Cycling law review

[cuthound]

4 minutes ago, sirweste said:

Of course it can. The chances of the event happening and the potential (head injury being the more extreme) consequences of the event happening. With this you can compare the two, as per all risk analysis. 

All of the Risk Assessments I completed or authorised in my career were about reducing personal injury, not theft.

[reg]

Some perspective

In reported road traffic accidents for the year ending March 2016:

• there were 1,780 road deaths, unchanged from the year ending March 2015.
• 24,610 people were killed or seriously injured.
• there were 187,050 casualties of all severities.
• motor traffic levels rose by 1.8% over the same period.

Having said that there is a problem with some cyclists on towpaths showing no regard for others. I cycle on towpaths but am aware of other users and when not to crowd boaters mooring up or setting off etc.  Boaters having a picnic or barby on the towpath impede my progress but not by much happy to dismount and walk past, never know might get a free burger.

[cuthound]

3 minutes ago, sirweste said:

By that logic why should we have extra policing for people who live in rough areas? Or perhaps, why should peoples taxes be used to help sick people? I mean they aren't even the majority of the population. Why should peoples taxes be used to pay for old buggers to mess about on the cut in their latter years when they could still be earning? I mean their not even a majority of the population.

If insurance were mandatory other peoples taxes could (and should in my opinion) be used as it would benefit everyone. 

Now your the  one trying to compare apples with pears.

The Police, NHS and old people's welfare are for the benefit of everyone. Few people go through life without being a victim of crime, getting ill or growing old.

Cycling is something you choose to do, just like boating.

[Dave Payne]

I no longer move for cyclists on the towpath if walking, used to step aside but most will carry on at the same break neck speed within inches of you.

Now i just look at them and carry on walking, they should slow to the speed of the walker and both should pass amicably in my opinion.

 

If on a road they should have insurance.

 

 

[cuthound]

4 minutes ago, Dave Payne said:

they should slow to the speed of the walker and both should pass amicably in my opinion.

But Dave, if they are going at the speed of the walker they would never pass.

Be worse than lorries overtaking each other on a motorway. 

 

However I do agree with the main point of your post.

Edited September 27, 2017 by cuthound
To add the last sentance.

[Dave Payne]

4 minutes ago, cuthound said:

But Dave, if they are going at the speed of the walker they would never pass.

Be worse than lorries overtaking each other on a motorway. 

 

However I do agree with the main point of your post.

Saw one go in the cut near you, hit a lump and went plop..

Had to hide my laughter as i passed.

[cuthound]

Just now, Dave Payne said:

Saw one go in the cut near you, hit a lump and went plop..

Had to hide my laughter as i passed.

Yes, I've seen several near misses by the bridge at the end of my garden, a few cyclists don't allow for the fact that people will walk down the path at the side of the bridge to join the towpath.

Pedestrian pops out from behind the hedge or bridge (depending on direction of travel) and takes the cyclist by surprise.

The more aware cyclists ring their bell and slow right down as they approach the bridge.

[sirweste]

18 minutes ago, cuthound said:

Now your the  one trying to compare apples with pears.

The Police, NHS and old people's welfare are for the benefit of everyone. Few people go through life without being a victim of crime, getting ill or growing old.

Cycling is something you choose to do, just like boating.

Not at all. If insurance were introduced it would prevent some people from being able to afford to bike any longer, thus (like bus passes) the government would fund this. In addition, as I said, people riding benefits us all, every single person we get out of a car and on a bike is a battle won for this rock. Offering everyone the opportunity to ride a bike is to the benefit of everyone.

[sirweste]

21 minutes ago, Dave Payne said:

I no longer move for cyclists on the towpath if walking, used to step aside but most will carry on at the same break neck speed within inches of you.

Now i just look at them and carry on walking, they should slow to the speed of the walker and both should pass amicably in my opinion.

 

If on a road they should have insurance.

 

 

I'd be happy for you to stay where you were, I'd just pop on the verge around you, no bother to you or me that way. I certainly don't expect folk to move over, but it's very nice and appreciated when they do.

[mross]

43 minutes ago, cuthound said:

I have nothing to hide.

We all have something to hide - hence net curtains.  Anyone who opposes the government, powerful corporations or the state, has things to hide, even if they break no laws.

[cuthound]

5 minutes ago, mross said:

We all have something to hide - hence net curtains.  Anyone who opposes the government, powerful corporations or the state, has things to hide, even if they break no laws.

