Compulsory Bicycle Insurance - Yes or No?

[Cyclone 10]

You can't explain what it is though can you.  Perhaps it should be enforced by magic or wishful thinking?  Or perhaps you meant the only logical thing you could possibly mean and perhaps it would require a law.

What do you think, magic, wishful thinking or a law?  Please explain.

[Guest makapaka]

3 hours ago, ads36 said:

yes.

 

if there's any danger, they're not the ones creating it.

 

why not pass a law banning women from walking home after dark?

 

i'm not suggesting it's a good idea for young children to mix with A-road traffic. But passing laws, making them (their guardians?) criminals for an innocent act? that's daft. they *should* be allowed, whether or not they want/choose to is a different matter.

 

 

i'm not suggesting it's a good idea for young children to mix with A-road traffic. But passing laws, making them (their guardians?) criminals for an innocent act? that's daft. they *should* be allowed, whether or not they want/choose to is a different matter.

 

oh look, it's one of those myriad problems that disappear when you have a network of cycle routes.

It’s only the same as any other age restricted act - which already apply in regard to motor vehicles by the way.

 

your analogy about women walking in the dark is daft also - equally daft analogies/

 

“not suggesting it's a good idea for young children to DRIVE/SMOKE/WATCH 18 FILMS / BUY KNIVES But passing laws, making them (their guardians?) criminals for an innocent act? that's daft. they *should* be allowed, whether or not they want/choose to is a different matter.

[Guest makapaka]

3 hours ago, Cyclone said:

You can't explain what it is though can you.  Perhaps it should be enforced by magic or wishful thinking?  Or perhaps you meant the only logical thing you could possibly mean and perhaps it would require a law.

What do you think, magic, wishful thinking or a law?  Please explain.

You’ve done what you normally do again - ie forgetting the actual point and arguing over nothing - not really justifying why it’s legal for (say)  a 10 year old kid to cycle on roads - when we have strict legal age restrictions for using any other vehicle on those roads.

 

why shouldn’t it apply to cycles? 

 

instead your arguing whether the same laws apply in every nation on the planet and whether someone understands a strawman (which is kind of funny given you’ve tried to argue that I’m saying kids shouldn’t be allowed bikes and adult cyclists lives should be made more difficult) - when I’ve actually made neither argument. Do you understand what a straw man argument is? And if so why do you continue to use them? 

[Janus 28]

I think we need the mods to come and trim a few of these posts on this thread now as it`s getting tedious and silly.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Janus

[Cyclone 10]

2 hours ago, makapaka said:

You’ve done what you normally do again - ie forgetting the actual point and arguing over nothing - not really justifying why it’s legal for (say)  a 10 year old kid to cycle on roads - when we have strict legal age restrictions for using any other vehicle on those roads.

 

why shouldn’t it apply to cycles? 

 

instead your arguing whether the same laws apply in every nation on the planet and whether someone understands a strawman (which is kind of funny given you’ve tried to argue that I’m saying kids shouldn’t be allowed bikes and adult cyclists lives should be made more difficult) - when I’ve actually made neither argument. Do you understand what a straw man argument is? And if so why do you continue to use them? 

So, I've done what I normally do, taken what you said, applied it logically and then asked you to justify it.  At which point you refuse.

 

You are now asking why it should be legal for a 10 year old to cycle, as if cycling is equivalent to driving...  You've got it backwards of course.  We license motor vehicle use because they are dangerous to other people.  We don't license walking, skateboarding, roller skating, using a pogo stick or cycling.  I don't have to justify why licenses shouldn't exist for cycles (although I can), you have to justify why they should.  And not with some vague hand waving.

You're arguing that kids shouldn't be allowed to use bikes on the roads outside their homes like generations have done.  You can't explain why though, or what it would achieve.  It's just some vague dislike of cyclists because some of them might not know the rules of the road very well (and yet on another thread you are defending motorists who couldn't currently pass a driving test!).

