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

tipparetops

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

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

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

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

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

tipparetops wrote: »

Push bikes and motor bikes have no business on our roads

cars have no business in the city centre.

tipparetops

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

tipparetops wrote: »

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

Nonsense.

cython

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

tomasrojo wrote: »

You have delighted us long enough.

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

tipparetops

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.