It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by ANOK
I will actually stick up for him on this one - of course cyclists should have to pay insurance too. Cyclists do cause injuries and damage and have also caused traffic accidents between vehicles which have resulted in deaths. Therefore, they should have to meet the same requirements regarding insurance as drivers do.
However, as was pointed out earlier with regards to the VED, these risks would be smaller so insurance costs should be significantly less than for car drivers.
Back on topic, what an idiot driver. 17 months for what was, in effect, attempted murder seems ridiculously lax.
Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by ANOK
I will actually stick up for him on this one - of course cyclists should have to pay insurance too. Cyclists do cause injuries and damage and have also caused traffic accidents between vehicles which have resulted in deaths. Therefore, they should have to meet the same requirements regarding insurance as drivers do.
However, as was pointed out earlier with regards to the VED, these risks would be smaller so insurance costs should be significantly less than for car drivers.
Back on topic, what an idiot driver. 17 months for what was, in effect, attempted murder seems ridiculously lax.
Originally posted by newcovenant
Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by ANOK
I will actually stick up for him on this one - of course cyclists should have to pay insurance too. Cyclists do cause injuries and damage and have also caused traffic accidents between vehicles which have resulted in deaths. Therefore, they should have to meet the same requirements regarding insurance as drivers do.
However, as was pointed out earlier with regards to the VED, these risks would be smaller so insurance costs should be significantly less than for car drivers.
Back on topic, what an idiot driver. 17 months for what was, in effect, attempted murder seems ridiculously lax.
I think since the bicyclist was there before the car, all accommodations for itself should be made and paid for by the car and car maker. None of these accommodations (roads) should infringe on the rights of the cyclist just as the cyclist should not infringe on the walker who should take precedence overall.
Originally posted by Biigs
reply to post by newcovenant
I can take this one i think.
In england we have this strange thing they dont really have in america, its this odd road anomaly called a curve or rounded corner.
This is due to the amount of space thats good to build on and the more compact nature of civilisation. Bicycles make much more sense over here because a bicycle path can cut straight through the countryside that the raods go around and combined with the fact the low average distance a UK person has to travel to work etc - makes them totally viable, more so, the denser the area.
USA thats not going to work anywhere near as well.
cars are the vehicle of choice.