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

Jawgap

ourheritage wrote: »

I see it all the time. Cyclists crashing the red lights. Going down a one way street or like what I saw today. A woman cycling down the wrong lane of a two way street. Since May I have become extremely critical of cyclists that will break the rules of the road as I was crossing at the green man, and was nearly knocked to the ground by a cyclist crashing the red lights. I am going to suggest to the people who were talking on Prime Time tonight, and the minister for transport that number plates be made a law for cyclists so that these cyclist can be brought to justice and given what they deserve. I COULD HAVE BEEN KILLED.

Yeah, but you weren't........

Inquitus

ourheritage wrote: »

I COULD HAVE BEEN KILLED.

Did you report the incident to the Gardai?

tipparetops

ted1 wrote: »

You've already been directed to the mega thread on helmets and HiVis, before you lecture educate yourself.

What type of insurance do you propose ? Has there been any cases where insurance would have helped ?

Directed by whom, when.

Collision insurance, it could be state led.
100€ for the year.

RobertFoster

It seems one good thing about the programme is all the new knowledgeable posters (and their thanks giving lurkers) here on the cycling forum. Welcome welcome.

Jawgap

tipparetops wrote: »

Directed by whom, when.

Collision insurance, it could be state led.
100€ for the year.

Who would have to pay it?

Adults?

Kids? A 14 year old on a road bike can go a lot faster than I can!

ThisRegard

ourheritage wrote: »

I COULD HAVE BEEN KILLED.

How, you weren't even touched?!?

tomasrojo

tipparetops wrote: »

Directed by whom, when.

Me, just now. Beasty, a few pages ago.

tipparetops wrote: »

Collision insurance, it could be state led.
100€ for the year.

Compulsory insurance is raised every so often in a jurisdiction here and there, and it's always rejected. It just is too much bother for a largely benign transport mode.

ted1

tipparetops wrote: »

Directed by whom, when.

Collision insurance, it could be state led.
100€ for the year.

And what would the collision insurance cover? Please do explain

Inquitus

tipparetops wrote: »

Directed by whom, when.

Collision insurance, it could be state led.
100€ for the year.

Versus €300 euro for my LWB Mitsubishi Pajero that could clearly cause infinitely more damage, some proportionality here. The kinetic energy of a 70kg lad on a bike doing 30kph is many orders of magnitude less than a 1 ton motorised vehicle doing up to 150kph.

tipparetops

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm not against any of that - but where is the evidence that hi-viz, helmets etc are beneficial?

I have insurance - but who else should have it? My 9 year old nephew who has just got his first road bike? My 16 year old son who is only interested in riding off road? Or another 6 year old nephew who loves his BMX?

First point is just silly.
Second point, everyone who cycles on a road with motorists.

tipparetops

ted1 wrote: »

And what would the collision insurance cover? Please do explain

Can you explain the post about directing me to some other thread.
No one had directed me, until after you posted that, very strange.

Like any third party insurance.

ThisRegard

tipparetops wrote: »

First point is just silly.
.

And yet you can't refute it.

And you want checkpoints at schools checking kids insurance? Sure how else could you enforce it?

tomasrojo

tipparetops wrote: »

First point is just silly.

No, really, you should at least have a browse of the mega-threads. The evidence is really not terribly conclusive.

For example, Professor David Spiegelhalter, Cambridge Professor for the Public Understanding of Risk, claimed in the BMJ that the direct benefit of helmets is too modest to measure.

But we don't want to start THAT conversation here. We have a quarantine area mega-thread for that.

Inquitus

tomasrojo wrote: »

No, really, you should at least have a browse of the mega-threads. The evidence is really not terribly conclusive.

For example, Professor David Spiegelhalter, Cambridge Professor for the Public Understanding of Risk, claimed in the BMJ that the direct benefit of helmets is too modest to measure.

Ah come on now "the cycling peoples non helmet front of Judea" are splitters, you have to be a Roman to think helmets are a bad idea.....

tipparetops

Inquitus wrote: »

Versus €300 euro for my LWB Mitsubishi Pajero that could clearly cause infinitely more damage, some proportionality here. The kinetic energy of a 70kg lad on a bike doing 30kph is many orders of magnitude less than a 1 ton motorised vehicle doing up to 150kph.

first off, €300 is seriously cheap for a pajero - where you get that quote.
If €100 is too expensive, call it 50, it could be included on the bike to work scheme.
Win win for the cyclist.

Jawgap

tipparetops wrote: »

First point is just silly.
Second point, everyone who cycles on a road with motorists.

