New Rules For Cyclists?

[Findlay 116]

1 hour ago, Jeffrey Shaw said:

Scenario: bicyclist B injures pedestrian P who suffers catastrophic (but not fatal) injuries.

P might then have a claim for many millions of pounds, covering a lifetime of care costs.

But if B has no third-party insurance, P's claim would either bankrupt B or go entirely unpaid.

Either way, P's going to suffer grievously unless B has insurance.

You must be joking or pulling one in your pants. A bike hitting anyone at 8mph is not going to cause catastrophic injuries.

Sadly pedestrians are routinely road users getting round your wanpanzer parked on the pavement.

Riding down Prince of Wales Road,  a dog on a long lead run at me to bite me but eneded up catching its leg in my front wheel. I stopped very quickly and made sure the dog was ok with the lady apologising for the dog running at me.

They went on their way and when I tried to set off my wheel was buckled with the rim bent beyond repair so I had to buy a new wheel.  If B needs insurance so does P.

 

Edited August 18, 2022 by Findlay

[mattsin30 10]

1 hour ago, Findlay said:

You must be joking or pulling one in your pants. A bike hitting anyone at 8mph is not going to cause catastrophic injuries.

Sadly pedestrians are routinely road users getting round your wanpanzer parked on the pavement.

Riding down Prince of Wales Road,  a dog on a long lead run at me to bite me but eneded up catching its leg in my front wheel. I stopped very quickly and made sure the dog was ok with the lady apologising for the dog running at me.

They went on their way and when I tried to set off my wheel was buckled with the rim bent beyond repair so I had to buy a new wheel.  If B needs insurance so does P.

 

I don't agree with the licence ,  it's just for the Daily Mail as they can't blame EU for  for the current mess and it was a day after starmers energy bills proposal gained traction. But of course you can cause serious injury hitting someone with a bike even at 8mph.  Isn't the new road hierarchy there for a reason and that's why  pedestrians are classed as most vulnerable? 

[Baron99 772]

One of the presenters on Radio Sheffield yesterday, (one of Toby Foster's crew), was taking about this.  He said he was once in collision with a cyclist & despite there being witnesses & it was deemed to be the cyclist fault, the presenter said he ended up paying a substantial amount in medical expenses, out of his car insurance to the cyclist. 

Edited August 18, 2022 by Baron99

[Findlay 116]

51 minutes ago, mattsin30 said:

But of course you can cause serious injury hitting someone with a bike even at 8mph.  

What rubbish! Do you have proof?

Travelling at that speed a bike can stop in 2m with cyclists much more aware of their surroundings than any can pilot.

[Mr Bloke 1,445]

20 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

One of the presenters on Radio Sheffield yesterday, (one of Toby Foster's crew), was taking about this.  He said he was once in collision with a cyclist & despite there being witnesses & it was deemed to be the cyclist fault, the presenter said he ended up paying a substantial amount in medical expenses, out of his car insurance to the cyclist. 

Hmmm...

I wonder what would happen if two cyclists ran into each other?

That sounds like it should have a punch line...
... but I don't have one!

[Padders 2,835]

1 hour ago, Mr Bloke said:

Hmmm...

I wonder what would happen if two cyclists ran into each other?

That sounds like it should have a punch line...
... but I don't have one!

They would be sectioned as Cyclepaths.

[Mr Bloke 1,445]

6 minutes ago, Padders said:

They would be sectioned as Cyclepaths.

That was worth waiting for!

[MJ01 438]

Maybe when car drivers put down their phones, pay the relevant tax & insurance, make sure their vehicles have an MOT & don't drive when they are off their nappers on ale or drugs they would be in a good place to tell everyone else how to behave 

[Resident 1,183]

8 hours ago, Bargepole23 said:

So you're suggesting that it should be unfairly weighted to make cyclists pay when they are zero emissions? And this despite most cyclists also owning a car and paying VED?

 

Anyhow, who cares. Will never happen.

 

Served its purpose in changing the headlines from sewage in our rivers.

1. If they pay VED then they are paying because they own a vehicle that does produce emissions, secondly if they own 2 vehicles, do they only pay VED on one ?

2. Are all taxes weighted against emissions? VAT, Income, Inheiritance, corporation? 

No road vehicle user should be anonymous. 

[kevvy 12]

I don't think it's a diversionary tactic. It's about time Cyclist's were held responsible for their actions.  If that includes a Number plate and Insurance then so be it . !!

18 hours ago, MJ01 said:

True.

Some cyclists have it, some don't. Some motorists have it, some don't. I'd be more inclined to get the number of motorists insured closer to 100% first

 

Just 'done a Google' - I could get insured for £25 for a year for a bicycle - covers very little - BUT I would have insurance as requested

Sooner or later a  Motorist who doesn't have Insurance will be picked up by an ANPR camera and prosecuted. 

[Bargepole23 337]

4 hours ago, Resident said:

1. If they pay VED then they are paying because they own a vehicle that does produce emissions, secondly if they own 2 vehicles, do they only pay VED on one ?

2. Are all taxes weighted against emissions? VAT, Income, Inheiritance, corporation? 

No road vehicle user should be anonymous. 

No road vehicle user is anonymous. They have faces.

 

Not all taxes are weighted against emissions. VED is, down to zero for zero emissions. So I'm more than happy to pay at that rate for my bike.

Let's get that set up, seems like a good idea to spend millions setting that up for no reason at all. Not like we need the money right now.

 

 

[Bargepole23 337]

24 minutes ago, kevvy said:

I don't think it's a diversionary tactic. It's about time Cyclist's were held responsible for their actions.  If that includes a Number plate and Insurance then so be it . !!

Sooner or later a  Motorist who doesn't have Insurance will be picked up by an ANPR camera and prosecuted. 

About time for pedestrians also. How many accidents caused by pedestrians on the road, wandering into the road whilst texting, how much damage to cars and cyclists? Are they insured? How do we identify them? 

 

If that means a numbered tabard and insurance for the entire population, so be it. You can lead by example kevvy yeah if you feel so strongly about the need for identifying any potential accident causers? Get one printed up for each of your extended family, name, address and phone number.

 

What is it with right wingers that makes them see someone doing something they don't do and want to stamp it out with regulations, regardless of the actual impact it has on their lives? Yet when someone suggests say 20mph speed limits they're up in arms, taking their freedoms away.