It seems reasonable to me. Though if they restrict it to cyclists,
the usual whinging will come from the motoring lobby who get ****ed
off when they don't have equal rights to cyclists.

The answer is, get a bike. And STFU :-)

And the other part of that answer is for pedestrians to be allowed by
law to carry golfing umbrellas, stout walking sticks etc and to insert
them in the spokes of the wheels of cyclists who jump the lights, ride
on pavements etc. After all, the cyclists in question can't possibly
believe that it would do them any harm as they make clear they believe
they are a superior race.

It'd do wonders for the economy as well: just think of all those job
vacancies created!
--
Robin

neverwas wrote:
It seems reasonable to me. Though if they restrict it to cyclists,
the usual whinging will come from the motoring lobby who get ****ed
off when they don't have equal rights to cyclists.

The answer is, get a bike. And STFU :-)

And the other part of that answer is for pedestrians to be allowed by
law to carry golfing umbrellas, stout walking sticks etc and to insert
them in the spokes of the wheels of cyclists who jump the lights, ride
on pavements etc. After all, the cyclists in question can't possibly
believe that it would do them any harm as they make clear they believe
they are a superior race.

Probably not a bad idea.

If they got all the cyclists off the pavements and onto the roads, the roads
would be safer for everyone. But then again the motorists would be bitching
that they are being held up by all these cyclists who shouldn't be there...

As my mother used to say, "be careful of what you wish for, because you
might actually get it" :-)

neverwas wrote:
It seems reasonable to me. Though if they restrict it to cyclists,
the usual whinging will come from the motoring lobby who get ****ed
off when they don't have equal rights to cyclists.

The answer is, get a bike. And STFU :-)

And the other part of that answer is for pedestrians to be allowed by
law to carry golfing umbrellas, stout walking sticks etc and to insert
them in the spokes of the wheels of cyclists who jump the lights, ride
on pavements etc. After all, the cyclists in question can't possibly
believe that it would do them any harm as they make clear they believe
they are a superior race.

It'd do wonders for the economy as well: just think of all those job
vacancies created!

I suggested something similar a few months ago, and the whinging
*******s in URC insisted that I was being 'disproportionate'. Odd,
innit, that this disproportion thing only applies to car drivers
exposing cyclists to harm, and not to cyclists exposing pedestrians to
the same

"thaksin" wrote in message
...
neverwas wrote:
It seems reasonable to me. Though if they restrict it to cyclists,
the usual whinging will come from the motoring lobby who get ****ed
off when they don't have equal rights to cyclists.

The answer is, get a bike. And STFU :-)

And the other part of that answer is for pedestrians to be allowed by law
to carry golfing umbrellas, stout walking sticks etc and to insert them
in the spokes of the wheels of cyclists who jump the lights, ride on
pavements etc. After all, the cyclists in question can't possibly
believe that it would do them any harm as they make clear they believe
they are a superior race.

It'd do wonders for the economy as well: just think of all those job
vacancies created!

I suggested something similar a few months ago, and the whinging *******s
in URC insisted that I was being 'disproportionate'. Odd, innit, that this
disproportion thing only applies to car drivers exposing cyclists to harm,
and not to cyclists exposing pedestrians to the same

You have a good point. The only thing that lets that idea down in that the
number of peds killed by cyclists is very very few. Not that I am excusing
the cyclists, its just very rare. But the number of cyclists killed by
traffic is a lot higher. Hence Boris's idea to reduce cyclist casualties.

You have a good point. The only thing that lets that idea down in
that the number of peds killed by cyclists is very very few. Not that
I am excusing the cyclists, its just very rare. But the number of
cyclists killed by traffic is a lot higher. Hence Boris's idea to
reduce cyclist casualties.

Death is not the only form of injury. But stats on
cyclist-on-pedestrian incidents seem rare and partial because (i) there
is no requirement on cyclists to stop and give details and (ii) the
police do not count them as RTCs.

