Originally Posted by
I-Like-To-Bike
Ya got me. I didn't comb through your opinion pieces, and used the term registration rather than regulation; makes no dang difference. Your proposed bicycling regulations would have the same likely effect - nothing positive for bicyclists or bicycling?
Actually there is a great deal of difference between registration and regulation. Everybody who uses the roads is already regulated (that is what the traffic laws are in case you didn't understand that. Registration is usually applied to vehicles not operators, and while I wouldn't be surprised if it occurs for bicycles it isn't anything I proposed
Originally Posted by
I-Like-To-Bike
Your proposed bicycling regulations would have the same likely effect - nothing positive for bicyclists or bicycling?
Okay we add a problem with understanding English along with problems with logic. I proposed no new cycling regulations (traffic laws), rather I proposed that the only group of road users who have not demonstrated a knowledge and understanding of the existing regulations be required to do so...
Originally Posted by
I-Like-To-Bike
Why your proposed set of improvements includes licensing, training and testing of cyclists is unexplained.
Actually my proposal of licensing, and testing (training is simply implied by the testing) of ALL road users has been explained. Perhaps that is another example of you not bothering to read the posts you nit pick and harp on...
Finally that abomination of a sentence requires separation for clarity of the answer.
Originally Posted by
I-Like-To-Bike
Why not leave them out since they will more than likely sink support for your package from almost all bicyclists,
All users of the roads should be required to show the same level of competence if there is a reason for any of the users to do so. If for no other reason then the failure of any user can cause a chain effect on others. Again, I would think that would be obvious, but clearly not.
Originally Posted by
I-Like-To-Bike
and you have no evidence that they are likely to have any positive effect.
I suspect you meant to use the term proof instead of evidence. If so, you are correct, there is no proof (after all if I had proof to offer I would not have used the word
likely, I would have used
certain). If you did in fact mean evidence, you are incorrect. Such has been offered, perhaps it was in one of those posts which you failed to read, but harped on anyway?