DFT says bikes and cars on the same roads is doomed to fail

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...ort-finds.html

On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 19:17:21 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...ort-finds.html

Wow! There's a hell of a rant in the comments section:
====================
I don't usually take to arguing back and forth, I find it a bore and
something of a waste of time with those who know all, know nowt, as it
were, but I felt moved to reply to your factitious rubbish.

The Romans built roads for feet. Soldiers feet. We build roads for
motor vehicles. Your argument is pointless at best. The Queen's
highways are built specifically for cars, vans, lorries, buses etc.
anybody that thinks they are designed for bicycles is an idiot who
doesn't understand the last hundred years or so of technical
development.

You do not pay road tax. Road tax, which is high and costly for the
average motorist, goes towards the maintenance of existing roads and
the building of new roads. That is why we call it Road Tax. Do a
little research before making generalisations.

Nor do you take a test to ensure you are safe on the road or
understand the basic rules of the road as laid out in the Highway
Code. This means you are effectively an accident waiting to happen.

You also do not have any insurance, so when you do cause an accident,
it is the driver of the car that has to pay for it. Financially and
with points and possibly a criminal record, all because you sailed
through a red light and he hit you after you sailed into view from
behind a stopped lorry.

I know rather more about history than you do I suspect, given that I
have studied it for the past 30 years (mainly the late Middle Ages and
Medieval period, with a nod to ancient British history leading up to
the Migrations). You appear to be a typical new Lefty, barking dissent
because it is fashionable and you think it makes you sound radical and
revolutionary. I happen to ride a bicycle (God forgive me for coming
out), but not on the roads. I know just why the roads are there, I pay
for their upkeep after all, and I also know that bicycles, or rather
their riders, cause more accidents that involve bicycles than motor
vehicle drivers do. I suspect, but cannot prove, obviously, you are
one of those careless, arrogant cyclists that weave in and out of
traffic, jumping red lights when you think you can get away with it,
leaving scratches down the side of cars, ignoring the Highway Code and
treating the safety of yourself, and other roads users, as an
accessory that you may or may not leave at home as your fancy takes
you.

And this alleged orgy you pontificate about, being an anomaly, what do
you think bicycles are? The mass transport alternative for the future?
Will we see buses powered by passengers? Fly aid to Africa, using the
power of our legs alone? Rush heart attack victims to A&E in
saddlebags perhaps? Or perhaps we should simply devolve to the same
state we were in 200 years ago.

Your ideas are a contrived nonsense. Nothing more.
====================

On Sep 26, 7:17*pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...ts-and-motoris...

If you ignore what the Telegraph sub-editor says and actually read the
article,
you'll find the DFT actually thinks no such thing:

"A Department for Transport spokesman added: “Both cyclists and
motorists
have an equal right to use the roads and it is vital for the safety of
everyone
that they are considerate to each other and obey the rules of the
road.”

That's not saying they are doomed to fail at all.

PhilO

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 19:17:21 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...ort-finds.html

Wow! There's a hell of a rant in the comments section:
====================

Which you selectively snipped.

The relevant comment is;

---------------------
If a cyclist wishes to drive on the Queen's highway, then surely they should
be prepared. That is, take a test to show they understand even the most
basic points of the Highway Code, wear suitable protective equipment, which
many do not seem to, pay something towards the upkeep of cycle lanes
perhaps, and be legally required to take out insurance.

Perhaps once cyclists take their share of responsibility on our roads, which
let us face it, were built for motor vehicles, then they will also garner
some respect from other road users, who at the present, have to put up with
inconsiderate and dangerous road use from those who should know better. I
have only ever personally witnessed two accidents involving cyclists, both
were caused by the cyclists lack of due care and attention.

There are a plethora of laws regarding the use of a motor vehicle, yet next
to nothing regarding the use of a bicycle on our roads. That has to change
if cycling is to become safe fro ALL road users.
-----------------------

And nothing in the above can be disagreed with. The author clearly has a
great degree of intelligence and his comments reflects the view of the
public in general.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 19:17:21 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...ort-finds.html

Wow! There's a hell of a rant in the comments section:
====================
I don't usually take to arguing back and forth, [cut]

Phew, I can see TMH beating away over that lot...

On 26 Sep, 19:17, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...ts-and-motoris...

Hmm! As I am always pointing out about the way this newsgroup is
dominated by motorists, who nevertheless claim to be cyclists, the
source says...

"...Cyclists,who also drove, displayed greater empathy towards
motorists, the study found. The same applied towards drivers who
occasionally took to two wheels..."

Also, as experienced on Critical Mass processions once a month...

"...At the same time the study also found that motorists were
impatient with cyclists, especially when they were feeling stressed
for other reasons.

Some drivers were found to bitterly resent the very presence of
cyclists on the road at all..."

Wait for it! The rush of pretend cyclists here, aka motorists, to
criticise my post by pointing out that cyclists do not obey the laws,
while ignoring that motorists don't either.

-- .
Critical Mass London.
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist"

On 26 Sep, 19:35, PhilO wrote:
On Sep 26, 7:17*pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...ts-and-motoris...

If you ignore what the Telegraph sub-editor says and actually read the
article,
you'll find the DFT actually thinks no such thing:

"A Department for Transport spokesman added: “Both cyclists and
motorists
have an equal right to use the roads and it is vital for the safety of
everyone
that they are considerate to each other and obey the rules of the
road.”

That's not saying they are doomed to fail at all.

