What I Would Like
Bobby Lightcycles
Posts: 38
I would like to see the following. Though you may not agree, please remember that this is a forum for constructive and civilised debate, and there is no need for personal attacks. It is enough merely to say "I disagree" or similar, followed by one or more reasons why. Thank you ever so much.
1. A modest and representative Road Fund Licence for cyclists. I know it's not something that's superficially attractive but I think it would be best in the long run. Firstly, it would pay for improvements like mine below. Secondly, it would give cyclists an equal claim to the road; at the moment, however you look at it, motorists pay to use the roads, and cyclists don't. I believe that this is the main reason (other than being comparatively slow and occasionally deliberately difficult) why cyclists are still viewed somewhat as "second class citizens".
We could have a licence for each cyclist, rather than each bicycle. This would give the additional advantage of the police being able to issue points for infractions such as jumping red lights, furious cycling, riding too fast, cycling at night without lights, intimidating pedestrians etc. I'm sure that those who are concerned about safety would agree that cyclists shouldn't be doing these things, and that it gives the rest of us a bad reputation. This is the perfect way to nip it in the bud.
Finally it would prevent the very poor from cycling. This is clearly beneficial, and they would only nick the bike anyway.
2. An underground and/or overground cycle network. There are some roads where, with the best will in the world, conditions are such that cyclists, pedestrians, cars and buses simply cannot coexist easily. Here it makes sense for cyclists to use other routes if possible. Often these other routes are indirect, hilly or otherwise inconvenient. This is absurd and terrible. The best solution would be to have an underground and/or overground cycle network. (Cyclists would be required to use these networks instead of the roads above/below them to minimise congestion.)
3. COMPULSORY HELMETS FOR CYCLISTS. I simply cannot see why anyone would argue with this. It is not just about keeping yourself safe; you may well accidentally headbutt someone (particularly if on a tandem or in a crowded street) as you fall down. They should be cheaper though. Maybe they will be if more people buy them.
Once everyone has got a helmet, I think it is worth considering requiring them to upgrade to motorcycle helmets, which are more effective.
4. There is no 4.
5. Generally bicycles are in my opinion too quiet. Other than pedestrians, they are the only essentially silent road users, and unlike pedestrians most of the time, third party injuries can result from people being unaware of their presence. I think the solution is to require cyclists to make a constant noise as they are travelling, to identify themselves. They could do this vocally or by buying an electronic sound effect box, which could be powered by dynamo. This would reduce accidents.
That's all I can think of for the moment, but if I come up with anything else, I'll let you know!
--
BOBBY LIGHTCYCLES MCFADDEN
ROAD SAFETY EXPERT
1. A modest and representative Road Fund Licence for cyclists. I know it's not something that's superficially attractive but I think it would be best in the long run. Firstly, it would pay for improvements like mine below. Secondly, it would give cyclists an equal claim to the road; at the moment, however you look at it, motorists pay to use the roads, and cyclists don't. I believe that this is the main reason (other than being comparatively slow and occasionally deliberately difficult) why cyclists are still viewed somewhat as "second class citizens".
We could have a licence for each cyclist, rather than each bicycle. This would give the additional advantage of the police being able to issue points for infractions such as jumping red lights, furious cycling, riding too fast, cycling at night without lights, intimidating pedestrians etc. I'm sure that those who are concerned about safety would agree that cyclists shouldn't be doing these things, and that it gives the rest of us a bad reputation. This is the perfect way to nip it in the bud.
Finally it would prevent the very poor from cycling. This is clearly beneficial, and they would only nick the bike anyway.
2. An underground and/or overground cycle network. There are some roads where, with the best will in the world, conditions are such that cyclists, pedestrians, cars and buses simply cannot coexist easily. Here it makes sense for cyclists to use other routes if possible. Often these other routes are indirect, hilly or otherwise inconvenient. This is absurd and terrible. The best solution would be to have an underground and/or overground cycle network. (Cyclists would be required to use these networks instead of the roads above/below them to minimise congestion.)
3. COMPULSORY HELMETS FOR CYCLISTS. I simply cannot see why anyone would argue with this. It is not just about keeping yourself safe; you may well accidentally headbutt someone (particularly if on a tandem or in a crowded street) as you fall down. They should be cheaper though. Maybe they will be if more people buy them.
Once everyone has got a helmet, I think it is worth considering requiring them to upgrade to motorcycle helmets, which are more effective.
4. There is no 4.
5. Generally bicycles are in my opinion too quiet. Other than pedestrians, they are the only essentially silent road users, and unlike pedestrians most of the time, third party injuries can result from people being unaware of their presence. I think the solution is to require cyclists to make a constant noise as they are travelling, to identify themselves. They could do this vocally or by buying an electronic sound effect box, which could be powered by dynamo. This would reduce accidents.
That's all I can think of for the moment, but if I come up with anything else, I'll let you know!
--
BOBBY LIGHTCYCLES MCFADDEN
ROAD SAFETY EXPERT
0
Comments
-
1) Pedestrians and cyclists have a right to be on the road. Motorists do not and that is why they need a licence. Please find out how much of the motorist's VED goes to the upkeep of roads - for the answer think of the catchphrase used by Paul Daniels!
<b>Finally it would prevent the very poor from cycling. This is clearly beneficial, and they would only nick the bike anyway.</b>
I find your above quote very offensive.
2) Can't comment on this because every time I read it I fall off my chair and roll about the floor laughing!
3) This has been debated many times already. Upgrade to a motorcycle helmet? Have you tried it? If not go for a 50 mile ride wearing one and then come back and comment on it.
4) Was this supposed to be an attempt at humour? It failed!
5) Sound effect boxes? Whatever you were smoking or drinking when you wrote your post, can I have some of it?
http://bangkokhippo.blogspot.com/
Ex-XXL weigh-in 23/24 June: Update published: Monday 25 June0 -
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">1. A modest and representative Road Fund Licence for cyclists. I know it's not something that's superficially attractive but I think it would be best in the long run. Firstly, it would pay for improvements like mine below. Secondly, it would give cyclists an equal claim to the road; at the moment, however you look at it, motorists pay to use the roads, and cyclists don't. I believe that this is the main reason (other than being comparatively slow and occasionally deliberately difficult) why cyclists are still viewed somewhat as "second class citizens".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Leaving aside the fact that the Road Fund Licence was stopped in 1939, and replaced by Vehicle Excise Duty....
Cyclists already have an "equal claim to the road".
We shan't go into the argument about VED being general taxation, or that it fails to cover the cost of otoring by a large margin - that is another point.
"The motorist pays, but cyclists don't" argumant is one of the most deeply flawed claims in current use. I have no problem with cycles being on an equal footing with other vehicles on the VED front and fully included in the present assessment system.
Since the March 2001 revision, there are "bands" based on emissions. As they emit less than 100g of carbon per mile, cycles along with some electric vehicles and theoretically some of the prototype hybrids are in band A- the duty payable is œ0.00
We already pay fully according to the VED criteria.!
Apart form the fact that most of us also hold a vehicle licence already.....
Licensing is probably a way forward, but I have no doubt that there will be the same problems with unscrupulous individuals giving false details, using the names of the deceased, and swapping points on the grounds that any censure is "victimisation", and "taxation". "Otherwise law abiding" cyclists will be criminalised for using their judgement, and forced into these illegal acts.......
(Sound familiar)
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">2. An underground and/or overground cycle network. There are some roads where, with the best will in the world, conditions are such that cyclists, pedestrians, cars and buses simply cannot coexist easily. Here it makes sense for cyclists to use other routes if possible. Often these other routes are indirect, hilly or otherwise inconvenient. This is absurd and terrible. The best solution would be to have an underground and/or overground cycle network. (Cyclists would be required to use these networks instead of the roads above/below them to minimise congestion.)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
There is an overground network - called a "Road". There is no reason at all why the modes cannot mix safely. It is simply down to designing the infrastructure - lowering and strict enforcement of speed limits, parking and poor driving / cycling standards that cause the conflict. A radical and "zero tolerance" campaign censuring all such activity would benefit all users. For instance - the same immediate "œ60 spot fine" for parking on the pavement as for cycling on it.
