|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Blockade of King's Cross
On 29/12/2011 15:30, Peter Parry wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 10:29:30 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote: (Stats 20 Notes on Stats 19) This data is often used to "prove" cyclists have few accidents yet has been shown in several studies comparing hospital admissions to Stats 19 data to substantially under report cyclist accidents. Moreover, accidents between cyclists and pedestrians which take place on cycle tracks with no lawful access for motor vehicles are specifically excluded from Stats 10 as are accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians on footpaths, Which part of Stats 20 do you think excludes cycle tracks and footpaths? car parks, shopping parks and pedestrian malls. Rather unfortunately this is where many such accidents seem to occur. |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Blockade of King's Cross
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 10:44:55 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:35:52 +0000, Judith wrote: snip 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. OH hello - the Porker has reset his kill-file yet again. Or - did it reset on its own and he knows nothing about it :-) There are odd things happen to his web pages without him knowing - so perhaps the same happens to his kill-file. Anyway - nice for him to converse with me. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Blockade of King's Cross
On 30/12/2011 10:43, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
snip obfuscation What you did not provide, then or now, was any credible evidence of a problem needing fixing, in the shape of actual figures. No point discussing this again until you have that data. http://www.transportresearchfoundation.co.uk/PDF/HES_STATS19_final%20140909.doc.pdf shows 1,860 emergency admissions for pedestrians hit by pedal cycles over 10 years. Assuming they were all 'serious injuries' with an average cost of prevention around £200,000, the size of the problem is something over £1 per cyclist per year. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Blockade of King's Cross
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 11:21:25 +0000, Nick Finnigan
wrote: Which part of Stats 20 do you think excludes cycle tracks and footpaths? http://www.stats19.org.uk/html/stats_20_notes.html "S2 Notes The following table gives examples of locations at which accidents should or should not be reported Cycle path/track with no lawful access for motor vehicles - No Footpath or bridleway with no lawful access for motor vehicles - No" |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Blockade of King's Cross
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 10:43:11 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: What you did not provide, then or now, was any credible evidence of a problem needing fixing, in the shape of actual figures. Ah, "I'm basing what I say on the blind acceptance of figures I know are wildly inaccurate and will continue unthinkingly until someone produces figures which are more accurate". Commonly called the three monkeys approach to research. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Blockade of King's Cross
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:35:52 +0000, Judith
wrote: On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:26:38 +0000, Tom Crispin wrote: On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 10:39:39 +0000, Judith wrote: On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 04:57:25 +0000, Tom Crispin wrote: snip So how would you propose to insure against the miniscule risk posed by a three year old on a tricycle in a public space? Some people would apply common sense and say that the insurance is only required for those aged 14 and above. Why 14? Why not? Do you have a better suggestion? (Sorry - I should of course have said "sensible suggestion") Allow unlicenced road users use the road without let or hinderance. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Blockade of King's Cross
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 16:17:57 +0000, JNugent
wrote: On 29/12/2011 04:57, Tom Crispin wrote: On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 04:49:42 +0000, 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? The child's parents or guardians are responsible in any case. They ned to be insured against that risk. That's making the sweeping assumption that any civilised adult would allow a toddler out onto the highway on a bike or trike. As I am sure you will agree without demur, doing so would come perilously close to culpable child neglect. I said "public space" not "highway". What makes you think the two are synonymous? |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Blockade of King's Cross
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:30:10 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote: On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:35:52 +0000, Judith wrote: On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:26:38 +0000, Tom Crispin wrote: On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 10:39:39 +0000, Judith wrote: On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 04:57:25 +0000, Tom Crispin wrote: snip So how would you propose to insure against the miniscule risk posed by a three year old on a tricycle in a public space? Some people would apply common sense and say that the insurance is only required for those aged 14 and above. Why 14? Why not? Do you have a better suggestion? (Sorry - I should of course have said "sensible suggestion") Allow unlicenced road users use the road without let or hinderance. Requiring them to be insured in nothing to do with let or hindrance. If the phrase really worries you - then they could be licensed at the same time as they take out their insurance. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Blockade of King's Cross
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 11:37:31 +0000, Nick Finnigan
wrote: On 30/12/2011 10:43, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: snip obfuscation What you did not provide, then or now, was any credible evidence of a problem needing fixing, in the shape of actual figures. No point discussing this again until you have that data. http://www.transportresearchfoundation.co.uk/PDF/HES_STATS19_final%20140909.doc.pdf shows 1,860 emergency admissions for pedestrians hit by pedal cycles over 10 years. Assuming they were all 'serious injuries' with an average cost of prevention around £200,000, the size of the problem is something over £1 per cyclist per year. As an upper limit that is plausible, though no record of fault (pedestrians are known to be at fault in most road collisions where they are injured, whereas the opposite is true of cyclists). So it seems to me like it's not actually a big enough problem to be worth bothering about as a matter of public policy, other than to try to make the roads less hostile so that pedestrians and cyclists are not so often in conflict. I am certainly not a fan of most shared-use facilities. 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. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Blockade of King's Cross
On 30/12/2011 13:30, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:35:52 +0000, wrote: On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:26:38 +0000, Tom wrote: On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 10:39:39 +0000, wrote: On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 04:57:25 +0000, Tom wrote: snip So how would you propose to insure against the miniscule risk posed by a three year old on a tricycle in a public space? Some people would apply common sense and say that the insurance is only required for those aged 14 and above. Why 14? Why not? Do you have a better suggestion? (Sorry - I should of course have said "sensible suggestion") Allow unlicenced road users use the road without let or hinderance. Good news for chavs in clapped out Vauxhall Novas if it ever happens of course. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
King's Cross vigil on Tuesday to highlight cycle safety lessons | Simon Mason[_4_] | UK | 34 | December 19th 11 02:30 PM |
700c front wheel 2-cross lacing vs 3-cross & lateral flex | kwalters | Techniques | 31 | April 4th 07 07:58 AM |
Route advice - King's Cross to Cannon Street | iakobski | UK | 9 | December 23rd 05 02:58 PM |
FS: Fuji Cross, 60cm, versatile road or cross bike - $600 | Darrell | Marketplace | 0 | July 12th 05 02:39 AM |
Cyclist killed in King's Lynn - hit & run | dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers | UK | 20 | December 17th 03 05:36 PM |