Cyclists sued boater

[Tumshie]

52 minutes ago, Jerra said:

So the EA doesn't maintain a data base of all people who have rod licences?

Is there a reason why I should know or care?

[Tumshie]

8 minutes ago, NB Caelmiri said:

Because of the cost and practicalities of it. Further research has suggested that there has in the past been government research into the cost of implementing such a system and the cost outweighed the benefits. Plus the cost to the individual. It'll become a barrier that stops people getting into cycling. The article I read, someone did some rough calculations and suggested 

You are playing into his hands - you are giving perfectly reasonable explanation as to why the government has never bothered to do it and he is choosing to spin that into you refusing to do it - some people get very gleeful at the thought of winning to the point where they get incredibly desperate and start grasping/googling for straws; for some people it doesn't matter how bat poo crazy they come across as just so long as they think they've won - petty be damned. 

 

The fact that the points you are making may contribute to less cyclists in their environment is a bonus so all the more reason for doing it. 

[BWM]

43 minutes ago, NB Caelmiri said:

Because of the cost and practicalities of it. Further research has suggested that there has in the past been government research into the cost of implementing such a system and the cost outweighed the benefits. Plus the cost to the individual. It'll become a barrier that stops people getting into cycling. The article I read, someone did some rough calculations and suggested 

 

 

If the Swiss can't implement a system, what chance do you think the clowns at Westminster have of doing so?

 

It is too expensive for the benefits of targeting a handful of cyclists who ride too fast down the towpath.

To add to your last point, the motorcycles that you see using the towpath very rarely have plates and there is no reason to expect that bicycle riders behaving unreasonably would not do the same, even if there was a requirement for ID on bicycles. What chance of enforcement?

[Tumshie]

4 minutes ago, BWM said:

To add to your last point, the motorcycles that you see using the towpath very rarely have plates and there is no reason to expect that bicycle riders behaving unreasonably would not do the same, even if there was a requirement for ID on bicycles. What chance of enforcement?

I can't remember my own phone number half the time so with out photographic evidence there is no way I'm remembering some one else's Reg number even if they did have one. ?

[aracer]

On 14/08/2019 at 16:30, furnessvale said:

1.  No the road is clear, I have checked in my mirrors.

 

2.  A cyclist who wasn't there when I started my move has suddenly ridden into my space.

Hmm, well this started with you suggesting that cyclists killed themselves by riding up the left of vehicles turning left. My fault for assuming you were talking about a real situation rather than a hypothetical and therefore making other assumptions about the situation. Maybe if you provided an example of such an incident discussion would be more straightforward - I'm aware of cyclists being killed by drivers turning left but not in the circumstances you describe (for a start for your hypothetical it appears that a cyclist would be travelling faster than a moving vehicle - and you keep pointing out you're not referring to a cyclist being cut up, so this is a car the cyclist has caught up...)

 

An example of an actual situation please - otherwise I'll provide one and we can argue about a real situation rather than a hypothetical one (though I'm thinking that "checked in my mirrors" and not seen a cyclist which you haven't cut up is probably worthy of discussion if you like,..)

 

Though on the wider point, this started from you trying to find some equivalence for cyclists causing harm in the way drivers cause harm by deliberately driving in a way which endangers cyclists. I note that you've failed to provide details of an actual example of a cyclist endangering a driver. So I'm left with making the point that when drivers do it to cyclists there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING a cyclist can do to prevent the situation - I'd love to see you come up with an example of something where there is absolutely nothing a driver could do in a similar way.

Edited August 15, 2019 by aracer

[aracer]

On 14/08/2019 at 20:12, Tumshie said:

The fact that the points you are making may contribute to less cyclists in their environment is a bonus so all the more reason for doing it. 