What would be an interesting option would be the opposite restriction. Park and Ride for all main cities, with no vehicles allowed in - the exception of out of hours delivery (and Ememrgency vehicles). Would cure the congestion and pollution problems completely, as well as making the roads safer as you suggest.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">3. COMPULSORY HELMETS FOR CYCLISTS. I simply cannot see why anyone would argue with this. It is not just about keeping yourself safe; you may well accidentally headbutt someone (particularly if on a tandem or in a crowded street) as you fall down. They should be cheaper though. Maybe they will be if more people buy them.
Once everyone has got a helmet, I think it is worth considering requiring them to upgrade to motorcycle helmets, which are more effective.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I agree fully here!
However given that the incidence of head injuries seen in Hospital are 12% from cyclists and some 33% vehicle occupants - surely we should be looking at the safety of all these group?
Why not compulsory full face helmets for the vehicle occupants who ar admitted on a far more frequent basis - surely no-one can argue against such a common sense move?
As for the Headbutting - in Glasgow the single biggest cause for head injury is alcohol fuelled assaults. Drinking helmets?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">5. Generally bicycles are in my opinion too quiet. Other than pedestrians, they are the only essentially silent road users, and unlike pedestrians most of the time, third party injuries can result from people being unaware of their presence. I think the solution is to require cyclists to make a constant noise as they are travelling, to identify themselves. They could do this vocally or by buying an electronic sound effect box, which could be powered by dynamo. This would reduce accidents.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Will this also apply to electric cars as well. There is evidence that the quiet running of electric vegicles has led to an increased accident rate for the same reason?
Personally I favour the old "Playing card in the spokes"
Edited - quote marks corrected
<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Finally it would prevent the very poor from cycling. This is clearly beneficial, and they would only nick the bike anyway.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Says it all really.................
<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Very amusing Bobby Lightcycles. [:)]0
-
It is supposed to be funny, but is actually quite sad. I wondered where t had got to for the last day or so.
It has been wasting its time.
Hope your friends enjoyed reading it!
--
<font size="1">[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one</font id="size1">0 -
That Jonathan Swift has a lot of pallid imitation to answer for.
My modest proposal is that we eat car drivers. There can be no more ecologically sound stratagem. The new biofuel! Eat a car driver and save the planet! Sauteed Sacco! Boss brulee! Lunch on Lunchbox! Pass the HP sauce!
(Although dining on ____ _______ is hardly haute cuisine. Kebab material at best.)0 -
It would be more nutricious to eat cyclists. Plenty of lean meat and little wasteful fat.
Nobody ever got laid because they were using Shimano0 -
But, I presume that if advocate a road tax (sic) for cyclists that pedestrians should similarly pay to walk on the pavement and to be allowed to cross the road. In addition, much pedestrian death would be eased by having pedestrians wear motor cycle helmets as well. [:)][:)][;)]0
-
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Smokin Joe</i>
It would be more nutricious to eat cyclists. Plenty of lean meat and little wasteful fat.
Nobody ever got laid because they were using Shimano
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Smokin Joe. i very much appreciate the consideration that you have granted my 'Modest Proposal', I really do, but you have to think these things through holistically. Carbon in, carbon out. Car drivers are vastly inefficient stores of carbon. True, they are kind of fatty, but that fat makes them burn energy at an inordinate rate. Take a thermal image of a car driver (and never mind the car!) and you'd see lots of bright red expended to move them around.
Furthermore - lean meat does need a bit of tenderising, and a bit of lubrication - only the finest rump and fillet cuts can be grilled. Car drivers might well prove to be self-basting.
The more I think this through, the more I like it. I'd be a veggie if I had any principles, but eating car drivers would be both principled and <i>meatylicious</i>. Pass the Colmans!0 -
And what on earth do the administrators of this site think their purpose is in deeming a <i>menu suggestion </i>worthy of censorship?0
-
Very good - I got sucked in and it wasn't until the suggestions got more outlandish that I twigged it was humour.
But ... I like the idea of say a license fee to go towards a bike only network of tracks - including tunnels - all tarmac, with regular "pinchpoints" to stop quads, m/cycles, dobbin etc.
Main tracks:-
Track one
Land's End to John O' Groats via Bristol, Birmingham, Manchester, Carlisle, Edinburgh
Track two
Dover to Fishguard via London, Bristol and Cardiff
Track three
London to Holyhead via Birmingham
There is of course no track four![:D]
Track five
London to Edinburgh via York
Plus several interconnecting tracks such as but not limited to:-
York to Liverpool
Edinburgh to Glasgow
Birmingham to Norwich
And a coastal track around the whole lot.
