Should cyclists be made to Register and get Insurance - mod warning - see post 55

Undercover Elephant

Tonyandthewhale wrote: »

How big a license plate can you put on a bike realistically speaking? Is it really going to be much use in identifying someone in the case of a hit and run?

Simple. Make helmets compulsory, and you can have a full size licence plate hanging off the back of them. :rolleyes:

chakattack

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

Simple. Make helmets compulsory, and you can have a full size licence plate hanging off the back of them.

Yeah.......

Why not just microchip everyone while you're at it.

chakattack

poochiem wrote: »

My friend was cycling and got run over by a truck. He drove off leaving her for dead. They eventually tracked him down a few months later he was uninsured and unlicensed. She survived, just. Eventually he went to court...got fined €1000. Happens more than you'd think. Sorry to interject with reality, back to hypothetical cyclists scratching overpriced paint....

I heard about that - very nasty. I hope she's making a good recovery.

-Chris-

poochiem wrote: »

My friend was cycling and got run over by a truck. He drove off leaving her for dead. They eventually tracked him down a few months later he was uninsured and unlicensed. She survived, just. Eventually he went to court...got fined €1000. Happens more than you'd think. Sorry to interject with reality, back to hypothetical cyclists scratching overpriced paint....

With all due respect and concern for your friend, I'm not sure what that has to do with requiring cyclists to be insured.

The truck was required to be insured, and in the event that he's not then there's a fund to draw from (and hopefully he'll have a very big book thrown at him).

Your friend having a registration plate or (presumably third-party) insurance would make very little difference in my reading of the situation.

GTDolanator

RandolphEsq wrote: »

The common enemy is the pedestrian. Pedestrians, in the city, are absolutely clueless and deserve to be hit unless crossing at a green man, or in good time where there is no green man. Car-dodging has to be the most insane thing that happens. Stepping off a kerb without looking is also done by peds and results in a good kick from me if I'm on my bike (happened twice from me on my bike when they stepped off the kerb right into the cycle lane without looking!)

can i buy you a pint?

you have taken the words out of my mouth in relation to pedestrian stupidity

<snip>

spokeydokey

GTDolanator wrote: »

can i buy you a pint?

you have taken the words out of my mouth in relation to pedestrian stupidity,

<snip>

Then maybe the pair of you could get a thrill by kicking homeless people on your way home from the pub

GTDolanator

spokeydokey wrote: »

Then maybe the pair of you could get a thrill by kicking homeless people on your way home from the pub

i wouldnt harm a homeless person,ill leave the scum to do that.

<snip>

enas

-Chris- wrote: »

With all due respect and concern for your friend, I'm not sure what that has to do with requiring cyclists to be insured.

I don't believe he was making a point that cyclists should be insured. Quite the opposite, he was bringing a sadly real example to the following very correct point:

niceonetom wrote: »

Seriously, mandatory car insurance doesn't exist because of paintwork, it exists because of surgeons, ICUs and funerals.

It's good to be reminded some bits of reality when some people whine about their overpriced paint being scratched.

enas

GTDolanator wrote: »

People who step out on red lights or without looking deserve to be hit.

You know there is nothing illegal in what you describe do you? Sorry to say that, but that sounds exactly like the typical motorist ranting "cyclists who cycle in the middle of the road holding me up deserve to be knocked down".

GTDolanator

enas wrote: »

You know there is nothing illegal in what you describe do you? Sorry to say that, but that sounds exactly like the typical motorist ranting "cyclists who cycle in the middle of the road holding me up deserve to be knocked down".

i couldnt care less tbh.Im a courier,so when your cycling around all day keeping an eye out for retard pedestrians and motorists you tend to not care anymore.I respect peds and motorists who are courtious and polite the rest are on my hit list

Chips Lovell

This forum isn't the place for advocating mowing down pedestrians. The user in question has been warned, so we can drop that topic.

Thanks

enas

GTDolanator wrote: »

I respect peds and motorists who are courtious and polite the rest are on my hit list

Sure, courteous and polite according to your own criteria, and not what's actually lawful. Pretty much like the taxi driver who believes it's OK to "teach you a lesson", because he couldn't care less that you're allowed to do this, the fact is you are in his bus lane. This in my book does not correspond to a civilised approach.

tomasrojo

GTDolanator wrote: »

.I respect peds and motorists who are courtious and polite the rest are on my hit list

To be fair, a pedestrian who by mistake wanders out in front of you is not showing a lack of courtesy or politeness, but a lack of attentiveness. And no-one can say that they haven't been guilty of that at one time or another. Errare humanum est, and all that.

