Cyclists breaking lights!!

Spook_ie

cajonlardo wrote: »

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.

I don't really care what either of you reckon, it's just an observation that one of you reckons it's cheap and the other that it's not.

Spook_ie

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

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.

Pretty sure that if a cyclist hits a pedestrian they are going to cause some injury, perhaps a broken collar bone or break of an arm, I know there are reports of broken hips etc in the media from time to time so the question is how much would such an injury cost?

Well as an example a cyclist won a judgement recently for a broken collar bone and ancillary damages
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87148350&postcount=1

Settled for €16500

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92150105&postcount=278


I know that I wouldn't fancy finding that money out of my own pocket, so perhaps mandatory insurance for cyclists should be looked at in more depth to determine just how many cycling related injuries there are ( rather than the present yes they need it/no they don't arguments )

CramCycle

Does anyone calling for cyclist insurance understand the cost is in making it mandatory and enforcing it not in the insurance itself.

Please tell me after all the previous posts you have some basic understanding of one of the many reasons why it won't and should not happen.

The Davestator

If I'm out jogging and knock someone down, I may injure them. Should I get joggers insurance. Where do you draw the line?

seamus

Daith wrote: »

You share the road with other road users. All other road users (cars, motorbikes, etc) all have insurance regardless of how many accidents they have.

In other words, your argument boils down to, "Other road users have it, therefore cyclists should too". And yet when I made the point that pedestrians would logically need insurance under your regime, you accused me of whataboutery.

Nice.

Also your insurance would cover your bike being stolen which is a massive issue I thought?

Rarely. Bike theft is a massive problem in Dublin particularly. It's very expensive to insure a bike for theft in public. Standard third party insurance policies for bicycles do not cover theft.

Why should cyclists not pay some level and have some protection afforded to themselves also?

That's a matter of choice. Motorists don't get personal protection with minimum mandatory insurance.

SeanW

RainyDay wrote: »

You seem to be taking this quite personally. You seem to have a difficulty with anyone who gives you 'attitude' (which translates roughly as anyone who tells you anything that you don't want to hear).

If you don't like what these folks say, try arguing with it - based on facts preferably.

I've tried that - discussing common sense, mutually inclusive, people based transportation policy with some cyclists. From those particular conversations, I've come to believe that this is like trying to debate the relative merits of Karaite vs. Rabbinic Judaism with a Nazi high on crack.

SeanW

cajonlardo wrote: »

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?

Cycle insurance is not mandatory. So it's only cycle club members and whatnot that have it, we assume they are better than average.

Imagine how cheap car insurance would be if only good motorists were liable for it?

Crocked

Can any of the pro compulsory insurance for cyclists people point to any specific actual instances where a third party was left out of pocket, where if the cyclist had been insured they could have claimed from the insurance?

And I mean instances which have been reported on in the media or court cases, not where my third cousins barber was nearly killed when someone went through a red light and he dropped his glasses, which nearly broke only for they were in a case kinda stuff.

eamonnq

Crocked wrote: »

Can any of the pro compulsory insurance for cyclists people point to any specific actual instances where a third party was left out of pocket, where if the cyclist had been insured they could have claimed from the insurance?

And I mean instances which have been reported on in the media or court cases, not where my third cousins barber was nearly killed when someone went through a red light and he dropped his glasses, which nearly broke only for they were in a case kinda stuff.

The OP maybe ?

CramCycle

SeanW wrote: »

Imagine how cheap car insurance would be if only good motorists bothered to buy it?

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.

Crocked

Crocked wrote: »

Can any of the pro compulsory insurance for cyclists people point to any specific actual instances where a third party was left out of pocket, where if the cyclist had been insured they could have claimed from the insurance?

And I mean instances which have been reported on in the media or court cases, not where my third cousins barber was nearly killed when someone went through a red light and he dropped his glasses, which nearly broke only for they were in a case kinda stuff.

eamonnq wrote: »

The OP maybe ?

I was hoping for an incident which had been reported on in a newspaper/radio/court case etc.

Obviously this is a serious problem as people are looking for compulsory insurance to be brought in to deal with it. I was therefore hoping to read over some reporting on the problem to see just how widespread it is, and how much other road users are being left out of pocket for. It may well be that motorists and pedestrians are suffering thousands of Euro in damages every day from cyclists but they aren't reporting it anywhere. I'd have thought if it was as widespread and serious an issue to warrant compulsory insurance to be brought in that there'd be some sort of reporting or studies on it to read up on.

Also it would seem in the OP's case that even if the cyclist had been insured no claim could have been made, as they cycled off and the OP took no details?

Potatoeman

Its the force of an object that makes it dangerous. Force = mass of object * acceleration. So a cyclist is no more dangerous than a pedestrian. Cars and motorbikes have far greater mass and potential acceleration so are far more dangerous.

