Jump to content

Loz

Member
  • Posts

    8,453
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Loz

  1. OK, fair enough, but seems that they are sold empty seats, rather than unsold. Not sure lowering the price will fix that problem.
  2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but every time I've seen a match on TV (premier league at least), the stadiums seems to be full. Which indicates - to me, at least - that ticket prices are pretty much set correctly to meet demand. Like it or not, football is now a business, and many clubs are struggling to stay afloat. They are going to set ticket prices as high as the market can take. And, like or not, fans are going to keep turning up.
  3. LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe we should look at why cars and other motorised vehicles are expected to be registered > and insured for a more logical approach. The history of registration of cars relates to their > inherent dangerousness and had nothing to do with them being users of the road: > > By the turn of the century, interest in the motor car was increasing, but there was widespread > dissatisfaction with the poor state of the roads. Indeed, the report on the Emancipation Run had > stated that ?the roads were filthy, and the cars progressed through a deep sea of mud, over > surfaces of the most sodden and heavy going character?. Soon the number of vehicles in use had > reached 5,000, creating ever more hazards for other road users. And it was difficult to identify > the offenders of the few regulations that existed. > Consequently, The Motor Car Act 1903 introduced measures to help identify vehicles and their > drivers. All motor vehicles were to be registered, and to display registration marks in a prominent > position. > > Extract from the DVLA website: That just seems to back my argument - that cyclists are rapidly increasing in number and bring increased dangers. Plus it's difficult to identify the offenders of regulations. Ergo, visible registration is a good thing. Erm... thanks. > Cyclists pose no such danger and there is consequently no need to introduce the same > regulation as is necessary in relation to motorised vehicles, which are huge pieces of > metal, lethally propelled at great speed and causing a large number of fatalities a year. No one is arguing that they are less dangerous than cars, but unless they pose little no no danger (which I doubt even you would argue) then bringing them into line is entirely sensible. Especially as it becomes more and more popular. > Cycling poses much the same risk to others as a number of other common activities, none of which > require the participants to register on some database and carry prominently displayed identifying numbers. How many of these involve the road? An environment where the vast majority are already visibly registered. > Equating cycling with driving, just because they share the road, is nonsensical for all of the many > and detailed reasons above written by me and other posters. What? Because they are 'less dangerous'. Sorry, but that is the whataboutery distraction argument again. You've yet to actually argue why it would be a bad thing, just that you don't want it. > But you have failed to engage with the arguments put forward, instead repeating your prejudiced and > illogical viewpoint as if repetition gives it more weight. I could describe your approach in much the same way - prejudiced and illogical . All you have done is say, "ooh, look - there is something ever worse over there!!". I've put forward solid arguments why it would be a good thing - you've yet to really argue why it would be a bad thing. > If you can't see why compulsory registration and insurance is a bad idea by now, then there seems > to be little point in attempting to explain any further. I don't think you have actually explained why it would be a bad thing, only that you don't think it's necessary. Which is an entirely different argument.
  4. LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe we should have a proportionate policing > response. Equal to the percentage of motorised > transport compared to cyclists, then add to that > the likely seriousness of any damage caused by > flouting the Highway code by the two groups and > finally deduct the savings to the NHS by cyclists > being healthier and allocate the 'crackdown' > resources accordingly. And you think registering bicycles was a bit hard? Good luck with that little equation. And since we are adding savings to the NHS, you really should add in VED and fuel taxes if you are going to be fair. And a million other criteria, no doubt. Anyway, I'd be happy with that. As soon as all bikes are carry visible registration, the policing of them would be really rather cheap to implement. A small percentage of the road traffic budget would be perfectly adequate.
  5. LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What I'm trying to understand is why they want to single out cyclists. We've all given examples of > other classes of person who cause as much or more damage than cyclists when engaging in other > activities... Ah, the whataboutery argument again. If all else fails, try the whataboutery argument. By your argument, if I can think of a few more dangerous things than cars (e.g. motorbikes, per km ridden) then we should abandon registration and insurance for cars. But that is a silly argument. Why cyclists? Because a bicycle is a vehicle travelling on roads. All other vehicles on the roads require registration. Why should bikes be any different? So a better question is, 'Why NOT cyclists'? Your only arguments so far is that a) oooh, it a bit difficult (it's not) and b) there are other dangerous things in life. Not really good arguments, are they?
  6. LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And Loz, I'm still waiting for your detailed breakdown on how all this extra registration and > insurance would work, especially when it comes to kids. Insurance: For kids up to a certain age, parents would have legal responsibility for insurance. What happens now when a child causes damage? The parents are responsible for paying out. As far as registration goes, as TED said, the same as cars. A legal owner, who must identify any rider on request. It could be incorporated into the current DVLA registration system very easily. What's so difficult?
  7. The sort of retort I bet you wished you could have come up with in the heat of the moment!
  8. Loz

