Good morning, cherished reader. I awoke today in robust form having overdosed on barbie with my brother and his family yesterday afternoon, but then I went to the papers this morning and had this shoved in my face.
What is it about cyclistas, especially those of a metrosexual, London-centric persuasion, who think that none of the rules that bind lesser mortals apply to them?
Listen, two-wheeled Taliban, wear a hard hat as other two-wheeled motorcyclists as obliged to do, wear a seat belt as motorists are obliged to do. Get some number plates like every other road user, and insurance for when you collide with a pedestrian and an MOT certificate for your conveyance, obey the rules of the road, including stopping at traffic lights and not riding on pavements you throbbers, that apply to every other road user and PAY ROAD TAX .
Oh, and lose the Lycra. It’s not cute and it’s not even funny. It’s just a lot of fat in a dayglo plastic bag drooped over a thin slice of synthetic leather. I have lost my breakfast on less offensive images.
OZ
Boadicea's Chariot 
Sorry OZ but your linkey thing doesn’t work for me.
Sorry, Sheona – chronic thick paw problems again. It works now š
OZ
You think you’ve got problems. Denmark is flat, so everybody thinks it’s OK to use a bike. Fairynuff! But are they a confounded nuisance? Yes. Do they do the sensible thing (ever, at all)? No.
Linky thingy is OK for me, Sheona.
Oz, I quite agree. I think that cyclists should also be charged an carbon dioxide emission tax as drivers are, considering how much extra they produce when pedalling hard. I think bikes are a pain in the bum, literally and in the subjective sense. The self-righteous ones on bikes who think they own the road when they do not pay anything to use it really annoy me.
J. The Netherlands is even worse for abusive cyclists. There they have priority over pedestrians and if a driver hits a bike, it is always the driver’s fault, whatever the circumstances.
Almost a revolution here last year when the gubmint started fining cyclistas a hundred quid for crashing red lights and ignoring other road signs.
Good morning OZ. For what it is worth, I am not convinced by the requirement to wear helmets. I am against interference in people’s lives, especially when it comes to their personal safety. However, I do think that cyclists should be licensed and taxed, to some extent, and should have to pass some sort of test to ride in built up areas where they do pose a risk to others and where they make use of facilities for which motorists have to pay. Included in the testing process should be a mantra, to be repeated every 15 minutes that they ride, along the lines of ‘just because I ride a bicycle it does not mean that I am a superior human being and that I must treat motorists and pedestrians with respect’.
Sipu, “I am against interference in peopleās lives, especially when it comes to their personal safety”. That’s fine , so long as the people concerned are required to sign a discalimer, waiving all rights to assistance and medical care.
In Japan the pavement is often divided in two with a clear, thick line showing where the sections are delineated. One side is for pedestrians, one side is for bicyclists. There are also pictures every so often to remind people which section is to be used for what purpose. Bicyclists, however, have a tendency to ride on whichever side they bogging well please. Several times in Kyoto I was nearly ploughed over by deranged foot-soldiers of the Lycra Mafia.
In California it is no better. The Lycra Mafia enjoy riding along narrow mountain highways and do not seem at all concerned that motor vehicles might need to try avoid them.
Well, you may as well apply that particularly trite argument to any aspect of life, whether it be a sport, travel, work, eating, drinking even procreation. Why should the taxpayer subsidise the well-being of women during pregnancy and birth? Life involves risk. It is reasonable to argue that the vast majority of people do not wish to harm themselves but it would be impossible, not to mention unwelcome to monitor every aspect of their lives to make sure that they do not come to any form of harm, whether it be self inflicted or through circumstances beyond their control.
Why should birth control,including abortions be allowed on the NHS?
By your argument, anybody who eats more than the state recommended diet should waive their right to assistance and medical care.
For goodness sake, allow people a certain amount of personal responsibility in their lives. Alternatively make people pay for their own health care instead of relying on the state.
Did I say trite? My goodness that was restrained of me.
Hi OZ.
Good to see you. As a driver, I hate meeting these soft bodied and rather unattractive road users. Some of them think they are immortal. I would be rather upset if I felt I was the cause of their downfall, but they are somewhat annoying sometimes.
