Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Wed Apr 01, 2020 22:40

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 17:36 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
johnsher wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
what are we going to do when careless cycling takes out a bread winner?

a few more questions for you.

What are we going to do when careless walking takes out a bread winner (as per my example above)?

What are we going to do when an uninsured/unlicensed driver takes out a bread winner?

What are we going to do when any driver takes out a bread winner and runs?


I wasn't trying to imply I had the answers. Quite the opposite actually. These are also hard questions. The second two are mostly covered (reasonably I think, given the way motor insurance works) by the MIB.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 17:55 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
SafeSpeed wrote:
47 KSI between cyclists and pedestrians, of which 3 killed in 2004 (latest).

are the injury figures just for pedestrians or is it for either of the parties involved?

SafeSpeed wrote:
Obviously we don't know about blame or cause.

which would be helpful to know before trying to argue that it's cyclists that need insurance.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 18:06 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
johnsher wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
47 KSI between cyclists and pedestrians, of which 3 killed in 2004 (latest).

are the injury figures just for pedestrians or is it for either of the parties involved?


Just the pedestrians.

johnsher wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
Obviously we don't know about blame or cause.

which would be helpful to know before trying to argue that it's cyclists that need insurance.


I didn't mate. Rather the opposite.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 18:15 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
SafeSpeed wrote:
I didn't mate. Rather the opposite.

which would be helpful to know before anyone tries to argue that it's cyclists that need insurance.

SafeSpeed wrote:
Just the pedestrians.

it would also be interesting to know the injuries the cyclists sustained in the same accidents.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 18:21 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
johnsher wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
I didn't mate. Rather the opposite.

which would be helpful to know before anyone tries to argue that it's cyclists that need insurance.


If we can find a good answer to: "What are we going to do when careless cycling takes out a bread winner?" then I'd suggest that the argument can be won.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 18:29 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
SafeSpeed wrote:
If we can find a good answer to: "What are we going to do when careless cycling takes out a bread winner?"

why are we fixating on cycling here. What happens when some careless pedestrian takes me out and then does a runner?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 18:57 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
johnsher wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
If we can find a good answer to: "What are we going to do when careless cycling takes out a bread winner?"

why are we fixating on cycling here. What happens when some careless pedestrian takes me out and then does a runner?


This is a cycling forum and the issue at hand is: Should cyclists carry insurance?

What's right or wrong for pedestrians doesn't help answer the question. Unfortunately.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 19:59 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
SafeSpeed wrote:
What's right or wrong for pedestrians doesn't help answer the question. Unfortunately.

well if you think ignoring that cyclists are far more likely to be injured than cause injury has nothing to do with the question then fine.
So, the population of cyclists in country are responsible for less than 200 injuries per year. Presuming that you could even enforce compulsory insurance, the actual cost of the insurance would probably be around £1 + some ridiculous amount in administration charges. I'd also guess that lots of people will just not cycle (or let their kids cycle) rather than pay insurance. Is compulsory insurance worth the additional cost to our health system?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 20:54 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 16:51
Posts: 1323
Location: Stafford - a short distance past hope
johnsher wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
What's right or wrong for pedestrians doesn't help answer the question. Unfortunately.

well if you think ignoring that cyclists are far more likely to be injured than cause injury has nothing to do with the question then fine.
So, the population of cyclists in country are responsible for less than 200 injuries per year. Presuming that you could even enforce compulsory insurance, the actual cost of the insurance would probably be around £1 + some ridiculous amount in administration charges. I'd also guess that lots of people will just not cycle (or let their kids cycle) rather than pay insurance. Is compulsory insurance worth the additional cost to our health system?


I'm sorry - you are massively overstating the case here. Whilst I understand you are an enthusiastic cyclist (and not a "militant") are you seriously suggesting that the sort of people who cycle for exercise (and usually buy pretty decent bikes) would be put off by the cost of insurance? Even if some were - if they were concerned about their health they would take exercise some other way.

To me the question as put "should cyclists have insurance?" - boils down to - if I or my property is damaged by the actions of someone riding a bike is it resonable for me to have to bear the cost? Personally I say not.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 21:03 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
prof beard wrote:
To me the question as put "should cyclists have insurance?" - boils down to - if I or my property is damaged by the actions of someone riding a bike is it resonable for me to have to bear the cost? Personally I say not.


