chris harrison ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Second - what's wrong with spending 5K or so on a bike?

FWIW my rule is that no bike can cost less than the car.

I've never spent five grand on a car.
I've only once spent more than HALF that on a car.

You are not average in this regard amongst car drivers ....

And five grand is an average bicycle?

Clive wrote:
In message , Huge
writes
Then we come to the next point; cyclists want to be treated like
"proper road users" (in actual fact, they mean cars, but if you mention
that, they deny it.)That's fine by me. I want them to be treated like
"proper road users", too; that is, registered, licensed, tested, carry
a registration plate, be prosecuted for their continuous infractions of
the road laws and bled white in taxes. Then they can justifably
complain about the crappiness of the facilities they are provided with,
since they will have paid for them. Whinging about things provided at
other people's expense just shows what kind of people they actually are.
I endorse this 100%.
--
Clive

In sentiment only I hope since quite a bit of it is wrong.

If as Huge says being treated like a "proper road user" means being
"registered, licensed, tested, carry a registration plate" then Huge is
wrong if he thinks cyclists want that. I haven't a clue what else he
thinks being treated like a "proper road user" means - oh yes being
taxed loads. No thanks. I pay enough tax already.

Quite happy for all cyclists to be "prosecuted for their continuous
infractions of the road laws". Same for all road users.

"provided at other people's expense" - I'm sure if you try very hard
you'll be able to find a cyclist who's paid no tax, otherwise that
statement is rubbish. I'm sure you could also find a motorist who has
paid no tax other than on fuel. And who knows you might even be able to
find one of those.

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

If as Huge says being treated like a "proper road user" means being
"registered, licensed, tested, carry a registration plate" then Huge
is wrong if he thinks cyclists want that.

Well, yes, that's obvious. Nobody ever wants more bureaucracy for
themselves, do they? Even when there may very well be a benefit in it.

Quite happy for all cyclists to be "prosecuted for their continuous
infractions of the road laws". Same for all road users.

Fine. So - how DO we get red light cameras to recognise cyclists without
having plates on bikes?

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Jack Taylor wrote:

The bottom line is that, whether pedestrians, cyclists or motorists,
there is bad practise and intolerance between all groups. Ultimately,
better roadcraft, less arrogance and more consideration for other
parties would improve everybodys day!

Well said.

The solution, of course, is to STRING THE *******S UP IT'S THE ONLY
LANGUAGE THEY UNDERSTAND. Innit. What do we want? Gibbets! When do we want
them? Now!

tom

--
.... a tale for which the world is not yet prepared

Adrian wrote:
chris harrison ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :


Second - what's wrong with spending 5K or so on a bike?

FWIW my rule is that no bike can cost less than the car.


I've never spent five grand on a car.
I've only once spent more than HALF that on a car.


You are not average in this regard amongst car drivers ....


And five grand is an average bicycle?

Also not average, but not unimaginable.

It goes a lot further than that same 5 grand spent on a car, not even
beginning to count ongoing running costs.

Adrian wrote:
kiko ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Quite happy for all cyclists to be "prosecuted for their continuous
infractions of the road laws". Same for all road users.

Fine. So - how DO we get red light cameras to recognise cyclists without
having plates on bikes?

Mmm. Introduce an instant fine involving a vehicle going through green
light at same time removing cyclist from cycle? Then you'll have no
problem recognising and catching them.

Seriously, I agree that would be tricky. But where would you stick a
number plate on a bike/rider? Maybe use a lightweight electronic ID tag?

In message . 170,
Adrian writes
Quite happy for all cyclists to be "prosecuted for their continuous
infractions of the road laws". Same for all road users.

Fine. So - how DO we get red light cameras to recognise cyclists without
having plates on bikes?

Assuming the punishment would be to fine the cyclists, roaming
enforcement officers would probably pay for themselves many times over
in the worst troublespots (e.g. the whole of Oxford city centre), and I
say this as a cyclist who hates red light jumpers, pavement cyclists and
cyclists without lights at night too.
--
Daniel (a.k.a Spyke)
Address is valid, but messages are treated as junk. Replace the bit before the
@ with 'daniel' to get through. The opinions expressed in this post do not
necessarily reflect those of the educational institution from which I post.

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

But where would you stick a number plate on a bike/rider?

Ummm, rear mudguard?

Is it NL or BE or one of those countries that has a small yellow square
plate on bikes? Some EU countries have a smaller plate for mopeds, too.

However, I don't see it's a huge problem, partly since I have to have a
full size numberplate on some of my bikes, purely because they have a small
petrol hairdryer strapped to the front wheel.

Maybe use a lightweight electronic ID tag?

groan Don't give the *******s ideas...

kiko wrote:
If as Huge says being treated like a "proper road user" means being
"registered, licensed, tested, carry a registration plate" then Huge is
wrong if he thinks cyclists want that.

Actually, it might help to ask people, have polls ever been taken or are
you making assumptions? Personally, I don't mind the idea.

It really does bug me when I see cyclists riding on pavements and going
through red lights and flagrantly disregarding the rules of the road. I
might not be of international standard, but I am certainly what I would
consider a 'proper' cyclist. I can drive, I hold a full driving licence
(and have done for many, many years), I just choose not to exercise that
ability. That also makes me a 'driver'.

The rules of the road aren't there to restrict road users from having
fun they are there to make everyone's behaviour predictable under what
are potentially dangerous and life-threatening conditions.

I really don't mind the idea of being registered, tested or licensed. I
can't imagine that it should come to it, but I do wonder sometimes at
the inconsistency of using the road as a cyclist with no required
instruction, but to have to be qualified to use a motor vehicle. Just
what right is it that we should expect unfettered access to a resource
that requires expense to maintain? The fact that the average cyclist
causes virtually no damage to that resource should be reflected in the
charge to use it, but that doesn't remove entirely the inequity.

Yes, it might discourage cycle use.
Yes, this might fly in the face of government obesity targets and
congestion reduction.
But it would make life more comfortable for the remaining cyclists.

chris harrison ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

I've never spent five grand on a car.
I've only once spent more than HALF that on a car.

You are not average in this regard amongst car drivers ....

And five grand is an average bicycle?

Also not average, but not unimaginable.

So where did "average" come into it? Although I'd suspect that it's *FAR*
more common to buy inexpensive cars than expensive bikes...

It goes a lot further than that same 5 grand spent on a car

How? Seriously - genuine question. I'm *baffled* about what a £5k bike will
do that a £500 one won't.