safety in numbers? Fail

Mrcheerful wrote:
Andy B wrote:
'Hog wrote:

Andy B wrote:
'Hog wrote:

Having driven a 7.5t Cargo around the narrow A and single track B
roads (of Scotland) I suggest on such roads everyone proceeds with
caution and the occasional beep of the horn.

Ok, so if I can't stay on my side of the road or stop for oncoming
traffic I'm ok as long as I give a quick toot on the horn? That
doesn't work when you've maimed somebody who was actually riding on
the correct side of the road and expected the same from other road
users.

Like I said, you are making a case to close narrow roads to heavy
traffic. It's never going to fly. The white line is advisory and
everyone has to proceed with "due care", which includes making
allowances for narrow roads and other traffic. You do it, I do it,
most people do it, most of the time. The point was also made we
can't be held to a standard of perfection, there would be no road
users left.

Narrow roads should be closed to vehicles that can't use them in a
safe manner.

Where did you read that white lines are advisory? Cite evidence
please.

If I was over a white line and got skittled I wouldn't even try to
blame someone else. Is this what you mean when you say that I do it?


was it a solid white line or a centre line?

The case notes didn't make it clear.
You can still cross double white lines, with care, when required, to make
forward progress.

--
Hog

Remember the 4 "F" rule:
If you're not ****ing me, Feeding me or Financing me
....your opinions really don't matter, so you can **** off

Phil W Lee wrote:
"'Hog" considered Wed, 30 May 2012

I started with a cycling proficiency certificate and a tufty club
badge and had a bike licence for 8 years before cars/trucks, so ya
boo sucks.

Similar to me then, although I went on to a Class 1 HGV and a hackney
licence.

Have you murdered any cyclists or prostitutes though?

--
Hog

Remember the 4 "F" rule:
If you're not ****ing me, Feeding me or Financing me
....your opinions really don't matter, so you can **** off

On Tue, 29 May 2012 21:45:10 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

One thing would make a big difference - automatic jail time for any
driver who hit a cyclist.

NO.

At the moment, cyclists do not present sufficient threat to drivers to
waken them from their slumbers.

And what's wrong with a Clot 45 strapped to the tank?

On Tue, 29 May 2012 22:46:00 +0100, "'Hog"
wrote:

It will be very simple to deal effectively with most cyclists.
Apply the full gamut of RTA law to them, proactively, exactly as if they
were using a motorised vehicle, then endorse their vehicle licences
appropriately, if they have one. Same fines, regardless of licence. Voila,
all the problems of red light jumping, riding on pavements, group
obstruction etc get dealt with.

**** off, ****.

While at it, save the A&E some trouble and make crash helmets compulsory as
per motorcycles.

**** off, ****.

Riding a bicyclette is one of the few remaining freedoms we have under
the hegemony and benevolent dictator**** of the EU.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2012 22:46:00 +0100, "'Hog"
wrote:

It will be very simple to deal effectively with most cyclists.
Apply the full gamut of RTA law to them, proactively, exactly as if
they were using a motorised vehicle, then endorse their vehicle
licences appropriately, if they have one. Same fines, regardless of
licence. Voila, all the problems of red light jumping, riding on
pavements, group obstruction etc get dealt with.

**** off, ****.

While at it, save the A&E some trouble and make crash helmets
compulsory as per motorcycles.

**** off, ****.

Riding a bicyclette is one of the few remaining freedoms we have under
the hegemony and benevolent dictator**** of the EU.

You are obviously another red light jumping pavement cycling ****. You ****.
How about we make cycling on the road a granted provision on your driving
licence ;o)

--
Hog

Remember the 4 "F" rule:
If you're not ****ing me, Feeding me or Financing me
....your opinions really don't matter, so you can **** off

On Wed, 30 May 2012 02:03:28 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote:

"'Hog" considered Tue, 29 May 2012
22:46:00 +0100 the perfect time to write:

JNugent wrote:
On 29/05/2012 22:19, Peter Parry wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2012 21:45:10 +0100, Phil W
wrote:

One thing would make a big difference - automatic jail time for any
driver who hit a cyclist.

So the bus and pickup drivers in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDAYkdlKEGI should be jailed and the
incompetent moron on a bike should get a bit of compo?

The thing that would make the biggest difference is mandatory
training for cyclists - why do so many oppose it so vehemently?

Becasue it isn't either necessary or desirable.
Or enforceable for that matter - cycling on the public highway is a
right, so you can't impose conditions.


As usual your extensive legal training lets you down once again.

Three questions:

Do you have the same right to walk on the highway?

Have laws been enacted which have removed that right under certain conditions?

Why are you so stupid?

On 30 mei, 18:45, Judith wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012 02:03:28 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote:









"'Hog" considered Tue, 29 May 2012
22:46:00 +0100 the perfect time to write:

JNugent wrote:
On 29/05/2012 22:19, Peter Parry wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2012 21:45:10 +0100, Phil W
wrote:

One thing would make a big difference - automatic jail time for any
driver who hit a cyclist.

So the bus and pickup drivers in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDAYkdlKEGIshould be jailed and the
incompetent moron on a bike should get a bit of compo?

The thing that would make the biggest difference is mandatory
training for cyclists - why do so many oppose it so vehemently?

Becasue it isn't either necessary or desirable.
Or enforceable for that matter - cycling on the public highway is a
right, so you can't impose conditions.

As usual your extensive legal training lets you down once again.

Three questions:

Do you have the same right to walk on the highway?

Have laws been enacted which have removed that right under *certain conditions?

Why are you so stupid?
Why are you, collyhurst spine donor, so **** scared of everything?
Please reply in your usual invertebrate fashion.

On 30/05/2012 09:44, 'Hog wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote:
considered Tue, 29 May 2012

I guess you are new around here Mr Hog, so perhaps I should explain that
Phil W Lee is the local nutter.

While at it, save the A&E some trouble and make crash helmets
compulsory as per motorcycles.

That of course makes perfect sense to any rational being.

If you really want to save the A&E some trouble, ban the motorcycles,
although the transplant surgeons may find that restricting -note
vbg
Foam hats only discourage cycling, so promotion of them should be made
a criminal offence (well, in some ways it already is, as nearly all
claims made for them are misleading at best, and outright lies at
worst).

Deep denial exists around here about cycle helmets. Apparently the BMA,
RoSPA, the NHS, LAS, A&E doctors etc know nothing about the subject and
are part of a conspiracy.

If you really want an improvement, require a graduation through each
type of vehicle before qualifying for the provisional licence for a
larger or more powerful one.

So you start by cycling, and if you never want to use any motor
vehicle, that's fine - it is a right, and you can keep doing it for as
long as you like.
But if you want to drive something heavier, more powerful, and more
dangerous to the more vulnerable road using public, you first have to
pass a test (on the bi/tricycle) to show you understand basic traffic
law and can ride safely within it - that would get you a provisional
moped licence.
Rinse and repeat for small motorcycle, standard motorcycle, small car,
large car, van, commercial (up to 7.5T), class 3 LGV, class 2 LGV,
class 1 LGV, STGO loads.
Branch off at van for minibus, then PCV.
Probably a few additional branches for things like professional use
(driving as a substantial part of employment), supercars (above a
specified power to weight ratio), superbikes (ditto), sidecar outfits,
trailers, or hazardous loads.
Each full licence acting as a provisional for the size (or sizes, if
it's a branch point) above, after a one year qualification period.

There would need to be some kind of "leg-up" or exemption, for those
with a genuine disability, but it should not be given lightly (for
example, balance problems would not qualify, as trike versions are
perfectly acceptable substitutes for all two-wheeled classes), and
some form of test would be required to demonstrate an understanding of
the needs of whatever classes the applicant had been exempted from.

Enforcement could be improved, as points accumulation could result in
"knocking back" to a smaller class, rather than an outright ban,
removing the "exceptional hardship" excuse that so many use to avoid a
ban (we might see a few highly paid professionals in fiestas or on
mopeds, but they couldn't claim it prevented them working).

I can't see any good reason why this wouldn't work, and even less
reason why a motorcyclist wouldn't support it wholeheartedly.

I can see that some Clarksons might object, but they are after all
part of the problem we are trying to fix.

I started with a cycling proficiency certificate and a tufty club badge and
had a bike licence for 8 years before cars/trucks, so ya boo sucks.



--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On 30/05/2012 02:03, Phil W Lee wrote:
considered Tue, 29 May 2012
22:46:00 +0100 the perfect time to write:

JNugent wrote:
On 29/05/2012 22:19, Peter Parry wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2012 21:45:10 +0100, Phil W
wrote:

One thing would make a big difference - automatic jail time for any
driver who hit a cyclist.

So the bus and pickup drivers in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDAYkdlKEGI should be jailed and the
incompetent moron on a bike should get a bit of compo?

The thing that would make the biggest difference is mandatory
training for cyclists - why do so many oppose it so vehemently?

Becasue it isn't either necessary or desirable.

I'm afraid it is, cyclists are serial law breakers & a danger to
pedestrians.

Or enforceable for that matter - cycling on the public highway is a
right, so you can't impose conditions.

Errm. Yes you can, quite easily.

Because they know they wouldn't find it easy to pass the test which
would be required after the training.

