A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Not many cyclists out, must be the weather.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 22nd 10, 07:02 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,576
Default Not many cyclists out, must be the weather.

On 22/12/2010 17:41, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 16:35, JNugent wrote:
On 22/12/2010 14:27, 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?

Does it matter what his answer (which would necessarily be based on
only a fleeting impression of the overall situation) would be?


If they'd all caused buses or trucks to swerve out of control, or
similar, we'd have a different picture to the one we now have.

As a parallel, only a small proportion of drivers over the
drink-drive limit on any one night are ever caught. And that's
partly because most acts of drink-driving cause no real danger to
anyone and don't attract the attentions of the police for various
reasons. That doesn't mean that drink-driving is harmless or worth
ignoring, does it?


You tell me. Is there evidence that drink-drivers are over
represented in the accident statistics? I know that a few years ago
some police force somewhere did a Christmas campaign against
drink-driving and "randomly" tested drivers who were not involved in
accidents or traffic offences. They found a larger proportion were
over the limit than for those in the same area who were tested after
being involved in an accident or committing an offence. I've no idea
though how representative that was of reality or whether there have
been studies and there is real evidence that drink-drivers cause more
harm than sober ones.


"I always drive more carefully when I am drunk" someone said.
I have known many people that drove when absolutely hammered on a very
regular basis, many are now dead, but they didn't have crashes as they were
used to it and drove accordingly. whereas an irregular drinker might get
drunk on a smaller amount and be unaware of their condition and not take the
extra care needed.


Just to be clear: the comment immediately above is not reflective of my
position on this topic.
Ads
  #22  
Old December 22nd 10, 09:19 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Matt B
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,927
Default Not many cyclists out, must be the weather.

On 22/12/2010 18:00, JNugent wrote:
On 22/12/2010 17:09, Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 16:35, JNugent wrote:
As a parallel, only a small proportion of drivers over the drink-drive
limit on any one night are ever caught. And that's partly because most
acts of drink-driving cause no real danger to anyone and don't attract
the attentions of the police for various reasons. That doesn't mean that
drink-driving is harmless or worth ignoring, does it?


You tell me. Is there evidence that drink-drivers are over represented
in the
accident statistics? I know that a few years ago some police force
somewhere
did a Christmas campaign against drink-driving and "randomly" tested
drivers
who were not involved in accidents or traffic offences. They found a
larger
proportion were over the limit than for those in the same area who were
tested after being involved in an accident or committing an offence.
I've no
idea though how representative that was of reality or whether there
have been
studies and there is real evidence that drink-drivers cause more harm
than
sober ones.


There's so much non-sequitur there, it's hard to know where to start.

"Is there evidence that drink-drivers are over represented in the
accident statistics?"

That's not the issue (which is whether the majority of drink-drivers get
away with it - and of course they do).


You said: "That doesn't mean that drink-driving is harmless or worth
ignoring, does it?". I was exploring whether we actually /know/ if it
is harmful or not.

And to the extent that it ever
could be the issue, there is likely to be plenty of evidence showing
that cyclists are more, rather than less, likely to be involved in
collisions if they cycle along footways - whether with legitimate
footway users or at the interface between footway, footway-crossing and
carriageway (perm any two from three).


More likely to correlate, possibly, but what is the causal factor - is
it cycling on the footway per-se, or is it more to do with a reliance on
and faith in arbitrarily set priority conventions.

"... some police force somewhere did a Christmas campaign against
drink-driving and "randomly" tested drivers who were not involved in
accidents or traffic offences ... a larger proportion were over the
limit than for those in the same area who were tested after being
involved in an accident or committing an offence"

That's not data.


It's an observation.

"there is real evidence that drink-drivers cause more harm than sober ones"


That's a, possibly unintentional, misrepresentation of what I meant -
which was: "I've no idea though how representative that was of reality
or whether there have been studies and [whether] there is real evidence
[from those studies] that drink-drivers cause more harm than sober ones.".

I don't know where you get that from. It's counter-intuitive at the
least, and smacks to a degree of "Doug's "two kinds of dead".

Why would a driver who's had four pints (say) "cause more harm than [a]
sober [one]"?


If driving safety was adversely affected by drink, then one would surely
expect drink-drivers to cause more harm (through having more accidents)
that sober ones.

The answer is that he wouldn't, necessarily, or probably. He might be
more likely to be involved in a collision, but that's a different matter
and unless there's some super data somewhere out there which proves what
you say, it doesn't seem likely that accidents involving drivers with
illegal amounts of alcohol in their blood are any worse than accidents
involving teetotal drivers.


But are they more, or less, likely to have one (an accident)? If it
isn't "more", then what is the drink-drive law about?

Drink-driving is banned (FCVO"DD") in order to reduce the number of
collisions, not to make collisions less eerious when they happen (though
that might be a side-effect in some cases).


