Skubarra Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 I tend to disagree.If we where made to pay a bicycle licence it should send out a clear message to other road users that we are allowed to be there and have paid for our space. I agree with Patches earlier statement that this is a frivolous argument The real issue has never been that cyclists don't pay license fees, it is just a convenient stick to smack us with. If we start paying license fees they'll just move on to the next argument on why we are really "lesser" road users.
Guest ToxicD Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 We already do have the right to use the road.... Perhaps it will change "some" motorists views, and in line with my previous statements, we should tackle this from all angles, and perhaps this in another one. I would certainly purchase a license if we needed too. I just believe that in this case, this moany man is using it as excuse to justify his dislike for cyclists. I agree that I will buy one if it will get them to complain less... I doubt it will make any difference in the amount of cyclists being knocked down regardless of the piece of paper in your wallet
Guest ToxicD Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 I agree with Patches earlier statement that this is a frivolous argument The real issue has never been that cyclists don't pay license fees, it is just a convenient stick to smack us with. If we start paying license fees they'll just move on to the next argument on why we are really "lesser" road users. Point ... Paying more entitle you to more road. (You heard it here 1st kids)
Patchelicious Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 I am back! What did I miss?A lot of good constructive conversation, don't **** it up now.
Quagga Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 Bicycle are not the same as cars/motorbikes/lorries/donkey carts, therefore some laws will be specific to a particular mode of transport. Not every law could or should be implemented across the board. But that is what I am trying to understand, why is it illegal for cyclist to wear headphones but not runners and motorbikers etc. I am just trying to understand the logic they applied when they made that rule.
Guest ToxicD Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 But that is what I am trying to understand, why is it illegal for cyclist to wear headphones but not runners and motorbikers etc. I am just trying to understand the logic they applied when they made that rule. Its simple. They let people like Neil make rules. His clear hate for cyclists is aparent
Patchelicious Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 But that is what I am trying to understand, why is it illegal for cyclist to wear headphones but not runners and motorbikers etc. I am just trying to understand the logic they applied when they made that rule.I would assume that it's probably more important for cyclists to be able to hear cars coming than the other way around. This is the type of question that I think Carbon could answer with a bit more authority....
Pure Savage Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 A lot of good constructive conversation, don't **** it up now. Is riding two abreast still a no no through Bakoven?
carbon29er Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 I would assume that it's probably more important for cyclists to be able to hear cars coming than the other way around. This is the type of question that I think Carbon could answer with a bit more authority....There is no logical reason. It is not in the Road Traffic Act, it is in the Western Cape amendments passed with the 1m law. Not sure if it was recommended by PPA as it has always been a stand of theirs. I would never ride with headphones or earbuds so not applicable to me but it is a crazy law.
carbon29er Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 Point ... Paying more entitle you to more road. (You heard it here 1st kids)The advocating of licensing cyclists to allow them on the road that they are already FULLY ENTITLED to use makes no sense at all.
Patchelicious Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 Is riding two abreast still a no no through Bakoven?We are humans and there is not always a black n white answer. I could easily say that it's inconsiderate to do that, but you have a point about it being very dangerous on that section. It's not always about what you do, but rather how you do it. So how about this: If you absolutely have to ride 2 abreast for some sections, try do it in the most considerate manner as possible. Maybe turn around and acknowledge the car behind you, wave and smile gesturing that you will move over as soon as you can. This might be better than riding two abreast like some self entitled pigeon that's struts around as if it owns the road.
Patchelicious Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 There is no logical reason. It is not in the Road Traffic Act, it is in the Western Cape amendments passed with the 1m law. Not sure if it was recommended by PPA as it has always been a stand of theirs. I would never ride with headphones or earbuds so not applicable to me but it is a crazy law.If 80% of cyclists are hit from behind (your stat) wouldn't being able to hear a car coming from behind be important, seeing that cyclists don't have the ability to see what's coming up from behind? Hearing would be the only sense one could rely on? I wouldnt ride with headphones in even if it was allowed, I think we need all our sense available to keep us safe.
Quagga Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 If 80% of cyclists are hit from behind (your stat) wouldn't being able to hear a car coming from behind be important, seeing that that cyclists don't have the ability to see what's coming up from behind? Hearing would be the only sense one could rely on? I wouldnt ride with headphones in even if it was allowed, I think we need all our sense available to keep us safe.But here is the thing, not wearing headphone did not save any of the 80% that were hit from behind.
Patchelicious Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 But here is the thing, not wearing headphone did not save any of the 80% that were hit from behind.Neither did god, what's your point?
carbon29er Posted January 20, 2017 Posted January 20, 2017 Neither did god, what's your point?Which maybe goes to a point I made yesterday...and the restrained myself while being trolled by a self proclaimed genius.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.