Cyclists fighting back against oafish drivers

Rotor

Coopdivi wrote: »

What I like about cyclists is the way they use the pavement and pretend to be pedestrians when traffic lights are on red.

If they are pushing the bike they ARE pedestrians

esuhl

gordikin wrote: »

All of which can certainly apply to cyclists?

I'm not sure I understand the question. It sounds like a statement... Anyway, airline pilots can be drunk, and I can put a climbing frame in my garden without needing specific insurance.

gordikin wrote: »

Why should cyclists not have to be insured?

• The damage that arises as a result of a collision is related to the exchange of momentum between the colliding objets. Momentum is defined as the product of velocity and mass. Cyclists have a significantly lower mass, and a significantly lower maximum velocity than motor vehicles, so the damage that a cyclist can inflict in a collision is likely to be much less than occurs in the average motor vehicle collision. Therefore any damages awarded in court against a cyclist are unlikely to be as onerous as if they were a motorist. Therefore insurance against unaffordable losses is not necessary.

• Since the velocity of cyclists is lower than that of motor vehicles, they also have more time to take evasive action to prevent a collision, so are less likely to crash in the first place. Others will also have more time to react when they see a cyclist compared to a car.
• Most people who own bikes use them very rarely. The added cost and hassle of arranging insurance would act as a disincentive for occasional riders to keep their cycle. Fewer cycle journeys would be made as a result. Excercise has been shown to improve physical and mental health, so the burden on the NHS would increase. Air pollution and congestion would also increase as occasional cyclists would use motor vehicles instead.
• Many cyclists primarily ride in situations where they are unlikely to be in a position to damage third-party property or injure other people. It is only when using public roads that insurance could conceivably have any benefits.
• A new registration system would be required. Governments have a tendency to overspend on such projects by a huge margin. It is hard to imagine that the millions that would be spent on such a project could be recouped unless insurance costs are prohibitive... and if they were, far fewer people would cycle (increasing pollution, congestion, and NHS expenditure), and many others would simply not pay for insurance.

Anyway, if cyclists are going to need insurance, shouldn't we insist on insurance for pedestrians?

People are more likely to engage in violence after drinking. So should we require anyone consuming alcohol to buy insurance to compensate potential victims?

And what about kids kicking a ball around in their back garden? Should they be required to buy insurance in case they break a window?

custardy

gordikin wrote: »

That's fine by me...we do it with TV's? I've never been hit by a car on a pavement...I have been hit by a cyclist..why are they not required to be insured? Cyclists can claim on motorists insurance...why can't pedestrians do likewise with cyclists?

no,we do it with addresses
so come back with a solution.not poor analogies

Arg

The solution is proper bike lanes without compromising roads.

gaz310

The solution is proper bike lanes without compromising roads.

agreed :j

and when there is a bike lane do not share it with the footpath

a white line down the middle does not stop kids walking on the cycle path

Azari

Arg wrote: »

The solution is proper bike lanes without compromising roads.

To have a workable cycle lane, apart from anything else, you need to have very strict enforcement to stop motorists:

a) Parking in it.
b) Driving in it.

A lot of cycle lanes that could be used by cyclists are useless because there are cars parked in them.

The lanes in London that really work for cyclists are the bus lanes because they are strictly enforced and enable cyclists to travel, on average, much faster than cars, during the rush hours.

shaun_from_Africa

The damage that arises as a result of a collision is related to the exchange of momentum between the colliding objets. Momentum is defined as the product of velocity and mass. Cyclists have a significantly lower mass, and a significantly lower maximum velocity than motor vehicles, so the damage that a cyclist can inflict in a collision is likely to be much less than occurs in the average motor vehicle collision. Therefore any damages awarded in court against a cyclist are unlikely to be as onerous as if they were a motorist. Therefore insurance against unaffordable losses is not necessary.

And how about if the cyclist isn't involved in an actual collision, but is the cause of it by pulling out in front of a car and causing it to swerve thereby hitting another car or pedestrian?

custardy

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

And how about if the cyclist isn't involved in an actual collision, but is the cause of it by pulling out in front of a car and causing it to swerve thereby hitting another car or pedestrian?

how about we throw up any scenario that suits your argument?

esuhl

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

And how about if the cyclist isn't involved in an actual collision, but is the cause of it by pulling out in front of a car and causing it to swerve thereby hitting another car or pedestrian?

Then arrest the driver for careless driving (along with the cyclist). He/she should have performed an emergency stop, not swerved into pedestrians or other vehicles.

Azari

esuhl wrote: »

Then arrest the driver for careless driving (along with the cyclist). He/she should have performed an emergency stop, not swerved into pedestrians or other vehicles.

I disagree.

There is no guarantee that an emergency stop will avoid a collision even if the car is traveling well withing the safe limit for the conditions. (Well, apart from the condition of having a careless cyclist around, of course.)

At lower speeds it's generaly better to brake and hit another car than a pedestrian or cyclist.

At higher speeds you would have to brake and hit the pedestrian/cyclist because collision with another fast moving vehicle is likely to end up injuring all parties.

And you probably only have a fraction of a second to make that decision. :eek: