mileburner  posted
>
>I can't really see what the big deal is. Compulsory training is surely a
>good thing.

Da-da, da-da! "Surely" alert!

Whenever you see the word "surely" in a Usenet post you know the author 
means "Here I am stating something that, if true, supports my argument, 
but in fact I've got no evidence for it other than bare assertion."

Why would compulsory training be a good thing? We have a rigorous scheme 
of compulsory training for car drivers and yet every minute of every day 
I see drivers behaving like complete cretins.

It'd deliver next to no benefits and would be a bloody nuisance into the 
bargain.

>All cyclists *should* be fairly competent and understand how
>road systems and rights of way work before getting on the road (unless under
>direct supervision).

I am and I do, thanks, as do my entire family and every other cyclist 
that I know.

>And I can't see what the fuss is about by the cyclist displaying a small
>refelective plate which can lead the authorities to his home address. The
>cost would be marginal

Including the cost of setting up the database, making and issuing the 
plates, requiring cyclists to ride only the cycle registered to them, 
enforcing the scheme on children etc etc ...

>and at least they would know where to send the body.

And the bills. Because you don't think it would stop at registration do 
you? Think of all the possibilities. Road tax for bikes. SORN charges. 
Annual MOTs. Lovely jubbly.

-- 
Les
If creating a police state saves just one child, then it will all have been
worthwhile.