I shouldn't do this (never argue with a fool, you have more to lose than them, etc.) but:

legitimacey off cyclists using british public roads?
This should be "Legitimacy of Cyclists Using British Public Roads?"

Kids bikes ie BMX style should be illegal to use on road full stop.

That should be "Kids' bikes". I presume it's not the bike that you think should be illegal to ride on the road but the kid riding it. This is probably your most sensible point, yet still one I disagree with. Children become road users at an early age, of necessity. If they have to use the road (as pedestrians) then they might as well use it as cyclists. Granted it can be risky, especially for the careless, but so is crossing the road, especially for the careless. Still, at least there's an argument to be made here, unlike your other points.

Mountain/ATX style bikes should be used at weekends on suitable terrain for the purpose they were intended not causing havoc at 5pm on university boulevard alongside an unused cycle path funded by legitimate motor tax payers,

So, in this case it seems it is the type of bike (not the rider) that you think should be banned. The argument seems to be that as they were designed for off road use, they should be used off road. OK... what about Land Rovers? They, too, were designed for off road travel, should they not be allowed on the road? Motorcycle Trail Bikes? SUVs? Cars with Bull Bars on?
Here's a concept you ought to try and understand: Dual-purpose. A vehicle can be designed to go off road and on the road. Don't worry if you can't take it all in at once, let it simmer for a while.
As for the causing havoc on university boulevard alongside an unused cycle path funded by legitimate motor tax payers, firstly it's University Boulevard, secondly I've never seen havoc caused by Mountain/ATX style bikes there at 5 pm, thirdly I cycle that way a lot, usually on the cycle path and I'm not the only one, it's a long way from unused (come to think of it, I hardly ever see cycles on the road there... are you sure you have the right road?), finally the cycle path was funded by all tax payers, not "motor tax payers" as you put it. If this is a reference to Vehicle Excise Duty (often erroneously referred to as "Road Tax") then you should be aware that VED isn't a license fee that allows its payers to use the road. It's a tax on CO2 emissions, a punishment for car users causing so much pollution. Or do you think it's a coincidence that the amount of VED goes up for cars that produce large amounts of CO2 - and goes down (or is even completely eliminated) for cars that produce little or no CO2?

cyclists should also have to pay insurance or have private healthcare for the accidents they have whilst on recreational jaunts on their bikes costing the emergency services and nhs to the tune of millions a year (probaly)

Firstly "costing the emergency services and nhs to the tune of millions a year (probaly)"??? Correcting your atrocious spelling, that should be "costing the emergency services and NHS to the tune of millions a year (probably)". But this still makes no sense. I'm guessing you meant to say ""costing the emergency services and NHS expenses to the tune of millions a year (probably)"
Secondly, you're assuming that all or perhaps just most cyclists ride purely for recreation. This is untrue, most cyclists mix the two, a lot of cyclists ride to work, for example. And don't car drivers drive for recreation sometimes?
OK, the "probaly" (which really ought to be "probably") means you've no idea how much this costs. So go and look it up. While you're there, look up comparable figures for serious injuries caused by car accidents and see if the insurance they pay covers that (clue: it doesn't, the NHS picks up the tab. Insurance covers legal liability and damage.) This is the result of having a free healthcare system. I wouldn't change that, but I can see there is an argument to be made. But not just for cyclists. If you really believe that every road-user should have insurance that covers their healthcare also, then be prepared for massive hikes in your premium.

ROAD bikes and the silly looking riders dressed totally inappropriatley for when they inevitably fall off, would you ride a moped or motorbike at 30mph (plus in some cases) dressed like that???

You probably meant to say "dressed totally inappropriately" I presume you're referring to Lycra. I think it looks silly myself (I don't wear it) but I don't believe that fashion sense has any place in this argument.

Afew years ago I recall these road bikes where called RACERS. Somehow a change of name legitimises the rider to do excatly [I presume you mean exactly] as they please regardless of the majority, Like all other Road users if you wish to race you should go to an appropriate place, motorists are not able to race on the public roads so why should cyclists be any different

The name RACER just meant that it could be used in a race. To leap from the fact that a bike built for speed is going to be automatically raced makes as much sense as saying that high-performance cars are always going to be raced. Yes cyclists like fast, high-performance bikes, as do car drivers, and we have more reason to as we're providing all the motive power. The fact that cyclists on racers (I'll use your term) can go as fast as 30mph (plus in some cases) mean that they can keep within the urban speed limit in most cases (and find it hard to break it.) There's not a small number of cars out there capable of 120mph+, 50mph over the NATIONAL speed limit. Should we assume that the owners of these cars will automatically race? (My anecdotal experience would say that owners of high-performance cars are far more likely to be doing 40 in a 30 than cyclists even on the fastest of racers.)

apparently these cycle paths are totally innappropriate [I'm guessing that should be "inappropriate"] for cycling on due to pedestrians, other cyclists and the condition of the surface, welcome to the world of the motorists & especially HGV & bus drivers who have great difficulty passing safely hence causing long queues behind them with other people becoming irrate [presumably you mean "irate"] and delayed or even late.

Road surfaces are not as bad as the surfaces on cycle paths, especially converted pavement cycle paths. Car drivers do not have to share the road with pedestrians except a pelican crossings and the like - pedestrians cross the road, they don't walk on it.

Pedals seems to be backing enforcement of motorists who break highway cycle markings on Nottinghams roads
That should be "Nottingham's roads"

would they also support new laws governing cyclists ie Compulsory Basic Training
Possibly. But cyclists don't need Training as much because 1) riding a bike is comparatively simple compared to driving a car and 2) Cars are a danger to other road users, cyclists by and large are not (a cyclist killed a pedestrian last year and it made Front Page News! Imagine if it was front page news every time a car driver killed a pedestrian. You'd never read about anything else.)

Registration plates
No. Where would you put them? And see above: Cars need to have registration plates because they're dangerous. Bikes aren't

Public highway use insurance
Partially dealt with above. And same answer as Registration plates: Cars need to have insurance because they're dangerous. Bikes aren't

Minimum age on the public road
Dealt with above.

Resricted use of certain types of road i.e national speed limit road
That should be "Restricted use of certain types of road" Bicycles are not allowed on Motorways and certain other dual carriageways. I don't think it should be more than that.

would pedals support any enforcement of infringments to existing cyclists who choose not to use a designated cycle path
This should be "would pedals support any enforcement of infringements by existing cyclists who choose not to use a designated cycle path"
No. Perhaps if they were decent cycle paths, but not with the crap we have these days.

criss cross road & traffic, jump from road to path to avoid queue & then return to road at front so can then proceed to hold up traffic behind by only being able to travel at 10-15mph,
Weaving in and out of traffic is something cyclists do, it's perfectly legal and I'm guessing you're just jealous as you're stuck in a queue. The second one is slightly illegal, but essentially harmless.

Finally! I have seen quite a few of the child carrying trailers bieng [I'm guessing you mean "being"] towed by a cycle, any parent caught on a public road with a child in one of these should be arrested for neglect and reported to social services, I can only compare it to the sinclair c5 [that would be the Sinclair C5] from the 80's with a flat battery, this is the most stupid idea possible, I have even seen one on the A453 close to junction 24 of the M1!!!!!!!??????? I have no idea if there was a child in it but as a parent I would not even consider the idea of putting my child in one of those or my dog for that matter, I can not believe these are in any way safe or legal except in the wollaton park maybe but not on any public road

Child carrying trailers are legal, of course, and far safer than you make out. I'm guessing the reason you dislike the idea so much is that you harbour homicidal impulses towards cyclists and when you see a child trailer, you realise you're contemplating infanticide. Rather than examine your own motives, you blame the victims.

I personally think it is time for a rethink of the cycling minority to be brought in to the 21st century that we live in, if petrol ran out tomorrow and we all depended on bikes the government would then make everyone pay one way or another so maybe it is time to introduce it now.
I can't begin to express how stupid the last argument is. If you can't see how ridiculous it is, I doubt I could ever explain it to you.

Most users of this page probaly wont like my opinion, but hey freedom of speech etc,
That should probably be "Most users of this page probably won't like my opinion, but hey freedom of speech etc," And you're right. You're free to spout as much ridiculous rubbish as you want.

That's quite the ill-informed rant so, just for you, here's a little link: http://ipayroadtax.com/

You'll notice that there's no such thing as road tax and that the tax you pay for your car/van/motorbike is in fact vehicle exise duty. This, sadly, goes hand in hand with a driving license, insurance, MOTs, number plates etc, etc as a means of keeping tabs on motorised vehicles and their suitability for the road.

There is also, amusingly, no obligation for cyclists to actually use cyclepaths (though obviously they're often preferable). Though, if you'd have bothered to actually read up before your rant, you'd have realised that cyclists actually are prohibited from certain types of road along with horses and other conveyances of limited speed.

In short: you don't own the road, feel free to wind your neck in.

Can you believe that someone got turned away from the Nottingham Evening Post comments section for being TOO STUPID?

Whilst I haven't the time or inclination to respond on a point-by-point basis to such an illiterate and imbercilic rant, may I direct to the goverment policy documents supporting and encouraging cycling "as it helps tackle congestion, local pollution and benefits health".

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/cycling/encourage/

..and the Join or Donate to Pedals is on left!