John Smith
Interesting point 373JNugent Sorry, but you are blind to an alternative interpretation - which I wasn't the only one to make. That is not...
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 what I did write and it is not what I meant. My post was carefully worded so as to avoid questions about compulsion.
However, it has been instructive to see how many cyclists are dead against any meaningful way of ensuring redress for their victims (not necessarily *their personal* victims - but you know what I mean).
No, I didn't.
That is an absolute fabrication on your part.
You certainly expressed an opinion, which is the word you were perhaps searching for.
I was asking the question purely "in principle". Practical questions might have come later.
At least your answer is commendably clear - as far as you are concerned, cyclists need not insure themselves, their bikes need not be roadworthy, they should not be traceable after an incident and their victims should have no come-back. Thanks for the clarity. Most cyclists here try to avoid admitting it.
And why would it not be "suitable for the type and amount of cycling" that other cyclists do?
If it were ever made compulsory, it would not be for the benefit or welfare of the cyclist, would it? So that's a red herring, isn't it?
One per annum would be enough (and there's certainly that). There might not be enough where the cyclist can be meaningfully traced, is what you really mean.
