-Lsqnot Respond
Ye f*****g Gods.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,2763,1125686,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,2763,1125686,00.html
Compulsory Training and Tests Anyone?
View Full Version : Compulsory Training and Tests Anyone?
Zog The Undenia
[Not Responding] wrote:
> Ye f*****g Gods.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,2763,1125686,00.html
Looks like Eric Martlew has been well-and-truly nobbled. Is B**** actually an offshoot of the
Provisional RAC?
> Ye f*****g Gods.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,2763,1125686,00.html
Looks like Eric Martlew has been well-and-truly nobbled. Is B**** actually an offshoot of the
Provisional RAC?
Vernon Levy
"Zog The Undeniable" <ggg@hhh.net> wrote in message
news:budg8g$n08$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> [Not Responding] wrote:
> > Ye f*****g Gods.
Don't panic! Remember that the notion of taxing bikes was discarded as being unwieldy and not worth
it. What makes you think that compulsory training will be come a reality. With motorised vehicles
the training costs can be subsidised by the manufacturers and represents a relatively small
percentage of the total cost of ownership taking protective clothing, tax and insurance into
account. Making training compulsory would be unpalatable for the government as the cost of lower end
bikes would effectively double.
There are some valid points in the article - cyclists should not be immune from prosecution for
moving traffic offences and cycling pointing to similar or worse breaches of the law by other road
and pavement users is not mitigation. Red lights mean all road traffic must stop - no exception.
Rising on pavements not designated as shared use is anti-social. I don't see anything wrong with the
request for more cycling proficiency schemes. It would be interesting to know how aware of the
highway code the cycling body as whole is and how it breaks down into the various groups.
I'd be well pissed off if I had to pick up the tab for a cyclist that ran into me. What's wrong with
the present system of establishing liability?
The helmet issue - personal choice not legislation. I have no beef with wearing a helmet when riding
a motor bike though.
I don't think the staus quo will be disturbed too much. Look at the contrasting views between the AA
and RAC spokesfolk. I'd worry if there was a concensus :-)
Vernon in Leeds
news:budg8g$n08$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> [Not Responding] wrote:
> > Ye f*****g Gods.
Don't panic! Remember that the notion of taxing bikes was discarded as being unwieldy and not worth
it. What makes you think that compulsory training will be come a reality. With motorised vehicles
the training costs can be subsidised by the manufacturers and represents a relatively small
percentage of the total cost of ownership taking protective clothing, tax and insurance into
account. Making training compulsory would be unpalatable for the government as the cost of lower end
bikes would effectively double.
There are some valid points in the article - cyclists should not be immune from prosecution for
moving traffic offences and cycling pointing to similar or worse breaches of the law by other road
and pavement users is not mitigation. Red lights mean all road traffic must stop - no exception.
Rising on pavements not designated as shared use is anti-social. I don't see anything wrong with the
request for more cycling proficiency schemes. It would be interesting to know how aware of the
highway code the cycling body as whole is and how it breaks down into the various groups.
I'd be well pissed off if I had to pick up the tab for a cyclist that ran into me. What's wrong with
the present system of establishing liability?
The helmet issue - personal choice not legislation. I have no beef with wearing a helmet when riding
a motor bike though.
I don't think the staus quo will be disturbed too much. Look at the contrasting views between the AA
and RAC spokesfolk. I'd worry if there was a concensus :-)
Vernon in Leeds
Just Zis Guy
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 08:13:01 +0000, "[Not Responding]"
<not_responding@dev.null.invalid> wrote:
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,2763,1125686,00.html
I'll take his test if he'll impose meaningful penalties on drivers who kill and injure through
cluelessness.
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk (http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/)
<not_responding@dev.null.invalid> wrote:
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,2763,1125686,00.html
I'll take his test if he'll impose meaningful penalties on drivers who kill and injure through
cluelessness.
