Who is to blame Cyclist or Taxi Driver? ( I dont like either)

On 28/11/2015 12:53, John Smith wrote:
In uk.rec.cycling Mrcheerful wrote:
On 28/11/2015 12:01, Nick wrote:
On 27/11/2015 19:10, Judith wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:09:41 +0000, Nick wrote:

If he can't signal properly and check his mirrors he really shouldn't
be driving at all.

He has taken a test and passed it.

Has the cyclist do you know?

There is a common theme in these threads where people suggest that the
same rules should be applied to motor vehicles and bicycles. Clearly
they are different. Hence different rules are required.

The rules of the road do apply, and should be applied to all road users,
irrespective of the power, weight or speed of their vehicles.

I wonder, then why car drivers pass their tests at the age of 17 and get to
drive until they're seventy, without any more checks. Bus and lorry
drivers, on the other hand, can't pass their test until they're 18 for
lorries, 24 for bus drivers, have to take 35 hours of training every five
years, have to sit a further test at the age of 45 and then be medically
tested every five years thereafter (every year once they reach 65).

Can you guess, you stupid ****? Would you like to take a guess, you stupid
****?

That's right, you stupid ****.. it's because a lorry has far greater
potential for harm due to its mass (and thus, its kinetic energy). And bus
drivers transport passengers whom they could seriously injure or kill.

That's wrong, you stupid ****. It's because they are larger and more
complicated to drive properly.

--
Dave
Dedicated to finding a cure for cycling.

On 28/11/2015 13:33, Nick wrote:
On 28/11/2015 12:47, John Smith wrote:
In uk.rec.cycling Nick wrote:
On 27/11/2015 19:10, Judith wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:09:41 +0000, Nick wrote:

If he can't signal properly and check his mirrors he really shouldn't
be driving at all.

He has taken a test and passed it.

Has the cyclist do you know?

There is a common theme in these threads where people suggest that the
same rules should be applied to motor vehicles and bicycles.

It's standard victim-blaming.

They'll need to do better with their logic.

They seem to have an ongoing difficulty understanding the difference
between universal quantification and existential quantification.

Unless you spell it out for them explicitly each time they get confused.

Then why don't you do so?

I love it when cyclists try to be clever....

--
Dave
Dedicated to finding a cure for cycling.

On 28/11/2015 12:35, Alycidon wrote:
On Saturday, 28 November 2015 12:01:44 UTC, Nick wrote:


FWIW I don't even know if I have passed a cycling test. I remember the
cycling proficiency lessons but not the result.

I have had three cycling tests, but not one driving lesson.

I never had a driving lesson either.

--
Bod

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 1:25:41 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/11/2015 13:04, Cycle-Ops wrote:
On 28/11/2015 12:53, John Smith wrote:
In uk.rec.cycling Mrcheerful wrote:
On 28/11/2015 12:01, Nick wrote:
On 27/11/2015 19:10, Judith wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:09:41 +0000, Nick
wrote:

If he can't signal properly and check his mirrors he really shouldn't
be driving at all.

He has taken a test and passed it.

Has the cyclist do you know?

There is a common theme in these threads where people suggest that the
same rules should be applied to motor vehicles and bicycles. Clearly
they are different. Hence different rules are required.

The rules of the road do apply, and should be applied to all road users,
irrespective of the power, weight or speed of their vehicles.

I wonder, then why car drivers pass their tests at the age of 17 and
get to
drive until they're seventy, without any more checks. Bus and lorry
drivers, on the other hand, can't pass their test until they're 18 for
lorries, 24 for bus drivers, have to take 35 hours of training every five
years, have to sit a further test at the age of 45 and then be medically
tested every five years thereafter (every year once they reach 65).

I wonder why cyclists don't pass any kind of test? Since they injure as
many people as cars do and have an incredibly high accident rate
themselves.

Can you guess, you stupid ****? Would you like to take a guess, you
stupid
****?

That's right, you stupid ****.. it's because a lorry has far greater
potential for harm due to its mass (and thus, its kinetic energy).
And bus
drivers transport passengers whom they could seriously injure or kill.

You still think that all road users should be subject to the same rules,
despite the fact that some have far greater potential for harm?

You stupid ****.

As much of road policing is now done remotely by camera, it is now
appropriate that all vehicles are traceable through a number plate.

Only if cyclists also get forced to wear hi-viz, have compulsory
insurance, and have to wear a number on the back of the hi-viz.


IFYPFY

Hi-viz itself needs to be controlled and codified so that the briefest
sighting of it on the horizon conveys an accurate message.

