doomed..enjoy your last years

[Andrew]

Or just send a signal to the car owners smart meter. Even if the ability is not already in a smart meter (Which I doubt) it could be added.

[Dave Plowman (News]

Many once cyclists round here seem to be now favouring electric bikes or scooters.

[Andrew]

But still use the pavements ...

[JNugent]

It would be easier to charge it retrospectively at each annual inspection (and by scrubbing the initial three year rule for electric vehicles so as to avoid a three-year bill).

Cars changing hands mid-year would be no exception. It would be up to the buyer to obtain the relevant mileage-related discount from the seller.

[Kemle]

Not feasible, the mains dont have enough bandwidth for that.

Typical ArtsStudent.

[Rex Jones]

That last is a particularly bogus and useless statistic tho given the much higher risk of serious injury to the user of a pedal cycle.

[Steve Walker]

No. This was purely for death or injuries of third parties, not to the rider/driver.

[Rex Jones]

It is hardly surprising that cars cause more death and injuries to third parties than pedal cycles and miles travelled is irrelevant.

[JNugent]

Why is it irrelevant?

As a start, what are the chances that a SORN'd car, kept offroad, will kill someone?

[Steve Walker]

Cars are used for more and longer journeys than bikes, so of course they add up to more. The per mile figure is exactly what matters though - if there is a choice between riding and cycling the same journey to the shopping centre ... the car is (just) safer for those outside it (and even more so for those in it).

[Dave Plowman (News]

I did ask him why he thought this wasn't already done with smart meters. And why his broadband didn't arrive via the mains. But think the question too difficult.

[Dave Plowman (News]

Looking at some bikes being ridden with a shopping bag on the handlebars, I'm not surprised.

[Rex Jones]

More trips, sure, but not necessarily longer trips given there are normally rather more third party individuals to hit in the higher density areas. Particularly kids who are known to have a serious problem with peripheral vision and to be not as good at looking before crossing a road.

Don't buy that given that the car is MUCH heavier and so likely to do much more injury if it hits someone and often at higher speed too.

Yes, but thats a different issue.

[Rex Jones]

Tho I suppose that it is more likely that a pedal cycle will run over and injure someone on a footpath with the pedal cycle being ridden along the footpath.

[Steve Walker]

The stats clearly show that per billion miles travelled, cars kill (just) fewer than bicycles. That is clear and unambiguous.

Very likely to do with the fact that cars mainly stay in the road and pedestrians mainly on the pavements and both take extra care when crossing into the other domain. Cyclists, unfortunately, include a proportion that think nothing of riding through red lights, pedestrian crossing or along pavements, at speed.

[Rex Jones]

But is, like I said, a completely useless statistic.

But it is hard to see that those cyclists KILL very many third parties.

[Steve Walker]

On the contrary, it is a very useful statistic. If cyclists kill more than car drivers per billion miles, there is no justification, on safety grounds, in trying to encourage a switch from cars to bicycles - although other reasons may apply.

No, they don't kill many people, but relatively, they don't do many miles either. If all journeys were changed from car to bike and the same mileage maintained (obviously not going to happen), the number killed would rise slightly.

[Rex Jones]

Bullshit it is. It is in fact completely useless.

Only because very few cyclists ride anything like that far.

More mindless bullshit given that that stupid statistic is only true of THIRD PARTIES who are in fact a microscopic minority of those killed by cyclists.

Of course they do with the driver/rider/passengers killed.

What matters is the number of dead THIRD PARTIES.

So again, another completely irrelevant scenario.

Bullshit would because it obviously wouldn't happen and so that silly scenario is completely irrelevant because it would never happen.

[JNugent]

None of them would be a Road Traffic Accident.

>

[JNugent]

I don't think much of it, either.