Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456
So if a cyclist ignores a red light on a pelican crossing and ploughs into a pedestrian causing injury which results in them being unfit for work, which motorists insurance do they claim from?
|
It's possible to hypothesise ad infinitum.
What happens if a pedestrian steps out in front of a cyclist who is simply riding along? Should all pedestrians have insurance too as the potential perpetrator of accidents?
What about the lethal buggy owner who bashes your ankles and causes you to trip? Insurance?
What about wheelchair users? Are they insured? What if when crossing the road they cause an accident because they move less freely than the ambulant?
Do we need to insure all our kids who are the most unpredictable users of just about everything?
Does my neighbour need insurance in case he drops a paint pot on my head when he's up a ladder?
Insurance benefits the money men. Do you want them to be creaming in policy payments for occurences that seldom happen? We don't do things that way in the UK but we'll end up that way if we're stupid enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees
Hey Kursk 
I agree that the skills we have learnt and developed whilst riding motorbikes are missing in other motorists. However I don't believe you can use the fact to justify it missing from the large proportion (that i have seen) of cyclists.
Surely a basic compulsory form of training, (think CBT but for pushbikes and without a need to renew) could only be a good thing ? Lets face it at the moment you can get on a pushbike and ride on most roads in the country (some of them being exceptionally lethal) without any form of road craft whatsoever.
Back onto the subject of protective clothing, whilst I'm not suggesting for one second that the level of protection is required is the same as we wear it again would make sense to have some basics. e.g. armoured gloves, a helmet & perhaps something like a back protector. CE1 approved armour whilst not great for motorbike riders would allow a reasonable degree of freedom whilst offering protection to the push bike rider. Clothing should be abrasive resistant to some degree possibly through the use of Aramid fibres.
regarding the point you made earlier in the thread (I think it was about general taxation paying for the roads and cyclists contribute to that. If cyclists are sharing our roads then they need to ensure that their bikes are in road worthy condition I dont think it should be left to the rider to make that call. Perhaps a push bike MOT which checks things like bearings, gears, brakes and tyres and introduces a minimum standard needs to be considered.
Finally, insurance. Whilst the vast majority of incidents involving cyclists are with them as the non fault party there are still times when a cyclist is liable and therefore they should hold their own insurance.
I have no issues with the majority of cyclists who ride in a safe manner. I guess the above post is a long winded way of saying that as with driving a car, or riding a motorbike there should be minimum standards which are required to be met both for people as the rider and the equipment that they use.
Ride safe ! |
Most people learn to ride at a young age and get parental training in safety (not just for cycling!). It works. Anyone taking up cycling later will know roads are dangerous and it will be part of their decision as to whether they choose to cycle or not.
What is the stopping distance at 50 mph on a wet road and in potentially icy conditions?
No-one reading this post will know the answer because all that theory is forgotten and because all road conditions cannot be predicted (
it won't stop some members scurrying off to the highway code to try and find a smartass answer though!). Cycle training is real-time road experience which is why we need other road users to take special care of our safety. Learning a few metronomic hand signalling skills in a classroom won't protect us nor will it make good cyclists out of bad ones.
Protective clothing will protect you if you fall off your motorbike at speed. Protective clothing will not protect a cyclist hit by a car, lorry or van. Especially those little plastic helmets that can cause rotational neck injury; the jury is still out on that one.
Bike MOT - bicycles are simple machines, easily maintained. Do you remember the first time you had a bike for christmas or whatever? Was the occasion ruined because your Dad forgot its MOT, or rider insurance, or its pedal tax, or because he forgot your kevlar body restraint, helmet, gauntlets, shinguards, chest brace and condom? Cycling is supposed to be fun and healthy. We need people to cycle so let's not make it harder.
See above re insurance but, also, did you ever ride someone's else's bike to the shops? Would you have preferred to walk because you didn't have the required insurance? Would you like to miss out on riding in deserted country lanes because you don't have insurance and all the other paraphernalia? All that stuff will discourage cycling and that is crazy.
I know bikes and cars don't mix but I wish someone (and this is not aimed at you) would come up with workable alternatives instead of bleating that "bikes get in my way" all the time. Besides, you ride a motorbike...who most endangers you, cyclists or car drivers? I know the answer to that one: extra training for motorists.
I'm throttling back; ride safe mate!