Tea drinker wrote: » There's a lot wrong with this - IMHO. I think being insured is the right thing for cyclists, a minor trafic incident can be come an expensive personal injury claim against you (for example) Just because some gippo doesn't insure his car has no more bearing on my life than being pissed that some work shy are taking our tax for decades. I share the road with other road users, giving and and expecting courtesy. Wear whatever you like, as long as you are visible rock on. I do have an opinion on where you should and shouldn't cycle we are sharing the road :-) What pisses me off is pig ignorant behaviour, I have mentioned a few incidents in this thread, won't trot them out again, use your imagination :-)
07Lapierre wrote: » Can you give an example of an incident where a motorist made a personal injury claim against a cyclist as a result of a "minor" traffic incident?
magicbastarder wrote: » my sister (in her car) rear ended a micra at low speed a year or two ago. the (main dealer) garage quoted 2k for the repair, and over 4k if it was being done as part of an insurance claim. i'd have to be trying very hard to do that much damage to a car, if i was on my bike. though to be fair, if you look at a beemer or a merc wrong, it'll probably cost you a grand.
magicbastarder wrote: » i was talking to a chap a few years ago who was carted off in an ambulance after being hit by a car while out on his bike (it was the motorist's fault,the motorist admitted it straight away). no damage done really bar the bike, and he was (at his own insistence) willing to not involve the insurance company. but the driver rang them and fessed up; the insurance company rang the guy i was talking to and offered him 4k over the phone, i think it was their book value for an ambulance callout with no further health issues. as per the above, that's insanely cheap for a claim.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » So let's just review the facts. 1) No-one is being 'forced to cycle'. Never. It has never happened. Not once. 2) There is no 'war on cars'. The Daily Heil invented it as a catchy headline to distract people from what's actually going on. When you've enjoyed the privilege of have the world designed and built around your personal choices, it might seem like a 'war' to have some of that privilege removed. It is actually just a very small amount of rebalancing of facilities in some small, restricted locations. 3) The number of cyclists with helmet cameras is tiny. It is a growing number, but it is still tiny, in the context of the 56k cyclists that commute by bike each day. So any suggestion that anything is happening 'always with a helmet camera' is a gross exaggeration. 4) Cyclists really don't cycle in the middle of the road. It would be a crazy place to cycle with traffic passing you closely in both directions. Some cyclists do cycle in the middle of the lane. It's not a pleasant experience, but it is sometimes necessary to prevent dangerous overtakes. No-one looks to generate conflict with a 1-3 tonne lump of metal. 5) Some cyclists don't use some cycle lanes, because those cycle lanes are designed like these ones https://irishcycle.com/2015/11/05/images-25-reasons-why-cyclists-dont-use-cycle-lanes and poorly maintained, covered with parked cars, mushy leaves, broken glass or dog walkers with extended leads. So there is no element of rational logic in any of the positions you've suggested.
Truthvader wrote: » Don't accept most of the above is true. It is certainly the case that people are being forced onto bicycles. Plus just reading the posts here reveals the hostility of cyclists - and the sense of vengeance and entitlement
magicbastarder wrote: » https://twitter.com/CitizenW0lf/status/1301270492989591553
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Yes and it's not like we don't see pedestrians doing stupid risky things all the time. It's all proof that there's an irrational hatred against people on bikes.
xckjoo wrote: » Who's forcing anyone to cycle?
Charles Babbage wrote: » If you take to a machine then we should expect higher standards of you. If this doesn't suit then stay as a pedestrian. It isn't rocket science.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » How's the cycling going for you now that you've been forced onto a bike? A sense of entitlement isn't getting people who use bikes very far though is it given the entire road infrastructure is almost completely dedicated to cars, even in city centres.
Duckjob wrote: » The comments on people being forced onto a bike are gas considering for the past 50 years people in Ireland have been forced into a car as the only means (PT excepted) of getting safely around from A to B without risking their lives.
Truthvader wrote: » The car is the most civilised, comfortable and safest mode of transport. Endy story. That is why, given a choice, people will prefer it. It is delusional to think otherwise. The bicycle agenda is a step backwards in time
kenmm wrote: » That's certainly the perception. In my experience, I know a few people that made the switch. Pattern is generally, try it a few times, first few times feel sh!t (how much depends on fitness) then things start to get better. Better health, quicker commutes, freedom to leave work when they can (not to beat 'traffic').
Truthvader wrote: » The car is the most civilised, comfortable and safest mode of transport.
magicbastarder wrote: » isn't the hovercraft the safest form of transport yet invented? and aren't cars one of the least efficient forms of transport ever invented?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Do you think it's the right thing for pedestrians to be insured, given that they can cause collisions by walking out in front of vehicles or cyclists?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
