JNugent
JNugent said:
As I said, in a perfectly reasonable interpretation of what you wrote (which may not have been what you meant!), Brimstone asked why bicycles should be subject to the same rules. You asked why they shouldn't. I provided a rationale why they shouldn't be subject to the rules that mandate compulsory insurance, roadworthyness checks and identification in the case of motor vehicles. How would you suggest checking if a bike is roadyworthy or tracing a rider if not through compulsory testing or identification (plates, tags, whatever)? The two are not separable; if you want to be able to trace an arbitrary rider, you need to ensure that all riders are traceable. If you want to be able to check if an arbitrary bike is deemed to be roadworthy without doing an on-the-spot mechanical inspection then you need some kind of compulsory roadworthyness checks.
Interesting point 372John Smith QUOTE: ENDQUOTE Trying to suggest that I "suggested" compulsion there is playground stuff. It is not what I wrote, it is not a reasonable interpretation of...
Because it is suitable for the type and amount of cycling I do.
Because for many people the costs and administration involved would not be worth the benefits. It would also put an artificial barrier in the way of adopting a healthier lifestyle and prevent casual use of bicycles (those who might only pop to the shops ocbuttionally, or go out with the kids once or twice a year). There are not enough incidents to warrant imposition of the burden of blanket mandatory insurance.
