Cyclists should be banned off certain roads

[JBR]

can we have all of RH's usernames in a separate thread to discuss this amongst themselves.

That would be quite useful, as I'm beginning to lose track.

Is this addressed to me, in which case, are you playing with your intimates?

It has nothing to do with the original discussion, as far as I can tell.

Perhaps not, but could you provide a list anyway, just out of interest?

 

[JBR]

you don't think too much. Swerving to miss a cyclist and hitting someone else. Damn right , insurance should be compulsory

Insurance is compulsory, especially for those that can't control their vehicles when swerving to avoid another vehicle/person/cyclist/horse/obstruction/tree/lamp post, etc..
Is this called "not being in full control of your vehicle?"

I agree with you. Yes, cyclists who swerve to avoid a pothole or another cyclist perhaps, or swerve in order to cut in and out of queueing motor vehicles, could be accused of not being in full control of their vehicle.

But I feel that I must point out that you are incorrect in stating that insurance is compulsory for cyclists. It ought to be, though.

 

[conny]

I would disagree with your statement that swerving to avoid something, be it a pothole, other cyclist, animal etc, that someone is not in full control of their vehicle. In fact I would be more inclined to say they were in full control of their vehicle but not necessarily fully aware of what was going on around them. If they were then they would take action to prevent the sudden change of direction.

 

[collisioni]

That' why vehicles must have mirrors. Swerving in front of other road users causes accidents and why insurance is a must

 

[conny]

Cyclists should be banned from certain roads? The government actually wants cyclists on all roads it would seem. Would you ride a bike on the A14? https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.3...m2!1sARqzElI7ERHjPB46Uxx8Bw!2e0?hl=en[/QUOTE]

I drive on the A14 from Bury St Edmunds to Newmarket and back each day.
No way would you catch me cycling on it though I have seen others doing so and even this morning, (Sunday 03/ 08 ), I saw a pedestrian walking along the cycle lane towards Newmarket at 5.15am wearing dark clothing. Thankfully it was quiet but if it had been a weekday I wouldn't have rated his chances very high.

 

[LanceCorpralJones]

you don't think too much. Swerving to miss a cyclist and hitting someone else. Damn right , insurance should be compulsory

Insurance is compulsory, especially for those that can't control their vehicles when swerving to avoid another vehicle/person/cyclist/horse/obstruction/tree/lamp post, etc..
Is this called "not being in full control of your vehicle?"

I agree with you. Yes, cyclists who swerve to avoid a pothole or another cyclist perhaps, or swerve in order to cut in and out of queueing motor vehicles, could be accused of not being in full control of their vehicle.

But I feel that I must point out that you are incorrect in stating that insurance is compulsory for cyclists. It ought to be, though.

Sorry. I wasn't sufficiently precise. I did state that insurance is compulsory.... for those.....vehicles. I obviously meant that insurance is compulsory for motorised vehicles.
I don't think anyone could class a cycle as a vehicle, could they?
Or maybe you did?

The point that I was making is that swerving is usually caused by not reading the road ahead sufficently, and/or not making allowances for other road user's unexpected behaviour. Perhaps that includes cyclists.

 

[LanceCorpralJones]

can we have all of RH's usernames in a separate thread to discuss this amongst themselves.

That would be quite useful, as I'm beginning to lose track.

Is this addressed to me, in which case, are you playing with your intimates?

It has nothing to do with the original discussion, as far as I can tell.

Perhaps not, but could you provide a list anyway, just out of interest?

Are you also playing with your intimates.
I have no idea what your talking about.

 

[LanceCorpralJones]

I would disagree with your statement that swerving to avoid something, be it a pothole, other cyclist, animal etc, that someone is not in full control of their vehicle. In fact I would be more inclined to say they were in full control of their vehicle but not necessarily fully aware of what was going on around them. If they were then they would take action to prevent the sudden change of direction.

Yes, accepted.

 

[Brigadier]

Sorry. I wasn't sufficiently precise.

= I was winging it, then backtracked, then got all high-and-mighty when called out.

Welcome back, DC

 

[JBR]

you don't think too much. Swerving to miss a cyclist and hitting someone else. Damn right , insurance should be compulsory

Insurance is compulsory, especially for those that can't control their vehicles when swerving to avoid another vehicle/person/cyclist/horse/obstruction/tree/lamp post, etc..
Is this called "not being in full control of your vehicle?"

I agree with you. Yes, cyclists who swerve to avoid a pothole or another cyclist perhaps, or swerve in order to cut in and out of queueing motor vehicles, could be accused of not being in full control of their vehicle.

But I feel that I must point out that you are incorrect in stating that insurance is compulsory for cyclists. It ought to be, though.

Sorry. I wasn't sufficiently precise. I did state that insurance is compulsory.... for those.....vehicles. I obviously meant that insurance is compulsory for motorised vehicles.
I don't think anyone could class a cycle as a vehicle, could they?
Or maybe you did?

The point that I was making is that swerving is usually caused by not reading the road ahead sufficently, and/or not making allowances for other road user's unexpected behaviour. Perhaps that includes cyclists.

No need to apologise. I was being sarcastic!

I like sarcasm.

 

[JBR]

Sorry. I wasn't sufficiently precise.

= I was winging it, then backtracked, then got all high-and-mighty when called out.

Welcome back, DC

Oi, I didn't say that! It was him!

Is L/Cpl Jones RH? Then who's DC? I'm becoming confused now!

 

[Brigadier]

DropClanger...

 

[JBR]

Ah yes, of course.

 

[AronSearle]

I believe that cyclists should pay a contribution, yes, but that it should be proportionately lower than that paid by other road vehicles.

They should pay the same amount as electric cars

 

[collisioni]

nah, electric cars require power

I believe that cyclists should pay a contribution, yes, but that it should be proportionately lower than that paid by other road vehicles.

They should pay the same amount as electric cars