Piece on Cyclists on Prime Time RTE 1 9.35PM - Mod warning see OP/post 102

cython · 27-05-2015 5:07pm

tipparetops wrote: »

100 not a 1000
i think that 100 is very cheap, and it would make cyclists more aware if they could be held accountable.

And I suppose you advocate them only starting to cycle at 17? :rolleyes:

Most people start cycling quite young (plenty of them have learned by age 8), so if you are proposing a fee of €100 p.a. in insurance for all cyclists then €1000 is realistic cost per child.

Chips Lovell · 27-05-2015 5:08pm

If a cyclist is not insured, they are still potentially liable for any damages they cause. Some cyclists are insured. Some aren't.

Mandatory motor insurance exists because the number and cost of accidents was high enough that it was decided that the cost of enforcement was outweighed by the societal benefit of obligating motorists to insure themselves. You'd need a massive increase in the number of accidents for the same argument to be made for cyclists.

Simply saying you should have compulsory insurance because you might have an accident means the same logic would call for compulsory pedestrian insurance and suchlike.

magicbastarder · 27-05-2015 6:12pm

you are legally obliged to be insured to cover damage you could do to third parties; the damage bikes can and do impart to other vehicles and road users can't be anything close to a small fraction of the damage a car can do.

Jawgap · 27-05-2015 6:35pm

tipparetops wrote: »

100 not a 1000
i think that 100 is very cheap, and it would make cyclists more aware if they could be held accountable.

Not if you're on minimum wage using your bike to get to / from work.

Compulsory insurance on bikes would be hugely regressive.

Grandpa Hassan · 27-05-2015 6:39pm

tipparetops wrote: »

100 not a 1000
i think that 100 is very cheap, and it would make cyclists more aware if they could be held accountable.

Insurance and licensing has been tried elsewhere. It doesn't work. Cars go on roads and are driven by licensed drivers. Bike use varies between lycra clad commuters, my GF who only uses it on dollymount strand, kids who cycle in the park....the range is endless. It is impossible to draw a line. The cost and complexity massively outweighs any perceived benefit. It will never happen

The Bishop Basher · 27-05-2015 6:52pm

Which countries have tried it ? I've had a look but can't find anything online. Not doubting you. Just interested in reading about it.

Jawgap · 27-05-2015 7:00pm

The Swiss do it - cost about €4 per year.

The Bishop Basher · 27-05-2015 7:07pm

Jawgap wrote: »

The Swiss do it - cost about €4 per year.

Seems reasonable. No doubt it would be multiples of that here.

Still, if the Swiss can do it successfully there's no reason why we can't.

Would be better seeing that money spent on contributing to the development and maintenance of a proper cycling infrastructure but we also know that wouldn't happen here. It would be redirected to Denis's pension fund one way or another.....

Jawgap · 27-05-2015 7:11pm

Swanner wrote: »

Seems reasonable. No doubt it would be multiples of that here.

Still, if the Swiss can do it successfully there's no reason why we can't.

'Cos we're not Swiss and the cost of enforcement / administration would be too high.

tomasrojo · 27-05-2015 7:17pm

The Swiss stopped that scheme a few years ago. Even before then, it didn't resemble car insurance.

tipparetops · 27-05-2015 7:38pm

some posters here questioning the insurance idea - Do I really have to explain how the concept of insurance works.

I see that in 2012 630 cyclists injured in Dublin. That is a huge figure considering how few cycle.
People just look at deaths, they need to look at the whole picture.
People should drive, or walk, or if not possible, car pool.
Push bikes and motor bikes have no business on our roads and it is irresponsible to advocate any different.

monument · 27-05-2015 7:49pm

tipparetops wrote: »

and it would make cyclists more aware if they could be held accountable.

More aware that they could be held accountable?! What are you talking about?

Does mandatory car insurance stop motorists from speeding? No, around 80-90% of motorists speed when roads/streets are not congested.

Does it stop them from breaking red light? No, 1-3 drivers breaking red lights is common at many junctions and turning left on red is even more common.

tipparetops · 27-05-2015 7:53pm

monument wrote: »

More aware that they could be held accountable?! What are you talking about?

Does mandatory car insurance stop motorists from speeding? No, around 80-90% of motorists speed when roads/streets are not congested.

Does it stop them from breaking red light? No, 1-3 drivers breaking red lights is common at many junctions and turning left on red is even more common.

Put up my whole post, you are just using the part that backs up your post.
If a cyclist hurts someone or damages a car, there is no comeback.
If the cyclist had insurance, than its a different ball game.
You would see a lot of cyclists behaving properly on the roads if they were accountable.

tomasrojo · 27-05-2015 7:54pm

tipparetops wrote: »

some posters here questioning the insurance idea - Do I really have to explain how the concept of insurance works.

