Campaign calls for cyclists to hold insurance, pay road tax

mcgratheoin

hullaballoo wrote: »

What happens when a cyclist causes their own injuries at present?

What happens when a cyclist causes an accident between two cars?

What happens when a cyclist causes a catastrophic injury to a pedestrian?

From a purely actuarial point of view, these situations happen so infrequently that it is not worth the expense of implementing any scheme to solve a problem that doesn't really exist.

It's been mentioned here before, but I think that there's only been one pedestrian fatality in Ireland attributable to a cyclist breaking the ROTR (not sure of catastrophic injury figures, but I'd imagine if it was anything significant the anti-cycling brigade would be trumpeting it loudly). As for their own injuries, many cyclists (particularly those at higher risk of injuries e.g. racing cyclists) are already covered with insurance. Additionally, your points above equally apply to pedestrians but nobody is suggesting that pedestrians need to be licenced or have insurance?

tomasrojo

This site discusses the issue in a fair bit of detail.
http://ipayroadtax.com/licensed-to-cycle/licensed-to-cycle/

It goes Godwin about a quarter of the way through, but we're also past that stage.

Leroy42

hullaballoo wrote: »

I'm not sure about compulsory insurance for everyone who ever gets on a bike (little Johnny can cycle around the green uninsured all he wants!) but surely it's a good idea for those using public roads?

What happens when a cyclist causes their own injuries at present? They cover the costs themselves, right? What happens if the injury is catastrophic, like a broken back? This sort of thing costs multiple millions over a lifetime, impossible for most individuals to cover.

What happens when a cyclist causes an accident between two cars? The cyclist is at fault and the legal system requires the party who is to blame to be held responsible but at present, the car drivers' insurers have to do battle to see who of the two victims is the least victim-y.

What happens when a cyclist causes a catastrophic injury to a pedestrian?

All genuine concerns but how frequent are they? If they are sizeable they the case would be strong but nobody is proving anything other than personal anecdotes to back up their wish.

A certain number of people die each year from choking, should we demand personal insurance? Should DIY be regulated since it leads to numerous accidents.

Drink causing many accidents and yet you don't need a licence for that.

It comes down to potential damage to others and insurance is designed to return the injuried party back to their original state prior to an accident.

So are cyclists causing a significant amount of damage to either people or property?

Roadhawk

tomasrojo wrote: »

You're implying that the way things are done in every country in the world is insane, including the countries with excellent crime and road safety statistics.

I thought about that then asked myself why is there so much conflict between cyclists and other road users in "every other country" regardless of their excellent crime and road safety statistics?

What are the negatives of implementing a licenses?

mcgratheoin

Just as a quick mention as well, road traffic accidents cost the state over €700 million in 2012 - that's not cost to the economy, it's direct costs comprised of gardai, fire services, repairs to roads, cleanup efforts, A&E in hospitals etc..

mcgratheoin

Roadhawk wrote: »

I thought about that then asked myself why is there so much conflict between cyclists and other road users in "every other country" regardless of their excellent crime and road safety statistics?

There isn't.

Lumen

Leroy42 wrote: »

All genuine concerns but how frequent are they? If they are sizeable they the case would be strong but nobody is proving anything other than personal anecdotes to back up their wish.

The thought process is way more basic than this.

Certain drivers see cyclists using the same roads they do, but moving around faster, more cheaply, with fewer restrictions, and occasionally enjoying themselves.

This bothers them because they're arseholes.

They then invent a rationale for justifying why the cyclists should have the same restrictions imposed as drivers.

There really is no more to it than that.

hullaballoo

It is more than a bit disingenuous to pooh-pooh legitimate concerns because there is no statistical evidence available as to the incidences of injuries of a serious nature caused by cyclists to others. My aunt was killed by a cyclist and it just so happens that it was a bit of a blessing she died because if she hadn't, she would have been badly brain damaged leaving her family members to try and pick up the tab for her care for the rest of her days. That's anecdotal, is it?

If one person a year is catastrophically injured by a cyclist, that is enough in my book to insist on insurance to cover these statistically insignificant incidents.

If they are so infrequent as to not be considered a real risk, that would be reflected in the premium being spectacularly low - because that is how insurance works.

Weepsie

hullaballoo wrote: »

What happens when a cyclist causes a catastrophic injury to a pedestrian?

Earlier this year a cyclist hit a pedestrian in the phoenix park. The pedestrian was in the cycle lane. The cyclist died.

Last year a friend hit a pedestrian who was in the cycle lane. My friend came off far worse.

