Cyclists going through red lights. Localised colour blindness?

[Guest makapaka]

In that case it's the fact that they are being monitored that makes the difference. If the data was sent to the police rather than an insurance company it would still have the same effect.

 

It’s more to do with cost isn’t it?

 

Being responsible for the level of insurance you require is making them drive safer.

 

It’s proof that insurance does make people drive more safely - accidents by young drivers insured in that manner have reduced by 20%

[Cyclone 10]

It makes younger drivers safer when their driving data is linked to their premium.

 

The fear of increasing their premium might make them safer. But surely if they had no insurance and realised it could leave them owing millions that fear would also make them cautious?

 

---------- Post added 23-08-2018 at 08:49 ----------

 

It makes younger drivers safer when their driving data is linked to their premium.

 

You mean with a black box. It's not the fact of insurance that makes them safer though, it's the fact of monitoring. That's inherent in what you've just posted, that drivers monitored this way are 20% less likely to claim.

(NB it doesn't consider how many unsafe maneuvers they've made, they could well be passing cyclists dangerously close more often than those without a black box).

[Guest makapaka]

The fear of increasing their premium might make them safer. But surely if they had no insurance and realised it could leave them owing millions that fear would also make them cautious?

 

---------- Post added 23-08-2018 at 08:49 ----------

 

 

You mean with a black box. It's not the fact of insurance that makes them safer though, it's the fact of monitoring. That's inherent in what you've just posted, that drivers monitored this way are 20% less likely to claim.

(NB it doesn't consider how many unsafe maneuvers they've made, they could well be passing cyclists dangerously close more often than those without a black box).

 

Not less likely to claim - less likely to have an RTA.

 

Of course a piece of paper saying you are insured doesn’t make anything safer, the same as an MOT certificate or a tax disc. The fact that to be able to afford to drive at a young age requires young people to take out insurance which measures their driving performance is surely evidence that being insured in that manner does make them safer though?

 

Who would you rather ride on the road with - a young driver insured with tracking or a young driver who wasnt?

[Cyclone 10]

I'm happy if some new technology makes people safer.

That doesn't alter my statement that insurance itself doesn't make people safer, which was the assertion that was made (and the quotes that were changed).

[alchresearch 215]

You said in an earlier post that stopping at a junction is an "inconvenience", well it's something that all vehicle users do. It's part of being a vehicle user.

 

I think you've either missed the point or got a little confused. Here's a few pictures to help the situation I was explaining:

 

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JagmZ5vkCgg/UoC6Tgr6b-I/AAAAAAAADQA/zM7mLfRLOPU/s1600/89.JPG

 

This one is supposed to be the "Bradford cycle superhighway":

 

https://cdn.road.cc/sites/default/files/styles/main_width/public/images/News/Bradford%20cycle%20superhighway.jpg?itok=tzYbbQYR

 

https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/sites/cycling-embassy.org.uk/files/images/doughiska_galway.jpg

 

There are plenty of other cycle lanes like this where the cycle lane running parallel to a main road has to give way to side roads.

 

The main road doesn't have to give way, so that's why cyclists don't use them.

Edited August 23, 2018 by alchresearch

[WalkleyIan 10]

I think you've either missed the point or got a little confused. Here's a few pictures to help the situation I was explaining:

 

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JagmZ5vkCgg/UoC6Tgr6b-I/AAAAAAAADQA/zM7mLfRLOPU/s1600/89.JPG

 

This one is supposed to be the "Bradford cycle superhighway":

 

https://cdn.road.cc/sites/default/files/styles/main_width/public/images/News/Bradford%20cycle%20superhighway.jpg?itok=tzYbbQYR

 

https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/sites/cycling-embassy.org.uk/files/images/doughiska_galway.jpg

 

There are plenty of other cycle lanes like this where the cycle lane running parallel to the main road has to give way to side roads.

 

The main road doesn't have to give way, so that's why cyclists don't use them.

 

Great examples of awful infrastructure that wont get used.

 

Out at Waverly, they had a blank canvas to build some high-quality infrastructure and still managed to have the roads in and out of the new estate take priority over the nice wide cycle lanes and pavements they built. They were so close to getting it right.

 

Also, the 40 mph road along the outside with no crossing points pretty much traps you inside the estate unless you drive everywhere.

 

But some good news. SCC is finally looking at better design.

Some of the new builds around the city centre have cycle lanes with priority over side roads and I'm told the next grey to green project (Castlegate) won't be the farce that they ended up with at West Bar.

 

To see how its done properly look at whats happening in Manchester and Nottingham. Both cities that are doing what they can to encourage active travel, cycling and walking. Manchester got their cash from the metro mayor money (£900 million fund), Nottingham use a workplace parking levy to fund the new cycle infrastructure and their tram extensions to the University and Beeston and out to West Bridgford

[alchresearch 215]

Waverley is crazy. You have a roundabout at Morrisons that's worked fine for years. Now they've flooded it with traffic lights. You get a green light to proceed onto the roundabout then next second - STOP - right on it.

 

I was going to Morrisons from Catcliffe on Saturday night and had to stop at two sets of lights actually ON the roundabout.

[dnbraver1 10]

cyclist do hurt people, I have had a cyclist go into me a couple of times because they skipped the red light! Anyone using the road should pay insurance.

[Cyclone 10]

They haven't killed you have they... A car would. That's why cars need insurance and cycles don't.

Pedestrians use the road, do you think they should be insured?

[Resident 1,193]

They haven't killed you have they... A car would. That's why cars need insurance and cycles don't.

Pedestrians use the road, do you think they should be insured?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/18/cyclist-charlie-alliston-jailed-for-18-months-over-death-of-pedestrian

 

https://road.cc/content/news/230427-number-pedestrians-killed-or-maimed-cyclists-doubles-decade

[K1Machine 10]

cyclist do hurt people, I have had a cyclist go into me a couple of times because they skipped the red light!

 

Like the fool on the cycle who ran into a group of students out side the train station yesterday. The fool then had the front to verbally abuse THEM!!!

He made some racist comments then rode off into the sunset

[dnbraver1 10]

no but they could have. a cyclist can easily kill someone. if you use the road you should pay insurance.

 

---------- Post added 23-08-2018 at 14:39 ----------

 

pedentrians only cross a road. they dont walk on the road like cyclist and cars do. wow some people are stupid!