Jump to content

Cyclists sued boater


Steve Manc

Featured Posts

1 hour ago, aracer said:

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?

 

I do have a life to live, so I'm not on here all of the the time.

 

The article says 3% of vehicles are uninsured. That means 97% are. The number of drivers caught without insurance in recent years seems to be increasing, presumably due to APNR.

 

Year Number of uninsured drivers caught
2014 102,417
2015 92,804
2016 113,502
2017 118,698

 

With anything compulsory like insurence there will always be a number that do not comply. It is for the authorities to determine what level they deem acceptable. It becomes an exercise in cost effectiveness.

 

I wonder what percentage of cyclists have insurance?

Edited by cuthound
Spillung
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aracer said:

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

Blank-Icon-BMX-Bike-2019-Freestyle-BMX-B

if you can manage to fit virtual brakes to a photo of an off-road bike I find it hard to believe that your ingenuity won't stretch to fitting a registration plate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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.

Nicolai-Bikes-Disc-Brake-Specific-Frame-David-Graf.jpg.b8b20c13a216284d0606992501ffef1d.jpg

 

If you're choosing to be pedantic. This has a rear brake, a front brake could easily be fitted, lights can be fit on the front handlebars, a rear light could be attached to the riders helmet.

 

So where is a registration plate going to go here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NB Caelmiri said:

Nicolai-Bikes-Disc-Brake-Specific-Frame-David-Graf.jpg.b8b20c13a216284d0606992501ffef1d.jpg

 

If you're choosing to be pedantic. This has a rear brake, a front brake could easily be fitted, lights can be fit on the front handlebars, a rear light could be attached to the riders helmet.

 

So where is a registration plate going to go here?

 

Either the rider wears a tabard with his personal registration number on it, or a bracket could be fitted to hold the registration plate to the frame ahead of the rear wheel but behind the saddle.

 

Probably easier and quicker to fit than the brakes and lights. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Murflynn said:

if you can manage to fit virtual brakes to a photo of an off-road bike I find it hard to believe that your ingenuity won't stretch to fitting a registration plate.

Brakes are nothing to do with me

https://www.wigglestatic.com/product-media/100634089/Blank-Icon-BMX-Bike-2019-Freestyle-BMX-Bikes-Rose-Gold-2019-BICON1920PNK.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cuthound said:

 

I do have a life to live, so I'm not on here all of the the time.

 

The article says 3% of vehicles are uninsured. That means 97% are. The number of drivers caught without insurance in recent years seems to be increasing, presumably due to APNR.

 

Year Number of uninsured drivers caught
2014 102,417
2015 92,804
2016 113,502
2017 118,698

 

With anything compulsory like insurence there will always be a number that do not comply. It is for the authorities to determine what level they deem acceptable. It becomes an exercise in cost effectiveness.

 

I wonder what percentage of cyclists have insurance?

Your data rather demonstrates everything that we have been saying about additional legislation. The numbers of uninsured vehicles caught every year, by your own statistics, is going upwards, surely if ANPR was as ubiquitous and effective as we are told,the numbers would be plummeting by now because all of the drivers likely not to have insurance would be petrified of capture? It would seem that something in excess of 100,000 (and that is just the one's who get caught, it is unlikely to be a 100% capture rate) still think it is worth the risk, so they consider the likelihood of capture to be minimal (and given the limited number of patrolling Police vehicles, they are probably right). The probability is that a reasonable percentage of those without insurance, also have no driving licence for one reason or another, would we rather be chasing them, or faffing around with a few cyclists?(yes, it will be an either/or situation).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Your data rather demonstrates everything that we have been saying about additional legislation. The numbers of uninsured vehicles caught every year, by your own statistics, is going upwards, surely if ANPR was as ubiquitous and effective as we are told,the numbers would be plummeting by now because all of the drivers likely not to have insurance would be petrified of capture? It would seem that something in excess of 100,000 (and that is just the one's who get caught, it is unlikely to be a 100% capture rate) still think it is worth the risk, so they consider the likelihood of capture to be minimal (and given the limited number of patrolling Police vehicles, they are probably right). The probability is that a reasonable percentage of those without insurance, also have no driving licence for one reason or another, would we rather be chasing them, or faffing around with a few cyclists?(yes, it will be an either/or situation).

 

An alternative view is that since the introduction of ANPR more people are caught driving without insurance, because it is no longer necessary to stop loads of cars to find the uninsured drivers. It can be done whilst police vehicles are doing other things or by fixed cameras on major routes.

 

Whilst I accept that in any altercation between a cyclist and a vehicle, the cyclist will come off worse (as will a pedestrian in any altercation between a pedestrian and a car - why dont cyclists emphasise with pecestrians over the vulnerability they feel with cars?), in an ideal world anyone transgressing traffic regulations would be identified and caught.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cuthound said:

 

2 hours ago, cuthound said:

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.

 

1 hour ago, cuthound said:

I do have a life to live, so I'm not on here all of the the time.

 

The article says 3% of vehicles are uninsured. That means 97% are. The number of drivers caught without insurance in recent years seems to be increasing, presumably due to APNR.

 

Year Number of uninsured drivers caught
2014 102,417
2015 92,804
2016 113,502
2017 118,698

 

With anything compulsory like insurence there will always be a number that do not comply. It is for the authorities to determine what level they deem acceptable. It becomes an exercise in cost effectiveness.

 

I wonder what percentage of cyclists have insurance?

So 1 million uninsured drivers, they catch 100,000 a year, it seems 5 years is the average answer to that (using really basic calculations)

 

You're now happy to admit there is non compliance amongst drivers - that rather destroys the argument that there won't be uninsured cyclists if they make it law.

 

Oh and the answer to the last bit is about the same % as drivers, given it comes for free with household insurance.

 

BTW you still haven't answered my question (hint - look for a question mark in my previous posts)

6 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

An alternative view is that since the introduction of ANPR more people are caught driving without insurance, because it is no longer necessary to stop loads of cars to find the uninsured drivers. It can be done whilst police vehicles are doing other things or by fixed cameras on major routes.

 

Whilst I accept that in any altercation between a cyclist and a vehicle, the cyclist will come off worse (as will a pedestrian in any altercation between a pedestrian and a car - why dont cyclists emphasise with pecestrians over the vulnerability they feel with cars?), in an ideal world anyone transgressing traffic regulations would be identified and caught.

 

 

But it doesn't get rid of them as you claimed - nowhere near.

 

Yes, but we don't live in an ideal world - do we concentrate resources on cyclists or those who kill 1700 a year?

Edited by aracer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Your data rather demonstrates everything that we have been saying about additional legislation. The numbers of uninsured vehicles caught every year, by your own statistics, is going upwards, surely if ANPR was as ubiquitous and effective as we are told,the numbers would be plummeting by now because all of the drivers likely not to have insurance would be petrified of capture? It would seem that something in excess of 100,000 (and that is just the one's who get caught, it is unlikely to be a 100% capture rate) still think it is worth the risk, so they consider the likelihood of capture to be minimal (and given the limited number of patrolling Police vehicles, they are probably right). The probability is that a reasonable percentage of those without insurance, also have no driving licence for one reason or another, would we rather be chasing them, or faffing around with a few cyclists?(yes, it will be an either/or situation).

 

I agree that with the present level of funding and how things are organised that will be the case but to extend that it seems that what the police decide are minor crimes are no longer being looked at and the police even refuse to attend. If things go on as they seem to be soon major crimes against ordinary citizens will go uninvestigated (in fact recent reports show that major financial crimes against ordinary citizens are no all ready), then really serious things like the murder of ordinary people will be ignored.  This is where that sort of thinking leads and it is why I suggested the cyclists should pay  towards their registration and the required enforcement but I suppose the government would only squander the cyclists' money on other things just as they do the motorists'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

An alternative view is that since the introduction of ANPR more people are caught driving without insurance, because it is no longer necessary to stop loads of cars to find the uninsured drivers. It can be done whilst police vehicles are doing other things or by fixed cameras on major routes.

 

Whilst I accept that in any altercation between a cyclist and a vehicle, the cyclist will come off worse (as will a pedestrian in any altercation between a pedestrian and a car - why dont cyclists emphasise with pecestrians over the vulnerability they feel with cars?), in an ideal world anyone transgressing traffic regulations would be identified and caught.

 

 

Assuming that the estimate from your article is correct, that 3% of vehicles are uninsured, the rough estimate of the number of cars on the road in the UK is circa 30 million, 3% of that will be 900,000 uninsured cars on the road, and they just catch 100,000 a year. That gives those willing to risk it odds of 9/1 of getting caught, it might explain why there are those still willing to risk it. Given the scale of the car insurance problem, and the difficulties of enforcement, where does anyone think that the enforcement for cycling offences is going to come from if we were to bring in all this splendid new legislation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, aracer said:

So 1 million uninsured drivers, they catch 100,000 a year, it seems 5 years is the average answer to that (using really basic calculations)

 

You're now happy to admit there is non compliance amongst drivers - that rather destroys the argument that there won't be uninsured cyclists if they make it law.

 

Oh and the answer to the last bit is about the same % as drivers, given it comes for free with household insurance.

 

BTW you still haven't answered my question (hint - look for a question mark in my previous posts)

 

I wonder how the author of the artivle you quoted knew there are 1 million uninsured drivers?

 

I've always been happy to acknowledge non compliance amongst drivers.

 

My house insurance covers damage and loss of any vehicles owned by me, not 3rd party indemnity. A quick Google shows this is available from £12 per year.

 

I have no idea "Why is it that we are saying that such measures are a bad idea?", other than the reasons given by Tony in post #210.

Edited by cuthound
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Assuming that the estimate from your article is correct, that 3% of vehicles are uninsured, the rough estimate of the number of cars on the road in the UK is circa 30 million, 3% of that will be 900,000 uninsured cars on the road, and they just catch 100,000 a year. That gives those willing to risk it odds of 9/1 of getting caught, it might explain why there are those still willing to risk it. Given the scale of the car insurance problem, and the difficulties of enforcement, where does anyone think that the enforcement for cycling offences is going to come from if we were to bring in all this splendid new legislation?

 

Assuming the 3% is correct (the author didnt show where he got that figure from), better odds of being caught than speeding, jumping lights or even cycling without lights then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

I agree that with the present level of funding and how things are organised that will be the case but to extend that it seems that what the police decide are minor crimes are no longer being looked at and the police even refuse to attend. If things go on as they seem to be soon major crimes against ordinary citizens will go uninvestigated (in fact recent reports show that major financial crimes against ordinary citizens are no all ready), then really serious things like the murder of ordinary people will be ignored.  This is where that sort of thinking leads and it is why I suggested the cyclists should pay  towards their registration and the required enforcement but I suppose the government would only squander the cyclists' money on other things just as they do the motorists'.

What you say about police dealing with stuff is exactly right, but when funding is cut what did we expect? No, they don't come out to burglaries any more unless you've already caught the offender on the scene. If people think anyone is going to be looking at a fraud reported via Action Fraud they are seriously delusional. No, they don't look at 'drive-off's' from garages any more, and a whole host of other things that they no longer have resources to deal with (lost property and dogs went out of the window years ago). Yet we seem to hope that if cyclists were made to pay for enforcement they would magically rustle up some resources that are no longer there, it isn't going to happen.

 

If however you hand the enforcement contract to Crapita or Serco or some other private company (paid for out of this income from cyclists) there is no incentive for the company to modify anyone's behavious, their income is boosted by the number of people they catch, not by the number they deter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Assuming the 3% is correct (the author didnt show where he got that figure from), better odds of being caught than speeding, jumping lights or even cycling without lights then. 

Quite a simle calculation, cars registered - sorn, scrapped, etc. set against those insured. 

Anpr is entirely ineffective against vehicles that don't declare change of ownership, unless backed up by physical enforcement and these vehicles would add numbers to the three percent in the article. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

What you say about police dealing with stuff is exactly right, but when funding is cut what did we expect? No, they don't come out to burglaries any more unless you've already caught the offender on the scene. If people think anyone is going to be looking at a fraud reported via Action Fraud they are seriously delusional. No, they don't look at 'drive-off's' from garages any more, and a whole host of other things that they no longer have resources to deal with (lost property and dogs went out of the window years ago). Yet we seem to hope that if cyclists were made to pay for enforcement they would magically rustle up some resources that are no longer there, it isn't going to happen.

 

If however you hand the enforcement contract to Crapita or Serco or some other private company (paid for out of this income from cyclists) there is no incentive for the company to modify anyone's behavious, their income is boosted by the number of people they catch, not by the number they deter.

I think what I am actually saying is political so maybe not allowed here. Successive governments seem to have enough money to fund things they want to including what look very much like election bribes to me so maybe their prioritise need altering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

I think what I am actually saying is political so maybe not allowed here. Successive governments seem to have enough money to fund things they want to including what look very much like election bribes to me so maybe their prioritise need altering.

