Please sign the bus lane petition.

[Tony B]

burtthebike wrote:
There's one
> particular quad bike rider

are they not classed as cars then?

T

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Fr Jack <[email protected]>:
>am I to argue? The cyclist who tried to whinge at me about it found
>himself bodily picked up and deposited, a couple of hundred yards
>away, at the feet of the warden,

So you are a violent criminal - why should we listen to you?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Oil is for sissies
Today is Monday, June.

 

[Fr Jack]

Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 29 May 2008 01:47:07 +0100
>Fr Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I get the feeling you are confusing scooterist scum with motorcyclists
>> - not a good idea.
>>
>Just as 'proper' cyclists don't like to be confused with the
>pedestrian-on-a-bike I imagine motorcyclists particularly resent any
>perceived association with the chav-on-a-hairdryer.
>

Correct.
--

Fr. Jack

The ex(un)civil servant

 

[Daniel Barlow]

Fr Jack <[email protected]> writes:

> Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 29 May 2008 01:47:07 +0100
>>Fr Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I get the feeling you are confusing scooterist scum with motorcyclists
>>> - not a good idea.
>>>
>>Just as 'proper' cyclists don't like to be confused with the
>>pedestrian-on-a-bike I imagine motorcyclists particularly resent any
>>perceived association with the chav-on-a-hairdryer.
>>
>
> Correct.

Which is ironic, as the scooter is much better suited to and suitable
for urban traffic (low speeds, lower emissions, twist-n-go instead of
all that messing around with the clutch, often narrower, upright
position) than the sprotsbikes owned by BABs and power rangers, and
it's generally the latter type not the former who overtake at 50mph
with a foot of clearance.

But I'm not seeing what the big deal is with "give them bus lanes and
they'll start using ASLs" - all the ASLs around here are full of
motorbikes and taxi drivers already, how would we tell the difference?


-dan

 

[Fr Jack]

"burtthebike" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Fr Jack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "burtthebike" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>> Never seen any of that, other than actually being directed to park my
>> Beemer in a cycle parking area - and if the warden says to do it, who
>> am I to argue?
>
>So when you were prosecuted for illegal parking, you'd have sued the warden?

No, but I'd drag him into it: I have a habit of taking piccies if I
think circumstances are open to interpretation - including the warden
giving advice. So far, this has worked for the 2 parking tickets I
have ever been issued in 27 years of motor vehicle use. Both,
incidentally, in the past 2 years.

>>
>> I get the feeling you are confusing scooterist scum with motorcyclists
>> - not a good idea.
>
>No, almost all of these extremely dangerous people are on motorcycles,
>including the one who deliberately rode at two cyclists but had an
>unregistered bike, so the police couldn't trace him.

Is that an incident you actually witnessed, or just something
reported? Either way, there are rogue elements on both sides... In the
incident I described earlier, I bodily moved the cyclist because he
was persistently assaulting me - prodding me in the chest so hard that
I felt it through a heavy, armoured jacket and it hurt. I decided not
to retaliate in a similar manner, or waste time having him arrested
for assault and simply embarrassed him, instead.

I have encountered him several times since and we have laughed about
the incident. I doubt if either of us would have laughed if I'd had
him arrested, or decided to hit back.


>>>There's one particular quad
>>>bike rider in north Bristol who I have difficulty in believing that he is
>>>still alive, or that he hasn't killed someone.
>>
>> Those who choose to ride quads on the road desperately need to be
>> removed from the gene pool.
>
>Couldn't agree more, but this guy seems to lead a charmed life, doing
>incredibly dangerous things but living to tell the tale. Just a matter of
>time I suppose until his luck runs out.

Beats me how they were allowed on the road in the first place...
Despite having 4 wheels, they are unstable in corners - when you can
actually get them to corner, that is. People are getting injured using
these things all the time, though there have been only 2 widely
publicised incidents - Ozzy and Rik Mayall.
--

Fr. Jack

The ex(un)civil servant

 

[Fr Jack]

David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:

>Quoting Fr Jack <[email protected]>:
>>am I to argue? The cyclist who tried to whinge at me about it found
>>himself bodily picked up and deposited, a couple of hundred yards
>>away, at the feet of the warden,
>
>So you are a violent criminal - why should we listen to you?