GTDolanator

tomasrojo wrote: »

To be fair, a pedestrian who by mistake wanders out in front of you is not showing a lack of courtesy or politeness, but a lack of attentiveness. And no-one can say that they haven't been guilty of that at one time or another. Errare humanum est, and all that.

ok,what about the ones that do see you but continue to walk directly into your path??

tomasrojo

GTDolanator wrote: »

ok,what about the ones that do see you but continue to walk directly into your path??

Given what el tonto said above, we should perhaps drop the topic.

Doctor Bob

GTDolanator wrote: »

ok,what about the ones that do see you but continue to walk directly into your path??

You stop, look at the ground, shake your head disappointedly, and move on.

A bit like I'm doing now...

(EDIT: Sorry el tonto- didn't see your edited post above. [I did see the unedited version though. ])

poochiem

Doctor Bob wrote: »

You stop, look at the ground, shake your head disappointedly, and move on.

A bit like I'm doing now...

(EDIT: Sorry el tonto- didn't see your edited post above. [I did see the unedited version though. ])

and I apologise for bringing in the emotive issue of my friend getting run over, i didn't mean to make a cheap comment

-Chris-

poochiem wrote: »

and I apologise for bringing in the emotive issue of my friend getting run over, i didn't mean to make a cheap comment

It was a fair point, well made. Apologies if I took it up wrong.

poochiem

-Chris- wrote: »

It was a fair point, well made. Apologies if I took it up wrong.

not at all, just on reflection i thought I shouldn't have brought it up. The whining really gets to me, hypothetical paint scratches and that kind of rubbish, you know? there's real people getting hurt by stupid people who aren't careful but you have this constant Daily Mail syndrome of rage against the person/victim.

BostonB

Ok injuries is one thing. But that doesn't mean damaging property isn't an issue either. Just because you have a car doesn't mean you have money to throw away at repairs. Its not whining, thats unfair. I can't imagine it a big problem through in terms of numbers. Otherwise there would be more fuss about it.

You could flip the scenario, how about another cyclist crashes into your bike (through dangerous cycling) and causes a few hundred euro worth of damage to you bike, cracking the frame or such. Again though I'm not sure it happens enough to warranty the solution of insurance.

blorg

If a cyclist damages a car, they are liable to pay for it. If they are not insured they have to pay out of their own pocket. Same as if you damage any other type of property.

The reason third-party insurance is legally mandatory for cars is primarily due to their potential for causing serious damage to people, where the costs of fixing can stretch well beyond paintwork.

The reason it is not required of cyclists, pedestrians, shopping carts, prams, etc. is that these do not cause anywhere near the same level of damage that motor vehicles do, continually. Motor vehicles are the special case here.

_MadRa_

Cycling Licence
Road tax
Insurance
Lets do this properly!

wait, arent most people cycling because its free?
Ill Walk ftw

CramCycle

_MadRa_ wrote: »

wait, arent most people cycling because its free?

Your doing it wrong if you think thats true :pac:

Steve

blorg wrote: »

If a cyclist damages a car, they are liable to pay for it. If they are not insured they have to pay out of their own pocket. Same as if you damage any other type of property.

The reason third-party insurance is legally mandatory for cars is primarily due to their potential for causing serious damage to people, where the costs of fixing can stretch well beyond paintwork.

Well said.

The reason it is not required of cyclists, pedestrians, shopping carts, prams, etc. is that these do not cause anywhere near the same level of damage that motor vehicles do, continually. Motor vehicles are the special case here.

I agree to a point - there are exceptions to that though. For example, where someone gets knocked over and incurs brain damage or a similar injury that would entail lifetime care.
Motor insurance can cope with that but a cyclists personal funds would be unlikely to suffice (given that the family home isn't a realistic option in a civil lawsuit in Ireland). If the cyclist happened to be wealthy then it would be different but that'd be the exception.

The sad reality is that in a case like that, few solicitors would advise taking action as the outcome would be unlikely to be of any real benefit to the injured once the costs of executing it were taken into account.

That's primarily why I think it should be mandatory.

Tonyandthewhale

Just because it could be useful in some instances doesn't mean it should be mandatory across the board.
I mean how many serious accidents are there every year involving bicycles? And how many of these are the cyclist fault meaning they would have to pay out? these are miniscule numbers.

Steve

I don't know how many there are - I suspect you (or most people here) don't either.

The point is, if you had to pay a fiver a year for the peace of mind, wouldn't it be worth it?

