London cyclists dropping like flies

[jockscott]

I wasn't aware the law applied to cyclists?

Corrected that for ya Mr Searle

Says the person who equates poor people with criminals

I simply stated that people who drive without insurance, are costing honest motorists around £50 a year on their premiums. It is you who's equating this with being poor, (but probably true anyway)

 

[AronSearle]

(criminals) It is you who's equating this with being poor, (but probably true anyway)

As for your point about penalising the poor,,, Utter tosh.. I drive a car and am constantly being penalised by my insurance company, for all the fookin "poor" people who don't bother having car insurance

Nope, pretty much you that's brushing aside the issue of poor people as "**** em, they are criminals".

So back to square one, the police having to randomly stop and ask for ID.

Do you find that acceptable or not?

As a matter of fact, yes I do.

Are you OK with pedestrains being randomly stopped and searched, and asked for ID, statistically pedestrians cause much more criminal damage, and cause more crime than cyclists.

They have nothing to hide right?

Because I have nothing to hide.

As I said, nobody who respects liberty says this.

 

[ellal]

Well done. A valuable contribution to the discussion. If you can't win, start the name calling!

You started name calling on page 2...

But thanks for proving that old adage yet again...

Because I have nothing to hide.

Indeed - you have been most forthcoming regarding your ignorance...

 

[JBR]

Are you OK with pedestrains being randomly stopped and searched, and asked for ID?

Yes I am. It wouldn't bother me at all as I have nothing to hide. In fact, in an indirect way it would make me feel safer in that it would reassure me that the police are taking proactive steps to deal with criminals.

As I said, nobody who respects liberty says this.

I respect liberty and I just said it!

Mind you, I do not respect cyclists' apparent liberty to ignore the law.

 

[ellal]

Yes I am. It wouldn't bother me at all as I have nothing to hide. In fact, in an indirect way it would make me feel safer in that it would reassure me that the police are taking proactive steps to deal with criminals.

And here we have a prime numpty who is truly deserving of the annual Darwin award....

 

[CaptainCaveman289]

Anyone?
Of course it's utterly insane, but it's only very subtly different to what's been suggested.

Did anyone ever reply to my earlier point regarding the natural extension of the cycle plates/tax 'logic'? (other than to call me silly)

If you treat cycles as a vehicle that need to be registered, plated and taxed,
Then therefore that logic must extend to all non-motorised vehicle that will at some point come into contact with the roads.

Wheelchairs?
Unicycles?
Mobility scooters?
Skateboards?
Horses?
Small children riding big dogs?
If I give a child a shoulder ride does that count?

Etc etc.

If you're all for identifying potential lawbreakers then it also stands to reason that pedestrians should need adequate numberplates.

To use someone's earlier argument, a bicycle can cause a car to crash into a bus stop, therefore they should have numberplates. So can pedestrians.

Unfortunately the waterways already have this with even canoes/kayaks being classed as boats and requiring licensing, registration and insurance?
But;
Does anyone? No. No they don't.
Is it enforced? No. No it isn't.
Why? Because everyone knows it's rediculous and completely unnecessary.

I almost forget insurance,
We're all capable of causing damage to 3rd parties even when we're naked, therefore everyone should be made to pay public liability insurance, just incase, oh it's so obvious(!)

Don't forget to enforce this with religious like zeal, afterall, we want everyone to suffer!

 

[JBR]

I think public liability insurance is a good idea, especially for cyclists with all the trouble they cause.

However, I feel it should continue to be optional. As long as they can be identified, I don't care whether it is their insurance company that pays or themselves.

 

[CaptainCaveman289]

I think public liability insurance is a good idea, especially for cyclists with all the trouble they cause.

However, I feel it should continue to be optional. As long as they can be identified, I don't care whether it is their insurance company that pays or themselves.

And what about everyone else I mentioned?
You cannot justifiably single out cyclists, because exactly the same 'problems' are manifest elsewhere.

Therefore your stipulations arn't arrived at by logic, as I've just mapped out the lateral extension of such logic, instead the sole motivation appears to be the victimisation of a group you don't like...

Currently the rules and regs apply blanket to motor vehicles (with some minor exceptions).
Expecting the same regulatory process as motor vehicles to apply to all non-motorised vehicles or even all road users is an entirely different kettle of fish.

 

[JBR]

As far as I'm aware, anyone over the age of 18 can be sued for causing injury to someone else or damage to their property.

