Motor Taxes

[gazza]

Whatnots are not notwhats

 

.imagine a society where insurance didn't exist, there would be far less accidents because people would be a damn sight more careful and considerate rather than thinking bollox to it doesn't matter if I crash the insurance will take care of everything.

 

then there would be need for that 4x4 on the school run, just ram your way there,

 

least i never have to sit behind a slow driver again, give them a little shove and thay be off

[Slim]

Remind me what's the age for criminal responsibility? 10? You see kids younge and older of that age (even adults). riding around on winter evenings in the dark without any lights on Accidents waiting to happen. Please give up this pretence that cyclists are responsible people (well maybe a minority of them I'll concede)

 

And remind me again where you've seen a large number of reported issues because of this?

 

Hehe: http://lighterfootstep.com/2009/05/how-to-...clist-syndrome/

[Sebrof]

Why? Can't the parents pay?

 

Do you seriously think that's a good idea? When we're facing an obesity epidemic, a generation of kids who are constrained by over protective parents, an over protective state and a weight of health and safety rules and regulation, the last thing anyone wants to do is further discourage something as simple, fun and healthy as cycling.

 

And for what? When was the last time you heard of a kid on a bike being liable for significant damages?

 

Have you ever ridden a bike Sebrof?

 

 

Put the brain into gear, Slimbo. You said that "you'd have to have all sorts of exemptions for kids". Just pointing out that you wouldn't.

 

Personally, I would much rather that there was a state-funded insurance scheme for people who have accidents. This would greatly reduce the need for insurance companies (who pocket half the premium) and cut out arguments over who was at fault.

 

If the police considered that an offence had been committed, they would still prosecute, as now.

 

I do agree that kids should be encouraged to take (more?) exercise, but I don't think sending them onto the roads is the best way to do it. There are already far too many accidents to cyclists as it is, and until we bulldoze our pre-motorcar cities and build cycle lanes that don't force cyclists to compete with cars, I would prefer to see fewer cyclists.

 

S

[Slim]

Put the brain into gear, Slimbo. You said that "you'd have to have all sorts of exemptions for kids". Just pointing out that you wouldn't.

 

And I didn't misunderstand you, requiring anyone to pay for a kid to cycle is a bloody stupid idea.

 

I do agree that kids should be encouraged to take (more?) exercise, but I don't think sending them onto the roads is the best way to do it. There are already far too many accidents to cyclists as it is, and until we bulldoze our pre-motorcar cities and build cycle lanes that don't force cyclists to compete with cars, I would prefer to see fewer cyclists.

 

They're safer on a bike than in a car, yet people have no hesitation driving their kids around. If more kids cycled rather than got ferried about in cars, cycling for kids would be safer.

[gazza]

They're safer on a bike than in a car, yet people have no hesitation driving their kids around.

 

ok then

 

how u work that one out

 

and slim why do u have 2 cars

[victor]

afterall if a cyclist causes an accident either by deliberately crossing a red light or going on a pavement and hitting a pedestrian or accidently does so by falling off and causing another vehicle to have an accident, then it would save them from being sue'd and having to pay up out of their own pockets not ignoring the fact that the innocent party who they injured or caused damage has to wait months if not years to get recompense from the uninsured.

 

When was the last time you saw that scenario happen?

About 4 weeks ,a cyclist crossed the white lines and crashed into my mates transit causing nearly two thousand

pounds worth of damage !(by the way i do ride mtb also,so not anti cyclist)So it does happen!

[Slim]

Victor, I'm not saying it doesn't happen, more that it doesn't happen often enough to require insurance.

 

ok then

how u work that one out

and slim why do u have 2 cars

 

I've got two cars same reason most families have two cars, one for me, one for the wife. Is that a problem?

 

As to the safety, the stats are there if you go looking for them. The interesting thing about cycling is that because it prolongs your life, you're much more likely to extend your life by cycling than cut it short.

 

It's still more dangerous than it should be though, and that's pretty much because of cars. More people leave their cars for alternatives, the safer it becomes.

[gazza]

Victor, I'm not saying it doesn't happen, more that it doesn't happen often enough to require insurance.

 

ok then

how u work that one out

and slim why do u have 2 cars

 

I've got two cars same reason most families have two cars, one for me, one for the wife. Is that a problem?

 

As to the safety, the stats are there if you go looking for them. The interesting thing about cycling is that because it prolongs your life, you're much more likely to extend your life by cycling than cut it short.

 

It's still more dangerous than it should be though, and that's pretty much because of cars. More people leave their cars for alternatives, the safer it becomes.

 

well why dont u get rid of your 2 cars, that way your setting an example and plus the roads will be safer, u 2 can cycle everywhere

[The Voice of Reason]

Remind me what's the age for criminal responsibility? 10? You see kids younge and older of that age (even adults). riding around on winter evenings in the dark without any lights on Accidents waiting to happen. Please give up this pretence that cyclists are responsible people (well maybe a minority of them I'll concede)

 

And remind me again where you've seen a large number of reported issues because of this?

