Cyclists really should be tested on their knowledge of the highway code

On Apr 11, 7:53*am, Doug wrote:
Well I am glad you agree. Surely, if the HC is always strictly obeyed
there can be no crashes?


Surely if there was a driver that should have known the Highway Code,
it was this one.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti....html?ITO=1490

"Wall was sitting alongside her mother - a driving instructor - when
she lost control of the Suzuki Jimny she was driving home from a
shopping trip. Wall, who had only passed her driving test months
earlier, was looking at the message on her phone when she mounted a
pavement."

--
Simon Mason

On 11/04/2011 12:15, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 11/04/2011 11:36, francis wrote:
On Apr 11, 10:18 am, Simon Weaseltemper
wrote:
On 11/04/2011 08:54, Mrcheerful wrote:



Motorways are a safe place to travel partly because of the LACK of cyclists
and pedestrians.

As cyclists cannot be bothered to obey the simplest laws regarding safe use
of any roads, the idea of them on motorways is appalling.

The only good thing would be that their numbers could be quickly culled.

A busy motorway would be one of the least pleasant places to cycle but
it would be useful to have a separate cycle track running alongside all
major trunk roads especially dual carriageways.

So long as junctions can be deal with so that the cycle track has a fair
amount of priority (with bridges of necessary) this could be good for
cycling.

As for cost, it is not going to be cheap so perhaps a steep increase in
motoring tax could pay for it.

Or perhaps a cycling tax ;-)

Could do, but that might deter people from cycling which is to no-ones
benefit (apart from TMH).

You could say the same about (say) watching DVDs or listening to MP3
downloads from Amazon.

It would not be to my benefit (or disbenefit) for either activity to be
reduced in volume, but that is a phenomenal distance away from saying that I
should subsidise them.

On 11/04/2011 07:53, Doug wrote:
We can blame Hitler for motorway discrimination. Is it
anywhere on record that he disliked cyclists? I bet he did.

So he wasn't all bad then?

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 11/04/2011 07:53, Doug wrote:
On Apr 10, 9:10 am, Tony wrote:
On 10/04/2011 07:17, Doug wrote:



On Apr 8, 6:21 pm, Tony wrote:
On 08/04/2011 07:55, Doug wrote:

On Apr 7, 3:48 pm, Simon wrote:
On Apr 7, 3:28 pm, wrote:

I can understand some one that is not too with it taking a motorway slip in
an absent minded moment, but why continue on?

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local...s/2011/04/07/c...

Scraping the barrel today, Cheerless?

2/3 of the story was about the chaos drivers were causing on the M62 -
the cyclist came and went without incident.

"Drivers also faced hold-ups on the motorway s eastbound carriageway
late yesterday, after an accident involving a lorry and a car.
The vehicles blocked the nearside lane approaching the slip road at
Junction 26 (Chain Bar) but no-one was hurt.
Traffic queues built up for several miles before the vehicles were
removed. It was the second day in a row that a serious accident
brought M62 chaos. On Tuesday, four fire crews were called to deal
with a five-vehicle pile-up which left one driver badly hurt."

The obstructive motorists obviously had a poor knowledge of the
Highway Code and also bear in mind they are much more dangerous than
cyclists.

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

What part of the HC would that be?

Several parts, such as tailgating and taking suitable precautions.

I am not sure if you are referring to the original accident, in which
case what part of the HC did they not obey, or the motorists in the
queue, and if so what part they did not consider.
I'm not saying that there was not a breach of the HC but my limited
knowledge of the incident tells me nothing.

Well I am glad you agree. Surely, if the HC is always strictly obeyed
there can be no crashes?

If you recall a few years ago, an accident that happened when a road
cone fell/was thrown of a motorway bridge causing an accident.
You agreed then that nothing could have been done to avoid the incident.
The HC was obeyed.


Haven't you read it yet?

Yes last time that I did the online course that my employer insists I do
every year.



And if the traffic was that slow , why were they a danger?

From impatient drivers who can't bear holdups, obviously.

Doug

Oh I see, fast traffic is a danger, slow traffic is a danger, can
motorists travel at a medium speed?

Anyway you are always insisting that motor traffic is slowed down.

The slower the traffic the less impact force it exerts on collision,
the greater the stopping distance and the longer reaction time of the
drivers..

So if cars go slower, the stopping distance increases, are you trying to
reinvent physics again.

Why would reaction time vary with speed?


But we know what the reason for your post is, is it that you admire this
cyclist& are trying to defend him, you are on record as saying you
think cyclists should be allowed to travel on motorways.

No I am on record as saying there should be no discriminatory public
roads. Obviously motorways should always have a cycle track and
pavements so as not to discriminate unfairly against cyclists and
pedestrians. We can blame Hitler for motorway discrimination. Is it
anywhere on record that he disliked cyclists? I bet he did.

Doug.

Would you explain Hitlers input to motorways?
I would have invoked Godwin's law, but somebody has got there first.

On 11/04/2011 10:18, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 11/04/2011 08:54, Mrcheerful wrote:


Motorways are a safe place to travel partly because of the LACK of
cyclists
and pedestrians.

