[Gllug] Cyclists (off topic)

David Damerell damerell at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Mon Aug 11 19:47:34 UTC 2003


On Monday, 11 Aug 2003, Jason Clifford wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Rev Simon Rumble wrote:
>>Pedestrians increasingly receive special treatment in the form of
>>footpaths (which it is an offence for a car to drive on).  As such
>>there is a strong argument that they should be taxed for this.
>Walking is the default natural form of transport. This is not true for 
>either driving or cycling.

Y'what? "Default natural"? Perhaps we should go back a few more years
and tax everyone who doesn't brachiate.

>>The reason for licensing is to enforce a minimum (and by Bob it is
>>clearly pretty minimal) standard of competence on the most dangerous
>>road users.
>The claim that it is intended for "the most dangerous road users" is a 
>completely nonsense.

It is true. Kinetic energy _is_ proportional to mass times the square
of velocity; heavier, faster vehicles are more dangerous. Hence the
more strict requirements for lorries and buses, and the laxer
requirements for small-engined motor scooters. Motor vehicles _are_
the most dangerous road users.

>>Comparitively few accidents are caused by pedestrians and
>>cyclists, which is why they aren't licensed.  What's more, any
>>accidents they do cause don't tend to result in a tonne of metal
>>impacting against someone.
>Are there any reliable stats?

Yes; the Government publishes statistics for all collisions resulting
in deaths or serious injuries - reporting of which is clearly
near-universal regardless of how they are inflicted, because someone
seriously injured will attend a hospital.

Furthermore I think it is futile to deny that 200 pounds of bicycle
and rider travelling at perhaps 15 or 20mph is enormously less
dangerous than two tonnes of motor car travelling at 70mph (assuming
for one moment that the driver is one of the small proportion who obey
the law).

>>I have insurance.  It's not expensive and it covers my bike for theft
>>too, which is far more likely.
>Is holding such insurance common?
>Lots of cyclists rely upon their contents insurance for theft cover. There 
>is no third party cover in that.

Don't be too sure of that. Contents insurance almost always needs to
be explicitly extended for cover against theft of bicycles outside the
home, and that extension often covers third-party liability.

Remember also that any member of the Cyclists' Touring Club has
third-party insurance by virtue of that membership.

-- 
David Damerell <damerell at chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug




More information about the GLLUG mailing list