Stuart Bruce wrote:
>
> Mind you on a pushbike you can go to the front of the q
> waiting on red, bounce up on the kerb, go round the corner on
> the pavement, and back down onto the road so now you got a
> green. Plus you can save money cos you got no batteries in
> the lights............lights? Wot lights?
Don't start me on Cyclists!
No tax, no insurance, no MOT, no mirrors, and inneffective brakes.
|
Dave
> Don't start me on Cyclists!
Oh, please.
> No tax
No damage to the road, no pollution (beyond manufacturing the bike and extra pasta), takes up hardly any space (none at all in the opinion of some car drivers). And anyone who has a car pays road tax anyway.
>no insurance
Don't bank on it. Knock me off and watch the lawyers go! There are a fair few uninsured car drivers out there as well.
>no MOT
Who comes off worst in a crash? It's in the cyclist's interest to look after the bike. Plenty of no-MOT cars around I reckon.
>no mirrors
Mirrors are freely available at low cost. If you ride a bike you'll find that car drivers don't use mirrors much anyway. In many cases they are just there to show that they've reached the heady heights in their career where they can have colour coding.
>and inneffective brakes.
So you haven't ridden a bicycle made in the last ten years then.
Advantages include: no traffic queues, eat as much as you like of whatever you want and no lardy-ass consequences, and a big grin.
A mate of mine was once cut up and knocked off his bike near the Tyne Bridge. The car didn't stop. We eventually caught up and had a go at the driver while he sweated in traffic. My very angry mate grabbed the car keys and chucked them over the side of the bridge. Boy, did we ride like hell. Boy did it feel good. So be careful with cyclists, especially in cities. They are usually fit, fully warmed up and for some reason they get pissed off when their lives are put in danger.
Chris
|
Chris wrote:
>
> Dave
>
> > Don't start me on Cyclists!
>
> Oh, please.
I was being a little ironic. I think the advantages of cycles speak for themselves.
*However* I do have difficulty arguing that bikes *shouldn't* have insurance and road tax...
> So you haven't ridden a bicycle made in the last ten years
> then.
I cycle to work almost every dry day. (1.5 miles)
|
Bikes are a good thing.
But, please -- PLEASE -- can't cyclists realize that they drive a vehicle, that driving a cycle requires as much road sense as driving a motorcycle, car, van or truck, and that no vehicle belongs on the pedestrian footway, nor is its driver at liberty to behave like a pedestrian one second -- riding across zebra crossings, switching from road to pavement and back again, dodging around traffic lights, riding in the dark without lights -- and like a motorist the next.
I can't see why cyclists shouldn't be tested and licensed, just like motorists. There's more legitimate revenue there for the greedy government. In fact, I think I'll suggest that to my MP.
I know, I know . . . in my dreams.
All the best
|
Roger Jones wrote:
> drive a vehicle, that driving a cycle requires as much road
> sense as driving a motorcycle, car, van or truck
If not more.
, and that no
> vehicle belongs on the pedestrian footway, nor is its driver
> at liberty to behave like a pedestrian one second -- riding
> across zebra crossings, switching from road to pavement and
> back again, dodging around traffic lights, riding in the dark
> without lights -- and like a motorist the next.
Annoying, isn't it. Zebras are illegal, but Toucans are actually ok, if I remember my Cycling Proficiency test in the late 1970s. Willing to be corrected - never use 'em anyway, since it's safer just to swerve across the path of oncoming vehicles sweeping old ladies and prams full of mewling children hither and thither. I am, after all, immortal and immune from injury.
> I can't see why cyclists shouldn't be tested and licensed,
> just like motorists.
Huge cost, very little gain. Cycling Proficiency Test was a good idea though - what happened to that? Thatcher, that's what.
Chris
|
|
|
|
Dave
> *However* I do have difficulty arguing that bikes *shouldn't*
> have insurance and road tax...
Just out of interest, why? Few enough people ride bikes now. A tax might put them off further. I also suspect it would be unenforceable. Yet the benefits of more cyclists to the health service, cost of road maintenance, to say nothing of saving time lost because of congestion would pay for themselves. As for insurance, well, it ain't expensive. You are often covered for third-party liability by your household insurance anyway, or can be for a very small extra charge. Or join a cycling group such as the Cyclists' Touring Club or British Cycling Federation. You don't have to go on the organised rides and they include third party insurance in the membership (less than the cost of a gallon of jungle juice I think). The low cost of third-party insurance indicates how often cyclists are found to be at fault. While car insurance, well, there's another thread altogether...
> > So you haven't ridden a bicycle made in the last ten years
> > then.
>
> I cycle to work almost every dry day. (1.5 miles)
Bravo! Not much in the last few months, then.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
