We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Should cyclists have to take out compulsory insurance?
Comments
-
Marco_Panettone wrote: »Are you genuinely claiming that other people simply existing on the road is NOT predictable?
Just wow.
:rotfl:
How they are going to move is NOT 100% predictable, unless you are claiming you are the first true psychic?0 -
you can give some allowances for what others may randomly
I believe you can do a LOT.
For example for motorists if you always keep a gap such that you are always able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear, then you should be able to avoid the vast najority of accidents.0 -
InsideInsurance wrote: »:rotfl:
How they are going to move is NOT 100% predictable, unless you are claiming you are the first true psychic?
Not 100% predictable, but absolutely not random, and the presence and movement of others should at least be expected, as should the possibility of people making a mistake.
There are certainly things you can do to 'predict' manoeuvres - observation of road position, speed, etc - for example, and definitely things you can do to ensure you reduce potential conflict IF something unusual happens, including slowing down to increase the amount of time you have to react, and giving everyone else more space to make mistakes.It's only numbers.0 -
There are certainly things you can do to 'predict' manoeuvres - observation of road position, speed, etc
If you want the full training then join a voluntary group like Rospa (from £15), however the simplest thing is to give yourself room/time to react.0 -
Marco_Panettone wrote: »Not 100% predictable
:T
So, back to the original point, sometimes people do unpredictable things that no matter how careful you have been the only options are either (a) hit the person doing the unpredictable thing or (b) swerve to try and avoid them and, given its a split second decision, hope not to hit anything else instead.
Where the unpredictable thing is a soft squishy cyclist then (b) looks increasingly an attractive option.
Yes, with good driving etc you can reduce the chances but you cannot totally remove them short of never driving.0 -
-
I buy it because I don't want to waste megabucks on insurance when I could drive more carefully and keep it low.....I pay it yearly not monthly as well - insurance is a pain in the neck, needs to be kept as low as possible! I am completely motivated by the value saving in not totalling my car, both in terms of not having to buy a new car, and not having to lay out megabucks on insurance I could have avoided just by taking a bit more care...Not sure I buy the idea that one drives more carefully because they don't want to pay more if they crash. Not crashing carries its own incentive.0 -
andydiysaver wrote: »I buy it because I don't want to waste megabucks on insurance when I could drive more carefully and keep it low.....I pay it yearly not monthly as well - insurance is a pain in the neck, needs to be kept as low as possible! I am completely motivated by the value saving in not totalling my car, both in terms of not having to buy a new car, and not having to lay out megabucks on insurance I could have avoided just by taking a bit more care...
I drive carefully primarily because I don't want to kill or injure anyone, myself included. The cost of insurance is well down the list of reasons.It's only numbers.0 -
I buy it (the idea that one drives more carefully because they don't want to pay more if they crash) because I don't want to waste megabucks on insurance when I could drive more carefully and keep it low.....I pay it yearly not monthly as well - insurance is a pain in the neck, needs to be kept as low as possible! I am completely motivated by the value saving in not totalling my car, both in terms of not having to buy a new car, and not having to lay out megabucks on insurance I could have avoided just by taking a bit more care...
So if money was no object, you would drive more dangerously? Money is the 'complete motivation?'
I do hope that opinion is a very minority view, especially as I cycle in London and I expect cost of insurance is immaterial to many drivers here.0 -
hugheskevi...was a response to an insinuation a reason to drive safely was not bound in with insurance costs, whereas of course it is
so now there's an extrapolation on that, because I used the word completely - and you're jumping on that intimating that if I were some billionaire I'd jump into a tank and start squashing people for fun - you can't do that - you're making arguments on arguments made on arguments.. I didn't say that, stick to what I said.
Insurance is a cost, like any other, we're on a money savings forum not cyclists weekly - and one of the considerations I have for driving carefully is to keep the costs low, another is to not total the car, another is to not squash people, another is not to squash oversensitive militant cyclists who can't be that into their trade or they'd be out cycling not on a forum extrapolating on figures of speech0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards