Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Cyclists breaking lights!!

Options
1…2122232426

Comments

  • Options
    #752
    Crocked
    Registered Users Posts: 543 ✭✭✭Crocked


    eamonnq wrote: »
    Maybe you could ask the OP ?

    Or indeed those who want compulsory insurance. In the case of the OP's incident, what exactly would be different if the cyclist was or wasn't insured?


  • Options
    #753
    eamonnq
    Registered Users Posts: 4,009 ✭✭✭eamonnq


    Are you asking me ? or just quoting me for the fun of it ?

    I never indicated I wanted compulsory insurance, but you seem to think that I have ?


  • Options
    #754
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,782 ✭✭✭SeanW


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Having insurance, registration, done me no good. I had to repair the damage myself, and hope that no serious damage was done to my head (who knows at this point).
    I'm sorry to hear that happened to you. But if licensing, registration and insurance did you no good (and presumably this is your basis for asking for cyclists to remain exempt from them) then why should motorists carry these either? I mean, if they're provably no good ...


  • Options
    #755
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,545 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    CramCycle wrote: »
    You really are missng the point though. Its got nothing to do with the minimal cost, or the large cost.

    If cycling insurance were mandatory, every one from a toddler with stabilisers would have to get it. For an insurance company to give a reasonable assessment there would be risk analysis etc. and presumably the need for a mandatory test to prove to the insurance company that the toddler can ride the bike.

    Congratulations, you have just put off a load of kids from riding their bikes or promoted law breaking because their parents can't be arsed to fork out the cash for this mandatory insurance.

    But insurance is cheap I hear you say. Well yes, it is. Mainly because it is not mandatory. Now that it is mandatory, we will have to have legislation drawn up, passed, and then implemented. This will follow on with Garda enforcement, obviously the cyclists will have to carry mandatory ID now as well so the Gardai can enforce it. Make sure you don't let your kids out without an ID card or passport on the way to school. Who will pay for this, we will need a national database, reviews, a garda division, penalty points etc.

    Lets not forget the future repercussions of reduced cycling numbers leading to increased traffic, increased congestion and pollution in urban areas and far more importantly the increased strain on the health service in years to come as people start going into hospital at an earlier age.

    But your suggestion still makes sense though, look at the swathes of traffic accidents caused by cyclists over the past few years as reported in the news. Look at the huge financial burden put on the state and the people en masse (not just the random incident that would be idiotic to legislate for).

    I can't wait till my son is old enough to cycle to his friends house and then tell him no because he is on a waiting list or the cost of insurance is too high.

    I am only giving a few reasons why mandatory insurance for cyclists is such a stroke of genius, I am sure you have many more, ones that are not random cases that only put little or minor strain on the state outside of the norm.

    I cannot wait for your outline on how this will work, how it will be enforced, and what genius in the Dail will put it forward (the place is full of them to be fair). You should run for election, if you have time on your commute that is, particularly after this gets implemented., this is the inspiring genius our country needs right now.
    SeanW wrote: »
    I'm sorry to hear that happened to you. But if licensing, registration and insurance did you no good (and presumably this is your basis for asking for cyclists to remain exempt from them) then why should motorists carry these either? I mean, if they're provably no good ...

    Actually, quite surprised but I did respond to one of your posts with the above, if you had read my posts, you will see that I have never even hinted at that before AFAIK and if so it was not my intention. My point in my last post, which is not a line I would normally take but one which you happily point out what I was aiming to convey is that taking one incident instead of the big picture is not a good way to decide policy. Never has been, never will be. Just because it was not beneficial to me does not mean that it should not be done for societal benefit. It would have been beneficial to me if cars had an auto engage brake that detects collisions and refuses to disengage it without the authorisation of AGS in the case of an accident but as I am sure you can imagine, this would be horrendously stupid policy and I would not demand it for that one statistically insignifcant incident that happened to me, for the one incident with me there are probably a million more when letting the driver of the instigating vehicle continue so as to move to a safe position is far more paramount.


  • Options
    #756
    Crocked
    Registered Users Posts: 543 ✭✭✭Crocked


    I was merely quoting you 'eamonnq' so as it was clear what question I was replying to. I didn't mean to imply you were asking for compulsory insurance. I should probably have quoted differently to make it clearer.

    My main train of thought was regarding those who'd prefer a system of compulsory insurance. What exactly would have happened differently in an incident like the OP's should that system have been in place?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #757
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Crocked wrote: »
    I was merely quoting you 'eamonnq' so as it was clear what question I was replying to. I didn't mean to imply you were asking for compulsory insurance. I should probably have quoted differently to make it clearer.

    My main train of thought was regarding those who'd prefer a system of compulsory insurance. What exactly would have happened differently in an incident like the OP's should that system have been in place?

    Maybe like in the case of uninsured motorists or hit and runs where the vehicle driver can't be identified the MIBI pay out from the levies on policies, you could have a CIBI for when cyclists do the same


  • Options
    #758
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Crocked wrote: »
    <snipped>
    I looked around as well and didn't come across to many incidences, certainly not enough to justify compulsory cover. Although looks like a cyclist and pedestrian collided in NYC this week with the pedestrian on life support. Police aren't sure who had right of way at the time but the newpaper article I read suggested the pedestrian was crossing on a red.

    <snipped>

    Don't even start me on the feckin idiots who race against their PBs on Strava, treating the streets as their own personal racetrack. I see the guy in NY was apparantly an avid Strava user, except (coincidence) on the day he hit the pedestrian.

    http://nypost.com/2014/09/20/central-park-cyclist-veered-into-wrong-lanes-before-tragic-crash/
    But Marshall, 31, of East Harlem, likes to go very fast — and boasts about it online almost every day.

    He uses a GPS and other software to track his maximum and average speeds during his often twice-daily rides through the park, The Post has found.

    His blazing speeds are uploaded — precise to the 10th of a mile per hour — onto a competitive running and cycling Web site.

    “New Chain, brakes and RD(7800gs),” he had boasted earlier Thursday on the Strava site, referring to a new rear derailleur for his bike. “All systems go.”

    Hours before he slammed into Tarlov, Marshall had logged 32.2 miles of cycling during a predawn spin through the park, the site says — and listed his top speed for that ride at 35.6 mph, well over the 25 mph speed limit for bikes and cars.

    His maximum speed during five sprints on that same downhill stretch of West Drive during his Thursday-morning ride was 28.9 mph, his data on Strava says.

    Marshall — who appeared to have logged every one of his 9,000 miles ridden so far this year — left no record of the one afternoon ride that put Tarlov in the hospital.

    BTW she died today
    http://nypost.com/2014/09/22/mom-struck-by-cyclist-in-central-park-dies/


  • Options
    #759
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,073 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Maybe like in the case of uninsured motorists or hit and runs where the vehicle driver can't be identified the MIBI pay out from the levies on policies, you could have a CIBI for when cyclists do the same

    And we don't need to stop at people on bicycles -- the same as this can apply too insurance too...
    monument wrote: »
    We could arrange high-vis bibs with individual number plates for everybody outside of a car.

    It would be a catch-all. It would include people cycling, walking, running, jogging, skateboarding, rolling skating etc etc.

    These's as many menaces on foot as there are on bicycles -- I've been injoured by one such menace on foot who was jaywalking but thankfully in my case a Garda witnessed it and issued an Asbo to him.

    I know of other cases where the menace on two feet have injoured somebody on a bike and damaged their bicycle, and just ran or walked away.


  • Options
    #760
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    monument wrote: »
    And we don't need to stop at people on bicycles -- the same as this can apply too insurance too...

