Cyclists breaking lights!!

RainyDay · 19-09-2014 4:17pm

Daith wrote: »

It's about all traffic users being equal. If a cyclists does scratch a car why shouldn't they pay?

Who said that they shouldn't pay? What's the connection between paying and insurance?

The reason that cars have insurance is that there is a significant risk that they will cause damage or injury that go beyond the ability of the owner to pay - so a car is relatively likely to cause thousands of euros worth of damage, or serious personal injury.

How often does a cyclist will cause thousands of euros worth of damage or serious personal injury? What problem are we trying to fix here?

Daith · 19-09-2014 4:22pm

RainyDay wrote: »

How often does a cyclist will cause thousands of euros worth of damage or serious personal injury? What problem are we trying to fix here?

It's possible a bike owner could cause damage to a car that they can not afford to pay yes.

Again a motorist could pay thousands in insurance and never make a claim or have a claim. It's not a matter of "how often".

Zillah · 19-09-2014 4:25pm

Daith wrote: »

It's possible a bike owner could cause damage to a car that they can not afford to pay yes.

Again a motorist could pay thousands in insurance and never make a claim or have a claim. It's not a matter of "how often".

A clumsy pedestrian could cause you bills of thousands, but it is considered a low enough risk to not mandate insurance. Same with cyclists.

rubadub · 19-09-2014 4:25pm

Daith wrote: »

Cyclists have bikes and generally share the same roads as other motor traffic. Pedestrians don't.

Pedestrians are road users, have you never seen them wandering onto the road, often illegally? they are a huge hazard & very commonly seen on roads, I encounter more pedestrians on the roads than cyclists, and certainly a higher % of them are breaking the rules of the road.

Maybe you need to go to specsavers along with the lad who seemingly never sees cars breaking lights.

Daith wrote: »

Why shouldn't cyclists have some insurance that doesn't involve "because some other group doesn't?

People are putting it right back at you, its a very valid way of arguing a point, it is to make YOU think about what you are suggesting, because people feel you already know the answers. Sticking your fingers in your ears and insisting nobody can bring up other similar points is a pathetic cop-out, like people refusing to allow discussion of alcohol in regards to other recreational drugs.

People are not bothering to point out all the reasons, its the same as reasons as other road users are not required to have it, like pedestrians or wheelchair users or mobility scooters.

Daith · 19-09-2014 4:28pm

rubadub wrote: »

Pedestrians are road users, have you never seen them wandering onto the road, often illegally?

Pedestrians do not share the road with other vehicles. They do not follow the same traffic routes and share the same space as other road users. If they do something illegal it's illegal.

They're not comparable and instead of answering the point it's more deflecting from cyclists who feel they should be treated as pedestrians or road users when it suits them.

Would cyclists not pay for insurance if it insured their bike and gave them 3rd party insurance in case they did cause damage?

RainyDay · 19-09-2014 4:31pm

Daith wrote: »

It's possible a bike owner could cause damage to a car that they can not afford to pay yes.

Again a motorist could pay thousands in insurance and never make a claim or have a claim. It's not a matter of "how often".

Sorry, but it IS a question of 'how often'. As with all public policy, the key question is 'how often'.

Yes, it is theoretically possible that a bike owner could cause damage to a car that they can't afford to pay for. Given that we never hear insurance companies or AA or SIMI or even Joe Duffy squealing about this, it's a fairly safe bet to say that it is a very rare event.

Why on earth would we bring in legislation and an additional mandatory charge for hundreds of thousands of cyclists to fix a tiny, tiny problem? If Govt wants to fix this problem, it would be easier just to pay for the 1 or 2 cases that might happen each year. Given that most drivers have comprehensive insurance now, the insurance company will cover it anyway.

You're suggesting a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It seems to be driven by some passionate desire for revenge or to get even, rather than by any sensible transport policy.

BTW, in the very unlikely scenario that you did manage to persuade a Govt to go ahead with this, the immediate outcome would be that traffic jams would get substantially worse. Many cyclists wouldn't bother, and would get back into their cars instead. Be careful what you wish for.

