Nuxx:MPG.25b5c5c79a3429809896eb@news.zen.co.uk

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!multikabel.net!newsfeed20.multikabel.net!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!prichard.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Guy Cuthbertson  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: QC defends filtering by cyclists. Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:34:02 -0000 References:  Lines: 23 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.9.14 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100111-0, 11/01/2010), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: 39a9106d.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=19e`G=cFZ\61go3CB\BWH;0g@SS;SF6n7R9OH0:RnEN4\C, simon@simonmason.karoo.co.uk says... > > Good riposte to a lorry driver who complained about cyclists passing him on > his *rhs* while he was stationary in traffic, including one by a Queen's > Counsel. > > http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/2112/001wju.jpg

So when there's ambiguity about whether a particular behaviour by cyclists is legal or not, you want it to be determined to be legal. Tell me, when there's ambiguity about whether a particular behaviour by motorists or motorcyclists is legal or not, do you want that to be ruled as legal as well, or do you think that making it illegal would be another useful "deterrent" to driving (as you admit that bus lanes are)?

And BTW, these "deterrents" to driving that you support: what about those who have no reasonable alternative but to drive? Why should they be continually and deliberately delayed just because you believe that those who *do* have an alternative should be bullied into making the "right" choice? Why not just improve public transport, thus meaning that people choose it anyway without any of this needless nastiness or negativity?