Not many cyclists out, must be the weather.
 

But 100 per cent of the cyclists I have seen in the last 24 hours broke the
law in one significant way or another while I watched.

Not many cyclists out, must be the weather.
 

On 22/12/2010 13:55, Mrcheerful wrote:
But 100 per cent of the cyclists I have seen in the last 24 hours broke the
law in one significant way or another while I watched.

What were the top 5 "offences" committed IYHO?

--
Matt B

Not many cyclists out, must be the weather.
 

Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 13:55, Mrcheerful wrote:
But 100 per cent of the cyclists I have seen in the last 24 hours
broke the law in one significant way or another while I watched.

What were the top 5 "offences" committed IYHO?

Red light jumping (2) and no lights after dark(2), followed by wrong way in
a one way (1) and pavement cycling (1).

Not many cyclists out, must be the weather.
 

On 22/12/2010 14:19, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 13:55, Mrcheerful wrote:
But 100 per cent of the cyclists I have seen in the last 24 hours
broke the law in one significant way or another while I watched.

What were the top 5 "offences" committed IYHO?

Red light jumping (2) and no lights after dark(2), followed by wrong way in
a one way (1) and pavement cycling (1).

Your sample size was 6? Did any of those "offenders" cause any real
danger to anyone?

--
Matt B

Not many cyclists out, must be the weather.
 

Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 14:19, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 13:55, Mrcheerful wrote:
But 100 per cent of the cyclists I have seen in the last 24 hours
broke the law in one significant way or another while I watched.

What were the top 5 "offences" committed IYHO?

Red light jumping (2) and no lights after dark(2), followed by wrong
way in a one way (1) and pavement cycling (1).

Your sample size was 6? Did any of those "offenders" cause any real
danger to anyone?

I did say that not many were about :)
One of the rlj did cause a car to slide to a halt, which could easily have
caused a pile up. The others caused no dangerous situation in the short
time I saw them, so is it alright to break the laws of the road if no danger
is caused? They seem to have missed that bit out in the Highway Code that I
have read.

Not many cyclists out, must be the weather.
 

On 22/12/2010 14:34, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 14:19, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 13:55, Mrcheerful wrote:
But 100 per cent of the cyclists I have seen in the last 24 hours
broke the law in one significant way or another while I watched.

What were the top 5 "offences" committed IYHO?

Red light jumping (2) and no lights after dark(2), followed by wrong
way in a one way (1) and pavement cycling (1).

Your sample size was 6? Did any of those "offenders" cause any real
danger to anyone?

I did say that not many were about :)

Just 6 in 24 hours - how much of that time were you out and about - and
where?

One of the rlj did cause a car to slide to a halt, which could easily have
caused a pile up.

Naughty then.

The others caused no dangerous situation in the short
time I saw them,

So the appropriate legislation is possibly a bit of an overkill?
Requiring people to stop or have lights or whatever when, actually, such
a requirement isn't strictly necessary.

so is it alright to break the laws of the road if no danger
is caused?

Let's turn that around... Is it all right for laws to be created
willy-nilly, inconveniencing those who feel obliged to comply with them
for no apparent reason and at the same time giving the advantage to
those who have no qualms about breaking the law? Shouldn't unnecessary
or incompetently drafted laws be abolished?

They seem to have missed that bit out in the Highway Code that I
have read.

Laws is laws - but do we need them all?

--
Matt B

Not many cyclists out, must be the weather.
 

Mrcheerful wrote:
But 100 per cent of the cyclists I have seen in the last 24 hours broke the
law in one significant way or another while I watched.


Lots of cars out - I've seen them on telly, stuck in jams.


BugBear

Not many cyclists out, must be the weather.
 

Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 14:34, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 14:19, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 13:55, Mrcheerful wrote:
But 100 per cent of the cyclists I have seen in the last 24 hours
broke the law in one significant way or another while I watched.

What were the top 5 "offences" committed IYHO?

Red light jumping (2) and no lights after dark(2), followed by
wrong way in a one way (1) and pavement cycling (1).

Your sample size was 6? Did any of those "offenders" cause any real
danger to anyone?

I did say that not many were about :)

Just 6 in 24 hours - how much of that time were you out and about -
and where?

One of the rlj did cause a car to slide to a halt, which could
easily have caused a pile up.

Naughty then.

The others caused no dangerous situation in the short
time I saw them,

So the appropriate legislation is possibly a bit of an overkill?
Requiring people to stop or have lights or whatever when, actually,
such a requirement isn't strictly necessary.

so is it alright to break the laws of the road if no danger
is caused?