Knee-jerk reaction - why should anyone listen to you?
--

Fr. Jack

The ex(un)civil servant

 

[Peter Clinch]

Daniel Barlow wrote:
> Fr Jack <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 29 May 2008 01:47:07 +0100
>>> Fr Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I get the feeling you are confusing scooterist scum with motorcyclists
>>>> - not a good idea.
>>>>
>>> Just as 'proper' cyclists don't like to be confused with the
>>> pedestrian-on-a-bike I imagine motorcyclists particularly resent any
>>> perceived association with the chav-on-a-hairdryer.
>>>
>> Correct.
>
> Which is ironic, as the scooter is much better suited to and suitable
> for urban traffic (low speeds, lower emissions, twist-n-go instead of
> all that messing around with the clutch, often narrower, upright
> position) than the sprotsbikes owned by BABs and power rangers, and
> it's generally the latter type not the former who overtake at 50mph
> with a foot of clearance.

My boss has a Bit of a Thing about motorcycles, especially of the
vintage persuasion, the extent of the Thing extending as far as
ownership of said beasts and taking his holidays to go on rallys and
watch street circuit racing. Part of the reason we get on well is, I
suspect, connected with me knowing stuff like what a Vincent Black
Shadow is etc.

But he typically commutes on a modern scooter because it's a lot better
for the job (last week he was in on the Bonneville because it needed
some exercise and the scooter needed a new brake pad, but that's the
exception rather than the rule).

So there are some people that can separate image from utility, and
likewise if I have to change into lycra and ride with my **** in the sky
just to pop down into town then to hell with that and I'll just be
confused with a PoaB. Hey ho.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Fr Jack <[email protected]>:
>David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Quoting Fr Jack <[email protected]>:
>>>am I to argue? The cyclist who tried to whinge at me about it found
>>>himself bodily picked up and deposited, a couple of hundred yards
>>>away, at the feet of the warden,
>>So you are a violent criminal - why should we listen to you?
>Knee-jerk reaction - why should anyone listen to you?

Well, I'm _not_ a violent criminal (or at any rate I have the wit not to
brag about it), and I've been reading and posting for some years rather
than flipping in, Nuxx-like, to say how wonderful your favourite kind of
dangerous polluting transport is.

*plink*
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Oil is for sissies
Today is Monday, June.

 

[Fr Jack]

David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:

>Quoting Fr Jack <[email protected]>:
>>David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Quoting Fr Jack <[email protected]>:
>>>>am I to argue? The cyclist who tried to whinge at me about it found
>>>>himself bodily picked up and deposited, a couple of hundred yards
>>>>away, at the feet of the warden,
>>>So you are a violent criminal - why should we listen to you?
>>Knee-jerk reaction - why should anyone listen to you?
>
>Well, I'm _not_ a violent criminal (or at any rate I have the wit not to
>brag about it), and I've been reading and posting for some years rather
>than flipping in, Nuxx-like, to say how wonderful your favourite kind of
>dangerous polluting transport is.
>
>*plink*

Just so others see this: *plonk* Must be a Monbiot fan... and we all
know the guy is totally deranged.
--

Fr. Jack

The ex(un)civil servant

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 28 May 2008 01:48:31 -0700 (PDT), spindrift
<[email protected]> said in
<dd3a9eb7-628c-422e-8609-272fe551dcf5@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:

>The evidence seems clear to me, motorbikes are faster moving, heavier,
>and pose a greater risk to cyclists.

It's a bit pointless, as from my personal observations nobody will
be able to tell the difference, at least where motor scooters are
concerned.

Axe shirley I'd rather they were in the bus lane than blocking the
gap up the middle through which they can't quite filter but I can.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Fr Jack]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

<snip>

>So there are some people that can separate image from utility, and
>likewise if I have to change into lycra and ride with my **** in the sky
>just to pop down into town then to hell with that and I'll just be
>confused with a PoaB. Hey ho.

