Dangerous cyclists could get 14Years pokey.

thelawnet

asbokid wrote: »

Again you're quoting industry-funded 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.

I have no idea, I'm sure you could do some more research if you're really interested and find it so hard to believe that 1 driver in 20 gets into a car with no insurance. Also could you check up on the moon landings too? Thanks.

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 tax contribution to 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

They've all been addressed already:

1. not necessary, because the third party risk of a bicycle is very low, cf. Switzerland where the premium is under five pounds per year. Many other things have greater risk but do not require insurance.
2. ? I pay many thousands in tax per year, it all goes into a big pot and is divvied out. As amusing it would be to implement the Beatles' Taxman, (if you take a walk, I'll tax your feet), we are taxed quite enough already - if I take a walk along a public footpath, I pay no specific tax, if I ride my bike I don't, and if I want to drive a Ford Fiesta 1.6 tdci I don't either (although the fuel that goes in it (rather like the food I eat), is certainly taxed).
3. There's no evidence that there is a great epidemic of hit and run cyclists, nor any reason to suppose that making it a specific offence would have any effect on it.
4. As above. If someone hits you on their bike, that's likely to be illegal anyway, there's no evidence we need new laws in order that, following a collision, you can shout after the fleeing cyclist 'come back, you are failing to provide your details'.
5. Again, there is no evidence that this is necessary. You can't say 'motorcars cause untold destruction, death and injury each year, therefore all laws that apply to 155mph motor vehicles should also apply to bicycles', it's just not a valid analogy.

asbokid

thelawnet wrote: »

I have no idea, I'm sure you could do some more research if you're really interested and find it so hard to believe that 1 driver in 20 gets into a car with no insurance.

With reservations, I can just about believe the figure of 1 in 20, but even then, what it boils down to is the methodology to the research, and the interpretation of the findings.

The impression we are given is that there are 2 million motorists thundering around on a daily basis with no insurance. That is a complete fantasy figure. It's scaremongering from the government and from the insurance industry itself, for obvious reasons.

If the industry figure of 2m wasn't just conjured from thin air, then it was derived though some acrobatic exercise in extrapolating from a tiny sample base of data.

Maybe the sampling was deliberately focused on a deprived area of the country, to allow for the national scale of the problem to be hugely overstated.

Furthermore, the methods that were used for discovering whether a motorist is insured are not revealed. And what exactly is meant by an "uninsured motorist"?

Is that someone who regularly drives a vehicle without insurance?

Or is it just the registered keeper of a vehicle that is not currently insured but is kept off the road?

Or it it someone who admits to making one-off vehicle journey in the past with no insurance, perhaps doing so by complete accident?

Is it someone who admits to telling a superficial lie when applying for insurance, a lie which could theoretically invalidate the policy?

Or is this extraordinary figure of "2m uninsured motorists" based on all of the above, so as to grossly exaggerate the scale of the problem.

The insurance industry provides no explanation to its figure of "2 million uninsured motorists" because the figure just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

The Government has run with this figure and used it as justification for expanding the laws concerning the Statutory Off-Road Notification, so as to encompass third party insurance.

Based on lies from the insurance industry, the Government has introduced yet another sinister motoring law with a reverse burden of proof.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/jan/12/motorists-register-uninsured-car

asbokid

thelawnet wrote: »

compulsory third party liability insurance for all cyclists
cycle tax contribution to 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

They've all been addressed already:

1. not necessary, because the third party risk of a bicycle is very low, cf. Switzerland where the premium is under five pounds per year. Many other things have greater risk but do not require insurance.

If cyclist insurance isn't necessary then why did Switzerland introduce it? And if the cost of a policy was only £5 in the UK, then why not go for it?

Currently with there being no obligation for cyclists to have insurance, what does this mean for the 200+ pedestrians who are injured by cyclists every year, and for the many thousands of cars damaged by cyclists? Where is the recourse for compensation for them?

2. ? I pay many thousands in tax per year, it all goes into a big pot and is divvied out. As amusing it would be to implement the Beatles' Taxman, (if you take a walk, I'll tax your feet), we are taxed quite enough already - if I take a walk along a public footpath, I pay no specific tax, if I ride my bike I don't, and if I want to drive a Ford Fiesta 1.6 tdci I don't either (although the fuel that goes in it (rather like the food I eat), is certainly taxed).

Hmm.. but like it or not, road vehicles are taxed separately. The cyclist (and the horse) are the exception.

By your argument, the owner of a Bentley Continental shouldn't pay. Through income tax, he contributes, on average, much more to the Treasury than a cyclist, so why should he pay for road tax?

All who drive vehicles on the road should pay a contribution towards its maintenance, etc.

3. There's no evidence that there is a great epidemic of hit and run cyclists, nor any reason to suppose that making it a specific offence would have any effect on it.

