Blockade of King's Cross

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 19:04:54 +0000, Judith wrote:




Porker

- when has *anything* you have spouted been appreciated.

Who are you to decide what other peeople appreciate?

Heil der Füherin!

--

snip


--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 20:47:50 +0000, Bill
wrote:

In message , "Just zis Guy,
you know?" writes
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:14:52 +0000, Bill
wrote:

I would suggest that all road users should require insurance, if not
then maybe occasional or leisure users of cars should lobby the
government to remove the need for them to have insurance.

Why? There is no credible evidence of a problem to fix. Only users of
motorised vehicles are required to be insured because they bring
disproportionate danger (most serious & fatal road injuries involve a
motor vehicle). There's no reason why pedestrians or cyclists should
be insured, and indeed the actuarial estimate of risk is so low that
many cycle clubs are able to offer third party insurance completely
free, as indeed do many home insurance policies.

So, if as a pedestrian and I am in a collision with a car and I suffer a
permanent life changing injury, due to the driver loosing control the
driver saves himself a lot of grief, both financial and moral by having
insurance and at least knowing that I will receive suitable financial
compensation to allow me some amount of independence and care for the
rest of my days.

Yes, and this was required, much against the protestations of motor
drivers, because in collisions between drivers and vulnerable road
users (pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders) the consequences were
massively worse than when a motor was not involved, but the driver
less likely to bear those consequences. It's a recognition of the
unusually destructive power of motor transport.

Note that if it's your fault, you're not going to get much change out
of the driver. In Netherlands you would. This change, too, has been
proposed, against vehement (and thus far successful) opposition from
drivers. And it is a documented fact that pedestrians are very often
the authors of their own misfortune.

If the same thing happens with a cyclist, which is what we were talking
about, then if the cyclist has no insurance my only resort, to get any
form of support for the future is to sue the cyclist themselves and hope
that they are a very wealthy person and can provide for me.

Or that they are one of the substantial number that have insurance,
yes. The reason for this is that documented cases of serious injury
inflicted by cyclists on pedestrians, being provably the cyclist's
fault, are very rare. If that were not the case I have little doubt
that there would be less opposition to passage of the type of rule you
propose.

The likelihood is that they are not wealthy, so we both loose out. I
live poorer life than was planned and they are bankrupt and face living
the rest of their life with the thought that they have destroyed someone
else's.

No, the *likelihood* is that it doesn't happen at all.
Actuarially,this does not appear to be a significant concern, however
vivid individual incidents may appear to be.

To quote "I would suggest that all road users should require
insurance," This would not only include motorists, cyclists but also
horse riders and anyone else, even pedestrians that could possibly be in
a position to cause "accidental" harm to others.

And on that, it will fall. It would end up being in essence a
requirement for universal third-party insurance for all risks (after
all, why restrict the locus of damage to the roads? Why not extend it
to cover, say, tripping someone with a dog lead due to failure to
control a dog on a bridleway?)

I am sure the insurance companies would be happy to see a universal
requirement for third party insurance, but less sure that the British
public would accept it as warranted.

And that's before you begin to look at the costs and mechanisms for
enforcement. In the end, it would be practically unenforceable without
a mandatory national identity card. I think we both know how popular
that would be.

If you, and any others, wish to take the risk then please do it a long
way away from me and those that I love. I don't bet but even the
longest odds are not worth that 1 in a million chance of something going
wrong, when there is at least a way of insuring that if things do go
wrong it gives a glimmer of hope and does not totally destroy lives.

I don't take the risk. I am much better insured than the
scooter-riding youths that you will encounter on most trips to a town
centre these days. If I should happen to injure you while I am riding
my bike, something I think is exceptionally unlikely given the limited
amount of time I spend riding other than on the main carriageway of
public highways, you may be sure that I have third party liability
insurance. I have two separate policies providing £1 million of cover
each, neither of which coat me a penny. Another policy of £5 million
is included in membership of an organisation I was going to join
anyway. I understand that the insurers make a charge tot he
organisation of between £1 and £2 per year for this.

However, I am aware of only one case of a fatal injury inflicted on a
pedestrian by a cyclist, and even that case was morally ambiguous as
the pedestrian was, by various accounts, behaving in a threatening
manner towards the cyclist.

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

In message , Phil W Lee
writes
Bill considered Wed, 28 Dec 2011 20:47:50
+0000 the perfect time to write:

But you can't make a right conditional.
And the risk presented is so low that there's no reason to anyway.

But there is a risk.