As cyclists cannot be bothered to obey the simplest laws regarding
safe use
of any roads, the idea of them on motorways is appalling.

The only good thing would be that their numbers could be quickly culled.


A busy motorway would be one of the least pleasant places to cycle but
it would be useful to have a separate cycle track running alongside all
major trunk roads especially dual carriageways.

So long as junctions can be deal with so that the cycle track has a fair
amount of priority (with bridges of necessary) this could be good for
cycling.

As for cost, it is not going to be cheap so perhaps a steep increase in
motoring tax could pay for it.



That would mean ring fencing that tax, now where have I heard that
motoring taxes are not ringfenced?

On 11/04/2011 10:18, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 11/04/2011 08:54, Mrcheerful wrote:


Motorways are a safe place to travel partly because of the LACK of
cyclists
and pedestrians.

As cyclists cannot be bothered to obey the simplest laws regarding
safe use
of any roads, the idea of them on motorways is appalling.

The only good thing would be that their numbers could be quickly culled.


A busy motorway would be one of the least pleasant places to cycle but
it would be useful to have a separate cycle track running alongside all
major trunk roads especially dual carriageways.

What a ****ing stupid idea. Motorways are for high speed long distance
travel. A **** on a push bike doing 12mph is going to take the best
part of 10 hours to go from London to Birmingham.


So long as junctions can be deal with so that the cycle track has a fair
amount of priority (with bridges of necessary) this could be good for
cycling.

As for cost, it is not going to be cheap so perhaps a steep increase in
motoring tax could pay for it.

Cyclists could of course put their hands in their pockets & pay their
own way. Typical attitude "we should have this, someone else should pay".

Sponging freeloaders.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 11/04/2011 15:28, Simon Mason wrote:
On Apr 11, 7:53 am, wrote:
Well I am glad you agree. Surely, if the HC is always strictly obeyed
there can be no crashes?


Surely if there was a driver that should have known the Highway Code,
it was this one.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti....html?ITO=1490

"Wall was sitting alongside her mother - a driving instructor - when
she lost control of the Suzuki Jimny she was driving home from a
shopping trip. Wall, who had only passed her driving test months
earlier, was looking at the message on her phone when she mounted a
pavement."

--
Simon Mason

Her mother should have stopped her if possible.
Her defence that she 'showed remorse' clashes with carrying her mobile
in court.

On 11/04/2011 12:15, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 11/04/2011 11:36, francis wrote:
On Apr 11, 10:18 am, Simon Weaseltemper
wrote:
On 11/04/2011 08:54, Mrcheerful wrote:



Motorways are a safe place to travel partly because of the LACK of
cyclists
and pedestrians.

As cyclists cannot be bothered to obey the simplest laws regarding
safe use
of any roads, the idea of them on motorways is appalling.

The only good thing would be that their numbers could be quickly
culled.

A busy motorway would be one of the least pleasant places to cycle but
it would be useful to have a separate cycle track running alongside all
major trunk roads especially dual carriageways.

So long as junctions can be deal with so that the cycle track has a fair
amount of priority (with bridges of necessary) this could be good for
cycling.

As for cost, it is not going to be cheap so perhaps a steep increase in
motoring tax could pay for it.

Or perhaps a cycling tax ;-)

Could do, but that might deter people from cycling which is to no-ones
benefit (apart from TMH).

A reduction in cycling would benefit everyone. We could stop wasting
millions on idiotic cycling schemes, pensioners & children could walk on
pavements or cross the road without being terrorised, motorists could
have full width roads back, lorry drivers could turn left without having
to worry about idiots with 'rights', the emergency services wouldn't
have to scrape organ donors off the road....

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 11/04/2011 18:38, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 11/04/2011 07:53, Doug wrote:
On Apr 10, 9:10 am, Tony wrote:
On 10/04/2011 07:17, Doug wrote:



On Apr 8, 6:21 pm, Tony wrote:
On 08/04/2011 07:55, Doug wrote:

On Apr 7, 3:48 pm, Simon wrote:
On Apr 7, 3:28 pm, wrote:

I can understand some one that is not too with it taking a motorway
slip in
an absent minded moment, but why continue on?

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local...s/2011/04/07/c...

Scraping the barrel today, Cheerless?

2/3 of the story was about the chaos drivers were causing on the M62 -
the cyclist came and went without incident.

"Drivers also faced hold-ups on the motorway s eastbound carriageway
late yesterday, after an accident involving a lorry and a car.
The vehicles blocked the nearside lane approaching the slip road at
Junction 26 (Chain Bar) but no-one was hurt.
Traffic queues built up for several miles before the vehicles were
removed. It was the second day in a row that a serious accident
brought M62 chaos. On Tuesday, four fire crews were called to deal
with a five-vehicle pile-up which left one driver badly hurt."

The obstructive motorists obviously had a poor knowledge of the
Highway Code and also bear in mind they are much more dangerous than
cyclists.

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

What part of the HC would that be?

Several parts, such as tailgating and taking suitable precautions.