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk (http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/)
Danny Colyer
[Not Responding] wrote:
> Ye f*****g Gods.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,2763,1125686,00.html
I'm all in favour, though the cagers may not like my ideas on this:
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/misc/ifiruled.html
--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
> Ye f*****g Gods.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,2763,1125686,00.html
I'm all in favour, though the cagers may not like my ideas on this:
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/misc/ifiruled.html
--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
Zog The Undenia
vernon levy wrote:
> Rising on pavements not designated as shared use is anti-social.
I disagree there. Riding on pavements that have been designated as shared use is just as dangerous -
and the ones with a white line down the middle aren't much better. The laws of logic broke down when
councils started to allow shared use of pavements: if cycling on the pavement is sufficiently
dangerous to be illegal, why does a blue sign make it safe?
> Rising on pavements not designated as shared use is anti-social.
I disagree there. Riding on pavements that have been designated as shared use is just as dangerous -
and the ones with a white line down the middle aren't much better. The laws of logic broke down when
councils started to allow shared use of pavements: if cycling on the pavement is sufficiently
dangerous to be illegal, why does a blue sign make it safe?
Mseries
vernon levy wrote:
> .. Red lights mean all road traffic must stop - no exception.
As does amber !
> I'd be well pissed off if I had to pick up the tab for a cyclist that ran into me. What's wrong
> with the present system of establishing liability?
My understanding of the law is that the driver is not automatically blamed and the cyclist is
innocent but that the driver had to prove his inncence by finding witnesses and evidence rather than
the other way round that it seems to be now. To put it another way, to get any form of compensation
now it seems that the cyclist is assumed by the drivers insurance/lawyers to be in the wrong and has
to go to great lengths to prove otherwise, with the new legislation the drive is assumed to be at
fault until he can prove otherwise, so a cyclist crossing at amber or red who is hit by a car
passing at green is not exempt from liability regardless.
>
> The helmet issue - personal choice not legislation. I have no beef with wearing a helmet when
> riding a motor bike though.
>
> I don't think the staus quo will be disturbed too much. Look at the contrasting views between the
> AA and RAC spokesfolk. I'd worry if there was a concensus :-)
It will affect me more as a car owner/driver if insurance goes up.
>
> Vernon in Leeds
> .. Red lights mean all road traffic must stop - no exception.
As does amber !
> I'd be well pissed off if I had to pick up the tab for a cyclist that ran into me. What's wrong
> with the present system of establishing liability?
My understanding of the law is that the driver is not automatically blamed and the cyclist is
innocent but that the driver had to prove his inncence by finding witnesses and evidence rather than
the other way round that it seems to be now. To put it another way, to get any form of compensation
now it seems that the cyclist is assumed by the drivers insurance/lawyers to be in the wrong and has
to go to great lengths to prove otherwise, with the new legislation the drive is assumed to be at
fault until he can prove otherwise, so a cyclist crossing at amber or red who is hit by a car
passing at green is not exempt from liability regardless.
>
> The helmet issue - personal choice not legislation. I have no beef with wearing a helmet when
> riding a motor bike though.
>
> I don't think the staus quo will be disturbed too much. Look at the contrasting views between the
> AA and RAC spokesfolk. I'd worry if there was a concensus :-)
It will affect me more as a car owner/driver if insurance goes up.
>
> Vernon in Leeds
Danny Colyer
I wrote:
> I'm all in favour, though the cagers may not like my ideas on this:
> http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/misc/ifiruled.html
Sorry, I must be starting to fall out of the habit of considering those who read news offline, even
though I still do so myself sometimes. Text below:
Road User's Licence
At present in the UK, a 17 year old can pass a pathetically simple theory test and a fairly minimal
practical test and, unless disqualified for any reason, will then be able to take charge of a lethal
box of plastic and metal on the public highway with no further tests until they reach the age of 70.
Frighteningly, they are often trained by professional instructors who themselves seem to have a
worrying lack of respect for road traffic law and the Highway Code.
Motorcyclists are slightly better trained. They have to pass the same theory test followed by two
practical tests, one simple, the second slightly more challenging.