 

I do understand what a strawman is, why you keep persisting in claiming that I've made such an argument when I haven't I don't know, perhaps you just want to distract from the fact that you can't actually support your point of view with any reasoning, as per usual.

[nikki-red 308]

Discuss the subject, not each other please.

Back on topic.

[Cyclone 10]

On 20/07/2019 at 10:19, makapaka said:

Should be a test in place for cyclists wishing to ride on the roads. Also a minimum age limit.

 

agree care needs to be taken but some (not all) cyclists have poor road awareness or are simply too young to be on the road.

Fair point from Nikki, lets take it back to this.

 

Justify why a license and a minimum age should exist.  You can make reference in your response to blaming the victims if you wish.  You can also make reference to how someone learns in the first place, children, local quiet streets, parental supervision, and generations past and how they learned.

Once you're done there, you can then consider barriers to cycling and how this will reduce take up, you can then continue into thinking about what reduced take up means when it's well established that greater numbers of cyclists mean less danger for cyclists.  Finally, you can consider how if licenses reduce take up and thus increase the danger to cyclists, why your suggestion is likely in the long run to result in more danger to cyclists and then try to square that circle.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Cyclone

[Guest makapaka]

The latest strawman 

 

“You are now asking why it should be legal for a 10 year old to cycle, as if cycling is equivalent to driving...”

 

I never said cycling should be illegal for 10 year olds.

[Cyclone 10]

12 hours ago, makapaka said:

not really justifying why it’s legal for (say)  a 10 year old kid to cycle on roads

Did you forget what you'd said?

If you're asking me to justify why it's legal for (say) a 10 year old kid to cycle, then you're suggesting that it shouldn't be.

 

Perhaps you don't actually think about the implications of what you say at all though, and then you're confused when someone else does...

 

But lets not snipe, instead how about you answer this;

 

Quote

 

Justify why a license and a minimum age should exist.  You can make reference in your response to blaming the victims if you wish.  You can also make reference to how someone learns in the first place, children, local quiet streets, parental supervision, and generations past and how they learned.

Once you're done there, you can then consider barriers to cycling and how this will reduce take up, you can then continue into thinking about what reduced take up means when it's well established that greater numbers of cyclists mean less danger for cyclists.  Finally, you can consider how if licenses reduce take up and thus increase the danger to cyclists, why your suggestion is likely in the long run to result in more danger to cyclists and then try to square that circle.

 

Were you hoping to distract with an accusation of strawmanning instead of addressing the actual topic?

Edited July 23, 2019 by Cyclone

[Guest makapaka]

Just now, Cyclone said:

Did you forget what you'd said?

If you're asking me to justify why it's legal for (say) a 10 year old kid to cycle, then you're suggesting that it shouldn't be.

On roads - not just to cycle.

 

there are other places to cycle than on public roads.

 

you keep asking me to justify stopping children cycling - which I’ve never said should be the case.

 

ive explained to you that I don’t think young children with no road awareness or having had any form of test should cycle on roads full of cars. I also think there should be appropriate testing before people use the roads.

 

you continue to ask questions as to why I don’t want children to ride bikes - strawman.

 

 

[Cyclone 10]

16 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Justify why a license and a minimum age should exist. 

I'm asking you to justify this...  You keep avoiding it.

 

17 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Justify why a license and a minimum age should exist.  You can make reference in your response to blaming the victims if you wish.  You can also make reference to how someone learns in the first place, children, local quiet streets, parental supervision, and generations past and how they learned.

Once you're done there, you can then consider barriers to cycling and how this will reduce take up, you can then continue into thinking about what reduced take up means when it's well established that greater numbers of cyclists mean less danger for cyclists.  Finally, you can consider how if licenses reduce take up and thus increase the danger to cyclists, why your suggestion is likely in the long run to result in more danger to cyclists and then try to square that circle.

 

Waiting for you.

[Guest makapaka]

9 hours ago, Cyclone said:

I'm asking you to justify this...  You keep avoiding it.

 

Waiting for you.

Because young children are not sufficiently aware to cycle on roads - neither are some adults.

 

i thought my point was pretty clear.