Let's turn that around... Is it all right for laws to be created
willy-nilly, inconveniencing those who feel obliged to comply with
them for no apparent reason and at the same time giving the advantage
to those who have no qualms about breaking the law? Shouldn't
unnecessary or incompetently drafted laws be abolished?

They seem to have missed that bit out in the Highway Code that I
have read.

Laws is laws - but do we need them all?

that was two journeys for which I was on the road for about 25 mins. I did
not see any car RLJ or drive without any lights, or drive on the pavement or
in the wrong direction, and I proably saw close to a thousand cars in that
time.

so is the way forward to break the laws, or mend them?

Not many cyclists out, must be the weather.
 

On 22/12/2010 15:42, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 14:34, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 14:19, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 13:55, Mrcheerful wrote:
But 100 per cent of the cyclists I have seen in the last 24 hours
broke the law in one significant way or another while I watched.

What were the top 5 "offences" committed IYHO?

Red light jumping (2) and no lights after dark(2), followed by
wrong way in a one way (1) and pavement cycling (1).

Your sample size was 6? Did any of those "offenders" cause any real
danger to anyone?

I did say that not many were about :)

Just 6 in 24 hours - how much of that time were you out and about -
and where?

One of the rlj did cause a car to slide to a halt, which could
easily have caused a pile up.

Naughty then.

The others caused no dangerous situation in the short
time I saw them,

So the appropriate legislation is possibly a bit of an overkill?
Requiring people to stop or have lights or whatever when, actually,
such a requirement isn't strictly necessary.

so is it alright to break the laws of the road if no danger
is caused?

Let's turn that around... Is it all right for laws to be created
willy-nilly, inconveniencing those who feel obliged to comply with
them for no apparent reason and at the same time giving the advantage
to those who have no qualms about breaking the law? Shouldn't
unnecessary or incompetently drafted laws be abolished?

They seem to have missed that bit out in the Highway Code that I
have read.

Laws is laws - but do we need them all?

that was two journeys for which I was on the road for about 25 mins. I did
not see any car RLJ or drive without any lights, or drive on the pavement or
in the wrong direction, and I proably saw close to a thousand cars in that
time.

so is the way forward to break the laws, or mend them?

Do you think that banning someone from doing something that has no
detrimental effect on anyone else is a good thing?

Do you think that regulations which, by their very existence, lead to
more casualties and congestion than would otherwise exist without them
are good regulations and should be kept?

Do you think that regulations which are only generally obeyed if and
when they are rigorously enforced, but are otherwise widely flouted, are
good regulations?

--
Matt B

Not many cyclists out, must be the weather.
 

Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 15:42, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 14:34, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 14:19, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 13:55, Mrcheerful wrote:
But 100 per cent of the cyclists I have seen in the last 24
hours broke the law in one significant way or another while I
watched.

What were the top 5 "offences" committed IYHO?

Red light jumping (2) and no lights after dark(2), followed by
wrong way in a one way (1) and pavement cycling (1).

Your sample size was 6? Did any of those "offenders" cause any
real danger to anyone?

I did say that not many were about :)

Just 6 in 24 hours - how much of that time were you out and about -
and where?

One of the rlj did cause a car to slide to a halt, which could
easily have caused a pile up.

Naughty then.

The others caused no dangerous situation in the short
time I saw them,

So the appropriate legislation is possibly a bit of an overkill?
Requiring people to stop or have lights or whatever when, actually,
such a requirement isn't strictly necessary.

so is it alright to break the laws of the road if no danger
is caused?

Let's turn that around... Is it all right for laws to be created
willy-nilly, inconveniencing those who feel obliged to comply with
them for no apparent reason and at the same time giving the
advantage to those who have no qualms about breaking the law? Shouldn't
unnecessary or incompetently drafted laws be abolished?

They seem to have missed that bit out in the Highway Code that I
have read.

Laws is laws - but do we need them all?

that was two journeys for which I was on the road for about 25 mins.
I did not see any car RLJ or drive without any lights, or drive on
the pavement or in the wrong direction, and I proably saw close to a
thousand cars in that time.

so is the way forward to break the laws, or mend them?

Do you think that banning someone from doing something that has no
detrimental effect on anyone else is a good thing?

Do you think that regulations which, by their very existence, lead to
more casualties and congestion than would otherwise exist without them
are good regulations and should be kept?

Do you think that regulations which are only generally obeyed if and
when they are rigorously enforced, but are otherwise widely flouted,
are good regulations?

if everyone ignored every road law 'because it is not causing any danger at
the moment' there would be carnage. I have no interest in living in an
anarchy, I have seen Mad Max.