"If you don't move I'll run you over".
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Polish Bus Drivers
Next: The motorway
From: martin on 2 Mar 2010 06:32 On 02/03/2010 10:44, Mrcheerful wrote: > these are the main two from RTA1988: > 28 Reckless cycling > A person who rides a cycle on a road recklessly is guilty of an offence. > 29 Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling > If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or > without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is > guilty of an offence. > > So about 90 percent of cyclists commit offences every day, yet are not > charged, why is that? is there some sort of blind eye turned because they > are cyclists? I would be surprised if it were fewer than 90% of motorists who commit offences every day as well mind. > >
From: Iain on 2 Mar 2010 06:37 "Mrcheerful" <nbkm57(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:q_5jn.46440$Ym4.26691(a)text.news.virginmedia.com... > these are the main two from RTA1988: > 28 Reckless cycling > A person who rides a cycle on a road recklessly is guilty of an offence. > 29 Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling > If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or > without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is > guilty of an offence. > > So about 90 percent of cyclists commit offences every day, yet are not > charged, why is that? is there some sort of blind eye turned because they > are cyclists? I knew that I had seen a page somewhere. From Bike for All - Cycling and the Law: http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycling_and_the_law.php It covers all sorts of things. I note that a shop started a campaign 'Use Your Head - Stop at Red'. http://www.stopatred.org/ One thing I have been wondering is whether someone can carry out a citizen's arrest, say, for a cyclist going through a red light, or for cycling on the pavement. Iain
From: Mrcheerful on 2 Mar 2010 06:42 martin wrote: > On 02/03/2010 10:44, Mrcheerful wrote: > >> these are the main two from RTA1988: >> 28 Reckless cycling >> A person who rides a cycle on a road recklessly is guilty of an >> offence. 29 Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling >> If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, >> or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the >> road, he is guilty of an offence. >> >> So about 90 percent of cyclists commit offences every day, yet are >> not charged, why is that? is there some sort of blind eye turned >> because they are cyclists? > > I would be surprised if it were fewer than 90% of motorists who commit > offences every day as well mind. some offences are hard to continually avoid, but deliberate violations (as cyclists do) are another matter. Out of the millions of motor vehicles per day that break a law there are many thousands that pay a fine/have their licence endorsed. I would doubt that even one law breaking cyclist per month is charged with any of the myriad of traffic offences that cyclists commit every day. I think that if cyclists are going to deliberately obstruct roads then they are going to get a painful shock, and there will be little sympathy from the general public.
From: Andy Leighton on 2 Mar 2010 06:52 On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:42:39 GMT, Mrcheerful <nbkm57(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > martin wrote: >> On 02/03/2010 10:44, Mrcheerful wrote: >> >>> these are the main two from RTA1988: >>> 28 Reckless cycling >>> A person who rides a cycle on a road recklessly is guilty of an >>> offence. 29 Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling >>> If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, >>> or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the >>> road, he is guilty of an offence. >>> >>> So about 90 percent of cyclists commit offences every day, yet are >>> not charged, why is that? is there some sort of blind eye turned >>> because they are cyclists? >> >> I would be surprised if it were fewer than 90% of motorists who commit >> offences every day as well mind. > > some offences are hard to continually avoid, but deliberate violations (as > cyclists do) are another matter. Or indeed as a lot of car drivers do - for example parking on the pavement down my narrow Victorian street so that mothers with prams and pushchairs are blocked from making progress. Or parking in the road so that a delivery van cannot get all the way down the street. > I think that if cyclists are going to deliberately obstruct roads then they > are going to get a painful shock, and there will be little sympathy from the > general public. Would you also support people giving inconsiderate drivers who block the highway (as described above) a similar painful shock? Would you expect the same lack of sympathy? I don't think motorists are arguing from a position of moral superiority, which certainly doesn't excuse poor behaviour in others, but does make their anti-cyclist moralising much weaker. -- Andy Leighton => andyl(a)azaal.plus.com "The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials" - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
From: Mr Benn on 2 Mar 2010 07:33
"Andy Leighton" <andyl(a)azaal.plus.com> wrote in message news:slrnhopv0b.b1c.andyl(a)azaal.plus.com... > On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:42:39 GMT, Mrcheerful <nbkm57(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >> I think that if cyclists are going to deliberately obstruct roads then >> they >> are going to get a painful shock, and there will be little sympathy from >> the >> general public. > > Would you also support people giving inconsiderate drivers who block the > highway (as described above) a similar painful shock? Would you expect > the same lack of sympathy? > > I don't think motorists are arguing from a position of moral superiority, > which certainly doesn't excuse poor behaviour in others, but does make > their anti-cyclist moralising much weaker. Tu quoque is a Latin term that describes a kind of logical fallacy. A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions. |