Also, how exactly does a cyclist challenge a motorist's safety?
Surely, if any physical harm is caused to the driver it is due to his
excessive speed and/or loss of control when confronted by a very
vulnerable cyclist who happens to be in his way.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On Sep 26, 7:33*pm, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 19:17:21 +0100, "Mrcheerful"

wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...ts-and-motoris...

Wow! There's a hell of a rant in the comments section:
====================
I don't usually take to arguing back and forth, I find it a bore and
something of a waste of time with those who know all, know nowt, as it
were, but I felt moved to reply to your factitious rubbish.

Your response isn't much better.

The Romans built roads for feet. Soldiers feet. We build roads for
motor vehicles. Your argument is pointless at best. The Queen's
highways are built specifically for cars, vans, lorries, buses etc.
anybody that thinks they are designed for bicycles is an idiot who
doesn't understand the last hundred years or so of technical
development.

Lots of idiots around then.

You do not pay road tax. Road tax, which is high and costly for the
average motorist, goes towards the maintenance of existing roads and
the building of new roads. That is why we call it Road Tax. Do a
little research before making generalisations.

WRONG! For a start, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty, and similarly
fuel duty is not a road tax, but an Excise duty on fuel. In the same
way as alcohol excise duty does not go to anything drinks industry
related, VED is just part of general taxation. From all the taxes
raised, some goes into roads. Roads are also paid for through your
council tax, which is a tax on homes (and businesses) and nothing to
do with ownership of cars or use of the roads.

Do some research before making such ridiculous statements.

Nor do you take a test to ensure you are safe on the road or
understand the basic rules of the road as laid out in the Highway
Code. This means you are effectively an accident waiting to happen.

Your last sentence is not a natural conclusion from the first.

You also do not have any insurance, so when you do cause an accident,
it is the driver of the car that has to pay for it.

Wrong again. If fault can be proven, then a civil claim can be made.
Insurance stands behind you, not in front of you.

Financially and
with points and possibly a criminal record, all because you sailed
through a red light and he hit you after you sailed into view from
behind a stopped lorry.

I know rather more about history than you do I suspect, given that I
have studied it for the past 30 years (mainly the late Middle Ages and
Medieval period, with a nod to ancient British history leading up to
the Migrations).

So highly relevant to 21st Century roads - not.

You appear to be a typical new Lefty, barking dissent
because it is fashionable and you think it makes you sound radical and
revolutionary. I happen to ride a bicycle (God forgive me for coming
out), but not on the roads. I know just why the roads are there, I pay
for their upkeep after all, and I also know that bicycles, or rather
their riders, cause more accidents that involve bicycles than motor
vehicle drivers do. I suspect, but cannot prove, obviously, you are
one of those careless, arrogant cyclists that weave in and out of
traffic, jumping red lights when you think you can get away with it,
leaving scratches down the side of cars, ignoring the Highway Code and
treating the safety of yourself, and other roads users, as an
accessory that you may or may not leave at home as your fancy takes
you.

And this alleged orgy you pontificate about, being an anomaly, what do
you think bicycles are? The mass transport alternative for the future?
Will we see buses powered by passengers? Fly aid to Africa, using the
power of our legs alone? Rush heart attack victims to A&E in
saddlebags perhaps? Or perhaps we should simply devolve to the same
state we were in 200 years ago.

Your ideas are a contrived nonsense. Nothing more.
====================

While the OP is almost certainly spouting nonsense, your response is
hardly the epitome of a coherent counter-argument.

FrengaX wrote:

You do not pay road tax. Road tax, which is high and costly for the
average motorist, goes towards the maintenance of existing roads and
the building of new roads. That is why we call it Road Tax. Do a
little research before making generalisations.

WRONG! For a start, it's called Vehicle Excise Duty, and similarly
fuel duty is not a road tax, but an Excise duty on fuel. In the same
way as alcohol excise duty does not go to anything drinks industry
related, VED is just part of general taxation. From all the taxes
raised, some goes into roads. Roads are also paid for through your
council tax, which is a tax on homes (and businesses) and nothing to
do with ownership of cars or use of the roads.

Do some research before making such ridiculous statements.

See John paying Income Tax, NI & VAT.
See Janet paying exactly the same Income Tax, NI & VAT.

See John buy a shiny new pushbike.
See Janet buy a shiny new car - but not one of the very few exceptions to
Road Tax.

See John ride his new pushbike on public roads.
John likes his new pushbike.

John has a new pair of lycra bib shorts.

See John searching for the pockets.

John can't find any pockets, but its OK because cyclists never put their
hands in them.

See PC Plod telling Janet she can't use her new car on the road unless she
has Road Tax.

PC Plod uses the term Road Tax because everyone knows what it means.

Janet knows what Road Tax is.
Janet knows her shiny new car could be crushed if she doesn't pay Road Tax.


John pretends not to know what Road Tax is - because he is a sponging
freeloader.

See Janet going to the Post Office with a large amount of cash.

Mr Stamp at the Post Office knows exactly what Janet means when she asks for
Road Tax.


Janet pays lots of money to Mr Stamp for her Road Tax Disc.

See Janet drive her car on the road without having to worry about PC Plod
and his ANPR cameras.


?




--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

Doug wrote:

Some drivers were found to bitterly resent the very presence of
cyclists on the road at all..."

That should read 'most drivers'.

Wait for it! The rush of pretend cyclists here, aka motorists, to
criticise my post by pointing out that cyclists do not obey the laws,
while ignoring that motorists don't either.

I'm not a cyclist at all, I have much more sense. But I would like to
criticise your post.

The vast majority of cyclists do not obey traffic laws. A small minority of
motorists do not obey traffic laws.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.