I agree with you, however some folks can only afford one motorcycle,
which is why you find some commuting on larger machines.

You'll not get me on a *50cc* scooter, however, because it would
simply cough and die under my immense bulk... :-/
--

Fr. Jack

The ex(un)civil servant

 

[burtthebike]

"Fr Jack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "burtthebike" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Fr Jack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> "burtthebike" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>No, almost all of these extremely dangerous people are on motorcycles,
>>including the one who deliberately rode at two cyclists but had an
>>unregistered bike, so the police couldn't trace him.
>
> Is that an incident you actually witnessed, or just something
> reported?

I was one of the cyclists, so yes, I witnessed it at first hand. I still
can't quite understand how we managed to avoid him, but we both got his
number.

 

[Pip Luscher]

On Wed, 28 May 2008 22:06:15 +0100, "burtthebike"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Fr Jack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>and pose a greater risk to cyclists.
>>
>> Rubbish!
>
>As someone who regularly is forced to share bus lanes with motorcycles, this
>is not rubbish, this is absolutely true. The behaviour of some motorcylists
>is almost unbelievable, and my life has been put at risk a number of times
>by aggressive and irresponsible motorcyclists, in bus lanes.

Here's a thought: you're the hazard if you've had so many near misses.

Alternatively, if you're commuting and so are they, it's entirely
possible that you're just meeting the same guys.

Personally I always give cyclists a wide berth because if there's a
coming-together then it's gonna hurt me too, and cyclists aren't
necessarily insured. Apart from which, I used to enjoy occasionally
cycling fifteen-odd miles to work and am sympathetic. Sadly my commute
is now about 24 miles each way and even then only if I travel along
about fifteen miles of the A14.

We don't have shared bus lanes round here but there's no reason why a
motorbike in a cycle lane should present any more of a hazard to
cyclists than a bus or taxi. They're narrower, for goodness' sake.

I can well recall cycling to work in my yoof and getting the
pressure-wave from busses as they overtook and wincing as I saw rows
of rivets flashing past my right shoulder. This was on an open road,
BTW, not a bus lane.

>One of the
>problems is that as soon as they are allowed in bus lanes, they
>automatically assume that they can use any cycle facility, and do so,
>including cycle lanes, ASLs, bicycle parking.

Woa there. Only got the one tar brush, have we? It doesn't naturally
follow. I'd say the the ones breaking the other rules would've broken
them regardless of the status of bus lanes.

>There's one particular quad
>bike rider in north Bristol who I have difficulty in believing that he is
>still alive, or that he hasn't killed someone.

So: a sample of one.

--
-Pip

 

[Pip Luscher]

On Wed, 28 May 2008 19:20:39 +0100, Colin McKenzie
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Nick wrote:
>> spindrift wrote:
>>> http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1145
>>> The evidence seems clear to me, motorbikes are faster moving, heavier,
>>> and pose a greater risk to cyclists.
>
>> I'd sign one to ban buses from bus lanes but I don't have a problem with
>> motorbikes.
>
>The issues are:
>- Do you want to promote motorcycling?

Not entirely, despite being a motorcyclist - I prefer to be part of an
elite. We can't just let anyone in, you know.

>Allowing them in bus lanes will increase their numbers throughout London.

Really? "Hey, the bus lanes are open, lets nip out and buy a couple of
thousand quids' worth of motorbike. Oh, after doing the DAS, of
course. And taking the test. And buying a helmet and waterproofs."

>- What are bus lanes for?
>Buses.
>- Why were cycles allowed in them?
>Because of the effect of forcing them into the other lane (petrified
>cyclists and delayed motorists). These effects do not happen with
>motorbikes.

So cycles don't delay motorcycles in other lanes? Does this mean that
cyclists don't ride far enough out to prevent bikes squeezing past, as
you describe below, in bus lanes?

