"Ambrose Nankivell" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In
news:[email protected], Nathaniel Porter
> <
[email protected]> typed:
> > "Ambrose Nankivell" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
news:[email protected]...
> >> In
news:[email protected], Nathaniel Porter
> >> <
[email protected]> typed:
> >>> Whilst I think this counciller is taking the ****, I think it is true that bad cyclists aren't
> >>> hauled up anywhere near like they should be.
> >>>
> >>> Both cyclists and motorists need stricter enforcement - but I think they're closer to the mark
> >>> with motorists.
> >>
> >> Yep, they really should be stopping those cyclists killing 3500 people a year because they
> >> can't be bothered concentrating.
> >>
> >
> > Cyclists have a duty to obey traffic laws as well.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Your argument is basically "I'm a cyclist, cyclists don't kill many people, so I can ignore the
> > law and get away with it".
>
> No. I don't ignore the law, and I don't let friends and acquaintances get away with ignoring
> it, either.
>
> > Obviously there must be priorities, but enforcement of traffic laws needs to increase for all
> > road users, especially those road users where enforcement is near non-existant.
>
> My main issue with with your saying that the law enforcement agencies are nearer the mark with
> motorists, when the benchmark of amount of injury caused to society, which is what the law is
> aimed to reduce, is so much higher through them. And also, just because there's popular complaint
about
> enforcement of law against motor vehicles doesn't mean it's at
unreasonably
> high levels.
>
I appreciate that, and that enforcement of motor vehicles will always be more of a priority.
It's just enforcing traffic laws for other road users needs to be more of a priority than it
currently is IMO.
>
> Maybe I should have put it clearer first time.
>
Agreed. Also, maybe I shouldn't have drunk half a bottle of ouzo before posting to usenet ;-)