Cyclists don't have to pass any test. In fact there are many people who ride bikes without even
having passed their Cycling Proficiency.
My pet hates among other road users are summarised very nicely here. My solution to all these
points, and to the lack of understanding among road users of the needs and rights of other road
users, is as follows:
I believe that Cycling Proficiency training should be offered to all children over the age of 8.
Children of secondary school age should be required to pass their Cycling Proficiency before being
allowed to cycle in public places. The road skills and Highway Code knowledge learnt during Cycling
Proficiency training will be invaluable throughout life.
To continue cycling on public highways and public rights of way beyond the age of 16, a cyclist
should be required to pass a theory test (demonstrating a good working knowledge of the Highway
Code) and a practical cycling test. Passing these tests would qualify the individual for a 'Road
User's Licence' (RUL), allowing him to cycle anywhere it is legal to do so for as long as the
licence is valid. A licence would need to be renewed at 10-yearly intervals by passing another
theory test and another practical cycling test.
Beyond that, new categories of vehicle may be added to the RUL by taking further training and
further tests. For example, the road user may wish to add the entitlement to drive a motorcycle, a
car, a PSV or an HGV on the public highway. When a new class of vehicle is added to the licence, the
licence will remain valid for that class of vehicle for 10 years, provided that the RUL itself is
not allowed to expire.
I anticipate that some people will object to the cycling requirement of the RUL on grounds of
balance problems or other disabilities. This is not an issue, as any class of street legal solo
pedal cycle may be used, including tricycles and hand-cranked machines. Obviously the limitations on
hand signals would need to be taken into consideration in devising an alternative test for those who
need to use hand-cranked cycles, and there will still be extreme cases where the requirement for the
practical cycling test might be waived.
As at present, pedestrians would have ultimate right of way on all roads except for motorways
(although I would dearly love to see the cycling equivalent of motorways, where motor vehicles and
pedestrians would be banned), and there would be no requirement to hold a RUL in order to walk on
the public highway or public rights of way.
--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
> I'm all in favour, though the cagers may not like my ideas on this:
> http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/misc/ifiruled.html
Sorry, I must be starting to fall out of the habit of considering those who read news offline, even
though I still do so myself sometimes. Text below:
Road User's Licence
At present in the UK, a 17 year old can pass a pathetically simple theory test and a fairly minimal
practical test and, unless disqualified for any reason, will then be able to take charge of a lethal
box of plastic and metal on the public highway with no further tests until they reach the age of 70.
Frighteningly, they are often trained by professional instructors who themselves seem to have a
worrying lack of respect for road traffic law and the Highway Code.
Motorcyclists are slightly better trained. They have to pass the same theory test followed by two
practical tests, one simple, the second slightly more challenging.
Cyclists don't have to pass any test. In fact there are many people who ride bikes without even
having passed their Cycling Proficiency.
My pet hates among other road users are summarised very nicely here. My solution to all these
points, and to the lack of understanding among road users of the needs and rights of other road
users, is as follows:
I believe that Cycling Proficiency training should be offered to all children over the age of 8.
Children of secondary school age should be required to pass their Cycling Proficiency before being
allowed to cycle in public places. The road skills and Highway Code knowledge learnt during Cycling
Proficiency training will be invaluable throughout life.
To continue cycling on public highways and public rights of way beyond the age of 16, a cyclist
should be required to pass a theory test (demonstrating a good working knowledge of the Highway
Code) and a practical cycling test. Passing these tests would qualify the individual for a 'Road
User's Licence' (RUL), allowing him to cycle anywhere it is legal to do so for as long as the
licence is valid. A licence would need to be renewed at 10-yearly intervals by passing another
theory test and another practical cycling test.
Beyond that, new categories of vehicle may be added to the RUL by taking further training and
further tests. For example, the road user may wish to add the entitlement to drive a motorcycle, a
car, a PSV or an HGV on the public highway. When a new class of vehicle is added to the licence, the
licence will remain valid for that class of vehicle for 10 years, provided that the RUL itself is
not allowed to expire.