It's pretty common. I've done it (as a child). The young son of a friend of my parents caused a collision on his bicycle, too. He was caught. The motorist tried without success to demand reimbursement for the damage from his parents.

4. As above. If someone hits you on their bike, that's likely to be illegal anyway, there's no evidence we need new laws in order that, following a collision, you can shout after the fleeing cyclist 'come back, you are failing to provide your details'.

I'm talking about a specific provision in the RTA, such that there is in s.170, which creates a separate offence of failing to provide details after an accident. Obviously, if cycling insurance was made compulsory, this provision would have to follow.

5. Again, there is no evidence that this is necessary. You can't say 'motorcars cause untold destruction, death and injury each year, therefore all laws that apply to 155mph motor vehicles should also apply to bicycles', it's just not a valid analogy.

A quick glance at the 1988 RTA shows that it's essentially the same legal requirement (s.170).

We're not going to agree. Where I would wager money is on you suing the butt off a motorist who caused an injury to you as a cyclist. I wouldn't blame you. If I was a cyclist, I'm sure I would, too. It works both ways though.

esuhl

janninew wrote: »

Just out of interest what Country do you live in?

Driving is anything but "cheap" record fuel prices which seem to increase daily and insurance costs soaring, mine has gone up by £250.00 for no reason at all.

The UK. A bus ticket to the next town (3.5 miles away) costs £5.10 for a return. The town where I used to work (8 miles away) costs £6.50. So that's about 70p to 80p a mile.

A small modern car can easily do 40mpg (=8.8 miles per litre). A litre of petrol costs about £1.40, so petrol costs for this car would be about 16p a mile - a fraction of the public transport costs. Even if your car is less efficient, you factor in depreciation, maintenance, insurance and tax, car travel is still obviously very cheap. If it wasn't then only the rich would drive.

If the terrible attitudes of drivers in this country can't be improved, then they should be required to fit tracking/recording devices to their vehicles to provide evidence in the event of an accident and ensure that they receive endorsements/fine/summons automatically for any dangerous driving offences.

The current "free for all" where any unskilled muppet can jump in a car and cause carnage on the roads has got to stop.

asbokid

esuhl wrote: »

The UK. A bus ticket to the next town (3.5 miles away) costs £5.10 for a return. The town where I used to work (8 miles away) costs £6.50. So that's about 70p to 80p a mile.

A small modern car can easily do 40mpg (=8.8 miles per litre). A litre of petrol costs about £1.40, so petrol costs for this car would be about 16p a mile - a fraction of the public transport costs. Even if your car is less efficient, you factor in depreciation, maintenance, insurance and tax, car travel is still obviously very cheap. If it wasn't then only the rich would drive

But you haven't factored in those costs.. You've made an assumption that even with those costs, the car is still cheaper than the bus..

I wouldn't be too sure that it is cheaper by car..

commuting to your current place of work is a round journey of 7 miles.. based on a working week of five days, fifty weeks of the year.. 1,750 miles per year..

driving a small car that cost less than £12k, the running cost in 2010 according to the AA was 64.33p a mile.

http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/advice/advice_rcosts_petrol_table.jsp

Obviously the car gives you an amenity value beyond its use for commuting.

But even so, those are exceptionally expensive bus journeys to compare against.

A bus journey in London is now £1.30 with an oyster card, or £4 max for any number of bus journeys.

Flyboy152

thelawnet wrote: »

It costs less than £5 for compulsory third party bicycle insurance in Switzerland. Presumably a portion of that covers admin, making the disc, etc., so the actual risk must be extremely low.

http://mct.sbb.ch/mct/en/reisemarkt/services/fuer-alle/velo/velovignette.htm



Uninsured drivers kill 200 people per year.

Not really a viable argument for not making bicycle insurance compulsory.

custardy

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Not really a viable argument for not making bicycle insurance compulsory.

so how would you enforce it?

Flyboy152

custardy wrote: »

so how would you enforce it?

I wasn't recommending anything at all. I was merely stating that Thelawnet's logic was fatally flawed. Just because uninsured drivers kill people, is not a viable reason to not make bicycle insurance mandatory. The argument seems to a be rising trend among cyclists to argue that, because there are some bad drivers, they should be allowed to get away with whatever they like.

custardy

Flyboy152 wrote: »

I wasn't recommending anything at all. I was merely stating that Thelawnet's logic was fatally flawed. Just because uninsured drivers kill people, is not a viable reason to not make bicycle insurance mandatory. The argument seems to a be rising trend among some cyclists to argue that, because there are some bad drivers, they should be allowed to get away with whatever they like.

and some posters seem to struggle with the simplest of words

so i ask again,how would you enforce it?

Flyboy152

custardy wrote: »

and some posters seem to struggle with the simplest of words

If I had wanted to write "some" I would have done so. As it is a rising trend amongst a group, the implication that it is "some," is already there.

Please do not modify my quotes.