From: Owain on
On 9 Dec, 13:41, "Paul Rigg" wrote:
> 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.

4 Have their season tickets ripped up and be barred from travel for a
year if they leave their rear lights on
5 Be stoned to death for indecency if they wear lycra and they're over
40 (age or waist)

Owain

From: Neil Williams on
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.

> 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.

> 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.

I say this as a cyclist who gets bored of the poor behaviour of London
cyclists in particular when walking around London as a pedestrian.

Neil
From: Andy Elms on
On 9 Dec, 13:41, "Paul Rigg" <gzero...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
TP 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

As a non-car owning cylists, I can't argue with that. I'd prefer a bit
more cycling accomodation in trains, but then a bit more passenger
accomodation would be good too.

> 3    Have them confiscated if found riding the pavement or otherwise
> disobeying traffic regulations, which would certainly include riding on
> station platforms.

Makes sense too. Any chance of doing the same with cars - ie get
caught speeding/shhoting a light and your jamjar is taken away. Sounds
fair to me.

Although I'm not sure what those 3 points have to do with the subject
of the OP. She should have gone through the extra wide gate, but that
generally has the longest queue, as walking passengers prefer it too!

Andy
From: Mike on
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 01:20:41 -0800 (PST), NM <nik.morgan(a)mac.com>
wrote:

>She was a stunningly pretty young thing, she caught this dirty old
>mans eye as she alighted from the incoming train at Liverpool Street
>this morning at about 0615, she was clad in the latest stylish
>obligatory body clinging lycra and yellow reflective light jacket plus
>of course the mandatory half melon on her head.

Your post is pointless without a picture, preferably of this woman
clad in lycra and not of a train or a bike.


--
From: Paul Rigg on


>
> 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.
>
Yes I am aware of that. You would be amased how many cyclists aren't!

But there is no element of compulsion and no equivalent to the Motor
Insurers Bureau to pay for injuries.

And there ought to be. National cycle route 68 goes right past my front
door and its straight and approximately level (unusually for the Pennines!)

They bat on there at 40mph and they could quite easily cause an accident.


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Prev: A danger to motorists...
Next: Brown bin day!