-
crimsonape is Harriet Harman and I claim my £5
Did my avatar give it away?
I already posted this aggges ago. Tsk. http://www.londonfgss.com/thread32505.html
Sorry. I try to read everything here, but missed your post.
I think that you rather missed the point of the BBC item. The bikes are so useless that they fall apart quickly and are inoperable on the roads. Darwinism comes to bikes.
Darwinism is fine if said winner is in a field and unable to harm others. It's not quite so funny for the driver who kills someone because the bike brakes which were working when they left home fail. I imagine a fair number of these bikes are used in public places and the potential for harm is quite real.
Which I had already posted about here:
http://www.londonfgss.com/post1037023-370.htmlTsk.
Again, I am sorry. I will try harder to curb my youthful exuberance and check before posting.
-
Your under use of comma's is also deplorable.
-
Your under use of comma's is also deplorable.
Shit. I will flog my self at once.
-
Your under use of comma's is also deplorable.
Note: When commenting on others' use of punctuation, it is best to avoid the greengrocers' apostrophe.
-
Improved safety does not mean more regulation. Grater availability of cheap training would be a wonderful thing but the idea of compulsory licensing and registration is disproportionate to the risks. B
-
greengrocer's. i'll leave you to work out why.
I thought more than one greengrocer was guilty of this particular punctuation faux pas
-
i think you might be in the wrong place...
At my age, one is often confused as to the precise location one finds oneself at.
Hopefully this sentence contains no mistakes. I have checked with Judy, and all seems well.
1 Attachment
-
-
At my age, one is often confused as to the precise location one finds oneself at.
Hopefully this sentence contains no mistakes. I have checked with Judy, and all seems well.
First sentence ends with preposition, second contains deprecated use of "hopefully".
-
First sentence ends with preposition, second contains deprecated use of "hopefully".
My education was clearly a waste of money.
-
I concede that I forgot to add pedestrians into the road equation. I consider them an infrequent and brief visitor
have you actually ridden in London? The fuckers are everywhere...
It's a wonder I've only hit four this year!
-
have you actually ridden in London? The fuckers are everywhere...
It's a wonder I've only hit four this year!
Every weekday. They are not supposed to be on the road , just crossing it was the point I was making. They have special crossings which they ignore. Fortunately, I haven't hit a person in 16 years of cycling in London. A few car doors in Stratford and 2 buses near Mile End, but not real people. Hi-fived a wanker in Canary Wharf who stepped in front of me to hail a cab a couple of weeks ago, but that doesn't count. Can you recommend any good pedestrian mowing spots? I must really try harder.
-
speak to multigroves
-
Tooting and the city.
Tooting heading south from tooting bec, I recommend getting up as much speed as possible coming down the hill and then close your eyes when you get to primark... You're bound to hit someone.
-
Didn't read the article, get the idea though. You're a dumb feck if you buy them and then don't put it together properly. Meh.
BUT on the point of insuring, MOT etc. for bikes there's no need for that but a I personally wouldn't mind paying say £30 – £50 a year Registration fee*. It would at once get rid of any abuse about not paying to be on the roads ra rararara...- This is with an overly idealistic view that all monies raised would go into improving the roads for cyclist, improving cycle parking and creating an all round better environment for urban cycling.
Anyway, some flames might be useful today, it's kinda chilly.
- This is with an overly idealistic view that all monies raised would go into improving the roads for cyclist, improving cycle parking and creating an all round better environment for urban cycling.
-
Lowpug- I see where you are coming from, not sure that I agree entirely.
I already pay for the upkeep of the roads and so forth in my income tax and council tax, etc etc.
The suggestion you are making is that I pay some additional tax, however using VED as a guideline it would not be spent on making the roads better for cyclists.
Also taxing five bikes each year at £40 (averaging your figs) would be an annoying £200, £15 more that it costs to tax the car.
I would expect (going on how efficient the gov is normally) for this to turn into a nightmare- coppers stopping people checking their licence, fines handed out willy nilly, and the system growing to be a ziggurat of bureaucratic incompetance that ends up pissing away hundreds of thousands of pounds per year.
-
@Dammit - Good points and I agree totally but it was written in my typically idealistic (unrealistic?) view.
Good point about multiple bikes too, that would be a killer.
I just have to remember my days as a driver and grumbling at the fuel tax that was meant for better roads. That turned out well!
-
Lowpug- I see where you are coming from, not sure that I agree entirely.
I already pay for the upkeep of the roads and so forth in my income tax and council tax, etc etc.
The suggestion you are making is that I pay some additional tax, however using VED as a guideline it would not be spent on making the roads better for cyclists.
Also taxing five bikes each year at £40 (averaging your figs) would be an annoying £200, £15 more that it costs to tax the car.
I would expect (going on how efficient the gov is normally) for this to turn into a nightmare- coppers stopping people checking their licence, fines handed out willy nilly, and the system growing to be a ziggurat of bureaucratic incompetance that ends up pissing away hundreds of thousands of pounds per year.
Spot on...
Making people fit little registration plates to their bikes, paying for a bike MOT and taking tests is ridiculous.
If people buy a bike, put it together incorrectly and aren't worried about the possibility of the brakes not working, then they'll get hurt. They won't cause a mass pile-up and kill hundreds of people.
It's the freedom of cycling that makes people's spirits soar when they jump on a bike. The reason so many people on this forum reacted negatively to the legislation idea is because it would destroy that freedom.
(Apologies in advance for any grammatical errors.)
-
It's the freedom of cycling that makes people's spirits soar when they jump on a bike. The reason so many people on this forum reacted negatively to the legislation idea is because it would destroy that freedom.
my thoughts exactly. I love beign able to get a load of bits from somewhere and build yourself a bike and ride, without having to worry about legality of it. would be ludicrous to try any other way
Tommytwotimes
smiff
gbj_tester
TheBrick(Tommy)
pajamas
Balki
Khornight2
TRA
deleted
Dammit
madillness
wooodrow-
Post a reply
About
Another reason to licence, MOT and insure cyclists
Posted by
@crimsonape
My sincerest apologies for making the idiotic point that greater safety for all was a good thing. I concede that I forgot to add pedestrians into the road equation. I consider them an infrequent and brief visitor with their own code taught to them by a responsible adult at an early age. Unless you mean when people cycle on the pavement illegally? They should definitely be taught how to avoid an almost silent speeding menace approaching. I neglected horses as, apart from the odd police horse, I haven't come into contact with them on the roads in London. Again, I am sorry.
A cyclist with no knowledge of road rules on a badly assembled and or maintained bike is as real a danger to the innocent bystander as any other form of transport (pedestrians excluded).
I had thought a cycling forum would have been in favour of better safety awareness, training and equipment for all? I now see the flaw in my draconian logic. I bow down to your superior opinion on structuring my thoughts into a coherent sentence and hang my head in shame. I will ask a teacher to check my work before posting next time.