My suggestion:

Police and other emergency services: Blue Hi-Viz

Roadworkers and maintenance: Green Hi-Viz

Breakdown services: Yellow Hi-Viz

General road-users (pedestrians, civilian car-occupants whilst out of
vehicle on motorways, etc): Orange Hi-Viz

Cyclists & groups of children (and their supervising adults): Pink
Hi-Viz.

http://www.kidshivis.co.uk/2-kids-hi-vis-vests?gclid=Cj0KEQiAvuWyBRDO_Yzhpv_4nvEBEiQANBdXMq KMSO840wqv9rYkPBEkzOWn8jylB7x0DQfdb0_Pp54aAn3d8P8H AQ

Orange is generally used by railway workers. It may even be mandatory for railway workers to wear orange.

On 28/11/2015 14:18, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 1:25:41 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/11/2015 13:04, Cycle-Ops wrote:
On 28/11/2015 12:53, John Smith wrote:
In uk.rec.cycling Mrcheerful wrote:
On 28/11/2015 12:01, Nick wrote:
On 27/11/2015 19:10, Judith wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:09:41 +0000, Nick
wrote:

If he can't signal properly and check his mirrors he really shouldn't
be driving at all.

He has taken a test and passed it.

Has the cyclist do you know?

There is a common theme in these threads where people suggest that the
same rules should be applied to motor vehicles and bicycles. Clearly
they are different. Hence different rules are required.

The rules of the road do apply, and should be applied to all road users,
irrespective of the power, weight or speed of their vehicles.

I wonder, then why car drivers pass their tests at the age of 17 and
get to
drive until they're seventy, without any more checks. Bus and lorry
drivers, on the other hand, can't pass their test until they're 18 for
lorries, 24 for bus drivers, have to take 35 hours of training every five
years, have to sit a further test at the age of 45 and then be medically
tested every five years thereafter (every year once they reach 65).

I wonder why cyclists don't pass any kind of test? Since they injure as
many people as cars do and have an incredibly high accident rate
themselves.

Can you guess, you stupid ****? Would you like to take a guess, you
stupid
****?

That's right, you stupid ****.. it's because a lorry has far greater
potential for harm due to its mass (and thus, its kinetic energy).
And bus
drivers transport passengers whom they could seriously injure or kill.

You still think that all road users should be subject to the same rules,
despite the fact that some have far greater potential for harm?

You stupid ****.

As much of road policing is now done remotely by camera, it is now
appropriate that all vehicles are traceable through a number plate.

Only if cyclists also get forced to wear hi-viz, have compulsory
insurance, and have to wear a number on the back of the hi-viz.


IFYPFY

Hi-viz itself needs to be controlled and codified so that the briefest
sighting of it on the horizon conveys an accurate message.
My suggestion:
Police and other emergency services: Blue Hi-Viz
Roadworkers and maintenance: Green Hi-Viz
Breakdown services: Yellow Hi-Viz
General road-users (pedestrians, civilian car-occupants whilst out of
vehicle on motorways, etc): Orange Hi-Viz
Cyclists & groups of children (and their supervising adults): Pink Hi-Viz.

http://www.kidshivis.co.uk/2-kids-hi-vis-vests?gclid=Cj0KEQiAvuWyBRDO_Yzhpv_4nvEBEiQANBdXMq KMSO840wqv9rYkPBEkzOWn8jylB7x0DQfdb0_Pp54aAn3d8P8H AQ

Orange is generally used by railway workers. It may even be mandatory for railway workers to wear orange.

There are other colours which could be used if that is the case.

I'm glad to see that you accept the proposition in principle.

On Saturday, 28 November 2015 14:18:05 UTC, Tom Crispin wrote:

Orange is generally used by railway workers. It may even be mandatory for railway workers to wear orange.

And of course it is mandatory in many countries for car occupants to have hi-vis to hand INSIDE the car in case they break down on a motorway. There are heavy fines for non compliance.

On 28/11/2015 14:53, JNugent wrote:
On 28/11/2015 14:18, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 1:25:41 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/11/2015 13:04, Cycle-Ops wrote:
On 28/11/2015 12:53, John Smith wrote:
In uk.rec.cycling Mrcheerful wrote:
On 28/11/2015 12:01, Nick wrote:
On 27/11/2015 19:10, Judith wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:09:41 +0000, Nick
wrote:

If he can't signal properly and check his mirrors he really
shouldn't
be driving at all.

He has taken a test and passed it.