Is there evidence that drink-drivers have more collisions than sober
drivers?

I think we've done full-circle now - that's where I started from.

--
Matt B
  #23  
Old December 22nd 10, 09:25 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Matt B
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,927
Default Not many cyclists out, must be the weather.

On 22/12/2010 18:01, JNugent wrote:
On 22/12/2010 17:16, Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 16:41, Mrcheerful wrote:
Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 16:27, Mrcheerful wrote:
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.

Do you prefer that the law abiding be inconvenienced (and the
advantage given to the law breakers) by a raft of, basically
unnecessary and even counter-productive laws?

the road laws are not inconvenient,


Do you find it "not inconvenient" having to wait at a red light for
several
minutes whilst the sequence is faithfully stepped through at, say 3am,
when
there are no other vehicles on the road - and you are waiting for
nobody to
cross?

and are for everyone's safety,


Good intentions maybe, but are they misguided? In many places where
traffic
lights have been removed the junctions have become safer.


That's a completely differenbt proposition. If lights are removed,
that's fine. If they're not removed, everyone must obey them.


But they don't, and those that don't get an advantage and those that do
get inconvenienced by them. The discussion should be about what should
be done about it: should they be heavily enforced (which itself has many
other implications) so that /everyone/ is inconvenienced equally, or
should they be abolished so that everyone (including the law abiders)
benefit from the advantages?

--
Matt B
  #24  
Old December 23rd 10, 12:45 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,386
Default Not many cyclists out, must be the weather.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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.


Aye, drivers have so completely undermined the idea of obeying road
rules that it would not be a surprise to find that everyone else had
given up as well.

As it happens, though, TRL's *objective* data (as opposed to your
wank-fantasy) shows that cyclists are actually *more* likely to obey the
law than drivers.

The Usenet fire brigade will be along shortly to extinguish the
smouldering ruins of your argument, such as it was.

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNEo2kAAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/vVoH+QEJ17SvOCuu4v0a3dHoZaL2
w/d0egcZsvFlyyPsn07D/HtWjRmv9oFjWMxVhued63KyOcKsx0hBmu2rGt+XG2v0
wyalUZMyxAkl7cIcF5A+DpG5QQ+yzQtvkvVaNaS1/7SpExplt1csAtzw63CO999L
9caUrIp7lXljbx+3tssevBtnRnmxIYvc1zYpi7AgJEiW7fUZdS QsCaa4hSZ9oL4h
Wk6e2aaxcj4KEu3Klln4i4UBng1C0G0cd3A0qttIRll+kDhOeO VtffTpqo8LPRcE
XY6EaPrJjGDOYtJVk1RQwMYWChUbylgbKX/su8ZYGKxLvNT5rmlHZV51TqqCxzg=
=kq3w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
  #25  
Old December 23rd 10, 03:43 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,576
Default Not many cyclists out, must be the weather.

On 22/12/2010 20:19, Matt B wrote:

On 22/12/2010 18:00, JNugent wrote:
On 22/12/2010 17:09, Matt B wrote:
On 22/12/2010 16:35, JNugent wrote:


As a parallel, only a small proportion of drivers over the drink-drive
limit on any one night are ever caught. And that's partly because most
acts of drink-driving cause no real danger to anyone and don't attract
the attentions of the police for various reasons. That doesn't mean that
drink-driving is harmless or worth ignoring, does it?


You tell me. Is there evidence that drink-drivers are over represented
in the accident statistics? I know that a few years ago some police
force somewhere did a Christmas campaign against drink-driving and
"randomly" tested drivers who were not involved in accidents or traffic
offences. They found a larger proportion were over the limit than for
those in the same area who were tested after being involved in an
accident or committing an offence. I've no idea though how
representative that was of reality or whether there have been studies
and there is real evidence that drink-drivers cause more harm than
sober ones.


There's so much non-sequitur there, it's hard to know where to start.


"Is there evidence that drink-drivers are over represented in the
accident statistics?"


That's not the issue (which is whether the majority of drink-drivers get
away with it - and of course they do).


You said: "That doesn't mean that drink-driving is harmless or worth
ignoring, does it?". I was exploring whether we actually /know/ if it is
harmful or not.


I left out the word "potentially" before "harmless". That was an error on my
part.

Merely driving with blood alcohol above a certain arbitrary value is clearly
not harmful to anyone. However, there is a statistical increase in the
potential to make mistakes which might lead to an accident.

The majority of drivers with alcohol in their blood do not have accidents and
that has always been the case, even before 1967, despite the hysteria
emanating from some, then and now.

The whole argument is a statistical one. There is nothing certain about
having an accident whilst "over the limit".

And to the extent that it ever
could be the issue, there is likely to be plenty of evidence showing
that cyclists are more, rather than less, likely to be involved in
collisions if they cycle along footways - whether with legitimate
footway users or at the interface between footway, footway-crossing and
carriageway (perm any two from three).


