Read aboutJaguar's new and expensive gadget.
How many times must I point out that after 300 billion driver miles a year, there's less death on the road from all causes than from accidents in the home? Or, so far as cyclists are concerned, the obvious query, why must we have them if there is such a big problem with them? A fair question given the millions of pounds of taxpayer's money being spent on it and given that already 13 have died in 2015 on our roads too.
So this gadget. How much will it cost us? How soon before it's made compulsory? And dare I ask, if Jaguar are so public spirited, why not fit it free of charge or at least at cost?
Don't give up your day job, but more importantly don't just allow another piece of road safety profiteering be forced on drivers either.
Unless you buy a Jaguar you won't pay anything. Those who do will make a choice to pay for it as an optional extra.
ReplyDeleteThere are no plans I can see to make it compulsory. Volvo have a similar prodict too. Both Jaguar and Volvo are for-profit companies driven by the market,they research demand heavily before investing in new products so this sort of system has underlying demand from people who buy their cars.
Why would a company in a capitalist society fit an optional extra at cost price?
But hey,why let facts get in the way of your boilerplate text on cycling?
Well hang on. Why not make cyclists and motorcyclists pay for this? It's for their benefit. But you don't deny the point that it's road safety profiteering again. And of course you ignore the accident stats they show we really don't need this kit. And of course the obvious that we don't need cyclists either.
ReplyDeleteOf course other manufacturers will take this on and then eventually it will be mandatory. Don't be naive.
Cyclists support all sorts of imposition on drivers but hate any right of reply.
How (and why) would motorcyclists and cyclists pay for an optional extra on a car? That's ridiculous Keith,even as a debating point.
ReplyDeleteIt's not profiteering because drivers choose to buy the optional extra. Profiteering is defined as 'extracting exorbitant profits,especially through the sale of scarce or rationed good'. We have no definition of the profit margin made in this so a judgement on exorbitant is impossible and there is no shortage or rationing of these goods.
Accident stats? You're following them closer than me Keith so you know how many there are so far this year.
You present no evidence of other manufacturers supplying this nor any evidence of government intention to make it mandatory. If other manufacturers do take it on without it being mandatory they would be doing it as a result of a demand from the market,not the government.
Overall,it's about choice. By your words 'we don't need cyclists' you seek to deny poeple the right to cycle if they choose. That's naive.
1) We don't need cyclists isn't denying any rights, but simply stating a fact. We don't.
ReplyDelete2) So as this expensive kit is solely for the benefit of cyclists and motor cyclists, why should drivers pay for it?
3) It certainly isn't by Jag's altruistic attitude towards cyclists but because there's profit in it. That's also a fact. If Jag and all the other makers who will follow suit do it for no profit, then I would have no case. As it stands it's not so. Even voluntary by drivers, why not encourage them by not profiting from this? However, it won't be optional for very long. Do you want to bet against that?
4) Overall accident stats don't warrant this focus on drivers, driving and road safety. It's all about profit. As a cyclist why don't you support me in challenging Jag to do this for no profit and thus encourage drivers to fit it? Is it because you are so anti driver that you would rather punish them?
As I say, drivers are entitled to respond to this and so I am.
1. It's not a fact,simply your opinion.
ReplyDelete2 Because it's an optional extra on a car. How would cyclists/motorcyclists pay for it?
3 You may have noticed that we live in a capitalist society. That won't happen.
4.If overall accident stats are so low why do you spend so much time publicising cycling deaths?
I'm a driver too. In fact I got a speeding ticket the other day. How can I be 'anti driver'?
This isn't about 'punishment' as it's not mandatory.If you're so bothered about this,why don't you talk to Jaguar and write up the results?
1 Is a fact that you do not like. Society doesn't need cyclists. Just walkers and drivers on roads.
ReplyDelete2 Of course. So if cyclists via levy or whatever are not to pay for their own safety, why should drivers?
3 Road safety is about saving life. You don't get best cost effective road safety from profit. No-one should profit from road
safety.
4 Because road cycling is a totally unnecessary risk and liability so the more people who understand that the more lives I may be able to save with it.
Yes and it's possible to be an anti driver driver like greens are anti people people. You probably believe in AGW too.
Re punishment, the point I make is that it would be to the benefit of cyclists if more drivers were encouraged to fit it at cost only. I am surprised you don't think it's a great idea!