I anticipate that some people will object to the cycling requirement of the RUL on grounds of
balance problems or other disabilities. This is not an issue, as any class of street legal solo
pedal cycle may be used, including tricycles and hand-cranked machines. Obviously the limitations on
hand signals would need to be taken into consideration in devising an alternative test for those who
need to use hand-cranked cycles, and there will still be extreme cases where the requirement for the
practical cycling test might be waived.
As at present, pedestrians would have ultimate right of way on all roads except for motorways
(although I would dearly love to see the cycling equivalent of motorways, where motor vehicles and
pedestrians would be banned), and there would be no requirement to hold a RUL in order to walk on
the public highway or public rights of way.
--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
Richard Goodman
"Danny Colyer" <danny@speedy5.freeserve.giggle> wrote in message
news:budp6o$pvh$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
<snip>
> As at present, pedestrians would have ultimate right of way on all roads except for motorways
> (although I would dearly love to see the cycling equivalent of motorways, where motor vehicles and
> pedestrians would be banned), and there would be no requirement to hold a RUL in order to walk on
> the public highway or public rights of way.
>
Interesting, but, apart from the impracticalities and unfortunate result of probably confining young
people and the elderly to their homes that would result if you're going to go that far, why not
impose RUL's on peds then? I would ;-). Why should peds have absolute right of way? Do you think
peds don't cause accidents and aren't careless in their use of the roads at times? Why not include
them in a licencing scheme if every other class of road user is going to be in it?
Rich
news:budp6o$pvh$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
<snip>
> As at present, pedestrians would have ultimate right of way on all roads except for motorways
> (although I would dearly love to see the cycling equivalent of motorways, where motor vehicles and
> pedestrians would be banned), and there would be no requirement to hold a RUL in order to walk on
> the public highway or public rights of way.
>
Interesting, but, apart from the impracticalities and unfortunate result of probably confining young
people and the elderly to their homes that would result if you're going to go that far, why not
impose RUL's on peds then? I would ;-). Why should peds have absolute right of way? Do you think
peds don't cause accidents and aren't careless in their use of the roads at times? Why not include
them in a licencing scheme if every other class of road user is going to be in it?
Rich
Nigel
"[Not Responding]" <not_responding@dev.null.invalid> wrote in message
news:5tfk00lipkr9bqjijag47f5cssev06qov2@4ax.com...
> Ye f*****g Gods.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,2763,1125686,00.html
If a car travels on a road, it has to stop at red lights, there would be a bit of a fuss if it
hopped onto the pavement and trundled around the light, or just drove straight on regardless. The
same should apply to a cyclist. I would have thought this was common sense. I bet they don't do it
at red lights where the flow from their left is a motorway off-ramp.
Compulsory training of cyclists? If you can tell me that the guy in the van I saw yesterday driving
with his mobile phone to his ear, or the people who regularly apex three lane roundabouts to
overtake people in the left lane - then intimidate their way back to the left, or the loony that
came alongside me last month on a hairpin bend and shoved me into a stone wall were now safer due to
compulsory training I'd be all for it. But they're dimwits that do whatever their whims dictate, and
the driving test was an obstacle they overcame a while back because they were forced to do it. Who
says that compulsory training of cyclists would be any different? By all means bring back the
cycling proficiency test in primary schools - it did me no harm at 10 years old. But once the exam
is over it's up to the individual to adhere to the rules.
I am a cyclist and a driver. I see both groups behaving like complete idiots. I don't see a
distinction between the number of wheels - I'd pull over and fine either when they break the law.
(By the way, what sort of a flamewar can we have over how you later identify a cyclist if he
doesn't want to pay? - ID cards? registration plates? road tax? satellite tracking and speed-
limiting black boxes?).
Compulsory helmets? I wear one just on the off-chance that if I come off it might be of help. But I
know that at speed, or if I have an aggravated meeting with something much heavier than me it
probably won't make the slightest difference.
Well that's my opinions anyway.