    random stuff

    Yours was more amusing, though. At 45 miles per second velocity, it would only have needed to last 2 seconds at something near that speed to make it to space. I reckon it's in orbit.
  9. LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My niece was killed by a car. The driver didn't stop and was never prosecuted. > > My sister in law has never been the same again since the death of her daughter and my brother > nearly had a nervous breakdown. > > Repeat this for the thousands of people killed by cars every year and then add the ones injured by > cars, plus the damage to property caused by car drivers and I think you'll find that bikes are > pretty lame in the destruction-of-people's-lives stakes. I'm sorry to hear that. But as an argument it's just whataboutery and nothing to do with the subject at hand. It's like arguing that in 2011, 1,901 people were killed in road accidents, but about 74,000 were killed by heart disease, so lets disband all traffic control and concentrate on heart research. To repeat, these things are not mutually exclusive. We can tackle both bad car drivers and bad cyclists. And heart disease.
  10. henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > So, how many is too many? The DfT figures recorded over 33,000 incidents involving bicycles, > > of which in about 52% of cases the bicycle contributed in some way towards the incident. And > > remember that injuries cause can mean huge medical bills. > > And of how many of those was the other road user injured? And of how many of those was the cyclist > fully negligent and liable for damages. For someone who accuses others of distorting and > misusing statistics you seem very willing to do it yourself. There are no misuse of stats there, unless you'd like to point out the error. You just tried to read something in there that I am in no way claiming. Poor strawman attempt, henryb. Really, is that the best you've got left? See, unlike you, at least I use the right terminology and reference my sources (which in turn referenced the original source). And I don't quote a stat and then claim it represents something else completely (like your 2% attempt). Just because you've been caught out misusing stats, don't try and offload it onto me.
  11. Loz

