Originally Posted by lawed143

I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for an answer….. The opposers haven’t got a clue..

Just to put you right, I am NOT opposed to either cyclists or cycling. What I don’t agree with is, financial resources being wasted on cycle lanes that won’t, in the main be utilised.

For many years, all drivers, car, lorry, and bus, have had to prove their competence to drive by passing a test. In the case of lorry and bus drivers, they have to undergo further ongoing training, and from the age of 45, have to pass a medical every five years.
Cyclists on the other hand, can just go out, buy a bike, and take straight to the open road. Unlike drivers, they aren’t required to take out any form of insurance, and the general rules of the road don’t seem to apply. Now, the likes of you and the other anti vehicle loonies on here, expect Joe Public to finance separate tarmac, to basically, save them from themselves. Instead of wasting money on cycle lanes, I would advocate putting the resources into rider training, testing, and enforcement, and only allowing cyclists to take to the roads once they have proven that they are safe to do so.

Originally Posted by justbecause

and the general rules of the road don’t seem to apply.

The rules of the road do apply to cyclists. The fact they are rarely enforced is another matter. But there are countless transgressions of the rules by drivers every day that are not enforced either despite the qualifications they have.
If everyone drove in the safe manner in which they were taught then cyclists wouldn't need the protection of seperate lanes.

Originally Posted by justbecause

So you think the views and wishes of the residents should simply be ignored do you?

Yes if they came from the same IP address, you only get one vote

Originally Posted by onehorsetown2

Yes if they came from the same IP address, you only get one vote

There are four of us in this house, should we only be allowed one vote between us?

Originally Posted by salus.populi

The rules of the road do apply to cyclists. The fact they are rarely enforced is another matter. But there are countless transgressions of the rules by drivers every day that are not enforced either despite the qualifications they have.
If everyone drove in the safe manner in which they were taught then cyclists wouldn't need the protection of seperate lanes.

No mention that cyclists too should ride in a safe manner.

Originally Posted by justbecause

Instead of wasting money on cycle lanes, I would advocate putting the resources into rider training, testing, and enforcement, and only allowing cyclists to take to the roads once they have proven that they are safe to do so.

No amount of training or testing, however thoroughly it is done, can save a skilled rider - when some drunken nerd in a car ploughs into him/her from behind - duh!

Originally Posted by onehorsetown2

Yes if they came from the same IP address, you only get one vote

There are ways to cut down 'voter fraud' usually with cookies,the easiest is by collecting email addresses.

Originally Posted by The PNP

No amount of training or testing, however thoroughly it is done, can save a skilled rider - when some drunken nerd in a car ploughs into him/her from behind - duh!

Might I just remind you of your post #289 on the Bedtime Reading thread. It was your reply to Stuarli’s accusation that you hate all car drivers. Just in case you’ve forgotten, I’ve pasted it below.

B) That's just silly, imo a friendlier person than me would be hard to find. I always treat people I meet with respect, whatever transport mode they choose - why on earth would I 'hate' them?

Your comment above is absolutely disgraceful, and DOES highlight your utter contempt and hatred of car drivers.
You are a vile disgusting little man with a huge chip on your shoulder, and your endless and relentless hatred of the motorist does the cycling fraternity no favours whatsoever.

Originally Posted by justbecause

Your comment above is absolutely disgraceful, and DOES highlight your utter contempt and hatred of car drivers.
You are a vile disgusting little man with a huge chip on your shoulder, and your endless and relentless hatred of the motorist does the cycling fraternity no favours whatsoever.

Unlike yourself, I have no sympathy at all for drunk drivers. To call them 'nerds' is letting them off way too lightly......why can't they get a taxi - duh!

Imo, it's a far greater disgrace, to get pi$$*d-up, then attempt to drive a potentially lethal device like a 2-ton 130mph automobile, putting the rest of us road-users at risk!

If someone can't leave alcohol alone, they shouldn't be allowed to have a car - end of!

Originally Posted by The PNP

Unlike yourself, I have no sympathy at all for drunk drivers. To call them 'nerds' is letting them off way too lightly......why can't they get a taxi - duh!

Imo, it's a far greater disgrace, to get pi$$*d-up, then attempt to drive a potentially lethal device like a 2-ton 130mph automobile, putting the rest of us road-users at risk!

If someone can't leave alcohol alone, they shouldn't be allowed to have a car - end of!

You really are a prick. Where have I ever, ever stated that I have sympathy for drink drivers. There was not a single post remotely mentioning drink driving until I made a suggestion that cyclists should have to prove their competence before being allowed on the road. You immediately turned my comment on its head by saying training cyclists wouldn’t save them from a drunk driver. It was a disgusting, crass comment for which you should be banned from the site.

Originally Posted by justbecause

No mention that cyclists too should ride in a safe manner.

You didn't read my first sentence then.

Originally Posted by justbecause

You really are a prick. Where have I ever, ever stated that I have sympathy for drink drivers. There was not a single post remotely mentioning drivers until I made a suggestion that cyclists should have to prove their competence before being allowed on the road. You immediately turned my comment on its head by saying training cyclists wouldn’t save them from a drunk driver. It was a disgusting, crass comment for which you should be banned from the site.

So you're saying a trained cyclist is somehow immune from being wiped out from behind by a drunk at the wheel?

Originally Posted by justbecause

You really are a prick. Where have I ever, ever stated that I have sympathy for drink drivers. There was not a single post remotely mentioning drink driving until I made a suggestion that cyclists should have to prove their competence before being allowed on the road. You immediately turned my comment on its head by saying training cyclists wouldn’t save them from a drunk driver. It was a disgusting, crass comment for which you should be banned from the site.

A cyclist requires no driving test no road insurance, or test certificate,no road tax,bin the cycle lanes.

Originally Posted by tony 2 day

A cyclist requires no driving test no road insurance, or test certificate,no road tax,bin the cycle lanes.

No insurance? Most cyclists are covered by their home insurance. Also a lot have British Cycling or Club insurance.
Road Tax? Hasn't existed since 1937. You mean emissions tax. Some cars pay zero too. Go figure.
Driving Test? Its a driving test....the clue is in the title.
Test Certificate? No law requiring one.

If youre so concerned about all these issues, surely its better to have separate infrastructure in place to take away the danger you (incorrectly) perceive. Dumb...

I see the Consultation has been extended until mid-December, because those silly residents overwhelmingly voted 'NO' to this scheme and the Councillors in favour of it need the time to rally more sheep to vote for it.