d wrote in
:

I hope the cops start some new campaign to stop cyclists riding on the
pavement and blasting through red lights. The number of times I've
seen them endangering lives is ridiculous. Their chicken attitude of
"rather I hit a pedestrian than a car hit me!" is an insult to every
member of the public.

I suggest snipers on every other building. That should do it.

I suggest:

- compulsory third-party insurance for all cyclists (to cover injury to
pedestrians and damage to cars who have to swerve to avoid them when the
cyclists go through red lights or whose cars they scrape as they overtake
illegally on the left coming up to a junction)

- mandatory registration plates at the front and back of all bikes, with the
front number plate parallel with the handlebars (rather than parallel with
the wheel as for motorbikes at present) so it can be read from in front

As an occasional cyclist, I'd willingly pay a small surcharge for insurance.
Being responsible and considerate, I have never overtaken a queue of cars on
the left (I wait my turn, just like a car, or else I dismount and walk on
the pavement till I get past the obstruction) and I have never gone through
a red traffic light or across a pedestrian crossing that has people on it.
But I think I'm very much in the minority :-(

In message , Martin
Underwood writes

As an occasional cyclist, I'd willingly pay a small surcharge for insurance.

While I agree, there is an argument that cycling is such an excellent
form of exercise, saving the nation much in National Health costs as
well as reducing pollution for local journeys, that we cyclists should
be offered free insurance by the state

(I only wish I wasn't so much of a "fair weather" cyclist!)
--
Paul Terry

"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...
In message , Martin
Underwood writes

As an occasional cyclist, I'd willingly pay a small surcharge for
insurance.

While I agree, there is an argument that cycling is such an excellent form
of exercise, saving the nation much in National Health costs as well as
reducing pollution for local journeys, that we cyclists should be offered
free insurance by the state

Interesting proposal... I think that could possibly be
counter-productive, and may encourage councils to not invest in cycle
infrastructure. They might figure more cyclepaths = more cyclists = more
claims = more payouts from them, and we all know what happens when councils
think they might lose money...

(I only wish I wasn't so much of a "fair weather" cyclist!)
--
Paul Terry

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 18:55:59 +0000, Paul Terry
wrote:

In message , Martin
Underwood writes

As an occasional cyclist, I'd willingly pay a small surcharge for insurance.

While I agree, there is an argument that cycling is such an excellent
form of exercise, saving the nation much in National Health costs as
well as reducing pollution for local journeys, that we cyclists should
be offered free insurance by the state

Cycling's too efficient, it takes all the hard work out and is
therefore not an excellent form of exercise. Walking and running are
much better...

Phil Clark wrote:

Cycling's too efficient, it takes all the hard work out and is
therefore not an excellent form of exercise. Walking and running are
much better...

It is, however, a more useful mode of transport as the range of a
runner is rather more limited. Thus exercise can more feasibly be
gained as part of the daily routine rather than as a separate activity.

Neil

Neil Williams wrote:
Phil Clark wrote:

Cycling's too efficient, it takes all the hard work out and is
therefore not an excellent form of exercise. Walking and running are
much better...

It is, however, a more useful mode of transport as the range of a
runner is rather more limited.

And with panniers on you can carry a damned sight more shopping back from
the supermarket than by walking or running!

On 12 Jan 2006 02:05:22 -0800, "Neil Williams"
wrote:

Phil Clark wrote:

Cycling's too efficient, it takes all the hard work out and is
therefore not an excellent form of exercise. Walking and running are
much better...

It is, however, a more useful mode of transport as the range of a
runner is rather more limited. Thus exercise can more feasibly be
gained as part of the daily routine rather than as a separate activity.

I agree it's a better form of transport, although to be honest I've
never seen the attraction of dicing with London traffic on a pushbike.

I fit a half hour walk from Waterloo to Green Park into my schedule
(and back again in the evening). I reckon I get an hour's exercise a
day for the net expenditure of around half that - I have to allow 20
minutes on the way home for the tube; walking, 35 minutes gets me
there easily.

Phil Clark wrote:

I fit a half hour walk from Waterloo to Green Park into my schedule
(and back again in the evening). I reckon I get an hour's exercise a
day for the net expenditure of around half that - I have to allow 20
minutes on the way home for the tube; walking, 35 minutes gets me
there easily.

Fair enough - looks like that works for you. I used to walk to work
when I lived about 2.5 miles from it; now I work further away (about
5.5 miles) I cycle or drive instead, as to walk would take something
like an hour and a half each way, which is a little excessive.

Central London traffic isn't *that* bad on a bike, as you can usually
go faster than the rest of it, so speed isn't as much of a threat as it
is elsewhere. However, I can see why walking would be preferable, as
you do still need your wits about you!

Neil

On 15 Jan 2006 08:46:24 -0800, "Neil Williams"
wrote:

Phil Clark wrote:

I fit a half hour walk from Waterloo to Green Park into my schedule
(and back again in the evening). I reckon I get an hour's exercise a
day for the net expenditure of around half that - I have to allow 20
minutes on the way home for the tube; walking, 35 minutes gets me
there easily.

Fair enough - looks like that works for you. I used to walk to work
when I lived about 2.5 miles from it; now I work further away (about
5.5 miles) I cycle or drive instead, as to walk would take something
like an hour and a half each way, which is a little excessive.

You're right - it works for me, your journey works by bike. I now get
a perverse pleasure every time I find I haven't used my Oyster all
week (this week I'll slip as I'll probably catch a bus back from Fleet
Street to Waterloo. It is walkable, but I'd rather be able to stay in
the pub for longer!)

Central London traffic isn't *that* bad on a bike, as you can usually
go faster than the rest of it, so speed isn't as much of a threat as it
is elsewhere. However, I can see why walking would be preferable, as
you do still need your wits about you!

There are plenty of places where the facilities for pedestrians are
poor, for example around Centrepoint. There's also two points on my
walking route that are not ideal - one is the front entrance to
Waterloo where you have to cross four roads and six lanes of traffic
to get to the Jubilee Bridge, and the central reservation on York Way
is far too narrow. The other is Trafalgar Square where the traffic
light phasing can mean it takes an age to get from one side to the
other, and this encourages pedestrians to nip across against a green
traffic light.

Phil Clark wrote:

Cycling's too efficient, it takes all the hard work out and is
therefore not an excellent form of exercise. Walking and running are
much better...

Maybe you should switch up a gear - the hard work will suddenly be put
back in!

I'm wondering what can be done to bikes at a reasonable cost with
semiconductors these days. ISTM they'd be a lot more pleasant to ride if
instead of having to adjust gears to suit the terrain you could control
how hard the resistance force is. Does anyone yet make bikes with
electric transmission that sophisticated yet? And if so, how much do
they charge for it?

--
Aidan Stanger
http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk