Cycling

[Dr Bob]

8 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Its an old one Dr Bob. 

Which  bees do you get milk from?.............. 

Boo Bees. 

Get your coat!

[rusty69]

18 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

Get your coat!

I'm flattered Dr Bob, but I'm already spoken for. 

[Señor Chris]

4 hours ago, cuthound said:

As one who had £300 worth of damage inflicted on my car by a cyclist who collided with the side of my car whilst it was stationary in a traffic and then jumped a set of lights to escape I think ALL cyclists should carry a registrstion number and 3rd party insurance.

I'm sure you do but your solution is totally disproportionate to the problem.

4 hours ago, Jerra said:

I would totally agree but there appears to be a faction who will not countenance insurance let alone some form of identification

Because - as already pointed out - it would do more harm than good.

 

[Jerra]

2 hours ago, Señor Chris said:

Because - as already pointed out - it would do more harm than good.

Only in your opinion not in the opinion of those who have suffered injury or damage.  Also I really can't find any proof of your assertion that it would put people off cycling.

[cuthound]

11 hours ago, Señor Chris said:

I'm sure you do but your solution is totally disproportionate to the problem.

 

Not really, when I worked in Central London cyclists colliding with stationary cars, and hitting pedestrians when they jumped red lights was a daily sight.

They seem to think the highway code doesnt apply to them and it is almost impossible to identify them once they have left the scene of an accident.

[NigelMoore]

I can remember having a compulsory number plate on my first bike, clipped to the cross-bar. It was not long thereafter that the legal requirement was abandoned. Difficult to read such a plate in most situations I would have thought.

[MtB]

On 3/15/2018 at 12:59, rusty69 said:

Agreed, continuing from my previous list, the following should also be insured:-

8.Skateboards

9.Prams

10.Pogo sticks

11.Kite surfers

12.Kayaks and Canoes.

 

 

I think pedestrians talking on mobile fones should be on this list too. Bloody liability some of them are, especially when crossing the road. Display all the lack of attention to (foot and car) traffic as drivers on the fone.

[rusty69]

10 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I think pedestrians talking on mobile fones should be on this list too. Bloody liability some of them are, especially when crossing the road. Display all the lack of attention to (foot and car) traffic as drivers on the fone.

Listed at No 3.

[TheBiscuits]

11 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Display all the lack of attention to (foot and car) traffic as drivers on the fone.

I wonder why instead of issuing a fixed penalty notice for using a phone while driving they do not simply confiscate the phone there and then, perhaps for a month or so?

That would be good prevention as well as a fitting punishment for those who can not put the damned thing down even when driving.

 

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Listed at No 3.

 

Look, who on here reads threads before posting?

A thread hasn't properly matured until every comment has been duplicated at least three times! Err..... 

[mrsmelly]

Bought the missus a folding bike yesterday so she can collect my beer from wherever when we are out in the sticks. I have just insured her online which covers injury to others to a value of 1 million and also damage to their property etc. The price for taking responsibility was £ 12.22 or in other words less than 34 pence per day.

[rusty69]

Just now, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Look, who on here reads threads before posting?

A thread hasn't properly matured until every comment has been duplicated at least three times! Err..... 

Fair enough. I wouldn't read five pages of drivel either (dunno if the OP did)

[MtB]

1 minute ago, mrsmelly said:

Bought the missus a folding bike yesterday so she can collect my beer from wherever when we are out in the sticks. I have just insured her online which covers injury to others to a value of 1 million and also damage to their property etc. The price for taking responsibility was £ 12.22 or in other words less than 34 pence per day.

 

My two year old nephew will be getting his first tricycle soon. Does he need £1m of third party insurance too?

[rusty69]

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

My two year old nephew will be getting his first tricycle soon. Does he need £1m of third party insurance too?

No.I would suggest £5m unless he is already covered by his house insurance. (he does have house insurance doesn't he?)

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

No.I would suggest £5m unless he is already covered by his house insurance. (he does have house insurance doesn't he?)

 

House insurance covering bikes?

I'm now wondering if bike inurance covers houses!

[Señor Chris]

12 hours ago, Jerra said:

Only in your opinion

And the government's.

12 hours ago, Jerra said:

Also I really can't find any proof of your assertion that it would put people off cycling.

If you are proposing to introduce legislation, the onus is on you to prove 1) it will achieve the desired result and 2) there are no wider negative consequences.

If you think that victims will automatically be able to claim on the cyclist's insurance then you are deluding yourself. It will likely make the situation worse - the easiest way to avoid regulation on the road is to cycle on the pavement, so expect more uninsured pedestrian injuries. And how will it be enforced? The police haven't managed to enforce compulsory insurance for motorists yet.

The deterrent effect doesn't really need proving does it? More a case of stating-the-bleeding-obvious I would have thought. OK the keen cyclists who pay £100 for a helmet won't be discouraged. In fact, most of those probably already are insured - all those who are members of the main cycling organisations or local clubs certainly will be. It's the occasional cyclist, those who are thinking of giving it a try and families on a Sunday afternoon ride together who will suffer.
 

[Señor Chris]

3 hours ago, cuthound said:

Not really, when I worked in Central London cyclists colliding with stationary cars, and hitting pedestrians when they jumped red lights was a daily sight.

They seem to think the highway code doesnt apply to them and it is almost impossible to identify them once they have left the scene of an accident.

They are not the worst offenders though. Law-breaking by motorists is a daily sight everywhere in the country.

 

[cuthound]

7 minutes ago, Señor Chris said:

They are not the worst offenders though. Law-breaking by motorists is a daily sight everywhere in the country.

 

True, but not many motorists habitually drive off immediatly after a collision, to avoid having to pay for the consequences. 

[NigelMoore]

This is a very old debate; it has been rumbling along in Australia since the 19thC. This article mentions the existence of bicycle registration & licence plates such I used to have, dating from at least 1936 in WA [it must have been abolished by the end of the fifties, if I recall correctly]. Other states decided against it; WA has always laboured under the most absurdly interfering bureaucracy of any of the states –

https://old.australian-cyclists-party.org/latest-media-release/rego-history/

[Dr Bob]

2 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

House insurance covering bikes?

I'm now wondering if bike inurance covers houses!

Duck insurance doesnt cover boats.

[rusty69]

25 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

Duck insurance doesnt cover boats.

But duck incontinence does.

(its fully comprehensive if you moor up near Slimbridge)

Edited March 17, 2018 by rusty69

[carlt]

On 15/03/2018 at 13:14, rusty69 said:

19.Spacehopper

Clicky

Insurance companies restrict Richard Hammond to riding ‘nothing faster than a space hopper’

[mrsmelly]

3 hours ago, Señor Chris said:

And the government's.

If you are proposing to introduce legislation, the onus is on you to prove 1) it will achieve the desired result and 2) there are no wider negative consequences.

It will likely make the situation worse - the easiest way to avoid regulation on the road is to cycle on the pavement, so expect more uninsured pedestrian injuries. And how will it be enforced? 
 

Sorry but you are showing total ignorance of law especialy with regard VEHICLES the footpath is classed as the road and all legislation covers the footpath just the same as the bit you think is a road. I tell you what also I am a fair chap and will put my money where my mouth is so lets play for small stakes. We both give say a grand each to an adjudicator who will act as decision maker and whos decision will be final. It goes like this we go to centre of Oxford ( I wil let you pick the street to keep it even fairer ) and the amount of motor vehicles seen inside one hour not abiding by the Road traffic act and the highway code will be counted. At the same time the amount of cyclists doing similar will be counted and at the end winner takes all. You can make it fifty grand if you like because I will be taking the money home of that I can guarantee you. If you cycle on the pavement headin for me or my wife you will be ending up on your arse. Just saying like. 

[Señor Chris]

On 17/03/2018 at 15:53, mrsmelly said:

the amount of motor vehicles seen inside one hour not abiding by the Road traffic act and the highway code will be counted

Sorry but you are showing total ignorance of the Highway Code. Rule 163: "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car". I can guarantee that on a city street, 100% of motorists will break this rule by overtaking closer than this:

[mrsmelly]

16 minutes ago, Señor Chris said:

Sorry but you are showing total ignorance of the Highway Code. Rule 163: "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car". I can guarantee that on a city street, 100% of motorists will break this rule by overtaking closer than this:

Im still game. bring your grand along and we will count. I was on radio oxford doing a live talk show with Bill Heine a while ago. He had the local spokesperson for the sustrans and bike club on and was asking for motorists views so as I was then an ex Police advanced driver and at the time of the proggrame a dept of transport driving instructer in Oxford Bills team foned me to see if I wanted to give my view. In a nutshell the sustrans cycle pushing bod came a very poor second during the debate and he turned down the opportunity to spend a day in my driving school car so I could show him just how bad cycling is in Oxford. What expertise would you have brought to the debate?

Edited March 20, 2018 by mrsmelly
numpty spelling