There's just two incidents where pedestrians can cause, or contribute to serious injury. None of this nonsense that pedestrians don't cause damage, they do. I've been guilty of it myself. Pedestrians are careless and unpredictable. They can very much cause incident and injury.

Weepsie

hullaballoo wrote: »

If one person a year is catastrophically injured by a cyclist, that is enough in my book to insist on insurance to cover these statistically insignificant incidents.

.

So you agree that pedestrians should have it too?

boardbeer

mcgratheoin wrote: »

From a purely actuarial point of view, these situations happen so infrequently that it is not worth the expense of implementing any scheme to solve a problem that doesn't really exist.

yeah, it was like when I lived in Florida, I had a fully tricked-out GSXR750 motorized bicycle, and there was no legal requirement to have insurance (I got some anyway), because motorcycles are involved in something 0.00001% of accidents - it wasn't worth the paperwork, I guess.

Roadhawk

mcgratheoin wrote: »

There isn't.

Seriously...

mcgratheoin

hullaballoo wrote: »

It is more than a bit disingenuous to pooh-pooh legitimate concerns because there is no statistical evidence available as to the incidences of injuries of a serious nature caused by cyclists to others.

No, no it's not. You're advocating legislating for licences and mandatory third party insurance for cyclists based off anecdotal evidence, the burden of proof is on you to produce figures that back up your arguments and show a real need for this.

hullaballoo wrote: »

My aunt was killed by a cyclist and it just so happens that it was a bit of a blessing she died because if she hadn't, she would have been badly brain damaged leaving her family members to try and pick up the tab for her care for the rest of her days. That's anecdotal, is it?

I'm sorry about your aunt that's terrible to happen to anyone. I would assume that the gardai and justice system followed up on the incident and would hope that the cyclist was held to account. But at the same time I'm not going to be emotionally blackmailed because yes, that's pretty much the definition of anecdotal and is the kind of remark that leads to another round of whataboutery.

hullaballoo wrote: »

If one person a year is catastrophically injured by a cyclist, that is enough in my book to insist on insurance to cover these statistically insignificant incidents.

That's the same argument that is used by mandatory helmet campaigners and it is always applied selectively by whoever is proposing it. By the same logic everybody should have public liability insurance "just in case".

seamus

hullaballoo wrote: »

If one person a year is catastrophically injured by a cyclist, that is enough in my book to insist on insurance to cover these statistically insignificant incidents.

Remembering of course that the existence of insurance wouldn't reduce the likelihood of such an incident, that means that ultimately it all comes down to finances.

What would be the cost of mandatory insurance for cyclists - to the exchequer and to society - versus the cost of the exchequer dealing with one-off catastrophic injuries.

That's what it boils down to.

What would be achieved by mandatory insurance? Nothing, ultimately. The country would be out of pocket and there would be no social or financial gain.

In fact, we know that the relative number of cyclist injuries and fatalities would increase because the number of cyclists would go down.

cython

hullaballoo wrote: »

It is more than a bit disingenuous to pooh-pooh legitimate concerns because there is no statistical evidence available as to the incidences of injuries of a serious nature caused by cyclists to others. My aunt was killed by a cyclist and it just so happens that it was a bit of a blessing she died because if she hadn't, she would have been badly brain damaged leaving her family members to try and pick up the tab for her care for the rest of her days. That's anecdotal, is it?

If one person a year is catastrophically injured by a cyclist, that is enough in my book to insist on insurance to cover these statistically insignificant incidents.

If they are so infrequent as to not be considered a real risk, that would be reflected in the premium being spectacularly low - because that is how insurance works.

Eh, not really, as you hit a point whereby the premium can't drop below a certain amount due to admin costs, etc. As it happens the admin cost of a motor insurance sale is reasonably small in the context of the overall premium but is probably in the order of 10's of euro anyway. If you want the insurance to be "spectacularly low" (to my mind that needs to be well under 40 quid which is the cost of a Cycling Ireland leisure license), then you need to reduce that cost of admin for the policy to a lot less than that, otherwise there is nothing left for the premium.

PeadarCo

Roadhawk wrote:

Seriously...

Outside social media there's no real conflict. The agro that's out there is the fairly standard road user to road user dissagreements. 99% of other road users I don't have an issue with whether I'm walking cycling or driving. We just tend to remember the negative stuff better. You'll notice the odd eject but forget about everything else.

mcgratheoin

Roadhawk wrote: »

Seriously...

Yeah seriously. There are plenty of countries where the so called "conflict" between drivers and cyclists is pretty non-existent. Even here isn't actually that bad - most drivers and most cyclists are quite happy to share the road, especially given that they're not actually competing for space. There'll always be the divide and conquer keyboard warrior types but you'd think from your comments that there's all out war between different road users. That's not my experience driving or cycling.

