Compulsory Bicycle Insurance - Yes or No?

[JamesR123]

5 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

So, like I said then.

 

I'm going to hazard a guess that as a child you cycled on the road, why would you take that away from the children of today in your crusade to make life more difficult for adult cyclists?

Where would you draw the line?

 

Would you think it ok for a 4 year old to ride down an A road during peak traffic?

 

I think that there perhaps should be an minimum age for riding on the road, before which they can ride on the pavement at a reduced speed.

[Guest makapaka]

49 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

So, like I said then.

 

I'm going to hazard a guess that as a child you cycled on the road, why would you take that away from the children of today in your crusade to make life more difficult for adult cyclists?

No you said “no more bikes for kids then”.

 

which is incorrect.

[ads36]

1 hour ago, JamesR123 said:

Would you think it ok for a 4 year old to ride down an A road during peak traffic?

definitely not.

 

which is why we need segregated cycle lanes.

 

which also hugely mitigate a wide raft of other problems - many of them mentioned on this thread.

[Cyclone]

1 hour ago, JamesR123 said:

Where would you draw the line?

 

Would you think it ok for a 4 year old to ride down an A road during peak traffic?

 

I think that there perhaps should be an minimum age for riding on the road, before which they can ride on the pavement at a reduced speed.

Well, lets look at how it currently stands.  There is no line drawn.  Currently there is no crisis of 4 year olds cycling on A roads.

So...  How do you explain that?  Did you just entirely make up a thing that has literally never happened, in order to spuriously use it to support a proposal to "solve" said made up thing that has literally never happened?  Yes you did.

1 hour ago, makapaka said:

No you said “no more bikes for kids then”.

 

which is incorrect.

Not much point in owning a bike that they can't use.  But why are you avoiding the question and instead playing semantics with the fact that children will be able to own, but not use, bikes?

 

I'm going to hazard a guess that as a child you cycled on the road, why would you take that away from the children of today in your crusade to make life more difficult for adult cyclists?

 

Feel free to try to answer that.

[JamesR123]

Just now, Cyclone said:

Well, lets look at how it currently stands.  There is no line drawn.  Currently there is no crisis of 4 year olds cycling on A roads.

So...  How do you explain that?  Did you just entirely make up a thing that has literally never happened, in order to spuriously use it to support a proposal to "solve" said made up thing that has literally never happened?  Yes you did.

What silly response. Just because legislation doesn't currently exist, do you think that means it should never exist?

 

Lol.  Ha he ha. Wow.

[Cyclone]

2 minutes ago, JamesR123 said:

What silly response. Just because legislation doesn't currently exist, do you think that means it should never exist?

 

Lol.  Ha he ha. Wow.

So, you made up a scenario of 4 year olds on A roads.  You know it doesn't happen, has never happened and won't ever happen.  But you say it's silly that I don't support legislation to stop it happening.

 

I totally agree with the wow.  But point out where I'm wrong, show that it's an actual real problem that you want addressing instead of some nonsense fantasy.

[JamesR123]

Just now, Cyclone said:

So, you made up a scenario of 4 year olds on A roads.  You know it doesn't happen, has never happened and won't ever happen.  But you say it's silly that I don't support legislation to stop it happening.

 

I totally agree with the wow.  But point out where I'm wrong, show that it's an actual real problem that you want addressing instead of some nonsense fantasy.

It is legal for it to happen though isn't it?  You say the current laws are fine.

 

Saying that no four year old has ever ridden on an A road is a very strong claim, one I don't think you can back. I used to ride my bike to McDonald's with my parents and it included about 40 metres of an A road (the McDonald's was situated on it).  I moved to this house at age 6, so was only slightly older then 4.

 

So, to appease your pedantry, should 6 year olds be able to ride on A roads?

[Cyclone]

So you're saying that we urgently need a law to stop 4 year olds using our A roads.  Even though it hasn't and won't happen...

 

And at the age of 6 was that safe?  You had your parents with you to supervise and you're still with us now.  But you and Willman would make it illegal for that to happen now.  Not just that in fact, but you'd make it illegal for your 6 year old equivalent today to cycle on the road at all, anywhere, with any level of supervision.  Why?

 

I suppose we should probably point out that we don't license "road use" we license the use of particular vehicles and we do that because those vehicles are dangerous to others.  We all know that bikes are not really very dangerous to others, cars kill thousands every year, cycles, 1 or 2 people, children riding cycles (ages 4 or 6, or any other age) kill 0.

So the only possible reason to deliberately target them and make it illegal for them to use roads is punitive.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Cyclone

[JamesR123]

Lol strawman. 

 

Ha ha ha that's ridiculous lol.  Has the sun got to your head today?  No one said anything about an "urgent" need for a law lol.

 

The discussion was about kids and roads and where you would draw the line.

 

I also didn't say anything about making anything illegal.  Another strawman.  How can you act in this kind of manner?  How very odd and incredibly disingenuous and naughty.

 

Why did you go on to lecture me about not licensing road use?  And who is the "we" that you are speaking for?

 

This conversation has taken a very strange turn

[Cyclone]

You're arguing in favour of a law to solve a problem that doesn't exist.  You know it, I know it.  You're talking about drawing a line that we're apparently fine without.

You didn't say the words "make it illegal", but you're arguing in favour of a law that would do just that.  Did you not think it through or something?

 

Disingenuous of you to pretend that passing a law doesn't make behaviour against that law illegal.  Completely transparent though.

 

Perhaps the conversation seems strange because you jumped in on page 9 and didn't actually understand what you were commenting on?

2 hours ago, JamesR123 said:

I think that there perhaps should be an minimum age for riding on the road, before which they can ride on the pavement at a reduced speed.

But you now claim to not have proposed making it illegal for children under a certain age to ride on the road...  I mean, that's just a lie isn't it.  You proposed it right here.