Cyclist sought after coach comes off worst

JNugent wrote:

On 23/05/2012 21:37, Roger Merriman wrote:
wrote:

On 23/05/2012 17:30, Roger Merriman wrote:

wrote:

On 22/05/2012 16:26, Tris wrote:

In "Partac"
wrote:

[...] The fact that the police were initially trying to trace the
cyclist, but he apparently came forward would tend to support the use
of registration plates for ID purposes.

Doesn't the fact the cyclist in this case came forward to speak to the
police clearly demonstrated that bicycle registration plates would have
been completely unnecessary?

After all, *every* scofflaw cyclist pelting through red traffic
lights or hurtling along the footway immediately hands (or "dobs")
himself in to the police, doesn't he?

equally all the cars jumping the lights will get done?

How does that undermine what I said?

In regard to traffic reglation, since regulation and plates has no
effect on red light jumpers. and may I point out there was a bike plus
van which the coach then found, they (bike-van) had a accident what ever
that might be.

You'd have to re-word that and run it past me again, insofar as it relates to
the instant case.

this sub thread has very little to do with the OP. which your posts are
fair part of.

Registration marks cannot but be regarded as a deterrent to visible,
non-degree offences like passing red traffic lights.

don't seem to make much differnce has to be said. as neither cameras or
police are common.

Apart from anything else, and despite the huge disparity between the large
number of motor vehicles and relatively small number of bikes one encounters,
it goes some way to explaining why so many cyclists disregard red traffic
lights and so few drivers do. And that's absolute numbers, not proportions.

I'm not sure numbers has much differnce as to why folks RLJ, in both
cases they do because they can. and equally plenty don't because someone
is blocking their way, ie has stopped at the lights.

Roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

On 23/05/2012 23:48, Tris wrote:
In JNugent
wrote:

On 23/05/2012 22:05, Tris wrote:
In JNugent
wrote:

On 23/05/2012 17:49, Tris wrote:
In Judith
wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 16:48:59 GMT, (Tris) wrote:

In "Partac"
wrote:

"Tris" wrote in message
...

In "Partac"
wrote:

[...] The fact that the police were initially trying to trace the cyclist,
but he
apparently came forward would tend to support the use of registration
plates
for ID purposes.

Doesn't the fact the cyclist in this case came forward to speak to the
police clearly demonstrated that bicycle registration plates would have
been completely unnecessary?

Of course not - how many times have we seen examples being pasted on this
group where the cyclist just rides away never to be seen again?

But it would be one of those cases that would tend to support the use of
registration plates for ID purposes and not this particular one that you
have tried to put forward as an example. This particular one would be
better suited to be put forward by those who oppose such registration,
as an example of why registration plates are not needed.

Just because there is one cyclist with a sense of guilt it doesn't mean
that they all behave in the same way.

Next, then, I would have thought, we would at least need to know if
there are enough cyclists without a sense of guilt, involved in enough
serious incidents, who are never managed to be traced, to warrant the
introduction of bicycle registration. Even after that, we would have to
factor in all the other implications before coming to a final decision.



I have been involved with or witnessed a number of accidents with cyclists
where the cyclist buggered off smartish and did not provide their details


I have never, never been involved with or witnessed an accident with a
pedestrian, a motor vehicle, or a horse rider where the other party has
buggered off smartish.

The cyclists are carrying out our job for us in calling for registration and
regulation.

I'm not sure the yobs in society are getting away with their yobbishness
by using bicycles any more than by not using bicycles. But, whatever,
we're all, of course, responsible for our actions - and we should
rightly be held accountable for them.

How?

With as little cost to the quality of life of those of us who are not
yobs as possible.

Any thoughts on how the quality of life of the non-yob majority of drivers
can be improved?

Clamp down on the minority yob-drivers and minority yob-cyclists - that
would, incidentally, simultaneously improve the quality of life of the
majority non-yob cyclists.

I can see how you could clamp down on drivers.

How would you clamp down on cyclists?

Be specific.

On 23/05/2012 23:48, Tris wrote:
In JNugent
wrote:

On 23/05/2012 22:05, Tris wrote:
In JNugent
wrote:

On 23/05/2012 17:49, Tris wrote:
In JNugent
wrote:

On 22/05/2012 16:26, Tris wrote:

In "Partac"
wrote:

[...] The fact that the police were initially trying to trace the cyclist, but he
apparently came forward would tend to support the use of registration plates
for ID purposes.

