UKIP policies on bikes...

Forester wrote:

My letters to the local paper about cycling usually provoke a negative response, especially from horse riders, who are a highly influential lobby here in the New Forest. Having done a lot of riding in recent years I have found that the majority of horse riders appreciate a warning such as 'bike coming' and great care when you approach them in high vis clothing. Horses are not intelligent, and having seen a few spooked by bike riders and runners I do have some sympathy, even though there are a few stuck up sorts who regard you as lower than the deposits which their steeds leave on the highway.

I live in the Cotswolds and horse riders vary, as all people do. However, I agree that there are quite a few who don't acknowledge bike riders who slow down for them and their steeds. Still, they're not as stupid or as dangerous as the life threatening drivers on the roads. While not exclusive to UKIP, they have the same mentality in as much as they believe they have an indisputable right to have it their way so that they can do exactly as they want.

Come the revolution...

paulfg42 wrote:

Yay, another reason to hate UKIP, apart from them being closet racists and general scumbags.

And 700c

*closet* racists??

fatty wrote:

"a simple annual flat rate registration ‘Cycledisc’, stuck to the bicycle frame, to cover damage to cars and others"

Yes, I shudder think of the awful scratch my bike and body would leave on a car after I was hit by one at 40mph, driven by a drunk, uninsured chav or a 104 year old pensioner with cataracts. I'd lie in my coffin wondering and worrying if it could ever be polished out cost free for the unfortunate car driver...

+1 + a thousand times

How many drivers have ever been killed by a cyclist?

Also, this notion that a cyclist ever "causes accidents" is complete nonsense.

I strongly object to most of the policies in the UKIP quote but I also object to the use of mindless abuse.

Why are there no moderators on this forum to remove the f word and such like?

Because it's a free country and a forum for adults. If someone wishes to demean themselves by the use of 'sailortalk' then they are free to do so.

bobdelamare wrote:

I strongly object to most of the policies in the UKIP quote but I also object to the use of mindless abuse.

Why are there no moderators on this forum to remove the f word and such like?

Are you fucking serious?

Go and spend some time to see if someone has created a greasemonkey script to remove 'offensive' language from web pages that pretty little princesses like yourself, are too delicate to read!

As for this UKIP policy: for a self proclaimed 'libertarian' party, introducing compulsory licensing and insurance for bicycles seems fairly authoritarian to me, and immediately does away with cyclists fundamental right of access to the public highways.

Anyone who even speaks of doing such a thing is a tyrant and can get fucked.

zanf wrote:

bobdelamare wrote:

I strongly object to most of the policies in the UKIP quote but I also object to the use of mindless abuse.

Why are there no moderators on this forum to remove the f word and such like?

Are you fucking serious?

Go and spend some time to see if someone has created a greasemonkey script to remove 'offensive' language from web pages that pretty little princesses like yourself, are too delicate to read!

As for this UKIP policy: for a self proclaimed 'libertarian' party, introducing compulsory licensing and insurance for bicycles seems fairly authoritarian to me, and immediately does away with cyclists fundamental right of access to the public highways.

Anyone who even speaks of doing such a thing is a tyrant and can get fucked.

This is a ("fucking") massive overreaction to bobdelamare's on the whole quite innocuous post. Speaking of a "fundamental right" of access to the public highways is idiotic (although maybe not quite as idiotic as the "tyrant" bit) and belittles those who don't enjoy those rights that are, in fact, fundamental. Maybe get a sense of ("fucking") proportion.

surly_by_name wrote:

zanf wrote:

bobdelamare wrote:

I strongly object to most of the policies in the UKIP quote but I also object to the use of mindless abuse.

Why are there no moderators on this forum to remove the f word and such like?

Are you fucking serious?

Go and spend some time to see if someone has created a greasemonkey script to remove 'offensive' language from web pages that pretty little princesses like yourself, are too delicate to read!

As for this UKIP policy: for a self proclaimed 'libertarian' party, introducing compulsory licensing and insurance for bicycles seems fairly authoritarian to me, and immediately does away with cyclists fundamental right of access to the public highways.

Anyone who even speaks of doing such a thing is a tyrant and can get fucked.