Daith · 19-09-2014 4:32pm

RainyDay wrote: »

BTW, in the very unlikely scenario that you did manage to persuade a Govt to go ahead with this, the immediate outcome would be that traffic jams would get substantially worse. Many cyclists wouldn't bother, and would get back into their cars instead. Be careful what you wish for.

Cyclists can't afford some insurance but can afford car insurance and a car?

I'm not against cyclists or trying to curb cycling. I don't see any issue with some level of insurance that would protect your bike in the event of it being stolen and protect other users.

07Lapierre · 19-09-2014 4:39pm

Daith wrote: »

Would cyclists not pay for insurance if it insured their bike and gave them 3rd party insurance in case they did cause damage?

Most Club cyclists do have insurance..its a requirement of Club membership.

Zillah · 19-09-2014 4:39pm

Daith wrote: »

I'm not against cyclists or trying to curb cycling.

Yes you are you just don't seem to understand why that's the case. Making anything more expensive is a disincentive to do it.

I don't see any issue with some level of insurance that would protect your bike in the event of it being stolen and protect other users.

You're proposing that they be legally obliged to get insurance, that's different to suggesting it might be useful.

Here's the thing though.
You don't care about insurance or safety or any of that.
You have to pay insurance to drive.
You want cyclists to have to suffer too.
That's it.
100% begrudgery.

rubadub · 19-09-2014 4:39pm

Daith wrote: »

Pedestrians do not share the road with other vehicles.

Of course they do. The last accident I had on a bike was when I was knocked off by a pedestrian who leapt out onto the road at a busy roundabout. I see plenty of near accidents on the N11 by pedestrians dangerously running out into traffic.

Daith wrote: »

Would cyclists not pay for insurance if it insured their bike and gave them 3rd party insurance in case they did cause damage?

Some might, just like some pedestrians might. But I expect most PEOPLE do not think it worthwhile to take out insurance for the potential damage that might be caused to vehicles whether they be on foot or on a bicycle that day, which could be once or twice a year.

I have seen plenty of wilful damage done to cars by drunk pedestrians in my time, I never thought of getting insurance in case I got into that state.

cajonlardo · 19-09-2014 4:42pm

Daith wrote: »

Would cyclists not pay for insurance if it insured their bike and gave them 3rd party insurance in case they did cause damage?

earlier in this thread it is mentioned that a LOT of cyclists have third party insurance and that it costs only 50 cents a week. .The low cost supports the fact that cyclists are not dangerous and pose an extremely low risk to other road users. That won't stop the angst and nerve ridden anti cyclist posters exaggerating.

RainyDay · 19-09-2014 4:43pm

Daith wrote: »

Cyclists can't afford some insurance but can afford car insurance and a car?

Most cyclists won't be too enthusiastic about paying for mandatory bike insurance ON TOP OF what they are already paying for their car and car insurance.

Daith wrote: »

I'm not against cyclists or trying to curb cycling. I don't see any issue with some level of insurance that would protect your bike in the event of it being stolen and protect other users.

And the problem that you're trying to fix here is the one-in-a-million chance of a cyclist doing serious damage to a car or person that they are unable to afford to fix?

But you've no problem with pedestrians who regularly walk out on the road into traffic without looking for cars or cyclists - they don't need any insurance, right?

Daith · 19-09-2014 4:44pm

RainyDay wrote: »

And the problem that you're trying to fix here is the one-in-a-million chance of a cyclist doing serious damage to a car or person that they are unable to afford to fix?

But you've no problem with pedestrians who regularly walk out on the road into traffic without looking for cars or cyclists - they don't need any insurance, right?

This is my problem. The exaggeration of cyclists. A one in a million chance versus pedestrians regularly doing it? Again insurance is about that chance.

cajonlardo wrote: »

earlier in this thread it is mentioned that a LOT of cyclists have third party insurance and that it costs only 50 cents a week. .

Then what's the issue? Seriously?

