Who needs a car?

@SVXY Rule 66 of the highway code says you can ride two abreast but to also 'be considerate of the needs of other road users when riding in groups.' It does not say you can ride three or four abreast which would not be considerate of the needs of other road users. As the highway code is used by prosecution lawyers as evidence to convict in Road Traffic Act offences cases you certainly could therefore be prosecuted and convicted for careless cycling if cycling three or four abreast

@SVXY This is a curious tactic - rebutting your own argument with your very next sentence.

Affordable? Starting at £6K? You 'having a larf?

@SVXY Ah, so it *is* the "flood the zone with shit" argumentation technique then? Or perhaps ... you are genuinely unclear about the difference between the Highway code and the law (and perhaps the difference between cyclists, drivers and indeed horse riders? And rusty on safe practice? As mdavidford notes you appear to be confusing rule with Rule 66 (for cyclists, which doesn't say anything about not riding x abreast) with Rule 53 (for horse riders which gives guidance not to more than double up - I don't think this is a direct summary of any law since "should" not "must"). Charitably I'm going with "*i* know what it says!" which as I noted many of people feel they do. Anyway away with you, I feel you've had your fill of attention for today.

Road tax was abolished in 1937 by Winston Churchill because, as he said, "road tax makes motorists believe they are the moral owners of our roads." He got that right.

@SVXY None of the magistrates who sentenced him said the CPS should have charged him with dangerous driving. Why should they? He was not speeding, he was not on his phone and he was not drunk or under the influence of drugs either

@SVXY The court does not decide on whether someone was driving carelessly or dangerously, they can only decide on the guilt or otherwise of the defendant on the charge the CPS decides to lay against them. The CPS is notorious for preferring to charge careless rather than dangerous because it's an easier win; this results in entirely unjust sentences such as this one.

@Rendel Harris Wearing sandals may be fine if cycling on tracks over fields or in a quiet residential street with a 20 or 30mph limit. It is not sensible cycling on a 60mph main road

@chrisonabike maybe, but things that used to be banter & jokes in the 1960s/1970s have (thankfully) become socially unacceptable , and this is mostly because enough people spoke up about it. We even managed to make drink-driving a lot less acceptable, by the same means.

@Rendel Harris Yes, he was driving at 55mph in a 60mph road. The court verdict was he was not driving dangerously but carelessly eg he should have had his visor down to keep out the sun so he could monitor the road ahead.