Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun Mar 29, 2020 07:11

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 00:54 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
prof beard wrote:
BUT pedestrians are NOT vehicles and do not expect "rights" in moving traffic - cyclists do.

this is true but pedestrians are still capable of causing damage, serious injury or death when using the roads and the argument presented is that cyclists should have insurance for those reasons.

prof beard wrote:
Therefore I think the question is reasonable and your pedestrian point is merely an avoidance of it.

as I said I'm only avoiding it until I get an answer to the pedestrian question.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 00:56 
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
B cyclist wrote:
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...)


Who said it was anti-cyclist? The original poster was only asking the question! I'm not anti-cyclist - I "would" say there as plenty of crap cyclists just as there are LOADS of crap car drivers. I DO actually own a bike you know. I felt there was a valid question as to why cyclists are not required to have insurance to be on the road whereas other vehicles do - I'm actually agnostic on the question, but given one CAN come up with a fair number of cases where cyclists are the "responsible" cause of damage to other vehicles it was an argument worth having.

If you are going to call any debate on cycling which you don't care for "anti-cycling" it will do the cause of cyclists (of which I am one) little good.

(I'm also fed up with being called "anti-semitic" everytime time I criticise the actions of the Israeli government)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 01:33 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
prof beard wrote:
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...


Ta. You did understand correctly.

Your original suggestion (still above) is really a 'liability' argument, not an insurance argument. But you have now explained that you believe insurance is required to underpin liability.

I don't know if I agree or not. The problem is that it has far-reaching consequences because all human activity has the potential to create liability.

_________________
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: Fri Jun 02, 2006 01:38 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 13:01
Posts: 472
prof beard wrote:
If you are going to call any debate on cycling which you don't care for "anti-cycling" it will do the cause of cyclists (of which I am one) little good.


Well, maybe I should have said anti-student, seeing as the miscreants appear to be studenty types, judging from several posts.

Ernest had the best answer:

"Let's simplify it, and instead of having car insurance, or bike insurance, lets have personal insurance."

Lets leave it at that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 03:45 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
prof beard wrote:
Cyclists have a right to be on the road (which I defend by the way). Pedestrians don't.

[...]

BUT pedestrians are NOT vehicles and do not expect "rights" in moving traffic - cyclists do.


In law this isn't correct. Pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians use the roads by right. Motor vehicle users use the roads by licence.

There may be a practical or moral 'right' for cyclists to use the roads in a way that doesn't apply to pedestrians and I'd be interested in exploring the issue. I've tended to assume that the legal position was the defining one, but maybe things aren't so simple.

_________________
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: Fri Jun 02, 2006 11:18 
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
B cyclist wrote:
prof beard wrote:
If you are going to call any debate on cycling which you don't care for "anti-cycling" it will do the cause of cyclists (of which I am one) little good.


Well, maybe I should have said anti-student, seeing as the miscreants appear to be studenty types, judging from several posts.

Ernest had the best answer:

"Let's simplify it, and instead of having car insurance, or bike insurance, lets have personal insurance."

Lets leave it at that.


Apart from me NEVER being anti-student (my bread and butter after all - most of the problems I mentioned were non-students near the Uni, a couple were students) I'll go for the Ernest solution with you :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 11:26 
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:
In law this isn't correct. Pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians use the roads by right. Motor vehicle users use the roads by licence.

There may be a practical or moral 'right' for cyclists to use the roads in a way that doesn't apply to pedestrians and I'd be interested in exploring the issue. I've tended to assume that the legal position was the defining one, but maybe things aren't so simple.


I'm not sure pedestrians can use the road ("carriageway" if you like) by right - I think wandering around in the road is probably an offence - they have a legal right to cross most roads of course, and to walk down the side of it where there is no pavement. We don't have "jaywalking" laws as such though I believe?

I DO think there is a practical and moral right that applies to cyclists that doesn't apply to pedestrians - not sure how it relates to law in the wider sense though...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 12:02 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 15:14
Posts: 420
Location: Aberdeenshire
This appears to have drifted a little from the original question.

Summarised - it appears to ask:

"Should Cyclists have 3rd Party Insurance?"