Use of a motor vehicle is not a right, so you can make it conditional
on meeting various requirements, the most basic of which is that you
agree to make recompense for any damage caused by your use of the
motor vehicle.

Exactly, why should the use of a cycle be a right? Pedestrian versus
pedestrian is a fair fight, once you start fetching mechanical aids in
to uneven the odds then they need moderating. A driving test for motor
vehicles, so why not a mandatory test for cyclists? An equally
dangerous weapon in the wrong hands.

Maybe a petition to parliament is in order to suggest such a test? It
will create employment and generate income, seems a win win
situation.......


If you, and any others, wish to take the risk then please do it a long
way away from me and those that I love. I don't bet but even the
longest odds are not worth that 1 in a million chance of something going
wrong, when there is at least a way of insuring that if things do go
wrong it gives a glimmer of hope and does not totally destroy lives.

How on earth do you ever dare to take a shower?
And be careful of that toilet - lots of people have heart attack on
the toilet.
I'm sure that the prospect of using power tools or gardening equipment
must fill you with terror!

Indeed, I'm glad that you are able to spot these potential hazards and I
hope that when you come across them you take all reasonable steps to
minimise the risk from them. I spend a fair part of my life assessing
risks and trying to reduce them.

The original discussion was on insurance, if there is a risk that cannot
be totally removed then insurance at least helps give a better outcome
than would be without it.
--
Bill

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 21:03:13 +0000, Tony Dragon
wrote:

On 28/12/2011 20:23, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 19:21:46 +0000, Tony Dragon
wrote:

You lack of mention of pedestrians in your reply noted.
Riding across pedestrian crossings and along pavements generally
speaking do not hurt motorists& cyclists.

True, I forgot to mention pedestrians. Most cases where a pedestrian
is injured by a motor vehicle, the pedestrian is at fault (as opposed
to cyclists injured, where the reverse is true).

And when a pedestrian is injured by a cyclist.
The poster did mention cyclists & pedestrian crossings.

And do you have any figures comparing the number of pedestrians
injured by cyclists with the number of cyclists injured by
pedestrians?

Something tells me that neither number is large enough to form a
matter of significant public concern.

From personal observation

Ah, so no objective and quantifiable data. The fallacy of misleading
vividness, in fact.

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 20:19:45 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:14:52 +0000, Bill
wrote:

I would suggest that all road users should require insurance, if not
then maybe occasional or leisure users of cars should lobby the
government to remove the need for them to have insurance.

Why? There is no credible evidence of a problem to fix. Only users of
motorised vehicles are required to be insured because they bring
disproportionate danger (most serious & fatal road injuries involve a
motor vehicle). There's no reason why pedestrians or cyclists should
be insured, and indeed the actuarial estimate of risk is so low that
many cycle clubs are able to offer third party insurance completely
free, as indeed do many home insurance policies.


If home insurance fridge freezer policies cover things - why do cycling clubs
sell extra insurance in their price (it is not *free*)?

How many households have no house contents insurance policies whatsoever?
--

Total number of posts to URC from
IP Address:80.254.146.36 over 6 years = 7

Guy Chapman : 5
Lou Knee: 2

Coincidence?
(Guy Chapman Dell Magnet)

On 28/12/2011 21:51, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 21:03:13 +0000, Tony Dragon
wrote:

On 28/12/2011 20:23, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 19:21:46 +0000, Tony Dragon
wrote:

You lack of mention of pedestrians in your reply noted.
Riding across pedestrian crossings and along pavements generally
speaking do not hurt motorists& cyclists.

True, I forgot to mention pedestrians. Most cases where a pedestrian
is injured by a motor vehicle, the pedestrian is at fault (as opposed
to cyclists injured, where the reverse is true).

And when a pedestrian is injured by a cyclist.
The poster did mention cyclists& pedestrian crossings.

And do you have any figures comparing the number of pedestrians
injured by cyclists with the number of cyclists injured by
pedestrians?

Something tells me that neither number is large enough to form a
matter of significant public concern.

Unless of course you are the one on the receiving end.


From personal observation

Ah, so no objective and quantifiable data. The fallacy of misleading
vividness, in fact.

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

Quite objective & quantifiable, it can be seen most days on my journey
to work, the police must think the same, they turn up about once every
two weeks to catch such cyclists.

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 21:50:01 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 20:47:50 +0000, Bill
wrote:

Note that if it's your fault, you're not going to get much change out
of the driver.

Why on earth should you expect to?

If the same thing happens with a cyclist, which is what we were talking
about, then if the cyclist has no insurance my only resort, to get any
form of support for the future is to sue the cyclist themselves and hope
that they are a very wealthy person and can provide for me.