I've deliberately avoided getting into the discussion on why number plates, registration etc. of cyclists is a bad thing (the other game the cyclist haters like to play is divide and conquer and there are plenty of other spurious points which needed addressing). However I wonder whether it would be useful to provide an explanation of why decreasing the number of cyclists is a bad thing (for everybody, including drivers)? Because fundamentally that is the most important reason why all such increased bureaucracy on cyclists is a bad thing.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

32 minutes ago, aracer said:

I've deliberately avoided getting into the discussion on why number plates, registration etc. of cyclists is a bad thing (the other game the cyclist haters like to play is divide and conquer and there are plenty of other spurious points which needed addressing). However I wonder whether it would be useful to provide an explanation of why decreasing the number of cyclists is a bad thing (for everybody, including drivers)? Because fundamentally that is the most important reason why all such increased bureaucracy on cyclists is a bad thing.

I get the impression from here that many consider decreasing the number of cyclists to be a good thing, but cannot really understand why. If you reduce cyclists you are going to increase the numbers using cars = more congestion. A prime example is Bejing in China where most local trips up until 1990's were by cycle. The Chinese government, wishing to boost their auto industry, adopted a policy of reducing the number of cycles, wonderful! now the place is gridlocked by cars and no-one gets to go anywhere particularly quickly, clearly that is exactly what we want for this country.

 

The general feeling that I get is that motorists, stuck in their ubiquitious traffic jams resent anyone being able to get through quicker than they are going to. A regular example of an utterly pointless exercise I experienced today whilst innocuously riding in a cycle lane towards a set of traffic lights. The lights turned to red on my approach and a small white van passed me and then pulled across into the cycle lane that I was in, blocking it. Was I bovvered? I just rode around him on his offside and then stopped for the lights immediately in front of him. Why he did that and what he was hoping to achieve, I have absolutely no idea. I don't doubt that some are going to come up with an explanation of this infantile behavior, but to be honest, I haven't that much interest in whatever the 'explanation' may be, I'll get on with getting to my destination (often quicker than the cars) and leave them to get to their destinations. Whenever driving cars I cannot say that I get as aerated about cyclists as many motorists seem to do, any more than I'd get aerated about pedestrians, horse riders, mobility scooters or anything else, they are just something on the road that you deal with.

[Cheshire cat]

I think sometimes motorists develop red mist simply because they can't safely overtake for a while. Some are very patient, others are totally wreckless. Today's idiot was overtaking me on a blind bend. The Polo driver wasn't amused to find a Ford Pickup on the wrong side of the road. The Pickup driver got out of jail by cutting in early before they had completely overtaken me. I knew what was likely to happen so was ready to stand on the brakes. It happens every week.

[BWM]

8 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

I get the impression from here that many consider decreasing the number of cyclists to be a good thing, but cannot really understand why. If you reduce cyclists you are going to increase the numbers using cars = more congestion. A prime example is Bejing in China where most local trips up until 1990's were by cycle. The Chinese government, wishing to boost their auto industry, adopted a policy of reducing the number of cycles, wonderful! now the place is gridlocked by cars and no-one gets to go anywhere particularly quickly, clearly that is exactly what we want for this country.

 

The general feeling that I get is that motorists, stuck in their ubiquitious traffic jams resent anyone being able to get through quicker than they are going to. A regular example of an utterly pointless exercise I experienced today whilst innocuously riding in a cycle lane towards a set of traffic lights. The lights turned to red on my approach and a small white van passed me and then pulled across into the cycle lane that I was in, blocking it. Was I bovvered? I just rode around him on his offside and then stopped for the lights immediately in front of him. Why he did that and what he was hoping to achieve, I have absolutely no idea. I don't doubt that some are going to come up with an explanation of this infantile behavior, but to be honest, I haven't that much interest in whatever the 'explanation' may be, I'll get on with getting to my destination (often quicker than the cars) and leave them to get to their destinations. Whenever driving cars I cannot say that I get as aerated about cyclists as many motorists seem to do, any more than I'd get aerated about pedestrians, horse riders, mobility scooters or anything else, they are just something on the road that you deal with.

You see this envy driven behaviour aimed at filtering motorcyclists quite often in heavy traffic, a driver will close the gap between lanes to hinder progress. Same happens in the advance boxes at traffic lights, drivers roll deliberately into them to prevent cyclists from using them so the car/van can accelerate flat out away from the lights unhindered.

[roland elsdon]

Ah  cyclists  getting fit loosing weight saving money and enjoying the sunshine, motorists slow sluggish spending money turning fuel into carbon  and stationary . 

I had a job a few years ago, my manager could never work out how i got to meetings before her, she then started questioning my low expenses claims.

she finally worked out and then told me it was unsafe to cycle to appointments and took up too much time!!!

i dug out the nhs policy and then started claiming bike allowances.

[cuthound]

Mods, given the tone of the last few posts, can this thread be transferred to the "Virue  Signalling" section of the forum please? ?

[Wanderer Vagabond]

54 minutes ago, cuthound said:

Mods, given the tone of the last few posts, can this thread be transferred to the "Virue  Signalling" section of the forum please? ?

's funny because the whole tone of the postings by the non cyclists on this thread has the mindset,"We're better than these cyclists" hence the constant criticism of them, strikes me as the epitome of virtue signalling.

[cuthound]

5 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

's funny because the whole tone of the postings by the non cyclists on this thread has the mindset,"We're better than these cyclists" hence the constant criticism of them, strikes me as the epitome of virtue signalling.

 

No, I have only seen that statement from cyclists.

 

Most posters have complained about the inconsiderate or dangerous behaviour of a small number of cyclists and motorists. Your paranoia is showing. ?

[Murflynn]

2 hours ago, roland elsdon said:

 

she finally worked out and then told me it was unsafe to cycle to appointments and took up too much time!!!

i dug out the nhs policy and then started claiming bike allowances.

I was treated by a world renowned eye surgeon who used to drive to the eye hospital and park in his designated space.  NHS reforms required that he had no parking privileges, so his space was made available to anyone.  He could never find a parking space so he bought a bike.  Within a week he had an accident and severely damaged his right hand.  Now he can't operate any more.  Score : NHS 1, Common Sense 0.  DUHH !! 

[Wanderer Vagabond]

1 hour ago, cuthound said:

 

No, I have only seen that statement from cyclists.

 

Most posters have complained about the inconsiderate or dangerous behaviour of a small number of cyclists and motorists. Your paranoia is showing. ?

Not many complaints about motorists from motorists on here, not paranoid, merely factual.

[Tony Brooks]

1 hour ago, cuthound said:

 

No, I have only seen that statement from cyclists.

 

Most posters have complained about the inconsiderate or dangerous behaviour of a small number of cyclists and motorists. Your paranoia is showing. ?

 

So it seems. We now have articles in two "quality" papers about the dangers and injuries some cyclists are causing plus two more reports in NBW and first hand reports of idiot behaviour in this and other threads here. The question is do these reports show an ever increasing level of such cycling behaviour and if so can and should anything be done about it. this topic ask if cyclists should have compulsory insurance and indeed the responsible one who do not indulge in such behaviour probably do. Its the ones that cause problems that do not simply because they are by nature irresponsible. The majority of this type will simply ignore any such requirement unless there is a means of enforcement so the question is how can such a  requirement be enforced. There is an exact parallel here with motorists and cars involving vehicle identity, the DVLA and NPR all working together. Try driving a car whilst uninsured or untaxed and sooner or later you will get caught and your car impounded and eventually scrapped. The same could apply to adult cyclists if the problem is thought to be serious enough. That is the question that needs addressing. It seems motorists and pedestrians who suffer the idiot behaviour fairly regularly think perhaps it should be. Cyclists want to carry on as they are because they do not think there is a problem or, more likely in my view, know there is a problem but do not want to address it. The two will never agree so it needs third party intervention with some research. I suspect it also depends to a large degree where you live/drive/cycle. I suspect that there is a much bigger problem in larger towns and on traffic free paths in the same areas.