Lovely - you know it makes sense.
__________________
......heading for the box, but not too soon I hope!__________________
......heading for the box, but not too soon I hope!0 -
How are the very poor to be defined? If we have a bad couple of months, do I get my bike taken off me?0
-
grayo59!
The tracks you mentioned are (almost) in place now!
Just need to get rid of those bloody train thingies. [:p]
I get knocked down . . . but I get up again . . .I get knocked down . . . but I get up again . . .0 -
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bobby Lightcycles</i>
3. COMPULSORY HELMETS FOR CYCLISTS. I simply cannot see why anyone would argue with this. It is not just about keeping yourself safe; <b>you may well accidentally headbutt someone</b> (particularly if on a tandem or in a crowded street) as you fall down. They should be cheaper though. Maybe they will be if more people buy them.
Once everyone has got a helmet, I think it is worth considering requiring them to upgrade to motorcycle helmets, which are more effective.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Um. Won't it hurt someone more, if I headbutt them with my helmet? Especially a motorcycle lid... And as a helmet sticks out beyond my head, there's more chance of making contact...
And why is it more likely to happen on a tandem? If you're going to be daft, at least do it logically...
If I had a baby elephant, it could help me clean the car. If I had a car.If I had a baby elephant, it could help me clean the car. If I had a car.0 -
I've been through this argument already, and logically, it makes sense for 3rd party insurance cover, but VED for cyclists is a non starter. It would cost millions to administrate and cyclists would attract zero duty in any case.
I'm a proponent of a well maintained network of good quality cycle paths to shadow dual carriageways with 40, 50 and national speed limits, but for the rest of the roads, integration should be paramount.
"I\'d clean my car with a baby elephant - if I had a baby elephant !"0 -
Shouldn't old bicycles be melted down and used to make crash helmets? There is supposed to be a shortage of steel, after all.
Global TH1.5 Ti hardtail.Global TH1.5 Ti hardtail.0 -
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bobby Lightcycles</i>
and there is no need for personal attacks. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Sorry Bobby, I just cannot agree with you on that point.[:(]0 -
1) Partly agree with - should be about a tenner a year, but don't think that cycles should have to have a registration plate. Possibly a small RFID chip, but that should be optional, and the cyclist should also be entitled to increased bike security for his money, by means of additional technology installed by the police.
2) Agree - definitely, what a great idea. Overground would be better than underground, more interesting for the cyclist and cheaper to build.
3) Don't agree with.
4) Don't agree with.
5) Don't agree with - why shouldn't the same be applied to pedestrians - town centres would be a very noisy place!0 -
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Cunobelin</i>
<b>We shan't go into</b> the argument about VED being general taxation, <b>or that it fails to cover the cost of motoring by a large margin</b> - that is another point.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
No - let's not go into that, largely because it's not true.
The 'cost of motoring' is met by the private individual - I can't remember the government last gave me a grant to buy a car.0 -
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by _Bonj_</i>
1) Partly agree with - should be about a tenner a year, but don't think that cycles should have to have a registration plate. Possibly a small RFID chip, but that should be optional, and the cyclist should also be entitled to increased bike security for his money, by means of additional technology installed by the police.
2) Agree - definitely, what a great idea. Overground would be better than underground, more interesting for the cyclist and cheaper to build.
3) Don't agree with.
4) Don't agree with.
5) Don't agree with - why shouldn't the same be applied to pedestrians - town centres would be a very noisy place!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
bonj,
Let us consider VED for bikes. The only benefit is the reduction in the jealous motorist who sees cyclist as 'getting something for free'. The downside is considerable. If we pay, œ10 a year per bike, the admnistration costs will negate the income. It will reduce cycling. It is easily avoided - look at the number of cars that avoid VED and consider how you catch cyclists. In summary, a concept that does not stand up well under scrutiny.
