Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: johnwright ""john" on 22 Dec 2009 13:13 Phil W Lee wrote: > "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> considered >> Do stop making things up. Everyone whos pays road tax has the right to use >> the road. Those who don't pay it, don't. > > The law is almost exactly the reverse of that. > Not that the law seems to mean anything to you. So according to that anyone who pays road tax is not allowed to use the roads. Anyone who does not is. If that's not what you meant I would love an explanation. -- I'm not apathetic... I just don't give a sh** anymore ?John Wright
From: The Medway Handyman on 22 Dec 2009 19:52 Phil W Lee wrote: > johnwright <""john\"@no spam here.com"> considered Tue, 22 Dec 2009 > 18:13:29 +0000 the perfect time to write: > >> Phil W Lee wrote: >>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> considered >> >>>> Do stop making things up. Everyone whos pays road tax has the >>>> right to use the road. Those who don't pay it, don't. >>> >>> The law is almost exactly the reverse of that. >>> Not that the law seems to mean anything to you. >> >> >> So according to that anyone who pays road tax is not allowed to use >> the roads. Anyone who does not is. If that's not what you meant I >> would love an explanation. > > The fact that you have to pay for it proves that there is no automatic > entitlement. > Something that is a right can't be charged for. > Rights aren't conditional. What a complete & utter fuckwit you have just shown yourself to be idiot boy. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: DavidR on 22 Dec 2009 20:01 "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote > DavidR wrote: > > I think we have a clear case here of you being educated far beyond your > natural intelligence. It's pretty obvious than with you we have a case of neither intelligence or education. >> 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. And I say yet again. The proposals are clear but there is no reasoning. > 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? There is no need to prove that it happens - I am asking you to quantify how it matters. > If you are trying to claim that cyclists don't ignore traffic laws on a > regular basis, you are a fool. You are the fool for making an issue over something, making suggestions and then accusing a questioner of being in denial. And then asking the questioner to say why the suggestions won't work when as proposer you refuse to show how these issues turn into real problems. I will say here that, really, I don't give a stuff whether cyclists obey traffic lights. In a car, limited visibility usually makes it nigh on impossible to proceed safely against a red light. On a bike this not generally a restriction and normal junction precautions are easily performed. For pedestrians, there are plenty of other rules and covenants governing their safety (including the requirement that a pedestrian may not be intimidated or run down even if the lights are in favour of the wheeled user. Which rather makes the red light argument something of a red herring.). I obey them, but mainly because it avoids ignorant motons (*) like you pointing a finger. (*) not a spelling mistake. >> ~ 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. It "might". As in misguided elf & safety busybodies saying that throwing sweets at a pantomine "might" hurt a child. As proposer, you need to demonstrate that the current situation matters. >> ~ 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. Moving parts don't work without supporting structures. For a supposed "handyman" that reply shows a worrying lack of mechanical competence. > The problem is that cycles are completely untested as to safety, so you > can't back up your theory can you? I don't need to do anything. As proposer, you need to demonstrate that the current situation matters. >> 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. No. I am asking you, as proposer, to demonstrate that the current situation matters. >> ~ 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. Right. And wouldn't "criminal cyclists" be the ones you would like to catch? > 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. Your mental block is the assumption that cyclist behaviour is *the problem* without any consideration of *actual problems* or the likely practicality/effectiveness of the proposals. Oh, and due to the uncleared pavements I walked some distance on roads today. Does that mean I should have paid a tax to use my shoes, had special insurance, have had training (to show me how to avoid wobbling over ice, perhaps?) and have displayed registration plates? -- DavidR - a tax payer, and user of a variety of private and public transport aids made from biological and mineral materials.
From: JNugent on 23 Dec 2009 07:32 The Medway Handyman wrote: > Phil W Lee wrote: >> johnwright <""john\"@no spam here.com"> considered Tue, 22 Dec 2009 >> 18:13:29 +0000 the perfect time to write: >> >>> Phil W Lee wrote: >>>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> considered >>>>> Do stop making things up. Everyone whos pays road tax has the >>>>> right to use the road. Those who don't pay it, don't. >>>> The law is almost exactly the reverse of that. >>>> Not that the law seems to mean anything to you. >>> >>> So according to that anyone who pays road tax is not allowed to use >>> the roads. Anyone who does not is. If that's not what you meant I >>> would love an explanation. >> The fact that you have to pay for it proves that there is no automatic >> entitlement. >> Something that is a right can't be charged for. >> Rights aren't conditional. > > What a complete & utter fuckwit you have just shown yourself to be idiot > boy. You are right. He seems to have forgotten that until relatively recently in history, the right to use a vehicle on the highway *was* absolute. That absolute right was rendered less than absolute by legislation. What has been done for one class of vehicle and user can be done for any other - or all. IOW, if Parliament decided tomorrow that they wished to licence (etc) bikes and cyclists, saying "Unlike those of others, my rights are absolute" would not be a valid argument against the proposal. The rights of any carriage driver (hackney carriages - and maybe omnibus drivers - excepted) were also absolute until around the time of the invention and adoption of the motor vehicle.
From: Steve Firth on 23 Dec 2009 07:48
JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: > He seems to have forgotten that until relatively recently in history, the > right to use a vehicle on the highway *was* absolute. That absolute right was > rendered less than absolute by legislation. What has been done for one class > of vehicle and user can be done for any other - or all. He's wrong anyway. Cyclists do not have an absolute right to use the roads. They are subject to laws, to restrictions on the use of bicycles and to legal requirements for suitability for use on the road. It has become a mantra among the cyclists that they are on the roads by "right" but this is bullshit. They are permitted to use the roads subject to conditions, which most of them choose to ignore. |