>- How much space do you want when overtaken?
>In a typical 3-metre bus lane, a cyclist riding far enough out to
>prevent a taxi from squeezing past within the lane will leave about
>1.6m gap on their right. A motorcyclist would aim at the middle of
>this gap, passing within half a metre of the cyclist. At present they
>try to encroach as litle as possible on the bus lane.

So, cyclists, permitted into bus lanes, hold up the taxis and,
presumably, the very vehicles (buses) for which bus lanes were
created? Not very civil, I must say.

Of course, you could share nicely and, on hearing a motorcycle, just
politely shift over a foot or two. It really wouldn't hold you up or
cost anything, you know.

When I filter through traffic, quite often cars and lorries will move
over to make room. It's a polite act that I do appreciate and I will
acknowledge with a wave if I can do so safely.

>The recommended width for a bus lane is 4.5m. Allowing motorbikes only
>in bus lanes this wide would have less direct impact on cyclists'
>safety, but would still promote motorcycling.

You know, I can't help but detect a mere hint of antipathy towards
motorcyclists. It seems to me that your sentiments are more
anti-motorcycle than pro-bicycle. Or plain selfishness: you don't want
to share more than you can get away with.

--
-Pip

 

[Nick]

Pip Luscher wrote:

> Of course, you could share nicely and, on hearing a motorcycle, just
> politely shift over a foot or two. It really wouldn't hold you up or
> cost anything, you know.
>

For some reason I can't remember blocking problems with motorbikes.
However the reasons bikes don't shift over a couple of foot or two to
let cars pass is that experience tells us that this encourages some
drivers to pass dangerously close with out reducing speed.

> When I filter through traffic, quite often cars and lorries will move
> over to make room. It's a polite act that I do appreciate and I will
> acknowledge with a wave if I can do so safely.
>

Yes I do this when I'm in a car. But a motorbike passing close while
filtering does not pose the same danger to me in a car as it would on a
bike.


>> The recommended width for a bus lane is 4.5m. Allowing motorbikes only
>> in bus lanes this wide would have less direct impact on cyclists'
>> safety, but would still promote motorcycling.
>
> You know, I can't help but detect a mere hint of antipathy towards
> motorcyclists. It seems to me that your sentiments are more
> anti-motorcycle than pro-bicycle. Or plain selfishness: you don't want
> to share more than you can get away with.
>
Or it maybe that he is considering his own safety because he knows there
are a significant minority of motorcyclists who will have no regard for
his well being.

 

[Mark T]

Nick writtificated

>> When I filter through traffic, quite often cars and lorries will move
>> over to make room. It's a polite act that I do appreciate and I will
>> acknowledge with a wave if I can do so safely.
>>
>
> Yes I do this when I'm in a car. But a motorbike passing close while
> filtering does not pose the same danger to me in a car as it would on a
> bike.

We're talking about a cyclist in the bus lane. Cyclist hears a motorcycle,
checks behind and moves to from primary to secondary position to let it
pass.

 

[Fr Jack]

Pip Luscher <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 30 May 2008 15:05:32 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Quoting Pip Luscher <[email protected]>:
>>[drivel]
>>
>>Note that Pip Luscher's previous posting history consists of 655 posts to
>>uk.rec.motorcycles and 34 to uk.rec.motorcycles.classic, of a total of 738
>>Google knows about.
>
>Gosh, that many? As I made clear, I am first and foremost a
>motorcyclist, so the postings to UKRM shouldn't be a surprise.
>
>So, that was the substance of your post, ws it?

Guy sounds like one of those rabid greenie types. You know the ones I
mean - knit their own cardigans out of porridge, want to kill all oil
users (WTF does it use to lube it's chain, then?), speaks in a really
whiny voice, would blow away if a sparrow farted in it's direction...
--

Fr. Jack

The ex(un)civil servant

 

[Colin McKenzie]

Pip Luscher wrote:
> On Wed, 28 May 2008 19:20:39 +0100, Colin McKenzie
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Allowing them in bus lanes will increase their numbers throughout London.
> Really? "Hey, the bus lanes are open, lets nip out and buy a couple of
> thousand quids' worth of motorbike. Oh, after doing the DAS, of
> course. And taking the test. And buying a helmet and waterproofs."

