Gobsmacked

Mbike said:

I failed mine. Does this mean I can at last give up those long painful
audax rides?

No. It means you've got to do them _all_ again, under supervision this
time.

Mike

Quoted message said:

Yes, here we are.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1519403,00.html

He fell off. His daughter fell off. They were both wearing lids. They
both survived.
Therefore everyone else must be compelled to wear 'em, and he's going
to ignore statistics because (despite quoting some that look a bit like
BHit's) they are too
difficult for him.

In Matt Seatons rant he states.........
"Of course, crashing in a race is an occupational hazard - it is an
inherently risky activity. But the point is that if you ride a bike -
whether commuting through traffic or meandering down country lanes -
sooner or later, you too will have a crash. Wet roads, careless opening
of car doors, spilt diesel, being a bit drunk (let's be honest, it
happens) ... there are endless scenarios for hitting the deck, and one
of them will catch up with you down the road."

Someone should tell Matt wet roads don't cause crashes. Cyclists not
allowing for wet leaves and slippery wet drain covers etc do. Car
doors only cause crashes when a cyclist is in range of a car door.
Spilt diesel can usually be seen and smelt. And cycling while drunk is
a bad idea.
Sooner or later car drivers will have a crash and pedestrians might
fall over. Should they wear helmets as well?
Iain

John_Kane said:

And it's too much trouble to have a helmet law too except Australia
didn't seem to think this nor did several Canadian provinces etc.

It seems to be too much trouble for them to enforce though. So all you end
up with is kids growing up thinking that law breaking (no matter how
justified or silly the law) is perfectly alright.

The only time I've seen a cyclist stopped for not wearing a helmet (in
Perth, Australia) was by a group of 4 bike mounted police, two of whom were
riding on the wrong side of the road and narrowly avoided getting hit by a
car coming round the corner.

Graeme

wafflycat said:

No problemo. I can be a bit longwinded 🙂

It's the brussel sprouts!

Graeme

Whilst I agree with what you say, I think it's a bit long for a letter to
the paper, and could do with editing & proofreading.
I'm especially concerned about the following passage:

wafflycat said:

I would fight tooth and nail to stop the *right*
of cyclists to use the road.

This seems to go against the drift of the rest of your missive.
--

Martin Bulmer

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

David Martin said:

Which still leaves a small number of people driving legally who have
never passed a test. Most would be in their 90's (though theoretically
anyone above 16 could[1] qualify).

And a lot more driving illegally who have never passed their test.

A friend of mine - a person I would otherwise consider a normally
law-abiding and responsible person - was stopped by the police on a
routine check a couple of years ago, at which point it came out that
he'd never had a license, and never sat a test. And, of course, because
he didn't have a license, his insurance was also invalid. He'd been
driving regularly for fifteen years (in which time, to be fair, he'd
never had an accident and never been stopped for speeding or anything
else).

I was, to quote the title of this thread, gobsmacked. It makes you wonder
how many other folk are driving round like that.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Semper in faecibus sumus, sole profundum variat.

in message <[email hidden]>, Bob

(') said:

Could the cycling test also be a compulsory part of the driving test ?

It would make sense for a learner driver to demonstrate they understand
the rules of the road using a bicycle before being allowed an engine,
and it might make them more understanding of cyclists when they become
drivers.

Make it a compulsory part of PE under the national curriculum, and get
them through it around the age of 12.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

See one nuclear war, you've seen them all.

"Martin Bulmer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Whilst I agree with what you say, I think it's a bit long for a letter to
the paper, and could do with editing & proofreading.
I'm especially concerned about the following passage:

It wasn't a letter to the newspaper it was a direct response to the author,
Matt Seaton. If I was sending a letter for publication it would be a lot
shorter.

Cheers, helen s

bugbear said:

wafflycat said:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1671578,00.html

The last paragraph.

Curious. That's NOT the article they put
in the paper (printed) Guardian.

Apologies to all - he had his normal column
in G2, *and* a feature (the subject of this thread)
in the main editorial/letters section.

BugBear

"Martin Bulmer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

wafflycat said:

I would fight tooth and nail to stop the *right*
of cyclists to use the road.

This seems to go against the drift of the rest of your missive.
--

Martin Bulmer

Misprinty!!!

Of course what I meant to say was

"I would fight tooth and nail to protect the *right* of cyclists to use the
road."

Cheers, helen s

Graeme Dods said:

John_Kane said:

And it's too much trouble to have a helmet law too except Australia
didn't seem to think this nor did several Canadian provinces etc.

It seems to be too much trouble for them to enforce though. So all you end
up with is kids growing up thinking that law breaking (no matter how
justified or silly the law) is perfectly alright.

The only time I've seen a cyclist stopped for not wearing a helmet (in
Perth, Australia) was by a group of 4 bike mounted police, two of whom were
riding on the wrong side of the road and narrowly avoided getting hit by a
car coming round the corner.