ThisRegard

The Davestator wrote: »

If I'm out jogging and knock someone down, I may injure them. Should I get joggers insurance. Where do you draw the line?

Did you have your high vis on ? If so, it's the fault of the person that you knocked down. High vis, if there's anything I've learned from threads like this, makes you immune to causing accidents.

Potatoeman

Its the force of an object that makes it dangerous. Force = mass of object * acceleration. So a cyclist is no more dangerous than a pedestrian. Cars and motorbikes have far greater mass and potential acceleration so are far more dangerous.

CramCycle

Potatoeman wrote: »

So a cyclist is no more dangerous than a pedestrian. Cars and motorbikes have far greater mass and potential acceleration so are far more dangerous.

Physics fail unfortunately. A cyclist has a combined weight of a pedestrian and a bike. In general, their speed will be greater than a pedestrian. So they have greater force.

The point is that they don't have a large enough impact on society in terms of damage/harm caused to warrant the necessary cost and effort to make insurance mandatory.

Potatoeman

CramCycle wrote: »

Physics fail unfortunately. A cyclist has a combined weight of a pedestrian and a bike. In general, their speed will be greater than a pedestrian. So they have greater force.

The point is that they don't have a large enough impact on society in terms of damage/harm caused to warrant the necessary cost and effort to make insurance mandatory.

Yes they have greater force but not to the extent of a motor vehicle.

CramCycle

Potatoeman wrote: »

Yes they have greater force but not to the extent of a motor vehicle.

I know, i was just jumping in there before anyone tried to derail your point by clarifying that even though they have greater force, they have no great negative impact on society with this increased force.

eamonnq

Crocked wrote: »

Also it would seem in the OP's case that even if the cyclist had been insured no claim could have been made, as they cycled off and the OP took no details?

Kinda hard to take details as they cycled off ?

Spook_ie

Crocked wrote: »

I was hoping for an incident which had been reported on in a newspaper/radio/court case etc.

Obviously this is a serious problem as people are looking for compulsory insurance to be brought in to deal with it. I was therefore hoping to read over some reporting on the problem to see just how widespread it is, and how much other road users are being left out of pocket for. It may well be that motorists and pedestrians are suffering thousands of Euro in damages every day from cyclists but they aren't reporting it anywhere. I'd have thought if it was as widespread and serious an issue to warrant compulsory insurance to be brought in that there'd be some sort of reporting or studies on it to read up on.

Also it would seem in the OP's case that even if the cyclist had been insured no claim could have been made, as they cycled off and the OP took no details?

You mean like
http://www.herald.ie/news/councillors-sister-has-hip-surgeryafter-smash-30264875.html

Councillor’s sister has hip surgery
after smash

SeanW

eamonnq wrote: »

Kinda hard to take details as they cycled off ?

And don't carry registration plates so it's much easier to hit and run?

Pizzle

Potatoeman wrote: »

Its the force of an object that makes it dangerous. Force = mass of object * acceleration. So a cyclist is no more dangerous than a pedestrian. Cars and motorbikes have far greater mass and potential acceleration so are far more dangerous.

Force is not "strictly" equal to mass times acceleration. Also, what happens if neither the car or the bike accelerating while moving?

rubadub

Pizzle wrote: »

Also, what happens if neither the car or the bike accelerating while moving?

Then you are talking about momentum. But pedantry aside its not always a simple case of bigger & faster = worse.

I am a big enough guy, about 14.5stone or so, I got knocked off my bike by a smaller pedestrian (probably 12stone) who ran out in front of me on a busy roundabout. He didn't even come near to falling over, I was thrown down and all mangled up in the bike with torn trousers and several cuts. If he bumped into me walking I wouldn't have even stumbled.

Spook_ie wrote: »

You mean like
http://www.herald.ie/news/councillors-sister-has-hip-surgeryafter-smash-30264875.html

If I had broken my hip in my incident I doubt it would have come close to warranting media attention if I had told the papers about it. Cycle accidents and minor airplane/helicopter near accidents are far more likely to hit the news. If that old woman was knocked down by a pedestrian I also doubt it would have been in the news. And there is no way on earth they would have said
“I’ve to have a licence for my dog, for my TV and a cyclist pedestrian doesn’t need one. There is no insurance or any prosecution that can be taken against the cyclist pedestrian”

There is simply no "us & them" mentality for pedestrians, so there are far fewer complaints about them. People just bury their head in the sand about them, some posters here going so far as to even deny they are road users! bizarre attempt to weasel out of valid arguments. FFS the roads are teeming with them.

