E-bikes in EU to require insurance, what a dumb proposal

Like pedestrians?

 

Good luck getting an answer from p999 to that....

Good luck getting an answer from p999 to that....

Ordinarily, pedestrians use pavements, not public roads. Pavements are built specifically for them. Likewise cycle paths, where provided, are built specifically for cyclists. Edited May 28, 2018 by L00b

Ordinarily, pedestrians use pavements, not public roads. Pavements are built specifically for them. Likewise cycle paths, where provided, are built specifically for cyclists.

 

Not true in either case. The footway and cycle paths are a part of the public highway along with the carriageway. Even the most unobservant will have noticed that pedestrians, cycles, and vehicles have legal use of all three. Vehicles also kill and injure thousands of pedestrians annually and not always while using the highway legally.

 

Pedestrian crash helmets are an excellent idea which will save countless lives from ruin and save the nation billions too. They should be made compulsory.

Just ask yourself this: if in the course of dodging some hazard you happened to knock a kid down, that leaves him or her wheelchair-bound or with permanent brain injuries, can you afford to pay for their care now and for the rest of their lives? And regardless, do you think it’s fair that you should be made to?

 

On that basis we should all have 3rd party insurance in everything we do, because accidents can happen whilst walking, running, cycling or even standing still.

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2018 at 10:06 ----------

 

Every mode of transport that uses public roads should have to be insured.

 

I disagree, compulsory insurance for cars exists because of the high likelihood of severe harm. That doesn't exist for cycles or e-cycles, or pedestrians, or kids on skateboards and scooters.

Not true in either case. The footway and cycle paths are a part of the public highway along with the carriageway. Even the most unobservant will have noticed that pedestrians, cycles, and vehicles have legal use of all three. Vehicles also kill and injure thousands of pedestrians annually and not always while using the highway legally.

 

Pedestrian crash helmets are an excellent idea which will save countless lives from ruin and save the nation billions too. They should be made compulsory.

My answer accounted for the earlier use of the word ‘roads’, and I’m unaware of any law or rule that permits a car or motorbike to use ‘footways’ and cycle paths.

 

Moreover, the driving of your pedestrian-maiming vehicles requires mandatory insurance.

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2018 at 09:16 ----------

 

On that basis we should all have 3rd party insurance in everything we do, because accidents can happen whilst walking, running, cycling or even standing still.

I’m not interested by a straw man (an incorrect one moreover: the context is harm caused unto others (“third parties”), not to oneself (“first party”)).

 

I’m more interested in how you reconcile your libertarian outlook with the equitable dilemma that I posited and which you quoted.

 

Can you afford the (potentially-lifelong) care for someone you’d accidentally knock down on your bike?

 

Do you think it’s fair, or unfair, that you would be personally liable for it?

 

Because the alternative is the taxpayer. Personally, whilst I don’t have any problem stumping up for unfortunate people with congenital disabilities and/or similar life-altering issues, nor with the principle of personal liability in respect of third parties, I have a bit of a problem stumping up for others’ own breakage, accidental or not.

Edited May 28, 2018 by L00b

On that basis we should all have 3rd party insurance in everything we do, because accidents can happen whilst walking, running, cycling or even standing still.

E-bikes are new technology. Laws and regulations are slow to catch up with new technologies. There are more cyclists on the roads than ever before and it is not unreasonable to group E-bike riders and regular cyclists together and encourage them all to have third party insurance. Perhaps, the way forward is for big cities such as London to make it compulsory for all cyclists to have third party insurance to ride a bike on London roads.

A law requiring something is definitely not "encouragement".

 

Barriers to cycling reduce the numbers cycling, this directly increases the risk to the remaining riders, and is contrary to public health policies of encouraging people to do more exercise.

The costs to society of any barriers to cycling far outweigh the entirely trivial benefits.

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2018 at 11:47 ----------

 

My answer accounted for the earlier use of the word ‘roads’, and I’m unaware of any law or rule that permits a car or motorbike to use ‘footways’ and cycle paths.

 

Moreover, the driving of your pedestrian-maiming vehicles requires mandatory insurance.

 

---------- Post added 28-05-2018 at 09:16 ----------

 

I’m not interested by a straw man (an incorrect one moreover: the context is harm caused unto others (“third parties”), not to oneself (“first party”)).

Did you imagine that I meant accidents happened only to oneself? I didn't. Pedestrians bump into each other, joggers and runners run into other pedestrians (and cyclists and cars), people standing still cause accidents that injure other people.

 

I’m more interested in how you reconcile your libertarian outlook with the equitable dilemma that I posited and which you quoted.

 

Can you afford the (potentially-lifelong) care for someone you’d accidentally knock down on your bike?

No, the costs can be into the tens of millions. However the risk of it is so small that society should bear that risk.

Doing so is to the benefit of society, because the good that comes from allowing free access to cycling far outweighs the likely costs of effectively insuring all cyclists by default.

 

Do you think it’s fair, or unfair, that you would be personally liable for it?

 

Because the alternative is the taxpayer. Personally, whilst I don’t have any problem stumping up for unfortunate people with congenital disabilities and/or similar life-altering issues, nor with the principle of personal liability in respect of third parties, I have a bit of a problem stumping up for others’ own breakage, accidental or not.

It's entirely in the taxpayers interest to make the minor provision for covering any such accident.

I understand why you don't want to pay for others breakage, but when you consider the overall saving to the NHS and the environment, when you realise you're making a net gain on tax, perhaps you'd be more keen then?

You pay tax towards a lot of things that you don't personally benefit from, although in this case if you ever get on a bike you would benefit from it wouldn't you.

Barriers to cycling reduce the numbers cycling, this directly increases the risk to the remaining riders, and is contrary to public health policies of encouraging people to do more exercise.

And yet, the barrier to driving constituted by increasing car prices and insurance premiums hardly reduces traffic volumes, does it?

 

Let it be noted that, however healthy cycling is as a pursuit, it’s not the only form of exercise available to people-nor the cheapest. Less of the ‘cycling is best for your health and the planet’ non-sequitur please, that’s irrelevant to the discussion of personal liability for damage caused (which is all that the notion of 3rd party insurance for e-cyclists is about).

Did you imagine that I meant accidents happened only to oneself? I didn't. Pedestrians bump into each other, joggers and runners run into other pedestrians (and cyclists and cars), people standing still cause accidents that injure other people.

Pedestrians and joggers are not subjected to the motoring offences (and associated liabilities) stipulated by the RTA 1988. Cyclists are. A very notable difference, highly relevant to the topic.

No, the costs can be into the tens of millions. However the risk of it is so small that society should bear that risk.

Doing so is to the benefit of society, because the good that comes from allowing free access to cycling far outweighs the likely costs of effectively insuring all cyclists by default.

It's entirely in the taxpayers interest to make the minor provision for covering any such accident.

So say you caused life-altering damage to a pedestrian on your bike, your position is that you are quite happy to let the taxpayer pick up the whole tab with a shrug, because ‘cycling is good for the collective health and the planet’. OK.

 

Unfortunately for your world view, under U.K. law that pedestrian has a claim against you personally. Just thought you’d like to know.

I understand why you don't want to pay for others breakage, but when you consider the overall saving to the NHS and the environment, when you realise you're making a net gain on tax, perhaps you'd be more keen then?

I look forward to substantive quantitative data studies in due course that prove this wish list. Sales patter leaves me a bit non-plussed in the meantime.

You pay tax towards a lot of things that you don't personally benefit from, although in this case if you ever get on a bike you would benefit from it wouldn't you.

Let it be said that I don’t even mind tax proceeds going on cycling incentives like the bike-to-work scheme

 

I’m not anti-bikes, would you believe. Just pro-responsible partaking in any sort of activity apt to cause harm (and with bikes having harder components than bodies and running shoes, besides travelling faster than joggers generally, the risk of harming is higher on a bike indeed - yet of course still lower than motorbikes, cars etc.) and anti personal responsibility-dodging, of the sort you abnegated on ‘society’ above. Besides being egalitarian, where forms of exercise are concerned

Edited May 28, 2018 by L00b

My answer accounted for the earlier use of the word ‘roads’, and I’m unaware of any law or rule that permits a car or motorbike to use ‘footways’ and cycle paths.

 

Moreover, the driving of your pedestrian-maiming vehicles requires mandatory insurance..

 

There's no law that prevents a car or motorbike using footways and cycle paths. It's why thousands of pedestrians are mown down each year and why compulsory pedestrian helmets are an excellent opportunity to reduce mortal and life changing injury caused by 3rd parties.

 

Now back to the real world.

 

Of course my point is that if e bikes represent a risk, there are lots of other more pressing causes of risk with readily available and practical solutions than compulsory insurance for bicycles.

 

Straw man argument satisfied I believe.

There's no law that prevents a car or motorbike using footways and cycle paths. It's why thousands of pedestrians are mown down each year and why compulsory pedestrian helmets are an excellent opportunity to reduce mortal and life changing injury caused by 3rd parties.

Have a read of S34(1)(b), then.

Have a read of S34(1)(b), then.

 

Have a read of the last report of a car killing a bus queue and come back to tell us how S34(1)(b) prevented it.

Have a read of the last report of a car killing a bus queue and come back to tell us how S34(1)(b) prevented it.

It prevented it about as well as centuries-old criminal statutes (as amended) prevent crimes from happening, and likely ever will

 

Incidentally, that reply of yours is as crass as it’s possible to make it, and demonstrates the full extent of your habitual bad faith in debate. Others can do as they please, but for me you can now join Car Boot & co. on my ignore list. You’re not worth the bandwidth.