Electric cars

[Berkut]

Fair enough. Still, I expect if we look at the liabilities generated by cyclists they may well be insignificant enough that requiring them to carry insurance makes no more sense that requiring people to carry insurance for operating lawn mowers or chain saws, for riding horses, and so on.

There are a lot more accidents caused by involving bikes than officially reported, as no stats are collected centrally, unlike for car accidents.

Yeah none of the four times I've been hit by cars have been reported to the police or recorded as accidents.

You've been hit by a car four times and never reported any of them to the police???

No witnesses, so zero point.

That is not how that works.

[ulmont]

Fair enough. Still, I expect if we look at the liabilities generated by cyclists they may well be insignificant enough that requiring them to carry insurance makes no more sense that requiring people to carry insurance for operating lawn mowers or chain saws, for riding horses, and so on.

There are a lot more accidents caused by involving bikes than officially reported, as no stats are collected centrally, unlike for car accidents.

Yeah none of the four times I've been hit by cars have been reported to the police or recorded as accidents.

You've been hit by a car four times and never reported any of them to the police???

No witnesses, so zero point.

That is not how that works.

In the US a driver can kill a bicyclist and avoid any criminal consequences quite commonly, so yeah, zero point. 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/31/why-so-hard-charge-motorists-cycling-deaths
https://whyy.org/articles/philadelphia-drivers-rarely-prosecuted-for-crashes-that-kill-pedestrians-and-cyclists/
https://www.newsday.com/long-island/transportation/accidents-cyclists-pedestrians-1.50246836
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2016/04/23/motorists-kill-cyclists-fines-but-no-jail/82982570/

...and it isn't much different in the UK:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/7660205/over-80-per-cent-of-drivers-who-kill-cyclists-in-road-collisions-arent-being-sent-to-prison/
https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-28345522

[Berkut]

Fair enough. Still, I expect if we look at the liabilities generated by cyclists they may well be insignificant enough that requiring them to carry insurance makes no more sense that requiring people to carry insurance for operating lawn mowers or chain saws, for riding horses, and so on.

There are a lot more accidents caused by involving bikes than officially reported, as no stats are collected centrally, unlike for car accidents.

Yeah none of the four times I've been hit by cars have been reported to the police or recorded as accidents.

You've been hit by a car four times and never reported any of them to the police???

No witnesses, so zero point.

That is not how that works.

In the US a driver can kill a bicyclist and avoid any criminal consequences quite commonly, so yeah, zero point. 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/31/why-so-hard-charge-motorists-cycling-deaths
https://whyy.org/articles/philadelphia-drivers-rarely-prosecuted-for-crashes-that-kill-pedestrians-and-cyclists/
https://www.newsday.com/long-island/transportation/accidents-cyclists-pedestrians-1.50246836
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2016/04/23/motorists-kill-cyclists-fines-but-no-jail/82982570/

...and it isn't much different in the UK:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/7660205/over-80-per-cent-of-drivers-who-kill-cyclists-in-road-collisions-arent-being-sent-to-prison/
https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-28345522

In the US a human can kill another human and avoid any criminal consequences, so yeah, zero point to every reporting a crime.

[Barrister]

So Mongers...

If what you were saying was "I didn't get a good look, didn't get a license plate number, so no point reporting it" I would tend to agree.

But if what you were saying was "I got a good look at the guy who hit me, but because there was no third party witness there's no point reporting it" I would very much disagree.

[crazy canuck]

Fair enough. Still, I expect if we look at the liabilities generated by cyclists they may well be insignificant enough that requiring them to carry insurance makes no more sense that requiring people to carry insurance for operating lawn mowers or chain saws, for riding horses, and so on.

Most people operating lawn mowers and chain saws are doing it on their own property, which is generally covered by insurance as a condition of their mortgage.  People operating them off their own property (e.g professional lawn and tree services) are required to carry insurance.

That said, I'm perfectly willing to accept whatever a reasonable analysis of the actual numbers indicate. Conversely, I think given that you accept #7, there has to be a reasonable social benefit (as in, significant liability covered that otherwise would not have been) to implement licensing, since adding bureaucracy to riding bikes will have a discouraging effect.

I think that this is the more telling argument.  The social good of people eschewing cars for bicycles far outweighs the social costs of allowing bicyclists to ride without liability insurance.

Professionals who use chain saws and lawn mowers may be required by law to carry insurance as a condition of obtaining their business license - although I doubt that is universally true,  but that wasn't really Jacob's point.  It is that the damage done by someone riding a bike is likely so limited that there is no need for mandatory insurance coverage. 

[The Brain]

I don't know how much of a hassle it is to report an accident in the UK, so I cannot say if it's worth it or not. I will observe that the powers that be are more likely to act on a big problem if they have data that supports it being a big problem.

[Berkut]

I guess it depends on what he means by "got hit by a car".

I can imagine a scenario where that is strictly true, but I would not report it. But it is a pretty narrow scenario, and it seems unlikely for it to happen four times without any of those times being more serious.

[Jacob]

... that wasn't really Jacob's point.  It is that the damage done by someone riding a bike is likely so limited that there is no need for mandatory insurance coverage.

Exactly.

I'm pretty confident that if we look at the amount of financial liability generated by improper operation of bicycles it will be orders of magnitude less in terms both of maximums reached and in terms of average per capita.

I expect that amount of liability that ends up uncovered is relatively neglible compared to a scenario where car drivers did not have to be insured, though I'm perfectly willing to persuaded by reasonable numbers if anyone has them handy.

[grumbler]

In the US a driver can kill a bicyclist and avoid any criminal consequences quite commonly, so yeah, zero point. 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/31/why-so-hard-charge-motorists-cycling-deaths
https://whyy.org/articles/philadelphia-drivers-rarely-prosecuted-for-crashes-that-kill-pedestrians-and-cyclists/
https://www.newsday.com/long-island/transportation/accidents-cyclists-pedestrians-1.50246836
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2016/04/23/motorists-kill-cyclists-fines-but-no-jail/82982570/

...and it isn't much different in the UK:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/7660205/over-80-per-cent-of-drivers-who-kill-cyclists-in-road-collisions-arent-being-sent-to-prison/
https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-28345522

So 50% of the cases involving bicycle fatalities result in felony charges (first source), but "a driver can kill a bicyclist and avoid any criminal consequences quite commonly?"  I mean, the percentage of cases resulting in felony charges for bicyclists is much higher than that for fatal auto accidents (roughly 1/3, usually for DUI).

I'm with those who argue that better bicycle infrastructure is the best solution, but not with those who argue that reporting crimes is a waste of time because sometimes the system doesn't charge people as severely as our OUTRAGE! demands.

[grumbler]

... that wasn't really Jacob's point.  It is that the damage done by someone riding a bike is likely so limited that there is no need for mandatory insurance coverage.

Exactly.

I'm pretty confident that if we look at the amount of financial liability generated by improper operation of bicycles it will be orders of magnitude less in terms both of maximums reached and in terms of average per capita.

I expect that amount of liability that ends up uncovered is relatively neglible compared to a scenario where car drivers did not have to be insured, though I'm perfectly willing to persuaded by reasonable numbers if anyone has them handy.

That's my argument as well; that the costs of not having such coverage isn't worth the chilling effect it would have on bicycle use to require it, whether you think that there is some threshold for liability coverage or not.

[Eddie Teach]

I think Mongers is the best judge over whether any of these instances merited reporting.

[ulmont]

So 50% of the cases involving bicycle fatalities result in felony charges (first source), but "a driver can kill a bicyclist and avoid any criminal consequences quite commonly?"

That quote is offered off the cuff by one advocate rather than any sort of statistical information.  If you look at the second link:

About 100 people die in motor vehicle-related crashes annually in Philadelphia. Nearly 50 percent of the deaths are cyclists and pedestrians, according to the coalition. The advocacy organization examined 95 crash fatalities that occurred in 2017 and 2018 and found that just 16 percent of the drivers were charged with a felony.

Limited to Philadelphia, but much lower than 50%.

The third link shows 20 charges out of 135 incidents in Nassau and Suffolk countries (limited to one NY area, but much closer to 15% than 50%).

The fourth is unclear on how many felony charges were brought but does show 22 incidents, only 13 charges of any types, and a $250 fine being the most common result.  Limited to Iowa but appears below 50%.

[Berkut]

So 50% of the cases involving bicycle fatalities result in felony charges (first source), but "a driver can kill a bicyclist and avoid any criminal consequences quite commonly?"

That quote is offered off the cuff by one advocate rather than any sort of statistical information.  If you look at the second link:

About 100 people die in motor vehicle-related crashes annually in Philadelphia. Nearly 50 percent of the deaths are cyclists and pedestrians, according to the coalition. The advocacy organization examined 95 crash fatalities that occurred in 2017 and 2018 and found that just 16 percent of the drivers were charged with a felony.

Limited to Philadelphia, but much lower than 50%.

The third link shows 20 charges out of 135 incidents in Nassau and Suffolk countries (limited to one NY area, but much closer to 15% than 50%).

The fourth is unclear on how many felony charges were brought but does show 22 incidents, only 13 charges of any types, and a $250 fine being the most common result.  Limited to Iowa but appears below 50%.

That still doesn't tell us anything.

People die in car accidents all the time. That doesn't always mean a felony was committed, so noting that there were only X% of felony charges doesn't tell us anything.

Presumably mongers did not die in his case, so I am not sure why we are talking about deaths and felonies anyway.

[grumbler]

So 50% of the cases involving bicycle fatalities result in felony charges (first source), but "a driver can kill a bicyclist and avoid any criminal consequences quite commonly?"

That quote is offered off the cuff by one advocate rather than any sort of statistical information.  If you look at the second link:

About 100 people die in motor vehicle-related crashes annually in Philadelphia. Nearly 50 percent of the deaths are cyclists and pedestrians, according to the coalition. The advocacy organization examined 95 crash fatalities that occurred in 2017 and 2018 and found that just 16 percent of the drivers were charged with a felony.

Limited to Philadelphia, but much lower than 50%.

The third link shows 20 charges out of 135 incidents in Nassau and Suffolk countries (limited to one NY area, but much closer to 15% than 50%).

The fourth is unclear on how many felony charges were brought but does show 22 incidents, only 13 charges of any types, and a $250 fine being the most common result.  Limited to Iowa but appears below 50%.

Just the Philadelphia one, since I'm not going to pick every nit you raise:

The analysis found that for 46 percent of the cases examined, there is no information on the status of the investigation or whether charges were filed.

You draw a lot of conclusions based on a study with an almost 50 point margin of uncertainty.

In any case, following your prescription of not reporting crimes because the criminal justice system is imperfect would be boneheaded.  No improvements to anything can come from your level of apathy.

[crazy canuck]

... that wasn't really Jacob's point.  It is that the damage done by someone riding a bike is likely so limited that there is no need for mandatory insurance coverage.

Exactly.

I'm pretty confident that if we look at the amount of financial liability generated by improper operation of bicycles it will be orders of magnitude less in terms both of maximums reached and in terms of average per capita.

I expect that amount of liability that ends up uncovered is relatively neglible compared to a scenario where car drivers did not have to be insured, though I'm perfectly willing to persuaded by reasonable numbers if anyone has them handy.

That's my argument as well; that the costs of not having such coverage isn't worth the chilling effect it would have on bicycle use to require it, whether you think that there is some threshold for liability coverage or not.

So why not just agree with him.