Zillah wrote: »

Yes you are you just don't seem to understand why that's the case. Making anything more expensive is a disincentive to do it.

I'm really not. How much do cyclists spend on bikes and a good lock? I haven't even mentioned a figure and pointed out it would cover you in case your bike was stolen?

RainyDay · 19-09-2014 4:48pm

Daith wrote: »

This is my problem. The exaggeration of cyclists. A one in a million chance versus pedestrians regularly doing it? Again insurance is about that chance.

/QUOTE]
But you told me that 'how often' doesn't matter. Once there is a chance it can happen - insurance is necessary. Is that still your position, or have you changed your mind?

Daith · 19-09-2014 4:50pm

RainyDay wrote: »

Daith wrote: »

This is my problem. The exaggeration of cyclists. A one in a million chance versus pedestrians regularly doing it? Again insurance is about that chance.

But you told me that 'how often' doesn't matter. Once there is a chance it can happen - insurance is necessary. Is that still your position, or have you changed your mind?

I don't take your exaggerated stats to be gospel.

rubadub · 19-09-2014 4:51pm

Daith wrote: »

This is my problem. The exaggeration of cyclists. A one in a million chance versus pedestrians regularly doing it? Again insurance is about that chance.

Pedestrians regularly "doing serious damage to a car or person"?

I really hope you don't drive, please get your eyesight checked, you seemingly can't see pedestrians or plain text right in front of you.

end of the road · 19-09-2014 4:52pm

seamus wrote: »

What is the argument *for* cyclists to have insurance though? And why does it only apply to cyclists and not pedestrians?

We know the reasons why motorised vehicles should have insurance - because they're big and travel fast, with the potential to cause massive amounts of damage to property and persons.

That doesn't apply to cyclists, so what is the reasoning behind looking for mandatory insurance for cyclists?

bikes are vehicles that can travel fast and if they hit someone they can potentially cause serious injoury or death. cyclists think they are above the law and are a dangerous nucence to both pedestrians and other vehicles and should be booted down the country to the ampel cycle trails available

Daith · 19-09-2014 4:53pm

rubadub wrote: »

Pedestrians regularly "doing serious damage to a car or person"?

I really hope you don't drive, please get your eyesight checked, you seemingly can't see pedestrians or plain text right in front of you.

I never said that pedestrians regularly do damage? I think you quoted the wrong person or mixed up myself and RainyDay.

rubadub wrote: »

plain text right in front of you.

Right back at you

end of the road · 19-09-2014 4:55pm

rubadub wrote: »

This is why the likes of of the extremist pro cycling anti-car and car owner bully Cllr Andrew Montague with his isis like mentality toards cars and pro cycling had a hand in scrapping plans for mandatory helmets.

fixed.

Chips Lovell · 19-09-2014 4:57pm

LOL, Andrew Montague pulling decent, lawabiding motorists from their cars on the south quays and beheading them.

rubadub · 19-09-2014 4:59pm

Daith wrote: »

I never said that?

I know you didn't you said

A one in a million chance versus pedestrians regularly doing it?

And you conveniently left out what "it" was, as though the poster had said cyclists rarely do "it" but claimed pedestrians regularly do "it",

While in fact "it" was 2 completely different things, but you were trying to give the impression the poster was talking about the same thing.

I was questioning you both to expose your little semantic trick and to question if you really thought the other poster was saying pedestrians regularly cause serious damage to cars.

cajonlardo · 19-09-2014 5:17pm

end of the road wrote: »

bikes are vehicles that can travel fast and if they hit someone they can potentially cause serious injoury or death. cyclists think they are above the law and are a dangerous nucence to both pedestrians and other vehicles and should be booted down the country to the ampel cycle trails available

You understand that insurance premiums reflect risk?

So how big is the risk you have described when an insurance firm is able to offer a cyclist insurance for €25 per annum? Do any of you read back your own posts and consider what you are typing?

CramCycle · 19-09-2014 5:18pm

Daith wrote: »

. A motorist could pay thousands upon thousands in insurance and never make use of it?