I don't have any net curtains, either in the house or on the boat.

I do have conventional curtains,  but that's so I don't cause an upset to people looking in whilst I am getting undressed. 

[cuthound]

18 minutes ago, sirweste said:

Not at all. If insurance were introduced it would prevent some people from being able to afford to bike any longer, thus (like bus passes) the government would fund this. In addition, as I said, people riding benefits us all, every single person we get out of a car and on a bike is a battle won for this rock. Offering everyone the opportunity to ride a bike is to the benefit of everyone.

Whilst I agree about the health benefits of cycling, or indeed any other exercise,  I cannot agree that the cost of insurance (circa £20 per annum) is a block to people taking up cycling. Surely the bike costs much more than that, as does the maintenence.

By your argument people would have to give up cycling because they couldn't afford to replace a punctured tyre?

[Sir Nibble]

2 minutes ago, cuthound said:

Whilst I agree about the health benefits of cycling, or indeed any other exercise,  I cannot agree that the cost of insurance (circa £20 per annum) is a block to people taking up cycling. Surely the bike costs much more than that, as does the maintenence.

By your argument people would have to give up cycling because they couldn't afford to replace a punctured tyre?

If I couldn't afford to run my car I would be out of work. Should I get my motoring expenses paid?

I wonder how many cars would need to be queued behind a cyclist before the extra pollution would be more than if the cyclist were driving a VW diesel.

[Machpoint005]

58 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Mandatory ID cards are a brill idea. Speaking as someone with nothing to hide I am happy also to have dna samples photo and fingerprints on record, it would make it far easier for police to track scumbags down.

Blimey beaten to it by the Hound

I don't completely disagree, but just bear in mind that the storage and retrieval system for this information would be subject to clerical (human) error, increasing the risks of miscarriages of justice with no way out for an innocent accused party.  

30 minutes ago, cuthound said:

Whilst I agree about the health benefits of cycling, or indeed any other exercise,  I cannot agree that the cost of insurance (circa £20 per annum) is a block to people taking up cycling. Surely the bike costs much more than that, as does the maintenence.

By your argument people would have to give up cycling because they couldn't afford to replace a punctured tyre?

 

The geezer in Dave's post no.118 must have spent a lot more than that on his bike - the impact would have completely buggered the front forks in my day (go on, ask me how I know!)

[cuthound]

4 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

I don't completely disagree, but just bear in mind that the storage and retrieval system for this information would be subject to clerical (human) error, increasing the risks of miscarriages of justice with no way out for an innocent accused party.  

Surely it would work the other way?

Apparently there is a probability of your DNA exactly matching with 4 other people on the planet. This would make it much easier to find mistakes and much harder to "plant" evidence. 

[Sir Nibble]

2 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

I don't completely disagree, but just bear in mind that the storage and retrieval system for this information would be subject to clerical (human) error, increasing the risks of miscarriages of justice with no way out for an innocent accused party. 

There is also a natural distaste for living in a country where a police officer may demand "papers"!

I can see advantages, for instance an id could include a "drinking licence" which for those inclined to misbehave after a few drinks could be endorsed or suspended which would be a good tool for public order.

[Pluto]

55 minutes ago, sirweste said:

Not at all. If insurance were introduced it would prevent some people from being able to afford to bike any longer, thus (like bus passes) the government would fund this. In addition, as I said, people riding benefits us all, every single person we get out of a car and on a bike is a battle won for this rock. Offering everyone the opportunity to ride a bike is to the benefit of everyone.

Not to me, as my disability prevents me from riding a bike. If someone can afford a bike, they should also be able to afford insurance, should it be required by law. Shouldn't the individual take responsibility for their actions, rather than relying on the state. B****r individual rights, lets have some individual responsibility.

[sirweste]

11 minutes ago, Pluto said:

Not to me, as my disability prevents me from riding a bike. If someone can afford a bike, they should also be able to afford insurance, should it be required by law. Shouldn't the individual take responsibility for their actions, rather than relying on the state. B****r individual rights, lets have some individual responsibility.

The benefits are to us all and all future generations. Health benefits aside, more people on bikes is a good thing.

When I lived in Canada I found it highly intrusive to be required to prove that I had a driving licence. If I couldn't do this I would be assumed to be guilty. I don't want that.

