No wonder some cyclists are hated

On Mar 8, 10:06*am, "The Todal" > wrote:
> wrote:
> > QUOTE:
> > A Liberal Democrat MP has failed in her attempt to introduce a law
> > that would have made it compulsory for children aged 13 years and
> > below to wear helmets while cycling. The proposed legislation,
> > officially the Cycles (Protective Headgear for Children) Bill 2010-11
> > will be shelved after it failed to receive a second reading last week.
>
> > Annette Brooke, MP for Mid Dorset and Poole North, had presented her
> > bill to the House of Commons in July, but the planned legislation
> > seemed doomed from the start since it contradicted government policy,
> > as well as that of her own party, not to introduce helmet compulsion.
>
> >http://road.cc/content/news/47552-mp...elmets-compuls...
>
> Good. *Glad it has been shelved. *Now, a far better law would be one which
> obliges children under 13 to undergo cycling proficiency training and to
> pass a test. That was standard practice in my day, in the 1960s (not
> compulsory of course) but I doubt if anyone expects kids to do this now, and
> our roads are more dangerous than they were.

You need to talk to Tom Crispin about Bikeability then.
--
Simon Mason

On Mar 8, 12:24*pm, Simon Mason > wrote:
> On Mar 8, 10:38*am, thirty-six > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 9:43*am, wrote:
>
> > > QUOTE:
> > > A Liberal Democrat MP has failed in her attempt to introduce a law
> > > that would have made it compulsory for children aged 13 years and
> > > below to wear helmets while cycling. The proposed legislation,
> > > officially the Cycles (Protective Headgear for Children) Bill 2010-11
> > > will be shelved after it failed to receive a second reading last week..
>
> > > Annette Brooke, MP for Mid Dorset and Poole North, had presented her
> > > bill to the House of Commons in July, but the planned legislation
> > > seemed doomed from the start since it contradicted government policy,
> > > as well as that of her own party, not to introduce helmet compulsion.
>
> > > At the time, Ms Brookes said: "The law will not criminalise those
> > > cycling without helmets, instead requiring proof of purchase of a
> > > helmet within 28 days to avoid a fine.
>
> > > "We have a duty to protect our children, and the Cycles (Protective
> > > Headgear for Children) Bill will do just that. Brain injury devastates
> > > the lives of individuals and their families. Children are at a higher
> > > risk because not only are their brains not fully developed but they
> > > are less experienced at cycling and on the roads in general."
>
> > > The bill had the support of groups including the Bicycle Helmet
> > > Initiative Trust, road safety charity Brake, the British Medical
> > > Association, the Child Accident Prevention Trust and the Child Brain
> > > Injury Trust.
>
> > > Cycling campaigners were opposed to the proposed legislation, with
> > > CTC’s campaigns director Roger Geffen saying at the time: "Where
> > > attempted elsewhere, enforcing a legal requirement to wear cycle
> > > helmets has led to dramatic reductions in cycle use – typically around
> > > a third, but with much higher reductions among children teenagers.
> > > This amounts to a serious loss of cycling’s health, environmental and
> > > other benefits."
>
> > > He continued: "Helmet use in Britain remains relatively low,
> > > particularly among more disadvantaged areas and social groups.
> > > Policing helmet laws would exacerbate tensions with the police in
> > > these communities, while the money involved would be better spent
> > > tackling road traffic offences which cause danger, rather than blaming
> > > the most vulnerable road users for not wearing protective headgear of
> > > doubtful effectiveness."
>
> > >http://road.cc/content/news/47552-mp...elmets-compuls....
>
> > > --
> > > Simon Mason
>
> > Hooray. * It's bad enough the recommendation to wear a helmet, it
> > stops my nephew from riding because his father insists he wears a
> > polstyrene cap. *When he bashes his head then he'll be more careful in
> > future. *The greater awareness which comes after a head bump that
> > raises an egg will do more to protect a rider than 1/2" of puffed
> > plastic. *And what about knees?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Of course, A+E chastised me about not wearing a helmet after I bust a
> *collar bone*.
> They spent more time over that than treating the injury.
>
> --
> Simon Mason

I hope you wrote to your MP about such a waste of public resources.

