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.

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

Not half!

I recall being hit by a cyclist on the pavement in Harlesden. I said
something like "Ouch!" and got a mouthful of abuse in return, along
with threats from his two mates.

Needless to say I enjoyed the look on their faces when I replied "OK.
So if you're so fsckin hard, how come you're scared to cycle on the
road?"

" wrote in message
ups.com...
Not half!

I recall being hit by a cyclist on the pavement in Harlesden. I said
something like "Ouch!" and got a mouthful of abuse in return, along
with threats from his two mates.

Needless to say I enjoyed the look on their faces when I replied "OK.
So if you're so fsckin hard, how come you're scared to cycle on the
road?"

Hahahaha! Excellent one

I was walking with the mrs up a street near us (mildmay grove south - quiet
one-way street next to train tracks), and some asshat on a bike rode down
the pavement, doing a wheelie, past my wife and I, passing within inches of
us. I was sooo tempted to push a bin out in front of him or just jump at
him shouting something, but then I figured he probably had an AK-47 and
close air support, so I let it slide.

I just don't get why the cops don't do more about it. As far as dangerous
things that happen to me on a daily basis go, this is the biggest. Drug
dealers, paedophiles, crack whores and the such don't affect as many people
as nutter cyclists, do they? I might be wrong, and if I am I accept that,
but if not, why isn't more being done about it? I guess it's fair enough
for people to plead ignorance when it comes to such rules, as there's no
mandatory bicycle test, so maybe a campaign of "stop doing that you ******s"
information posters/adverts/sky-writing/whatever would benefit us? There's
got to be something someone can do...

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...
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)

I like that idea a lot. If it will financially hurt people to behave like
eejits, maybe their eejit tendancies will dissipate.

- 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

I like the idea, but I don't think that would go down too well - that could
be expensive, and require lots of paperwork and the such. I think it would
be good, though, but I can see the uproar from cyclist groups.

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
:-(

From what I see every single day, you are indeed in a minority. Thanks for
being so considerate, though!

dave

"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

Firstly, the subject, are you only against right wing cyclists?

Martin Underwood wrote:

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)

What is making insurance compulsary going to do? If a cyclist causes
such damage (which I have personally yet to see) and the damage was
such that you could claim off their insurance then you could also claim
off them. Anyway most cyclists I know (myself included) have 3rd
party insurance (but very few have theft insurance because the bike
needs to be stolen three times per year to make insurance viable).


- 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 long as it doesn't get in the way of front or rear panniers, hit my
knees as I turn the handlebars, still allows me to grip them and isn't
expensive

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

Why don't you then? If you join the LCC you get free 3rd party
insurance with your membership (although the excess is not
insignificant)

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)

Easier said than done on Fulham road. The road is easily wide enough
to have a cycle lane on both sides and traffic treats cyclists as being
in a different lane. When I stop in the queue for traffic lights I get
cars going round me up to the bumper of the car I am behind. If I am
being forced to the left of the cars in the queue, the traffic is
stationary and queuing, there are no railings to the left (squash
hazard), no junctions to the left and there is a decent size gap then I
might as well continue cautiously because I have been forced from the
usual road position by the other traffic.

Also, I would like to point out that "overtaking" on the left is also
illegal in cars in the circumastances it is for cyclists. Even if
there is a gap the width of a car to the left of the one ahead, you
cannot pass it unless it is indicating right or you are on a one way
street or in a different lane and your lane is moving slower. So,
heading left on Kings road, where the road goes left or straight on and
has different lights for the different options (near Parsons Green)...
any car going left which passes a car queuing to go straight on but
before there are seperate lanes is also breaking the law in exactly the
same way but car drivers are allowed to break the law - it's just
cyclists that are hated because their journey is so much
quicker...green monster?

and I have never gone through
a red traffic light or across a pedestrian crossing that has people on it.

Neither have I. Although at least half of the junctions I use daily
have taxis and cars which have jumped the red light and stopped between
the normal line and the advanced start line for cyclists.

But I think I'm very much in the minority :-(

Not sure. Once again, during commuting sort of times, there are often
many cyclists waiting at junctions with me and only a few go through
the red lights. On Putney bridge (going South) many cars go through
the red lights just before the end of the bridge. This is particularly
annoying because the whole point of those lights is to let buses,
cyclists and taxis (their lane is exempt from that set) get in front of
the other traffic and into the turn right lane without negotiating 2
lanes of traffic. This is useful for cyclists because it means we
don't need to be in the right turn lane all the way across the bridge
(delaying motorists who are stuck behind us) and the sequncing is done
such that motorists always have a green light once any of the lights on
the junction ahead are green so it hardly affects you. But despite the
light being on red for cars, etc. when I pass in the exempt lane - an
average of two cars ignores them.

I hope you understand these opinions of a considerate cyclist

Martin Underwood wrote:
whose cars they scrape as they overtake
illegally on the left coming up to a junction)

One point I missed.. I don't know about your part of London but where I
am there are cycle lanes on the approach to most busy junctions.
Mostly, these are occupied by the wheels of a taxi or 4x4 (which, if it
is a solid line lane, is illegal). The use of these cycle lanes to
pass cars is perfectly legal, and the whole reason for the lanes being
there. Although theres not much point when there is a car parked on
the Advanced Stop Line.

But, of course, lots of motorists passed their test long before cycle
lanes were put in the highway code (and the area around the North side
of Putney bridge doesn't exactly match the highway code anyway) so we
couldn't possibly expect them to know that a really small lane with a
picture of a bike, or a box contianing a picture of a bike is for
cyclists only.

We need some way of forcing everyone to read the highway code... The
only way in the passed has been cameras (for box junctions and red
lights) so maybe we need cycle lane cameras.

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...