It will be very simple to deal effectively with most cyclists.

Yes, just get out of their way, and get the stinking oil-burners off
their roads.

Since they only account for 2% of journeys and pay **** all, it's the
cyclists who get out of the way.


Apply the full gamut of RTA law to them, proactively, exactly as if they
were using a motorised vehicle, then endorse their vehicle licences
appropriately, if they have one.

You mean, ignore all dangerous behaviour unless they kill or seriously
injure someone?
That is what you meant when you said "exactly as if they were using a
motorised vehicle" isn't it?
Because that is how nearly all motoring offences are treated at the
moment, and they impose a far greater risk to others.

Only 3% of motorists are convicted in the course of a year, so bang goes
another fantasy of yours.

Same fines, regardless of licence. Voila,
all the problems of red light jumping, riding on pavements, group
obstruction etc get dealt with.

You can't take away the right to use the road on a pedal cycle.
Because it's a right, not a privilege.

Oh yes you can idiot.

Penalties should be applied in proportion to the threat imposed on
others of any misdemeanour - particularly threats imposed on those
more vulnerable than the offender.

Sorry, our legal system doesn't work like that - for very good reason.

Those who choose to use dangerous machinery in public ore responsible
for ensuring that they do so safely, and the more danger they impose
on others, the higher the penalties for misuse should be.

While at it, save the A&E some trouble and make crash helmets compulsory as
per motorcycles.

If you really want to save the A&E some trouble, ban the motorcycles,
although the transplant surgeons may find that restricting -note
vbg

Foam hats only discourage cycling, so promotion of them should be made
a criminal offence (well, in some ways it already is, as nearly all
claims made for them are misleading at best, and outright lies at
worst).

Do you have any evidence to support those fantasies?

Obviously not.

If you really want an improvement, require a graduation through each
type of vehicle before qualifying for the provisional licence for a
larger or more powerful one.

So you start by cycling, and if you never want to use any motor
vehicle, that's fine - it is a right, and you can keep doing it for as
long as you like.
But if you want to drive something heavier, more powerful, and more
dangerous to the more vulnerable road using public, you first have to
pass a test (on the bi/tricycle) to show you understand basic traffic
law and can ride safely within it - that would get you a provisional
moped licence.
Rinse and repeat for small motorcycle, standard motorcycle, small car,
large car, van, commercial (up to 7.5T), class 3 LGV, class 2 LGV,
class 1 LGV, STGO loads.
Branch off at van for minibus, then PCV.
Probably a few additional branches for things like professional use
(driving as a substantial part of employment), supercars (above a
specified power to weight ratio), superbikes (ditto), sidecar outfits,
trailers, or hazardous loads.
Each full licence acting as a provisional for the size (or sizes, if
it's a branch point) above, after a one year qualification period.

There would need to be some kind of "leg-up" or exemption, for those
with a genuine disability, but it should not be given lightly (for
example, balance problems would not qualify, as trike versions are
perfectly acceptable substitutes for all two-wheeled classes), and
some form of test would be required to demonstrate an understanding of
the needs of whatever classes the applicant had been exempted from.

Enforcement could be improved, as points accumulation could result in
"knocking back" to a smaller class, rather than an outright ban,
removing the "exceptional hardship" excuse that so many use to avoid a
ban (we might see a few highly paid professionals in fiestas or on
mopeds, but they couldn't claim it prevented them working).

I can't see any good reason why this wouldn't work, and even less
reason why a motorcyclist wouldn't support it wholeheartedly.

I can see that some Clarksons might object, but they are after all
part of the problem we are trying to fix.


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On 30/05/2012 05:33, Phil W Lee wrote:
considered Wed, 30 May 2012
01:23:47 +0100 the perfect time to write:

Phil W Lee wrote:
considered Tue, 29 May 2012
22:41:01 +0100 the perfect time to write:

Most road users pay for the privilege of using the road. He who pays
comes first. Those who don't go to the end of the queue. Long past
time the RTA was updated.

Is the wrong answer.
He who has the right comes first, he who does not have the right can
be made to pay, and comes last.

Where do you think all those roads came from?

Your question does not have an obvious target?
It only matters who paid for them. The VED victims, paid several times over.

To the tune of less than half of the cost imposed on society by their
motor vehicle use.

Let me turn it around another way. Leave things as they are and scrap VED
and fuel duty.

Hell no - put them up so they pay the full cost of the damage they
cause.

Complete & utter bollox again.

In 2008-09 motorists paid £30.2 billion in motoring taxes.
In that year,1 the cost of road building was £9.1 billion and the social
cost of greenhouse gas emissions from road transport was £3.2 billion.
That implies motoring taxes were excessive by £17.9 billion.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University