Jawgap

Roadhawk wrote: »

Well the difference here is quite noticeable. A cyclist is in control of a vehicle and therefore should be licensed. Pedestrians are not in control of any vehicle and therefore should be exempt.

True, but there are aspects of the road traffic legislation that apply to them, just as there are parts that apply to horse riders, mobility scooters, skateboarders, roller-bladers, and even segway riders......

.....so why pick on cyclists to carry id, when like pretty much every other class of road user aside from drivers, there is no requirement for them to pass a test?

Also if there was a requirement to carry id - what age should it kick in? there are plenty of 14 year olds who can make a bike go a lot faster than I can - should we make it mandatory for cyclists aged 14 and above to carry id? 12 and above?

Jawgap

mickdw wrote: »

Hence my idea of identifier displayed on back on high viz vest. No need for plates at all and one on the back is plenty. Any cyclist making his get away having caused damage will have his back to you unless he peddles off backwards.

Couldn't I just mock one up? It's easy enough to clone number plates I can't imagine a hi-viz would be that much more difficult.

....or just borrow my brother's

Jawgap

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Yeah seriously. There are plenty of countries where the so called "conflict" between drivers and cyclists is pretty non-existent. Even here isn't actually that bad - most drivers and most cyclists are quite happy to share the road, especially given that they're not actually competing for space. There'll always be the divide and conquer keyboard warrior types but you'd think from your comments that there's all out war between different road users. That's not my experience driving or cycling.

Perception.....



Reality....

Roadhawk

PeadarCo wrote: »

Outside social media there's no real conflict.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZiA3NkOE_c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6e0t8sDevs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXnTvScGnCc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfdvIfT8H5c

...I think the conflict is real...

Wishbone Ash

Roadhawk wrote: »

..What are the negatives of implementing a licenses?

For a start, almost every child in the country would have to have one. Should we expect 6 year-olds to be hauled before the courts if they don't have one?

PeadarCo

Roadhawk wrote:

...I think the conflict is real...

Thanks for giving me a laugh.

So your proof that there's serious conflict between cyclists and drivers outside social media are links to social media in this case youtube.

mcgratheoin

Roadhawk wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZiA3NkOE_c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6e0t8sDevs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXnTvScGnCc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfdvIfT8H5c

...I think the conflict is real...

Yeah Youtube is really representative.

Lumen

Roadhawk wrote: »

...I think the conflict is real...

Ah, there's lots of crazy stuff on Youtube. You're watching the wrong stuff. If you spent less time searching for videos of for people getting angry with each other and more time watching stuff like this you might have a more positive view of the world.

Roadhawk

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

For a start, almost every child in the country would have to have one. Should we expect 6 year-olds to be hauled before the courts if they don't have one?

If you read the posts earlier i suggested that from the age of 16 up should be made do a theory test for a cycling license. they could receive training in secondary school in preparation for the test. I have heard of many countries who provide cycle safety training at secondary level. Correct me if i am wrong but i think Amsterdam and Copenhagen have this training for students.

Jawgap

Roadhawk wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZiA3NkOE_c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6e0t8sDevs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXnTvScGnCc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfdvIfT8H5c

...I think the conflict is real...

Out of interest, how often do you cycle?

I'd bracket myself as a reasonable frequent cyclist - and certainly around Dublin and NCD I find I don't run into any more idiots on the bike than I do when I'm in the car or when I'm out walking.

My own experience is that the vast majority of the time the vast majority of motorists exhibit courteous and considerate behaviour - there are idiots out there, but they'd be out there anyway even if no one cycled.

EDIT: btw, I'm not sure what the youtube clips demonstrate other than incidents take place - no one is going to post up video from a 4 hour spin or a month of commuting where absolutely nothing of consequence happened.

PaulieC

Roadhawk wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZiA3NkOE_c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6e0t8sDevs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXnTvScGnCc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfdvIfT8H5c

...I think the conflict is real...

None of those blokes are helping themselves in fairness

Roadhawk

Lumen wrote: »

Ah, there's lots of crazy stuff on Youtube. You're watching the wrong stuff. If you spent less time searching for videos of for people getting angry with each other and more time watching stuff like this you might have a more positive view of the world.

haha whatever jeeps your jeep

Jawgap

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

For a start, almost every child in the country would have to have one. Should we expect 6 year-olds to be hauled before the courts if they don't have one?

Don't be ridiculous......


......wait 'til they're 8 then they can pay the fine with their communion money