On Mar 8, 12:10*pm, "Mr Benn" > wrote:
> "thirty-six" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Mar 8, 9:40 am, "Mr Benn" > wrote:
> >> A video of Stevenage Cycling Club members deliberately blocking the road.
> >> Why do they do this?
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpDJFDLUiQU
>
> > O.K. I've looked now. I saw a car pass them at 3 seconds into the
> > video, what makes you think they were blocking the road, they kept to
> > the left of centre despite there not being a hazard line and there was
> > still sufficient space for cars to pass? *What do you think they were
> > obstructing (to use the legal term)? *It seems to me, Mr Benn, you are
> > deluded, what a very simple fellow you are, you are, what a very
> > simple fellow you are!
>
> And you are a psycholist

No, I'm a motorist and would have no problem in moving to the right
side of the road and giving a toot of the horn, pausing to see they
didn't fall at the shock of it, before easing my foot down to pass
safely.

On Mar 8, 1:19*pm, "Mr Benn" > wrote:
> thirty-six" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Mar 8, 9:40 am, "Mr Benn" > wrote:
> >> A video of Stevenage Cycling Club members deliberately blocking the road.
> >> Why do they do this?
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpDJFDLUiQU
>
> > O.K. I've looked now. I saw a car pass them at 3 seconds into the
> > video
>
> Narrowly missing the **** cycling in the middle of the road.
>
> There was insufficient space for the car following the cyclists to pass them

Really, how come an oncoming car driver managed it, prick!

> safely. *As this was a narrower road, the cyclists should have ridden in
> single file to make it easier for the car to pass them. *They could then

How f'ing hard could it be, use the f'ing steering wheel, prick!

> have resumed riding two-abreast once the car had passed. *The Highway code
> recommends cycling in single file on narrower roads.

The highway code recommends you pass on the right.

>
> This is a perfect example of cyclist behaving inconsiderately towards other
> road users. *Is it any wonder than so many driver hate cyclists like these?

No, it's a perfect example of a motorist imagining things because he
is an objectional prick!

> Consideration for other road users goes both ways.

Use the f'ing road prick! There's two side to that too!

>
> *> what makes you think they were blocking the road, they kept to
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > the left of centre despite there not being a hazard line and there was
> > still sufficient space for cars to pass? *What do you think they were
> > obstructing (to use the legal term)? *It seems to me, Mr Benn, you are
> > deluded, what a very simple fellow you are, you are, what a very
> > simple fellow you are!

On Mar 8, 11:51*am, thirty-six > wrote:
> On Mar 8, 9:40*am, "Mr Benn" > wrote:
>
> > A video of Stevenage Cycling Club members deliberately blocking the road.
> > Why do they do this?
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpDJFDLUiQU
>
> O.K. I've looked now. I saw a car pass them at 3 seconds into the
> video, what makes you think they were blocking the road, they kept to
> the left of centre despite there not being a hazard line and there was
> still sufficient space for cars to pass? *What do you think they were
> obstructing (to use the legal term)? *It seems to me, Mr Benn, you are
> deluded, what a very simple fellow you are, you are, what a very
> simple fellow you are!

They were preventing the vehicle FROM BEHIND passing them.

McK.

"thirty-six" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 8, 1:19 pm, "Mr Benn" > wrote:
>> thirty-six" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > On Mar 8, 9:40 am, "Mr Benn" > wrote:
>> >> A video of Stevenage Cycling Club members deliberately blocking the
>> >> road.
>> >> Why do they do this?
>>
>> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpDJFDLUiQU
>>
>> > O.K. I've looked now. I saw a car pass them at 3 seconds into the
>> > video
>>
>> Narrowly missing the **** cycling in the middle of the road.
>>
>> There was insufficient space for the car following the cyclists to pass
>> them
>
> Really, how come an oncoming car driver managed it, prick!
>
>> safely. As this was a narrower road, the cyclists should have ridden in
>> single file to make it easier for the car to pass them. They could then
>
> How f'ing hard could it be, use the f'ing steering wheel, prick!
>
>> have resumed riding two-abreast once the car had passed. The Highway
>> code
>> recommends cycling in single file on narrower roads.
>
> The highway code recommends you pass on the right.
>
>>
>> This is a perfect example of cyclist behaving inconsiderately towards
>> other
>> road users. Is it any wonder than so many driver hate cyclists like
>> these?
>
> No, it's a perfect example of a motorist imagining things because he
> is an objectional prick!
>
>> Consideration for other road users goes both ways.
>
> Use the f'ing road prick! There's two side to that too!

The driver should have rammed the *******s, That would teach 'em lesson!

