I’ve seen motorists on mobile phones, applying make up and doing all sorts of moronic things that are distracting from driving. Driving should be considered a privilege and not a right as we have lapsed into thinking in this country.I've seen several cyclists riding non-handed while texting. Another was eating a bag of chips.
Worst was the teen on a BMX who came down a hill and went through a red light at a crossroads with his hands in his pockets. A car with right-of-way clipped his back wheel and he hit the road face first. Not pretty.
Funniest was another teen on a BMX (which had no brakes) racing down a pedestrian only walkway, having to throw himself to the floor to avoid hitting the two coppers who walked round the corner. Bruises and a right bollocking; not a good day for him.
While waiting at a red light, I was once asked by a group of pedestrians if I knew cyclists didn't have to stop at red lights; they expanded to say that car rules don't apply to us.
It didn't appear to be a p*** take, they actually seemed to believe that to be true...
and help to keep the site free for all
Motorist faces jail for assaulting cyclist
- Thread starter Ste_S
- Start date
- Messages
- 23,536
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
Once again, we have collectively observed that people do dumb things while operating their chosen form of transport. In context of the OP, a cyclist can't easily catch and thump a driver, but otherwise both sides seem pretty equal.
- Messages
- 9,258
- Edit My Images
- No
Why do these discussions get taken over by flag-waving posts telling us how bad the other side is? There are idiot pedestrians, cyclists and drivers and if you haven't noticed any you can't be paying sufficient attention. 
- Messages
- 2,782
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Whenever a cycling post appears on the internet I like to play a little game:Why do these discussions get taken over by flag-waving posts telling us how bad the other side is? There are idiot pedestrians, cyclists and drivers and if you haven't noticed any you can't be paying sufficient attention.
"Road Tax"..."Insurance"..."Lycra"...BINGO!
- Messages
- 9,258
- Edit My Images
- No
To be honest I use "Lycra" but I also use "phone zombie" and "boy racer".
dod
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 16,678
- Name
- Ebenezer McScrooge III
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Identification may be something to do with it but as the policeman on the Ch 5 programme said last night most cyclists are painfully aware of their vulnerability and don't tend to put themselves at risk. I'd probably disagree with the percentage comment but there's no way of proving it one way or the other. I've no issue with number plates or some other means of identification. however, given that pedestrians also cause accidents should they also have some means of public identification?
Cycling on the road etc, agreed. Insurance is interesting, most enthusiasts will have it. I'd have thought anyone cycling professionally eg deliveroo etc would be well advised to have it although I guess that's the last thing on their mind most of the time. Perhaps the companies have it?
Substitute cyclist for car driver, motorcyclist, pedestrian in your last point and your getting there.
Actually, I could extend that to the guy in the wheelchair I saw last week wheelying across the dual carriageway in Inverness Interesting point on who should have insurance, the level of damage that a cycle can cause is minuscule compared to cars. And as pointed out why not require pedestrians to have insurance. If they step out in front of a cyclist and cause an accident then that can be costly and may need insurance levels of cover. Where and what is the criteria or is the insurance point just aimed at insuring people who use roads?Identification may be something to do with it but as the policeman on the Ch 5 programme said last night most cyclists are painfully aware of their vulnerability and don't tend to put themselves at risk. I'd probably disagree with the percentage comment but there's no way of proving it one way or the other. I've no issue with number plates or some other means of identification. however, given that pedestrians also cause accidents should they also have some means of public identification?
Cycling on the road etc, agreed. Insurance is interesting, most enthusiasts will have it. I'd have thought anyone cycling professionally eg deliveroo etc would be well advised to have it although I guess that's the last thing on their mind most of the time. Perhaps the companies have it?
Substitute cyclist for car driver, motorcyclist, pedestrian in your last point and your getting there.
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The only time kids have there hands on the handlebars around here seems to be when pulling wheelies. Not just on residential roads neither, they will happily pull wheelies or ride with no hands in traffic through the towns too.
Thankfully the spate of youths riding around without crash helmets on stolen mopeds seems to have died off over the last year.
- Messages
- 9,910
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- Yes
To be fair a cyclist can still kill though just as a car can. Is there any legal requirement for cyclists to have insurance cover as I'm not sure? What about ensuring their bike is maintained to a safe condition like a car MOT? It's an assumption to say that a cyclist is more likely to keep their bike in good condition, although I do believe that realistically it would be more likely (and less expensive than a car?)
I cycle myself now and then and I don't have a problem with most cyclists but I do think that the more cyclists are requiring fair use of the roads then some sort of oversight or legislation will be required.
