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

"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:

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

"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