more bike bashing ?
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Yamaha design flaw
Next: Got some spare coin?
From: Kevin Gleeson on 23 Nov 2009 21:46 On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:37:11 +1100, Diogenes <cynic(a)society.sux.ok> wrote: >On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:35:38 GMT, Andrew ><amckNOSPAM3047(a)telNOSPAMstra.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:25:01 +1100, Diogenes wrote: >> >>> On Nov 22, 8:51�pm, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: In >>> aus.motorcycles on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:15:45 -0800 (PST) >>> >>>> �It isn't as if it has before. >>> >>> Huh? Are you seriously arguing that licensing (of any kind) has not >>> solved any problems? > >>I think the argument is rather that the current road toll is made up >>(mainly) of licensed riders and drivers, their unwitting passengers, >>other innocent road users and equally innocent bystanders. If licensing >>car and bike users still leaves a road toll, why would licensing cyclists >>achieve anything? > >You really need me to explain that to you? > >[sigh] D'oh... OK, here we go: I posit that the licensing of drivers >and motorcycle riders has resulted in a death toll far lower than the >one we would get if no licensing were required. I dunno how you can claim that. I tend to agree with it but there is no logical sequence I can see that goes from someone having a licence to lowering of death toll. I can see a logical sequence from training to lowering of death toll, but unless that licence is made out of bullet proof armour, it makes not a smeg of difference. So yes, I really do need you to explain it to me.
From: Pietro on 23 Nov 2009 21:59 "Kevin Gleeson" <kevingleeson(a)imagine-it.com.au> wrote in message news:k2img5lo4mitqs30idi030c36ca344364l(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:37:11 +1100, Diogenes <cynic(a)society.sux.ok> > wrote: > <snip> >>You really need me to explain that to you? >> >>[sigh] D'oh... OK, here we go: I posit that the licensing of drivers >>and motorcycle riders has resulted in a death toll far lower than the >>one we would get if no licensing were required. > > I dunno how you can claim that. I tend to agree with it but there is > no logical sequence I can see that goes from someone having a licence > to lowering of death toll. I can see a logical sequence from training > to lowering of death toll, but unless that licence is made out of > bullet proof armour, it makes not a smeg of difference. > > So yes, I really do need you to explain it to me. Doesn't the having of the license mean that you had done the required traing? (are we back in the certification thread again?) P
From: alx on 23 Nov 2009 22:05 On Nov 24, 1:46 pm, theo <theodo...(a)bigpond.com.au> wrote: > On Nov 24, 10:40 am, Diogenes <cy...(a)society.sux.ok> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:23:58 -0800 (PST), theo > > > <theodo...(a)bigpond.com.au> wrote: > > >On Nov 24, 9:37 am, Diogenes <cy...(a)society.sux.ok> wrote: > > >> [sigh] D'oh... OK, here we go: I posit that the licensing of drivers > > >> and motorcycle riders has resulted in a death toll far lower than the > > >> one we would get if no licensing were required. I take that to be a > > >> given. Given this, it follows that licensing bicycle riders (for > > >> riding on certain roads) would also lower their death toll (on those > > >> roads). > > >In WA, bicycles, but not riders, were licenced up until about 1964. > > >There does not appear to have been a huge outcry about the sudden > > >increase in death toll of bicycle users the following year. > > > I see your cognitve skills are still a bit dodgy, Theo. By licensing > > the bike instead of the rider, the WA morons were unable to make road > > rules knowledge and riding skills testable items. > > > Ergo, no impact on the death toll could have occurrred with the > > introduction of such licensing. It follows therefore that no impact > > on the death toll would have been observable following the suspension > > of such licensing. > > So suspending licensing of motorised vehicles would have no effect on > the road toll, as long as the users remain licenced? > > Theo my bike would prob fail an iq test, let alone a knowledge test.
From: Kevin Gleeson on 23 Nov 2009 23:25 On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:29:43 +0930, "Pietro" <noone(a)dontbesilly.com> wrote: >"Kevin Gleeson" <kevingleeson(a)imagine-it.com.au> wrote in message >news:k2img5lo4mitqs30idi030c36ca344364l(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:37:11 +1100, Diogenes <cynic(a)society.sux.ok> >> wrote: >> ><snip> >>>You really need me to explain that to you? >>> >>>[sigh] D'oh... OK, here we go: I posit that the licensing of drivers >>>and motorcycle riders has resulted in a death toll far lower than the >>>one we would get if no licensing were required. >> >> I dunno how you can claim that. I tend to agree with it but there is >> no logical sequence I can see that goes from someone having a licence >> to lowering of death toll. I can see a logical sequence from training >> to lowering of death toll, but unless that licence is made out of >> bullet proof armour, it makes not a smeg of difference. >> >> So yes, I really do need you to explain it to me. > >Doesn't the having of the license mean that you had done the required >traing? (are we back in the certification thread again?) Not nerecessily. Training people to not park 2m from a corner or learning how to reverse park is not going to save many lives as far as I can see. I still don't see that bit of paper doing anything but keep track of cars, creating revenue, etc. The fuckwits that die from stupidity are often unlicenced anyway, so that bit of paper didn't save the stats did it?
From: Diogenes on 23 Nov 2009 23:40
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:46:48 -0800 (PST), theo <theodoreb(a)bigpond.com.au> wrote: >On Nov 24, 10:40�am, Diogenes <cy...(a)society.sux.ok> wrote: >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:23:58 -0800 (PST), theo >> >> <theodo...(a)bigpond.com.au> wrote: >> >On Nov 24, 9:37�am, Diogenes <cy...(a)society.sux.ok> wrote: >> >> [sigh] �D'oh... OK, here we go: �I posit that the licensing of drivers >> >> and motorcycle riders has resulted in a death toll far lower than the >> >> one we would get if no licensing were required. �I take that to be a >> >> given. �Given this, it follows that licensing bicycle riders (for >> >> riding on certain roads) would also lower their death toll (on those >> >> roads). >> >In WA, bicycles, but not riders, were licenced up until about 1964. >> >There does not appear to have been a huge outcry about the sudden >> >increase in death toll of bicycle users the following year. >> >> I see your cognitve skills are still a bit dodgy, Theo. �By licensing >> the bike instead of the rider, the WA morons were unable to make road >> rules knowledge and riding skills testable items. >> >> Ergo, no impact on the death toll could have occurrred with the >> introduction of such licensing. �It follows therefore that no impact >> on the death toll would have been observable following the suspension >> of such licensing. >So suspending licensing of motorised vehicles would have no effect on >the road toll, as long as the users remain licenced? Motor vehicles are not licensed. There is a requirement that they be registered. To be registered, requires that they are roadworthy. If such a requirement did not exist, then arguably this would impact the road toll. Your problem is? What kind of a bean counter were you anyway? From what I've seen so far in this NG, I wouldn't place my meagre finances under your watchfull eye, I can tell you that much for nothing, Theo. ================= Onya bike Gerry |