Advertisement
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Cork SRR - Cyclist in Middle Lane

1…89111314

Comments

  • #302
    Anan1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,770 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    Swanner wrote: »
    Small risk means small premium but it doesn't negate the need for insurance. I haven't claimed once in 23 years driving. My risk is obviously miniscule so on that basis I shouldn't need insurance either. I accept that I do however because no matter how small the perceived chance, mistakes, accidents and collisions can happen to any of us.
    Out of interest, how far would you go with that? Should insurance be compulsory for skaters? Joggers? Pedestrians? Kids?


  • #303
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    Anan1 wrote: »
    Out of interest, how far would you go with that? Should insurance be compulsory for skaters? Joggers? Pedestrians? Kids?

    They're usually covered by the property owner wherever they are. Skate parks, schools, gymnasiums etc all pay hefty insurance to cover any accidents that may occur. In my kids school they aren't even allowed run anymore due to a couple of big claims that went in. As far as I'm aware, none if these activities are carried out exclusively on a public road.


  • #304
    Anan1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,770 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    Swanner wrote: »
    They're usually covered by the property owner wherever they are. Skate parks, schools, gymnasiums etc all pay hefty insurance to cover any accidents that may occur. In my kids school they aren't even allowed run anymore due to a couple of big claims that went in. As far as I'm aware, none if these activities are carried out exclusively on a public road.
    OK, i'll rephrase the question. Should skaters/joggers/pedestrians/kids all require compulsory insurance while on public roads? Or would this rule only apply to cyclists?


  • #305
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Swanner wrote: »
    Naturally cars are the biggest source of danger on the road. There's a lot of them and they move at speed. If bicycles were as numerous, heavy and fast as cars they'd be right up there in the stats.


    And if they had wings, propellers and engines they'd be aeroplanes, and regulated by the Irish Aviation Authority.


  • #306
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    Anan1 wrote: »
    OK, i'll rephrase the question. Should skaters/joggers/pedestrians/kids all require compulsory insurance while on public roads? Or would this rule only apply to cyclists?

    Cyclists use the roads exclusively. None of the above do.


  • Advertisement
  • #307
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,575 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    Anan1 wrote: »
    Out of interest, how far would you go with that? Should insurance be compulsory for skaters? Joggers? Pedestrians? Kids?

    Interesting one, that. I remember my parent's insurance paying out for me on a couple of occasions when I was a kid. Was called Haftpflichtversicherung and it covered the usual breakages the average kid will cause (breaking windows and so on) and I'm sure that would cover running someone down on a bike. But don't quote me on that.
    So yes, in Germany you as the person is insured wherever you go and potentially cause damage.
    I'm amazed that someone as compo oriented as the Irish don't have such a thing. Especially when the average claim for a owie is an eye-watering €20k and the sky is the limit for actual injuries.
    In Germany you will have to have real injuries to even get €2k and not just "My neck hurts! Gimme money!"


  • #308
    Anan1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,770 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    Swanner wrote: »
    Cyclists use the roads exclusively.
    This is both untrue and irrelevant. I'll ask you again - should skaters/joggers/pedestrians/kids all require compulsory insurance while on public roads? Or would this rule only apply to cyclists?


  • #309
    Anan1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,770 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    Interesting one, that. I remember my parent's insurance paying out for me on a couple of occasions when I was a kid. Was called Haftpflichtversicherung and it covered the usual breakages the average kid will cause (breaking windows and so on) and I'm sure that would cover running someone down on a bike. But don't quote me on that.
    So yes, in Germany you as the person is insured wherever you go and potentially cause damage.
    I'm amazed that someone as compo oriented as the Irish don't have such a thing. Especially when the average claim for a owie is an eye-watering €20k and the sky is the limit for actual injuries.
    In Germany you will have to have real injuries to even get €2k and not just "My neck hurts! Gimme money!"
    I wonder would home insurance cover it?


  • #310
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    Anan1 wrote: »
    This is both untrue and irrelevant. I'll ask you again - should skaters/joggers/pedestrians/kids all require compulsory insurance while on public roads? Or would this rule only apply to cyclists?

    Explain why it's untrue and irrelevant and I might be able to respond. It's absolutely true in my book so please explain


  • #311
    Anan1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,770 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    Swanner wrote: »
    Explain why it's untrue and irrelevant and I might be able to respond. It's absolutely true in my book so please explain

    i.) Cyclists do not use the roads exclusively, bikes are ridden in plenty of other places too.

    ii.) Cars do not use the roads exclusively, and yet they require insurance while using them.

    Now, are you ready to answer the question? :)


  • Advertisement
  • #312
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    Anan1 wrote: »
    i.) Cyclists do not use the roads exclusively, bikes are ridden in plenty of other places too.

    ii.) Cars do not use the roads exclusively, and yet they require insurance while using them.

    Now, are you ready to answer the question? :)

    Ok. I was hoping for a better response and actually thought maybe we can engage here. Not only is it disappointing but It's clear now that your just being obtuse for the sake of it.

    When skateboards, kids, joggers, pedestrians, your granny, Jesus and Elvis can be found making their merry way down the SRR on a busy night in lane 2 of rush hour traffic, come back and we can talk.


  • #313
    Anan1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,770 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    Swanner wrote: »
    Ok. I was hoping for a better response and actually thought maybe we can engage here. Not only is it disappointing but It's clear now that your just being obtuse for the sake of it.

    When skateboards, kids, joggers, pedestrians, your granny, Jesus and Elvis can be found making their merry way down the SRR on a busy night in lane 2 of rush hour traffic, come back and we can talk.
    No you weren't. You have it in for cyclists and can't justify your antipathy, that's all.


  • #314
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,773 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Anan1 wrote: »
    This is both untrue and irrelevant. I'll ask you again - should skaters/joggers/pedestrians/kids all require compulsory insurance while on public roads? Or would this rule only apply to cyclists?

    I'm undecided myself if cyclists should require insurance or not. On the above argument cyclists in my opinion would fall under the same bracket as cars, motorbikes etc much more than the list you have above.

    Leaving that aside how can cyclists be pursued for damage without insurance. They could easily do 1000's of euro of damage to a car, especially new cars. How is a person to find 1000's of euro to cover this, never mind a person with limited means, students etc?

    I'm not necessarily directing this at you more a general question.


  • #315
    Red Nissan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,055 ✭✭✭Red Nissan


    Tenzor07 wrote: »
    Just because some Cyclists ignore the rules doesn’t change the law, which says that Cyclists may use the road.

    Running Red Lights, with a few obvious exceptions, I believe cyclists should run red lights. Having cyclists gang up at traffic lights really does slow down motor traffic.

    IMO, cyclists running red lights in say stalled traffic actually improves traffic flow.


  • #316
    Mucco
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 717 ✭✭✭Mucco


    Salvatore Sharp Woodpecker wrote: »
    I'm undecided myself if cyclists should require insurance or not. On the above argument cyclists in my opinion would fall under the same bracket as cars, motorbikes etc much more than the list you have above.

    Leaving that aside how can cyclists be pursued for damage without insurance. They could easily do 1000's of euro of damage to a car, especially new cars. How is a person to find 1000's of euro to cover this, never mind a person with limited means, students etc?

    I'm not necessarily directing this at you more a general question.

    Any idea how much a premium for a cyclist would be if it was compulsory for all cyclists to be insured? The admin cost of the insurance may exceed the actuarially calculated premium.


  • #317
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    Mucco wrote: »
    Any idea how much a premium for a cyclist would be if it was compulsory for all cyclists to be insured? The admin cost of the insurance may exceed the actuarially calculated premium.

    Insurance companies build the admin cost into the premium.


  • #318
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,878 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    Anan1 wrote: »
    I wonder would home insurance cover it?

    It usually does, but then not everyone's a homeowner.


  • #319
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    It usually does, but then not everyone's a homeowner.

    Someone owns it and pays insurance.


  • #320
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,878 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    Swanner wrote: »
    Someone owns it and pays insurance.

    Someone owns what? I thought the reference was to liability for damage or injury caused by a child. Like I said, not everyone, including not every parent, is a homeowner.


  • #321
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    Someone owns what? I thought the reference was to liability for damage or injury caused by a child. Like I said, not everyone, including not every parent, is a homeowner.

    If you're renting a house, chances are, the owner is paying the insurance. This will cover someone falling and breaking a leg on the property.


  • Advertisement
  • #322
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,878 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    Swanner wrote: »
    If you're renting a house, chances are, the owner is paying the insurance. This will cover someone falling and breaking a leg on the property.

    But it won't cover the tenants or their children while they're off the property.

    My house insurance gives me pretty good cover for property damage and personal injuries for which I'm liable - including cycling - anywhere on or off my property.


  • #323
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    But it won't cover the tenants or their children while they're off the property.

    My house insurance gives me pretty good cover for property damage and personal injuries for which I'm liable - including cycling - anywhere on or off my property.

    Agreed. But elsewhere, they're either covered by someone else's home insurance or public liability.


  • #324
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,575 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    But it won't cover the tenants or their children while they're off the property.

    My house insurance gives me pretty good cover for property damage and personal injuries for which I'm liable - including cycling - anywhere on or off my property.

    Now there's something I haven't heard of (at least in Ireland).


  • #325
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,878 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    Swanner wrote: »
    Agreed. But elsewhere, they're either covered by someone else's home insurance or public liability.

    This makes no sense to me. What "someone else's" insurance will pay for the damage if, say, an uninsured cyclist collides with a car on a public road and the cyclist is shown to be liable?


  • #326
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,860 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    Salvatore Sharp Woodpecker wrote: »
    They could easily do 1000's of euro of damage to a car, especially new cars. How is a person to find 1000's of euro to cover this, never mind a person with limited means, students etc?

    Hilarious! Well If I'm ever out on a bike and happen to spontaneously and suddenly lose balance and fall onto Bill Cullen's Bentley Continental then I'm sure i'll be ****ting myself! :D

    Then again if some little fecker in a ****box motor bumps into me cracking my Carbon fibre bike that's worth much more than his car then he better have deep pockets! :D


  • #327
    Padraig Mor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,657 ✭✭✭Padraig Mor


    And the dangers of vulnerable road users on busy high speed roads laid bare tonight. Elderly man killed tonight walking on the N25 dual carriageway at Carrigtwohill, a road with a comparable traffic load to the SRR (and connected to it). RIP. Lest anyone thinking I'm capitalising on this to 'make a point' - I'm not; just demonstrating the original rationale behind this thread - this is a serious safety issue, not a pointless debate about insurance for cyclists.


  • #328
    Red Nissan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,055 ✭✭✭Red Nissan


    Padraig Mor wrote: »
    And the dangers of vulnerable road users.

    Comparable, but not really comparable, in a dual carriageway situation a pedestrian is not accommodated for at all at all.

    There have been traffic warnings in that area of women jogging this week and the Gardai asked to take action.


  • #329
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Padraig Mor wrote: »
    And the dangers of vulnerable road users on busy high speed roads laid bare tonight. Elderly man killed tonight walking on the N25 dual carriageway at Carrigtwohill, a road with a comparable traffic load to the SRR (and connected to it). RIP. Lest anyone thinking I'm capitalising on this to 'make a point' - I'm not; just demonstrating the original rationale behind this thread - this is a serious safety issue, not a pointless debate about insurance for cyclists.



    Another tragedy in a bad year for road deaths.

    Again the question must be asked: why would anyone, including and perhaps especially an elderly person, choose to walk on such a road?



    EDIT: just found this by chance in the Cycling forum:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Euu2QRIuEPk


  • #330
    Padraig Mor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,657 ✭✭✭Padraig Mor


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Another tragedy in a bad year for road deaths.

    Again the question must be asked: why would anyone, including and perhaps especially an elderly person, choose to walk on such a road?

    This particular road has a ridiculously unsafe layout. Peak hours sees a constant stream of 100 km/h traffic (incident happened slightly after peak). But, unlike the SRR, this road has houses exiting directly onto it, and crossing points traversing the carriageway. And to top it off, a poor surface and a layout that blocks sightlines (although not where this happened). Lunacy. The incident happened at a series of houses immediately adjacent to the eastbound carriageway, separated by a fence. I have no idea why the person involved went to the other side of the fence in the dark, so I won't speculate.


  • Advertisement
  • #331
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Padraig Mor wrote: »
    This particular road has a ridiculously unsafe layout. Peak hours sees a constant stream of 100 km/h traffic (incident happened slightly after peak). But, unlike the SRR, this road has houses exiting directly onto it, and crossing points traversing the carriageway. And to top it off, a poor surface and a layout that blocks sightlines (although not where this happened). Lunacy. The incident happened at a series of houses immediately adjacent to the eastbound carriageway, separated by a fence. I have no idea why the person involved went to the other side of the fence in the dark, so I won't speculate.



    Can you post a StreetView or similar link to the spot, if you are fairly sure where it is?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement