Campaign calls for cyclists to hold insurance, pay road tax

average_runner

ted1 wrote: »

Did your friend not bring a civil case to get damages ?

50 euro a year? So that's 40 for admin and 10 for insurance. So tell me where you got this figure from? Is it based on policies v claims or did you pick the figure from your ar5e?
Or is it that you pay car insurance like myself and many other Cyclusts do and you are envious of cyclists

Yes he eventually went through the civil court and that took alot more time than an insurance payout.

As for the figure I said a max of 50 euro, it could be alot less. I drive, i cycle and and I run. We have insurance for running, so that if we are out with the club and one should fall and damage themselves, you can claim on your insurance and not against the club.

So its not about driver v cyclists, because i do both.

average_runner

Macy0161 wrote: »

There's no exemption for cyclists from claims against them. What difference would the cyclist having insurance have made?

Our household of two adults already pays "road" tax and insurance on 3 vehicles. Does this mean I should be entitled ride my bike on the road or not?

An insurance claim can be sorted alot quicker than a civil action.

Cyclists should never pay road tax as bikes don't damage the road, I never mention road tax

sydthebeat

Macy0161 wrote: »

How do you know until you bring a case whether they have no money, or aren't covered?

A registration system works so well for motorists - never see them breaking any laws on our roads...

That's a straw man argument if I ever heard one.

average_runner

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Live many drivers, many cyclists are already have insurance....home policies cover it.

As for your friend I'm sorry to hear that he got injured but the state could have covered medical expenses as we have a public health system. That public health system is also partially paid for by cyclists due to the one big pot all taxes go into.

If we were to note down every thing an idiot does (doesn't matter what form of transport....an idiot is an idiot and not a group) then we would run out of space on the internet!

State doesn't cover loss of earnings

average_runner

joey100 wrote: »

I didn't say anywhere that cyclists were angels. I said car drivers should be made to cycle for a week. It's already been said but the majority of cyclists drive a car, the same can't be said about car drivers. What's the harm in seeing what it's like to cycle in a city? I know when I'm driving the least of my worries is if that cyclist has insurance.

BTW, I'm sorry to hear about your friend.

Wouldn't ask someone to cycle in Dublin city because no one including cyclists behave on the road, so wouldn't be nice

Weepsie

mickdw wrote: »

Bringing a Civil case will be a waste of time and money if person at fault has no means to pay. Hence the benefit of insurance.
I've said this before but I genuinely believe cyclists should be required to wear a yellow vest with a personal registration number on the back of that vest. They would then hold a road risks type of public liability and all road users would be secure in the knowledge that they have some comeback against a cyclist that damages property.
With this method, there is no registering of bicycles or anything like that, just that all cyclists must be identifiable.

Do you suppose all drivers should wear these vests for when they are not in their car? Or perhaps all pedestrians for when they are out in the real world?

Ludicrous idea

Leroy42

The problem with the insurance idea, well one of the problems, is that of the cost benefit.

We already see that insurance costs are unregulated, they simply spiral up. And many people cannot then claim off the insurance when something minor happens because of inbuilt thresholds and the loss of NCB.

Most incidents involving cyclists would result in relatively minor costs. (that is of course relative as €250 to repair a wing mirror is still a massive pain in the arse) but that won't be covered by the insurance so you then run straight back into getting money from the cyclist).

This idea crops up every now and again and I have no heard how it actually solves any problems, it more appears to be simply motorist feeling hard done by and they want other s to suffer to make themselves feel a bit better.

The logical extension of the argument (since you would have to include pedestrians as well, and children on bikes, and people with shopping trolleys etc) is that every person needs to take out a personal insurance policy to cover any accidents.

mickdw

Macy0161 wrote: »

How do you know until you bring a case whether they have no money, or aren't covered?

A registration system works so well for motorists - never see them breaking any laws on our roads...

Exactly, you might not know. Who can risk bringing a case in such a situation. Maybe end up costing yourself money. Alot easier to make insurance claim.

sydthebeat

Weepsie wrote: »

Do you suppose all drivers should wear these vests for when they are not in their car? Or perhaps all pedestrians for when they are out in the real world?