Doesn't the fact the cyclist in this case came forward to speak to the
police clearly demonstrated that bicycle registration plates would have
been completely unnecessary?

After all, *every* scofflaw cyclist pelting through red traffic lights or
hurtling along the footway immediately hands (or "dobs") himself in to the
police, doesn't he?

They hardly all need to, though - not unless we wish to get these
incidents out of proportion.

Either cyclists can be trusted to behave properly or they can't. And cyclists
can't, can they?

Either people can be trusted to behave properly or they can't. And
people can't - we can never expect them all to do so, regardless of
whether they be cyclists or not.

No. That's not right. We don't need to be able to trust pedestrians because
they cannot commit an offence on the road (except on motorways) simply by
their being there or their demeanour at traffic lights.

If "people" could be trusted to behave properly, we wouldn't have
registration marks for motor vehicles.

What possible reason would there be for assuming that cyclists are any more
trustworthy than drivers?

Absolutely none.

But following on from your argument, then, pedestrians are not a threat
on the roads but cyclist are.

That is a non-sequitur. Nothing I wrote can be legitimately twisted into
that. I accept without demur that a pedestrian can easily cause a traffic
accident (I've seen it happen enough times).

The difference is that he cannot commit an infrastructure -related offence.

Cyclists, however, are nowhere near as
potentially dangerous a threat as are drivers - which is why drivers
need to have their vehicles registered and have done so for ages. If
cyclists are ever shown to be a sufficient potentially dangerous threat
to warrant their bikes being registered then I expect they will be.

The old, old, song, eh?

Sing us another one, do.

[ ... ]

The law should not have to rely upon rare instances of honesty on the part
of offenders in order to make itself felt.

And nor does it.

So how does the law track down offending cyclists?

Be specific.

How can I - I'm not an expert on this subject. As far as I am aware the
law seems to be managing - if this were a genuine pressing problem I
would expect something to be done about it.

Let me enlighten you: once a cyclist scarpers, then unless by exceptional
good luck, it is next to impossible to catch him. That is not good, is it?

On 24/05/2012 10:56, Tris wrote:
In JNugent
wrote:

[snip]
I can see how you could clamp down on drivers.

How would you clamp down on cyclists?

Be specific.

How would you clamp down on yob cyclists, you mean? There are already
laws and regulations to clamp down on yobs in society whether they be on
bicycles or not. How can I be more specific when I do not know how
government and the police go about these things?

But, if I understand you correctly, you do not see how any of this can
be done because yobs on bicycles can not be caught?

Well, it's a slight snag, isn't it?

(That can not be
entirely true, though, obviously). And, so, you propose that all
bicycles should thus be registered and also that it would be no bad
thing if cycling was taxed.

The cost of registration should be borne by those with the registered vehicles.

Looks like the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut to me - but then I
could never, nor would, ever claim to know it all.

All you need to do is come up with a solution to the problem of tracing
cyclists which doesn't involve registration and distinctive marks.

On 24/05/2012 10:56, Tris wrote:
wrote:

On 23/05/2012 23:48, Tris wrote:
In JNugent
wrote:

On 23/05/2012 22:05, Tris wrote:
In JNugent
wrote:

On 23/05/2012 17:49, Tris wrote:
In JNugent
wrote:

On 22/05/2012 16:26, Tris wrote:

In "Partac"
wrote:

[...] The fact that the police were initially trying to trace the cyclist, but he
apparently came forward would tend to support the use of registration plates
for ID purposes.

Doesn't the fact the cyclist in this case came forward to speak to the
police clearly demonstrated that bicycle registration plates would have
been completely unnecessary?

After all, *every* scofflaw cyclist pelting through red traffic lights or
hurtling along the footway immediately hands (or "dobs") himself in to the
police, doesn't he?

They hardly all need to, though - not unless we wish to get these
incidents out of proportion.

Either cyclists can be trusted to behave properly or they can't. And cyclists
can't, can they?

Either people can be trusted to behave properly or they can't. And
people can't - we can never expect them all to do so, regardless of
whether they be cyclists or not.

No. That's not right. We don't need to be able to trust pedestrians because
they cannot commit an offence on the road (except on motorways) simply by
their being there or their demeanour at traffic lights.

If "people" could be trusted to behave properly, we wouldn't have
registration marks for motor vehicles.

What possible reason would there be for assuming that cyclists are any more
trustworthy than drivers?

Absolutely none.

But following on from your argument, then, pedestrians are not a threat
on the roads but cyclist are.