Regards
Nigel
news:5tfk00lipkr9bqjijag47f5cssev06qov2@4ax.com...
> Ye f*****g Gods.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,2763,1125686,00.html
If a car travels on a road, it has to stop at red lights, there would be a bit of a fuss if it
hopped onto the pavement and trundled around the light, or just drove straight on regardless. The
same should apply to a cyclist. I would have thought this was common sense. I bet they don't do it
at red lights where the flow from their left is a motorway off-ramp.
Compulsory training of cyclists? If you can tell me that the guy in the van I saw yesterday driving
with his mobile phone to his ear, or the people who regularly apex three lane roundabouts to
overtake people in the left lane - then intimidate their way back to the left, or the loony that
came alongside me last month on a hairpin bend and shoved me into a stone wall were now safer due to
compulsory training I'd be all for it. But they're dimwits that do whatever their whims dictate, and
the driving test was an obstacle they overcame a while back because they were forced to do it. Who
says that compulsory training of cyclists would be any different? By all means bring back the
cycling proficiency test in primary schools - it did me no harm at 10 years old. But once the exam
is over it's up to the individual to adhere to the rules.
I am a cyclist and a driver. I see both groups behaving like complete idiots. I don't see a
distinction between the number of wheels - I'd pull over and fine either when they break the law.
(By the way, what sort of a flamewar can we have over how you later identify a cyclist if he
doesn't want to pay? - ID cards? registration plates? road tax? satellite tracking and speed-
limiting black boxes?).
Compulsory helmets? I wear one just on the off-chance that if I come off it might be of help. But I
know that at speed, or if I have an aggravated meeting with something much heavier than me it
probably won't make the slightest difference.
Well that's my opinions anyway.
Regards
Nigel
Peter B
"[Not Responding]" <not_responding@dev.null.invalid> wrote in message
news:5tfk00lipkr9bqjijag47f5cssev06qov2@4ax.com...
> Ye f*****g Gods.
Ditto. I thought that we, as cyclists, are already bound by the same laws already but like
our motorised bretheren (of which I'm one) will need catching in the act before prosecution
can be effected.
Training is not a bad idea but surely those already holding a full driving licence will be exempt.
Those not already holding a licence ought to be trained to be aware of the motorised dickheads who
have presumably passed this test, for their own protection.
I think the article was intended to provoke a knee-jerk reaction so I'll rise above it and won't
mention the car going the wrong way down a one way street, all the motor vehicles jumping red
lights, the arsehole who overtook me on the hard shoulder of the M1 rather than use one of the
other available 3 lanes on my RHS after tailing me with a 3 foot gap, illegal lighting, mobile
phone us etc etc that I've recently witnessed. Cyclists may be annoying, motorists are downright
terrifying at times.
Pete
news:5tfk00lipkr9bqjijag47f5cssev06qov2@4ax.com...
> Ye f*****g Gods.
Ditto. I thought that we, as cyclists, are already bound by the same laws already but like
our motorised bretheren (of which I'm one) will need catching in the act before prosecution
can be effected.
Training is not a bad idea but surely those already holding a full driving licence will be exempt.
Those not already holding a licence ought to be trained to be aware of the motorised dickheads who
have presumably passed this test, for their own protection.
I think the article was intended to provoke a knee-jerk reaction so I'll rise above it and won't
mention the car going the wrong way down a one way street, all the motor vehicles jumping red
lights, the arsehole who overtook me on the hard shoulder of the M1 rather than use one of the
other available 3 lanes on my RHS after tailing me with a 3 foot gap, illegal lighting, mobile
phone us etc etc that I've recently witnessed. Cyclists may be annoying, motorists are downright
terrifying at times.
Pete
Just Zis Guy
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:47:36 -0000, "Danny Colyer"
<danny@speedy5.freeserve.giggle> wrote:
>I'm all in favour, though the cagers may not like my ideas on this:
I'm writing to the Absurder along the following lines:
"By all means, let's have a law requiring tests for cyclists. It should have a beneficial effect on
the one in five fatal cyclist accidents where the cyclist is to blame. Let's have mandatory tests
for pedestrians as well - they are also covered by the proposed insurance directive, and are at
fault in around half the crashes where they die.