I cycle myself now and then and I don't have a problem with most cyclists but I do think that the more cyclists are requiring fair use of the roads then some sort of oversight or legislation will be required.
- Messages
- 23,536
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
We really don't want to go down the route of compulsory insurance and registration for cyclists, pedestrians etc - that way lays both madness and fear of going out.
dod
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 16,678
- Name
- Ebenezer McScrooge III
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'd agree. Where do you stop/start with that? Age based? Size based? Value of bicycle? Weight? (more mass =more energy= more dangerous)
Motorists have to realise their days of driving as they do now are numbered anyway, embrace the change now. Once electric vehicles are mainstream the driver less car will follow very soon after. I foresee individuals not bothering to own cars because it's simply not worth it. You'll just rent a vehicle from some central distribution point, tell it where to pick you up and deliver you. job done.
- Messages
- 10,866
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Would that be children's bikes too?
- Messages
- 16,752
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
Why do these discussions get taken over by flag-waving posts telling us how bad the other side is? There are idiot pedestrians, cyclists and drivers and if you haven't noticed any you can't be paying sufficient attention.
Already answered I see.
Like I said, it's not the modes of transport at blame here, it's the idiots controlling them. Pedestrians can be as bad as any, walking out in front of cars/bikes, stalling on crossings when the lights are green for traffic etc ... but they get a pass it seems because we are all a pedestrian at some point. As soon as you park your car you are one, so they're grand
- Messages
- 4,362
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Cycling through London daily I see poor behaviour from everyone, I also see exceptionally good but that is boring to talk about....
As already said, the mode of transport is irrelevant, it is the person that is the problem. Now I don't know if I am imagining it, but I do think I have noticed an odd trend, one that goes against common sense.
There are plenty of bad car drivers.
I see many bad cyclists, jumping red lights etc (still a small minority I might add)
But I see many many more examples of pedestrians stepping out into roads without looking etc.
So yes, there are idiots everywhere, but it does appear to me at least that the more vulnerable a method of transport they use, the more likely they are to act recklessly. I guess many people don't see risks but do see themselves as more nimble and able to take 'opportunities' as they use smaller and smaller vehicles (can shoes be considered vehicles?)
As already said, the mode of transport is irrelevant, it is the person that is the problem. Now I don't know if I am imagining it, but I do think I have noticed an odd trend, one that goes against common sense.
There are plenty of bad car drivers.
I see many bad cyclists, jumping red lights etc (still a small minority I might add)
But I see many many more examples of pedestrians stepping out into roads without looking etc.
So yes, there are idiots everywhere, but it does appear to me at least that the more vulnerable a method of transport they use, the more likely they are to act recklessly. I guess many people don't see risks but do see themselves as more nimble and able to take 'opportunities' as they use smaller and smaller vehicles (can shoes be considered vehicles?)
- Messages
- 9,910
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Nope.
dod
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 16,678
- Name
- Ebenezer McScrooge III
- Edit My Images
- Yes
so where's the cut off? 16? 18? Many of the cyclists being complained about in this thread would appear to be legally children.
- Messages
- 9,910
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Pedestrians don't want to share the road though.
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Cyclists insurance only needs to be a form of public liability insurance, the bike itself is likely to be covered by house insurance so it can be an extension of that. A cyclist can do thousands of pounds of damage to a vehicle or hurt someone else and it should be a fairly simple process to make a claim rather than having to take someone to court or having to bare the cost themselves.
As for automated cars, I will only give up driving and cease to own my own cars, when I can't physically drive anymore. Hopefully at least another 30yrs.
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Kids are covered on parents home insurance, if they have home insurance that is.
- Messages
- 9,258
- Edit My Images
- No
I can't help but feel you may be onto something there...
- Messages
- 23,536
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
dod
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 16,678
- Name
- Ebenezer McScrooge III
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So are you saying a 10 year old should have public liability insurance? Or should their parents have it on their behalf? If so that's opening up a whole new can of worms
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes, if they are riding a bike, they have means to cause damage to someone's car. Why should the car owner or their insurance have to pay?So are you saying a 10 year old should have public liability insurance? Or should their parents have it on their behalf? If so that's opening up a whole new can of worms
As I said, a lot of house insurance includes a form of public liability insurance that will cover accident damage caused by kids, but not everyone has house insurance and it isn't compulsory like vehicle insurance.
If a cyclist of any age crashes into your car and damages It, who pays, we have already had one post earlier who was involved in an accident with an errant cyclist and it cost around £3k to repair the damage to his car, the cyclist, not having insurance is deemed not liable even though was their fault, how can that be right?
