![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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). |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
OT 8 cyclists dead in one hit: groups of cyclists should be illegal | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 144 | December 17th 10 07:34 AM |
when will cyclists learn that pedestrian crossings are for .....pedestrians, not cyclists | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 7 | August 12th 10 07:08 AM |
Are women cyclists in more danger than men cyclists? | Claude[_3_] | Australia | 2 | October 23rd 09 08:24 PM |
The Guardian on fair-weather cyclists. | robert hancy | UK | 11 | June 24th 09 02:02 PM |
Fair weather cyclists | Gags | Australia | 10 | September 22nd 04 03:25 PM |