Dangerous cyclists could get 14Years pokey.

thelawnet

asbokid wrote: »

Pot kettle black..

You quoted anonymous posters to the same blog.

I'm not the one arguing for a change in the law.

asbokid

Strider590 wrote: »

60% of drivers in Bradford are uninsured... FACT

Really?! That's astonishing.

Where's the proof?

Let me guess, the head of car insurance sales at moneysupermarket.com told you..

However deceitful these claims about uninsured motorists, they serve as useful propaganda.

The government milked the claim to introduce a totalitarian new law on car insurance, and the grunts at moneysupermarket.com got some free press coverage in the bargain.

Win win for everyone, except for those who demand the truth.

thelawnet

asbokid wrote: »

Someone needs to lance this ridiculous statistic.

"Two million uninsured drivers" amounts to one driver in every six.

It's a nonsense figure, a completely fabricated statistic.

What like all the ones you come out with you mean?

The Motor Insurance Bureau says 1.7 million http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8272054.stm

What on earth makes you think there are only 12 million drivers in the UK? There are 33 million UK-registered vehicles on the road, and many have multiple drivers, then you've got all the foreign cars.

If it were true, our courts would be cluttered with prosecutions for driving with no insurance.

The police would be working overtime with ANPR and road blocks. Remember every sixth car has no insurance, so we are told.

No, you just made that up. The figure is 4-5%. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmtran/591/59106.htm

Unfortunately you have a rather misguided conception of society's abilities to contain low-level disorder. The courts certainly would be clogged, that's why they don't bother. Plus those that are uninsured are going to be harder to catch (ignore NIPs, foreigners, unemployed) than the average citizen.

The national figure of uninsured motorists is closer to 1 in a 100 drivers.

Closer to it than to the made up 1 in 6 you came out with for no reason, yes.

asbokid

thelawnet wrote: »

They did a study in Australia, and it found that drivers were at fault in 87% of incidents.

What does that meaningless statistic prove?

It could tell us that bicyclists and motorists are equally blameworthy in collisions.

And since there are nine times as many cars as bicycles on the road, we find that, no surprise, cars are involved in nine times as many collisions.

Coincidentally, the research was funded by "The Amy Gillett Foundation", named after a 29-year-old Australian track cyclist who was killed in a training accident when a motorist crashed into a group of cyclists.

So no particular bias to the research then..

asbokid

thelawnet wrote: »

What like all the ones you come out with you mean?

The Motor Insurance Bureau says 1.7 million http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8272054.stm

So why do you trust the MIB? Because the state broadcaster quotes their statistics?

The MIB is an industry-funded body, which the industry would rather not fund.

The MIB has an obvious interest in overstating the scale of uninsured motorists.

And once again, statistics from moneysupermarket.com are quoted in the article.

Where is this research data published? Let us scrutinise its methodology.

What on earth makes you think there are only 12 million drivers in the UK? There are 33 million UK-registered vehicles on the road, and many have multiple drivers, then you've got all the foreign cars.

"Research by Moneysupermarket.com has revealed that 1 in 6 drivers, which equates to about two million motorists, are driving without insurance."

No, you just made that up. The figure is 4-5%.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmtran/591/59106.htm

Closer to it than to the made up 1 in 6 you came out with for no reason, yes.

I didn't make up the figure.. moneysupermarket.com did..

The figure of 1 in 6 came from here...

http://www.rhyljournal.co.uk/motors/98080/featured-article-two-million-uninsured-motorists-forcing-insurance-price-hike.aspx

alanrowell

asbokid wrote: »

Yes, deliberately. Does that sound too incredible to believe?

Yes I do because it means the cyclist made a decision to kill the girl - which is murder. I suggest you look up the meaning of "deliberately".

thelawnet

asbokid wrote: »

So why do you trust the MIB? Because the state broadcaster quotes their statistics?

The MIB is an industry-funded body, which the industry would rather not fund.

The MIB has an obvious interest in overstating the scale of uninsured motorists.

I am not sure why you are so desperate to downplay the number of uninsured motorists.

200 deaths out of 3000 involved uninsured drivers. That is certainly consistent with the 4-5% quoted. Do you suppose all those killer drivers were actually secretly insured but just wanted a bit more porridge?

And once again, statistics from moneysupermarket.com are quoted in the article.

Where is this research data published? Let us scrutinise its methodology.

"Research by Moneysupermarket.com has revealed that 1 in 6 drivers, which equates to about two million motorists, are driving without insurance."

I didn't make up the figure.. moneysupermarket.com did..

The figure of 1 in 6 came from here...

http://www.rhyljournal.co.uk/motors/98080/featured-article-two-million-uninsured-motorists-forcing-insurance-price-hike.aspx

Ah, the Rhyl Journal, that most august of publications, renowned for journalistic accuracy and fine copy editing. So not moneysupermarket at all.

The AA, quoting the ABI, say the figure is 6.5% http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/news/uninsured-drivers.html

Obviously it's all just a massive conspiracy, probably engineered by killer cyclists. :rotfl:

asbokid

thelawnet wrote: »

That's because, for the final time, the cyclist is not in charge of a 3 tonne 150mph instrument of mass destruction. My daughter's pushchair has no insurance either, nor does my horse.

I don't understand your reasoning. There must be some logic to it, but I don't see it.

Driving any road vehicle carries some risk to other road users, and the insurance premium reflects that risk. For the final time, cyclists should be obliged to have 3rd party insurance in the event of a collision.

As for your horse, it is no longer a viable means of transport and should not be ridden on the public road at all. This is the 21st century, not the 19th.

asbokid

alanrowell wrote: »

Yes I do because it means the cyclist made a decision to kill the girl - which is murder. I suggest you look up the meaning of "deliberately".

No.

Deliberately cycling at high speed at a pedestrian, and doing so with the intention of killing them are two completely different concepts.

asbokid

thelawnet wrote: »

The AA, quoting the ABI, say the figure is 6.5% http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/news/uninsured-drivers.html

Again you're quoting industry statistics..

Simple question, would the ABI want to downplay or overplay the scale of uninsured motorists?

Hmm... difficult one that..

I'll ask you again. How were the statistics for "uninsured motorists" obtained, and where is the data for our scientific scrutiny.

Back to the great british cyclist though.. You seem averse to addressing my simple suggestions for changes to cycling law..

compulsory third party liability insurance for all cyclists
cycle road tax to support public road network and cycle network
obligation to stop after a collision
obligation to provide details to third party and/or
obligation to report collision to police
no child under 16 to ride a bicycle on a public road.