Or that they are one of the substantial number that have insurance,
yes. The reason for this is that documented cases of serious injury
inflicted by cyclists on pedestrians, being provably the cyclist's
fault, are very rare.

Very rare? Might that be an error of documentation rather than of
risk? One cyclist/pedestrian serious injury of my knowledge ended
fairly predictably - the cyclist rode off leaving the person whose hip
they had broken lying on the floor. It doesn't figure in any road
accident report because it took place in a shopping arcade. The
person involved is now unable to walk and can get not a penny to help
compensate for the change in their life. Unlike motorists the
minority of insured cyclists don't contribute to a fund to pay for the
consequences of their uninsured brethren.

The likelihood is that they are not wealthy, so we both loose out. I
live poorer life than was planned and they are bankrupt and face living
the rest of their life with the thought that they have destroyed someone
else's.

No, the *likelihood* is that it doesn't happen at all.
Actuarially,this does not appear to be a significant concern, however
vivid individual incidents may appear to be.

How many "individual incidents" do you want before doing anything?

However, I am aware of only one case of a fatal injury inflicted on a
pedestrian by a cyclist, and even that case was morally ambiguous as
the pedestrian was, by various accounts, behaving in a threatening
manner towards the cyclist.

According to the CTC, not an organisation known for accuracy when it
comes to cyclists misdemeanours, 3 pedestrians are killed each year by
cyclists. At least 100 times more are injured by cyclist but many
more incidents go unrecorded. Many of these are elderly so, as far as
cyclist are concerned, of no value.

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 20:47:50 +0000, Bill
wrote:

In message , "Just zis Guy,
you know?" writes
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:14:52 +0000, Bill
wrote:

I would suggest that all road users should require insurance, if not
then maybe occasional or leisure users of cars should lobby the
government to remove the need for them to have insurance.

Why? There is no credible evidence of a problem to fix. Only users of
motorised vehicles are required to be insured because they bring
disproportionate danger (most serious & fatal road injuries involve a
motor vehicle). There's no reason why pedestrians or cyclists should
be insured, and indeed the actuarial estimate of risk is so low that
many cycle clubs are able to offer third party insurance completely
free, as indeed do many home insurance policies.


So, if as a pedestrian and I am in a collision with a car and I suffer a
permanent life changing injury, due to the driver loosing control the
driver saves himself a lot of grief, both financial and moral by having
insurance and at least knowing that I will receive suitable financial
compensation to allow me some amount of independence and care for the
rest of my days.

If the same thing happens with a cyclist, which is what we were talking
about, then if the cyclist has no insurance my only resort, to get any
form of support for the future is to sue the cyclist themselves and hope
that they are a very wealthy person and can provide for me.

The likelihood is that they are not wealthy, so we both loose out. I
live poorer life than was planned and they are bankrupt and face living
the rest of their life with the thought that they have destroyed someone
else's.

To quote "I would suggest that all road users should require
insurance," This would not only include motorists, cyclists but also
horse riders and anyone else, even pedestrians that could possibly be in
a position to cause "accidental" harm to others.

If you, and any others, wish to take the risk then please do it a long
way away from me and those that I love. I don't bet but even the
longest odds are not worth that 1 in a million chance of something going
wrong, when there is at least a way of insuring that if things do go
wrong it gives a glimmer of hope and does not totally destroy lives.

How about having a national scheme to protect those against otherwise
unisured risk from the slight chance of injury by cyclists,
pedestrians, golfers and the like. This could be imposed by an income
related premium, so the richer people pay more than the unwaged or
poorer people in society. Let's call this insurance National
Insurance. ... Oh... Hang on... don't we already pay such an
insurance premium?

On 29/12/2011 04:38, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 20:47:50 +0000,
wrote:

In , "Just zis Guy,
you writes
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:14:52 +0000,
wrote:

I would suggest that all road users should require insurance, if not
then maybe occasional or leisure users of cars should lobby the
government to remove the need for them to have insurance.

Why? There is no credible evidence of a problem to fix. Only users of
motorised vehicles are required to be insured because they bring
disproportionate danger (most serious& fatal road injuries involve a
motor vehicle). There's no reason why pedestrians or cyclists should
be insured, and indeed the actuarial estimate of risk is so low that
many cycle clubs are able to offer third party insurance completely
free, as indeed do many home insurance policies.


So, if as a pedestrian and I am in a collision with a car and I suffer a
permanent life changing injury, due to the driver loosing control the
driver saves himself a lot of grief, both financial and moral by having
insurance and at least knowing that I will receive suitable financial
compensation to allow me some amount of independence and care for the
rest of my days.

If the same thing happens with a cyclist, which is what we were talking
about, then if the cyclist has no insurance my only resort, to get any
form of support for the future is to sue the cyclist themselves and hope
that they are a very wealthy person and can provide for me.

The likelihood is that they are not wealthy, so we both loose out. I
live poorer life than was planned and they are bankrupt and face living
the rest of their life with the thought that they have destroyed someone
else's.

To quote "I would suggest that all road users should require
insurance," This would not only include motorists, cyclists but also
horse riders and anyone else, even pedestrians that could possibly be in
a position to cause "accidental" harm to others.

If you, and any others, wish to take the risk then please do it a long
way away from me and those that I love. I don't bet but even the
longest odds are not worth that 1 in a million chance of something going
wrong, when there is at least a way of insuring that if things do go
wrong it gives a glimmer of hope and does not totally destroy lives.

How about having a national scheme to protect those against otherwise
unisured risk from the slight chance of injury by cyclists,
pedestrians, golfers and the like. This could be imposed by an income
related premium, so the richer people pay more than the unwaged or
poorer people in society. Let's call this insurance National
Insurance. ... Oh... Hang on... don't we already pay such an
insurance premium?

A. Cyclists are simply not in the same category as "pedestrians, golfers and
the like" (IOW, they aren't "the like" of those others and pose much more of
a threat).

B. National Insurance is not an insurance scheme and is not intended and does
not attempt to restore the victim's economic status to the same as that which
existed before they were attacked or injured.

C. Wther "we" pay "such an insurance premium" (one assumes you mean National
Insurance contributions, which, of course, is not an insurance premium)
depends on who "we" are. I pay, for instance. Many people here will not be
paying, for various reasons.

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 04:49:42 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 29/12/2011 04:38, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 20:47:50 +0000,
wrote:

In , "Just zis Guy,
you writes
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:14:52 +0000,
wrote:

I would suggest that all road users should require insurance, if not
then maybe occasional or leisure users of cars should lobby the
government to remove the need for them to have insurance.

Why? There is no credible evidence of a problem to fix. Only users of
motorised vehicles are required to be insured because they bring
disproportionate danger (most serious& fatal road injuries involve a
motor vehicle). There's no reason why pedestrians or cyclists should
be insured, and indeed the actuarial estimate of risk is so low that
many cycle clubs are able to offer third party insurance completely
free, as indeed do many home insurance policies.


So, if as a pedestrian and I am in a collision with a car and I suffer a
permanent life changing injury, due to the driver loosing control the
driver saves himself a lot of grief, both financial and moral by having
insurance and at least knowing that I will receive suitable financial
compensation to allow me some amount of independence and care for the
rest of my days.

If the same thing happens with a cyclist, which is what we were talking
about, then if the cyclist has no insurance my only resort, to get any
form of support for the future is to sue the cyclist themselves and hope
that they are a very wealthy person and can provide for me.

The likelihood is that they are not wealthy, so we both loose out. I
live poorer life than was planned and they are bankrupt and face living
the rest of their life with the thought that they have destroyed someone
else's.

To quote "I would suggest that all road users should require
insurance," This would not only include motorists, cyclists but also
horse riders and anyone else, even pedestrians that could possibly be in
a position to cause "accidental" harm to others.

If you, and any others, wish to take the risk then please do it a long
way away from me and those that I love. I don't bet but even the
longest odds are not worth that 1 in a million chance of something going
wrong, when there is at least a way of insuring that if things do go
wrong it gives a glimmer of hope and does not totally destroy lives.

How about having a national scheme to protect those against otherwise
unisured risk from the slight chance of injury by cyclists,
pedestrians, golfers and the like. This could be imposed by an income
related premium, so the richer people pay more than the unwaged or
poorer people in society. Let's call this insurance National
Insurance. ... Oh... Hang on... don't we already pay such an
insurance premium?

A. Cyclists are simply not in the same category as "pedestrians, golfers and
the like" (IOW, they aren't "the like" of those others and pose much more of
a threat).

B. National Insurance is not an insurance scheme and is not intended and does
not attempt to restore the victim's economic status to the same as that which
existed before they were attacked or injured.

C. Wther "we" pay "such an insurance premium" (one assumes you mean National
Insurance contributions, which, of course, is not an insurance premium)
depends on who "we" are. I pay, for instance. Many people here will not be
paying, for various reasons.

So how would you propose to insure against the miniscule risk posed by
a three year old on a tricycle in a public space?