And while we're about it why not introduce tests for drivers, who manage to kill over three thousand
people every year, most of whom are neither walking nor cycling at the time. After all, according to
police estimates nine out of ten fatal crashes are due to driver error."
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk (http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/)
<danny@speedy5.freeserve.giggle> wrote:
>I'm all in favour, though the cagers may not like my ideas on this:
I'm writing to the Absurder along the following lines:
"By all means, let's have a law requiring tests for cyclists. It should have a beneficial effect on
the one in five fatal cyclist accidents where the cyclist is to blame. Let's have mandatory tests
for pedestrians as well - they are also covered by the proposed insurance directive, and are at
fault in around half the crashes where they die.
And while we're about it why not introduce tests for drivers, who manage to kill over three thousand
people every year, most of whom are neither walking nor cycling at the time. After all, according to
police estimates nine out of ten fatal crashes are due to driver error."
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk (http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/)
Just Zis Guy
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:23:51 -0000, "MSeries"
<skankmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:
>My understanding of the law is that the driver is not automatically blamed and the cyclist is
>innocent but that the driver had to prove his inncence by finding witnesses and evidence rather
>than the other way round that it seems to be now.
If this is the same UE Fifth Insurance Directive it specifically excludes criminal liability but
puts civil liability (for pedestrians and cyclists - why are the peds never mentioned?) on a reverse
burden of proof. This is a small subclause. The major effect of the law will be to ensure that
anywhere in the EU, a pedestrian or cyclists who is injured by a negligent driver, will be able to
claim against the driver's insurance. In some places it is apparently possible for the driver to
avoid liability for injuries caused to non-drivers. This is the primary purpose of the legislation
from my reading of it at the time.
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk (http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/)
<skankmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:
>My understanding of the law is that the driver is not automatically blamed and the cyclist is
>innocent but that the driver had to prove his inncence by finding witnesses and evidence rather
>than the other way round that it seems to be now.
If this is the same UE Fifth Insurance Directive it specifically excludes criminal liability but
puts civil liability (for pedestrians and cyclists - why are the peds never mentioned?) on a reverse
burden of proof. This is a small subclause. The major effect of the law will be to ensure that
anywhere in the EU, a pedestrian or cyclists who is injured by a negligent driver, will be able to
claim against the driver's insurance. In some places it is apparently possible for the driver to
avoid liability for injuries caused to non-drivers. This is the primary purpose of the legislation
from my reading of it at the time.
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk (http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/)
Commuter
While basic road safety education is essential for all road/pavement users, I do think that
licensing requirement should be proportional to the amount of danger a 'vehicle' presents to road
users (i.e. Bicycle -> Motorbike -> Car -> Van -> HGV).
Mandatory pedestrian licensing is an unworkable argument designed to instil complacency with the
current system.
However I do like the idea of making car drivers competent cyclists before letting them lose in a
car. I never liked the idea of putting 'learner drivers'/'road users' straight into cars. - Colyer
you've got my vote.
TC.
licensing requirement should be proportional to the amount of danger a 'vehicle' presents to road
users (i.e. Bicycle -> Motorbike -> Car -> Van -> HGV).
Mandatory pedestrian licensing is an unworkable argument designed to instil complacency with the
current system.
However I do like the idea of making car drivers competent cyclists before letting them lose in a
car. I never liked the idea of putting 'learner drivers'/'road users' straight into cars. - Colyer
you've got my vote.
TC.
Just Zis Guy
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 13:01:38 -0000, "Nigel"
<zaphodb93nospamspleaseimonadiet@hotmail.com> wrote:
>If a car travels on a road, it has to stop at red lights, there would be a bit of a fuss if it
>hopped onto the pavement and trundled around the light, or just drove straight on regardless.