Yep. Check out what happened to motorcycling levels in London when the
congestion charge came in with motorbikes exempt.

>>- What are bus lanes for?
>>Buses.
>>- Why were cycles allowed in them?
>>Because of the effect of forcing them into the other lane (petrified
>>cyclists and delayed motorists). These effects do not happen with
>>motorbikes.
>
> So cycles don't delay motorcycles in other lanes? Does this mean that
> cyclists don't ride far enough out to prevent bikes squeezing past, as
> you describe below, in bus lanes?

Don't understand this

>>- How much space do you want when overtaken?
>>In a typical 3-metre bus lane, a cyclist riding far enough out to
>>prevent a taxi from squeezing past within the lane will leave about
>>1.6m gap on their right. A motorcyclist would aim at the middle of
>>this gap, passing within half a metre of the cyclist. At present they
>>try to encroach as litle as possible on the bus lane.
>
> So, cyclists, permitted into bus lanes, hold up the taxis and,
> presumably, the very vehicles (buses) for which bus lanes were
> created? Not very civil, I must say.

Many taxi drivers will overtake dangerously close if not prevented.
They are generally caught up at the next queue, so they gain no time
saving from passing. If there isn't a next queue, traffic will be
light enough for them to change lane to pass.

In typical London conditions, few cyclists average slower than buses.
So there's generally no point in a bus passing a cyclist - after the
next busy stop it will never catch up again.

> Of course, you could share nicely and, on hearing a motorcycle, just
> politely shift over a foot or two. It really wouldn't hold you up or
> cost anything, you know.

Unfortunately, by the time you hear a motorbike over all the other
traffic it's too late to move over for it. Of course, the motorcyclist
could slow down until the cyclist notices him, and then go past if the
cyclist moves over, but I have never known this happen.

> When I filter through traffic, quite often cars and lorries will move
> over to make room. It's a polite act that I do appreciate and I will
> acknowledge with a wave if I can do so safely.

There's a bit of a difference between filtering speeds and 30+ mph.

>>The recommended width for a bus lane is 4.5m. Allowing motorbikes only
>>in bus lanes this wide would have less direct impact on cyclists'
>>safety, but would still promote motorcycling.
>
> You know, I can't help but detect a mere hint of antipathy towards
> motorcyclists....

I know that allowing motorbikes in bus lanes will make cycling a more
frightening experience. I know that one of the main things putting
people off cycling is getting frightened. I want more people to cycle.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

 

[Pip Luscher]

On Fri, 30 May 2008 20:29:06 +0100, Colin McKenzie
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Pip Luscher wrote:
>>
>> So cycles don't delay motorcycles in other lanes? Does this mean that
>> cyclists don't ride far enough out to prevent bikes squeezing past, as
>> you describe below, in bus lanes?
>
>Don't understand this

Yes, it was badly put. You said that in bus lanes motorbikes can't get
by safely, yet in normal traffic lanes they can. Round here the lanes
are of similar width, so what's changed?

The main bus lanes near here lead into Cambridge and are virtually
empty. The odd bus or cycle passes by. That seems a terrible waste of
resources. Sure, it may 'reward' cleaner travellers and thus encourage
greater public transport use, but banning motorbikes will not improve
that situation.

>In typical London conditions, few cyclists average slower than buses.
>So there's generally no point in a bus passing a cyclist - after the
>next busy stop it will never catch up again.

The word is 'average': a bus could well need higher peak speeds to
make up for the losses at stops etc and thus deliver a reasonable
journey time.

>> When I filter through traffic, quite often cars and lorries will move
>> over to make room. It's a polite act that I do appreciate and I will
>> acknowledge with a wave if I can do so safely.
>
>There's a bit of a difference between filtering speeds and 30+ mph.

What's the speed got to do with it? If I were to see a cyclist in my
path that I couldn't get past cleanly (which has never happened, that
I can recall) I'd just roll off and hold position until I could
overtake. I might get a bit irate if he deliberately sat far enough
over to prevent me from passing, though. But it's never happened.

