Cyclists, insurance and road tax

Furze99

So has anyone seriously tackled the OPs point re insurance for cyclists? Perhaps it covered under motor insurance where cyclists have motor policies. Then individual insurance for the rest, cut off say all over 12 yr olds to be insured.

magicbastarder

the thread is over one and a half thousand posts long. you're asking if anyone addressed the question in the OP?

maestroamado

Furze99 wrote: »

So has anyone seriously tackled the OPs point re insurance for cyclists? Perhaps it covered under motor insurance where cyclists have motor policies. Then individual insurance for the rest, cut off say all over 12 yr olds to be insured.

I doubt if it is really a runner to make bicycle insurance compulsory but i am sure anyone can take if the wish, something like car-hire excess insurance.


The bigger concern for me is we have not signed up for the "presumed liability" as that give clear direction to what we are about. I thought we were in this already.


I was talking to some Brits a few years ago and this came up, i thought they were leaving because of Brexit, i did not know until today we never signed up as i thought we had a duty to sign up to all the safety mechanisms in EU...

AndrewJRenko

Furze99 wrote: »

So has anyone seriously tackled the OPs point re insurance for cyclists? Perhaps it covered under motor insurance where cyclists have motor policies. Then individual insurance for the rest, cut off say all over 12 yr olds to be insured.

Yes, it was seriously tackled a number of times, by asking questions like ;

- why would we want to do this?
- what problem does solve?
- does this mean that pedestrians need insurance?

Unfortunately the UP hasn't answered any of these questions. Maybe you'd like to give them a shot?

Pinch Flat

Furze99 wrote: »

So has anyone seriously tackled the OPs point re insurance for cyclists? Perhaps it covered under motor insurance where cyclists have motor policies. Then individual insurance for the rest, cut off say all over 12 yr olds to be insured.

Insurance has been discussed. What is your view of the main purpose of cycling insurance?

BabysCoffee

Furze99 wrote: »

So has anyone seriously tackled the OPs point re insurance for cyclists? Perhaps it covered under motor insurance where cyclists have motor policies. Then individual insurance for the rest, cut off say all over 12 yr olds to be insured.

Why do you think an 11 yr old doesn't need insurance, but a 12 year old does need insurance?

Where cyclists have motor insurance too (as many do because a lot of cyclists are also car drivers) should there not be a reduction in car insurance costs as cyclists are generally safer than car drivers who do not cycle? Also the times when they don't use their when they are on their bike they are less likely to cause a serious accident?

Or are you proposing cyclists need to have insurance in order to cover them from the dangers of car drivers which is more of a danger to them than they are a danger to the car driver?

Pinch Flat

Sorry for not posting in a while. Just back from a beautiful tax free cycle around North County Dublin.

magicbastarder

did you not hit any taxing climbs on your cycle?

(i'll get my gilet)

Pinch Flat

magicbastarder wrote: »

did you not hit any taxing climbs on your cycle?

(i'll get my gilet)

Went around the naul. Say no more. did my first 100km im a while.


Disclaimer - no motorist was held up for more than 5 seconds on this spin

Fighting Tao

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Went around the naul. Say no more. did my first 100km im a while.


Disclaimer - no motorist was held up for more than 5 seconds on this spin

I don’t believe you. Everyone knows that you held up every driver within 30km of you for at least 10 minutes each.

Pinch Flat

I'm sure Joe Duffy will have it covered tomorrow.

secman

God almighty i wish cyclists would ignore perpetual threads like this, a total waste of God's time, life is short enough.

km991148

secman wrote: »

God almighty i wish cyclists would ignore perpetual threads like this, a total waste of God's time, life is short enough.

A little bit. But then maybe also people who would normally just chime in with the usual arguments and see that maybe cyclists aren't so bad (if we must generalise/homogonise..) and that the usual arguments don't really make sense.
I think it's also good to see where those who want to propose such arguments are coming from.

Maybe that's all delusional tho..

Plus it was a crap week last week so passed the time a bit :pac:

John_Rambo

km991148 wrote: »

A little bit. But then maybe also people who would normally just chime in with the usual arguments and see that maybe cyclists aren't so bad (if we must generalise/homogonise..) and that the usual arguments don't really make sense.
I think it's also good to see where those who want to propose such arguments are coming from.

Maybe that's all delusional tho..

Plus it was a crap week last week so passed the time a bit :pac:

Agreed, I think a lot of motorists that haven't seen the ROTR in years get an education on these threads. There's a huge amount of ignorance regarding cyclists on this thread put right.

Overall and embarrassingly bad show from my fellow motorists, the cyclists proved to have more knowledge of the ROTR. A lot of misinformation and misinterpretations from the motorists.

magicbastarder

was great to see the number of cyclists out on the roads today, i'd say on some roads i was seeing five cyclists for every car (though cyclists are probably more likely to be out earlier - not that it was frighteningly early, about half ten when i started out).

only one brain dead stunt from a motorist in the 85km i did - out at man'o'war; coming towards me, a motorist decided to overtake two cyclists (who'd already indicated they were taking a left 20m in front of them, so completely pointless anyway) leaving me with i guess 1.5 to 2m between him and the side of the road.

also, i'm fairly certain i'm seeing a lot more women out on bikes, which is great to see.

