Adrian wrote:
Ah, OK. So not a mode of road transport, then. Merely a frivolous toy. Not
a great idea to have those mixing with traffic, so better ban 'em from the
public road.

Fine by me. I tend to ride my bike on the pavement or paths anyway when

I can since I don't fancy being a speed bump for an HGV.


Or do you want your bread buttered on both sides? Cake *and* eat it? It's
make your mind up time, y'know.

Its about licensing , not about whether the thing can physically go on
a
road. I could ride in a shopping trolley down a road , does that make
it a
vehicle that should be licensed?

I just don't happen to think it's a great thing.

And yet you're arguing for a license for bicycles which you well know
people
wouldn't take seriously and would give all sorts of false information
making
the whole thing a waste of money and pointless, and do you seriously
believe
the police will bother to try and find someone if their bike is
registered at
their mates address and their mate denies knowing anything about them?
"Who John Smith? Dunno , never heard of him officer". Just as happens
with
cars where the driver doesn't give a rats arse about insurance or tax.
And
thats if they bother to register it at all.


Have you just parachuted in from the 70s
Don't worry, One of us is fully aware that it's 2006 now...

One of us however doesn't seem to be particularly au fait with
practical
reality and human nature.

B2003

Boltar ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Ah, OK. So not a mode of road transport, then. Merely a frivolous
toy. Not a great idea to have those mixing with traffic, so better
ban 'em from the public road.

Fine by me. I tend to ride my bike on the pavement or paths anyway
when I can

ITYF that's already (and quite rightly) illegal, because bicycles are
vehicles.

Still, it's antisocial and inconsiderate ****s like you that give all the
rest of the cyclists a bad name and bring on the potential for
registration. Nice one, mate. Congratulations. I hope you feel very proud.

since I don't fancy being a speed bump for an HGV.

Perhaps you ought to learn how to ride properly? Again, you come up with
another excellent argument _for_ compulsory training and licencing.

Or do you want your bread buttered on both sides? Cake *and* eat it?
It's make your mind up time, y'know.

Its about licensing , not about whether the thing can physically go on
a road. I could ride in a shopping trolley down a road , does that make
it a vehicle?

If it's being used by millions as a mechanical mode of transport, then yes,
it does.

(I've deliberately snipped "that should be licensed" - because that's a
separate issue, and one that inconsiderate antisocial "lycra-lout" cyclists
- just like you - have brought upon themselves and all their compatriots by
proving they cannot be trusted unlicenced.)

I just don't happen to think it's a great thing.

And yet you're arguing for a license for bicycles

Am I?

I'm actually fairly ambivalent about the whole suggestion - and there's no
way on this planet that Ken can work it in isolation. It'd need to be at
LEAST national, more likely EU.

I'm merely pointing out your inconsistency here.
Bikes *are* vehicles. Road traffic law DOES apply to cyclists.
Cyclists flaunting the law *DO* cause a very real risk to pedestrians.
Something *does* need to be done.
Is this the right thing? I dunno.
Is it good that the issue is being raised? Yes.

Adrian wrote:
ITYF that's already (and quite rightly) illegal, because bicycles are
vehicles.

Well you believe what you like. If you want to believe they're vehicles
then go ahead if it makes you happy. I'd love to know where your
rather grey dividing line between vehicle and non vehicle is though.

since I don't fancy being a speed bump for an HGV.

Perhaps you ought to learn how to ride properly? Again, you come up with
another excellent argument _for_ compulsory training and licencing.

Quite obviously you've never ridden on any road busier than a quiet
country
lane. If you had you'd know that it doesn't matter how good a cyclist
you are
plenty of vehicles don't know or care you're there and quite happily
cut you
up and even clip you. Ask any cylist whos ridden further than to the
bottom
of his street. I could spend 2 years in your mythical training camp,
I'd still
chose to ride on the pavement when I can instead of risking my life on
a
road. If you don't like it thats your problem, I don't give a damn what
you
or anyone else thinks.

If it's being used by millions as a mechanical mode of transport, then yes,
it does.

