[Gllug] Cyclists (off topic)

[Jason Clifford]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Rev Simon Rumble wrote:

> > Cyclists increasingly receive special treatment in the form of bike lanes 
> > (which it is an offence for a car to drive in). As such there is a strong 
> > arguement that they should be taxed for this.
> 
> 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.

Cyclists using specially maintained bike lanes on the highway are being 
granted an exclusive benefit.

> > Licensing may be appropriate too. Previously I didn't think so however the 
> > attrocious cycling I often see in town - including accidents caused by it 
> > - lead me to think there is merit in the idea.
> 
> So licensing has eliminated all the attrocious car driving around the
> place?
> 
> 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.

No, I disagree.

The claim that it is intended for "the most dangerous road users" is a 
completely nonsense. The requirement is that ALL drivers be trained to a 
fairly good degree and drive in a reasonable manner in order to maintain 
their license.

Many cyclists on the road have never even looked at the Highway Code yet 
they are expected in law to know it as well as a driver. Cyclists can be 
done for rackless and dangerous cycling.

>  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?

If a driver hits a pedestrian it must be reported regardless of how 
serious it is. This is not enforced for cyclists and a pedistrian being 
struck by a hit and run cyclist wont have the benefit of a license mark to 
report for identification purposes.

Neither of us can authoritatively state the scale of this issue.

> > If you don't have insurance you may end up selling your bike and lots of 
> > other possessions to pay the claim.
> 
> 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.

Jason Clifford
-- 
UKFSN.ORG		Finance Free Software while you surf the 'net
http://www.ukfsn.org/		ADSL Broadband available now


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