Conrod Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Look out of your window, I expect cars are parked on the street. Walk down the street and you will be passing those cars. Push a pushchair in front of you and you'll be passing those cars, possibly within an inch or two with something metallic with sharp bits... Maybe pushchairs should have insurance? You realise that having insurance doesn't actually alter anything, your sole remedy is still to take them to court for the damages unless they (or their agent the insurer) chooses to settle in advance. And of course you will understand that taking somebody to court is a time-consuming course of action which ads to the inconvenience and injury caused when your property is damaged. You will also understand (actually, based on posts over the last couple if days, maybe you won't understand), that if they don't have enough money to pay the damages in the first place, taking them to court is a complete waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sierraman Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 The way they drive two abreast down the road or not stopping for traffic lights is annoying. Its no wonder they end up getting squashed by a bus or something. I know you can't tar everyone with the same brush but I see it time and time again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted November 5, 2012 Author Share Posted November 5, 2012 Look out of your window, I expect cars are parked on the street. Walk down the street and you will be passing those cars. Push a pushchair in front of you and you'll be passing those cars, possibly within an inch or two with something metallic with sharp bits... Maybe pushchairs should have insurance? If you read the OP, the issue is bicycles on the road. If a car parks on the pavement, then in my opinion it is the driver who is in the wrong if he/she is blocking pedestrian access and damage is caused to the car because of this. Pedestrians are supposed to use the pavements where possible and cyclists are supposed to use the roads, alongside cars. You realise that having insurance doesn't actually alter anything, your sole remedy is still to take them to court for the damages unless they (or their agent the insurer) chooses to settle in advance. Which is the point entirely, why shouldn't it work for cyclists as it does with drivers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 And of course you will understand that taking somebody to court is a time-consuming course of action which ads to the inconvenience and injury caused when your property is damaged. You will also understand (actually, based on posts over the last couple if days, maybe you won't understand), that if they don't have enough money to pay the damages in the first place, taking them to court is a complete waste of time. Having insurance only alters the 2nd part of the problem though, it guarantees that there will be enough to pay should you win, but it in no way alters the need to take them to court if they (or their insurance) decline to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 If you read the OP, the issue is bicycles on the road. If a car parks on the pavement, then in my opinion it is the driver who is in the wrong if he/she is blocking pedestrian access and damage is caused to the car because of this. You didn't understand what I said. Cars parked on the road are within mere inches of pedestrians who are using the pavement or indeed the road (as they are entitled to do). Pedestrians are supposed to use the pavements where possible and cyclists are supposed to use the roads, alongside cars. Pedestrians can use the pavement, but aren't obliged to do so, and even if doing so may well be very close to parked cars. Which is the point entirely, why shouldn't it work for cyclists as it does with drivers? You really can't see any significant differences between a car and a bike? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 If you read the OP, the issue is bicycles on the road. If a car parks on the pavement, then in my opinion it is the driver who is in the wrong if he/she is blocking pedestrian access and damage is caused to the car because of this. Pedestrians are supposed to use the pavements where possible and cyclists are supposed to use the roads, alongside cars. Which is the point entirely, why shouldn't it work for cyclists as it does with drivers? If you had a reasonable system - a system which applied evenly to everybody - it would. If it's an offence to leave the scene of an accident it's an offence to leave the scene of an accident - whether you run away or pedal off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted November 6, 2012 Author Share Posted November 6, 2012 You didn't understand what I said. My bad! Cars parked on the road are within mere inches of pedestrians who are using the pavement or indeed the road (as they are entitled to do). Pedestrians can use the pavement, but aren't obliged to do so, and even if doing so may well be very close to parked cars. The damage done by a pedestrian to a car (accidentally) will, in most cases, be very minor, less chance of it happening because there IS that separation between pavement and road, even though it may not be much. The amount of pedestrians using the road for travelling is so small it hardly warrants consideration. Although if somebody insists on walking on the road (rather than the pavement) long term, it would be wise for them to get insurance. A bike, however, occupies the same medium (road) as all the other traffic, they move at faster speeds and are more likely to cause a road accident than a pedestrian using the pavement. Not only that, as you have mentioned yourself, we are encouraging more people to use bikes. That will increase the likeliness of accidents. You really can't see any significant differences between a car and a bike? Of course I can, that's why insurance is so cheap for a bike! What I don't see is any significance between a bike that is pedal powered and a bike which is electrically powered (and can reach 16mph), if everything else about them is identical. One has to be insured and the other doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted November 6, 2012 Author Share Posted November 6, 2012 If you had a reasonable system - a system which applied evenly to everybody - it would. If the insurance was compulsory, then that would apply evenly to everybody, wouldn't it? If it's an offence to leave the scene of an accident it's an offence to leave the scene of an accident - whether you run away or pedal off. Correct, but I didn't mention anything about such an issue. Incidentally, that's what the ID number bibs would be for (as mentioned in the OP). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalkleyIan Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 They wear a number on their bib/vest. Make it compulsory to wear a lightweight hi-vis vest with the number on and you're killing two birds with one stone! Can I not just wear my wife's vest and number, and then any claim can be sent to her instead? A bar code tattooed on every cyclists arm or an embedded RFID chip would be less open to abuse. It would also make identifying dead cyclists much easier as well, thus killing two birds with one stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.