    Errr it does already :confused:

    http://www.thejournal.ie/government-proposes-levy-on-insurance-policies-to-pay-for-quinn-bailout-226031-Sep2011/


  • Options
    #761
    kleefarr
    Registered Users Posts: 5,743 ✭✭✭kleefarr


    Need a new thread for pedestrians crossing when Red man is showing. :mad:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #762
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Just to put some context to the costs

    Can't find an online Irish costing but Zurich Switzerland will provide residents in Switzerland with
    €4,000,000 personal liability for €65
    €8,200,000 personal liability for €68

    So I think there's no excuse really NOT to have PL cover as a pedestrian or as a cyclist


  • Options
    #763
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,545 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    kleefarr wrote: »
    Need a new thread for pedestrians crossing when Red man is showing. :mad:

    Need a new thread on why councils have such long wait times between light changes and then relatively short times for pedestrians to cross. I am not surprised by this behaviour at all, junctions like the Merrion rd./canal junction where traffic on the Merrion road get almost 3 minutes, followed by 10 seconds for pedestrians on green, merge of 10seconds for cyclists/pedestrians (what idiot designs these systems), followed by 10 seconds for cyclists and then finally 15seconds for canal traffic.

    I don't condone it but I can see why peds don't wait here. Above all others pedestrians should be facilitated, followed by public transport, then a fair mix of all other road users that facilitates everyones reasonable safety first and movement second.


  • Options
    #764
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users Posts: 8,617 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057294795

    Yes, this has become the most pedantic thread which never dies...The same old tax/insurance rubbish from from the "usual suspects"..


  • Options
    #765
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,545 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    So I think there's no excuse really NOT to have PL cover as a pedestrian or as a cyclist

    Why not have it for everyone then? Everyone is a pedestrian, or has the capability, not sure why you say pedestrian and cyclist rather than everyone.


  • Options
    #766
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Why not have it for everyone then? Everyone is a pedestrian, or has the capability, not sure why you say pedestrian and cyclist rather than everyone.


    Probably you just being a little too concerned about PCness

    As most (all ) car insurance policies cover 3rd party liability that only really leaves pedestrians and cyclists, I suppose for the pedants we should include horse riding etc but there you go


  • Options
    #767
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Tenzor07 wrote: »
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057294795

    Yes, this has become the most pedantic thread which never dies...The same old tax/insurance rubbish from from the "usual suspects"..

    Plus the usual rhetoric from yourself, way to contribute to a thread as usual :)


  • Options
    #768
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users Posts: 8,617 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Plus the usual rhetoric from yourself, way to contribute to a thread as usual :)

    Well we have to give you something to do in between picking up fares and harassing bicyclists...! :P

    All the worthwhile contributions to this thread ended about 700 posts ago! :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #769
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,545 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Probably you just being a little too concerned about PCness

    As most (all ) car insurance policies cover 3rd party liability that only really leaves pedestrians and cyclists, I suppose for the pedants we should include horse riding etc but there you go

    Not being a pedant, just pointing out, your solution is insurance for everyone. Everyone with rare exception is a pedestrian at some point. Therefore we all should contribute. No need to make it a specific insurance, just add it onto everyone's increasing tax bill. Everyone gets charged 100euro a year (68 from your figures and the rest in admin, no doubt doubled to 200euro due to unforeseen issues with 18 months), no matter what, which can then either be tendered out to insurers or the state can run it themselves. It would be linked to your PPS number or onto your wage packet so barring tourists and those who are here unknown to the state, we all have insurance. This covers all pedestrians and any mode of transport that does not require a license. Public transport costs should come down as non state providers insurance costs drop and they can be more competitive. Car and private licensed vehicle insurance should in theory also come down in cost as they now have someone to claim off, because of all the high cost accidents the peds and cyclists cause.


  • Options
    #770
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Not being a pedant, just pointing out, your solution is insurance for everyone. Everyone with rare exception is a pedestrian at some point. Therefore we all should contribute. No need to make it a specific insurance, just add it onto everyone's increasing tax bill. Everyone gets charged 100euro a year (68 from your figures and the rest in admin, no doubt doubled to 200euro due to unforeseen issues with 18 months), no matter what, which can then either be tendered out to insurers or the state can run it themselves. It would be linked to your PPS number or onto your wage packet so barring tourists and those who are here unknown to the state, we all have insurance. This covers all pedestrians and any mode of transport that does not require a license. Public transport costs should come down as non state providers insurance costs drop and they can be more competitive. Car and private licensed vehicle insurance should in theory also come down in cost as they now have someone to claim off, because of all the high cost accidents the peds and cyclists cause.

    Could well go that way, wouldn't worry me if my liability insurance cost was less, would also release the cover on my household insurance or supplement it, whichever

    Bonus of course would be that as it's Personal Liability cover you'd be covered for leaving a glass on the floor of the dance floor and someone cutting their foot open on it amongst a multitude of other things, so why not


  • Options
    #771
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    So I think there's no excuse really NOT to have PL cover as a pedestrian or as a cyclist
    Well at least you're consistent.

    Spook_ie thinks all citizens should be required to purchase mandatory third party liability insurance as a condition of leaving your home.

    It is of course a completely insane proposal, I'd be concerned if you can't see that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #772
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    seamus wrote: »
    Well at least you're consistent.

    Spook_ie thinks all citizens should be required to purchase mandatory third party liability insurance as a condition of leaving your home.

    It is of course a completely insane proposal, I'd be concerned if you can't see that.

    What's wrong with that idea, do you not think that if you cause an accident you should pay?, to ensure you can pay shouldn't you have insurance?


  • Options
    #773
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    What's wrong with that idea, do you not think that if you cause an accident you should pay?
    No issue with that, it's tort law.
    to ensure you can pay shouldn't you have insurance?
    No, I don't see why.

    What's the average cost of such a personal liability claim these days and how many are made?

    Is it so crippling to society that everyone should insure themselves just in case?

    There's being prudent and then there's being insane.


  • Options
    #774
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,545 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Bonus of course would be that as it's Personal Liability cover you'd be covered for leaving a glass on the floor of the dance floor and someone cutting their foot open on it amongst a multitude of other things, so why not
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    What's wrong with that idea, do you not think that if you cause an accident you should pay?, to ensure you can pay shouldn't you have insurance?

    So what happens when the claims start accruing for some people? so the likes of Zurich start increasing that persons policy charge. Could we effectively insure people off the streets.

    Or as you say above, everyone has public liability so bouncers don't stop people dancing barefoot on the dance floors, or people on the roads give less of a **** because they are insured. Do you not think our A&Es are crowded enough. The cost goes up, the ability to pay goes down, we all end up never leaving the house.


  • Options
    #775
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    seamus wrote: »
    No issue with that, it's tort law.
    No, I don't see why.

    What's the average cost of such a personal liability claim these days and how many are made?

    Is it so crippling to society that everyone should insure themselves just in case?

    There's being prudent and then there's being insane.

    Difficult to gauge as personal liability isn't differentiated from public liability, but in the 1st 6 months of 2014, 6552 claims of Public Liability with an average of €22,000 (decided on by the injuries board ), a further 18000 cases were settled without recourse to the injuries board and are quote
    Injuries Board CEO Patricia Byron said there is concern among businesses at the level of settlements which occur outside of the board's supervision.

    A review found that 40pc of the estimated 45,000 claims each year are settled directly between claimants and insurers without recourse to the Injuries Board or courts.

    Ms Byron warned: "As these resolutions occur 'behind closed doors' there are concerns about their impact on competitiveness, premiums and, potentially, on false or exaggerated claims.

    "Insurance companies and claimants have benefited from the visibility of the Injuries Board model, where information is shared very early in the claims process.