Ludicrous idea

Ever car has an individual registration number, why is it ludicrous to suggest a bike has one?

Seems quite reasonable imo

Chips Lovell

expectationlost wrote: »

how did this make it into the Irish Times?

This. I'm sure the authors of the petition can't believe their luck that their bit of trollery has been so widely picked up.

For anyone tempted to take the argument seriously, bear in mind that mandatory motor insurance exists because the number and cost of accidents was high enough that it was decided there was a societal benefit in obligating motorists to insure themselves. You'd need a massive increase in the number of accidents for the same argument to be made for cyclists.

Simply saying you should have compulsory insurance because you might have an accident means the same logic would call for compulsory pedestrian insurance and suchlike.

Hmmzis

Claiming against 3rd party damages on said 3rd partys household insurance is similar to a claim against motoring insurance. You fill out a claim form and submit it. The insurance company will pay out if the claim is small without a fuss. For bigger claims it'll go through a longer process and you might have to get some paperwork from the Guards confirming that the incident happened.

Similarly if you hold a health insurance policy, claim all what you are covered for and indicate the damage was done by a third party. The insurance company will compensate you and will go after the third party to recuperate costs.

Loss of earnings is not covered by any third party policy that I would know of.
You can get legal protection/assistance cover that will help with bringing a civil case to court (or a settlement out of court) but that is an extra.

Jawgap

sydthebeat wrote: »

Ever car has an individual registration number, why is it ludicrous to suggest a bike has one?

Seems quite reasonable imo

.....if you're from Mayo.....

Cyclists in Mayo to be issued with number plates this week



The cost of administering the scheme would far far exceed any revenue raised - and the impact on safety would negligible.

cython

average_runner wrote: »

Yes he eventually went through the civil court and that took alot more time than an insurance payout.

As for the figure I said a max of 50 euro, it could be alot less. I drive, i cycle and and I run. We have insurance for running, so that if we are out with the club and one should fall and damage themselves, you can claim on your insurance and not against the club.

So its not about driver v cyclists, because i do both.

Club cyclists already have the same thing as long as they are registered with Cycling Ireland (and pretty much all are, as it's the governing body), and it is a requirement that they have a CI license to participate in club spins, so I fail to see the relevance of essentially highlighting that runners have the equivalent setup?

Sam Kade

Bongalongherb wrote: »

If cyclists want to use the roads then they should pay tax and insurance just like every other road user. It will happen here soon I'm sure of that. We cannot have a group of people paying it and others not.

What you pay is motor tax, you are not paying to use the road

Hmmzis

sydthebeat wrote: »

Ever car has an individual registration number, why is it ludicrous to suggest a bike has one?

Seems quite reasonable imo

That's for taxation purposes. If you move the car from one country to another you'll have to change the reg number and register it in the new country and pay their equivalent of VRT, Motor Tax and whatnot.

Reg numbers have nothing to do with insurance. Insurance is for the individual driving the vehicle, since the vehicle itself is an inanimate object. If nobody is driving it you only have to pay taxes on it.

In order to identify who was driving a car it's not sufficient to have the reg number alone. At least a description of the driver is needed to have a case when a legal dispute arrises. There have been quite a few cases where blame of a hit and run couldn't attributed due to a missing driver description and no clear proof of who was driving said vehicle at that point in time.

magicbastarder

sydthebeat wrote: »

Ever car has an individual registration number, why is it ludicrous to suggest a bike has one?

Seems quite reasonable imo

it's not going to happen - the stated aim is to get more people out of cars and onto bikes, and making a registration number mandatory for bikes would have a massive impact on this.

the government recently announced there are no plans to make hi-vis mandatory, and announced a few years ago that there is no intention to make helmets mandatory.

we would be one of the first countries in the world (australia may beat us to it) where the simple act of riding a bike requires filing paperwork with the government. it's a farcical idea.

average_runner

Putting registration number on bikes is a bit extreme now

amcalester

sydthebeat wrote: »

Ever car has an individual registration number, why is it ludicrous to suggest a bike has one?

Seems quite reasonable imo

For what purpose though?

What problem will it solve?

sydthebeat

magicbastarder wrote: »

- the stated aim is to get more people out of cars and onto bikes,.

Yes, and the increased frequency of bike riders has knock on effects such as increased frequency of damage and injury caused by cyclists. To suggest that the status quo is acceptable going forward is to ignore the good work being made to encourage cycling. 'cyclingireland' membership afford public liability insurance to its members.

a means of identification of cyclists is all that mickdw was calling for, not really a ground breaking suggestion to be honest. Traffic cameras etc can catch motorists making illegal traffic movements so why not expand this forward to cyclists? after all, it would only affect those cyclists that break the law.

terrydel

Absolutely absurd and completely media generated.
It angers me no end that the media have created this 'war' between cyclists and other road users. Is there any other country on the planet where this issue is even discussed, or seen as viable? My hole there is.
And I'm not for one minute suggesting cyclists are saints, loads of commuting cyclists in particular, in my experience are absolute twats, and deserve a good slap. But that is no justification at all for this nanny state nonsense. Where does it end, insurance for people walking their dogs, pushing prams etc?
The media here are a fu*king joke, they exist only to sell advertising now, and should be ashamed of themselves. They'll no doubt act blameless when a cyclist is finally killed as a result of this 'feud'.

durtybit

Would it not make more sense to segregate the 2 totally same as pedestrians and cars since we all are unable to live in harmony. I know this costs a lot of money but it's dooable (I would pay a tax to contribute this solely)

We all pay tax for the roads if we drive or not drive.


Motorists have bad habits so do cyclists bit the fact of the matter is severe damage is most likely from the motorists

bog master

Sam Kade wrote: »

What you pay is motor tax, you are not paying to use the road

I beg to differ. You pay a tax in order to use your motor vehicle on a public road. You can own any number of motorised vehicles and pay no road tax if not used on a public road.

Fighting Tao

bog master wrote: »

I beg to differ. You pay a tax in order to use your motor vehicle on a public road. You can own any number of motorised vehicles and pay no road tax if not used on a public road.

So just say we rolled back 80 years of progress and made motor tax road tax. The fairest way to do it is by weight of vehicle due to the damage they cause roads. Bikes would still be €0.

durtybit

bog master wrote: »

I beg to differ. You pay a tax in order to use your motor vehicle on a public road. You can own any number of motorised vehicles and pay no road tax if not used on a public road.

Your paying a tax to use a motorised vehicle on a public road (which is paid for through the general tax pool obviously motor tax being part of that tax pool)

bog master

Fighting Tao wrote: »

So just say we rolled back 80 years of progress and made motor tax road tax. The fairest way to do it is by weight of vehicle due to the damage they cause roads. Bikes would still be €0.

I would have no argument with that! Maybe I am a bit pedantic on the subject :cool:

magicbastarder

terrydel wrote: »

It angers me no end that the media have created this 'war' between cyclists and other road users. Is there any other country on the planet where this issue is even discussed, or seen as viable? My hole there is.

australia. even worse than here, i understand.

magicbastarder

sydthebeat wrote: »

a means of identification of cyclists is all that mickdw was calling for, not really a ground breaking suggestion to be honest.

how would this be implemented? clearly said means of identification would be much smaller than on a car, rendering it probably ineffective.

Planet X

When will the NCT test be coming in?
Soz......NBT.

Fighting Tao

magicbastarder wrote: »

how would this be implemented? clearly said means of identification would be much smaller than on a car, rendering it probably ineffective.

Unless it's the size of a car or motorbike number plate it would be ineffective. Peoples eyesight is bad when it comes to spotting cyclists as we know well. Also bikes would need one front and back. Number plates would possibly end up causing more damage to cars when filtering due to it being wider than the bike so another law would have to be changed to stop filtering and also the advance stop boxes would have to be removed to stop the temptation to filter. I can see exactly how this works now.

durtybit

Planet X wrote: »

When will the NCT test be coming in?
Soz......NBT.

Currently motorbikes dont need any test