BBC bike article / tv show

http://www.m4protest.org/

Looking at the pictures, it seems like a few bikes took part too.

 

If you are driving within the law [1] , not causing harm and derive pleasure
from doing so why should this be prevented.
For as long as there have been motor vehicles and roads they have been used
as a form of recreation.

[1] unlikely I know.
--
Alex

Hermes: "We can't afford that! Especially not Zoidberg!"
Zoidberg: "They took away my credit cards!"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk
www.sffh.co.uk
www.ebayfaq.co.uk

 

It's called a general election. If you don't like them, vote anything
but Labour.

 

Right, and you can take this as a bite as you're obviously too apolitical
to understand the ramifications but put simply: How are the other
parties going to be any different in this department?

We are living in a litigious society - great move by the Tories changing
the law that allowed this to start snowballing [1] - and the moves to
regulate are more an effort to protect the providers.

Rather than simply passing off what appears to be opinion gleaned from
the Mail and the Express [2] as your own, I'd have expected something a
little more well thought out from you, however these trite remarks are
appearing more often from your 'pen'.

So the question is, in all seriousness, how would you suggest solving the
problem and root cause of over regulation?


[1] Although they're trying to put this particular genie back in
the bottle now the insurers are beginning to squeak - none of
them, of course, having an interest in the Tory party...

[2] These papers are boring, mindless and mean.

 

It depends on what is actually meant by 'using the roads for
entertainment'.

If I want to go for a walk, I step out of my house, and walk, along the
pavement, admittedly

If I want to tkae the push bike out for a ride, purely for pleasure, I
use the roads. It would be illegal after all, to use the pavement.
Where is the problem with me going out for a pleasurable ride on my
pushbike? Of course, I stand a greater chance of injury or death now,
so perhaps I should be banned.

Same argument, if I feel like going for a quick ride around the
countryside. I want to get out, see the green, feel the space,
destress, etc. The only real difference is I am now petrol powered.

Why shouldn't I be allowed to do that?

--
John (jsp)

SV 650
Black it is
And Naked

 

We accuse business and decision makers of short termism yet we do it
ourselves, that and accepting anodyne opinions on political substance
passed off as original thought.

Doesn't really answer the question but this maybe food for thought
concerning the LDs policies on road regulation:

“"Road Safety is too important an issue to play politics with. The Tories
should stop pandering to their boy-racer instincts and start
concentrating on safety.”
http://www.libdems.org.uk/transport/story.html?id=8308&navPage=news.html

"People are still dying unnecessarily on our roads said Don Foster MP,
Liberal Democrat Shadow Transport Secretary, on the day that the
Department for Transport (DfT) announced the installation of more speed
cameras across Britain as DfT figures indicate roads with speed cameras
have seen a 35% drop in deaths and serious injuries. Mr Foster said:

"This Government has failed to take road safety seriously. A staggering
17,000 people have died on our roads since 1997 compared to fewer than
150 deaths on railways."
http://www.libdems.org.uk/news/story.html?id=4184&navPage=news.html

Go on - address the root cause of over-regulation?

 

I can't. I don't know enough. All I know is that if you don't like the
current set-up, the ballot box is your only recourse. Which is where I
came in.

 

One would have assumed, with you being a journalist, you would have done
some research.

 

Well he did return to racing in time to retain his title.

I watched it as well and wondered what point they were trying to make
when they trotted out the widow of the man who was killed riding his
motorcycle within the speedlimits and then went on to talk about how
dangerous speeding was.

Then they showed a police car following a bike which was following a car
at 92mph and they pulled only the bike, blatantly discriminating on the
basis of number of wheels.

"The number of people killed in Lothian and Borders has risen in the
past four years, from four in 2001 to seven in 2002 to nine in 2003 and
then six last year. "

While every death is a tragedy for someone it would appear that on the
scale of things it still isn't too big a problem, especially when far
more people will kill themselves in their own homes.


--
Martin:
"For a minute there, you bored me to death."
VTR1000 Firestorm
TDR250 http://ukrm.net/BIKES/Yamaha/tdr250.html
martin dot smith nine zero three at ntlworld dot com

 

<opens mouth, closes mouth etc, WUN-style>

 

Bear says...

My own personal view is that the majority will accept a gradual loss of
freedom. Its difficult to argue civil liberties when faced with a
pressure group holding a photo of a grieving widow and orphaned child.

Taking an example close to home, say somebody bins their ZX10R into a
bus stop full of school kids wiping say 10 out. How could you then
justify not banning a machine which will break every speed limit without
getting out of first, accelerates so fast that the front wheel doesn't
touch the ground until twice the national speed limit, grabbing the
brakes will cause the bike to flip over and crash horribly out of
control, all for less than the price of a Ford Focus.

"If it saves the life of one child" if a very emotive argument and one
which is very difficult to argue against.

 

Look At The Fucking View.

 

Quite. On the basis of that, we should ban homes, or issue licences to
live in them only when the prospective purchaser/renter has satisfied
the Committee that they are capable of living safely.

 

Bear says...

Couldn't agree more, but I feel its the way society is heading.

Little old ladies are better for that, wrinkles give better grip in poor
conditions.

 

And the house buyers report, the regulation of gas and electric work
will give lots of things to ban the homes for.

 

One would assume wrong. Research is for work. I don't like politics.

 

Heh, I suppose the same could be said of me I don't particularly /like/
driving trains and you won't see me on the Bluebell outside hours.

Having said that, trains - whether I like them or not - don't affect our
day to day lives in quite the same way as politics and if you're going to
make authorative statements about political matters, as you do, and then
say you can't back that opinion with any basis in fact because you 'don't
like politics' is somewhat comical.

 

True. But then this is ukrm....

 

What the Army, I'm told, regards as squaddie-proof. Not only robust,
durable and workable, but remaining so in the face of unimaginable
abuses. Is total-fucking-idiot-proof achievable?

Which reminds me, I overhead a retired RSM in the bar this week.
'150....Range Rover....herd of deer'. On enquiry, it wasn't Range Rover
- it was his bike on the ranges. He had, he said, looked at the speedo
to discover it somehow showing 150. He said hitting deer would only have
hurt if he'd survived.

 

Right. To have death, you have to have life. To start life, two other
people have to have to sex. Therefore, if sex is banned, [human] death
could be eliminated from say, the next century or earlier. Or wasn't
that what they meant?