    random stuff

    I assume something inside the Large Hadron Collider or similar, since they're pretty close to the speed of light. Unless you actually do include a beam of light in a vacuum... (Random note: I just fixed a typo in that, calling it the 'Large Hardon Collider'. Fnarr.)
  12. I would guess most accidents where the cyclist was at fault would have caused some damage. How many a year that is I can't find numbers on, except for the DfT numbers I quoted earlier, which would suggest numbers in the low thousands per year. Again, if this is, as you seem to be claiming, such a rare occurrence with such a low damage cost then insurance premiums will be next to nothing. So what are you worried about?
  13. LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The authorities show that the term "damage" for the purpose of this provision, should be widely > interpreted so as to conclude not only permanent or temporary physical harm, but also permanent or > temporary impairment of value or usefulness Morphitis v. Salmon [1990] Crim. L.R. 48, Q.B.D. Out of interest, why does this not apply to clamps applied to cars?
  14. LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Prevalance & extent of damage and therefore costs against the person causing the damage = extent of need for compulsory insurance. > Cycling = no need for insurance So, how many is too many? The DfT figures recorded over 33,000 incidents involving bicycles, of which in about 52% of cases the bicycle contributed in some way towards the incident. And remember that injuries cause can mean huge medical bills. But, if indeed you are right, LD, then premiums would be trivial. So what is the problem? Registration alone would fix the issue. Once a few cyclists are sued for a few tens of thousands of pounds then insurance would automatically become very popular,
  15. You get your entire booze and fags spending printed in a national magazine. Isn't that enough>
  16. From the Guardian... The study, carried out for the Department for Transport, found that in 2% of cases where cyclists were seriously injured in collisions with other road users police said that the rider disobeying a stop sign or traffic light was a likely contributing factor. Wearing dark clothing at night was seen as a potential cause in about 2.5% of cases, and failure to use lights was mentioned 2% of the time. Sounds like a prime piece of cherry-picking of stats. And then, this gets further distorted and further away from the truth when others misuse even these, as shown by your claim that the above statistic showed that "only 2% of accidents involving cyclists are caused by risky behaviour by the cyclist." (which is quite clearly not what is claimed even in the Guardian). As you get further and further from the original report, the claims get more and more false. It's notable that the Guradian, unusually, failed to link to the original report in the article. My rather more independent link says that this is a very, very distorted view of the truth. Where 'distorted' = 'false'. And anyway - it proves nothing. It's a bit like newspapers producing some dodgy stats to show that only 2% of newspaper articles involve phone hacking and therefore claiming nothing needs to be done. Cyclists yell a lot about safety, yet when something effects them, they seem to be no longer interested. Usually vocally so. Registration and insurance is a sensible step forward, and the arguments against them are pretty weak to non-existent at best... and a weak attempt at distraction at worst.
  17. henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Only 2% of accidents involving cyclists are caused by risky behaviour by the cyclist. The vast > majority (over 70%) of accidents between cyclists and motor vehicles are the fault of driver of motor vehicle. I'd like to source for those statistics, because I think they are very wrong. Apart from anything else, no statistics I have ever seen attribute 'fault', only 'contributing factors' (and these are very different concepts, and rarely attributed to a single party, unlike fault). Here's a pretty independent look at the figures released by the Department for Transport. It concludes that "around half of all one-on-one collisions involving a cyclist were attributed in some part to the cyclist, although this does not imply the cyclist was responsible for the accident." > If we want to improve safety for cyclists on the roads we need to primarily focus > on changing driver behaviour. And if we want to improve safety for everyone, then insurance and registration for cyclists is obvious. And we can improve driving skills. The two are not mutually exclusive in any way.
  18. James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Loz, > Isn't that an over reaction. More unsinsured cars are being driven around, with many crashing, than > all the cyclsits cycling around. The former cause far more damage. 13% of cars believed to be > unisured - > http://www.standard.co.uk/news/capital-tops-league-of-uninsured-drivers-6778723.html Eh? That's a bit of whataboutery (in Guardian language). You are sayign that cyclists shouldn't need insurance because a completely other set of people ignore the law? How about we crack down on uninsured drivers and introduce insurance on cyclists and make everything doubly better? These days, with automatic number plate checks in police cars and the insurance database, there is really no excuse for the number of uninsured drivers out there. If it is indeed over one in every 10, then police should be acting accordingly. The have the tools at hand. Equally, given the increased number of cyclists on the roads, there is no excuse for them not to carry insurance. Registration would increase safety all round, as any road law transgressions and accidents would be able to identify the person involved.
  19. susiq Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > perhaps cyclist could pay something towards road > tax or pay for some sort of road tax. I'd be happy if they were just all made to have compulsory insurance and identifiable reg numbers on their bikes.
  20. El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My uncle is the healthiest 68 year old man I've ever met. > He does yoga, fasts regularly (the one where you > don't eat anything), is a vegan and a teetotaller. > > On balance I think I'd rather be dead ;) It actually doesn't sound a whole lot different to being dead.
  21. woodrot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > thatcher. > > see what I did there. You have a problem with people who replace roofs of old cottages?
  22. And cat owners.
  23. I've been on the Fast Diet for ages. Oh, hang on - that's the Fast Food Diet. Same, no?
  24. It's a tough neighbourhood around here. Even our water is f***ing hard.
  25. Rhinestone Cowboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ? Stricter enforcement of road traffic law. ... for cyclists? Yay!!
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...