On 06/05/2018 15:13, RJH wrote:
On 06/05/2018 15:01, JNugent wrote:
On 06/05/2018 14:40, wrote:

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 1:50:33 PM UTC+1, colwyn wrote:
Having lost your LICENCE to operate a motor car, how do these thousands
of *not* law abiding motorists per annum get about? Do they suddenly
acquire chauffeurs, use public transport or call themselves cyclists?

I worked at a place with ~1000 men and a few had been banned for
drink driving.
Many got their wives or shiftmates to drive them in for the (usually)
year of the ban.

Of course, I cycled to work and so was not subject to these laws:

Speeding, parking the wrong way at night, on yellow lines, on zig
zags, outside schools, pavement parking, obstructing traffic by
inconsiderate parking, driving while drunk, on mobile phones, with no
car tax, no licence, no insurance, no MOT, illegal plates, overtaking
on double lines, due care, bald tyres, faulty brakes, one eyed
monsters, no rear lights, no brake lights, no indicators, fog light
abuse, faulty steering, windscreen obscuration, darkly tinted
windows, child seat abuse, no seatbelts, insecure load, one way
street abuse, amber/red light jumping, cycle box abuse, bus lane
abuse, box junction abuse, death by dangerous driving, excess smoke
and noise from exhaust, duff suspension, leaking oil, cash for crash
fiddles, underage child in front, lights causing glare, over weight
limit, ignoring no entry signs, parking without permit, not having
control of your vehicle, improper use of horn, using horn at night,
no in date photo licence, no licence application after long ban,
without prescribed eyewear, failing to stop for police/lollipop/zebra
etc - ran out of space.

You seem to suggest that cyclists are not subject to law on:

(a) cycling while drunk,
(b) with defective tyres,
(c) with defective brakes,
(d) with defective or absent front and rear lights,
(e) cycling the wrong way in a one-way street,
(f) failing to stop at a red traffic light,
(g) causing death by reckless/careless/criminal/whatever cycling,
(h) fraudulent insurance claims,
(i) ignoring "No Entry" signs,
(j) failing to stop when required to do so by a police office,
(k) failing to stop when required to do so by a school crossing warden,
(l) failing to accord precedence to pedestrians on a zebra crossing.

Every one of those suggestions is incorrect, meaning that theÂ* basic
premise contained within your post is wrong.

Which law or laws are you referring to? I didn't know there was a law on
tyres, for example, or the legal need for lights in the daytime.

Cycling Construction and Use Regulations?

But you may be right about there being no requirement for bicycle tyres
to be in a safe condition. Still, one might have supposed a diligent
cyclist to be more than prepared to use safe, non-defective tyres, as a
given.

But perhaps it was too much to expect.