Interesting point 373

JNugent

Sorry, but you are blind to an alternative interpretation - which I wasn't the only one to make. That is not uncommon when reviewing ones own writings; you know what you meant to write, but cannot see that what you wrote can be taken in more than one way, especially given your earier post about "having to" have insurance, roadworthyness tests etc.

No, it isn't. I'm sorry if you cannot see that in what you wrote, but there is clearly no point in continuing to debate that issue, but remember that I was not the only one to read it that way.

I provided a rationale. It may be right, it may be wrong, you may agree, you may disagree. But is is a rationale. Note that I have not said that roadworthyness tests or identification are bad things, just that the costs would outweigh the benefits.

That is a gross misrepresentation of my position, and you know it. Show me where I said that bikes need not be roadworthy, or that third parties should have no come-back. You will not find that anywhere. I am disappointed that you feel that you have to resort to such childishness.

So should not all pedestrians have to carry third party insurance? There is at least one accident a year caused by a pedestrian walking into a road without looking. Perhaps every individual in the country should have full third party insurance to cover every possible interaction that they will have with the outside world. Even one incident where the insurance paid out would surely make that worthwhile. Do YOU have full third party cover for everything you do? If not, why not? Do you not feel that your victims should be able to claim recompense?

No, it isn't. What a childish way of debating; you accuse me of promoting unroadworthy bikes and defending hit and runs. Nothing I have said remotely suggests that, do you feel so insecure in your position that you must resort to such tactics?