    "But the industry is not currently providing data on settlements pre and post the process and we're calling on them to do so.
    - See more at: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/personal-injury-payouts-soar-to-144m-but-number-of-claims-is-down-30589355.html#sthash.1N6wMD6i.dpuf


  • Options
    #776
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    CramCycle wrote: »
    So what happens when the claims start accruing for some people? so the likes of Zurich start increasing that persons policy charge. Could we effectively insure people off the streets.

    Or as you say above, everyone has public liability so bouncers don't stop people dancing barefoot on the dance floors, or people on the roads give less of a **** because they are insured. Do you not think our A&Es are crowded enough. The cost goes up, the ability to pay goes down, we all end up never leaving the house.

    OK so take a hypothetical situation.

    Johny has a communion party, Johny's mom hires a bouncy castle, Johny's friend Mary uses the castle falls off and breaks her arm or in the quoted case worse, who's liable? who pays?

    As in the UK ( luckily covered by the householders insurance )
    http://www.injury-compensation.ie/injurynews/category/bouncy-castle-injury-claim/
    Sam Harris of Spalding, Lincolnshire, then aged 11, was brain damaged when a boy of 15 kicked him in the head during a somersault. The accident two years ago has left Sam Harris needing constant care. The resulting child accident injury compensation claim has resulted in a £1 Million compensation payment.

    A personal injury case was taken by Janet and David Harris against the parents (Catherine and Timothy Perry) who had hired the bouncy castle on the basis of poor supervision, especially allowing older children by younger children. High Court Judge David Steel ruled on the question of liability by stating that “The risks of a damaging collision are manifestly enhanced by mixing children of different sizes.”


  • Options
    #777
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,545 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Johny has a communion party, Johny's mom hires a bouncy castle, Johny's friend Mary uses the castle falls off and breaks her arm or in the quoted case worse, who's liable? who pays?

    His parents.


  • Options
    #778
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,073 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    If Spook_ie is not trolling, he is taking up ever point or two incorrectly.

    He now seems to be suggesting personsl liability insurance for all.

    If that's not trolling, it's daft. And it's been explained already over and over as to why it's daft, so I am just going to call it what it is -- daftness.


  • Options
    #779
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Difficult to gauge as personal liability isn't differentiated from public liability, but in the 1st 6 months of 2014, 6552 claims of Public Liability with an average of €22,000 (decided on by the injuries board ), a further 18000 cases were settled without recourse to the injuries board and are quote
    Thankfully the article itself gives the breakdown:
    More than three-quarters of all awards were made to victims of motor liability, with public liability and employer liability trailing behind at 17pc and 7pc respectively.
    So 99% of these claims were motor, employer or public liability. So 1% of claims are "other", which probably includes direct person-to-person claims. Unfortunately we also don't have a value for them.

    So at most in 2013 there were 66 personal liability claims made, in a population of nearly five million people.

    Which, running some figures roughly here, gives me a 0.08% chance of having someone make a personal liability claim against me within my lifetime. Even then, we don't know how much that's going to be, but safe to assume it'll be small.

    I'm going to keep my cash in my pocket, thanks, rather than worry about things which are statistically very unlikely.


  • Options
    #780
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    monument wrote: »
    If Spook_ie is not trolling, he is taking up ever point or two incorrectly.

    He now seems to be suggesting personsl liability insurance for all.

    If that's not trolling, it's daft. And it's been explained already over and over as to why it's daft, so I am just going to call it what it is -- daftness.

    I am suggesting personal liability insurance for all and it's not daftness.

    Insurance is all about risk assessment v payout. Now I've shown that there are payouts generated in excess of £1,000,000 payable, I've shown that the AVERAGE payout for liability is €22,000, the only thing that can't be categorized is how many uninsured accidents never get reported let alone processed and if you think it's zero then I'm afraid it's just your daftness showing


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #781
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    CramCycle wrote: »
    His parents.

    Great so his parents are living in furnished rental accommodation, therefore they have no need for household insurance, so you reckon they pay out €10 a week to someone for their lifetime, and whomever is crippled for life suffers.


Advertisement