This is a ("fucking") massive overreaction to bobdelamare's on the whole quite innocuous post. Speaking of a "fundamental right" of access to the public highways is idiotic (although maybe not quite as idiotic as the "tyrant" bit) and belittles those who don't enjoy those rights that are, in fact, fundamental. Maybe get a sense of ("fucking") proportion.

Actually the right to freedom of movement is indeed a fundamental right.

Your stance seems to amount to saying you have no right not to be punched because in some other places people get shot.

Both rights and democracy are a continuum not an absolute binary thing.

Anyway, its news to me that UKIP even have any policies. Hasn't Farage already declared they are all now cancelled?

They seem to be more of a 'mood' than a party with policies.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Actually the right to freedom of movement is indeed a fundamental right.

Your stance seems to amount to saying you have no right not to be punched because in some other places people get shot.

Both rights and democracy are a continuum not an absolute binary thing

And the lack of understanding that they are leads to them being eroded

surly_by_name wrote:

This is a ("fucking") massive overreaction to bobdelamare's on the whole quite innocuous post.

No it wasnt.

If you think that you are going to be able to browse ANY forum anywhere on the net and not see vernacular language, then not only are you naive beyond hope but youre a fucking idiot, and ripe for having the piss ripped out of you.

The only way to do something about it is not to bleat like a hopeless fucking lamb and hope someone comes to your rescue but be proactive about it. Greasemonkey in one such tool and there will have been someone that would have created a simple pattern match replace script. All it takes is a little searching. [Try starting here: http://userscripts.org:8080/scripts/show/4175]

As for this part....

surly_by_name wrote:

Speaking of a "fundamental right" of access to the public highways is idiotic (although maybe not quite as idiotic as the "tyrant" bit) and belittles those who don't enjoy those rights that are, in fact, fundamental. Maybe get a sense of ("fucking") proportion.

...shows that you do not have a fucking clue. If you cannot grasp that anyone who tries to assert authority (without consent) over you is a tyrant, especially when it comes to freedom of movement then you should immediately carry out the Sylvia Plath method of attaining a higher level of consciousness.

zanf wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Actually the right to freedom of movement is indeed a fundamental right.

Your stance seems to amount to saying you have no right not to be punched because in some other places people get shot.

Both rights and democracy are a continuum not an absolute binary thing

And the lack of understanding that they are leads to them being eroded

surly_by_name wrote:

This is a ("fucking") massive overreaction to bobdelamare's on the whole quite innocuous post.

No it wasnt.

If you think that you are going to be able to browse ANY forum anywhere on the net and not see vernacular language, then not only are you naive beyond hope but youre a fucking idiot, and ripe for having the piss ripped out of you.

The only way to do something about it is not to bleat like a hopeless fucking lamb and hope someone comes to your rescue but be proactive about it. Greasemonkey in one such tool and there will have been someone that would have created a simple pattern match replace script. All it takes is a little searching. [Try starting here: http://userscripts.org:8080/scripts/show/4175]

As for this part....

surly_by_name wrote:

Speaking of a "fundamental right" of access to the public highways is idiotic (although maybe not quite as idiotic as the "tyrant" bit) and belittles those who don't enjoy those rights that are, in fact, fundamental. Maybe get a sense of ("fucking") proportion.

...shows that you do not have a fucking clue. If you cannot grasp that anyone who tries to assert authority (without consent) over you is a tyrant, especially when it comes to freedom of movement then you should immediately carry out the Sylvia Plath method of attaining a higher level of consciousness.

You are a self absorbed cretin. Next time you get to the end of a railway platform and read the words "no passengers beyond this point", I would urge you to exercise your fundamental right to access the railway tracks, ideally immediately prior to the arrival of several tons of rolling stock.

If that doesn't rid the world of you at least you can vote UKIP and mean it.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Actually the right to freedom of movement is indeed a fundamental right.

Your stance seems to amount to saying you have no right not to be punched because in some other places people get shot.

Both rights and democracy are a continuum not an absolute binary thing.

For what it's worth, both the EU Charter and the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognise a right to freedom of movement. I began writing a long and quite involved response and then I realised I was doing it too - so I stopped. I don't have a stance. This is a website. For cycling enthusiasts. While I expect a generally pro cycling attitude to prevail, I don't have time for extremist views including because they are very tedious. There is sooooooo much more wrong with UKIP than their policy on bicycles. Can we get back to bikes now?