More anti-cyclist drivel in the Times

More anti-cycling, ill-informed rantings on the Times at

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...979274,00.html


P I Kirk obviously knows nothing about time trials as riding three abreast
is verboten - it'll get you disqualified!

D Eyley does the bit about bicycles being toys... plus the usual lies on tax
& drivel on licensing.

And some fool QC saying the roads are too dangerous...

Can someone else get something published to counter the ignorant, please!

Nice one from a Mr Rossall though.

Cheers, helen s



--
you may need to remove dependence
on fame & fortune from organisation
to get correct email address
~Noodliness is Good~

wafflycat wrote:

Can someone else get something published to counter the ignorant, please!

Might as well post on URD against some of that hogwash; I do respect
the Addenbrookes one though.

"wafflycat" wrote in message
...

More anti-cycling, ill-informed rantings on the Times at

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...979274,00.html


P I Kirk obviously knows nothing about time trials as riding three abreast
is verboten - it'll get you disqualified!

D Eyley does the bit about bicycles being toys... plus the usual lies on
tax & drivel on licensing.

And some fool QC saying the roads are too dangerous...

Well there is doubt that he is wrong, it's not the raods that are dangerous,
it's the idiot drivers who are dangerous.

It is my opinion, that no one should be allowed to drive a car until they
have spent at least two years, every day, on a bicycle.

Alan

"MartinM" wrote in message
ups.com...

wafflycat wrote:

Can someone else get something published to counter the ignorant, please!

Might as well post on URD against some of that hogwash; I do respect
the Addenbrookes one though.

What is URD?

Alan

Alan Holmes wrote:


What is URD?

uk.rec.driving

Alan Holmes wrote:
It is my opinion, that no one should be allowed to drive a car until they
have spent at least two years, every day, on a bicycle.

I tried spending a week on a bicycle, but spilled gravy down my shirt
and had great difficulty in going to the loo without falling off.

R.

"Alan Holmes" wrote:
....
| It is my opinion, that no one should be allowed to drive a car until they
| have spent at least two years, every day, on a bicycle.

Me2 though I think you'd get the same effect from a few tens of hours
worth in various traffic contexts.

--
Patrick Herring, http://www.anweald.co.uk/ph

Alan Holmes wrote:

It is my opinion, that no one should be allowed to drive a car until they
have spent at least two years, every day, on a bicycle.

Do you suppose that there are many drivers who haven't? I was a cyclist
for at least 12 years, possibly more, before I was old enough to drive.

--
Matt B

"wafflycat" wrote in message
...

More anti-cycling, ill-informed rantings on the Times at

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...979274,00.html
Some of it, perhaps, as a reaction to some of the anti-car, "ill-informed
rantings" which appeared there recently.


P I Kirk obviously knows nothing about time trials as riding three abreast
is verboten - it'll get you disqualified!
The rest of his points are perfectly valid though, I think you will agree.

D Eyley does the bit about bicycles being toys... plus the usual lies on
tax & drivel on licensing.
You accuse him of lying on tax - you must point out exactly which part of
his letter is a lie, and about which tax.

And some fool QC saying the roads are too dangerous...
From what I have read in this forum many contributors agree that roads are
too dangerous, and that much needs to be done to make cycling safer.

Can someone else get something published to counter the ignorant, please!
Madam, to suggest that views and opinions contrary to your own are
"ignorant" is, at the very least, disingenuous. A more honourable tactic
would be to present a contrary argument demonstrating the superior rationale
behind your own views.

Nice one from a Mr Rossall though.
Yes, I too support the notion that all cyclists should be underwritten when
out in public.

Please don't misunderstand my motives for joining this discussion. I support
(both financially and practically) cycling as a serious and worthy transport
mode. I do, however, distinguish between cycling as a means of transport,
and cycling as a hobby or 'sport'. As a means of transport cycling should be
encouraged and facilitated in every way possible, taking lessons from places
such as The Netherlands, where they seem to know how it should be done, and
with, probably no charge, at the point of use. Hobby/sport cycling though,
on the public highway, should be treated as motor car driving is. I would
not expect to be allowed to use a public resource, and cause inconvenience,
and possibly danger, to other users without paying a fee (such as I do to
use public swimming baths), and certainly not without ensuring public
liability insurance was in place, and any competetive activity or race
should require the roads to be closed to normal use, and the associated
costs being covered.

A.T.

Trundler wrote:

From what I have read in this forum many contributors agree that roads are
too dangerous, and that much needs to be done to make cycling safer.

Really? Which contributors would these be? Most people I have seen
here agree that neither roads nor cycling are dangerous. Most roads are
not innately dangerous, barring a few with tram tracks. Cycling is not
an inherently dangerous activity; cyclists live longer than
non-cyclists, for example.

I do, however, distinguish between cycling as a means of transport,
and cycling as a hobby or 'sport'.

When I cycle back from the shops with my groceries in the panniers, I've
been known to pick up the pace which has the side effects of getting me
fitter. Is that a means of transport, or a "sport"?

with, probably no charge, at the point of use. Hobby/sport cycling though,
on the public highway, should be treated as motor car driving is.

Why? I am entitled to cycle on the public highway; I am not entitled to
drive upon it, except under license.

I would
not expect to be allowed to use a public resource, and cause inconvenience,
and possibly danger,

What inconvenience or danger is there to the public? Perhaps you could
give some figures to support your assertions?

R.