Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
Indeed. The only equivalence I'm drawing is that all road users travelling at speed have the potential to cause serious injury and/or damage. This applies to cars, motorbikes, cycles, scooters, etc. Bringing pedestrians into the mix is a blatant troll. It's an attempt to place cyclists into the same group as pedestrians, which they clearly aren't. I CBA doing the calculations but a cyclist travelling at 30mph has the potential to cause serious injury or death if they hit a pedestrian. I don't know of any pedestrians that walk at 30mph, so I'll refer to my initial assertion, that I believe all road users should be insured and held accountable for their actions. This isn't a cars Vs bikes thing, it's simply common sense, because there are far too many cyclists who ride like they are exempt from the rules that apply to other road users, which is ridiculous, and the same applies to electric scooter riders. If you're using a vehicle on the road, and that vehicle has the potential to cause injury/damage, you should have third party insurance, and given the cost of it for cyclists, it's extremely selfish to argue otherwise.By the way, this attempt to create equivalence between cyclists and pedestrians with respect to danger posed to others looks just as ridiculous as when the car lobbyists do it between cars and cycles.