We seem to have the same thing here. I don't have national or
provincial figures unfortunately but Toronto (pop 3-4 million) is
reported to have never written a ticket for a kid (under 18) riding
without a helmet in the 10 years since the helmet law was enacted, and
London Ontario reports, IIRC, 2 citiations in two years.

I once saw a teenager warned by the police (in a car!) about not
wearing a helmet. Unfortunately he was also riding on the sidewalk
(newly illegal in that town) and they didn't mention that to him. 🙂

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

"John_Kane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The only time I've seen a cyclist stopped for not wearing a helmet (in
Perth, Australia) was by a group of 4 bike mounted police, two of whom
were
riding on the wrong side of the road and narrowly avoided getting hit by
a
car coming round the corner.

We seem to have the same thing here. I don't have national or
provincial figures unfortunately but Toronto (pop 3-4 million) is
reported to have never written a ticket for a kid (under 18) riding
without a helmet in the 10 years since the helmet law was enacted, and
London Ontario reports, IIRC, 2 citiations in two years.

We dutifully took our helmets along on our recent trip to Majorca. And were
very pleased when we discovered the MHL is pretty much universally ignored.

(We asked a group of racers what the rules were - the answer was yes, it's
the law, and no, they didn't bother with them)

It seemed to be about a 10% wearing rate. The two sorts of riders we saw
were old utility cyclists and young racing-type riders - none of the former
and a very small proportion of the latter wore them.

cheers,
clive

"Mike Causer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I failed mine. Does this mean I can at last give up those long painful
audax rides?

No. It means you've got to do them _all_ again, under supervision this
time.

Oh well it looks like an SR series this year then.

m

MSeries said:

I have both my certificate and my badge.

Quoted message said:

It's not worth getting het up about a test for cyclists, it
would take far too much organisation to set up and police, it'll never
happen.

Unfortunately many schools are now making 'policies' that require evidence of
training before allowing children to ride to school or bring bikes onto the
premises.

A considerable number of parents interpret this to meaning the child must have
passed a 'test'.

I fear that testing children may become a reality at some time, through a back
door method, and perhaps linked to 'invented' insurance requirements :-(

John B

John B wrote on Monday 02 January 2006 18:20:

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately many schools are now making 'policies' that require
evidence of training before allowing children to ride to school or
bring bikes onto the premises.

This is nothing new. In Birmingham in the 1950s we weren't allowed to
cycle to school unless we had taken the training and passed the Cycling
Proficiency Test.

I have no difficulty in believing that this was, and is, a Good Thing.

--
Regards
Alex
The From address above is a spam-trap.
The Reply-To address is valid

John B said:

MSeries said:

I have both my certificate and my badge.

Quoted message said:

It's not worth getting het up about a test for cyclists, it
would take far too much organisation to set up and police, it'll never
happen.

Unfortunately many schools are now making 'policies' that require evidence of
training before allowing children to ride to school or bring bikes onto the
premises.

Sounds just like my secondary school in the early 80's

Alternatively, just shift the blame back to the parents by requesting a
signed permission for their LD to bring a bike to school. ISTR we had
both.

...d

"Alex Potter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John B wrote on Monday 02 January 2006 18:20:

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately many schools are now making 'policies' that require
evidence of training before allowing children to ride to school or
bring bikes onto the premises.

This is nothing new. In Birmingham in the 1950s we weren't allowed to
cycle to school unless we had taken the training and passed the Cycling
Proficiency Test.

I have no difficulty in believing that this was, and is, a Good Thing.

Back in the 60s at my junior school we were not allowed to cycle to school
until we had passed the cycling proficiency test.

[smug expression]
I passed with 100%
[/smug expression]

I can remember many of us wanted to do the cycling proficiency stuff as we
got a badge, certificate & a prize (bar of chocolate) given to us in school
assembly.

Cheers, helen s

Alex Potter said:

John B wrote on Monday 02 January 2006 18:20:

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately many schools are now making 'policies' that require
evidence of training before allowing children to ride to school or
bring bikes onto the premises.

This is nothing new. In Birmingham in the 1950s we weren't allowed to
cycle to school unless we had taken the training and passed the Cycling
Proficiency Test.

Ditto. An hour knocking over road cones in the playground 🙂 'Twas
early 70s for me.

wafflycat said:

I can remember many of us wanted to do the cycling proficiency stuff as
we got a badge, certificate & a prize (bar of chocolate) given to us in
school assembly.

I also got a Knight of the Road cycling certificate at school issued by
the News of the World! Still got it somewhere. How times have changed

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

John B said:

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately many schools are now making 'policies' that require evidence of
training before allowing children to ride to school or bring bikes onto the
premises.

I couldn't agree more, provided they extend the policies to include the
parents who insist on using a car to drive their kids to school
--
---
Marten Gerritsen

INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl