Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: The Medway Handyman on 23 Dec 2009 20:04 DavidR wrote: > "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. Obvious only to an idiot like you. >>> 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. Of course there is reasoning. Its just that you find the whole idea of cyclists being properly regulated and paying their way unpaletable. > >> 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. Because cyclists cause accidents and endanger pedestrians on a regular basis. That they do so and it is not reported is because cyclists are unregulated & can't be identified. > >> 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. The problems are perfectly clear to someone who isn't a fanatic cyclist. > > I will say here that, really, I don't give a stuff whether cyclists > obey traffic lights. So you are openly admitting that you think cyclists are above the laws that apply to other vehicle users? > 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. Pathetic. Utterly pathetic. Jumping red lights is dangerous and against the law. But you appear to think that cyclists are some sort of super beings who don't need to obey the law? > 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. Oh look, how cute. You and your little cycling chums have made up your own special word to denegrate motorists. How clever. Shame you and your kind aren't bright enough to realise that the word 'moton' dates from 1480 and refers to a small plate or armour designed to protect the underarm. >>> ~ 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. Of course it matters. But you are so desparate to support your cause you simply can't accept it. > >>> ~ 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. Nice attempt at an insult. Shame the rest was gibberish. > >> 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. I'm afraid I don't. I've already demonstrated that cyclists need to be regulated, if you have a different point of view you need to back it up. But don't bother, this is simply an attempt to avoid the issue. >>> 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? Another completely irrelevant argument. >> 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. Cyclists cause problems on a daily basis, your attempt to deny that shows a clear mental block. The proposals would help to prevent those problems. Last evening I was driving through the town. Whilst doing so I saw one cyclist ignore a red light in a filter lane, causing a danger to pedestrians. Within 3 minutes I saw another riding along a narrow stretch of pavement again causing danger to pedestrians. This sort of thing happens on a regular basis, and has become such a problem in London that Westminster Council see the need to take action; "Westminster council wants to be the first in Britain to use its own staff to hand out �30 penalty notices to �Lycra louts� who flout traffic rules. It is the responsibility of the Metropolitan Police to enforce the Highway Code in London but in practice very few cyclists are ever stopped and punished. Westminster is to ask the police to delegate authority to its team of inspectors who enforce regulations on licensing, noise and waste. About 30,000 cyclists enter Westminster every day and it is estimated that up to one in five breaks the Highway Code. Angela Harvey, chairman of Westminster's scrutiny committee, which put together the proposal, said: �We're always getting little old ladies who are knocked down and abused by a cyclist, who leave them on the ground as they ride away." So you still think that cyclists don't need regulation? One in five is breaking the law. > Your mental block is the assumption that cyclist behaviour is *the > problem* without any consideration of *actual problems* Tell that to the little old ladies you and your kind knock down & abuse. > 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? No fuckwit - because...... ...... you were not using a 'vehicle'. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: soup on 23 Dec 2009 21:34 The Medway Handyman wrote: > Its extreemly effective in regulating motorists. What like stops them drink-driving, speeding, talking on mobile phones,etc. Can't believe this is still going.
From: Matt B on 24 Dec 2009 09:26 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. Phil, we've been here several times before, but you never seem to remember from one time to the next. The entitlement (or right) exists so long as all the appropriate laws are complied with. > Something that is a right can't be charged for. > Rights aren't conditional. Most are conditional upon laws being complied with; even the right to life itself in some jurisdictions. The "right" to cycle on public roads, even to walk on them, can certainly be withdrawn for various reasons. Can you give an example of the sort of "right" that you're thinking about? -- Matt B
From: Happi Monday on 25 Dec 2009 04:56 Give up Phil - you ain't doing yourself any favours 'coz even the most retarded poster is making you look like a complete prick. Happi
From: johnwright ""john" on 25 Dec 2009 05:33
Mr. Benn wrote: > "MasonS(a)BP.com" <MasonS(a)BP.com> wrote in > news:0394ee9e-6dec-42c1-8404-8f8ff412f659(a)g7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com: > >> On 13 Dec, 16:18, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> gurgled >>> happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> >>>> A multi millionaire cyclist still wouldn't have to pay a 'specific' >>>> fee before being able to use his cycle on a public road though >>>> would he? >>> If it makes you any happier, perhaps you ought to buy this van - you >>> could then use the roads yourself, for work, without paying any VED >>> or fuel duty. Perfectly legally. >>> >>> http://www.leboncoin.fr/vi/80500342.htm >> I'd buy the bloody thing for him out of my own pocket, just to hear of >> him driving around Kent having paid no "road tax". >> >> Priceless. > > If you give me your address Simon, I'll order you one of those GBP1.35 high > visibility vests that you seem so reluctant to wear if it reduces the chace > of you not getting hurt in an accident. I'm reminded of when the moral panic was about the accident rate to motor cyclists, and there was a move to make them all where something high visibility. So the BMF (I think) organised a campaign called "Fight Back Wear Black" So we all did, rode round proudly in black with headlights on. -- I'm not apathetic... I just don't give a sh** anymore ?John Wright |