Lawbreaking cyclists

I THOUGHT we were living in a democracy? A place where majority decision
rules? So let us consider cyclists. I have yet to hear of a cyclist that
rides according to the law. Every single one I see cuts through red lights
like a knife through butter. It is almost as if they do this to target
pedestrians deliberately, as they then switch straight on to the pavement,
and then back and forth to the road.

Let's consider the law? It's illegal to ride without lights. It's illegal to
ride without a helmet and high visibility clothes. It's illegal to ride more
than 30cm from the kerb. It's illegal to ride the wrong way down one-way
streets, to squeeze past standing traffic, pavement ride and run the lights.
Rule 169 of the Highway Code also insists that cyclists must give way to
motorists as they are faster. £20 billion of damage to business is caused by
traffic jams and cyclists are the main cause.

The government has said that it plans to throw a whopping £26 million at
these rogues "to make them safer." How about spending some money on the poor
down-trodden motorist?

I propose a vote, since we're living in a democracy. I propose we have a
referendum on cycling (even if it is just a local one that results in a
by-law) and we vote to outlaw bicycles for good. No good can come of them.
Why bother to complain about road tax and insurance? They won't pay it even
if it gets made into law. Who knows how many pedestrians they have killed
and injured over the years? There are more motorists than cyclists, it makes
perfect sense to just ban them!

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Let-s...ail/story.html

QUOTE:
Nearly two and a half years after Mayor of London Boris Johnson
ordered Transport for London (TfL) to axe funding for the Metropolitan
Police’s Commercial Vehicle Education Unit, forcing it to close, he
and TfL have announced today that they have made additional funding
available to the police unit that replaced it.

The press release, which also provides an update on the Fleet Operator
Recognition Scheme (FORS) and training given to lorry drivers working
on the Crossrail project, makes no mention of that October 2009
decision.

However, with cycle safety high on the agenda ahead of May’s London
mayoral elections – this evening, hundreds of cyclists will
participate in a flashride in Westminster – Mr Johnson’s opponents are
likely to seize upon today’s announcement as an admission that he got
it wrong.

After the CVEU was disbanded following that cut in funding, the
Metropolitan Police reconstituted it as the Commercial Vehicle Unit,
operating out of Alperton in North West London. However, it has lacked
the resources and the manpower that the CVEU previously enjoyed.

Now, however, TfL has confirmed that since December it has been
funding an additional six officers at what it terms the Commercial
Vehicle Task Force – no such body is mentioned on the Metropolitan
Police’s own website, which instead refers to the Commercial Vehicle
Unit – while money has also been provided for two extra officers in
the Road Crime Intelligence Unit.

At the time the funding to the CVEU was discontinued, Mr Johnson said
that he believed the voluntary Freight Operators’ Recognition Scheme,
recently renamed the Fleet Operator Recognition scheme (FORS) would
provide an adequate safeguard to protect vulnerable road users such as
cyclists and pedestrians.

However, many see the FORS as inherently flawed because, as a
voluntary scheme, its very nature means that it is likely to attract
those operators that already place a heavy emphasis on health and
safety and adhering to applicable regulations, but not those best
described as ‘fly-by-night’ operators that are less concerned with
adhering to the law.

Indeed, in May 2010, Charlie Lloyd of the London Cycling Campaign
(LCC), himself a former lorry driver, pointed out: “It's for these
people that the police need expert powers to pursue them until they
comply with the law."

In fact, figures released by TfL today that it claims demonstrate the
success of take-up of FORS show that operators of the majority of the
commercial vehicles on London’s roads – more than two in every three
vans and lorries regularly operating in the city – are not signed up
to the scheme.

According to TfL, 1,020 operators responsible for 98,380 vehicles –
equivalent, it says, to 28.2 per cent of London’s regular freight –
have signed up to the FORS; by coincidence, between 2005 and its
disbandment in 2009, the CVEU discovered that 70 per cent of the
vehicles it checked were defective.

Those figures, which together add up to nearly 100 per cent, suggest
that exactly as Lloyd warned – and according to LCC, it was a view
also supported by the haulage industry and drivers’ unions – the FORS
is missing out on the irresponsible firms that the CVEU previously
targeted.

It’s true that TfL is providing funding for lorry drivers to undergo
cycle awareness training, and that more businesses are signing up to
the FORS – indeed, part of today’s announcement concerns news that
eight firms have become the first to reach the scheme’s gold standard
– but as it currently stands, concerns will quite rightly remain that
it is being ignored by those operators that most need policing.

In that regard, at least, the additional funding provided by TfL to
the Metropolitan Police should help. The Road Crime Intelligence Unit,
which has gained two officers thanks to TfL funding, works alongside
agencies including the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) and
Department for Transport to collate information and help catch
dangerous or unlicensed operators in the capital.

The duties of the Commercial Vehicle Unit, meanwhile, include
enforcing the law and providing training to operators of lorries, vans
and other commercial vehicles throughout London, including
investigating drivers involved in collisions that have resulted in
death of or injury to cyclists.

Quoted in today’s press release – you can read the full text here – Mr
Johnson said: “I am determined to improve road safety and demanding
the highest standards from freight companies is a key part of this.

“Some companies are leading the way in showing what can be achieved,
but this needs to be reflected across the industry,” he added.

“To play our part, we are providing training for thousands of lorry
and truck drivers and investing in more police officers to clamp down
on shoddy, illegal drivers,” Mr Johnson concluded.

Jenny Jones, the Green Party's candidate in the forthcoming mayoral
election, told road.cc: "I welcome the Mayor's u-turn on funding for
extra police to deal with road crime, which follows two years of
uncertainty and cuts to the Traffic Police. The new Commissioner has
brought more focus to the Met's work on illegal vehicles and I hope
this leads to a reversal of the cuts to Met Police traffic officers.

She added: "Good progress is being made on signing companies up to the
freight operators' scheme and it's a relief that the current Mayor has
continued this initiative which started under the previous
administration. The problem remains trying to reach the many small
operators and haulage firms who are both tucked away and also have the
worst safety record."

http://road.cc/content/news/53006-bo...rs-after-axing

--
Simon Mason

On 2012-03-03, Mr. Benn > wrote:
> I THOUGHT we were living in a democracy? A place where majority decision
> rules?

Tyranny of the majority. How quaint. 51% decide to take everything the
other 49% have, or murder them outright. That's the essence of
"democracy".

> So let us consider cyclists. I have yet to hear of a cyclist that
> rides according to the law.

I do. And ****es of drivers like you far more than any POB. Why? Because
your hate has nothing to do with the law.

"Brent" wrote in message ...

On 2012-03-03, Mr. Benn > wrote:
> I THOUGHT we were living in a democracy? A place where majority decision
> rules?

Tyranny of the majority. How quaint. 51% decide to take everything the
other 49% have, or murder them outright. That's the essence of
"democracy".

> So let us consider cyclists. I have yet to hear of a cyclist that
> rides according to the law.

I do. And ****es of drivers like you far more than any POB. Why? Because
your hate has nothing to do with the law.
==============================================

I am a normal cyclist and I only hate militant cyclists (psycholists).

BTW, cyclists make up far less than 49% of road users - more like 0.5% in
most places.

On Mar 3, 7:33 am, Brent > wrote:

>
> > So let us consider cyclists. I have yet to hear of a cyclist that
> > rides according to the law.
>
> I do. And ****es of drivers like you far more than any POB. Why? Because
> your hate has nothing to do with the law.

So do I.
Look, even in the middle of the night, I wait at three red lights, while a
truck drives straight over a pedestrian crossing at red.
All caught on my camera.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/rlj6.wmv

--
Simon Mason

On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 07:36:51 -0000, "Mr. Benn" > wrote:

>I am a normal cyclist

Do you ride on pavements, disobey red traffic signals and ride the
wrong way down one-way streets?

On 03/03/2012 09:04, Bertie Wooster wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 07:36:51 -0000, "Mr. > wrote:
>
>> I am a normal cyclist
>
> Do you ride on pavements, disobey red traffic signals and ride the
> wrong way down one-way streets?

Simon Mason does. He has even posted video evidence of himself doing them (at
least two out of the three and very possibly all three).

On Mar 3, 6:35*am, "Mr. Benn" > wrote:
>
> Let's consider the law? It's illegal to ride without lights. It's illegal to
> ride without a helmet and high visibility clothes. It's illegal to ride more
> than 30cm from the kerb. It's illegal to ride the wrong way down one-way
> streets, to squeeze past standing traffic, pavement ride and run the lights.
> Rule 169 of the Highway Code also insists that cyclists must give way to
> motorists as they are faster. £20 billion of damage to business is caused by
> traffic jams and cyclists are the main cause.
>
> Who knows how many pedestrians they have killed
> and injured over the years?

My calender must be a month slow.

On 2012-03-03, Mr. Benn > wrote:
> "Brent" wrote in message ...
>
> On 2012-03-03, Mr. Benn > wrote:
>> I THOUGHT we were living in a democracy? A place where majority decision
>> rules?
>
> Tyranny of the majority. How quaint. 51% decide to take everything the
> other 49% have, or murder them outright. That's the essence of
> "democracy".
>
>> So let us consider cyclists. I have yet to hear of a cyclist that
>> rides according to the law.
>
> I do. And ****es of drivers like you far more than any POB. Why? Because
> your hate has nothing to do with the law.
>==============================================
>
> I am a normal cyclist and I only hate militant cyclists (psycholists).
>
> BTW, cyclists make up far less than 49% of road users - more like 0.5% in
> most places.

In a democracy that means that if the majority wants to kill them,
that's a-ok.

"Brent" wrote in message ...

On 2012-03-03, Mr. Benn > wrote:
> "Brent" wrote in message ...
>
> On 2012-03-03, Mr. Benn > wrote:
>> I THOUGHT we were living in a democracy? A place where majority decision
>> rules?
>
> Tyranny of the majority. How quaint. 51% decide to take everything the
> other 49% have, or murder them outright. That's the essence of
> "democracy".
>
>> So let us consider cyclists. I have yet to hear of a cyclist that
>> rides according to the law.
>
> I do. And ****es of drivers like you far more than any POB. Why? Because
> your hate has nothing to do with the law.
>==============================================
>
> I am a normal cyclist and I only hate militant cyclists (psycholists).
>
> BTW, cyclists make up far less than 49% of road users - more like 0.5% in
> most places.

In a democracy that means that if the majority wants to kill them,
that's a-ok.
=========================

Absolutely not.