Summer biking ban?

I wouldn't expect to have to learn to use car controls and drive a car
if I wanted to ride a bike. I wouldn't expect to learn how to drive a
lorry if I wanted to drive a car.

I don't see anything wrong with this at all. It wasn't what the OP
suggested though.

I think, yes.

IIIRC they cut the lifesaver out of the driver instruction in the uk so
now it's safe to rely on your mirrors. I hope I'm wrong since if I'm
not it's a bad move.

 

We knew they were electioneering on their pledge (1996 IIRC) to re
nationalise the railway. But it sounded so damned good...

 

Well, aren't they part way there now? I've not paid that much
attention.

All they need to do is either let the licenses expire or take the
services back and put these under the direct control of whoever now
controls railtrack- the strategic rail authority?

I used to enjoy using trains but over the last few years I now choose to
ride a bike from Bath to London to get onto the tube network rather than
using the train. Given this involves me changing into my suit in the
tube-station car park the problems with the train must be significant.

Of course, I could be a pervert that grasps the opportunity to
'accidentally' expose myself in public on a regular basis.

 

Indeed, and I'm not suggesting that you should.

I'm just thinking it through and seeing if I can come up with constructive
ideas.

Given that bikes, cars, and goods vehicles all have to share the road it
would seem to make sense that the training for all of them included
something to do with the practicalities of all other forms IYSWIM (which you
seem to from your comment above).

I took my car test in 1996, the life-saver wasn't called that, but it was
required for certain manouveurs (though not all). Personally I use it a lot
when I'm pootling about in my car, particularly when changing lanes (which
wasn't required during the test IIRC).

 

As is the term "disabled".

 

I don't think it is; it's not politically correct though.

 

The term "disabled" is not discriminatory.

However the action of treating an individual in a different manner,
usually so they are subjected to detriment, because of a disability is.

When you have a clue, I'd be more than happy to discuss the Disability
Discrimination Act. There is a clue there as to the legal acceptability
of the word "disability".

 

Why isn't it PC?
<fx: scratches head, being confused and not always all that good at PC>
It's used all over the show, in car parks, on badges, all sorts.
Be a bit of a bind if we suddenly had to change it everywhere to read "May
not have all bits working normally" or summat overnight.

 

I think the more patronising alternative is "less abled" or something.
Disabled is perfectly acceptable and correct.

 

Possibly- I think people try to use terms avoiding the word disabled;
like "impairment" or something similar. I've had difficult discussions
around something my crowd were doing for the RNID since they didn't want
to use terms 'deaf' or 'dumb'/'mute' and we went with "hearing impaired"
and/or 'speech impaired' IIRC.

 

Because some people are mindless fucking pricks

--
Veggie Dave
UKRMHRC#2 BOTAFOF#08
IQ 18 FILMS http://www.iq18films.com
V&S Extreme Photography http://www.bikehouse.demon.co.uk
Extreme Racing http://www.veggie-dave.co.uk
Put Out The Lights On The Age Of Reason

 

"Not quite all there", is much more broad fitting and descriptive.

--

Dave

GS 850 x2 / SE 6a
SbS#6 DIAABTCOD#16 APOSTLE#6 FUB#3
FUB KotL OSOS#12? UKRMMA#19

 

"Spaz" is quicker and more universal.

 

"Differently clumsy"

 

Fucked if I know. I prefer the term cripples (1)

(1) Outside of work obviously

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, pseudoplatypus

"Drool-gifted"

 

"Lingually fenestrated"

 

Can't we just stick with "Oi Joey!"

 

<shock>
I'm shaken to the very soles of my Trucker boots.

--

Dave

GS 850 x2 / SE 6a
SbS#6 DIAABTCOD#16 APOSTLE#6 FUB#3
FUB KotL OSOS#12? UKRMMA#19

 

in message

Methinks your assumption is correct. Can't remember where, but I have read
statistics which compares accidents against the number of bikes on the road
.... and guess what riding a bike today is tons safer than it was in the
sixties. What I would like to see is explicit statistics of who was at
fault in car/bike accidents. I have been told of such figures that show
that in over 90% if such incidents the fault lies with the car driver.
Dunno, maybe that's not right, but it would be interesting to see such
figures.


--
Martin -Yamaha XVS650A (Im a Norfolk boy ... nearest thing I could afford
to a tractor)

Norfolk n' good

www.rockdoctors.org.uk