There's nothing to prevent any person for taking out some sort of third party insurance in case of such an event.

In practice, however, it is far more likely that an arrogant cyclist will cause extensive damage to others and their property than an old lady on a mobility scooter.

Another practical element is that such an old lady is not going to speed away from responsibility after an accident than is an arrogant cyclist.

 

[JBR]

the sole motivation appears to be the victimisation of a group you don't like...

It may surprise you to learn that I dislike arrogant motorists and arrogant football yobs as much as I dislike arrogant cyclists.

Perhaps you can pick out the common denominator there.

 

[CaptainCaveman289]

As far as I'm aware, anyone over the age of 18 can be sued for causing injury to someone else or damage to their property.

There's nothing to prevent any person for taking out some sort of third party insurance in case of such an event.

In practice, however, it is far more likely that an arrogant cyclist will cause extensive damage to others and their property than an old lady on a mobility scooter.

Another practical element is that such an old lady is not going to speed away from responsibility after an accident than is an arrogant cyclist.

Small claims court is indeed an excellent place to gain recompense for damage caused, I almost brought it up myself.

However; you are presenting a biased likelihood based on your opinion with no statistical backup.
Therefore all groups could be treated on potential, which is extreme if taken to the nth degree.


If you hate only the arrogant, are the non-arrogant cyclists to be spared?
Or are the many paying for the sins of the few?

In that case;
some young people are criminals, lets lock up all under 25's,
some elderly are infirm and mentally unstable, let's put them all out of their misery at 65,
some men are rapists, let's chop off everyone's cock,
Etc etc. Seems rather disproportionate? That's because it is.
Although these examples are sarcastically extreme, it shows that a disproportionate solution cannot be so broadly applied without coming across as mental.

Next argument for persecuting only cyclists?
If instead you feel that all road users should wear numberplate identification...

 

[sooey]

Next argument for persecuting only cyclists?
If instead you feel that all road users should wear numberplate identification...

You don't seem to grasp that a bike is a wheeled vehicle, which by definition needs roads to function comfortably.
Pedestrians can function perfectly well without roads, and as a matter of fact roads present far more danger to pedestrians than they do to road users.
So why would you want to make pedestrians pay towards the cost of the roads, and why shouldn't cyclists do so as they are road users.

 

[jockscott]

Are you OK with pedestrains being randomly stopped and searched, and asked for ID, statistically pedestrians cause much more criminal damage, and cause more crime than cyclists.

I'm fine with this ,,,,,,,, Just as long as "you are that pedestrian." (on each and every time a copper sets eyes on you.)

 

[AronSearle]

I think public liability insurance is a good idea, especially for cyclists with all the trouble they cause.

With all the trouble they cause?

Would you like to quantify this, how many accidents, how much damage in £?

You do of course already have an idea on this, and havent just spouted it out based upon prejedice!

Are you OK with pedestrains being randomly stopped and searched, and asked for ID?

Yes I am. It wouldn't bother me at all as I have nothing to hide.

Well, luckily people who are happy being stopped and randomly searched are a vast minority, what a plum!

Nothing to hide, everyone has something to hide.

I respect liberty and I just said it! thats why people should be stopped and searched!

So why would you want to make pedestrians pay towards the cost of the roads

No no no, they should pay a footpath license, and shoe tax.

 

[JBR]

I think public liability insurance is a good idea, especially for cyclists with all the trouble they cause.

With all the trouble they cause?

Would you like to quantify this, how many accidents, how much damage in £?

You do of course already have an idea on this, and havent just spouted it out based upon prejedice!

I don't know the amount of damage in pounds and I don't know exactly how many accidents. I do know, however, that I have seen many cyclists weaving in and out of traffic, riding on pavements, with no lights at night and in dark clothing, and running red traffic lights. I can only assume that, in your view, these are perfectly safe things to do.

Are you OK with pedestrains being randomly stopped and searched, and asked for ID?

Yes I am. It wouldn't bother me at all as I have nothing to hide.

Well, luckily people who are happy being stopped and randomly searched are a vast minority, what a plum!

Nothing to hide, everyone has something to hide.

I haven't. I have done nothing wrong that the police could possibly be interested in, so it wouldn't bother me if they stopped me to make enquiries. OK, it might hold me up occasionally, if I'm in a rush, but if it helps the police deal with people who are a danger to us all I can accept it.