If the risks were high then the insurance cost would also be high.

Edit - I'm basing the fiver a year bit on what it would cost if it were mandatory.

Beasty

So what about kids - are they to be banned from the road? In addition, some accidents are caused by pedestrians - should they be insured? What if your cat runs out in front of a car causing it to crash (the car, not the cat!) - should it be insured?

Mucco

Steve wrote: »

For example, where someone gets knocked over and incurs brain damage or a similar injury that would entail lifetime care.
................
That's primarily why I think it should be mandatory.

How often do these incidents happen? As cyclists are very vulnerable, they are much more risk averse than motorists (despite appearances). They have a very strong incentive not to get involved in a crash.
Motorists are the other way, they are insulated in a steel cage with seat belts, airbags etc... Cyclist and pedestrian injuries go up as car safety increases (reference not at hand, but see the result of the mandatory seat belt law).

niceonetom

Steve wrote: »

there are exceptions to that though. For example, where someone gets knocked over and incurs brain damage or a similar injury that would entail lifetime care...

That's not an argument for mandating insurance for cyclists - that's an argument for mandating insurance for everyone doing anything. It's quite possible to accidentally knock someone over and give them permanent brain damage while walking - it's unlikely, but possible - and given the billions of people walking around this planet, it must happen occasionally...

But there aren't loads of injured parties calling for insurance for walker's insurance or cyclist's insurance. It's an entirely hypothetical problem.

No one advocating licensing or insurance has been able to point to a real problem that it would solve. I think it's pretty clear that the only 'problem' that such legislation would solve is the overweening sense of grievance among many motorists. It all boils down to "but I have to pay, why don't they??? Wah! wah! wah!" and no matter how reasonable the explanation is, the misplaced sense of unfairness persists.

Mucco

Steve wrote: »

I don't know how many there are - I suspect you (or most people here) don't either.

The point is, if you had to pay a fiver a year for the peace of mind, wouldn't it be worth it?

If the risks were high then the insurance cost would also be high.

Edit - I'm basing the fiver a year bit on what it would cost if it were mandatory.

Insurance premium = (probablility of incident * payout) + admin costs

The admin costs would probably be the higher cost - better for the state to take care of the risk and spread is across the population

Steve

:eek: I'm being surrounded here!

Beasty wrote: »

So what about kids - are they to be banned from the road? In addition, some accidents are caused by pedestrians - should they be insured? What if your cat runs out in front of a car causing it to crash (the car, not the cat!) - should it be insured?

No, kids should absolutely not be banned from the roads - the topic here is whether they should be insured. Yes IMO - for any form of wheeled transport not only cycles.

Mucco wrote: »

How often do these incidents happen? As cyclists are very vulnerable, they are much more risk averse than motorists (despite appearances). They have a very strong incentive not to get involved in a crash.
Motorists are the other way, they are insulated in a steel cage with seat belts, airbags etc... Cyclist and pedestrian injuries go up as car safety increases (reference not at hand, but see the result of the mandatory seat belt law).

Again, the risk is relative to the cost - the issue is should they have insurance, not their vulnerability relative to that of a motorist.
Their incentive to not get involved in an accident is down to personal safety, not whether or not they are insured.

niceonetom wrote: »

That's not an argument for mandating insurance for cyclists - that's an argument for mandating insurance for everyone doing anything. It's quite possible to accidentally knock someone over and give them permanent brain damage while walking - it's unlikely, but possible - and given the billions of people walking around this planet, it must happen occasionally...

I actually agree with that - maybe this should be thought of in terms or a personal liability insurance.

But there aren't loads of injured parties calling for insurance for walker's insurance or cyclist's insurance. It's an entirely hypothetical problem.

It's also an interesting debate - after all, isn't that why we're all on this site?

No one advocating licensing or insurance has been able to point to a real problem that it would solve. I think it's pretty clear that the only 'problem' that such legislation would solve is the overweening sense of grievance among many motorists. It all boils down to "but I have to pay, why don't they??? Wah! wah! wah!" and no matter how reasonable the explanation is, the misplaced sense of unfairness persists.

It's a valid way to look at this but it's not my personal opinion - I pay insurance for peace-of-mind should the worst happen and I'm found to be at fault. I resent those who think that they are exempt from blame in any situation be they motorists cyclists or pedestrians.
I know as a motorist that if the worst should happen then the person I injured would be looked after by the insurance company.
If I got on a bike in the morning and the worst did happen, I don't think I could live with the guilt if I got away relatively scot free and the injured person had to suffer a lifetime of disability.

Mucco

Steve wrote: »

Re Insurance for everything....It's also an interesting debate - after all, isn't that why we're all on this site?

We're already insured against getting injured, it's called the health service (the state of the Irish health service is another issue)

Steve wrote: »

I pay insurance for peace-of-mind should the worst happen

Careful of the moral hazard

Captain Havoc

Why won't this thread just die?

Steve

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Why won't this thread just die?

Not sure what you mean there, if you think the subject isn't worthy of further discussion in this forum then that's your call as a mod - can you clarify?

CramCycle

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Why won't this thread just die?

You could kill it but then people would start asking why mods don't have insurance. The internet can kill people too, at the very least it leaves plenty brain damaged :pac:

petethedrummer

Steve wrote: »

No, kids should absolutely not be banned from the roads - the topic here is whether they should be insured. Yes IMO - for any form of wheeled transport not only cycles.

Roller blades?

I see a fair few of them in the cycle lanes in the phoenix park. One came close to hitting me one time. Could have scratched my bike or even killed me :eek:. Those fuppers should have insurance. And be made to wear helmets. And attach a license plate to their ar5e.

Steve

LOL.

I agree about the insurance there - good point

Ghost Estate

Cycling should be banned altogether, after all there's a possibility you could die from it even if there were no cars

Captain Havoc

Steve wrote: »

Not sure what you mean there, if you think the subject isn't worthy of further discussion in this forum then that's your call as a mod - can you clarify?

It's a bit like asking turkeys to discuss the merits of Christmas.

carthoris

Ghost Estate wrote: »

Cycling should be banned altogether, after all there's a possibility you could die from it even if there were no cars

You should aim higher and extend the scope further: Life should be banned - it does kill you after all.

Ghost Estate

carthoris wrote: »

You should aim higher and extend the scope further: Life should be banned - it does kill you after all.

All remaining humans should be locked up in a tiny, completely idiot proof apartment where they are made to soak up endless amounts of manufactured entertainment from a screen until they die.

After that the world will remain in a state of permanent eco-bliss, perhaps with a few robots who are deemed to be better all round than humans.

petethedrummer

Everything in the world should be painted luminous yellow, have a flashing light & buzzer attached and wear a helmet and have insurance.

Raam

petethedrummer wrote: »

Everything in the world should be painted luminous yellow, have a flashing light & buzzer attached and wear a helmet and have insurance.

I'd wear black just to stand out.

poochiem

Steve wrote: »

LOL.

I agree about the insurance there - good point

Thanks for helping me. I've just cancelled my VHI, was reading your contributions and it just sparked something. What a waste of money, paying €78 a month going up by 40% now. I'm thinking of getting rid of the tv now too, can you write something in favour of making UPC mandatory?

Bullseye1

el tonto wrote: »

So do you think all other people who could potentially scratch a car should also have insurance? Say it gets scrapped by a trolley in Tesco's car park?

Trolleys don't use roads. I'm talking about bikes on roads.

Stark

So it's only scratches that occur on roads, not on car parks, in driveways etc. that worry you?

Bullseye1

niceonetom wrote: »

If you're going to make the argument that bikes need to be insured on that basis you're also going to have to add prams and shopping trolleys to the list. Those things are a MENACE! Mandatory licensing and insurance for all!

Seriously, mandatory car insurance doesn't exist because of paintwork, it exists because of surgeons, ICUs and funerals.

If your stuck in traffic and a person on their bike rides by your car and hits your car. There is a significant dent and paint damage. Are you saying that the person paying motor tax and insurance to drive on the road should have to fork out of his own pocket or his insurance for that matter?

Or your a pedestrian crossing the road and your knocked down by someone riding a bike. Serious health issues result.

Bullseye1

Stark wrote: »

So it's only scratches that occur on roads, not on car parks, in driveways etc. that worry you?

Thankfully not.

petethedrummer

Bullseye1 wrote: »

If your stuck in traffic and a person on their bike rides by your car and hits your car. There is a significant dent and paint damage. Are you saying that the person paying motor tax and insurance to drive on the road should have to fork out of his own pocket or his insurance for that matter?

Or your a pedestrian crossing the road and your knocked down by someone riding a bike. Serious health issues result.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70690397&postcount=122

Stark

Like blorg said, the cyclist is liable for any damage he causes. What difference does it make to you if the money comes from the person's pocket or their insurance company? The whole "they should have insurance" argument strikes me as simply an attempt to put a stop to people cycling in the first place rather than concern over damage caused.