That is a non-sequitur. Nothing I wrote can be legitimately twisted into
that. I accept without demur that a pedestrian can easily cause a traffic
accident (I've seen it happen enough times).

The difference is that he cannot commit an infrastructure -related offence.

Okay, I shouldn't have said pedestrians are not a threat on the road
when clearly they are... but not as much as cyclists are, even though
cyclists are nowhere near the threat that motorists are - the latter
always being my main point.

Cyclists, however, are nowhere near as
potentially dangerous a threat as are drivers - which is why drivers
need to have their vehicles registered and have done so for ages. If
cyclists are ever shown to be a sufficient potentially dangerous threat
to warrant their bikes being registered then I expect they will be.

The old, old, song, eh?

Sorry, but I am afraid that is how it works - the default is it stays
the same until proved it needs to be changed.

Sing us another one, do.

[ ... ]

(Appro of nothing, really, other than being new, and good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAKtSFXbQ-Q )

The law should not have to rely upon rare instances of honesty on the part
of offenders in order to make itself felt.

And nor does it.

So how does the law track down offending cyclists?

Be specific.

How can I - I'm not an expert on this subject. As far as I am aware the
law seems to be managing - if this were a genuine pressing problem I
would expect something to be done about it.

Let me enlighten you: once a cyclist scarpers, then unless by exceptional
good luck, it is next to impossible to catch him. That is not good, is it?

No, it isn't - it is only a matter of time, though, if some people get
their way, until we will each be micro-chipped and our every movement be
traced and traceable... would you be happy then?

*If* it were the only way to do it (but it isn't).

We can use vehicle registration. It isn't rocket-science and it isn't
unreasonable.

On 24/05/2012 12:18, Tris wrote:
In JNugent
wrote:

On 24/05/2012 10:56, Tris wrote:
[...] it is only a matter of time, though, if some people get
their way, until we will each be micro-chipped and our every movement be
traced and traceable... would you be happy then?

*If* it were the only way to do it (but it isn't).

The trouble with control freaks is that you can never be sure when they
will be satisfied.

You're talking about Mad Ken, right?

Phil W Lee wrote:

(Roger Merriman) considered Wed, 23 May 2012 21:37:45
+0100 the perfect time to write:

Partac wrote:

"Roger Merriman" wrote in message
...

JNugent wrote:

On 22/05/2012 16:26, Tris wrote:

In "Partac"
wrote:

[...] The fact that the police were initially trying to trace the
cyclist, but he apparently came forward would tend to support the use
of registration plates for ID purposes.

Doesn't the fact the cyclist in this case came forward to speak to the
police clearly demonstrated that bicycle registration plates would have
been completely unnecessary?

After all, *every* scofflaw cyclist pelting through red traffic
lights or hurtling along the footway immediately hands (or "dobs")
himself in to the police, doesn't he?

equally all the cars jumping the lights will get done?

No, not all of them - only the ones whose number plates have either been
spotted by a policeman or a red light camera. That's the benefit of having
number plates, you see.

very few roads have red light cameras - or police, so folks that amber
gamblers or just plain red light jumpers will not have any worry from
the law at least.

Of course, you never know when another vehicle might be recording
video that may fall into the hands of your insurers.

true but most video is not clear enought, both in quality and viewpoint
ie you can see the car but not that the light is red or that it was when
it passed the white line.

ie it's possibly but unlikely, to be intrest the police or insurers
alike.

Roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

On 25/05/2012 02:57, Phil W Lee wrote:
(Tris) considered Thu, 24 May 2012 09:56:20
GMT the perfect time to write:

In JNugent
wrote:

[snip]
I can see how you could clamp down on drivers.

Then all that is necessary is to convince someone to do it.

Thousands of ANPR cameras, thousands of speed cameras, hundreds of
traffic light & bus lane cameras, specialist traffic police.....

And nobody is clamping down on drivers?

What a ****ing moron.


How would you clamp down on cyclists?

Well, if the major problem (the yob drivers, and those who just think
they are being well behaved while threatening death and serious injury
on those they share the road with), were dealt with, the police might
have some time to worry about trivialities.

When in doubt change the subject. We are not talking about car drivers
who are already regulated, but cyclists who are not.



--
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 Fri, 25 May 2012 15:57:57 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

****ing moron.


We all feel hurt or irritated when someone or something obstructs our
needs or desires. Anger, though, is not truly an emotion.


--
Life is a venereal disease with 100% mortality.