>I know that allowing motorbikes in bus lanes will make cycling a more
>frightening experience. I know that one of the main things putting
>people off cycling is getting frightened. I want more people to cycle.

You'r talking about fear, rather than actual risk. Sure, people won't
take up cycling if it scares them, but in all honesty when I think of
cycling, risks, I worry about vehicles of car size and larger - I know
motorbikes are small enough and agile enough to pass safely.

Perhaps, instead of scare-mongering, a more positive tack could be
taken if, as you say, all you want to do is get more cyclists on the
road.

--
-Pip

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 30 May 2008 19:23:46 +0100, Fr Jack <[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>Guy sounds like one of those rabid greenie types. You know the ones I
>mean - knit their own cardigans out of porridge, want to kill all oil
>users (WTF does it use to lube it's chain, then?), speaks in a really
>whiny voice, would blow away if a sparrow farted in it's direction...

Assuming that by Guy you mean me, you're either not listening very
carefully or your research has been woefully inadequate.

I own (or owned, until my neighbour backed into one and wrote it
off) two cars, one of which was a 2.5 litre turbocharged Volvo
estate. I am certainly aiming to reduce my carbon footprint, I am
building two solar panels to go on the roof and am adding a
solartube to light our hall, but I am certainly not so "greenie" as
to turn off the servers that run 24/7 in my house. I will be
replacing the Volvo with a Land-Rover Defender 110, a notoriously
eco-friendly vehicle. Not.

I think most of the people in this (cycling) newsgroup enjoy cycling
for the pleasure of cycling. If you can do it in time you'd
otherwise waste sitting in a traffic jam, so much the better. I
work in London, it takes me under 40 minutes to get from Paddington
to Canary Wharf on the Brompton and only slightly longer to get back
- it is very hard to beat that on the Tube and impossible in a car,
unless you do it at 3am.

I think that most of the people in this (cycling) newsgroup would
also be happier if the average driver were to shift the balance of
personal priorities away from getting from jam to jam as fast as
possible, and towards the danger they pose to other more vulnerable
road users. This is a position shared by pedestrians and many
motorcyclists, it is hardly radical or extreme.

As a group, in as much as we have any kind of groupthink, I suspect
most of us have very little sympathy with the militant motorists -
the "Provisional ABD" - who come here whining that motorists get
fined for speeding. In order to attract a fine, you have to be a
fair bit over the limit. That is unlikely to happen if you are
driving consciously within the limit; I suspect that most of the
whiners are actually driving to the prosecution guidelines, and
their "few mph over the limit" equates to a few mph over the limit
plus 2mph plus 10% plus a bit for speedo error - and so they drive
at not more than an indicated 40mph in a 30 zone and wonder why they
get nicked.

I use the bus lanes in London when on my bike. I happen to agree
that bikes and motorcycles are not well matched in that context. I
don't see any need for motorcycles to use the bus lanes anyway, they
do not seem to have any trouble reaching and filling the ASL
reservoirs without using the bus lanes. This may be different in
outer London, but in the centre I see no pressing need.

Also, as far as I can tell, no group of road users is characterised
by routine obedience of the law in all its points. Anyone who
thinks red light jumping is the exclusive preserve of cyclists has
never been to Hyde Park Corner on a weekday. Anyone who thinks
trespassing on the pavements is the exclusive preserve of cyclists
is simply ignorant - why the bollards to keep cars of the pavements?
Why do councils complain of the damage motor vehicles do to
pavements? How come so many people are killed and injured by cars on
pavements? Why the campaigns against parking on pavements? All
road users, as far as I can tell, break the laws at the margins to
suit their personal convenience. The major difference with
motorists is that in doing so they endanger others more than
themselves. A car or motorcycle jumping a red light puts me in
mortal danger; the number of recorded instances of car drivers being
killed by cyclists in crashes that the cyclist then walked away from
with life, limb and license intact, is, I believe, very small.

So you'll excuse us, I hope, if in this cycling newsgroup we focus
rather more on the danger motor traffic poses than on its benefit to
us.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound