Cycle Lane past station

But, what if, whatabout...

If the cyclust makes off there isn't much you can do, but rare would ne the case when damage to a car is greater than damage to the cyclist/bicycle. Factor in the excess on most peoples policies and it isnt worth claiming on insurance. And there lies the true reason why cyclists aren't required by law to be insured; the risk and consequences of damage are laughably low in comparison with motorised vehicles. 5 pedestrians will have been killed today by motorised vehicles, as they will, on average, every day this year. But, hey, we'll have dangerous cycling laws to cover the 0.6% of deaths involving a pedestrian and cyclist, so all good.

A 10 inch scratch, created by a cyclist squeezing down the inside of a car as I waited to reach the junction and turn left, was quoted at £800-850 due to the particular paint.

Modern paintwork is far more expensive, especially metallic which is very commonly used partly in the fact that it has to be matched in requiring at larger surface area than the scratch itself to be painted.

Dented body panels and trim pieces can cost hundreds.

A friend of mine had a cyclist run into the back of her Ds3 cracking the rear light lense, denting the boot lid and scuffing the bumper.

The light lense by itself was just over 600 quid to replace. Total cost just shy of 1100.

So saying cyclists shouldn't have insurance and identity plates because "they cause low cost damage" is ridiculous.

In fact it should not matter whether the damage cost is £10,000 or 10p, if the person causing the damage isn't the property owner then they should have to compensate the owner to the value of the damage

 

I was stating 3 facts bro, please don't argue.

But 1 of them was simply wrong, and two of them didn't relate to the point you thought you'd made about "paying for the road".

---------- Post added 15-08-2018 at 08:36 ----------

I had a car run into me, the damage was £80 to the bike, but it could have seriously injured or killed me.

Probably not insured, since as soon as I'd got off the floor and came around the side to speak to them they sped away.

Perhaps that's a more serious issue that should be properly addressed than the minor danger created by cyclists... Actually do something about uninsured and banned drivers, or people who simply have no license.

A pedestrian with a key or coin can cause a lot of very costly damage.. a driver you have annoyed for whatever reason can park up, walk to your car and do a lot of damage... a cyclist who has parked his cycle can do the same... a sheep wandering into the road can write off a car...

A pedestrian slipping and falling into a stationary car, or drunk and falling into it can also scratch and bend panels.

Pedestrians aren't insured or licensed, they don't pay VED...

and of course, any risk to cars, from cyclists, would be reduced even further, if we had a network of safe cycle routes.

why would i be riding anywhere near a car if there was a half-decent alternative?

there are 2 things we can do.

a) insist that cyclists need insurance, and punish those that don't (laws without enforcement are pointless)

b) build a network of safe cycle routes.

seeing as how we need to do b) anyway, and this would essentially keep bikes and cars seperate, i'd suggest this should be our priority.

i rode the 627 to work this morning, it's car free. why would i need insurance to cover any damage i might inflict upon a car?

and of course, any risk to cars, from cyclists, would be reduced even further, if we had a network of safe cycle routes.

 

why would i be riding anywhere near a car if there was a half-decent alternative?

 

there are 2 things we can do.

 

a) insist that cyclists need insurance, and punish those that don't (laws without enforcement are pointless)

 

b) build a network of safe cycle routes.

 

seeing as how we need to do b) anyway, and this would essentially keep bikes and cars seperate, i'd suggest this should be our priority.

 

i rode the 627 to work this morning, it's car free. why would i need insurance to cover any damage i might inflict upon a car?

There's a purpose built safe cycle route through the Dearne Valley warehouse district. Cyclists don't use, they refuse to use it and the common excuse is that because it intersects a few roads they'd have to slow down and, heaven forbid, give way.

If you're gonna build these safe routes then it needs to come with a properly enforced law requiring cyclists to use them where present.

But we all know that this would be opposed by those who's lycra shorts are too tight. (including participants of this thread). Those that want their cake and to eat it.

Cycles are of course free to use roads and as you've had explained to you many times there are a number of reasons they do so.

It boils down to that the cycle lanes aren't fit for purpose.

But that can be a combination of

Frequently having to give way, rather than having priority as per being on the road.

Debris

Pedestrians

Poor surface

Untreated in icy weather

You know what would give your ranting opinion more credibility. If you got out on a bike and experienced things from another perspective. I regularly drive, I regularly cycle, I'm also a pedestrian and I use public transport. I get to see things from both sides. You however don't.

But say a cyclist damages my vehicle and decides to make off without giving details, how does the VICTIM of the damage go about claiming off this supposed insurance?

 

Motorists have the Motor Insurance Bureau for when an uninsured driver hits them, Can you point me in the cyclist's version, just for everyone's reference?

 

 

 

So motorists should just claim on their own insurance, if they have comprehensive cover, since it's not an option with 3rd Party and suck it up when their renewal doubles due to loss of No-Claims because a lycra-loser failed to stop and give details after hitting my vehicle?

But say a pedestrian damages my vehicle and makes off without giving details, how do I claim off them? There are scratches down the side of my car which could well have been made by the kids walking up my road to school, how would I claim from them? Are they insured?

How do I claim from whoever drove into and dented the front wing of my car - I don't know when it happened, I just noticed it after coming out of a nursing home to my car in the car park. It might have been an insured driver but they didn't leave any details... I don't know if they were wearing lycra or not

---------- Post added 15-08-2018 at 12:31 ----------

Driving???????

 

---------- Post added 14-08-2018 at 22:43 ----------

 

 

Errr I have to claim on my own insurance. Cyclists aren't insured by law.

 

---------- Post added 14-08-2018 at 22:44 ----------

 

 

I was stating 3 facts bro, please don't argue.

Motorists should be, but it doesn't mean they all are. It still needs the driver to give details as well.

I've got £10m third party liability insurance for when I'm cycling. Many other cyclists do too.

 

I've got £10m third party liability insurance for when I'm cycling. Many other cyclists do too.

Yes, and commensurate with the level of risk that I pose, it costs £16 a year. That's at least 1 (sometimes 2) orders of magnitude lower than a car driver. The truth is that the damage Resident points out is far, far more likely to happen in a supermarket car park or on the street than it is to be done by a cyclist. The further truth is that the monetary value of repairing what is minor damage to a car may appear significant in absolute terms but is still relatively much less than the personal injury costs associated with people being hurt, and that is why motorists are required by law to have insurance cover.

There's a purpose built safe cycle route through the Dearne Valley warehouse district. Cyclists don't use, they refuse to use it and the common excuse is that because it intersects a few roads they'd have to slow down and, heaven forbid, give way.

is it parallel the A6023 ? (Manvers way)

it does look rubbish, for the reasons you explain, you'd have to give way to every side road, we don't ask car drives to do that, why are cyclists given lesser priority? you wouldn't use it if you were in a hurry.

nevertheless, on street view i can see 4 people using it....

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.5026229,-1.3184879,3a,75y,70.65h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sxrqY0vGHNAVLL0dUWzVXRQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DxrqY0vGHNAVLL0dUWzVXRQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D204.8137%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

build good cycle routes, and people use them. no laws of compulsion required. Over a million journeys have been made on the thames embankment cycle route, in the last 5 months. and it's getting busier every month. as more links join the London Network, it's going to become even more useful/busy/popular/essential. 5 years from now the London Cycle network will be as indispensable as the tube. (except it'll be free to use, and moving more people per pound invested)

https://twitter.com/cs3count

---------- Post added 15-08-2018 at 13:32 ----------

and here's another one

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.507933,-1.3391196,3a,75y,52.08h,86.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sM_PiqwG3JTmIYxHtfg6dPQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656"]https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.507933,-1.3391196,3a,75y,52.08h,86.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sM_PiqwG3JTmIYxHtfg6dPQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

i thought you said cyclists don't use it? i've found 5 on street view, none using the road. what was your point?

6...

Lol at all the pedestrian killing, polluting, single-occupancy car driving people whinging about how awful and antisocial cyclists supposedly are.

Yes, and commensurate with the level of risk that I pose, it costs £16 a year. That's at least 1 (sometimes 2) orders of magnitude lower than a car driver. The truth is that the damage Resident points out is far, far more likely to happen in a supermarket car park or on the street than it is to be done by a cyclist. The further truth is that the monetary value of repairing what is minor damage to a car may appear significant in absolute terms but is still relatively much less than the personal injury costs associated with people being hurt, and that is why motorists are required by law to have insurance cover.

you have insurance .. how many don't ? and only 30p a week .. how tight is that

you no license plate .. so reduced, if any, accountability

no proof you are competent to be on the road... no a car license does not count just as it does not exempt motorcycle users from needing to pass their cbt

no proof your vehicle is fit to be on the road

Also if you have any lights a lot are illegal for motor vehicles on 3 counts ..excessively bright, mis-aligned, and flashing

some of you pedalists talk a good game and even if you stick to all you say, which i doubt, hardly any of you really do stick to it and what you say is still woefully inadequate for you to be collectively considered as serious road users and not just irresponsible big kids playing on the surfaces where there are motorists and/or pedestrians .

get some proper legislation like and similar in nature to that of other road users, staff and comply to it, stay off walkways foot paths, footways and pedestrian precincts and fall in with al mentioned above behave reasonably and most of us will accept you are as entitled as anyone else to take your chances on the ROADS along with other qualified road users.

maybe..