Should be, shouldn't there? But there isn't. Watch a busy junction near you some time, it's far from
unusual for one or two (or somteims five or six) cars to go through on red. And of the 186 people
killed by vehicles on pavements between 1998 and 2000, only one was killed by a cyclist. So drivers
clearly are on the pavement some of the time.
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk (http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/)
<zaphodb93nospamspleaseimonadiet@hotmail.com> wrote:
>If a car travels on a road, it has to stop at red lights, there would be a bit of a fuss if it
>hopped onto the pavement and trundled around the light, or just drove straight on regardless.
Should be, shouldn't there? But there isn't. Watch a busy junction near you some time, it's far from
unusual for one or two (or somteims five or six) cars to go through on red. And of the 186 people
killed by vehicles on pavements between 1998 and 2000, only one was killed by a cyclist. So drivers
clearly are on the pavement some of the time.
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk (http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/)
Just Zis Guy
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 08:31:13 +0000, Zog The Undeniable <ggg@hhh.net>
wrote:
>Looks like Eric Martlew has been well-and-truly nobbled. Is B**** actually an offshoot of the
>Provisional RAC?
Did you otice that he says we need training to get youngsters onto bikes? Presumably that's to
offset the effect of mandatory helmets which will of course drive them off their bikes.
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk (http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/)
wrote:
>Looks like Eric Martlew has been well-and-truly nobbled. Is B**** actually an offshoot of the
>Provisional RAC?
Did you otice that he says we need training to get youngsters onto bikes? Presumably that's to
offset the effect of mandatory helmets which will of course drive them off their bikes.
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk (http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/)
Pete Barrett
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 09:11:20 -0000, "vernon levy" <not@home.net>
wrote:
>Don't panic! Remember that the notion of taxing bikes was discarded as being unwieldy and not worth
>it. What makes you think that compulsory training will be come a reality. With motorised vehicles
>the training costs can be subsidised by the manufacturers and represents a relatively small
>percentage of the total cost of ownership taking protective clothing, tax and insurance into
>account. Making training compulsory would be unpalatable for the government as the cost of lower
>end bikes would effectively double.
The sensible thing, and I don't think many people would object, would be to make cycle training a
compulsory part of the primary school curriculum for those who are physically able to do it. It
wouldn't cost all that much (mainly the cost of providing each school with a couple of bikes for the
use of those who don't have their own), and future generations would at least have the basic skills
to prevent them from falling off in the road.
Pete Barrett
wrote:
>Don't panic! Remember that the notion of taxing bikes was discarded as being unwieldy and not worth
>it. What makes you think that compulsory training will be come a reality. With motorised vehicles
>the training costs can be subsidised by the manufacturers and represents a relatively small
>percentage of the total cost of ownership taking protective clothing, tax and insurance into
>account. Making training compulsory would be unpalatable for the government as the cost of lower
>end bikes would effectively double.
The sensible thing, and I don't think many people would object, would be to make cycle training a
compulsory part of the primary school curriculum for those who are physically able to do it. It
wouldn't cost all that much (mainly the cost of providing each school with a couple of bikes for the
use of those who don't have their own), and future generations would at least have the basic skills
to prevent them from falling off in the road.
Pete Barrett
Pete Barrett
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:16:29 +0000, Zog The Undeniable <ggg@hhh.net>
wrote:
>vernon levy wrote:
>
>> Rising on pavements not designated as shared use is anti-social.
>
>I disagree there. Riding on pavements that have been designated as shared use is just as dangerous
>- and the ones with a white line down the middle aren't much better. The laws of logic broke down
>when councils started to allow shared use of pavements: if cycling on the pavement is sufficiently
>dangerous to be illegal, why does a blue sign make it safe?
Because it warns the pedestrians what to expect, I should think. No one is going to build cycle
routes purely for cycling, with neither cars nor pedestrians allowed on them. Therefore we have to
share either the roads with cars or the pavements and footpaths (and cycle paths!) with pedestrians.
Which is best in a particular instance depends on circumstances, in my opinion.