57 minutes ago, cuthound said:

Whilst I agree about the health benefits of cycling, or indeed any other exercise,  I cannot agree that the cost of insurance (circa £20 per annum) is a block to people taking up cycling. Surely the bike costs much more than that, as does the maintenence.

By your argument people would have to give up cycling because they couldn't afford to replace a punctured tyre?

I'm speculating that the insurance cost will increase massively if it were mandatory. Fixing a puncture costs less than a quid. It's the same areguement as requiring people to wear helmets, it's (sort of) safer without them and making them mandatory will put people off taking their bike.

[cuthound]

22 minutes ago, sirweste said:

Fixing a puncture costs less than a quid. It's the same areguement as requiring people to wear helmets, it's (sort of) safer without them and making them mandatory will put people off taking their bike.

I chose my words carefully, that is why is said "they couldn't afford to replace a punctured tyre".

A quick Google shows replacement bike tyres are circa £20 - £40.

 

Edited September 27, 2017 by cuthound
Spillung

[Mike Todd]

2 hours ago, sirweste said:

Don't quote statistics!? The world is run on stats, and while they can be used to deceive they are after all facts!

Anyhow, I didn't use statistics. 

Bizarrely you've used something not like for like in the same paragraph as your criticism of my runner v rider. 3rd party insurance for a 1 - 2 tonne machine is fairly unquestionable, it is not the same as needing insurance for a 0.01 tonne bike! The reason I use runners as an example (though kids on roller blades could also be used) is to show that it is a risk averse thing to do in my opinion. If bikes are to have 3rd party insurance then what's to stop runners (or roller skating kids) to need it too? What about people playing contact sports such as rugby or football, shouldn't each of them have insurance incase they inadvertently hurt someone? etc etc

I don't think that the risks justify insurance. In addition while it's relatively inexpensive insurance now, if it were mandatory it would undoubtedly increase in price very quickly.

I don't know if this has been covered before but we shouldn't be creating obstacles that hamper people getting out of their 2 tonne cars and onto bikes. Previous generations have totally fecked the planet, we desperately need to limit this.

 

The problem is not with statistics as such (they, as you say, are facts - or at least some of them) The problems usually lie with the use that such data is made of, often with ignorantly applied so-called analyses, significance tests, multi-variate correlation and the like. In many cases the test are applied with almost no knowledge of the contexts in which they are valid.

[Murflynn]

12 minutes ago, sirweste said:

The benefits are to us all and all future generations. Health benefits aside, more people on bikes is a good thing.

When I lived in Canada I found it highly intrusive to be required to prove that I had a driving licence. If I couldn't do this I would be assumed to be guilty. I don't want that.

I'm speculating that the insurance cost will increase massively if it were mandatory. Fixing a puncture costs less than a quid. It's the same areguement as requiring people to wear helmets, it's (sort of) safer without them and making them mandatory will put people off taking their bike.

what a load of nonsense.  

I would also comment that in this litigious age anyone who is at risk of injuring someone else as a result of their actions should carry insurance.  

Some home insurance policies includes such risks.  e.g. https://www.allianz.co.uk/home-insurance/contents-cover-details/liability-insurance.html

why should homeowners be the only people who carry such insurance?

 

[cuthound]

15 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

The problem is not with statistics as such (they, as you say, are facts - or at least some of them) The problems usually lie with the use that such data is made of, often with ignorantly applied so-called analyses, significance tests, multi-variate correlation and the like. In many cases the test are applied with almost no knowledge of the contexts in which they are valid.

My favourite statistic is the one that says "94% of all statistics are made up on the spot" 

 

[Machpoint005]

55 minutes ago, cuthound said:

Surely it would work the other way?

Apparently there is a probability of your DNA exactly matching with 4 other people on the planet. This would make it much easier to find mistakes and much harder to "plant" evidence. 

I'm not taking about computers and probabilities, I'm talking about the matchless ability of the Mark 1 Human Brain to comprehensively f*ck things up. 

[mrsmelly]

4 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

I'm not taking about computers and probabilities, I'm talking about the matchless ability of the Mark 1 Human Brain to comprehensively f*ck things up. 

This is why I am against hanging/capital punishment. If one person is wrongly convicted and exterminated its worse than a million baddies getting off.

[WotEver]

17 minutes ago, cuthound said:

My favourite statistic is the one that says "94% of all statistics are made up on the spot" 

One in four people carry a sexually transmitted disease. So if you’re with three of your mates and they’re ok it must be you.