you can get some facts about the supposed problems, lets look > at the proposals. You say they "would" fix something or other. The > "would" suggests some kind of gaurantee. Well...? So, you are suggesting that a test of competance, an annual safety check, compulsory insurance and visual identification would actually reduce road safety? The compulsory use of hi-viz would improve road safety for cyclists. > ~ Would the "dangerous" types bother with registration? And if not... > an ASBO...? Completely irelevant argument. Criminals don't register illegal firearms. Criminal cyclists wouldn't register. > ~ If you see someone going through a red light and they have visible > registration what do you expect done about it when you report the > "crime"? When you're given a crime number and an offer of counselling > from a bemused call centre operator will that be enough to give you a > warm fuzzy feeling? I expect the same response to a motorist commiting a crime. Tracking by the registration number and a fixed penaly notice issued. Your response isn't based on reality. > ~ If this rider has been reported often enough, is hearsay sufficient > to prove guilt, before their property is officially stolen? I'm not a > lawyer but that > seems to be contrary to a number of basic principles. Not at all, its exactly the same system that is applied to tax paying motorists. 'Exactly' - before you try to wriggle. Your real problem is that you find the very idea of cyclists being regulated and made responsible for their actions unpaletable. There is no logic behind this, they use vehicles on the public roads. Second problem - other than regulation - is that cyclists don't want to pay their share for road use. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: The Medway Handyman on 21 Dec 2009 18:15 JNugent wrote: > Adrian wrote: >> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> gurgled >> happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> >>>> Three ad hominem attacks in one post. What an excellent example >>>> you are to your county, Sir I believe I received the same >>>> treatment last time I was in Ashford. Very friendly place. NOT. >> >>> You failed geography 'O' level then? >> >> Are you suggesting Ashford _isn't_ in the same county as the Medway >> towns...? > > The Medway Towns aren't in Middlesex! There are two Ashfords, one in Middx and one in Kent. Adrian & Simple Simon have no idea of geography. But I agree, Ashford isn't part of the Medway Towns. But what else can you expect from lycra loons? -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: Adrian on 22 Dec 2009 03:24 "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>>>> Three ad hominem attacks in one post. What an excellent example you >>>>> are to your county, Sir I believe I received the same treatment last >>>>> time I was in Ashford. Very friendly place. NOT. >>>> You failed geography 'O' level then? >>> Are you suggesting Ashford _isn't_ in the same county as the Medway >>> towns...? >> The Medway Towns aren't in Middlesex! > There are two Ashfords, one in Middx and one in Kent. Adrian & Simple > Simon have no idea of geography. I've got enough of an idea to know that there's more than two - but I have an unfair advantage, since I grew up in an Ashford that wasn't in either of those counties, or even anywhere near. > But I agree, Ashford isn't part of the Medway Towns. Just as well nobody said it was, then.
From: johnwright ""john" on 22 Dec 2009 07:46
MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: > Apparently, the Medway Highwayman and his big butch Kent chums have > been floored by a few flakes of snow as per bleeding usual. Jeez, up > here in Yorkshire I cycled 25 miles to work and back in the teeth of a > North Sea gale with drifting snow as normal . These southern Jessies > then have the laughable cheek to poke fun at overgrown kids on toy > bikes wearing pink girly clothes, while they are left impotent in > their warm tin boxes waiting for the AA man to come and rescue them. > Poofs. And I was born in a shoe box in the middle of the road. -- I'm not apathetic... I just don't give a sh** anymore ?John Wright |