 

 

[cuthound]

22 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

So it seems. We now have articles in two "quality" papers about the dangers and injuries some cyclists are causing plus two more reports in NBW and first hand reports of idiot behaviour in this and other threads here. The question is do these reports show an ever increasing level of such cycling behaviour and if so can and should anything be done about it. this topic ask if cyclists should have compulsory insurance and indeed the responsible one who do not indulge in such behaviour probably do. Its the ones that cause problems that do not simply because they are by nature irresponsible. The majority of this type will simply ignore any such requirement unless there is a means of enforcement so the question is how can such a  requirement be enforced. There is an exact parallel here with motorists and cars involving vehicle identity, the DVLA and NPR all working together. Try driving a car whilst uninsured or untaxed and sooner or later you will get caught and your car impounded and eventually scrapped. The same could apply to adult cyclists if the problem is thought to be serious enough. That is the question that needs addressing. It seems motorists and pedestrians who suffer the idiot behaviour fairly regularly think perhaps it should be. Cyclists want to carry on as they are because they do not think there is a problem or, more likely in my view, know there is a problem but do not want to address it. The two will never agree so it needs third party intervention with some research. I suspect it also depends to a large degree where you live/drive/cycle. I suspect that there is a much bigger problem in larger towns and on traffic free paths in the same areas.

 

 

 

You have hit the nail on the head Tony.

 

It is no different than when cars were first introduced. No laws, testing, registration or insurance required until the inconsiderate minority forced the government's hand.

 

Same is happening with drones and eventually the same will happen to cyclists unless the sensible majority can somehow persuade the inconsiderate few to change their behaviour.

[Graham Davis]

On 14/08/2019 at 17:47, NB Caelmiri said:

 

 

Considering that isn't a road bike as it has no brakes and nowhere to fit lights, it is a pointless illustration.

[aracer]

8 minutes ago, cuthound said:

It is no different than when cars were first introduced. No laws, testing, registration or insurance required until the inconsiderate minority forced the government's hand.

 

Same is happening with drones and eventually the same will happen to cyclists unless the sensible majority can somehow persuade the inconsiderate few to change their behaviour.

Except of course bicycles were around before cars and aren't a new thing like drones.

 

An exercise for you and Tony (and anyone else suggesting registration plates, licensing etc.) to show that you've bothered to read anything anybody else has written and are worth engaging with. Why is it that we are saying that such measures are a bad idea? (there are numerous answers, but just providing the most important reason discussed just above might help to show you're not just ignoring all sensible discussion).

 

As for laws forcing the irresponsible to get insurance https://www.theaa.com/car-insurance/advice/uninsured-drivers?http://www.theaa.com/loans/?sc=afadg01&utm_source=awin&utm_campaign=adgoal_gmbh&utm_medium=affiliate&awc=3953_1565953068_67990bc135d8cefe366d17bce2417b21

[aracer]

34 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

Considering that isn't a road bike as it has no brakes and nowhere to fit lights, it is a pointless illustration.

??? as Tumshie said, resort to nitpicking when you can't win any other way

[roland elsdon]

House contents insurance covers liability when cycling as does my  race licence.

however i doubt if the hoody drug deliverers bother.

theres another issue too. A massive number of  motorist dont insure either and they cause much more trauma

[cuthound]

29 minutes ago, aracer said:

Except of course bicycles were around before cars and aren't a new thing like drones.

 

An exercise for you and Tony (and anyone else suggesting registration plates, licensing etc.) to show that you've bothered to read anything anybody else has written and are worth engaging with. Why is it that we are saying that such measures are a bad idea? (there are numerous answers, but just providing the most important reason discussed just above might help to show you're not just ignoring all sensible discussion).

 

As for laws forcing the irresponsible to get insurance https://www.theaa.com/car-insurance/advice/uninsured-drivers?http://www.theaa.com/loans/?sc=afadg01&utm_source=awin&utm_campaign=adgoal_gmbh&utm_medium=affiliate&awc=3953_1565953068_67990bc135d8cefe366d17bce2417b21

 

No they weren't,  not in the numbers seen today. It is a recent phenomena in the last 10 years in this country.

 

As I said, unless the irresponsible behaviour stops, it is ultimately inevitable that laws will be introduced. It has been thus ever since the dawn of civilisation.

2 minutes ago, roland elsdon said:

House contents insurance covers liability when cycling as does my  race licence.

however i doubt if the hoody drug deliverers bother.

theres another issue too. A massive number of  motorist dont insure either and they cause much more trauma

 

This is being addressed by ANPR, so unless you only drive locally, and can guarantee not to meet a Police vehicle csrrying ANPR, it is impossible for a car to be uninsured for long.

[BWM]

1 hour ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

So it seems. We now have articles in two "quality" papers about the dangers and injuries some cyclists are causing plus two more reports in NBW and first hand reports of idiot behaviour in this and other threads here. The question is do these reports show an ever increasing level of such cycling behaviour and if so can and should anything be done about it. this topic ask if cyclists should have compulsory insurance and indeed the responsible one who do not indulge in such behaviour probably do. Its the ones that cause problems that do not simply because they are by nature irresponsible. The majority of this type will simply ignore any such requirement unless there is a means of enforcement so the question is how can such a  requirement be enforced. There is an exact parallel here with motorists and cars involving vehicle identity, the DVLA and NPR all working together. Try driving a car whilst uninsured or untaxed and sooner or later you will get caught and your car impounded and eventually scrapped. The same could apply to adult cyclists if the problem is thought to be serious enough. That is the question that needs addressing. It seems motorists and pedestrians who suffer the idiot behaviour fairly regularly think perhaps it should be. Cyclists want to carry on as they are because they do not think there is a problem or, more likely in my view, know there is a problem but do not want to address it. The two will never agree so it needs third party intervention with some research. I suspect it also depends to a large degree where you live/drive/cycle. I suspect that there is a much bigger problem in larger towns and on traffic free paths in the same areas.

 

 

The difficulty here is that in spite of legislation and enforcement our roads are still blighted by arrogant and dangerous driving, leading to thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands of injuries. This alone suggests that with the relatively tiny amount of both injuries and fatalities caused by cycling any registration, etc., would be an expensive exercise in futility. 

  Drivers regularly evade capture in hit and run incidents, criminals are well documented to use what are termed pool cars, all in spite of the law. None of this is said in a way to support bad, antisocial behaviour but to demonstrate that another veneer of legislation will likely be the emptying of a bladder into a force 10.

 The clumsy addition of thousands of new laws during the Blair premiership has ended up undermining our legal system by causing confusion and opening up loopholes all over the place. 

8 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

No they weren't,  not in the numbers seen today. It is a recent phenomena in the last 10 years in this country.

 

As I said, unless the irresponsible behaviour stops, it is ultimately inevitable that laws will be introduced. It has been thus ever since the dawn of civilisation.

 

This is being addressed by ANPR, so unless you only drive locally, and can guarantee not to meet a Police vehicle csrrying ANPR, it is impossible for a car to be uninsured for long.

The lack of insurance is only addressed when they are caught, which is often too late. I don't know where you live but i'm lucky to see one marked patrol car a month!

[aracer]

12 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

No they weren't,  not in the numbers seen today. It is a recent phenomena in the last 10 years in this country.

 

As I said, unless the irresponsible behaviour stops, it is ultimately inevitable that laws will be introduced. It has been thus ever since the dawn of civilisation.

 

This is being addressed by ANPR, so unless you only drive locally, and can guarantee not to meet a Police vehicle csrrying ANPR, it is impossible for a car to be uninsured for long.

I'm guessing you're still not bothering to read anything. Care to answer the question I posed above to prove it's worth bothering to engage with you?

[Sir Nibble]

38 minutes ago, BWM said:

The difficulty here is that in spite of legislation and enforcement our roads are still blighted by arrogant and dangerous driving, leading to thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands of injuries. This alone suggests that with the relatively tiny amount of both injuries and fatalities caused by cycling any registration, etc., would be an expensive exercise in futility. 

  Drivers regularly evade capture in hit and run incidents, criminals are well documented to use what are termed pool cars, all in spite of the law. None of this is said in a way to support bad, antisocial behaviour but to demonstrate that another veneer of legislation will likely be the emptying of a bladder into a force 10.

 The clumsy addition of thousands of new laws during the Blair premiership has ended up undermining our legal system by causing confusion and opening up loopholes all over the place. 

The lack of insurance is only addressed when they are caught, which is often too late. I don't know where you live but i'm lucky to see one marked patrol car a month!

I've seen one this year. He was behind me for about ten miles and it was a pleasure to drive that far without being aggressively tailgated.