"Pete Biggs" wrote in message ...
Silas Denyer wrote:
Personally I think the only solution is compulsory registration of
bicycles, with clearly-displayed plates, or perhaps compulsory
registration of the riders

How about compulsary shooting of every motorist who breaks the speed
limit.

Sod off you miserable crunt and don't cross-post to uk.rec.cycling again.

~PB

Thanks for the vote. I'm sorry, but I believe my post was directly
relevant to the charters of bothe u.t.l and u.r.c, and the volume of
debate has been high from both camps. You don't actually have to read
the thread if you don't want to :-)

Silas

"David Splett" wrote in message ...
"Silas Denyer" wrote in message
m...
Last week I had to drive (in a car) across London. I made a note of
all cyclists I saw with red traffic lights against them, and their
behaviour. Of 182 I encountered on my (fairly long and, as you'll
gather, dull) drive, only 8 stopped at a red light against them - less
than 5%.

Right. If you were really making such meticulous notes of cyclists, you
couldn't have been paying proper attention to your own driving.

Well, I was stopped at the red lights in question, so that wasn't
really a problem. I suggest that I was concentrating rather harder
than the cyclists in question.

Personally I think the only solution is compulsory registration of
bicycles, with clearly-displayed plates, or perhaps compulsory
registration of the riders (plate on the back of a mandatory
reflective jacket, perhaps). This isn't trivial law-breaking - this is
anarchy in which business, the police, and the general public are
wholesale ignoring the law of the land, and frequently endangering the
lives of pedestrians (yes, lives - cyclist hitting pedestrian can and
does result in death). Who wants to join my petition?

Not me. Get a life.

So I take it that you condone these activities and the breakdown of
law?

Silas

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message . ..
On 16 Oct 2004 05:58:53 -0700, (Silas Denyer)
wrote in message :

I think there will shortly be a significant backlash against cyclists,
from *all* sections of the community.

LOL! Been living in a hole the last few years, have you?

Guy

Bizarrely, I've lived and worked in a many "cyclist-friendly" places,
such as Oxford where the "reclaim the streets" lot actually managed to
get cars pretty much banned from the city centre (along with most of
the customers for local businesses, but, hey, the cycling's great
now...).

Most people I know don't actually hate cyclists per se, and most of my
social circle are in fact cyclists and "career pedestrians" rather
than motorists. However I don't think I've ever seen such a complete
disregard for the law as I see now, hence my original post. The
not-so-recent EU proposal to make motorists responsible for all
accidents involving cyclists didn't help, of course, and I must admit
that the current tarring of motorists with the brush of "sinners"
isn't too helpful either, but above I simply believe that good old
social conscience, disapproval, comment, personal and local
engagement, etc. are a terribly good way to get things to change for
the better.

Silas

On 17 Oct 2004 08:12:17 -0700, (Silas Denyer)
wrote in message :

That isn't the point - widespread lawlessness amongst one section of
the road-using community will IMHO inevitably lead to an increase in
the same or similar behaviour by other sections.

"The trouble with the facts about the law-breaking of the motorists
and the motor interests is that there are too many: it is difficult
even to grasp them. In fact, the position has long since passed far
beyond the limits of ordinary law-breaking and become an exhibition of
national degeneracy." - JS Dean, 1947.

Not much has changed since, except that there are now far more of
them.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Silas Denyer wrote:

The "institutionalised" was referring to a number of issues:

1. The law breaking of the police
2. The acceptance into mainstream business of law breaking as a
competitive advantage
3. The failure of all institutions (including nebulous ones such as
the general population) to deal with the problem.

Hope that clarifies things - I was, and am, serious about the issues
proposed in the original post.


There are two issues. Cycling on pavements and running red lights.

For the first, virtually all the cyclists in the urc half of this cross
post do not ride on the pavement because we know it is both more
dangerous for us as cyclists and less convenient irrespective of the
fact that pedestrians don't like it. For most people though, thanks to
government and the police it is a very confusing message. Government
misguidedly selects bits of pavement at random, paints white bicycles on
them and say cyclists "the roads are dangerous, please cycle on this bit
of pavement instead". Is it any wonder then that people get conditioned
to thinking cycling on the pavement is the safe and correct thing to do
even when it doesn't have the magic white paint on it? Those of us who
cycle on the road get regularly harangued by motorists telling us to
"ride on the f***ing pavement" because they too think the magic white
means pavements are for cyclists, roads are for cars. I've had people
stop and get out of their cars to verbally abuse me for riding on the
road. I still ride on the road though and not on the pavement, magic
paint or not and I just wish government would stop all this stupid
shared use pavements nonsense.

