Last night I vented my spleen a little on FaceBook over a national TV news article which raised my brow somewhat.
The report noted that the recent adverse weather had greatly increased the incidence of pot holes on roads. What irritated me was the "guess who's paying for it" 'sub-headline' followed by summaries of compensation claims by motorists and cyclists for car damage and personal injuries respectively.
My FB comment glibly remarked that everyone should walk everywhere, like I do. (Suffice it to say, not in one of my most erudite frames of mind).
But look, the point, or rather points, are these:
1. Yes, the tax payer has to pay for pot hole repairs. Er, who else? The tax payer uses the road (whether a motorist or cyclist). One could argue, certainly, that the revenue raising for highway maintenance could/should be hypothecated. But nothing, but nothing is free.
2. I take issue with motorists compensation claims for knackered suspension. I stand to be corrected but I have a notion that treasury revenues raised from vehicle licence duty come nowhere close to covering the externalities caused by motoring.
3. Now I cycle very rarely, but (again stand to be corrected) I would have thought a cyclist could spot an upcoming pot hole and manage to avoid it fairly easily?