Sadly, both of us, have succumbed to replying to an overtly troll post; motor cycle helmets, noise generators, underground cycle paths - this is cloud cuckoo land from a poster with an anti-cyling agenda. What he does not realise is that if he were to encourage more to cycle, he would make his roads less congested and more pleaant to drive on.0 -
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by gavintc</i>
Let us consider VED for bikes. The only benefit is the reduction in the jealous motorist who sees cyclist as 'getting something for free'. The downside is considerable. If we pay, œ10 a year per bike, the admnistration costs will negate the income. It will reduce cycling.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Well, I suppose - but I guess I followed the line of logic that goes well a registration plate would be a non-starter as it would look ridiculous - and be cumbersome and heavy, so an RFID chip would be better. Apparently RFID chips can be picked up from a fair distance, so if you had police scanners on lamp posts and in police cars driving round, you might get a few stolen bikes being recovered off surprised thieves wondering why they're getting a knock on the door and how they've been identified. This would encourage cycling, and it would basically be a police- and government-approved security scheme which would encourage cycling, but they could dress it up as VED in order to give credence to the 'cyclists don't contribute to the roads' claim, although to be honest I'm not sure we actually get that much grief of that nature anyway.0 -
Too big brother for me Bonj.
If insurance companies were to come up with a decent discount for a tracker with 3pft insurance for bikes, then it would become desirable, if not, it would be an infringement of personal liberties IMO
This was proposed and thrown out a few months ago for cars.
"I\'d clean my car with a baby elephant - if I had a baby elephant !"0 -
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by _Bonj_</i>
a registration plate would be a non-starter as it would look ridiculous <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Bicycles in Portugal used to have them, 20 yrs ago. I can't find any pics to prove it, but I remember seeing it!
<b><font color="blue"><font face="Comic Sans MS">No, Dougal, that baby elephant is far away!</font id="Comic Sans MS"></font id="blue"></b> [:D]Girls in lycra shorts
http://www.cyclingplus.co.uk/forum/topi ... _ID=1109240 -
Oh. My. Gods.
I can't believe you are turning the OP into a serious discussion! In Soapbox!
What's wrong with you? Have you lost your sense of humour and/or your ability not to take everything as if it is a vital debate on the future of road safety?
Surely there does come a point at which you can say that a post doesn't dignify a serious response and treat it as Simon L2 has done with this one.
If you can't do that any more, folks, then this whole thing has gone too far. No amount of road safety debating is worth losing your sense of appropriateness and humour.
Sam
<font size="1"><font color="teal">The cross product of Tank Girl and Ellen Ripley:</font id="teal">
http://ravenfamily.org
<font color="purple">"<u>You</u> might remember that 'annoyed' is my natural state!"</font id="purple">
http://gentlemencyclists.org/clubhouse
<font color="purple">"Ya'd think we could just attract ants, like normal people."</font id="purple"></font id="size1">
http://ravenfamily.org
"You might remember that 'annoyed' is my natural state!"
http://gentlemencyclists.org
"Ya'd think we could just attracts ants, like normal people."0 -
I was taking Bonj's post seriously as he (IMO) truly believes in what he says Sam. The OP is trolling (IMO)
If you don't debate the merits, you will not change opinion !
"I\'d clean my car with a baby elephant - if I had a baby elephant !"0 -
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bobby Lightcycles</i>
I would like to see the following. Though you may not agree, please remember that this is a forum for constructive and civilised debate, and there is no need for personal attacks. It is enough merely to say "I disagree" or similar, followed by one or more reasons why. Thank you ever so much.
1. A modest and representative Road Fund Licence for cyclists. I know it's not something that's superficially attractive but I think it would be best in the long run. Firstly, it would pay for improvements like mine below. Secondly, it would give cyclists an equal claim to the road; at the moment, however you look at it, motorists pay to use the roads, and cyclists don't. I believe that this is the main reason (other than being comparatively slow and occasionally deliberately difficult) why cyclists are still viewed somewhat as "second class citizens".
We could have a licence for each cyclist, rather than each bicycle. This would give the additional advantage of the police being able to issue points for infractions such as jumping red lights, furious cycling, riding too fast, cycling at night without lights, intimidating pedestrians etc. I'm sure that those who are concerned about safety would agree that cyclists shouldn't be doing these things, and that it gives the rest of us a bad reputation. This is the perfect way to nip it in the bud.
Finally it would prevent the very poor from cycling. This is clearly beneficial, and they would only nick the bike anyway.
2. An underground and/or overground cycle network. There are some roads where, with the best will in the world, conditions are such that cyclists, pedestrians, cars and buses simply cannot coexist easily. Here it makes sense for cyclists to use other routes if possible. Often these other routes are indirect, hilly or otherwise inconvenient. This is absurd and terrible. The best solution would be to have an underground and/or overground cycle network. (Cyclists would be required to use these networks instead of the roads above/below them to minimise congestion.)
3. COMPULSORY HELMETS FOR CYCLISTS. I simply cannot see why anyone would argue with this. It is not just about keeping yourself safe; you may well accidentally headbutt someone (particularly if on a tandem or in a crowded street) as you fall down. They should be cheaper though. Maybe they will be if more people buy them.
Once everyone has got a helmet, I think it is worth considering requiring them to upgrade to motorcycle helmets, which are more effective.
4. There is no 4.
5. Generally bicycles are in my opinion too quiet. Other than pedestrians, they are the only essentially silent road users, and unlike pedestrians most of the time, third party injuries can result from people being unaware of their presence. I think the solution is to require cyclists to make a constant noise as they are travelling, to identify themselves. They could do this vocally or by buying an electronic sound effect box, which could be powered by dynamo. This would reduce accidents.
That's all I can think of for the moment, but if I come up with anything else, I'll let you know!
--
BOBBY LIGHTCYCLES MCFADDEN
ROAD SAFETY EXPERT
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><i></i><center></center>
Rurry Iriot!!!! [:p]
SIZE IS EVERYTHING! or at least that's what my LBS tells me.0 -
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by linfordlunchbox</i>
I was taking Bonj's post seriously as he (IMO) truly believes in what he says Sam. The OP is trolling (IMO)
If you don't debate the merits, you will not change opinion !
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't think any amount of debating is going to change bonj's opinion, and I don't think it really matters, given that we're talking about someone who professed the belief that we're going to escape global warming by tractor-beaming another planet close enough for us to move to it.
It is perfectly all right to get to the point of saying "it's not worth it". It shows a degree of maturity that is very valuable and highly prized -- not to mention relatively rare around here!
Sam
<font size="1"><font color="teal">The cross product of Tank Girl and Ellen Ripley:</font id="teal">
http://ravenfamily.org
<font color="purple">"<u>You</u> might remember that 'annoyed' is my natural state!"</font id="purple">
http://gentlemencyclists.org/clubhouse
<font color="purple">"Ya'd think we could just attract ants, like normal people."</font id="purple"></font id="size1">
http://ravenfamily.org
"You might remember that 'annoyed' is my natural state!"
http://gentlemencyclists.org
"Ya'd think we could just attracts ants, like normal people."0 -
Maturity be damned, the chap's a festering co<i></i>ck of sperm whale proportions... [;)]
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
Now I guess I'll have to tell 'em
That I got no cerebellum0 -
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Flying_Monkey</i>
Maturity be damned, the chap's a festering co<i></i>ck of sperm whale proportions... [;)]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
FM's obviously fresh from writing end of year reports on his students.[;)]0 -
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Ravenbait</i>
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by linfordlunchbox</i>
I was taking Bonj's post seriously as he (IMO) truly believes in what he says Sam. The OP is trolling (IMO)
If you don't debate the merits, you will not change opinion !
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't think any amount of debating is going to change bonj's opinion, and I don't think it really matters, given that we're talking about someone who professed the belief that we're going to escape global warming by tractor-beaming another planet close enough for us to move to it.
It is perfectly all right to get to the point of saying "it's not worth it". It shows a degree of maturity that is very valuable and highly prized -- not to mention relatively rare around here!
Sam
<font size="1"><font color="teal">The cross product of Tank Girl and Ellen Ripley:</font id="teal">
http://ravenfamily.org
<font color="purple">"<u>You</u> might remember that 'annoyed' is my natural state!"</font id="purple">
http://gentlemencyclists.org/clubhouse
<font color="purple">"Ya'd think we could just attract ants, like normal people."</font id="purple"></font id="size1">
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I doubt you thought anyone could change my opinion, so how come we share much common ground now (or closer than you think) ?
"I'd clean my car with a baby elephant - if I had a baby elephant !"
"I\'d clean my car with a baby elephant - if I had a baby elephant !"0
