[Gllug] Cyclists (off topic)

[David Damerell]

On Monday, 11 Aug 2003, Jason Clifford wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, David Damerell wrote:
>>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.
>Yet a great many legitimate compensation claims will never be so reported.

Unless you subscribe to Mr. Hunter's idea that a little bent metal is
in any way comparable to injuries or death, these statistics cover the
most important aspect of the danger. They are reasonably complete,
published annually, and (of course) support the idea that cyclists are
not significantly dangerous - so why do you want to ignore them.

>>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).
>So? Really what relevance has that to the fact that 200 pounds of bicycle 
>and rider can cause serious harm if it strikes someone else?

Just about every tool _can_ cause serious harm. However, the
disproportionately dangerous ones - in this case, motor vehicles - are
worthy of especial attention; that is why insurance and licensing are
legally required for them when they are not for bicycles.

-- 
David Damerell <damerell at chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!

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