I'll try to keep away from the political, but the issue to me seems to be people's expectations. This belief that all we need is a bit more legislation and the problem will be 'sorted' without thinking of who exactly will be 'sorting' it. It rather reminds me of all of the 'Trespassers will be Prosecuted' signs that you see everywhere, prosecuted by who? no-one gets prosecuted for trespassing but as long as someone has put up a sign something has been done about the problem......or perhaps not. So we bring out legislation requiring cyclists to wear a reflective vest with a registration number on it, a registration number on the bike, liability insurance, and just for good measure, compulsory wearing of helmets, and still we have no-one to enforce these splendid new regulations, doesn't that rather bring the law into disrepute? The only one's who will comply are the current law abiding citizens who don't need policing, the *ssholes will still be *ssholes. 

 

If there were a Policeman on every corner (we're not a Police State so that isn't an endorsement of the idea) then enforcement would not be an issue, but since there isn't ,it will remain an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, cuthound said:

I have no idea "Why is it that we are saying that such measures are a bad idea?", other than the reasons given by Tony in post #210.

Try reading posts by people other than those who agree with you (hint, you might manage just by reading my posts - or try comprehending the post where I ask the question, there are further hints there, it's really not a difficult question). When you've shown you're actually doing that it might be worth engaging with you. Given the inconsistent post numbering it might also be useful if you quote rather than refer to a post - the last post I can see on here is #207

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, aracer said:

Try reading posts by people other than those who agree with you (hint, you might manage just by reading my posts - or try comprehending the post where I ask the question, there are further hints there, it's really not a difficult question). When you've shown you're actually doing that it might be worth engaging with you. Given the inconsistent post numbering it might also be useful if you quote rather than refer to a post - the last post I can see on here is #207

 

I have and agree with Tony In this case.

 

I suggest you do the same if you wish me to continue engaging with you.

Edited by cuthound
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

I agree that with the present level of funding and how things are organised that will be the case

and what do you imagine is going to change which will make a difference to that? Though given an increase in funding do you suggest that should be spent on improving compliance with the law for those who kill 1700 a year or cyclists?

7 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

I have and agree with Tony In this case.

 

I suggest you do the same if you wish me to continue engaging with you.

??? oh, the good old throw the argument back in the hope of some mud sticking. I've read and comprehended all that you and Tony have written - if you think I haven't feel free to ask a similar question of me.

 

Let's try this again - what is the principle reason that I think licensing, registration plates, compulsory insurance is a bad idea? Please answer the question directly rather than referring to a post number of somebody else which I can't find. It's really, really not a difficult question, I'm pretty much just asking you to quote me.

 

TBH your reply there where I've asked you to provide a direct quote and you reply with "I agree with Tony" illustrates the precise problem here which I'm trying to solve. Exactly what that Tony has written do you agree with?

 

I further note that if you're "refusing to engage" on this it's nothing to do with me not comprehending you and all to do with you avoiding difficult arguments.

Edited by aracer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cuthound said:

I've always been happy to acknowledge non compliance amongst drivers.

and yet "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." so is it impossible for drivers to be non compliant or do you acknowledge the non compliance - choose one.

1 hour ago, cuthound said:

My house insurance covers damage and loss of any vehicles owned by me, not 3rd party indemnity. A quick Google shows this is available from £12 per year.

I doubt very much your house insurance covers loss and damage of any vehicles you own - under what section do you think that cover is provided? Your household insurance very definitely does provide public liability cover though, it's standard on all contents policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aracer said:

and yet "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." so is it impossible for drivers to be non compliant or do you acknowledge the non compliance - choose one.

I doubt very much your house insurance covers loss and damage of any vehicles you own - under what section do you think that cover is provided? Your household insurance very definitely does provide public liability cover though, it's standard on all contents policies.

 

I dont think the first quote is mutually exclusive. I do acknowledge non compliance in some drivers and unless you can guarantee that you wont meet any ANPR cameras you cannot guarantee that you won't be caught.

 

Do you see everything in black and white?

 

The second quote is a result of my autocorrect interfering. It changed bicycles to vehicles which has completly changed the meaning of what I wrote.

 

The public liability section of contents insurance may or may not cover 3rd party claims whilst you are cycling, depending on the insurer. Mine doesn't.

 

 https://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/jul/02/bike-insurance-covered

Edited by cuthound
Spillung
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, cuthound said:

I do acknowledge non compliance in some drivers and unless you can guarantee that you wont meet any ANPR cameras you cannot guarantee that you won't be caught.

There is a big difference between not being able to guarantee not being caught and ANPR making it "impossible for a car to be uninsured for long" as you claimed. Do you still stand by that claim despite 1 million uninsured vehicles and 100,000 being caught a year? Given the whole point of your arguments appears to be to divert, let me remind you that you were suggesting enforcement would ensure that even the bad cyclists had insurance - yet here we have plenty of bad drivers without insurance despite law and enforcement.

