My suggestion is practicable. Your - I hope humorous - suggestion is
totally unworkable.

Incidentally, many pedestrians would argue fiercely with your assertion that
cyclists are no danger to others. In London cyclists are loathed more
intensely by pedestrians than by motorists.

On 27/07/2013 10:01, Robin9 wrote:

Incidentally, many pedestrians would argue fiercely with your assertion
that
cyclists are no danger to others. In London cyclists are loathed more
intensely by pedestrians than by motorists.

Lots of people suffer from bizarre and irrational loathing for other
people. I find it is generally best to just ignore such people and get
on with my life.


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

The authentic attitude of a London cyclist! Everyone else is out of step, not me!

On 28/07/2013 09:50, Robin9 wrote:
Arthur Figgis;138080 Wrote:
On 27/07/2013 10:01, Robin9 wrote:
-
Incidentally, many pedestrians would argue fiercely with your
assertion
that
cyclists are no danger to others. In London cyclists are loathed more
intensely by pedestrians than by motorists.-

Lots of people suffer from bizarre and irrational loathing for other
people. I find it is generally best to just ignore such people and get
on with my life.


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

The authentic attitude of a London cyclist! Everyone else is out of
step, not me!

So is irrational loathing the "authentic attitude" of London
non-cyclists - or just idiots? What about when the very same cyclists
are driving, or the motorists are cycling, or if they are all using the
dangleway?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:50:57 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 26/07/2013 10:59, d wrote:
There is also the risk a charge could backfire. If cyclists did pay, you
could kiss goodbye to demanding they use cycle lanes or stay in the gutter.

In that case they'd be stopped by the police and issued with a fixed penalty.

And whats more I'd insist cyclists had some sort of formal training before
they're allowed on B roads and above. If they want to potter about in their
own backstreets fine, but if they want to ride on a numbered road they need
a license.

Don't forget pedestrians. Even /children/ are allowed to go pretty much
where they want at the moment, with no tax, training or government
permit whatsoever.

Using stupid analogies just makes you look like an ass. Some people can ride
bicycles faster than the max speed of some mopeds. When all pedestrians are
running down the street 10mph faster than Usain Bolt and are carrying sharp
bits of metal out in front of them then maybe we can talk about them requiring
licenses you ****ing idiot.

--
Spud

You persist in missing the point. Pedestrians do not enjoy cyclists driving
illegally on pavements crashing into them. Nor do they like it when the cyclist
refuses to apologise. Disliking such people and such behavior is not "irrational
loathing" at all.

When a cyclist is driving a motor vehicle, he is not at that moment a cyclist.
When a motorist is cycling, he is a that moment a cyclist, and if he behaves
as so many cyclists in London do behave, then he too will be resented by
pedestrians.

On 29/07/2013 10:19, d wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:50:57 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 26/07/2013 10:59, d wrote:
There is also the risk a charge could backfire. If cyclists did pay, you
could kiss goodbye to demanding they use cycle lanes or stay in the gutter.

In that case they'd be stopped by the police and issued with a fixed penalty.

On what basis? Are you really saying people should have to pay to use a
bicycle but then be banned from making use of the roads?!

All I'm saying is, if bikes were taxed, you would lose the ability to
demand they go away from you.

And whats more I'd insist cyclists had some sort of formal training before
they're allowed on B roads and above. If they want to potter about in their
own backstreets fine, but if they want to ride on a numbered road they need
a license.

Don't forget pedestrians. Even /children/ are allowed to go pretty much
where they want at the moment, with no tax, training or government
permit whatsoever.

Using stupid analogies just makes you look like an ass.

Bettering than looking like a selfish angry pillock.

Some people can ride
bicycles faster than the max speed of some mopeds. When all pedestrians are
running down the street 10mph faster than Usain Bolt and are carrying sharp
bits of metal out in front of them then maybe we can talk about them requiring
licenses you ****ing idiot.

If you are a road user, get help. The world might well be a better place
with you out of circulation, but it would be a shame if you harmed
anyone else in the process.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 29/07/2013 18:03, Robin9 wrote:
Arthur Figgis;138085 Wrote:
On 28/07/2013 09:50, Robin9 wrote:-
Arthur Figgis;138080 Wrote:-
On 27/07/2013 10:01, Robin9 wrote:
-
Incidentally, many pedestrians would argue fiercely with your
assertion
that
cyclists are no danger to others. In London cyclists are loathed more
intensely by pedestrians than by motorists.-

Lots of people suffer from bizarre and irrational loathing for other
people. I find it is generally best to just ignore such people and get
on with my life.


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK-

The authentic attitude of a London cyclist! Everyone else is out of
step, not me!-

So is irrational loathing the "authentic attitude" of London
non-cyclists - or just idiots? What about when the very same cyclists
are driving, or the motorists are cycling, or if they are all using the

dangleway?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

You persist in missing the point. Pedestrians do not enjoy cyclists
driving
illegally on pavements crashing into them.

(driving or riding?)

Um, does anyone enjoy that? It's never happened to me, but I assume it
is no fun - especially for the cyclist, who is liable to come off worse
in a collision. I suspect pedestrians might be even less happy with
motorists doing it, as it can prove fatal. However I'm not sure what
this has to do with anything; in general, most people disapprove of
people committing offences.

Plenty of cyclists don't approve of idiots illegally riding on the
pavement - not least because it seems to encourage the thicker sort of
"get orrf my road" motorist to think /all/ cyclists should be on the
pavement.

Nor do they like it when the
cyclist
refuses to apologise. Disliking such people and such behavior is not
"irrational
loathing" at all.

So is it sensible to loathe tram passengers because a non-zero number
are angry racists?

When a cyclist is driving a motor vehicle, he is not at that moment a
cyclist.

So if a pedestrian decides to hire a Boris Bike on the spur of the
moment, does he then loathe himself, or does it become a task for other
people?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 19:32:23 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote:
In that case they'd be stopped by the police and issued with a fixed penalty.

On what basis? Are you really saying people should have to pay to use a
bicycle but then be banned from making use of the roads?!

All I'm saying is, if bikes were taxed, you would lose the ability to
demand they go away from you.

And all I'm saying is that if they want to complain about the roads and
other drivers they should pay for the priviledge. Once they do then they can
whinge and bitch as much as they like, until then they can - to use an
americanism - talk to the hand.

Some people can ride
bicycles faster than the max speed of some mopeds. When all pedestrians are
running down the street 10mph faster than Usain Bolt and are carrying sharp
bits of metal out in front of them then maybe we can talk about them
requiring
licenses you ****ing idiot.

If you are a road user, get help. The world might well be a better place
with you out of circulation, but it would be a shame if you harmed
anyone else in the process.

Your analogy was shot down in flames and thats your bail out speech? Do try
a bit harder.

--
Spud

On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 23:52:17 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote:
Nor do they like it when the
cyclist
refuses to apologise. Disliking such people and such behavior is not
"irrational
loathing" at all.

So is it sensible to loathe tram passengers because a non-zero number
are angry racists?

If about 50% of people who got on trams starting mouthing off or generally
causing a nuisance then people WOULD think there was something odd about
people who ride trams.

At least 50% of the time when I see a cyclist either in my car or when walking
I'll see them break rules in some way. Usually by riding through a red light
if they can get away with it.

--
Spud