Ah , so your definition of a vehicle is how its used, not what it is?
So if buy a
car but never use it then its no longer a vehicle? Conversely if lots
of people
used space hoppers to get to work they'd magically become a vehicle?
Hmm , interesting. By that logic then I guess you must consider all
oral drugs
to be food since lots of people take them and they're digested. Why
should
it matter if it hasn't got any nutrients, you don't care that a bike
doesn't
have an engine right?

(I've deliberately snipped "that should be licensed" - because that's a
separate issue, and one that inconsiderate antisocial "lycra-lout" cyclists
- just like you - have brought upon themselves and all their compatriots by
proving they cannot be trusted unlicenced.)

Don't wear lycra. Sorry to shatter your fantasy.

Bikes *are* vehicles. Road traffic law DOES apply to cyclists.

Road law applying to cyclists and licensing them are 2 entirely
different arguments.

Cyclists flaunting the law *DO* cause a very real risk to pedestrians.

No , cyslists riding at pedestrians and not stopping is dangerous.

B2003

Boltar ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

since I don't fancy being a speed bump for an HGV.

Perhaps you ought to learn how to ride properly? Again, you come up
with another excellent argument _for_ compulsory training and
licencing.

Quite obviously you've never ridden on any road busier than a quiet
country lane.

Bzzzt. Wrong.

Used to do a daily commute by bike which included a few miles of South
Circular.

Cyclists flaunting the law *DO* cause a very real risk to
pedestrians.

No , cyslists riding at pedestrians and not stopping is dangerous.

Correct. Cyclists like you proudly proclaim yourself to be.

In message .com,
Boltar writes
No , cyslists riding at pedestrians and not stopping is dangerous.
If you ride at me on your bike on my pavement, you'll find that as I
step out of your way you'll also become horizontal instead of vertical.
--
Clive.

Clive Coleman. wrote:
In message .com,
Boltar writes
No , cyslists riding at pedestrians and not stopping is dangerous.
If you ride at me on your bike on my pavement, you'll find that as I
step out of your way you'll also become horizontal instead of vertical.
--
Clive.

I wouldn't ride it at you though. The only reason I ever use the
pavement is to round the bus that has just blocked off my access. This
is most commonly on the A41 Finchley Road heading South.

Give us a proper lane to pass road traffic and we won't use the
pavement. Simple.

And no, I won't use the "recommended" cycle route up and down the hills
in the backstreets of Hampstead.

"Earl Purple" wrote

I wouldn't ride it at you though. The only reason I ever use the
pavement is to round the bus that has just blocked off my access.
This
is most commonly on the A41 Finchley Road heading South.

Give us a proper lane to pass road traffic and we won't use the
pavement. Simple.

There are two proper lanes adjacent to the bus lane. Move right,
behaving as described in "Cyclecraft", the generally recommended
guide to cycling with other traffic, move back when past the bus.

It works for me.

In the evenings, when it's uphill, buses are more likely to be
passing me. They do much the same.

And no, I won't use the "recommended" cycle route up and down the
hills
in the backstreets of Hampstead.

I'm with you there. The main purpose of defining "cycle routes" is
an attempt to define most roads as "not cycle routes". I suspect
that even the people who got out their magic markers, and defined the
network, don't use the network as such. In reality, of course,
London has 8500 miles of bike routes, because every road and every
street, except for a couple of motorways, is a bike route

Jeremy Parker

Jeremy Parker wrote:

There are two proper lanes adjacent to the bus lane. Move right,
behaving as described in "Cyclecraft", the generally recommended
guide to cycling with other traffic, move back when past the bus.

It works for me.

I do if I can. But quite often there is no gap through which to pass.
And there are so many traffic islands that passing in the hatched
markings doesn't get you very far.

In the evenings, when it's uphill, buses are more likely to be
passing me. They do much the same.

They do pass me occasionally on the uphill but the traffic in that
direction is rarely as bad once you pass the O2.

Most of the time I overtake them back again at the next bus-stop.

During non-bus-lane hours the parked vehicles in the bus-lane
effectively turn them into cycle-only lanes because there's enough room
for a cycle to pass the parked vehicles, but buses and taxis have to
use the main lanes.