Law must change to tackle reckless cyclists, says widower of KimBriggs killed in crash with illegal bike

On 24/08/2017 19:59, Bod wrote:

Matt Briggs, 45, said the law had to be changed to deal with the growing
menace of “reckless� cyclists and those who choose to ride “potentially
lethal� bikes without front brakes.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-a3618976.html

And he is right.

But I bet nothing comes of it. There is real internal reluctance at the
Home Office and the DoT to do anything about the ever-increasing menace
of cyclists in our cities.

On 24/08/2017 21:31, Nick wrote:

On 24/08/2017 20:50, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:59:49 +0100, Bod wrote:

Matt Briggs, 45, said the law had to be changed to deal with the growing
menace of “reckless� cyclists and those who choose to ride “potentially
lethal� bikes without front brakes.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-a3618976.html


"convicted of wanton and furious driving" - so a law already exists.

I think most people accept that wanton and furious driving is a stupid
law, certainly stupidly named at least, and it would be better to
have/use appropriate modern laws.

Correct.

Cyclists should be subject to:

(a) a mandatory licence (obtained only after passing a series of
appropriate tests) - and registration; no licence and registration, no
cycling on the highway [I suggest that a valid driving licence would
automatically suffice as one form of the cycling licence],

(b) compulsory insurance against third party risks,

(c) a means of identifying a cyclist (and the cycle) when in use,

(d) speed limits to apply to bicycles as for other vehicles (I suggest
at half the posted limit to apply to bikes - that is, for instance,
15mph in a 30mph area, 10 in a 20, 20 in a 40, etc),

(e) a system of enforcement of breach of traffic legislation by
cyclists, with the cycling and/or licence at risk on conviction for any
offence which would carry penalty points if committed in a motor vehicle
(eg, cycling with excess alcohol in one's blood or breath, disobeying
speed limits, disobeying traffic signals or other signage such as No
Entry or Road Closed signs), and

(f) a system of enforcement of the bicycle Construction and Use Regulations.

Available penalties should include provision for fines, seizure and
destruction of bicycles, banning from cycling and/or driving and
imprisonment.

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 23:40:05 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:


Is there a cure for OCD? Because you seriously need medical help. Get a ****ing life.

Oh, the IRONY! Poor Birdbrain! LMAO!

--
More from Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) abnormal sociopathic
world:
"Your eyes have something called an iris, you can't damage them looking at
the sun. An eclipse is dimmer than the normal sun, so even safer. I never
used any specs the last time 10 years ago and my eyes are fine."
MID:

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 23:31:28 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:



They don't menace me. What's your problem?

Nobody was talking to you, Birdbrain!

--
Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) about his driving habits (no.2):
"Now you see, the proper way to soak somebody is to aim for the puddle from
100 yards back, then it looks like an accident to any moronic nosy hasn't
got a life cyclist. Of course you must adjust your speed inconspicuously
(use gears not brakes which cause lights to come on...).
MID:

JNugent wrote in
:

On 24/08/2017 21:31, Nick wrote:

On 24/08/2017 20:50, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:59:49 +0100, Bod
wrote:

Matt Briggs, 45, said the law had to be changed to deal with the
growing menace of “reckless� cyclists and those who choose to
ride “potentially lethal� bikes without front brakes.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-to-tackle-rec
kless-cyclists-says-widower-of-kim-briggs-killed-in-crash-with-illeg
al-a3618976.html


"convicted of wanton and furious driving" - so a law already exists.

I think most people accept that wanton and furious driving is a
stupid law, certainly stupidly named at least, and it would be better
to have/use appropriate modern laws.

Correct.

Cyclists should be subject to:

(a) a mandatory licence (obtained only after passing a series of
appropriate tests) - and registration; no licence and registration, no
cycling on the highway [I suggest that a valid driving licence would
automatically suffice as one form of the cycling licence],

(b) compulsory insurance against third party risks,

(c) a means of identifying a cyclist (and the cycle) when in use,

(d) speed limits to apply to bicycles as for other vehicles (I suggest
at half the posted limit to apply to bikes - that is, for instance,
15mph in a 30mph area, 10 in a 20, 20 in a 40, etc),

(e) a system of enforcement of breach of traffic legislation by
cyclists, with the cycling and/or licence at risk on conviction for
any offence which would carry penalty points if committed in a motor
vehicle (eg, cycling with excess alcohol in one's blood or breath,
disobeying speed limits, disobeying traffic signals or other signage
such as No Entry or Road Closed signs), and

(f) a system of enforcement of the bicycle Construction and Use
Regulations.