Asking for evidence is silly

http://askforevidence.org/articles/rural-cycling-vs-cycling-in-the-city

Your response suggests you have none;)

Chips Lovell

Diarmuid wrote: »

IF you value your sanity, don't watch this

If you value your sanity, don't read this thread.

Inquitus

tipparetops wrote: »

first off, €300 is seriously cheap for a pajero - where you get that quote.
If €100 is too expensive, call it 50, it could be included on the bike to work scheme.
Win win for the cyclist.

It's a low mileage quote because I cycle most places

vicwatson

Anyone else notice at the start of the report the white ford transit 141D parked on the footpath and double yellow lines? Whilst the report carried on about dodgy cyclists !! Lol.

Jawgap

tipparetops wrote: »

first off, €300 is seriously cheap for a pajero - where you get that quote.
If €100 is too expensive, call it 50, it could be included on the bike to work scheme.
Win win for the cyclist.

What happens if I sell the bike?

Or if I cause lots of collisions, surely the premium should rise to reflect the fact I'm a higher risk?

tipparetops

All construction workers should throw their helmets and hi vis away.
Absolute waste of time, there is no proof it helps so whats the point.

as for checking insurance on kids push bikes at schools,
Kids do not cycle to school anymore unless mam or dad are with them.
And if hi vis and helmets are so useless, is there any point children wearing them when they go for their imaginary bike rides.

ted1

tipparetops wrote: »

Can you explain the post about directing me to some other thread.
No one had directed me, until after you posted that, very strange.

Like any third party insurance.

Beasty directed people to the thread .

Like any third party ? Your still not being specific, there's more risk of runners causing trouble to 3rd parties while running on footpaths etc.

Motor insurance is compulsary because of the high claims and frequencies of claims that come about.

Can you show me a case where a cyclist has been taking to court and ordered to pay costs. Your trying to put a solution in place to a problem that doesn't exist

greenfrogs

I actually can't believe that some people don't wear a helmet when cycling. What if you lost your balance whilst cycling due to a pothole, debris on the road, what if you had to serve whilst avoiding an obstacle and ended up on the ground. I play sports which involve a helmet. I honestly forget I am even wearing it.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/features/time-to-use-your-head-and-wear-a-helmet-when-cycling-302523.html

I did think the programme included good points. Being aware of your surroundings and anticipating can really be beneficial for all users of the road.

Inquitus

tipparetops wrote: »

Kids do not cycle to school anymore unless mam or dad are with them.

Nonsense

Jawgap

tipparetops wrote: »

All construction workers should throw their helmets and hi vis away.
Absolute waste of time, there is no proof it helps so whats the point.

as for checking insurance on kids push bikes at schools,
Kids do not cycle to school anymore unless mam or dad are with them.
And if hi vis and helmets are so useless, is there any point children wearing them when they go for their imaginary bike rides.

Completely different risk profile in construction as well as truckloads of evidence to show and quantify the impact PPE, training, safe systems of work etc have on workplace injuries.

Helmets are more suitable for younger children because of the speeds they travel at are within the parameters helmets are designed to work...........


........as you'd know if you looked at the evidence

Chips Lovell

Helmets? Check.
High-Viz? Check.
Whataboutery? Check.
Straw men? Check.

I'm shaping up to call "Bingo" here.

Jawgap

greenfrogs wrote: »

I actually can't believe that some people don't wear a helmet when cycling. What if you lost your balance whilst cycling due to a pothole, debris on the road, what if you had to serve whilst avoiding an obstacle and ended up on the ground. I play sports which involve a helmet. I honestly forget I am even wearing it.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/features/time-to-use-your-head-and-wear-a-helmet-when-cycling-302523.html

I did think the programme included good points. Being aware of your surroundings and anticipating can really be beneficial for all users of the road.

Why don't rugby players wear helmets? Or soccer players or Gaelic football players.......given the concussion issues in those sports?

ThisRegard

tipparetops wrote: »

All construction workers should throw their helmets and hi vis away..

Construction workers use bikes as part of their work, or are cyclists going to be at an increased exposure to falling building materials?

tomasrojo

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Helmets? Check.
High-Viz? Check.
Whataboutery? Check.
Straw men? Check.

I'm shaping up to call "Bingo" here.

Where's "militant"?

Jawgap

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Helmets? Check.
High-Viz? Check.
Whataboutery? Check.
Straw men? Check.

I'm shaping up to call "Bingo" here.

I was neatly killed by a footpad cyclist anecdote? check


HOUSE!!!!!!


What do I win?