How are separating liability from insurance?

Are you assuming that practical liability depends on means that may not be available in the absence of insurance?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 21:24 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 16:51
Posts: 1323
Location: Stafford - a short distance past hope
SafeSpeed wrote:
prof beard wrote:
To me the question as put "should cyclists have insurance?" - boils down to - if I or my property is damaged by the actions of someone riding a bike is it resonable for me to have to bear the cost? Personally I say not.


How are separating liability from insurance?

Are you assuming that practical liability depends on means that may not be available in the absence of insurance?


If I understand you correctly the answer to the second question is yes - my experience of damage to property (not person - I don't personally know anyone who has suffered that) caused by the actions of cyclists (ie "liable") has been EXCLUSIVELY that the means to make redress were either not available, not available without legal action or not obtainable because the cyclist rode off. The worst case was a colleague who had a cyclist (of the hooligan variety) jump a pavement and put a large combination dent/scrape down the side of a very expensive car - repair costs over £2000 - cyclist was identifiable but poor - pursuing the matter proved not worth the effort.

I agree liability exists in the absence of insurance, but I suspect it is only the real enthusiast cyclist who would make redress from their own pocket if they felt they were in fact legally and morally liable.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 22:37 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
prof beard wrote:
are you seriously suggesting that the sort of people who cycle for exercise (and usually buy pretty decent bikes) would be put off by the cost of insurance?

no, I'm suggesting the 'serious' cyclist is by far the minority. Fred who rides to work in a suit or Doris who potters down to the shops or even little Timmy who's allowed to ride to school are the ones most likely to quit but just because they don't ride a lot doesn't mean they're not getting a health benefit from it - a benefit they wouldn't get sitting in a car/bus/train.

prof beard wrote:
a colleague who had a cyclist (of the hooligan variety)

right, so exactly the sort of person who wouldn't have insurance anyway - sort of like those 1 or 2 million hooligans driving around uninsured. You're all worried about the tiny chance of a cyclist causing damage to you or your car and ignoring the far more likely scenario of the uninsured driver writing your car off and injuring you. Very strange.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 22:54 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 16:51
Posts: 1323
Location: Stafford - a short distance past hope
johnsher wrote:
prof beard wrote:
a colleague who had a cyclist (of the hooligan variety)

right, so exactly the sort of person who wouldn't have insurance anyway - sort of like those 1 or 2 million hooligans driving around uninsured. You're all worried about the tiny chance of a cyclist causing damage to you or your car and ignoring the far more likely scenario of the uninsured driver writing your car off and injuring you. Very strange.


I wasn't asked to consider the uninsured driver - I was commenting on the question in the thread title.

I could ask why you are diverting attention from it ;)

But seriously - of course I know uninsured drivers are a problem of an entirely different order - but they CAN get arrested for it, and there IS a scheme for attempting to gain redress.

Getting my car damaged by a cyclist doesn't exercise me much in terms of worry actually, but I still can't see why, if someone damages my car as a result of THEIR actions, whilst occupying the road on a cycle, I should have as reasonable expectation of redress as if it was any other form of road transport. It's no big deal to me - but that was the question asked...

I regard the "health argument" as a red herring in the context of this question.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 23:20 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
Quote:
I still can't see why, if someone damages me or my bike as a result of THEIR actions, whilst occupying the road on foot I shouldn't have a reasonable expectation of redress


So if someone would be kind enough to tell me why pedestrians shouldn't have insurance (and they're just as likely to damage your car when you run them down) I'll then answer the cyclist question.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 23:37 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
The reason anybody is COMPELLED to take up something, is usually because it is judged that not enough people take it up voluntarily. Here in the Lakes, there have been several cases of mountain bikers on downhill trails, coming into conflict with walkers.
Mostly the rider has been found to be to blame, AND has accepted liability, AND been insured. I believe this has come about because of advice from the sports governing bodies.
On the road, there is no advertising campaign to entice cyclists to insure, and yet the possibility exists as the Prof has shown for large amounts to become due.

If Jonsher is right, and cyclists are not to blame, then statistics will back this up, and insurers will not be looking at exorbitant premiums.
If however proper research showed that claims could be high, then Joe Bloggs and his family might find their hobby costs a little more than at present.
It might also prompt decent research into the issue of helmets as a possible means of mitigating injury, as if an insurance company were picking up the bill, they would take this aspect into consideration.