I can understand why cyclists wouldn't want to pay for insurance policies, which they personally would likely never need to use.

It does still stand though that if a cyclist scrapes a car then they have caused damage. In any other context they would be liable for damages. Personally I'm not interested in talking about comparitive injuries of driver/cyclist/pedestrian as I think that's a different discussion.

Getting straight to the point, if a cyclist or any other person causes damage to my property through their own error - they will be expected to pay for it. To be honest it's not even relevant if the cyclist is killed in the incident. If they caused it, and it can be proved, I want my damages paid for.

This is the case in any other scenario, and I don't think it's unreasonable when considered in isolation.

Rather than insurance policies for cyclists though, I think a central insurance fund for road users paid for by licensed vehicles VED might be an idea? The damages caused aren't that frequent fortunately so it shouldn't be too great a burden?? Maybe?? Just off the cuff that one :)

_________________
Image


Last edited by jamie_duff on Fri Jun 02, 2006 13:57, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 12:18 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
I think the litigious way society is going, personal 3rd party insurance for all isn't inconceivable.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 19:44 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 00:30
Posts: 9
Cycling is something that needs to be encouraged in every respect.
Licensing, insuring, regulating cyclists will do nothing other than put off casual users. Lets face it everyone who might think of doing the odd ride to work on a nice morning, or evening pub ride or fitness ride or getting back on a bike with theri young family will by definition be a casual cyclist.
How many parents are going to encourage their children to cycle to school if the perception is that they HAVE to wear a helmet because cycling is DANGEROUS and that their bicycle needs to be taxed, insured would put most people off. That is why the anti cycling lobby love this question as it basically will put most people off riding.
The amount of times I have been out on my bike in th elovely weather after work recently to see the car park at the local gym full to bursting with cars of people who are getting fit on their sationaty bicycles with their £50 per month memberships and I'm out on my expensive bike that would have been paif for with a coupl eof years of gym membership , enjoying th esusnshne and getting a better work out.
Oh the Irony - its painful!!!1


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 23:29 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 13:01
Posts: 472
Good one, crunchy.

Taking the world according to motor vehicles and applying it to other people appears to be the slant of some threads here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:42 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 10:15
Posts: 318
Location: Co Durham
I bet you won't be surprised to find out that I joined the CTC a couple of years ago just for the 3rd party insurance as I wouldn't like to be the recipient of a civil claim for compensation should I damage a new Mercedes or BMW etc by an act of carelessness on my part.

If it was made compulsory you would of course hit the generally law-abiding whilst the cowboys wouldn't bother. That's not to say I don't think it should be done anyway and while we're on the subject I think that insurance discs on display like VED discs should be compulsory on all insured vehicles.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 14:58 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:41
Posts: 32
Location: London
How many cars are damaged by cyclists? The number is probably very very low. I would imagine more cars are damaged by shopping trolleys at the local supermarket than by cyclists.

In my experience as a cyclist, you'd be lucky to have the chance to exchange insurance details with most drivers, they'd more likely be trying to kill you for scraping their paintwork!

_________________
"would go faster if it wasn't for the cars blocking the roads"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 15:16 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
Quote:
How many cars are damaged by cyclists? The number is probably very very low. I would imagine more cars are damaged by shopping trolleys at the local supermarket than by cyclists.

very true, However how many pedestrians are damaged by cyclists. They, are expensive to fix. I too would rather see adult cyclists on the road rather than city pavements. A far better solution than bike insurance.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 15:29 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
anton wrote:
I too would rather see adult cyclists on the road rather than city pavements. A far better solution than bike insurance.

there are far more people are injured/killed by cars on footpaths than bikes... why don't you start a campaign to do something about that?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 15:37 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
Maybe because it affects me more that my wife has MS and pratts on bike expect her/us to leap out of the way or go single file whic is not allways possible. I have not yet experianced a car trying to exclude us from a pavement. Due to extreme inconcideration and a lack of action by Southampton police, foot paths in the city are a no-go area for disabled or older persons.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


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

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 5 guests


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 : 0.815s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]