![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ajvaThis really pisses me off. I am already of the opinion that people who rely on cars in cities deserve a good talking to, but the following is the daftest yet:
The move prompted a furious response last night from motoring and insurance organisations, which claimed it would encourage 'bicycle guerrillas' who do not obey the Highway Code and frequently shoot red lights.
Now, whether you agree with the policy or not, it is surely disingenuous to the point of gobsmacking dunderheidness for drivers to argue that cyclists will run red lights because suddenly somebody else will pay for the damage if they get run over. They obviously think cyclists have the same attitude to accidents that they do i.e. it is an annoyance, particularly with the insurance; they "forget" that cyclists have bigger things to worry about in even a minor accident. A dent in your bonnet = a dent in cyclist's head.
My opinion on the proposed law, by the way, is that it is a blatant prejudice against car drivers, and as such should be utterly encouraged.
The move prompted a furious response last night from motoring and insurance organisations, which claimed it would encourage 'bicycle guerrillas' who do not obey the Highway Code and frequently shoot red lights.
Now, whether you agree with the policy or not, it is surely disingenuous to the point of gobsmacking dunderheidness for drivers to argue that cyclists will run red lights because suddenly somebody else will pay for the damage if they get run over. They obviously think cyclists have the same attitude to accidents that they do i.e. it is an annoyance, particularly with the insurance; they "forget" that cyclists have bigger things to worry about in even a minor accident. A dent in your bonnet = a dent in cyclist's head.
My opinion on the proposed law, by the way, is that it is a blatant prejudice against car drivers, and as such should be utterly encouraged.
