ash wrote:
On Dec 22, 2:52 pm, 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?

--
Matt B

If the existing laws were applied to cyclists as and when they break
them, there would be an uproar of victimisation.

why not then realax the laws for motorists too?

Look what happened when the police kindly allowed some leeway for unlit
cyclists in Oxford, the just took the **** even more.