I see that in 2012 630 cyclists injured in Dublin. That is a huge figure considering how few cycle.
People just look at deaths, they need to look at the whole picture.
People should drive, or walk, or if not possible, car pool.
Push bikes and motor bikes have no business on our roads and it is irresponsible to advocate any different.

You have delighted us long enough.

morana · 27-05-2015 7:58pm

tipparetops wrote: »

Put up my whole post, you are just using the part that backs up your post.
If a cyclist hurts someone or damages a car, there is no comeback.
If the cyclist had insurance, than its a different ball game.
You would see a lot of cyclists behaving properly on the roads if they were accountable.

25 thousand of us have insurance.

magicbastarder · 27-05-2015 7:59pm

tipparetops wrote: »

Push bikes and motor bikes have no business on our roads

cars have no business in the city centre.

tipparetops · 27-05-2015 7:59pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

You have delighted us long enough.

Thank you, I think I have proven my point and I am delighted at least one poster here admits
this.
I just hope people who cycle learn from my posts, get insurance, get road safe, do a course - even the IBT.
But always remember you sit on a light steel bar, surrounded by danger,
a car beats a bicycle every time.

niceonetom · 27-05-2015 8:00pm

tipparetops wrote: »

If a cyclist hurts someone or damages a car, there is no comeback.

Nonsense.

cython · 27-05-2015 8:01pm

tipparetops wrote: »

Put up my whole post, you are just using the part that backs up your post.
If a cyclist hurts someone or damages a car, there is no comeback.

Of course there is. You can still take a civil suit against the cyclist if you so wish. It's a similar process for motoring claims, but insurance companies handle it and just happen to settle before it would get to a court

tipparetops wrote: »

If the cyclist had insurance, than its a different ball game.

Nope, see above

tipparetops wrote: »

You would see a lot of cyclists behaving properly on the roads if they were accountable.

If you have a flat rate of insurance as you suggested, and rely on that to somehow instil a sense of responsibility/accountability instead of just enforcing the laws as exist, you are onto a loser. One claim, or one hundred, there is no incentive under your model to minimise claims, so why wouldn't the existing minority of assholes just act the dick even more than before, comfortable in the knowledge that anything they damage is covered? Never mind that no insurance company will sell under that model!

Planet X · 27-05-2015 8:05pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

You have delighted us long enough.

He's obviously joking.
A pain the höle is what he could be inferring.

tipparetops · 27-05-2015 8:08pm

cython wrote: »

Of course there is. You can still take a civil suit against the cyclist if you so wish. It's a similar process for motoring claims, but insurance companies handle it and just happen to settle before it would get to a court
Nope, see above

If you have a flat rate of insurance as you suggested, and rely on that to somehow instil a sense of responsibility/accountability instead of just enforcing the laws as exist, you are onto a loser. One claim, or one hundred, there is no incentive under your model to minimise claims, so why wouldn't the existing minority of assholes just act the dick even more than before, comfortable in the knowledge that anything they damage is covered? Never mind that no insurance company will sell under that model!

you have failed to answer any of my points, your whole post basically says,
We are cyclists, we will not be regulated as we do not want to be accountable,

Your civil claim is nonsense, as the payouts are so small,
but if there was insurance, now your talking.

monument · 27-05-2015 8:15pm

tipparetops wrote: »

If a cyclist hurts someone or damages a car, there is no comeback.

Yes there is comeback. It's nonsense to say otherwise.

tipparetops wrote: »

You would see a lot of cyclists behaving properly on the roads if they were accountable.

Really? Like motorists?

Chips Lovell · 27-05-2015 8:15pm

tipparetops wrote: »

People should drive, or walk, or if not possible, car pool.
Push bikes and motor bikes have no business on our roads and it is irresponsible to advocate any different.

OK. You've had your fun. Don't post in this thread again.

Thanks

ted1 · 27-05-2015 8:24pm

tipparetops wrote: »

some posters here questioning the insurance idea - Do I really have to explain how the concept of insurance works.

I see that in 2012 630 cyclists injured in Dublin. That is a huge figure considering how few cycle.
People just look at deaths, they need to look at the whole picture.
People should drive, or walk, or if not possible, car pool.
Push bikes and motor bikes have no business on our roads and it is irresponsible to advocate any different.