Wearing a helmet is absolutely useless if I smash into them in a car.
Sipu, there are enough precedents for over-eaters’ being denied medical help. Do try not to label a comment ‘trite’ when you simply disagree.
Christopher, Japan is not the only country with cyclists who think any lane is for them. Holland and Germany are also bad. Last year in Cracow cyclists on a bridge over the Vistula threatened to push pedestrians either into oncoming traffic or into the river.
It’s the arrogance of cyclists that gets me riled – especially when they tell everyone else to get on a bike. Try picking up a couple of children from school or getting the weekend shopping on a bike!
They should most definitely pay road tax and be fined for not obeying road signs – and add an extra fine for wearing lycra!
Sheona: I take some heart from Taiwan — the Two Wheel Mafia are keenly aware that cars will plough them over if they don’t get out of the way.
Utter rubbish!
I often wonder whether hikers and climbers who need a helicopter from 22 Sqn to medevac them from some windswept escarpment should shoulder the cost.
OZ
The answer to your question, OZ, is of course they should. Too often those who need help have set off badly equipped or without maps or against local advice and weather forecasts. Self-inflicted injury.
To be fair to old Sipu (not easy sometimes), the problem is where to draw the line. ‘Self-inflicted’ covers all addictions and sports injuries – so should they all pay?
I’ve just been having my regular read of Nice-Matin. There have been 91 people drowned in France since the beginning of July, the majority of them not having heeded warning notices. On 28th July seven men were drowned in the Med off the HĆ©rault department, although the red “Swimming Forbidden” flags had been flying since the 26th. The French government is now thinking of fining all those who are in the water when it is forbidden. This would mean giving the lifeguards the power to inflict such fines, but it is their lives that are put at risk.
As for the “self-inflicted” damage, I would not apply it to sportmen and women. But drug addicts, who all know the damage they are inflicting on their own bodies, are a different case. As for the drunks who end up lying on the streets, I’ve always felt that a bucket of water would work.
It horrifies me the degree to which the fear of risk has permeated all sectors of British society. It is little wonder that Britain has become such a god-awful place.
If the rescue services have a problem going out to rescue those who are stuck on the hillside, then they should not bloody well do it. If British society does not want to fund these services, then don’t. But to say to them, ‘if you go on an adventure and get stuck, we will come and rescue you, but it will cost you Ā£20,000’ will only serve to intimidate anybody doing anything remotely dangerous or interesting.
In November last year, I drove up, alone, through the Kalahari in Botswana. There are no rescue services. You need 4×4 and the knowledge to drive it properly. You need to bring with you 10 litres of water per day. There are wild animals that will kill you if you are not careful. You can easily get lost or break down, or run out of water and be stuck for days. Despite the hazards, the Botswana authorities provided no warnings or guidance. You enter the country and you take it as you find it. In Britain, and other nanny states, you would be prohibited from undertaking such an adventure.
It is little wonder that colonials, brought up with a culture of risk and accountability are running Britain these days. http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8966091/colonial-rule-why-aussies-kiwis-and-canadians-are-running-britain/
England’s resurgence on the cricket field is down to 2 Zimbabweans, Fletcher and Flower. A Canadian runs the Bank of England. An Australian, Lynton Crosby, manages the Tory Party. A South African, Ryan Coetzee, runs the Lib Dems, and another Zimbabwean with whom I was at school, Sir Bruce Keogh, has had to whip the NHS into shape.
Meanwhile, a disproportionate number of colonials make up Britain’s special forces. Apache squadrons are dominated by those who hale from the southern hemisphere.
Quite simply, Britain has lost its balls.
What is the point of a life wrapped in cotton wool?
This may be a silly question, Sipu, but why are all these wonderful Aussies and Canadians and such not performing their miracles in their own countries? I discount Ryan Coetzee since the LibDims are nothing to write home about?
Sheona, how cruel! It’s because theyr’re crap places to live if you have any social cpnscience or moral fibre.