However, as I said before, the necessity for insurance companies to make a profit worries me, as the insured then picks up the burden, AND the company tries to evade their duty - therfore undoing the good which could come about.

There is a move afoot to make Fell Walkers have insurance to cover possible rescue in case of difficulties. Pedestrians could well be next!
Let's simplify it, and instead of having car insurance, or bike insurance, lets have personal insurance. :roll:

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 23:40 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 16:51
Posts: 1323
Location: Stafford - a short distance past hope
johnsher wrote:
Quote:
I still can't see why, if someone damages me or my bike as a result of THEIR actions, whilst occupying the road on foot I shouldn't have a reasonable expectation of redress


So if someone would be kind enough to tell me why pedestrians shouldn't have insurance (and they're just as likely to damage your car when you run them down) I'll then answer the cyclist question.


Oh come on! NOTE my emphasis (which you have copied) on "as a result of THEIR actions".

(Having said that, I was actually in a car driven by one of my mates who had a drunk bint RUN into the side of the car while it was stationary at a junction. He suffered a fair dent to his wing - drunk bint, like "some" cyclists just p****d off)

The important difference surely is that cyclists have a RIGHT to be in moving traffic on the road, pedestrians don't in any meaningful sense. So your "quote" above is not IMHO a valid parallel.

So I consider the question "should cyclists have insurance" one worth considering.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 23:51 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
johnsher wrote:
Quote:
I still can't see why, if someone damages me or my bike as a result of THEIR actions, whilst occupying the road on foot I shouldn't have a reasonable expectation of redress


So if someone would be kind enough to tell me why pedestrians shouldn't have insurance (and they're just as likely to damage your car when you run them down) I'll then answer the cyclist question.

I think pedestrians are more likely to face litigation for CAUSING an accident where damage arises, rather than the actual damage.
A cyclist is more likely to be involved in incidents where a (minor) collision causes damage to property as has been illustrated by the Prof.

In the case of cars and bikes, the resulting damage is exacerbated by a vehicle!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 23:58 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
prof beard wrote:
Oh come on! NOTE my emphasis (which you have copied) on "as a result of THEIR actions".

so I didn't have to brake hard for the kid today who thought he could outrun a 20mph bicycle ? The mother who pushed her son off the pavement and in front of me so the little dear wouldn't walk through a puddle was also a figment of my imagination? All the pedestrians who run past stationary traffic in L2 (coming from the right) without looking to see if there's anything in L1 don't exist other than in my mind? Need I go on?
Any one of those could have caused thousands of pounds of damage to my bike and/or seriously injured me.
So I ask again, why don't pedestrians need insurance?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 00:22 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 16:51
Posts: 1323
Location: Stafford - a short distance past hope
johnsher wrote:
prof beard wrote:
Oh come on! NOTE my emphasis (which you have copied) on "as a result of THEIR actions".

so I didn't have to brake hard for the kid today who thought he could outrun a 20mph bicycle ? The mother who pushed her son off the pavement and in front of me so the little dear wouldn't walk through a puddle was also a figment of my imagination? All the pedestrians who run past stationary traffic in L2 (coming from the right) without looking to see if there's anything in L1 don't exist other than in my mind? Need I go on?
Any one of those could have caused thousands of pounds of damage to my bike and/or seriously injured me.
So I ask again, why don't pedestrians need insurance?


As I and Ernest have said - cyclists are using vehicles.

Cyclists have a right to be on the road (which I defend by the way). Pedestrians don't. Your point about pedestrians is equally true of cars - pedestrians DO hurl themselves into cars as well (and come off even worse than when they do it to cyclists).

BUT pedestrians are NOT vehicles and do not expect "rights" in moving traffic - cyclists do. Therefore I think the question is reasonable and your pedestrian point is merely an avoidance of it.

(PLEASE don't take this personally - I'm only arguing!)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 00:41 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 13:01
Posts: 472
It is all a bit academic really.

How do you show that you are insured? Who does the checks?

I'd far rather see a concerted campaign on red-light cyclists and pavement cyclists than some vindictive anti-cyclist nonsense such as this. If it really was a problem the Daily Mail would have filled its boots with stories of uninsured cyclists conspiring to bring about the demise of Middle Class England was we know it.

(Although, as I don't read the Daily Mail, for all I know they have been...)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.399s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]