Health insurance already takes care of that for a lot of people. You can't have two insurances doing the same the same thing.
Cyclists tend to be healthier than lazy drivers, and as such cost less to the health service, so any additional costs incurred are offset against the savings that are made, so at worst it's a neutral cost to the exchequer

Really what needs to happen is single occupancy cars should be banned from areas that suffer congestion. They have no business on the road .

ted1 · 27-05-2015 8:29pm

tipparetops wrote: »

a car beats a bicycle every time.

A car damages the enviorment.
A car increases obesity and cardiac related illnesses.
A car journey takes longer to commute to the city from the suburbs.
A car costs about €6+ a day to park.
A car costs .15cent on fuel per km.
In my last job I would drive 50,000km a year, I was doing that for 10 years.

Just started cycling in September, I hate driving or even being in a car now

Fian · 27-05-2015 8:53pm

tipparetops wrote: »

some posters here questioning the insurance idea - Do I really have to explain how the concept of insurance works.

I see that in 2012 630 cyclists injured in Dublin. That is a huge figure considering how few cycle.
People just look at deaths, they need to look at the whole picture.
People should drive, or walk, or if not possible, car pool.
Push bikes and motor bikes have no business on our roads and it is irresponsible to advocate any different.

Don't feed the troll. Pretty obvious from the above.

CramCycle · 27-05-2015 8:57pm

Fian wrote: »

Don't feed the troll. Pretty obvious from the above.

MOD VOICE: Report posts, do not comment in thread. There is already a mod warning only 4 posts above

JamJamJamJam · 27-05-2015 8:58pm

tipparetops wrote: »

But always remember you sit on a light steel bar, surrounded by danger,
a car beats a bicycle every time.

I had a big long constructive reply typed out on the iPad, and when I said submit, I'd been signed out so it disappeared

Grr!! I can't be arsed typing out everything fully again, but basically:

- Infrastructure is great
- Road safety education for everybody in school would be great
- Generally, the more cyclists, the better. This must be considered when compulsory helmets, hi vis, insurance, etc. are suggested
- Campaigns to encourage motorists to drive more carefully would help. Campaigns to encourage motorists to cycle would help more.
- I think that it is worth bearing in mind that being on the road is always potentially dangerous, as you've said. But that does not mean that the many advantages and joys of cycling must be foregone. Everything carries a risk. It is not unreasonable to cycle, in the very same way that playing sport, climbing a ladder to do DIY or drinking alcohol can be completely reasonable.

Perhaps a question could be framed "is it not more unreasonable, or even selfish, for commuters and shoppers to drive high powered, fast and dangerous vehicles when cycling is possible?" It could be suggested that if someone feels cycling is dangerous, it is dangerous because of vehicles, and not (for the most part) because of cyclists. That's emotive, but food for thought.

Chimichangas · 27-05-2015 9:01pm

monument wrote: »

More aware that they could be held accountable?! What are you talking about?

Does mandatory car insurance stop motorists from speeding? No, around 80-90% of motorists speed when roads/streets are not congested.

Does it stop them from breaking red light? No, 1-3 drivers breaking red lights is common at many junctions and turning left on red is even more common.

Where did you get those figures from? They seem to be quite...subjective.

wtlltw · 27-05-2015 9:11pm

cython wrote: »

Of course there is. You can still take a civil suit against the cyclist if you so wish. It's a similar process for motoring claims, but insurance companies handle it and just happen to settle before it would get to a court

Any link to this?

I've always wondered if I injured myself or a pedestrian damaged a car or someones property through my own fault was there any comeback against me? (Ok putting out every worse case scenario)
I wouldn't mind paying for insurance if I knew it would cover me against any of the above.

cython · 27-05-2015 9:19pm

wtlltw wrote: »

Any link to this?

I've always wondered if I injured myself or a pedestrian damaged a car or someones property through my own fault was there any comeback against me? (Ok putting out every worse case scenario)
I wouldn't mind paying for insurance if I knew it would cover me against any of the above.

No link to an SI or an Act, but there's an outline here: http://www.mortonsolicitors.ie/index.php/component/k2/item/26-compensation-and-damages-awarded-in-personal-injury-cases-ireland

Basically it's a loss of property, and if you are determined to have a liability for the damages, you can be pursued for it. It's a core principle of Tort law.

wtlltw · 27-05-2015 9:22pm

cython wrote: »

It's a core principle of Tort law.

Thanks for that.

I knew I should have attended Law lectures, when I was in college lol.

omri · 27-05-2015 9:47pm

I think that report although short was fair for both good/bad cyclists and good/bad drivers. All we need now is better infrastructure for cyclists.

Chimichangas · 27-05-2015 9:54pm

omri wrote: »

I think that report although short was fair for both good/bad cyclists and good/bad drivers. All we need now is better infrastructure for cyclists.

And education, particularly in schools, colleges etc on how to use it.!