And another thing that grips my fur. I’m not going to alter my behaviour or lifestyle choices just because some throbber has a sprog and a ‘BebĆ© Ć bordo’ placard in the back window, like he/she was the only throbber who ever had a bebĆ© in the whole history of civilization. I’m putting a placard in the back of the Range Rover – You ain’t nothing special. Live with it’.
Harrumphhh!
OZ
Sheona, you surmise correctly.
Janus, the phrases, ‘social conscience’ and ‘moral fibre’ coming from you are as about as oxymoronic as anything I have ever read or heard.
OZ, I agree with you re the irritating smugness of the ‘Baby on board’ brigade, though I gather the sign was originally meant as a warning to rescue personnel to look for such creatures should the vehicle be involved in an accident. Which rather begs the question, why would rescue services be performing such a task. Drivers should be forced to waive their rights to any assistance.
Sipu, you can do better than that, surely! š
At least Janus provided an answer to my “silly question”.
If I may be so bold as to offer my Frankish answer to your question: the UK, for all its faults, is not half as miserable as it’s made out to be and its economy is still highly advanced and well-developed. Australia, Canada, and New Zealand are all lovely countries but their economies are small and there are limited opportunities for the most ambitious. Hence, many Australians and New Zealanders head to Hong Kong or the UK to work. Many Canadians go either to the UK or the place south of Canada for work for the same reason. South Africa and Zimbabwe are basket cases, despite their potential and it seems as if those who can leave often do leave. That, and the UK is not truly “foreign” for colonials.
Thank you, Christopher.
Christopher, what a typically sensible comment. I sometimes find it odd that folks have such a wired impression of life in the UK.
That said, I am sometimes immensely irritated by EU diktats, but we are a magnet for immigrants, especially from Commonwealth countries and others.
Possibly this is not a good thing, but whilst I agree that not everyone wants to live here, an awful lot of people do, but maybe it’s just our generous benefit system.
Araminta: one might well suspect that it is a result of cynicism coupled with a few glorious holidays abroad. Daily life is often a combination of drudgery, boredom, and the realisation that people are only capable of so much, be it in the UK, France, Japan, or Australia. Until one lives in a place the true extent of the problems there are not apparent. Japan, often seen as the exact opposite of the UK, has many problems with hidden homelessness and unemployment, an increasing drug problem and underground illegal immigration. Its Tokyo-centric economy makes the dominance of the South East seem relatively mild in comparison.
People have their reasons for migrating, some honest, some not. Most of the UK’s problems are not insurmountable. Policy changes can deal with the worst of benefits abuse, a stricter enforcement of UK laws and expedited deportations can deal with the worst of non-indigenous criminal problems. France shows that a country can take care of its own interests within the EU, why can’t the UK? (Though I’d still prefer to see the bulk of the EU dismantled)
Sheona, I apologise for being rude. To be honest, I thought your question, if serious was beneath you. There are a myriad reasons why anybody would emigrate and seek further opportunities abroad. A flippant response to your question might have been, ‘because they feel the obligation to rescue a once-great-nation that is sliding into a slough of mediocrity’.
Janus’s answer was, well, imbecilic.
Christopher, you may have something of a point about SA and Zimbabwe. But you are further from the truth than you imagine. Neither country is a basket case in the context of where to spend ones life. I have just bought a house in Zimbabwe. I pick up the keys tomorrow (actually today, as I started this last night). I would rather live here than anywhere else in the world that I have lived and that includes the US, UK, Australia and South Africa. SA remains my second choice. There is more personal freedom here than you are likely to find in any first world country. The people are nicer, the countryside more beautiful (though I accept that those are subjective views) and the weather is infinitely better in Harare than you will find anywhere else. Society here is interesting and diverse. You can sit at dinner with your local mechanic opposite you and the British Ambassador next to you.
There are problems here, of course. It is much more difficult for a white person to come and live in Zimbabwe than it is for a black person to live in Britain. Despite the leap of faith I have made in buying a property here, I still do not have a residence permit.The government is clearly corrupt and inept. But so are the governments of nearly every western country, especially Britain and the US.
As for people leaving, you would be surprised how many are coming back, especially amongst the young, and in my case, not so young.