Has the cyclist do you know?

There is a common theme in these threads where people suggest
that the
same rules should be applied to motor vehicles and bicycles. Clearly
they are different. Hence different rules are required.

The rules of the road do apply, and should be applied to all road
users,
irrespective of the power, weight or speed of their vehicles.

I wonder, then why car drivers pass their tests at the age of 17 and
get to
drive until they're seventy, without any more checks. Bus and lorry
drivers, on the other hand, can't pass their test until they're 18 for
lorries, 24 for bus drivers, have to take 35 hours of training
every five
years, have to sit a further test at the age of 45 and then be
medically
tested every five years thereafter (every year once they reach 65).

I wonder why cyclists don't pass any kind of test? Since they
injure as
many people as cars do and have an incredibly high accident rate
themselves.

Can you guess, you stupid ****? Would you like to take a guess, you
stupid
****?

That's right, you stupid ****.. it's because a lorry has far greater
potential for harm due to its mass (and thus, its kinetic energy).
And bus
drivers transport passengers whom they could seriously injure or kill.

You still think that all road users should be subject to the same
rules,
despite the fact that some have far greater potential for harm?

You stupid ****.

As much of road policing is now done remotely by camera, it is now
appropriate that all vehicles are traceable through a number plate.

Only if cyclists also get forced to wear hi-viz, have compulsory
insurance, and have to wear a number on the back of the hi-viz.


IFYPFY

Hi-viz itself needs to be controlled and codified so that the briefest
sighting of it on the horizon conveys an accurate message.
My suggestion:
Police and other emergency services: Blue Hi-Viz
Roadworkers and maintenance: Green Hi-Viz
Breakdown services: Yellow Hi-Viz
General road-users (pedestrians, civilian car-occupants whilst out of
vehicle on motorways, etc): Orange Hi-Viz
Cyclists & groups of children (and their supervising adults): Pink
Hi-Viz.

http://www.kidshivis.co.uk/2-kids-hi-vis-vests?gclid=Cj0KEQiAvuWyBRDO_Yzhpv_4nvEBEiQANBdXMq KMSO840wqv9rYkPBEkzOWn8jylB7x0DQfdb0_Pp54aAn3d8P8H AQ


Orange is generally used by railway workers. It may even be mandatory
for railway workers to wear orange.

There are other colours which could be used if that is the case.

I'm glad to see that you accept the proposition in principle.

I like the fact that pink covers both children and cyclists. Quite apt.

--
Dave
Dedicated to finding a cure for cycling.

In uk.rec.cycling Nick wrote:
On 28/11/2015 12:47, John Smith wrote:
In uk.rec.cycling Nick wrote:
On 27/11/2015 19:10, Judith wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:09:41 +0000, Nick wrote:

If he can't signal properly and check his mirrors he really shouldn't
be driving at all.

He has taken a test and passed it.

Has the cyclist do you know?

There is a common theme in these threads where people suggest that the
same rules should be applied to motor vehicles and bicycles.

It's standard victim-blaming.

They'll need to do better with their logic.

They drive cars. Logic doesn't come into it.

They seem to have an ongoing difficulty understanding the difference
between universal quantification and existential quantification.

News flash, dude: car drivers have difficulty understanding the difference
between their left and their right hand except when it comes to 'feeling
bigger' when they go for the left.

Unless you spell it out for them explicitly each time they get confused.

I find a D-lock across the cheekbone helps to concentrate what passes for
their 'mind'.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 12:22:24 PM UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:

The rules of the road do apply, and should be applied to all road users,
irrespective of the power, weight or speed of their vehicles.

So you think cars should be restricted to 56mph like LGV's.
Motorists will also have to keep logbooks and have restricted driving hours.
Current bridges with a weight limit of 3.5 tonnes for example will no longer permit cars to drive over them.
Cars will no longer be allowed in lane 3 of motorways.
Cyclists can use motorways.

Maybe you should think before you post.

Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 12:22:24 PM UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:

The rules of the road do apply, and should be applied to all road users,
irrespective of the power, weight or speed of their vehicles.

So you think cars should be restricted to 56mph like LGV's.
Motorists will also have to keep logbooks and have restricted driving hours.
Current bridges with a weight limit of 3.5 tonnes for example will no longer permit cars to drive over them.
Cars will no longer be allowed in lane 3 of motorways.
Cyclists can use motorways.

Our Scottish thicko gets ripped a new one again...

Maybe you should think before you post.

What, and deprive us the fun of ****ing ourselves?

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))