 

Hehe: http://lighterfootstep.com/2009/05/how-to-...clist-syndrome/

 

I've read it - reported issues because of what? I'm not quite sure what you're getting at

[Slim]

well why dont u get rid of your 2 cars, that way your setting an example and plus the roads will be safer, u 2 can cycle everywhere

 

Because it's impractical to cycle everywhere. I don't think anyone should cycle everywhere, but there are many trips where people take a car could be walked or biked.

[WTF]

well why dont u get rid of your 2 cars, that way your setting an example and plus the roads will be safer, u 2 can cycle everywhere

 

Because it's impractical to cycle everywhere. I don't think anyone should cycle everywhere, but there are many trips where people take a car could be walked or biked.

 

agreed, what use is going on a pushbike for the weekly shopping trip, or turning up to work sweating like or pig or drenched with the rain? and if you suddenly have to get somewhere that was unplanned, you ain't going to want to be pedaling either.

 

if the place was flatter it would be more enticing, but peel and douglas are mostly hills, which have to be gone up at some point too.

[gazza]

well why dont u get rid of your 2 cars, that way your setting an example and plus the roads will be safer, u 2 can cycle everywhere

 

Because it's impractical to cycle everywhere. I don't think anyone should cycle everywhere, but there are many trips where people take a car could be walked or biked.

 

well maybe all the other ppl in there cars that are driveing round, think that it would be impractical do ride a bike for what there doing,

 

i know for a fact that there is no way in hell i could do without driveing, not once could i do it on a bike,

and i can prob say that for 90% of the ppl i know

[Slim]

agreed, what use is going on a pushbike for the weekly shopping trip, or turning up to work sweating like or pig or drenched with the rain? and if you suddenly have to get somewhere that was unplanned, you ain't going to want to be pedaling either.

if the place was flatter it would be more enticing, but peel and douglas are mostly hills, which have to be gone up at some point too.

 

Yep, exactly, I need to go in to work today and it's pissing down, so I'll drive. No biggie. I thought the same about hills, I think I'm on record here a few years ago asking for bike lifts heh. Now it's just not an issue, after a little while you get a bit stronger and you don't even think about it. Can ride quite happily from ramsey up the hairpin, Douglas prom to pt jack is nothing.

 

 

well maybe all the other ppl in there cars that are driveing round, think that it would be impractical do ride a bike for what there doing,

 

i know for a fact that there is no way in hell i could do without driveing, not once could i do it on a bike,

and i can prob say that for 90% of the ppl i know

 

Like I said, sometimes it's impractical and for some jobs it'll always be impractical. There's no way all car trips currently couldn't be replaced by a cycle, pretty much everyone who lives in douglas or onchan and works in an office or shop could bike to work on dry days for example. Pretty much every schoolkid who lives in a town near their school could too, that's an awful lot of traffic.

 

Give me a few examples of those 90% and why they couldn't ride?

[Sebrof]

They're safer on a bike than in a car....................

 

It's this sort of statement that shows you inhabit a planet far removed from reality.

 

And, as usual, you are unable to get your brain around the idea that what is possible and what is desirable are not necessarily the same. I didn't argue that kids SHOULD be forced to have insurance (though actually the idea is not as "bloody stupid" as you claim in your usual delicate way), I was just pointing out that you were wrong to say there would HAVE to be exceptions. What you actually meant was that it might be desirable to have exceptions.

 

But seeing things in shades of grey rather than black and white seems to be alien to you.

 

S

[Slim]

It's this sort of statement that shows you inhabit a planet far removed from reality.

 

Really? What research do you have to discredit me?

 

According to research, car fatalities stand at about 150 killed per million passengers. Cycling fatalities are 13.3 fatalities per million. Per mile, cars cause about 42,000 fatalities per mile in the US, cycles 813. It's important to separate fact from perception as has also been pointed out in the disabled thread where you do another one of your ludicrous general statements claiming the majority of disabled badge owners aren't. Cycling safety could definitely be improved, don't get me wrong, but it's nowhere near as dangerous as people think. Swimming for example is statistically more dangerous than cycling. Fishing is four times more dangerous. Being a pedestrian is, statistically, a lot more dangerous.

 

Here's some examples, with references to back up what I'm saying. Now who's removed from reality?

http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm

http://www.bv.com.au/bikes-and-riding/10715/

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/07/ho...logists_27.html

(I like this excert from that last one:

take home message is that traumatic brain injuries (TBI's) from cycling account for only 7.7% of the total number of injuries sustained from that sport. So there were nearly 525,000 cycling injuries reported in this study, and about 40,000 were TBI's. When we compare this to playing on the playground, for example, the incidence of brain injuries is very similar (7.1%)

 

http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/cycling/how-...ous-is-cycling/

- The number of cyclists killed on British roads in 2007 was 136.

- The total number of people killed in road traffic accidents was 3,172 people.

- The number of people who died of heart disease in the UK was 70,000

 

 

And, as usual, you are unable to get your brain around the idea that what is possible and what is desirable are not necessarily the same. I didn't argue that kids SHOULD be forced to have insurance (though actually the idea is not as "bloody stupid" as you claim in your usual delicate way), I was just pointing out that you were wrong to say there would HAVE to be exceptions. What you actually meant was that it might be desirable to have exceptions.

 

But seeing things in shades of grey rather than black and white seems to be alien to you.

 

Jebus, talk about splitting hairs. Why argue a point if you don't actually believe it? Mental.