Drivers want road test for cyclists (Observer article)

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...125629,00.html

My response

rant

1) You'll notice all the 'Useful links' at the bottom of the report
are to motoring organisations and the Special Reports are for Cars,
Transport, Oil and Petrol. Now that should indicate the objectiveness
of the article.

2) The title 'Drivers want road test for cyclist' should read
'Motoring Organisations wishing to promote themselves are calling for
road tests for cyclists'

3) The lycra louts referred to are kids who ride on the pavement in
black clothes with no lights (at night). They have no right to be
there and 95% of fellow cyclists and 100% of pedestrians despise them.

4) There is no 'unprecedented campaign' just the usual press articles
'we love cars, we hate cyclists'.

5) The demand is for stiffer penalties (above the usual). Note we also
suffer from lack of enforcement of penalties. Even the RAC agrees on
this.

6) The MP, Eric Martlew represents Carlisle but is looking to solve a
London problem. Carlisle is about 800km from London. His argument is
against lack of enforcement. Something he's been elected to solve !

7) I agree about cyclists not stopping at red lights. My estimates are
50% don't (similar to RAC findings). Whether you do or don't is a
function of how long you have been riding or how many accidents you've
had.

8) A Private members bills (amendments to legislation) (to force young
members to where helmets or face fines) can be raised by a single MP.
Bills that survive the 'suggestion phase' then progress to the
Committee Stage. In 2001-02, 8 out of 114 bills were successful.

9) Andrew Howard says 'There is an element of lawlessness among pedal
cyclists and they sometimes need reminding that there are people more
vulnerable than them on the roads.' Perhaps the focus should be on the
number of lawless car users.

10) The main bugbear is the increased cost of insurance to
organisations from the new proposed European legislation.

/rant