Jump to content


Silly Scooter Driver

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, bassett one said:

well said,its about time these bike/scooter riders took a test and paid insurance and tax to use the road and protect others from there silly actions ,and make them accountable for there actions,plus it would help the economy get back on its feet,a double wammy for everyone.

How on earth would having some kind of tax, insurance or testing scheme for scooters and bikes get the economy back on its feet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, busdriver1 said:

Here we go. what if, What if, What if.

 

These scooters are vehicles and as such it is morally correct to cover them against any damage they can potentially cause. The fact that they can be driven with no training or guidance by people who may ( and often do) have no road skills just adds to that need.

 

Yes, there is also a very good argument for cyclists to have insurance for those same reasons but the line gets blurred with kids on bikes and I do not pretend to have an answer to that.

 

Those who constantly demand evidence to any counter to their points do so from the safe position of knowing there can be no figures for incidents that have no legal consequences other than hearsay but lets be sure there are incidents involving both these modes and they largely go unrecorded.

A registration scheme would go some way towards this but I am sure the cycling fraternity would fight hard against any action to remove their powerful position of anonymity and cause them to be accountable for their actions. The scooter fraternity in my opinion are more likely to comply but if any sort of competence test was introduced they would virtually disappear overnight as evidenced by the extremely low rate of passes of the competence test for bus use in West Yorkshire.

 

Finally to respond to the comment re. pedestrians "suddenly stepping out". If you are driving at an APPROPRIATE speed for the conditions you will be able to stop safely without swerving or should if you are a competent driver. I have managed to miss many in that situation.....................

Utterly wrong. A pedestrian stepping out is a random act. Could be right in front of you, are you saying you drive past every pedestrian slow enough to stop, regardless of how close they may be?

 

Cyclists are absolutely responsible for their actions, as is everyone else on the planet. You just have an irrational desire to attack a particular group.

 

There is no moral case for insurance, it isn't a question of morals, more a question of cost and benefit. You argue for it without a shred of evidence that the benefits would outweigh the costs. And yes, the onus is on those arguing for change to provide the evidence that change is required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

re-charging insurance/tax testing ect,ect this would bring in a income to our economy ,plus make our roads safer and if someone injured someone or damaged a car ect ,we would know they had at least insurance,could be banned or made to re-take a test and everyone would be safer ,okay the poor old cycle people and scooter drivers would have to pay,but they can think themselves lucky they havent had to prove they are capable to even drive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, bassett one said:

re-charging insurance/tax testing ect,ect this would bring in a income to our economy ,plus make our roads safer and if someone injured someone or damaged a car ect ,we would know they had at least insurance,could be banned or made to re-take a test and everyone would be safer ,okay the poor old cycle people and scooter drivers would have to pay,but they can think themselves lucky they havent had to prove they are capable to even drive.

How many motorists, that injure someone or damage a car, get made to re-take their driving test?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bassett one said:

re-charging insurance/tax testing ect,ect this would bring in a income to our economy

This is known as the Broken Window fallacy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Bargepole23 said:

Utterly wrong. A pedestrian stepping out is a random act. Could be right in front of you, are you saying you drive past every pedestrian slow enough to stop, regardless of how close they may be?

 

Cyclists are absolutely responsible for their actions, as is everyone else on the planet. You just have an irrational desire to attack a particular group.

 

There is no moral case for insurance, it isn't a question of morals, more a question of cost and benefit. You argue for it without a shred of evidence that the benefits would outweigh the costs. And yes, the onus is on those arguing for change to provide the evidence that change is required.

I have in my many years had several pedestrians stepping out in front of me yet have managed to miss them all. Because I was driving at an appropriate speed and gave them as much clearance as possible so yes you do drive past them at a suitable speed that allows you to stop. That is very basic driving skills, the sort you get taught on day one lesson one.

 

If Cyclists are so responsible why do they object so strongly to calls for insurance and a registration scheme? Is it because they can cycle away from any incident with little or no chance over ever being held to account for their actions and dont want to give that up? I do not have a desire to attack any particular group, rather a desire to make sure all groups are treated equally and given the same protection from poor vehicle drivers/ riders. 

 

To say there is no moral case for insurance just beggars belief. So you dont think you should cover yourself and others against any damage or injury caused by you or your vehicle?  Say no more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, busdriver1 said:

I have in my many years had several pedestrians stepping out in front of me yet have managed to miss them all. Because I was driving at an appropriate speed and gave them as much clearance as possible so yes you do drive past them at a suitable speed that allows you to stop. That is very basic driving skills, the sort you get taught on day one lesson one.

 

If Cyclists are so responsible why do they object so strongly to calls for insurance and a registration scheme? Is it because they can cycle away from any incident with little or no chance over ever being held to account for their actions and dont want to give that up? I do not have a desire to attack any particular group, rather a desire to make sure all groups are treated equally and given the same protection from poor vehicle drivers/ riders. 

 

To say there is no moral case for insurance just beggars belief. So you dont think you should cover yourself and others against any damage or injury caused by you or your vehicle?  Say no more.

I am insured through my British Cycling membership. Say no more.

 

As for the comments about driving at a speed which allows you to stop, regardless of how close you are to a pedestrian....what's your stopping distance at say 20mph? The AA says its 12m. Plenty of space for a pedestrian to step out and get hit by a car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Bargepole23 said:

I am insured through my British Cycling membership. Say no more.

 

As for the comments about driving at a speed which allows you to stop, regardless of how close you are to a pedestrian....what's your stopping distance at say 20mph? The AA says its 12m. Plenty of space for a pedestrian to step out and get hit by a car.

So if you hit a person or cause damage to a property how can we trace you if you decide not to stop?  

At a speed of 20 mph you should be watching out for pedestrians and driving accordingly. Like I have said before I have managed to never hit one despite several attempts by them because I use hazard perception. I will either change lane or slow down even more. 

Rhetorical question. What stopping distance for a cyclist at 20 mph?  And what hazard perception is in place for an untrained cyclist or scooter rider? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, busdriver1 said:

So if you hit a person or cause damage to a property how can we trace you if you decide not to stop?  

At a speed of 20 mph you should be watching out for pedestrians and driving accordingly. Like I have said before I have managed to never hit one despite several attempts by them because I use hazard perception. I will either change lane or slow down even more. 

Rhetorical question. What stopping distance for a cyclist at 20 mph?  And what hazard perception is in place for an untrained cyclist or scooter rider? 

Just to be clear then, when passing pedestrians on a normal suburban road, where there is no lane to change into, what speed would you drive past a pedestrian at, assuming they were strolling along on a pavement adjacent to the road. 

 

What hazard perception training do drivers have? Most cyclists are also drivers, so generally, exactly the same level of hazard perception training. Plus the added advantage of better visibility for cyclists, cyclists are generally more aware of their surroundings having a higher position, and can hear other vehicles etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its not about ability ,as much as these folk ,have not proved that they are worthy of driving on a main road,pay nowt as well and if anything goes wrong can just walk away and pay nowt,what would happened if car drivers,lorrys ect didnt take a test and had no insurance and payed nowt ,like the bikers and scooter drivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/10/2020 at 12:54, Bargepole23 said:

Just to be clear then, when passing pedestrians on a normal suburban road, where there is no lane to change into, what speed would you drive past a pedestrian at, assuming they were strolling along on a pavement adjacent to the road. 

Simple. A speed where you can stop if they make a random movement. Yes, you are allowed to slow down

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/10/2020 at 12:54, Bargepole23 said:

What hazard perception training do drivers have? Most cyclists are also drivers, so generally, exactly the same level of hazard perception training. Plus the added advantage of better visibility for cyclists, cyclists are generally more aware of their surroundings having a higher position, and can hear other vehicles etc.

Hazard perception is now part of the theory test and has been for some time.  

I would dispute that most cyclists are drivers unless you are omitting teenagers.

 

Being very serious here, You can do an online hazard perception test that is interactive and free, I would encourage anyone to do so. It can be a real eye opener.

 

To give an example of how it worked for Me and a pedestrian. About 4 years ago I was going past Sheffield Rail station towards ponds forge. There were pedestrians gathering at the crossing so I slowed down. I saw in my nearside mirror a cyclist but could only see the top of his head and he was watching a speedo or something. I sounded the horn and the pedestrian nearest saw what was happening and stepped back. My sounding the horn caused the cyclist to apply his brakes hard and went straight over his bars. I saw the  hazard and acted appropriately and prevented a pedestrian getting hurt. The cyclist did get hurt but that was self inflicted. I am aware that not all cyclists are like this but when I took mu CCTV to the police they said that until a registration scheme is introduced they have no way of tracing offenders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

X