Re: More anti-cyclist drivel in the Times
- From: "Trundler" <a_trundlerNEEDS_REMOVING@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 11:14:36 -0000
"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
news:dq1d4f$ejg$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> More anti-cycling, ill-informed rantings on the Times at
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1979274,00.html
Some of it, perhaps, as a reaction to some of the anti-car, "ill-informed
rantings" which appeared there recently.
>
>
> P I Kirk obviously knows nothing about time trials as riding three abreast
> is verboten - it'll get you disqualified!
The rest of his points are perfectly valid though, I think you will agree.
> D Eyley does the bit about bicycles being toys... plus the usual lies on
> tax & drivel on licensing.
You accuse him of lying on tax - you must point out exactly which part of
his letter is a lie, and about which tax.
> And some fool QC saying the roads are too dangerous...
>From what I have read in this forum many contributors agree that roads are
too dangerous, and that much needs to be done to make cycling safer.
> Can someone else get something published to counter the ignorant, please!
Madam, to suggest that views and opinions contrary to your own are
"ignorant" is, at the very least, disingenuous. A more honourable tactic
would be to present a contrary argument demonstrating the superior rationale
behind your own views.
> Nice one from a Mr Rossall though.
Yes, I too support the notion that all cyclists should be underwritten when
out in public.
Please don't misunderstand my motives for joining this discussion. I support
(both financially and practically) cycling as a serious and worthy transport
mode. I do, however, distinguish between cycling as a means of transport,
and cycling as a hobby or 'sport'. As a means of transport cycling should be
encouraged and facilitated in every way possible, taking lessons from places
such as The Netherlands, where they seem to know how it should be done, and
with, probably no charge, at the point of use. Hobby/sport cycling though,
on the public highway, should be treated as motor car driving is. I would
not expect to be allowed to use a public resource, and cause inconvenience,
and possibly danger, to other users without paying a fee (such as I do to
use public swimming baths), and certainly not without ensuring public
liability insurance was in place, and any competetive activity or race
should require the roads to be closed to normal use, and the associated
costs being covered.
A.T.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: More anti-cyclist drivel in the Times
- From: Alan Holmes
- Re: More anti-cyclist drivel in the Times
- From: John_Kane
- Re: More anti-cyclist drivel in the Times
- From: Trundler
- Re: More anti-cyclist drivel in the Times
- From: Simon Brooke
- Re: More anti-cyclist drivel in the Times
- From: Adrian Boliston
- Re: More anti-cyclist drivel in the Times
- From: davek
- Re: More anti-cyclist drivel in the Times
- From: MartinM
- Re: More anti-cyclist drivel in the Times
- From: David Martin
- Re: More anti-cyclist drivel in the Times
- From: Richard
- Re: More anti-cyclist drivel in the Times
- References:
- More anti-cyclist drivel in the Times
- From: wafflycat
- More anti-cyclist drivel in the Times
- Prev by Date: Re: Replacement advice needed
- Next by Date: Re: Replacement advice needed
- Previous by thread: Re: More anti-cyclist drivel in the Times
- Next by thread: Re: More anti-cyclist drivel in the Times
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|