Zebra3

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Went around the naul. Say no more. did my first 100km im a while.


Disclaimer - no motorist was held up for more than 5 seconds on this spin

Coming back from the shops today (walking, it's great free exercise-some of you should try it!!!) and a motorist pulls a delivery van pulls out in to the road and blocks traffic in one lane for about 30 seconds. None of the motorists seemed at all bothered by it. I wonder would they have been so calm if a cyclist had blocked them for the same length of time while showing the same level of utter contempt for them.

km991148

Zebra3 wrote: »

Coming back from the shops today (walking, it's great free exercise-some of you should try it!!!) and a motorist pulls a delivery van pulls out in to the road and blocks traffic in one lane for about 30 seconds. None of the motorists seemed at all bothered by it. I wonder would they have been so calm if a cyclist had blocked them for the same length of time while showing the same level of utter contempt for them.

Bet they had the hazards on as well, which from most angles look like someone indicating to the right and about to pull out..


Ugh

maestroamado

Zebra3 wrote: »

Coming back from the shops today (walking, it's great free exercise-some of you should try it!!!) and a motorist pulls a delivery van pulls out in to the road and blocks traffic in one lane for about 30 seconds. None of the motorists seemed at all bothered by it. I wonder would they have been so calm if a cyclist had blocked them for the same length of time while showing the same level of utter contempt for them.

So you were the only whinger on the scene of the crime...

maestroamado

magicbastarder wrote: »

was great to see the number of cyclists out on the roads today, i'd say on some roads i was seeing five cyclists for every car (though cyclists are probably more likely to be out earlier - not that it was frighteningly early, about half ten when i started out).

only one brain dead stunt from a motorist in the 85km i did - out at man'o'war; coming towards me, a motorist decided to overtake two cyclists (who'd already indicated they were taking a left 20m in front of them, so completely pointless anyway) leaving me with i guess 1.5 to 2m between him and the side of the road.

also, i'm fairly certain i'm seeing a lot more women out on bikes, which is great to see.

Sure we all like to have a ride...

85603

Furze99 wrote: »

So has anyone seriously tackled the OPs point re insurance for cyclists? Perhaps it covered under motor insurance where cyclists have motor policies. Then individual insurance for the rest, cut off say all over 12 yr olds to be insured.

Agreed, they are road users after all.

(And footpath users when it suits)

statto25

85603 wrote: »

Agreed, they are road users after all.

(And footpath users when it suits)

....and with that the circle is complete and the arguments starts all over again

Fighting Tao

85603 wrote: »

Agreed, they are road users after all.

(And footpath users when it suits)

Have you actually read the thread you are posing in before posting nonsense? It has all been very well addressed.

85603

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Have you actually read the thread you are posing in before posting nonsense? It has all been very well addressed.

I felt like agreeing with a good point. You dont have to participate if youve nothing to contribute.

Its a topic worth addressing. Road users need insurance.

And with the growth in electric scooters, and the calls for their regulation/taxing/insuring now is a good time to ask this question.

Hurrache

What kind of eejit restarted a particularly dumb thread, presumably because they have some new and amazingly insightful points which nobody has made or heard before?

Fighting Tao

85603 wrote: »

I felt like agreeing with a good point. You dont have to participate if youve nothing to contribute.

Its a topic worth addressing. Road users need insurance.

And with the growth in electric scooters, and the calls for their regulation/taxing/insuring now is a good time to ask this question.

It has been addressed....over and over in this thread.

So you now want to introduce e-scooter users into the equation. Surely that will be covered in the upcoming legislation, and there will be a thread to bash e-scooter users because a few motorists don't agree with the law.

AndrewJRenko

85603 wrote: »

Its a topic worth addressing. Road users need insurance.

.

What kind of insurance would you suggest for pedestrians crossing the road?

85603

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What kind of insurance would you suggest for pedestrians crossing the road?

You want pedestrian insurance??

:pac:

Fighting Tao

85603 wrote: »

You want pedestrian insurance??

:pac:

You are the one that stated that road users need insurance, so it's your argument. Are you not backing it up?

85603

85603 wrote: »

I felt like agreeing with a good point. You dont have to participate if youve nothing to contribute.

Its a topic worth addressing. Road users need insurance.

And with the growth in electric scooters, and the calls for their regulation/taxing/insuring now is a good time to ask this question.

Should my 5yr old on her Barbie trike have insurance and be on the road , or should l let her cycle on the footpath.

Kermit.de.frog

I think without a doubt some sort of tax has to be applied on cyclists principally for new infrastructure. It will happen soon enough, it's just a case of how best to the levy charges. There is no free lunch.