For the second, you will also find virtually no-one in urc who approves
of it. It is illegal and gives us a bad name as do stealth cyclists
without lights at night. I would welcome a crack down on cyclists doing
it and it does occasionally happen. However as illustrated the rapidly
rising number of motorist speeding prosecutions and red light jumping
prosecutions, greater enforcement does not seem to have much effect. I
am frequently sat at red lights on my cycle in London with cyclists,
cars, taxis and buses carrying on past me. I am afraid I am just in a
minority of all London road users in respecting the lights.

It doesn't need all the paraphernalia you suggest of license plates on
bikes. First I am not sure where I could find to put one on mine and
second its been an abject failure with cars. What it needs is police or
wardens on the ground with a zero tolerance approach. However we all
know how likely that is to happen.

Tony

On 17 Oct 2004 08:09:17 -0700, (Silas Denyer)
wrote in message :

1. The law breaking of the police

Yes, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/n...re/3147201.stm -
two police officers thought it was perfectly acceptable to knowingly
speed not because the limit was incorrectly signed, but because the
warning of prosecution had the wrong colour border?

2. The acceptance into mainstream business of law breaking as a
competitive advantage

Speeding, you mean?

3. The failure of all institutions (including nebulous ones such as
the general population) to deal with the problem.

Indeed. When cameras are erected they rail about the "stealth tax" on
lawbreakers rather than laughing at those prosecuted.

Oh wait, you weren't talking about the ones who kill 3,000 a year were
you?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Silas Denyer opined the following...
No, that is nonsense. The most useful thing would be for every reader
here who does not agree with running red lights to start challenging
those cyclists they see who do run them. That is the *third* choice,
but it appears that nobody is prepared to do anything except wait for
state enforcement. Does this community have no moral fibre or sense of
social responsibility?

You labour under the daft assumption that we don't chellenge them. I
often mention it in passing as I overtake them on the way to the next
set of lights.

Furthermore, the resources required to plate cycles are hardly large,
are they?

You don't think so. OK. A standardised fixing system(s) has to be
devised that would allow a clearly readable plate to be fastened
securely to any bike (Or would you have the rider wear it?). A system of
montoring registrations and ownership would have to be created since I
doubt very much that the DVLA could cope with an influx of vehicle
registrations on the order of the number of bikes in Britain. The cost
of the plates (How much are a set of number plates anyway) would have to
be bourne by the cyclists and due to the lack of lateral support these
would be very likely to suffer frequent damage and thus rightly cause
complaint.

The infrastructure all exists, as do the laws, the
enforcement regime, etc. But I don't think anybody wants that, so time
for the human approach.

The laws and the enforcement already exist but are largely unused. As
demonstrated by my proposed experiments, using our limited (And they
_are_ limited) resources to tackle the problem of bad cycling is
somewhat pointless when bad driving kills or injures in the order of
hundreds more people every year. I don't condone bad cycling, but I
certainly don't see it as much more than a nuisance compared to the
damage to person and property that can be done by a car.

The bullet is already there (the law exists, as do the police, the
cameras, etc.) All that is needed is to put a tag on the cat as well
as the lion.

But the point is... which one is going to kill you? The cat might, but
it has to be pretty persistant and you have to be very unlucky. The lion
on the other hand...

Jon

On 17 Oct 2004 08:27:13 -0700, (Silas Denyer)
wrote in message :

No, that is nonsense. The most useful thing would be for every reader
here who does not agree with running red lights to start challenging
those cyclists they see who do run them. That is the *third* choice,
but it appears that nobody is prepared to do anything except wait for
state enforcement.

You are assuming that we don't. That is an invalid assumption. You
may also be surprised at how many of us shout at those riding after
dark without lights, or illegally using the footway.

