Nuxx:92071b91-5f70-4f7d-9e85-63582296a85f@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <92071b91-5f70-4f7d-9e85-63582296a85f@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Laws Shouldn't Apply to Cyclists... Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 11:20:25 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 20 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.154.123.12 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1241202026 9114 127.0.0.1 (1 May 2009 18:20:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 18:20:26 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.154.123.12; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 2299 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:698821

...because they're using a "morally superior" form of transport. Equally, laws should be enforced without discretion and in draconian, conveyer-belt fashion against motorists at every possible opportunity, because they're using an "illegitimate" form of transport and shouldn't really be driving at all (unless they're important, like Crapman, aka the group moderator who no-one's actually voted for).

Laws which are ostensibly about safety should not only be enforced for safety's sake, they should also be used as a tool to "encourage" people to cycle and use public transport. Furthermore, restrictions which enable these laws to be enforced should be applied with this in mind (so speed limits should be lowered even when there's no safety- related reason to do so, and restrictions on cyclists should be eased even when doing so would be dangerous, as both of these things will encourage modal shift, and that's a more important priority than saving lives).

The above is quite obviously the thrust behind a lot of what is said by certain parties on this newsgroup. Are any of them going to have the backbone to admit that it's what they actually think?