The Road Safety Authority (RSA) launched its new Vulnerable Road Users campaign, Monday 9th April 2012. This new campaign is aimed at raising awareness of the vulnerability of road users such as pedestrian and cyclists and calling for all road users especially drivers to share the road safely.

http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/Vulnerable-Road-Users/

Statistics
Between 1996 and 2009:
- 49% of pedal cyclists killed were hit by private cars
- 40% of the cyclists were killed or seriously injured at intersection (i.e. T-junction, cross road etc)
- 43% of the pedal cyclists were killed during the summer months (June to September).
- 34% of the cyclists were killed at intersection (i.e. T-junction, cross road etc)
- 77% of pedestrians killed were in urban areas
- 59% of pedestrians killed were hit by private cars.
- About 40% of pedestrians killed were otherwise crossing the road
- 33% of pedestrians killed were aged 65 and over.
- 23% of pedestrians were killed on dark roads with no lighting in rural areas.

monument

SeanW wrote: »

And don't carry registration plates so it's much easier to hit and run?

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.

Spook_ie

rubadub wrote: »

<snipped>

If I had broken my hip in my incident I doubt it would have come close to warranting media attention if I had told the papers about it. Cycle accidents and minor airplane/helicopter near accidents are far more likely to hit the news. If that old woman was knocked down by a pedestrian I also doubt it would have been in the news. And there is no way on earth they would have said
“I’ve to have a licence for my dog, for my TV and a cyclist pedestrian doesn’t need one. There is no insurance or any prosecution that can be taken against the cyclist pedestrian”

<snipped>

Exactly the case I've put over before, JUST because it doesn't make the news doesn't mean it isn't happening, if the old dear hadn't been a relative of a councillor there would be zero evidence on line of it happening

Crocked

Spook_ie wrote: »

You mean like
http://www.herald.ie/news/councillors-sister-has-hip-surgeryafter-smash-30264875.html

Cheers. Wonder why he states that no prosecution can be taken against the cyclist? or indeed why no civil action was taken to reclaim costs.

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.

Interesting stats from a Times article that suggest 20% of crashes between motorists and bikes are cyclist at fault, and of 133 bike and pedestrian crashes the pedestrian was at fault in 60% of those. So it would look like we also need compulsory insurance for pedestrians as well.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3758677.ece

Crocked

eamonnq wrote: »

Kinda hard to take details as they cycled off ?

Why didn't the OP ask them for any details or take any pics. How would the OP have acted differently if compulsory insurance was in place and the person cycled off?

CramCycle

Crocked wrote: »

Cheers. Wonder why he states that no prosecution can be taken against the cyclist? or indeed why no civil action was taken to reclaim costs.

I find it odd as well, it is on CCTV, in a fairly heavily observed area. Most cyclists are creatures of habit. It's a hit and run. I am very surprised at the gardai took no action at all.

The article leaves out so much, it is impossible to comment fairly on it. Did the cyclists stop at all, if she did not, have the gardai attempted to track here (civil matter or not she ran from an accident if she didn't stay), were there any exceptional circumstances? How did the cyclist hit the lady but no one else in this crowd etc etc.

eamonnq

jkiamasnake wrote: »

I am still in shock! I had an accident today and I am still shaking. I was at a junction this morning, my green filter light to turn right came on so I continued to proceed, I traveled about 15 feet and am almost into the junction where I wanted to travel to and a cyclist smashes into the side of my car doing considerable damage to my door. Thankfully the cyclist was ok too but I was in so much shock I could not think properly. The cyclist picked himself up, fixed his chain and continues on. I said to him that he broke a red light and that he will have to repair damage done to my car. He says accidents happen and that he doesnt have any money to fix it. He said he was late for work and continued on.

I am sick of cyclists everyday breaking lights...they seriously need to cop the f**k on and obey rules of the road.

Crocked wrote: »

Why didn't the OP ask them for any details or take any pics. How would the OP have acted differently if compulsory insurance was in place and the person cycled off?

Maybe you could ask the OP ?

CramCycle

eamonnq wrote: »

Maybe you could ask the OP ?

I got knocked down by a taxi a few years ago (about 2003) who ran a red light. They stopped about 20/30 meters down the road. After a bit of time trying to get myself off the ground, I stumbled to my feet. The taxi decided then it was time to leave, I wasn't dead (this was the highlight of his actions). I was pretty shook and only had the vaguest of descriptions (the Gardas response was that there was not enough to go on). I was too shaky and he was too far away to be certain to get the plate details. It destroyed my front wheel, the suspension on the bike and left me with a nifty pain in my shoulder for a long long time afterwards, I don't remember if I hit my head as it was all a blur but I did have a headache for a few days.

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 certainly don't rant about all taxi drivers because of this, that would be idiotic. I also don't call for forced brake locks at red lights or speed limiters for city taxis of 30kmph.

Unlike some other posters though, I realise that one idiot does not a collective make.

eamonnq

I was merely asking why 'Crocked', was asking me 'Why didn't the OP ask them for any details' etc ?


Unlike some other posters though, I also realise that several idiots does not a collective make.