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

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:

snip


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.

Have you read the Highway Code, particularly the bits which are stated
to apply to all vehicles?

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.

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.

'Cars kill almost two thousand people a year and injure almost a million
more, whereas bikes kill two people a year and injure a few thousand. I
know! Let's insist that they both be subject to the same safeguards!'

Common sense doesn't appear to have percolated down to the psychotic ****s
who drive cars.

--
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 28/11/2015 12:01, Nick wrote:

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.

Since they both use the same roads, that seems reasonable.

Clearly
they are different.

Indeed they are. Motor vehicles are a viable form of transport and
bicycles are children's toys.

Hence different rules are required. This suggestion
is similar to arguing that a domestic roof top solar power generator
should be subjected to all the same rules and checks as a nuclear power
station.

The Health & Safety Act applies to both equally.

"With great power comes great responsibility."

"Whatever life holds in store for me, I will never forget these words:
"With great power comes great responsibility." This is my gift, my
curse. Who am I? I'm Spider-man."

Cyclists need to take responsibility for their own safety.


FWIW I don't even know if I have passed a cycling test.

You didn't. There isn't one.

I remember the
cycling proficiency lessons but not the result.

A worthless badge?

--
Dave
Dedicated to finding a cure for cycling.

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.

'Cars kill almost two thousand people a year

1700 Or 0.3% of deaths, halfwit.

and injure almost a million
more,

Wrong again idiot.


whereas bikes kill two people a year and injure a few thousand. I
know! Let's insist that they both be subject to the same safeguards!'

Common sense doesn't appear to have percolated down to the psychotic ****s
who drive cars.

But regulation and registration has. Unlike cyclists.


--
Dave
Dedicated to finding a cure for cycling.

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.

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

--
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 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.

There is no such thing as a cycling test. Apart from the Tufty Club &
similar.

--
Dave
Dedicated to finding a cure for cycling.

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
--
Dave
Dedicated to finding a cure for cycling.

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

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.