Re: Are cyclists allowed to race on public roads?



If anyone wants to make a bad day even worse, or a very nice day, which
today is, not so nice, they might care to read the original thread on
uk.rec.driving ;-(
 
MartinM wrote:
> If anyone wants to make a bad day even worse, or a very nice day,

which
> today is, not so nice, they might care to read the original thread on
> uk.rec.driving ;-(


I usually try not to bite on this kind of thread, but today I'm in the
mood for it... let battle commence! ;-)

d.
 
Vincent Wilcox wrote:
>
> MartinM wrote:
> > If anyone wants to make a bad day even worse, or a very nice day, which
> > today is, not so nice, they might care to read the original thread on
> > uk.rec.driving ;-(
> >

>
> Does it go something like this?
>
> Yeahbut. I pay road tax... they jump red lights... they ride on the
> pavement... I see it all the time... I cant seem them because theyre
> dressed in black... they dont have lights... they dont obey the rules...
> they dont have any respect... petrol costs alot... they are all
> outlaws... speed cameras are an illuminati threat... they dont have any
> insurance... they deserve it... yadda yadda yadda.


i've just had a look. You're spot on.
They sure are jealous little children.

John B
 
Vincent Wilcox wrote:
> Does it go something like this?


Omigod! You must be psychic!

d.
 
MartinM wrote:
> If anyone wants to make a bad day even worse, or a very nice day, which
> today is, not so nice, they might care to read the original thread on
> uk.rec.driving ;-(
>


Does it go something like this?

Yeahbut. I pay road tax... they jump red lights... they ride on the
pavement... I see it all the time... I cant seem them because theyre
dressed in black... they dont have lights... they dont obey the rules...
they dont have any respect... petrol costs alot... they are all
outlaws... speed cameras are an illuminati threat... they dont have any
insurance... they deserve it... yadda yadda yadda.
 
davek wrote:
> Vincent Wilcox wrote:
> > Does it go something like this?

>
> Omigod! You must be psychic!


in the same thread;

I think Highways Agency are trying to get it stopped...

any ideas what this refers to?
 
In uk.rec.driving MartinM <[email protected]> wrote:
: I think Highways Agency are trying to get it stopped...

: any ideas what this refers to?

The only thing I could think of is that they could make a formal request to the
organising body to stop doing this on grounds of safety. This would then look
rather bad at the next risk assesment/insurance review.

--
Arthur Clune PGP/GPG Key: http://www.clune.org/pubkey.txt
Don't get me wrong, perl is an OK operating system, but it lacks a
lightweight scripting language -- Walter Dnes
 
davek wrote:
> MartinM wrote:
> > If anyone wants to make a bad day even worse, or a very nice
> > day, which today is, not so nice, they might care to read the
> > original thread on uk.rec.driving ;-(


Depressing in the extreme. The thought that some of these numpties are
allowed to go round in charge of powerful motor vehicles... :-(

> I usually try not to bite on this kind of thread, but today I'm
> in the mood for it... let battle commence! ;-)


By all means but can we remove the cross-posting and keep it in u.r.d?

--
Dave...
 
> I think Highways Agency are trying to get it stopped...
>
> any ideas what this refers to?
>


To run an open Time Trial on UK roads, the event must be run under Cycling
Time Trial rules as CTT is the governing body for most time trials. You
must use a CTT approved course. If there are safety concerns / collisions
on an approved course, it can have it's CTT approval withdrawn, and
therefore will be unavailable for future races. CTT liases with Highways
Agency, local Police Forces etc regarding approved courses, and they in turn
can put pressure on CTT to stop using courses that are considered too
dangerous, or place restrictions on the time of day the courses can be used.
 
Bronzie wrote:
> > I think Highways Agency are trying to get it stopped...
> >
> > any ideas what this refers to?
> >

>
> To run an open Time Trial on UK roads, the event must be run under

Cycling
> Time Trial rules as CTT is the governing body for most time trials.


Thanks, I thought CTT would need to do this; it has also happened on
the A264 where one roundabout has been removed from a course, but what
has happened is that the route has now been altered to take in a couple
of other roundabouts on not exactly quiet roads. Apparently traffic
calmed villages are out as well.
 
"MartinM" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1116431809.445673.230250
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Thanks, I thought CTT would need to do this; it has also happened on
> the A264 where one roundabout has been removed from a course, but what
> has happened is that the route has now been altered to take in a couple
> of other roundabouts on not exactly quiet roads. Apparently traffic
> calmed villages are out as well.


Thanks for the information - you've given me a pointer about to who to
complain about last year's fiasco on the A374 (see the thread in u.r.d).
So, the idiots who vented their exasperation at being held up by slow-
moving traffic that was being held up by a recreational cyclist were,
judging by info on the CTT site, members of the Plymouth Corinthians. I've
written to the CTT to express concerns of the safety of that course,
particularly since there are regular hold-ups from tractors and cyclists on
that road and traffic regularly travels slower than time triallers would
like. If the competitors can't ride safely and with proper consideration
for other road users, the course should be withdrawn.

--
Geoff Lane
Cornwall, UK
 
Geoff Lane wrote:
> If the competitors can't ride safely and with proper consideration
> for other road users, the course should be withdrawn.


You won't find any disagreement on this from any /sensible/ cyclist.
(Believe it or not, there are a few people who fit into that category.)

d.
 
Rob wrote:
> "RipVanWinkle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> I denounce any use of cycling on the roads, there I said it.
>>>

>>
>> That seems very intolerant to me.
>>
>>

>
> hello,
>
> They don't pay road tax or insurance, so shouldn't be allowed on a
> road.


If it wasn't for cars there wouldn't be any need for road tax.
 
Brimstone wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>
>>"RipVanWinkle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>I denounce any use of cycling on the roads, there I said it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That seems very intolerant to me.


>>hello,
>>
>>They don't pay road tax or insurance, so shouldn't be allowed on a
>>road.

>
>
> If it wasn't for cars there wouldn't be any need for road tax.


If you or anyone else is paying road tax you are gulls. There is no road
tax.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap
 
On Thu, 19 May 2005 22:50:47 +0100, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "RipVanWinkle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> |
> | <[email protected]> wrote in message
> | news:[email protected]...
> | > I denounce any use of cycling on the roads, there I said it.
> | >
> |
> | That seems very intolerant to me.
> |
> |
>
> hello,
>
> They don't pay road tax or insurance, so shouldn't be allowed on a road.


You don't pay road tax either. It was (AFAIK) abolished by Winston
Churchill.

*Sigh*. Here we go, then.

You (and I, yes, a cyclist), pay VED - vehicle excise duty. Read the last
Chancellor's budget speech if you don't believe me. This goes into the
general pot of taxation, same as your income tax.

So, by your argument, those with higher incomes (i.e those who pay more
tax), should have priority on the road, right? I know from the general
makeup of uk.rec.cycling that there are some very well-paid professionals
who choose to cycle, so those cyclists would have priority over you as
a driver.

And insurance? I'm insured, personally speaking, as are many cyclists.

Or are you suggesting that cyclists require the same sort of third-party
cover as motorists, who kill or seriously injure 3,500 people a year?



--
jc
 
Jeremy Collins wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2005 22:50:47 +0100, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> They don't pay road tax or insurance, so shouldn't be allowed on a road.

[...]
> And insurance? I'm insured, personally speaking, as are many cyclists.
>
> Or are you suggesting that cyclists require the same sort of third-party
> cover as motorists, who kill or seriously injure 3,500 people a year?


Kill 3500 per year. The seriously injured number is seriously higher.

Colin
 

Similar threads