If an errant cyclist of any age causes damage to your car in an accident and you have to claim on your own insurance to get your car repaired, you will have to pay the insurance excess on your policy. You will lose your NCB, that's up to 2yrs of discount lost on future premiums, even if you have protected NCB, you have to disclose that you were involved in an accident when renewing your car insurance for up to 5yrs and you still pay extra because to insurance companies, you are a higher risk, all for something that wasn't your fault in the first place.
- Messages
- 4,362
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
A couple of years back parked up on Southend seafront a child of around three was walking with their parents along. This kid had a pebble in his hand which he blindly threw for no apparent reason (if anyone understands how the mind of a three year old works, please let me know, it would really help me with mine!) and it hot my windscreen requiring replacement.
Lo and behold, even a child walking can cause damage. Maybe we should all have PI insurance from birth in case of causing accidental damage by any method? I think we have finally found a way of making our country even more mental than America in terms of litigation culture!
Lo and behold, even a child walking can cause damage. Maybe we should all have PI insurance from birth in case of causing accidental damage by any method? I think we have finally found a way of making our country even more mental than America in terms of litigation culture!
dod
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 16,678
- Name
- Ebenezer McScrooge III
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I do sympathise with the point you're making, my current car has been bashed twice while in car parks by other drivers and neither will result in them coughing up. One I could identify the other I couldn't
In real life though I just don't see how it could be implemented sensibly without incurring huge infrastructure costs. Again, I think it's a case of scale. While the inconvenience (financial and time) is very real to the individual concerned it's not very much in the greater scheme of things. Drivers of cars are still the biggest lawbreakers and cause of damage and death on the roads, by a long way. They are proportionally a very significant contributor to overall crime figures and until that, and their attitude changes, they will continue to be targeted.
Insurance is a big fiddle. Protected NCB isn't worth the paper it's written on and using that in this debate is a bit of an emotive argument deflecting from the real issue. Lots of things in life aren't fair, that's just another one.
dod
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 16,678
- Name
- Ebenezer McScrooge III
- Edit My Images
- Yes
close, you won't need the steering wheel though
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The parents house insurance should have covered the cost of a replacement screen or at least the excess premium to have the window replaced.
- Messages
- 4,362
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And when the parents give you false contact information?
On paper you can insure against any conceivable eventuality, bur real world application is very different.
Back to cycling. We live in a country with high levels of congestion, excessive levels of pollution which has been proven to be linked to certain health issues which in turn burdens the NHS, and a population that bt percentage is becoming more and more obese. Is putting barriers to cleaner, healthier and more space efficient modes of transport really worthwhile for the occasional motorist who has their wing mirror clipped?
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The prime reasons for insurance is to cover for damage, losses, hospital bills etc. It doesn't matter how many motorists or cyclists break laws, that has nothing to do with it, it should be in place for all road users.
NCB was only mentioned should anyone suspect that a motorist won't suffer any financial losses if a cyclist should damage their car.
S
stupar
Guest
What about a stray animal (e.g. Sheep or deer) that you hit because they run out onto the road (more a rural scenario but still valid all the same).
Will they need insurance too!
Whilst a tongue in cheek comment it also highlights the point of where exactly do you draw the line with 3rd party insurance so the car driver isn't out of pocket.
D
Deleted sulking member 63079
Guest
They probably don't care as long as no one gets in the way of them breaking the speed limit
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Just ask the parents if they have a form of ID from which to copy their details. Not everyone is dishonest.
If I cycled to work, I would have to get up at around 4:30 am instead of 5:00 am. On late shift I would get home around 11:45pm instead of 11:00 pm. Also I wouldn't be going to the gym after an early shift or on the way to work on a late shift ad weight training I a much better fat burner than cycling as it continues to burn fat at a faster rate and for a longer period whilst resting and even sleeping.
Cyclists can do a he'll of a lot more damage to a car than just clipping a mirror.
dod
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 16,678
- Name
- Ebenezer McScrooge III
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I know what insurance is for. Why don't you insure against being hit by a 10 year old on a bike without insurance?
Let me guess. Because the risk, incidence figures and actual damages caused are so small that it's really not an issue. (It is to the individual but not to the general population. )
Motorists use these arguments all the time in order to deflect from their own prejudice and resistance to change. I do it as well. It doesn't make it right though it does make a good soundbite.
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
A deer is much more likely to be a wild animal, there are warning signs on roads where there are likely to be wild deer. If you are unfortunate enough to hit a stray farm animal, then the farmer can be held accountable.
Your car insurance will cover you for the cost of damage done by a wild animal, but why should it have to cover you against someone elses means of transport just because it isn't motorised. At the end of the day the premium a cyclist is likely to have to pay each year would probably be around £20 If that.