Quote

Do you see everything in black and white?

Only when people are making contradictory statements.

 

Quote

The public liability section of contents insurance may or may not cover 3rd party claims whilst you are cycling, depending on the insurer. Mine doesn't.

 

 https://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/jul/02/bike-insurance-covered

I don't believe you, I've never found a cycling exclusion on a 3rd party liability section of any insurer and I've checked quite a lot of popular ones (they all have almost identical wording). What insurer?

 

All that article is saying in this regard is that 3rd party liability cover on home insurance might not cover you for racing or organised events (it's a bit of a moot point - anybody racing on a bike will be a member of an organisation which provides 3rd party cover).

 

You still haven't answered my question - what is the principle reason that I think licensing, registration plates, compulsory insurance is a bad idea? A continued refusal to engage with this will lead to the inevitable conclusion that you don't like the answer and so are avoiding it.

Edited by aracer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, aracer said:

There is a big difference between not being able to guarantee not being caught and ANPR making it "impossible for a car to be uninsured for long" as you claimed. Do you still stand by that claim despite 1 million uninsured vehicles and 100,000 being caught a year? Given the whole point of your arguments appears to be to divert, let me remind you that you were suggesting enforcement would ensure that even the bad cyclists had insurance - yet here we have plenty of bad drivers without insurance despite law and enforcement.

Only when people are making contradictory statements.

 

I don't believe you, I've never found a cycling exclusion on a 3rd party liability section of any insurer and I've checked quite a lot of popular ones (they all have almost identical wording). What insurer?

 

All that article is saying in this regard is that 3rd party liability cover on home insurance might not cover you for racing or organised events (it's a bit of a moot point - anybody racing on a bike will be a member of an organisation which provides 3rd party cover).

 

You still haven't answered my question - what is the principle reason that I think licensing, registration plates, compulsory insurance is a bad idea? A continued refusal to engage with this will lead to the inevitable conclusion that you don't like the answer and so are avoiding it.

 

Yes I stand by my claim re APNR, provided the offending car meets the conditions I stipulated.

 

My insurer, LV only covers cycles for damage and theft as an option. Same with legal expenses when it will support the cyclists in recovering damages and compensation from others when the accident is not the cyclists fault.

 

https://www.lv.com/home-insurance/optional-extras

 

Why should I tell you what you think? If you have already stated it why do I need to confirm your answer?

 

Can't you remember it?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Yes I stand by my claim re APNR, provided the offending car meets the conditions I stipulated.

So despite 1 million uninsured vehicles and only 100,000 caught a year it's impossible for a car to be uninsured for long. OK, you're entitled to your opinion.

Quote

 

My insurer, LV only covers cycles for damage and theft as an option. Same with legal expenses when it will support the cyclists in recovering damages and compensation from others when the accident is not the cyclists fault.

However it covers legal liability as standard, including for cycling. Unsurprisingly the wording is almost exactly the same as standard. Page 26 of https://www.lv.com/-/insurance/media/gi/home-insurance/pdfs/policy-documents/2019/lv-home-doi-p1.pdf?la=en&u=20190528091550 (section 27, somewhat confusingly)

"What’s covered 27. Liability to the public If following an accident someone dies, is injured, falls ill or has their property damaged anywhere in the world, during the period of insurance, we’ll cover the legal liability of you or your family as: n occupiers of your home; n private individuals."

"What’s not covered Liability arising from: n pollution or contamination unless caused by oil leaking from any fixed heating installation in your home; n the ownership of your home or the ownership or occupation of any other premises; n the death, bodily injury or illness of you or a member of your family or domestic employees; n the ownership or use of any aircraft, motor vehicle (including motor cycles, quad bikes and motorised scooters), horse drawn vehicle, ship, vessel or craft;..."

 

motor vehicles specifically excluded, no mention of pedal cycles in the exclusions, hence right there is your 3rd party insurance for cycling.

Quote

Why should I tell you what you think? If you have already stated it why do I need to confirm your answer?

Because otherwise the inevitable conclusion is that you've not bothered to read my post and you don't know what I think. It would be so, so easy for you to quote me that the inescapable conclusion is that you don't want to (hint, it's in the post I made immediately before the original question) - I can only assume that it's not something you want to discuss because it would challenge your views.

Edited by aracer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.