More likely to correlate, possibly, but what is the causal factor - is it
cycling on the footway per-se, or is it more to do with a reliance on and
faith in arbitrarily set priority conventions.


Both are part of the same phenomenon. Others are not having their (entirely
reasonable) expectations - even entitlement - met.

"there is real evidence that drink-drivers cause more harm than sober ones"


That's a, possibly unintentional, misrepresentation of what I meant


It's a verbatim quote from what you posted and is not unfairly truncated so
as to change meaning through precluding context.

- which
was: "I've no idea though how representative that was of reality or whether
there have been studies and [whether] there is real evidence [from those
studies] that drink-drivers cause more harm than sober ones.".


I don't know where you get that from. It's counter-intuitive at the
least, and smacks to a degree of "Doug's "two kinds of dead".


Why would a driver who's had four pints (say) "cause more harm than [a]
sober [one]"?


If driving safety was adversely affected by drink, then one would surely
expect drink-drivers to cause more harm (through having more accidents) that
sober ones.


That's a different issue. Most sober drivers driving home late on any given
night don't have accidents. Most drivers who are over the arbitrary alcohol
limit driving home late on any given night don't have accidents either.

Is there likely to be any evidence that for any accident which does occur,
one involving a driver with a blood alcohol reading of (say) 70 (perfectly
lawful) is likely to be "worse" than one involving a driver whose reading is
100? Or even 140? Let's leave aside those with grossly excessive readings
(too drunk to stand up, etc).

The answer is that he wouldn't, necessarily, or probably. He might be
more likely to be involved in a collision, but that's a different matter
and unless there's some super data somewhere out there which proves what
you say, it doesn't seem likely that accidents involving drivers with
illegal amounts of alcohol in their blood are any worse than accidents
involving teetotal drivers.


But are they more, or less, likely to have one (an accident)? If it isn't
"more", then what is the drink-drive law about?


That's the point: it's a pure statistical argument.

Drink-driving is banned (FCVO"DD") in order to reduce the number of
collisions, not to make collisions less eerious when they happen (though
that might be a side-effect in some cases).


Is there evidence that drink-drivers have more collisions than sober drivers?


Statistical evidence, certainly. But it is pretty raw. Some sober drivers are
"worse" than some "over the limit" drivers and that will never (be allowed
to) come out in the PR.

Blood alcohol enforcment is a rough justice measure because there's nothing
else available.

If something better (a test of spot-competence, perhaps?) were available,
it'd be better.

I think we've done full-circle now - that's where I started from.


The issue has at least been clarified.
  #26  
Old December 25th 10, 12:16 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,929
Default Not many cyclists out, must be the weather.

On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 23:45:40 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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.


Aye, drivers have so completely undermined the idea of obeying road
rules that it would not be a surprise to find that everyone else had
given up as well.

As it happens, though, TRL's *objective* data (as opposed to your
wank-fantasy) shows that cyclists are actually *more* likely to obey the
law than drivers.



I love the way that you agree with TRL on some of their reports - and
yet you find that others are not to you liking:

eg I am sure that you will agree with their findings regarding cycle
helmets:

Main findings
Assuming that cycle helmets are a good fit and worn correctly, they
should be effective at reducing the risk of head injury, in particular
cranium fracture, scalp injury and intracranial (brain) injury.
Cycle helmets would be expected to be effective in a range of accident
conditions, particularly: the most common accidents that do not
involve a collision with another vehicle, often simple falls or
tumbles over the handlebars;
--

"I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith
to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets." Guy Chapman
Judith then produced the web page where he said "I encourage my children to wear helmets."
Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" but he left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.





  #27  
Old December 25th 10, 10:25 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
ash[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 220
Default Not many cyclists out, must be the weather.

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.
  #28  
Old December 26th 10, 02:06 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Mrcheerful[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,275
Default Not many cyclists out, must be the weather.

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.


  #29  
Old December 26th 10, 08:04 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Doug[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,927
Default Not many cyclists out, must be the weather.

On Dec 25, 9:25*pm, 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?


Obviously those who present the biggest threat to life and limb
deserve the application of the most laws than those who don't.

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

Uproars mainly come from motorists because they are far more numerous.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
  #30  
Old December 26th 10, 10:12 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tony Dragon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,715
Default Not many cyclists out, must be the weather.

On 26/12/2010 07:04, Doug wrote:
On Dec 25, 9:25 pm, wrote:
On Dec 22, 2:52 pm, Matt 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?


Obviously those who present the biggest threat to life and limb
deserve the application of the most laws than those who don't.


We should repeal the law for murder with a firearm then, it happens rarely.


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

Uproars mainly come from motorists because they are far more numerous.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.



--
Tony Dragon
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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 08:34 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.