Pete Barrett
wrote:
>vernon levy wrote:
>
>> Rising on pavements not designated as shared use is anti-social.
>
>I disagree there. Riding on pavements that have been designated as shared use is just as dangerous
>- and the ones with a white line down the middle aren't much better. The laws of logic broke down
>when councils started to allow shared use of pavements: if cycling on the pavement is sufficiently
>dangerous to be illegal, why does a blue sign make it safe?
Because it warns the pedestrians what to expect, I should think. No one is going to build cycle
routes purely for cycling, with neither cars nor pedestrians allowed on them. Therefore we have to
share either the roads with cars or the pavements and footpaths (and cycle paths!) with pedestrians.
Which is best in a particular instance depends on circumstances, in my opinion.
Pete Barrett
Richard Burton
"[Not Responding]" <not_responding@dev.null.invalid> wrote in message
news:5tfk00lipkr9bqjijag47f5cssev06qov2@4ax.com...
> Ye f*****g Gods.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,2763,1125686,00.html
Do I get Grauniad points? "there are a minority of cyclists fragrantly disregarding the law.' "
Smelly b******rs
news:5tfk00lipkr9bqjijag47f5cssev06qov2@4ax.com...
> Ye f*****g Gods.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,2763,1125686,00.html
Do I get Grauniad points? "there are a minority of cyclists fragrantly disregarding the law.' "
Smelly b******rs
Pk
Peter B wrote:
> "[Not Responding]" <not_responding@dev.null.invalid> wrote in message
> news:5tfk00lipkr9bqjijag47f5cssev06qov2@4ax.com...
>> Ye f*****g Gods.
>
> Ditto. I thought that we, as cyclists, are already bound by the same laws already but like our
> motorised bretheren (of which I'm one) will need catching in the act before prosecution can be
> effected.
Just arrived back from a walk on Wimbledon common. Drove up as it's too far for the kids to walk
there AND round the common.
Driving back:
(For anyone who knows the area, just by the Fox and Grapes)
Road bends to the right, almost 90 degrees. Side road joins from the left on the bend. Give way
lines on the side road.
As I approach the bend, woman cyclist is stopped at the give way line. Just as I reach the bend
three youffs on bikes hurtle past the stopped woman at some considerable speed, straight across the
junction on the road, across on to the wrong side of the road, onto the narrow gravel path on the
RHS of the road.
I had to do an emergency stop (from circa 20mph?) to avoid hitting them. If I had not done so I
would without a doubt have taken out at least one of them. If I had not been "cyclist aware" I might
well not have seen them, as the "lead" cyclist had stopped and had made eye contact.
Is it any wonder that cyclists have a bad reputation?
pk
> "[Not Responding]" <not_responding@dev.null.invalid> wrote in message
> news:5tfk00lipkr9bqjijag47f5cssev06qov2@4ax.com...
>> Ye f*****g Gods.
>
> Ditto. I thought that we, as cyclists, are already bound by the same laws already but like our
> motorised bretheren (of which I'm one) will need catching in the act before prosecution can be
> effected.
Just arrived back from a walk on Wimbledon common. Drove up as it's too far for the kids to walk
there AND round the common.
Driving back:
(For anyone who knows the area, just by the Fox and Grapes)
Road bends to the right, almost 90 degrees. Side road joins from the left on the bend. Give way
lines on the side road.
As I approach the bend, woman cyclist is stopped at the give way line. Just as I reach the bend
three youffs on bikes hurtle past the stopped woman at some considerable speed, straight across the
junction on the road, across on to the wrong side of the road, onto the narrow gravel path on the
RHS of the road.
I had to do an emergency stop (from circa 20mph?) to avoid hitting them. If I had not done so I
would without a doubt have taken out at least one of them. If I had not been "cyclist aware" I might
well not have seen them, as the "lead" cyclist had stopped and had made eye contact.
Is it any wonder that cyclists have a bad reputation?
pk
Automatic Translations (Powered by 
):
):
Translations by vBET Translator 3.2.2
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0