Priest said:
I know this, i know the fine invlolved too. I am of the opinion that if I do it in a safe maner then there isn't a problem. The other week a pal was cycling on the pavement and 2 policemen apologised for being in his way.
Hit by car for second time in 2 weeks
- Thread starter weescott
- Start date
I know this, i know the fine invlolved too. I am of the opinion that if I do it in a safe maner then there isn't a problem. The other week a pal was cycling on the pavement and 2 policemen apologised for being in his way.
Some people here seem to not care about other road users. Who care's if 2 wheel transport slows you down? Remember that you can easily kill a cyclist / motorcyclist, it's a one way arguement. here are some vital statistics: http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/statistics.htm
Please don't post negative comments. I never intented for this thraed to be Anti whatever. Under recent laws degradation of social groups is against the law. So saying something like.." Cyclists should be shot" *could* be classed the same as racism and should not be tolerated.
I feel that my statement is in line with OCUK's moral standing.
On a side note. My statement about Cyclists having the right of way was true but flaud. In the case of a road accident, a pedestrain is seeing as having the right of way, followed by cyclist's. < New law.
/End Dave Angel.
Please don't post negative comments. I never intented for this thraed to be Anti whatever. Under recent laws degradation of social groups is against the law. So saying something like.." Cyclists should be shot" *could* be classed the same as racism and should not be tolerated.
I feel that my statement is in line with OCUK's moral standing.
On a side note. My statement about Cyclists having the right of way was true but flaud. In the case of a road accident, a pedestrain is seeing as having the right of way, followed by cyclist's. < New law.
/End Dave Angel.
JRS said:Wouldn't that make for a rather one-sided conversation? Perhaps you meant "don't post inflamatory bullcrap/keyboard warrior nonsense". That idea I could get behind.
Not at all. Positve sugestions can come from any road user.
suicidle_tramp said:
Not at all. I have heard from other cyclist how lucky I have been for not having an accident. In over 6 years of cycling on roads I have never been knocked down, I have had 3 close call's but in general I think people are tolerant and accepting of other road users. Like has been said before. it's a minority that cause the agro. but none the less. Social awareness of proper road use is poor at times, and that goes for cyclists too.
JRS. I like your case 
Lopez. your question is a valid one. I shall look for something in black and white, in the mean time i think this article is of relevence to my case: http://www.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,11374,1154684,00.html
Lopez. your question is a valid one. I shall look for something in black and white, in the mean time i think this article is of relevence to my case: http://www.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,11374,1154684,00.html
#1. I have heard the "you use the road you should pay tax" arguement many a time. it's an uneducated rant! your point of view i agree with.
#2. Anything that keeps kids safe in my book is a good idea, and something that will stick with them for the rest of thier lifes.
#3. Common sense. Although the CTC disagrees becuase a lot of people just don't like wearing one and as a consequence diswades's potential cyclists.
#4. There are times when cycling on a pavement is ok, as long as you pay attention and are aware of the surrounding environment.
#5. Can't see the harm in it but if it's "free" who would pay for it? No doubt someone would complain.
#2. Anything that keeps kids safe in my book is a good idea, and something that will stick with them for the rest of thier lifes.
#3. Common sense. Although the CTC disagrees becuase a lot of people just don't like wearing one and as a consequence diswades's potential cyclists.
#4. There are times when cycling on a pavement is ok, as long as you pay attention and are aware of the surrounding environment.
#5. Can't see the harm in it but if it's "free" who would pay for it? No doubt someone would complain.