I am not sure if you are referring to the original accident, in which
case what part of the HC did they not obey, or the motorists in the
queue, and if so what part they did not consider.
I'm not saying that there was not a breach of the HC but my limited
knowledge of the incident tells me nothing.

Well I am glad you agree. Surely, if the HC is always strictly obeyed
there can be no crashes?

If you recall a few years ago, an accident that happened when a road cone
fell/was thrown of a motorway bridge causing an accident.
You agreed then that nothing could have been done to avoid the incident.
The HC was obeyed.


Haven't you read it yet?

Yes last time that I did the online course that my employer insists I do
every year.



And if the traffic was that slow , why were they a danger?

From impatient drivers who can't bear holdups, obviously.

Doug

Oh I see, fast traffic is a danger, slow traffic is a danger, can
motorists travel at a medium speed?

Anyway you are always insisting that motor traffic is slowed down.

The slower the traffic the less impact force it exerts on collision,
the greater the stopping distance and the longer reaction time of the
drivers..

So if cars go slower, the stopping distance increases, are you trying to
reinvent physics again.

Why would reaction time vary with speed?


But we know what the reason for your post is, is it that you admire this
cyclist& are trying to defend him, you are on record as saying you
think cyclists should be allowed to travel on motorways.

No I am on record as saying there should be no discriminatory public
roads. Obviously motorways should always have a cycle track and
pavements so as not to discriminate unfairly against cyclists and
pedestrians. We can blame Hitler for motorway discrimination. Is it
anywhere on record that he disliked cyclists? I bet he did.

Doug.

Would you explain Hitlers input to motorways?
I would have invoked Godwin's law, but somebody has got there first.

*I* will explain Hitler's input to motorways (or to the idea of motorways, or
to the idea of German motorways): NIL.

Myth: Hitler started the German autobahn programme.

It was already up and running before the NSDAP gained power in 1933:

http://german.about.com/library/blgermyth08_autobt.htm

Design principles were formulated as early as 1909, and the first stretch of
what will eventually be part of the autobahn network (still in operation
today) was started in 1912, though not completed until the 1920s because of
other things that were going on. "Autobahn" term invented 1928. Cologne-Bonn
stretch started 1929.

Doug already knows all this.

On Apr 11, 7:53*am, Doug wrote:
On Apr 10, 9:10*am, Tony Dragon wrote:

On 10/04/2011 07:17, Doug wrote:

On Apr 8, 6:21 pm, Tony *wrote:
On 08/04/2011 07:55, Doug wrote:

On Apr 7, 3:48 pm, Simon * *wrote:
On Apr 7, 3:28 pm, * *wrote:

I can understand some one that is not too with it taking a motorway slip in
an absent minded moment, but why continue on?

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local...s/2011/04/07/c...

Scraping the barrel today, Cheerless?

2/3 of the story was about the chaos drivers were causing on the M62 -
the cyclist came and went without incident.

"Drivers also faced hold-ups on the motorway s eastbound carriageway
late yesterday, after an accident involving a lorry and a car.
The vehicles blocked the nearside lane approaching the slip road at
Junction 26 (Chain Bar) but no-one was hurt.
Traffic queues built up for several miles before the vehicles were
removed. It was the second day in a row that a serious accident
brought M62 chaos. On Tuesday, four fire crews were called to deal
with a five-vehicle pile-up which left one driver badly hurt."

The obstructive motorists obviously had a poor knowledge of the
Highway Code and also bear in mind they are much more dangerous than
cyclists.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
*http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

What part of the HC would that be?

Several parts, such as tailgating and taking suitable precautions.

I am not sure if you are referring to the original accident, in which
case what part of the HC did they not obey, or the motorists in the
queue, and if so what part they did not consider.
I'm not saying that there was not a breach of the HC but my limited
knowledge of the incident tells me nothing.

Well I am glad you agree. Surely, if the HC is always strictly obeyed
there can be no crashes?



Haven't you read it yet?

Yes last time that I did the online course that my employer insists I do
every year.

And if the traffic was that slow , why were they a danger?

*From impatient drivers who can't bear holdups, obviously.

Doug

Oh I see, fast traffic is a danger, slow traffic is a danger, can
motorists travel at a medium speed?

Anyway you are always insisting that motor traffic is slowed down.

The slower the traffic the less impact force it exerts on collision,
the greater the stopping distance and the longer reaction time of the
drivers..

But we know what the reason for your post is, is it that you admire this
cyclist & are trying to defend him, you are on record as saying you
think cyclists should be allowed to travel on motorways.

No I am on record as saying there should be no discriminatory public
roads. Obviously motorways should always have a cycle track and
pavements so as not to discriminate unfairly against cyclists and
pedestrians. We can blame Hitler for motorway discrimination. Is it
anywhere on record that he disliked cyclists? I bet he did.

Doug.

Apparently he found them useful:-

http://tinyurl.com/68q4x6w

He also apparently didn't like meat-eating much. He obviously approved
of wearing shorts. The Nazis were interested in the environment,
allegedly. I don't know where they stood on sandals.