I don't think you understand the reasons why insurance is compulsory

end of the road wrote: »

cyclists think they are above the law

Nice generalisation

and are a dangerous nucence to both pedestrians and other vehicles and should be booted down the country to the ampel cycle trails available

Enjoy the traffic jams when all the workers overload PM or drive in, brilliant idea.

end of the road · 19-09-2014 5:48pm

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

Andrew Montague bullying decent, lawabiding motorists from their cars on the south quays to further his own agenda for his own political goals and his extremist pro cycling agenda.

yes. if one wants cars gone then maybe have multi-story car parks on the outskirts of the city, and have special busses designed with shoppers in mind to go around all the shoping areas. that might be a better way to encourage shoppers away from the car or even into the city. rather then forcing cycling on people

TheChizler · 19-09-2014 6:12pm

end of the road wrote: »

yhat might be a better way to encourage shoppers away from the car or even into the city. rather then forcing cycling on people

Ever see the wizard of oz? You seem very familiar with one of the characters; the one who was after a brain (not an attempt to insult intelligence!).

Roquentin · 19-09-2014 6:17pm

TheChizler wrote: »

Ever see the wizard of oz? You seem very familiar with one of the characters; the one who was after a brain (not an attempt to insult intelligence!).

which version? the judy garland one or the mila kunis one?

RainyDay · 20-09-2014 12:04am

Daith wrote: »

I don't take your exaggerated stats to be gospel.

It's your own stats that I'm talking about. You said that it doesn't matter 'how often' - once there is a chance of causing an injury, the person must have insurance. So now that we now that there is a chance of a pedestrian causing damage or injury, you now require pedestrians to have insurance to walk on the street - that's your logic - right?

Stabshauptmann · 20-09-2014 2:12pm

Daith wrote: »

This is my problem. The exaggeration of cyclists. A one in a million chance versus pedestrians regularly doing it? Again insurance is about that chance.

I live in Dublin.
I would say on average a pedestrian will do something negligent that will endanger me 2-3 times a day.

The type of damage we have mandatory car insurance for is the cost of writing off vehicles (50k) or causing serious life long injury (€1m+).

The chances that I can do that kind of damage on my bicycle are a million to 1.

If we are talking about denting your car door or knocking off your wing mirror, thats the small sum of money a no claims court can fix - so its not so vast that you need mandatory insurance.

Spook_ie · 20-09-2014 3:47pm

cajonlardo wrote: »

earlier in this thread it is mentioned that a LOT of cyclists have third party insurance and that it costs only 50 cents a week. .The low cost supports the fact that cyclists are not dangerous and pose an extremely low risk to other road users. That won't stop the angst and nerve ridden anti cyclist posters exaggerating.

RainyDay wrote: »

Most cyclists won't be too enthusiastic about paying for mandatory bike insurance ON TOP OF what they are already paying for their car and car insurance.

And the problem that you're trying to fix here is the one-in-a-million chance of a cyclist doing serious damage to a car or person that they are unable to afford to fix?

But you've no problem with pedestrians who regularly walk out on the road into traffic without looking for cars or cyclists - they don't need any insurance, right?

So which is it then, a high cost low use item as Rainy Day seems to think or a low cost never tend to be used item as Cajonlardo reckons.

cajonlardo · 20-09-2014 4:15pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

So which is it then, a high cost low use item as Rainy Day seems to think or a low cost never tend to be used item as Cajonlardo reckons.

Don't mind what we RECKON.

Get an online quote for 3rd party cyclists insurance. See that the figure I quoted is a FACT. This should take you all of 2 minutes.

Then ask yourself : Do the insurance firms give such low premiums if there is ANY risk?

And if there is NO risk,can there be anywhere near the danger created by cyclists that the hysterical, angst and nerve ridden ranters on these threads would have us believe?

Then again, if we all stuck to the facts, these threads wouldn't be at all entertaining.

Cyclists breaking lights!!

Comments