On Mar 8, 2:08 pm, Kim Bolton > wrote:
> The Todal wrote:
> wrote:
> >> QUOTE:
> >> A Liberal Democrat MP has failed in her attempt to introduce a law
> >> that would have made it compulsory for children aged 13 years and
> >> below to wear helmets while cycling. The proposed legislation,
> >> officially the Cycles (Protective Headgear for Children) Bill 2010-11
> >> will be shelved after it failed to receive a second reading last week.
> >http://www.metro.co.uk/news/892453-h...ajor-bike-acci...
>
> >‘Looking at evidence, it does not matter if people are wearing a helmet or
> >not, any serious accident on a bike is likely to kill them,’ said Dr Carwyn
> >Hooper, from St George’s University of London. His team pointed to evidence
> >in Australia where 80 per cent of cyclists killed or seriously injured were
> >wearing helmets. However, he said children should be made to wear them
> >because helmets can protect them from minor crashes and tumbles which they
> >are more prone to.
>
> If safety was the real concern of the proposed legislation. then it
> might have proved to be more effective if under-13s (if not under-18s,
> as children were mentioned) were banned from using bicycles in public,
> bearing in mind the evidence mentioned above.
>

Would that include Bikeability lessons for eight year olds on public
roads outside of schools though?

--
Simon Mason

On Mar 8, 2:11*pm, "Mr Benn" > wrote:
> "thirty-six" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 1:19 pm, "Mr Benn" > wrote:
> >> thirty-six" > wrote in message
>
> ....
>
> >> > On Mar 8, 9:40 am, "Mr Benn" > wrote:
> >> >> A video of Stevenage Cycling Club members deliberately blocking the
> >> >> road.
> >> >> Why do they do this?
>
> >> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpDJFDLUiQU
>
> >> > O.K. I've looked now. I saw a car pass them at 3 seconds into the
> >> > video
>
> >> Narrowly missing the **** cycling in the middle of the road.
>
> >> There was insufficient space for the car following the cyclists to pass
> >> them
>
> > Really, how come an oncoming car driver managed it, prick!
>
> >> safely. *As this was a narrower road, the cyclists should have ridden in
> >> single file to make it easier for the car to pass them. *They could then
>
> > How f'ing hard could it be, use the f'ing steering wheel, prick!
>
> >> have resumed riding two-abreast once the car had passed. *The Highway
> >> code
> >> recommends cycling in single file on narrower roads.
>
> > The highway code recommends you pass on the right.
>
> >> This is a perfect example of cyclist behaving inconsiderately towards
> >> other
> >> road users. *Is it any wonder than so many driver hate cyclists like
> >> these?
>
> > No, it's a perfect example of a motorist imagining things because he
> > is an objectional prick!
>
> >> Consideration for other road users goes both ways.
>
> > Use the f'ing road prick! *There's two side to that too!
>
> The driver should have rammed the *******s, *That would teach 'em lesson!

Which *******s are you refering to Mr Benn, next door?

On Mar 8, 2:10*pm, McKevvy > wrote:
> On Mar 8, 11:51*am, thirty-six > wrote:
>
> > On Mar 8, 9:40*am, "Mr Benn" > wrote:
>
> > > A video of Stevenage Cycling Club members deliberately blocking the road.
> > > Why do they do this?
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpDJFDLUiQU
>
> > O.K. I've looked now. I saw a car pass them at 3 seconds into the
> > video, what makes you think they were blocking the road, they kept to
> > the left of centre despite there not being a hazard line and there was
> > still sufficient space for cars to pass? *What do you think they were
> > obstructing (to use the legal term)? *It seems to me, Mr Benn, you are
> > deluded, what a very simple fellow you are, you are, what a very
> > simple fellow you are!
>
> They were preventing the vehicle FROM BEHIND passing them.
>
> McK.

Where they f56k. There was plenty of room to their right, which is
why an oncoming car could easily pass. The evidence is clear to see
for all but the blind or deluded.

On Mar 8, 2:10*pm, McKevvy > wrote:
> On Mar 8, 11:51*am, thirty-six > wrote:
>
> > On Mar 8, 9:40*am, "Mr Benn" > wrote:
>
> > > A video of Stevenage Cycling Club members deliberately blocking the road.
> > > Why do they do this?
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpDJFDLUiQU
>
> > O.K. I've looked now. I saw a car pass them at 3 seconds into the
> > video, what makes you think they were blocking the road, they kept to
> > the left of centre despite there not being a hazard line and there was
> > still sufficient space for cars to pass? *What do you think they were
> > obstructing (to use the legal term)? *It seems to me, Mr Benn, you are
> > deluded, what a very simple fellow you are, you are, what a very
> > simple fellow you are!
>
> They were preventing the vehicle FROM BEHIND passing them.
>
> McK.

So were this lot yesterday :-)

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

--

Simon Mason