| > What barrier to entry; access to water? Money. Boating is an expensive sport. Find me a boat, or even a rental, for less than $100. You can easily find second hand bikes for $50. Boating is also a pure luxury for most, where as cycling can be a necessity for those that can’t afford a car. > Is this just your opinion, or is there a definition somewhere? There are licensing requirements for all sorts of things that don't provide risks to other people, but do to property, or to themselves. And particularly if one wants to access community resources, especially when the modest fees are used to provide safe infrastructure (such as boat ramps in the case of boating). It’s my opinion, but find me a government enforced license where that isn’t true? For boating there’s clearly a huge safety element, every person you take out on the boat is relying on you to get them home safe. Just talk to any coastguard (or watch Smarter Every Day’s YouTube series) to see exactly how people end up drowning while boating in a manner that appears normal and safe. > Considering the fact you missed my link... the main point is that cyclists contribute to their own accidents as evidenced by the data. The article spends quite a bit of time explaining why you can’t draw the conclusions you’ve derived from the data, including caveats from the data collectors themselves. > The (limited) data absolutely shows near equal fault, and those faults being attributed to driver/cyclist error. It shows no such thing. It show contributory factors, nothing about fault. A cyclist that didn’t notice a car pulling out of junction while the cyclist had right of way, might well be marked down as a contributory factor. After all, if the cyclist has been paying better attention, they might have been able to avoid the inattentive driver, but the fault still sits with the driver for failing to properly check for traffic before pulling out. Even if we take the data at face value and say the driver and cyclists are at equally at fault, then surely we should allocate greater responsibility to the individual in the position of greater power? After all, driver chose to get into a machine quite capable to killing as a consequence of minor fault on the part of the operator, the cyclist didn’t. Surely drivers should take responsibility for their use of such a deadly machine, rather than just expecting everyone else to compensate for their mistakes with potentially fatal outcomes? > But these accidents do in fact cause harm to others on shared infrastructure, even if physical injuries are less common. This applies to walking as well. There have been fatal pedestrian-pedestrian collisions. I guess we should licence and permit walking as-well? After all multiple pedestrians are killed everyday by drivers, don’t they need protecting from their incompetence as well? If you want your licence for bike argue to hold any water, you need to explain why it shouldn’t apply to walking as well. The risk provide of cycling is substantially closer to walking than it is driving. |
This is, again, a moot tangent. Please focus on the important point - that a license can be obtain very easily through online education. And yes, many people practically give away old canoes. Strap a trolling motor on it and you need a license.
"find me a government enforced license where that isn’t true?"
Apiary license, among others.
"Even if we take the data at face value and say the driver and cyclists are at equally at fault, then surely we should allocate greater responsibility to the individual in the position of greater power?"
Moot. The percentage of shared contributing factors is low.
"might well be marked down as a contributory factor."
Sure, then we can exclude the very small number with the shared contributing factors.
"The article spends quite a bit of time explaining why you can’t draw the conclusions you’ve derived from the data"
Where at?
"After all, driver chose to get into a machine quite capable to killing as a consequence of minor fault on the part of the operator, the cyclist didn’t."
Bias again. That is a consequence, although more rare, for cyclists.
"Surely drivers should take responsibility for their use of such a deadly machine, rather than just expecting everyone else to compensate for their mistakes with potentially fatal outcomes?"
Tangent, again. I never said anything about drivers not accepting responsibility for their actions. In a proper system, all participants should be anticipating faults of others for maximum safety.
"If you want your licence for bike argue to hold any water, you need to explain why it shouldn’t apply to walking as well."
No, you're the one pulling in walking and the onus would be on you to show why it should. You can research case law cycling DUI and explain to me why it applies to bicycles and not walking - there will be your answers.
It seems you're not interested in a real discussion and have provided substantial bias in your writing. Good luck. I'm done here.