Kaisr Sose · 27-05-2015 10:55pm

tipparetops wrote: »

Put up my whole post, you are just using the part that backs up your post.
If a cyclist hurts someone or damages a car, there is no comeback.
If the cyclist had insurance, than its a different ball game.
You would see a lot of cyclists behaving properly on the roads if they were accountable.

I see nothing wrong with taking parts of your post. If a point you make has different meanings depending on context or situation, it looses relevance. Insurance and road safety are black and white, there is no context.

If a cyclist damages a car, they are as accountable as any motorist. Motorists with insurance drive off from collisions on occasion. Having insurance does not mean they will stop!!

Put simply, there is no link between insurance, road safety or obeying the rules of the road. Absolutely none!

tomasrojo · 27-05-2015 11:16pm

It's the eightieth anniversary of the introduction of the driving test in the UK. So the Road Danger Reduction Forum wrote a piece about it. Argues that the test does little to reduce road danger, and increases a sense of entitlement among motorists.

http://rdrf.org.uk/2015/05/27/what-is-the-driving-test-for-notes-on-its-social-function-at-the-80th-anniversary/

(The "rite of passage" sociological aspect of the test is something I've always found bizarre; you can do a three-point turn and identify the sign for low bridge. You are now a man!)

Chimichangas · 27-05-2015 11:18pm

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Put simply, there is no link between insurance, road safety or obeying the rules of the road. Absolutely none!

eh...no link? :rolleyes:

tomasrojo · 27-05-2015 11:23pm

Chimichangas wrote: »

eh...no link? :rolleyes:

I think the RDRF (linked-to above) has argued that insurance can increase the likelihood of unsafe driving, as the driver doesn't have to worry about being pauperised by his or her actions.

Chimichangas · 27-05-2015 11:34pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

I think the RDRF (linked-to above) has argued that insurance can increase the likelihood of unsafe driving, as the driver doesn't have to worry about being pauperised by his or her actions.

I wouldnt say thats overall though. Perhaps its true for a tiny minority of drivers. And its a HUGE leap to make to say something like that, i.e. because someone is insured its ok to drive dangerously...damage property...hit someone?

I would nearly say its a nonsense point to make..?

tomasrojo · 27-05-2015 11:39pm

I don't know whether the point is objectively true (if, for example, you see a rise in collisions following the introduction of compulsory insurance). It's an intriguing idea, but, as you say, it's possibly not true.

CramCycle · 28-05-2015 8:11am

There was a spike in accidents after seat belts were made mandatory in the UK if I remember right, don't be shocked at some of the counter intuitive things that happen when changes are made.

Kaisr Sose · 28-05-2015 8:23am

Chimichangas wrote: »

eh...no link? :rolleyes:

That's right - there is no link

magicbastarder · 28-05-2015 8:37am

tomasrojo wrote: »

I think the RDRF (linked-to above) has argued that insurance can increase the likelihood of unsafe driving, as the driver doesn't have to worry about being pauperised by his or her actions.

well, if i found out my car was uninsured, and i had to drive to the insurance company HQ to sort it out, i suspect i'd do it as slowly as possible...

Rubberchikken · 28-05-2015 8:41am

i've no experience of driving in dublin but can only imagine the quality of some drivers and cyclists. but fron=m driving in cork i've seen a big increase in the number of cyclists and think it's great.
ok there will always be some who think they're in the Tour but there are plenty of drivers who also think there in Le Mans, so it kinda equals out.

councils haven't really thought out the cycle lanes. a whole lot more and better could be done to improve and increase them.

how to convince some drivers that cyclists, even the kamikasi ones, are allowed on the roads is difficult. probably down to individual personalities, most drivers and cyclists are fine - some are not:(

mcgratheoin · 28-05-2015 8:51am

tipparetops wrote: »

But always remember you sit on a light steel bar, surrounded by danger.

Excuse me, but all my bars are either carbon fibre or aluminium.

And I eat danger for breakfast :cool:

JamJamJamJam · 28-05-2015 10:30am

CramCycle wrote: »

There was a spike in accidents after seat belts were made mandatory in the UK if I remember right, don't be shocked at some of the counter intuitive things that happen when changes are made.

This is a question more than a specific point I'm making:

I read somewhere that the thinking is that everybody thought they were suddenly invincible and became careless on the roads, as we've mentioned. However after a couple of years, the 'novelty' of wearing a seatbelt wore off, and as it became the standard, people lost that sense of excessive comfort and careless driving was reduced. And then, the value of seatbelts became clear. Obviously there are other safe driving campaigns, etc that contributed to safer driving, so the overall improvement in safety can't be put down to seatbelts alone, but they have contributed. A short term spike in collisions may have misguided people into thinking that this would continue, however, which it did not.

