Interesting point 370


Interesting point 371 JNugent JNugent said: As I said, in a perfectly reasonable interpretation of what you wrote (which may not have... JNugent You really don't get it, do you? It's a cost-benefit thing. Yes, ideally all cyclists should have insurance. But then so should everybody else, for every interaction that they have with any other person or object. Is that sane? Is it sensible? No. Interesting point 372 John Smith QUOTE: ENDQUOTE Trying to suggest that I "suggested" compulsion there is playground stuff... How many incidents are caused by unroadworthy cycles? How many are caused by people walking in unsuitable footwear (trainers on mountains, slippy soles on ice)? Is it really worth getting a testing infrastructure in place for the small number of problems? What is the benefit of making cyclists traceable? How many incidents do cyclists leave, compared to the number that pedestrians leave (e.g. shoplifters, muggers, etc.). Why not make every person in the country completely traceable and identifiable, then this problem would go away. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Barcodes tatooed on the forehead are the way forward, backed up with RFid chips and mandatory satellite positioning reporting constantly to the authorities. Or you could just agree that the whole idea is absurd, with no real benefit other than a tiny minority of cases - which do not justify the wholesale imposition of expensive harebrained schemes like these.