As regards "Boris's idea", the report includes

"More than a third of fatal cycling accidents in London involve cyclists
being hit by heavy vehicles turning left, Transport for London (TfL)
said."

But is that cyclists (i) who were waiting for red lights to turn green
or (ii) cyclists at large - including those trying to "undertake" an HGV
at a junction? If not (i) then the statistics are (as so often) being
used to mislead.

--
Robin

"neverwas" wrote in message
news
You have a good point. The only thing that lets that idea down in
that the number of peds killed by cyclists is very very few. Not that
I am excusing the cyclists, its just very rare. But the number of
cyclists killed by traffic is a lot higher. Hence Boris's idea to
reduce cyclist casualties.

Death is not the only form of injury. But stats on cyclist-on-pedestrian
incidents seem rare and partial because (i) there is no requirement on
cyclists to stop and give details and (ii) the police do not count them as
RTCs.

As regards "Boris's idea", the report includes

"More than a third of fatal cycling accidents in London involve cyclists
being hit by heavy vehicles turning left, Transport for London (TfL)
said."

But is that cyclists (i) who were waiting for red lights to turn green or
(ii) cyclists at large - including those trying to "undertake" an HGV at a
junction? If not (i) then the statistics are (as so often) being used to
mislead.

AIUI there has been at least one fatal accident where the cyclist is
legitimately waiting for a green light while sitting in a cycle lane. By the
placement of these lanes, the cyclist is encouraged to filter through
traffic on the wrong side. ISTM that the problem is largely due to cycling
in the gutter, alongside the traffic (esp. where there are HGVs turning).

In article ,
(mileburner) wrote:

AIUI there has been at least one fatal accident where the cyclist
is legitimately waiting for a green light while sitting in a cycle
lane. By the placement of these lanes, the cyclist is encouraged to
filter through traffic on the wrong side. ISTM that the problem is
largely due to cycling in the gutter, alongside the traffic (esp.
where there are HGVs turning).

There was another just outside Cambridge a year or so ago. The cyclist was
in a cycle lane and a lorry turned left across her.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:55:36 GMT someone who may be "neverwas"
wrote this:-

And the other part of that answer is for pedestrians to be allowed by
law to carry golfing umbrellas, stout walking sticks etc and to insert
them in the spokes of the wheels of cyclists who jump the lights, ride
on pavements etc.

I take it that you would also allow cyclists to fit short lances to
their bikes to deal with pedestrians and motorists who fail to obey
the law?



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:55:36 GMT someone who may be "neverwas"
wrote this:-

And the other part of that answer is for pedestrians to be allowed by
law to carry golfing umbrellas, stout walking sticks etc and to insert
them in the spokes of the wheels of cyclists who jump the lights, ride
on pavements etc.

I take it that you would also allow cyclists to fit short lances to
their bikes to deal with pedestrians and motorists who fail to obey
the law?

Would you be okay with lorry drivers fitting signs saying "Ha ha, ****,
die screaming" under their near-side wheelarches, to 'educate' cyclists
who undertake them?

In article ,
(thaksin) wrote:

David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:55:36 GMT someone who may be "neverwas"
wrote this:-

And the other part of that answer is for pedestrians to be allowed
by law to carry golfing umbrellas, stout walking sticks etc and to
insert them in the spokes of the wheels of cyclists who jump the
lights, ride on pavements etc.

I take it that you would also allow cyclists to fit short lances to
their bikes to deal with pedestrians and motorists who fail to obey
the law?

Would you be okay with lorry drivers fitting signs saying "Ha ha,
****, die screaming" under their near-side wheelarches, to 'educate'
cyclists who undertake them?

Lorries that have warning signs against cycles passing them on the inside
are admitting that they are not safe to be allowed on the roads. They
should be required to have proper mirrors and under-run protection like
other vehicles if they are to be allowed on roads where cycles and
pedestrians are permitted.

--
Colin Rosenstiel