Darth Vader on two wheels

who's responsible this?

cavan pawson.

Poorly written, poorly edited, and reusing quotes from previous articles... shouldn't have bothered reading.

Don't think I really need to pose a counter-argument...

Can't believe all the green-arrowed comments are actually reasonable ones! This is the first time this on the Daily Mail website!

"Darth Vader on two wheels"

ok so I may have the imperial march on my Ipod, but I generally don't jump red lights as I just use the force (dark side,mind) to make sure they are on green,or amber.

who's responsible this?

He's only got himself to blame for that saddle being too high.

Tory MP David Curry [should have] asked the Transport Department's permanent secretary Robert Devereux: [quote]'Why are cyclists such irresponsible and arrogant road users?' 'Why aren't we doing more to make the roads safe for all users?"
[/quote]

Isn't the cyclist in the pic Mr Smyth?

Tory MP David Curry asked the Transport Department's permanent secretary Robert Devereux:'Why are cyclists such irresponsible and arrogant road users?
'The only time I have been knocked down in my life was by a cyclist going like a bat out of hell outside the House of Commons, dressed like Darth Vader, as they all do.

time for Mr Curry to answer to this, sounds like he's been spending too long at the subsidised bar,if he's hallucinating like that and wandering around in the road causing cyclists in fancy dress to crash

http://www.davidcurry.co.uk/

Daily Mail in poor quality jounalism shocker.

Red lights are for cars. If there were no cars there would be no red lights. Its as simple as that

Red lights are for cars. If there were no cars there would be no red lights. Its as simple as that

People would still need to cross roads though, and cyclists would still cross paths so you would still need traffic lights as long as there is, er, traffic.

Not true.

People could easily cross. There wouldn't be a constant stream of traffic and you could just slow down at crossings. Unless you are an idiot, this should be pretty straightforward

I find traffic moves best when the lights are broken

Before cars, there were no traffic lights

For once, there are some sensible comments. I rather like my one and am surprised that it has been published.

Before cars, there were no traffic lights

Yeah but, no but... Actually it's true so I won't bother.

Not true.

People could easily cross. There wouldn't be a constant stream of traffic and you could just slow down at crossings. Unless you are an idiot, this should be pretty straightforward

I find traffic moves best when the lights are broken

Before cars, there were no traffic lights

I don't believe that people could easily cross, you'd need to have both pedestrians and cyclists to be both competant and responsible for that to work, and neither group can be trusted on those fronts. There are a lot of idiots on the roads as we all know.

However there was a crossroads not far from my place that the lights were broken at and it's the quickest i've ever gotten through them, that was more to do with me being on a bike and being able to go through smaller gaps, I suspect for the cars it wasn't as easy though.

Before cars, there wasn't enough traffic to warrant the need for traffic lights.

Not true.

People could easily cross. There wouldn't be a constant stream of traffic and you could just slow down at crossings. Unless you are an idiot, this should be pretty straightforward

I find traffic moves best when the lights are broken

Before cars, there were no traffic lights

I reckon you have a point when it comes to quiet junctions and roads, but there are certain big or awkward junctions where lights are a definite necessity.

But there wouldn't be big or awkward junctions if there were no cars.
But there are cars, so this is pointless.
Just my personal view is that lights are for cars and are more of a guidance for cyclists.

But there wouldn't be big or awkward junctions if there were no cars.
But there are cars, so this is pointless.
Just my personal view is that lights are for cars and are more of a guidance for cyclists.

I'd agree with that, I think the best method for cyclists is to treat a red light as a give way sign.

Just seen some of the older comments and retract my earlier statement. Motoring nazis are out in force.

Is that guy actually moving? He may have just stopped to wait a little too far forward...

I reckon you have a point when it comes to quiet junctions and roads, but there are certain big or awkward junctions where lights are a definite necessity.

The Cut/Bayliss Road/Waterloo Road junction for sure, even with lights it's a free for all death trap, let alone when they breakdown.

[aside] does anyone know if the 'improvements' at this (⇧) junction are permenant, i.e. was someone seriously really paid to sit down and design a junction where two lanes of traffic coming from opposite directions drive directly at each, and use the chicken principle to decide who gets to turn North first?[/aside]

**mikec
I totally agree with you,
We should just get rid of cars all together, melt them down and make some nice bikes out of them.
help with allot of stuff

**

Clive. I found your comment. Hang your head in shame

I find cycling the easiest way for me to commute, from my job at the health and safety office. Other cyclists who wear that distasteful Lycra and flaunt the rules are among my most disliked group of people after the unemployed.

But any beardy twat in knee high rolled up denims deserves a good light sabering

Repost. (Not this particular article, I think, but the comment that this article is based on.)

This is just an insignificant comment plucked out of a generally quite sensible committee report and hacked at for all it's worth by the anti-cycling press.

Simply ignore. It'll go away.