Furthermore, the resources required to plate cycles are hardly large,
are they? The infrastructure all exists, as do the laws, the
enforcement regime, etc. But I don't think anybody wants that, so time
for the human approach.

The reasons they don't want it are several. First, it is an
unnecessarily draconian solution to a very minor problem; second, the
existence of plating does not prevent motorists from breaking the law
and killing thousands annually; third, the majority of cycles are only
used occasionally, most of these would be discarded or not used rather
than plated, which would further reduce the already insufficient
amount of exercise people take; fourth, there are about six million
children's bikes in the UK, what would you do with those?; fifth, the
cost of the registration bureaucracy would greatly exceed the value of
the scheme unless the cost of registration were pitched at an insanely
high level.

These are just the things which spring immediately to mind, I'm sure
there are other reasons.

You also seem to be ignoring the fact that there is a scheme already
in place to allow fixed penalty fines for cycling offences - and the
Government discourages their routine use because even this is seen as
out of proportion with the actual problem.

You also ignore the occasional crackdown (e.G. recently in Hampshire)
which is welcomed by most of us on urc.

Much netter for pedestrians and cyclists to lobby together for danger
to be controlled at source. The CTC do this, working with pedestrian
groups.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On 17 Oct 2004 08:22:53 -0700, (Silas Denyer)
wrote in message :

Pedestrians should have the right to cross at crossings without fear
of being hit - by *anything*.

Unfortunately large numbers of pedestrians are killed every year on
crossings. But not by cyclists, which invites the question: why pick
on them?

One possible answer lies in the definition of a pedestrian as "a
person who has found somewhere to park the car".

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Silas Denyer opined the following...
As an example, Rollerblades were, ISTR, banned in the Royal Parks
because a pedestrian was killed by being hit by a 'blader on a
"pavement". The pedestrian had no choice in the matter (as opposed to
the choice of not walking in the road with cars).

And where would you put the rollerblader? In the road?

Pedestrians should have the right to cross at crossings without fear
of being hit - by *anything*. The earlier "1ft vs 6ft" argument, for
instance, was spurious in this regard.

You are correct that a pedestrian should be able to cross the road at a
crossing without fear. To presume that this fear comes from a fear of
bikes shows a lack of understanding of reality. Given that you are far
more likely to be killed by a car than a bicycle, being more afraid of
the bikes is a little strange.

I have been hit (as a pedestrian) by a cyclist (breaking the law),
whose head (down, not looking, helmetted) struck me in the face. It
took me a good long time to recover from that. It was not trivial
(except when compared to death) and was caused entirely by the cyclist
"only doing what everyone does" (his words). That is my point - break
down the apparent scale of the offence and soon nobody knows what is
"wrong" or "unacceptable" or even "undesirable" any longer.

Indeed. Note the number of drivers who routinely exceed speed limits.

No, the analogy was simply non-analagous. Consider this one instead:

I beg to differ, but that comes down to your perception of threat from
cyclists (Which, it would appear, is tainted by personal experience as
apposed to objective observation).

You have to defend Smallium from attack by a mixed bag of opponents
from a single direction. Some have assault rifles, others have
sharpened fruit. You keep out the riflemen but let through the less
lethal (but not non-lethal) fruit carriers, and accept a number of
civilian casualties from fruit.

Soon the riflemen realise that disguising their weapons as fruit is a
good way to go, whilst your guards become used to letting some enemies
in. What do you think happens next?

If this is analogous to the original problem then presumably you are
aware of some way in which a car could be disguised as a bike while
retaining its inherent ability to cause damage.

OK, but:

(a) if every red light has a camera, and most motorists don't want to
be caught by them, and casualties continue to decrease, suddenly
cyclists look like a big problem.

1st problem. Not every red light has a camera. A very small proportion
of them are now equipped with cameras and since traffic lights appear to
breed faster than cameras I don't see this changing.
2nd problem. Given the ratios, the cameras would have to be close to
100% effective against the problem of car drivers jumping reds in order
to bring the KSI ratio down to a level where cyclists became a problem.
In that world, the cyclists would no longer see car drivers jumping red
lights and wouldn't assume it was OK.

(b) how long will people respect the rule of law if it is flouted by
everybody else, including the police (see my original post)?

The police _always_ flout the rule of law... it's a perk of the job!

Jon