Motor Taxes

[Sebrof]

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%)

 

Not one of those sites provides any evidence that a child is safer on a bicycle than in a car. Now stop being lazy, and provide some hard evidence.

 

Why argue a point if you don't actually believe it? Mental.

 

I didn't argue it. I pointed out your error. And mental is right. It's a question of using your brain to sort fact from nonsense.

 

S

[Slim]

Not one of those sites provides any evidence that a child is safer on a bicycle than in a car. Now stop being lazy, and provide some hard evidence.

 

Na, I'll change the example for simplicity, they show it's safer than swimming and playing in the playground. Does anyone prevent their kids from doing those things on safety grounds? The figures show that relatively cycling isn't particularly dangerous but that safety can always be improved. They also show that it's not bikes that are dangerous, it's cars. More bikes, less cars, improved safety. Therefore perpetuating the claim that cycling is somehow lethal which encourages people not to cycle actually makes cycling more dangerous.

 

Why argue a point if you don't actually believe it? Mental.

I didn't argue it. I pointed out your error. And mental is right. It's a question of using your brain to sort fact from nonsense.

 

 

I'm not in error Sebrof, and this ridiculous hair splitting point scoring really has to stop, it's a complete waste of time. You can counter any argument with a ludicrous point you don't agree with, but it'd be stupid and childish. But to keep you happy, and to show how stupid your argument is, I'll revise my original statement: "Mandatory cycling insurance would be difficult to implement because you'd have to have exceptions for children or implement something completely ludicrous that nobody in their right mind would suggest like forcing their parents to pay for insurance before they're allowed to go out and play on their bikes.". Happy?

[Sebrof]

Not one of those sites provides any evidence that a child is safer on a bicycle than in a car. Now stop being lazy, and provide some hard evidence.

 

Na, I'll change the example for simplicity, they show it's safer than swimming and playing in the playground. Does anyone prevent their kids from doing those things on safety grounds? The figures show that relatively cycling isn't particularly dangerous but that safety can always be improved. They also show that it's not bikes that are dangerous, it's cars. More bikes, less cars, improved safety. Therefore perpetuating the claim that cycling is somehow lethal which encourages people not to cycle actually makes cycling more dangerous.

 

So, when challenged, Slim's statement changes from "safer on a bike than in a car" to "safer than swimming and playing in the playground".

 

Rather different methinks, especially as we were discussing cars versus cycling, not swimming versus cycling, but of course I'll be accused of nitpicking for saying so.

 

S

[triskelion]

Who are you talking to?

[Sebrof]

I'm not in error Sebrof, and this ridiculous hair splitting point scoring really has to stop, it's a complete waste of time. You can counter any argument with a ludicrous point you don't agree with, but it'd be stupid and childish. But to keep you happy, and to show how stupid your argument is, I'll revise my original statement: "Mandatory cycling insurance would be difficult to implement because you'd have to have exceptions for children or implement something completely ludicrous that nobody in their right mind would suggest like forcing their parents to pay for insurance before they're allowed to go out and play on their bikes.". Happy?

 

Why is it ludicrous for parents to buy insurance for their children? Perhaps you had better explain to all the responsible parents who already insure their cycling children why their actions are ludicrous.

 

Perhaps it's time you thought about doing it yourself. Here is one place that will help you to protect your kids and others, in the way any responsible parent would wish to:

 

http://www.cycleguard.co.uk/

 

S

[mudcheck]

Cycling safety could definitely be improved, don't get me wrong, but it's nowhere near as dangerous as people think.

 

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

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

 

One friend of mine is terrified of flying. But flying is very safe ... The other day I saw this friend riding his bicycle in traffic without a helmet.

Per miles traveled, bikes rank among the most dangerous forms of transportation

. By relying on his "intuitive" assessment of risk, my friend made questionable choices.

 

Slim,the above is from a link supplied by yourself, however you read it, it does not read well. i will get you a shovel.

 

Sorry i have posted the wrong link.

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

[Slim]

Slim,the above is from a link supplied by yourself, however you read it, it does not read well. i will get you a shovel.[/indent]

 

You didn't read it at all, that's an example of incorrect preconceptions that the article goes on to address, the title to that paragraph you quoted is "Fearmongering Is a Major Problem" . Read the rest of the article before passing me my shovel!

 

 

Sebrof, see this post on the 14th, where I linked cycleguard and made the comment you're hair splitting over with the exemptions. It's interesting that you remember the nit picking point scoring quote but not the point I was actually making, and then link the same site like it's some kind of revelation. I don't think you're interested in the discussion at all, you're just queing up to take a pop at me for some sort of weird obsessive reasons.

 

I am insured, I've got lots of bikes for me and the kids. I'm arguing against mandatory insurance, not against having insurance at all. To make my point clear for a third time as you seem to be missing it, I think it's ludicrous that parents would have to buy mandatory insurance for their kids. Kids should be free to go ride a bike without any kind of crap like that.

 

The whole car vs bike safety thing; you seem to have missed the plot again. Read back, but here's a quick summary.

 

You said kids shouldn't be on the road with bikes. I said the relative safety isn't really a huge big deal, they're safer on a bike than in a car. You said that was bollocks, so I provided some links to back up my point. You still didn't get it, so I switched to say biking is safer than other things kids do, like swimming. I'm just making a point about relative safety, see?

 

Either way, the more people cycle the fewer cars there are so the safer it gets. So the best thing to do for children's safety on bikes, is to get more kids cycling, not less, right?

[Sebrof]

Slim,the above is from a link supplied by yourself, however you read it, it does not read well. i will get you a shovel.[/indent]

 

You didn't read it at all, that's an example of incorrect preconceptions that the article goes on to address, the title to that paragraph you quoted is "Fearmongering Is a Major Problem" . Read the rest of the article before passing me my shovel!

 

 

Sebrof, see this post on the 14th, where I linked cycleguard and made the comment you're hair splitting over with the exemptions. It's interesting that you remember the nit picking point scoring quote but not the point I was actually making, and then link the same site like it's some kind of revelation. I don't think you're interested in the discussion at all, you're just queing up to take a pop at me for some sort of weird obsessive reasons.

 

I am insured, I've got lots of bikes for me and the kids. I'm arguing against mandatory insurance, not against having insurance at all. To make my point clear for a third time as you seem to be missing it, I think it's ludicrous that parents would have to buy mandatory insurance for their kids. Kids should be free to go ride a bike without any kind of crap like that.

 

The whole car vs bike safety thing; you seem to have missed the plot again. Read back, but here's a quick summary.

 

You said kids shouldn't be on the road with bikes. I said the relative safety isn't really a huge big deal, they're safer on a bike than in a car. You said that was bollocks, so I provided some links to back up my point. You still didn't get it, so I switched to say biking is safer than other things kids do, like swimming. I'm just making a point about relative safety, see?

 

Either way, the more people cycle the fewer cars there are so the safer it gets. So the best thing to do for children's safety on bikes, is to get more kids cycling, not less, right?

 

Why do you lie so much, Slim? Your links don't demonstrate that kids are safer on a bike than in a car. Because you know that, you switched to saying kids were safer on bikes than when swimming. Which, of course, is not germane to the discussion.

 

S

[Slim]

Why do you lie so much, Slim? Your links don't demonstrate that kids are safer on a bike than in a car. Because you know that, you switched to saying kids were safer on bikes than when swimming. Which, of course, is not germane to the discussion.

 

Nope, as quoted, my links do show just that, eg cars:156.8 fatalities per million, cycling:13.3 fatalities per million.

 

Where's your links that demonstrate that cycling is so unsafe? Why are you so hung up on my facts, when you've presented none of your own? I switched, as explained twice now, becuase the point was about safety, not cycling vs cars. You said kids don't belong on the road on bikes because it's unsafe, I disagreed. If roads are too unsafe for kids, then so are pavements, swimming pools and playgrounds, is my point now clear enough for you?

 

There's also a clear difference between being wrong and lying, do I need to explain that to you as well?

[Sebrof]

Why do you lie so much, Slim? Your links don't demonstrate that kids are safer on a bike than in a car. Because you know that, you switched to saying kids were safer on bikes than when swimming. Which, of course, is not germane to the discussion.

 

Nope, as quoted, my links do show just that, eg cars:156.8 fatalities per million, cycling:13.3 fatalities per million.

 

Where's your links that demonstrate that cycling is so unsafe? Why are you so hung up on my facts, when you've presented none of your own? I switched, as explained twice now, becuase the point was about safety, not cycling vs cars. You said kids don't belong on the road on bikes because it's unsafe, I disagreed. If roads are too unsafe for kids, then so are pavements, swimming pools and playgrounds, is my point now clear enough for you?

 

There's also a clear difference between being wrong and lying, do I need to explain that to you as well?

 

You have no understanding of statistics whatsoever, do you?

 

There is not a shred of evidence anywhere to support your claim that kids travelling in the car to school or wherever are in more danger than them doing the same trip on public roads on a bicycle.

 

S

[Slim]

There is not a shred of evidence anywhere to support your claim that kids travelling in the car to school or wherever are in more danger than them doing the same trip on public roads on a bicycle.

 

So why did you make the point, if there's no evidence to back it up?

 

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.

[Sebrof]

There is not a shred of evidence anywhere to support your claim that kids travelling in the car to school or wherever are in more danger than them doing the same trip on public roads on a bicycle.

 

So why did you make the point, if there's no evidence to back it up?

 

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.

 

Read the sentence again slowly, and you might begin to understand.

 

S

[The Voice of Reason]

.

 

I am insured, I've got lots of bikes for me and the kids. I'm arguing against mandatory insurance, not against having insurance at all. To make my point clear for a third time as you seem to be missing it, I think it's ludicrous that parents would have to buy mandatory insurance for their kids. Kids should be free to go ride a bike without any kind of crap like that.

 

I'd love to be able to choose whether I have car insurance or not ( sorry actually I wouldn't I think mandatory insurance is a good thing for all road users) Do you think that kids should be able to buy and buy a gun and fire it at will without any crap like that?

[gazza]

so slim if rideing a bike is safer than being in a car, why are u complaing that its dangours to ride a bike on manx roads,

namley the moutain,

if its so safe what u complainging about,

 

* my spelling may be worse as i had a few drinks, but most of u will prob not no any diffren from my niormal posts

[WTF]

the safety aspect isn't about bike safety, or car safety, it is about how safe you are on a bike AMONGST the cars, if there were NO bikes on the roads, car accidents and deaths would still around what they are now. but if there were no cars on the roads, i doubt there would be many cyclists killed ( not much left to hit them ), but there would still be a few bent spokes. in a single vehicle accident at the same speed in the same place, i would expect the car driver to fair better every time. and in a bike vs car accident it is still likely that the car driver will come out of it better, so on those grounds the car is safer. but, the car is a danger to the cyclist, but the cyclist is little threat to the car, so the vulnerabillity of cycling is what makes it more dangerous than being in a car regardless of the stats. we should all be travelling around in 'zorbs', really big ones that an electric vehicle can fit inside so you just aim it where you want to go and bounce off any obstacles.