Latest quarter: Drop in road deaths, but cyclist casualties rise.

"Judith" wrote in message
...

Is that why you're wife left you , even by thai standards your dick must be
small

Anthony Bournes has given probation officers, the police and CPS a real
headache in his obsession, and it is surprising someone has not
sectioned him yet under the mental health act. Perhaps one day this
mental case will be locked up for his own safety with his stunted
"precious" to keep him company.

"Judith" wrote in message
...

How does it feel, you import a thai bride and she left you for another.

Oh what a shame

Anthony Bournes has given probation officers, the police and CPS a real
headache in his obsession, and it is surprising someone has not
sectioned him yet under the mental health act. Perhaps one day this
mental case will be locked up for his own safety with his stunted
"precious" to keep him company.

On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 22:14:21 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 20:25:37 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:09:01 +0000, Judith
wrote:

You are not allowed to take photos of a naked "child" on their 17 years 364
days - and then all of a sudden you can on the next day.

Would you like to take photos of naked children legally?


You sink to lower depths day by day.

It was not me who suggested the notion.

"TMS320" writes:

Simply make cycling subject to the same rules as driving, where *any*
racing, whether directly against a real-time competitor or against
the cliock - "time trialling" - on the highway is illegal.

Is time trialling by motor vehicle illegal? I doubt it. "Treasure
hunts"?

What are speeding motorists doing (just a victimless and purely
`technical' offence, according to some) if not racing against their
personal record? Surely if the aim is to make cycling `subject to the
same rules' as motoring, there would be fewer unintended consequences
for motorists in banging the MOT and VED drum instead?

OK, so you and Cheerless get together and produce a draft that could
be turned into something watertight.

JNugent also has a campaign to ban cycling on roads with grade separated
slip lanes (presumably also motoring now they are to be `subject to the
same rules'). As I've told him before on that subject: it's no good
simply bleating about it here---under the present political party
representative system, he needs to send the proposal to his MP and get
it escalated to someone who can actually implement it. Anything less is
frivolous pipe-dreaming.

--
Mark

(Souix) writes:

Why then do cyclists not have to pass a test before they are allowed
on the roads? I am not trying to be clever, I would just like to
know. If it was such an obvious necessity then surely it would be a
requirement by now.

Because there is no law compelling them to. Virtually all laws are made
reactively. When UK cyclists start killing thousands of innocent
bystanders every year and causing billions of GBP in public and private
property damage, you can bet your life (or mine) that such a law would
be readily forthcoming.

--
Mark

Bertie Wooster writes:

There would be no need for any cycling ban on the roads, because all
children would have state funded Bikeability training, and prior to
that they can cycle on the footway, or on the road if accompanied by a
parent or carer.

Must the parent or carer accompany the child[ren] by cycling on the road
themselves? Will existing adult (=16 year old) cyclists get their
licence through `grandfather rights' on the start date? Otherwise, who
grants licences to the [hitherto unlicenced] Bikeability trainers? What
about parent or carer 16 years old? Does any of this apply to
football, kiss chase, or WHY on the road?

--
Mark

On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 19:29:09 +0000, Mark Williams
] wrote:

Bertie Wooster writes:

There would be no need for any cycling ban on the roads, because all
children would have state funded Bikeability training, and prior to
that they can cycle on the footway, or on the road if accompanied by a
parent or carer.

Must the parent or carer accompany the child[ren] by cycling on the road
themselves? Will existing adult (=16 year old) cyclists get their
licence through `grandfather rights' on the start date? Otherwise, who
grants licences to the [hitherto unlicenced] Bikeability trainers? What
about parent or carer 16 years old? Does any of this apply to
football, kiss chase, or WHY on the road?

Some good questions.

I would hope that the state education system would allow children pass
their Bikeability Level 2 at age 9/10. The bikeability requirement
should not be retrospective, so children aged 9/10 would be able to
cycle on the road without Bikeability Level 2 training. Bikeability
instructors used to be accredited by Cycling England, through a small
number of regional instructor training organisations, and individual
training providers needed to have their syllabus individually
assessed. Cycling England has now been abolished, and I do not know
who takes responsibility for this now.

I have no knowledge of kiss chase accreditation or training, and think
this is not such a good question.

The training would be on-road as this is where most cyclist deaths
occur.

On 18/11/2013 19:28, Mark Williams wrote:
"TMS320" writes:

Simply make cycling subject to the same rules as driving, where *any*
racing, whether directly against a real-time competitor or against
the cliock - "time trialling" - on the highway is illegal.

Is time trialling by motor vehicle illegal? I doubt it. "Treasure
hunts"?

What are speeding motorists doing (just a victimless and purely
`technical' offence, according to some) if not racing against their
personal record?

What?

Are you of the opinion that drivers do 33mph in order to try and beat
their best previous time on the same journey?

Do you expect to be taken seriously?

Bertie Wooster writes:

Must the parent or carer accompany the child[ren] by cycling on the
road themselves? Will existing adult (=16 year old) cyclists get
their licence through `grandfather rights' on the start date?
Otherwise, who grants licences to the [hitherto unlicenced]
Bikeability trainers? What about parent or carer 16 years old? Does
any of this apply to football, kiss chase, or WHY on the road?

Some good questions.

[Some good, albeit authoritarian, answers]

Bikeability instructors used to be accredited by Cycling England,
through a small number of regional instructor training organisations,
and individual training providers needed to have their syllabus
individually assessed.

Not by people who have taken Bikeability and have cycling licences
themselves, I'll bet. If hitherto unqualified QANGO members can
accredit instructors and grant licenses, then why shouldn't I (or any 9
year old, or =9 year old who has opted out of the training, for that
matter) do the same in the brave new post-bonfire world?

Cycling England has now been abolished, and I do not know who takes
responsibility for this now.

I'm not even convinced that there is anyone with the authority to hand
out such a responsibility at present. It's called the `big society'.

I have no knowledge of kiss chase accreditation or training, and think
this is not such a good question.

Is that because you were no good at getting caught :-)? Kiss chase is
just a more sociable form of rambling and would probably be covered by
the Walkability training and pedestrian licences for = 9 year olds
under your scheme. Of course, 9 year olds would have to be accompanied
by their parents or carers...

The training would be on-road as this is where most cyclist deaths
occur.

`Occur', as in: `you can't crush _that_ cyclist under your motor car,
because they have had _training_'? How will the killers be able to
identify the ones who haven't had the training and are presumably fair
game? A green heptagon sewn on their sleeves?

--
Mark

JNugent writes:

What are speeding motorists doing (just a victimless and purely
`technical' offence, according to some) if not racing against their
personal record?

What?

Are you of the opinion that drivers do 33mph in order to try and beat
their best previous time on the same journey?

Why else? Likewise 34, 35, 36, etc...

Do you expect to be taken seriously?

It doesn't need to be taken totally seriously, only seriously enough to
torpedo any of your proposals for clock-measured road use applying
disproportionately to cyclists.

--
Mark