I hope I've explained that concept in an understandable way.

So now, if you take cycling, I wonder would the careful introduction of mandatory (whatever) still result in greater safety in the long run? If it was introduced carefully, gradually at first, and became 'normal' or 'standard' behaviour (be it helmets, high vis, insurance, flashing lights - whatever)

I recognise that with cycling part of its safety comes from increasing numbers of people doing it. Then introducing some mandatory thing may be a barrier to that. However, improved safety may add to the appeal for others, and the number of cyclists may not be affected, or could even increase.

Edit- just to add, I'm not suggesting that any of those SHOULD be introduced. Rather, if the concept held true for cyclists, that they COULD be introduced. Just that the paradoxical decrease in safety upon introduction of (whatever) may not be a real barrier in the long run. There are other reasons why these things may be pointless!!

tomasrojo · 28-05-2015 10:38am

Better to take that question to the Helmet thread, I think. (Sorry, mods, if that sounds like back-seat modding.)

If one is to look at the seat belt aspect in isolation from the bike safety gear question, I personally can't get a clear picture of what the safety benefit has been in the long term, because the legend of the extraordinary success of the seat belt law in the UK keeps getting in the way of analysis. John Adams has been writing about the unintended consequences of the law for years, but I don't know how reliable his analysis is.

This for example:
http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2009/09/16/seat-belts-again-2/

I think he establishes convincingly that the concrete numbers given for lives saved are a fiction of received wisdom, but he doesn't establish what they actually are.

I think some members of the PACTS committee that pushed the seat belt law did concede in a statistical journal recently (last few years) that there had been a rise in pedestrian and cyclist fatalities immediately after the law. The picture is murky after that anyway, because the rates of walking and cycling starting dropping quite rapidly (probably independently of the law) which brings down total numbers of fatalities for those modes.

sarkozy · 28-05-2015 10:49am

funnights74 wrote: »

I thought it was fair enough, obviously the camera doesn't lie and there was wrong on both sides in the clips they featured. What was shown will come as no surprise to regular commuters, I'm quite used to being "cut up" on my trip to work.
I must agree with what the guard said awareness of your surroundings and anticipation can go a long way to saving injuries and lives. Part of the problem was the influx of cyclists, partly due to the ctw scheme and the infrastructure simply wasn't in place. So no quick fix in place.

The camera does lie, all the time. And editing lies even more.

My take on this Prime Time piece: it was unbalanced and misrepresentative of the cyclists' own experience commuting giving an overall negative view.

Firstly, the Dublin Cycling Campaign was not invited to comment, with the only voices coming from officialdom, which colours the perspective.

More importantly, it left viewers with the impression that, sure, the roads and drivers are bad, but cyclists are worse.

When did a cyclist kill a driver or pedestrian? When has a driver killed a cyclist or pedestrian?

The simple fact is the laws of physics applies in all cases: one ton of metal will crush human bones.

If Prime Time spent just a little more time training their cameras on the cars ploughing through red lights and pedestrian crossings, they'd see the real problem is drivers breaking the rules of the road. I mean, their cameras were in those locations.

Every morning, as a pedestrian, I encounter this. Just yesterday evening, walking home, I was nearly run over at Baggot St. Bridge by a car and a motorbike speeding through the pedestrian crossing as I and others stepped out at the green man.

Where's the enforcement? Where's the balance in Prime Time's reporting the other night?

tomasrojo · 28-05-2015 10:52am

Indeed, if they wanted to train their cameras on the scandal of the flouting of pedestrian lights (as opposed to all-traffic traffic lights) by users of motorised transport, it would be shooting fish in a barrel.

mcgratheoin · 28-05-2015 10:54am

JamJamJamJam wrote: »

Edit- just to add, I'm not suggesting that any of those SHOULD be introduced. Rather, if the concept held true for cyclists, that they COULD be introduced. Just that the paradoxical decrease in safety upon introduction of (whatever) may not be a real barrier in the long run. There are other reasons why these things may be pointless!!

Interesting question, however one important point is that cycling for many people is a chosen rather than an enforced mode of transport. Making anything compulsory for car users (licence/insurance/seatbelt/sobriety) will not result in anybody saying "I have to wear a seatbelt? Screw that, I'll take the bike", however afaik, the reverse has not been true - people won't take a dublin bike if the law has compulsory requirements for cyclists (licence/helmet/hi-vis/sobriety

)

Piece on Cyclists on Prime Time RTE 1 9.35PM - Mod warning see OP/post 102

Comments