Christopher, certainly France made hay while the EU-sun shone, but now the IMF warns that France has a serious unemployment trend. Even the French motor manufacturers, despite their state funding, are slipping fast, producing no more than their UK counterparts. There now seems to be a general consensus that somehow the UK is leading Europe out of the recession – not to be put off by the perennial complaints about our ‘useless’ politicians. Could it be that they are not as useless as the disaffected expats would have us believe?
Sipu, “Janusās answer was, well, imbecilic”. “There is more personal freedom here than you are likely to find in any first world country. The people are nicer, the countryside more beautiful (though I accept that those are subjective views) and the weather is infinitely better in Harare than you will find anywhere else. Society here is interesting and diverse. You can sit at dinner with your local mechanic opposite you and the British Ambassador next to you.”
I rest my case.
The difference between me and you Janus is that I speak from experience. You speak through your ‘backside’.
Now now, boys. Play nicely – or else.
OZ
Sipu, my question was indeed “tongue-in-cheek”, partly as a spontaneous reaction to your denigrating the UK. I hope you get your residence permit soon and continue to enjoy life in Zimbabwe. I read reports that the Chinese are doing well there.
Not bad. Anybody who chooses to live in Zimbabwe must have ‘issues’.
Sipu: for those seeking to have highly successful careers Zimbabwe is not the best place to be, nor is it especially stable for those on the wrong side of Mugabe’s mood at any particular moment. South Africa has a deeply divided society. It’s not safe and you made it clear just how violent it is. Given a choice between the two I favour Zimbabwe because most Zimbabweans I have met are exceptional people. Intelligent, interesting, pleasant — excellent senses of humour — and, above all else, a rare grace. Personal freedom in this case is relative. After all, were I to have the money I could simply buy a property in the UK and not have to worry about residence permits and such. Living in a densely populated area requires greater regulation just to be tolerable. What works in rural Africa will not work in London.
Janus: Merkel is also closer to Cameron than she is to Hollande. My point was that France does as it pleases and does not follow EU law to its detriment like the UK does.
I do like ‘a rare grace’ – an elegant turn of phrase if ever there was one.
OZ
Christopher, one can also be a rich bwana in Zimbabwe with a bank balance that would allow one also to live in Brixton, which has many of the other qualities a bwana might seek. š
Christopher, your comment on France and its disregard for any EU law that does not suit it is spot-on. As you know I read the French press regularly and have watched with dismay as things get worse and worse. The announcement yesterday that Total is moving much of its administration, especially the financial bit, to London is just another nail in the coffin. It is not all the fault of Hollande. The French economy has been sclerotic for decades and successive presidents have often given up the attempt at reform in the face of union threats. Sarkozy did manage to raise the retirement age to 62, despite all the strikes, but Hollande has since reversed that, as he has reversed many of Sarkozy’s other eminently sensible changes.
Janus: perhaps, but Zimbabwe has excellent music and the literature produced there is among the best in the world right now. Still, given the choice between the UK or Zimbabwe, the UK strikes me as a much more pleasant place to live.
Sheona:France’s decline is entirely self-imposed. French products are excellent, but they’re no better than German or Japanese rivals which are often cheaper. France has a large and diversified economy, but so does Germany, the UK, and increasingly Poland, the Czech Republic, South Korea, Thailand and Taiwan. Australia, Canada and California are growing increasingly competitive in France’s luxury products as well. Perhaps France needs to be allowed to fall, to hit the bottom in order for it to get some sense into its collective head. It’s a great country, one of the ones I admire most, but one can only suspect acceptance of changes circumstances for so long.
There are times,(rarely, I grant) when I wish we were a bit more like the French. For them it is France and particularly French national interest first, second and last whereas we have a dedicated, liberal fifth column that looks to enforce every EU directive and bit of human rights legislation, particularly if it costs the UK dear.
For example, it took us decades and a shed load of taxpayers’ money to get rid of Abu Hamza. In Portugal they just arrest the illegal, hold him/her in jail, take them to the airport and put them on the first flight out. Job jobbed and the lawyers don’t even get a look in.
OZ
OZ, the no-questions-asked approach is fine, except when is personally involved! Giving a wolf a bad name and all that.