Available penalties should include provision for fines, seizure and
destruction of bicycles, banning from cycling and/or driving and
imprisonment.



You'd turn us all into (gasp!) car-drivers?

On 25/08/2017 09:35, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
JNugent wrote in
:

On 24/08/2017 21:31, Nick wrote:

On 24/08/2017 20:50, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:59:49 +0100, Bod
wrote:

Matt Briggs, 45, said the law had to be changed to deal with the
growing menace of “reckless� cyclists and those who choose to
ride “potentially lethal� bikes without front brakes.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-to-tackle-rec
kless-cyclists-says-widower-of-kim-briggs-killed-in-crash-with-illeg
al-a3618976.html


"convicted of wanton and furious driving" - so a law already exists.

I think most people accept that wanton and furious driving is a
stupid law, certainly stupidly named at least, and it would be better
to have/use appropriate modern laws.

Correct.

Cyclists should be subject to:

(a) a mandatory licence (obtained only after passing a series of
appropriate tests) - and registration; no licence and registration, no
cycling on the highway [I suggest that a valid driving licence would
automatically suffice as one form of the cycling licence],

(b) compulsory insurance against third party risks,

(c) a means of identifying a cyclist (and the cycle) when in use,

(d) speed limits to apply to bicycles as for other vehicles (I suggest
at half the posted limit to apply to bikes - that is, for instance,
15mph in a 30mph area, 10 in a 20, 20 in a 40, etc),

(e) a system of enforcement of breach of traffic legislation by
cyclists, with the cycling and/or licence at risk on conviction for
any offence which would carry penalty points if committed in a motor
vehicle (eg, cycling with excess alcohol in one's blood or breath,
disobeying speed limits, disobeying traffic signals or other signage
such as No Entry or Road Closed signs), and

(f) a system of enforcement of the bicycle Construction and Use
Regulations.

Available penalties should include provision for fines, seizure and
destruction of bicycles, banning from cycling and/or driving and
imprisonment.



You'd turn us all into (gasp!) car-drivers?


You would still be cyclists, just identifiable, responsible cyclists,
the costs would be negligible and the benefits enormous.

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 15:33:54 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

Responsible for what? A car can kill someone easily. A bicycle cannot.
It's just a person with wheels underneath. You'll be wanting
registration numbers for joggers and runners next.

Just how do you manage to sound like a complete idiot ALL of the time,
Birdbrain? There is something about you that makes you ALWAYS come across as
a compete idiot! What could it be? BG

--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) "deep thinking":
"If you ask me a question, I don't reply before you've asked it."
MID:

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 7:59:50 PM UTC+1, Bod wrote:
Matt Briggs, 45, said the law had to be changed to deal with the growing
menace of “reckless� cyclists and those who choose to ride “potentially
lethal� bikes without front brakes.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-a3618976.html

The law needs to be changed to make illegal bicycles illegal?
I will never understand motorist logic.
But how can you expect reasoned argument from someone who uses 'I was only going 35mph' in a 30mph limit as a defence for speeding.
Or 'The light had only been red for 10 seconds'.

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 19:25:01 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

Why do you think 35 is speeding? Is it magically far more dangerous to
go just 5mph faster? See a doctor about your OCD. Even the pigs only
prosecute for 10mph over in most areas.

Why CAN'T you see that EVERYONE considers you a sick idiot and sociopath,
Birdbrain? Too stupid to notice it?

--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) "deep thinking":
"If you ask me a question, I don't reply before you've asked it."
MID:

On 26.08.2017 06:25, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 18:39:23 +0100, Simon Jester
wrote:

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 7:59:50 PM UTC+1, Bod wrote:
Matt Briggs, 45, said the law had to be changed to deal with the growing
menace of “reckless� cyclists and those who choose to ride “potentially
lethal� bikes without front brakes.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-a3618976.html


The law needs to be changed to make illegal bicycles illegal?
I will never understand motorist logic.
But how can you expect reasoned argument from someone who uses 'I was
only going 35mph' in a 30mph limit as a defence for speeding.
Or 'The light had only been red for 10 seconds'.

Why do you think 35 is speeding? Is it magically far more dangerous to
go just 5mph faster? See a doctor about your OCD. Even the pigs only
prosecute for 10mph over in most areas.

Laws of physics.
If a car hits me at 35mph there is 36% more energy available to mangle
me than if a car hits me at 30 mph.

The dress doesn't make you look fat. It's that ice cream and
chocolate you eat that makes you look fat.

Speak for yourself.