bike on train
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: A danger to motorists...
Next: Brown bin day!
From: Tom Anderson on 11 Dec 2009 10:54 On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, NM wrote: > I had family commitments in Amsterdam, I thought I would be 'green' and > go by train instead of air. The last few air experiences put me off so > much that I resolved to find a different less stressful method. > > The interminable waiting and the lenghty list of restricted articals > could just about be tolerated but now I am being asked for more than the > airfare as 'extra' charges for baggage plus on top the taxes and charges > come to more than the air fare without baggage charges. (35 pounds each > way for a small case off clothes and some toiletries is plain stupid, > for seventry quid I could buy a toothbrush etc and some underwear to > throw away and still be well in front, then we come to parking charges > on top again. > > Having a full family's christmas presents to transport I went by train > and boat. NEVER AGAIN, hours of purgatory starting at 0532 and ending at > 2000. luckily I had the forethought to bring my own refreshments as > Stena Line's food prices are silly expensive (So expensive I saw no > takers from the public, only truckers whose meals are subsudised). > > So having over the last few years made lengthy in depth research of the > available methods without doubt the quickest easiest and least stressful > method of travelling from rural Britain to a near European destination > is to get in your car and drive, take advantage of the many cheap deals > available on the short sea crossings and it will be cheapest method. Nonsense. The solution is to cycle to Colchester and lean on one of my numerous sailing friends for a lift! tom -- unconstrained by any considerations of humanity or decency
From: The Medway Handyman on 11 Dec 2009 20:24 Paul Rigg wrote: > "> Just ban them altogether. >> > > Certainly with you on that one Tony, getting a bit sick of the cycling > mafia. > > They should have to > > 1 Have registration numbets > 2 Have compulsory insurance > 3 Have them confiscated if found riding the pavement or otherwise > disobeying traffic regulationsl, which would certainly include riding > on station platforms. Could I add? 4 Have to pass a test of competance before being allowed to cycle. 5 Have a yearly safety check to ensure the cycle is roadworthy. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist -- Q. Why don't they put pockets in lycra cycling shorts? A. Because cyclists never put their hands in their pockets.
From: The Medway Handyman on 11 Dec 2009 20:28 Neil Williams wrote: > On 9 Dec, 13:41, "Paul Rigg" <gzero...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > >> 1 Have registration numbets > > As, unlike a car, it's easier for police to stop a cyclist seen > committing an offence, I'm not sure this is worth bothering with. No it isn't idiot. The police don't have to stop offending motorists, they simply take note of the registration number. Cyclists wishing to avoid the constabulary ignore red lights, one way streets, ride on pavements etc. > >> 2 Have compulsory insurance > > You are presumably aware that most cyclists have third-party liability > insurance cover which is provided to any inhabitant of their home as > part of their home contents insurance? It's not mandatory, OK, but I > would think that more people have home contents insurance than not. What a load of bollox. Cysclists do not have any specific insurance for road use. > >> 3 Have them confiscated if found riding the pavement or otherwise >> disobeying traffic regulationsl, which would certainly include >> riding on station platforms. > > A fine would seem a more appropriate sanction, as is applied to > motorists. It just needs to be applied more often. If cyclists had a license it could be endorsed. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist -- Q. Why don't they put pockets in lycra cycling shorts? A. Because cyclists never put their hands in their pockets.
From: Peter Grange on 12 Dec 2009 13:33 On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:24:39 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >Paul Rigg wrote: >> "> Just ban them altogether. >>> >> >> Certainly with you on that one Tony, getting a bit sick of the cycling >> mafia. >> >> They should have to >> >> 1 Have registration numbets >> 2 Have compulsory insurance >> 3 Have them confiscated if found riding the pavement or otherwise >> disobeying traffic regulationsl, which would certainly include riding >> on station platforms. > >Could I add? > >4 Have to pass a test of competance before being allowed to cycle. > >5 Have a yearly safety check to ensure the cycle is roadworthy. > > >-- >Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist Could I add? The ability to spell "competence" before posting rubbish. -- Pete - The Tax Paying Driving Licence Owning Cyclist
From: Keitht on 13 Dec 2009 05:45
The Medway Handyman wrote: > Neil Williams wrote: >> On 9 Dec, 13:41, "Paul Rigg" <gzero...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> 1 Have registration numbets >> As, unlike a car, it's easier for police to stop a cyclist seen >> committing an offence, I'm not sure this is worth bothering with. > > No it isn't idiot. The police don't have to stop offending motorists, they > simply take note of the registration number. Cyclists wishing to avoid the > constabulary ignore red lights, one way streets, ride on pavements etc. >>> 2 Have compulsory insurance >> You are presumably aware that most cyclists have third-party liability >> insurance cover which is provided to any inhabitant of their home as >> part of their home contents insurance? It's not mandatory, OK, but I >> would think that more people have home contents insurance than not. > > What a load of bollox. Cysclists do not have any specific insurance for > road use. >>> 3 Have them confiscated if found riding the pavement or otherwise >>> disobeying traffic regulationsl, which would certainly include >>> riding on station platforms. >> A fine would seem a more appropriate sanction, as is applied to >> motorists. It just needs to be applied more often. > > If cyclists had a license it could be endorsed. > And that will stop it all? If so why are endorsements 'topped up' and not a prevention, not something that stops the behaviour? It doesn't even prevent things happening once the license is removed. Or is every driver so squeaky-clean that all it takes to get them to adhere fully to the rules is a meaningful look from a copper. -- Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle |