truman Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) Quite a few, because it's given away free with some cycling clubs. It's really really cheap because, well, the third-party death and destruction caused by cyclists is pretty close to zero. It only exists in the heads of people that hate cyclists. I'm not sure how you relate mentioning cyclists insurance to hating them.. but there you go... Edited March 3, 2015 by truman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milquetoast1 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I'm not sure how you relate mentioning cyclists insurance to hating them.. Because I hear the haters frequently mention that cyclists should have compulsory insurance (as I did about two hours ago) just like they have to to drive their car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Because I hear the haters frequently mention that cyclists should have compulsory insurance (as I did about two hours ago) just like they have to to drive their car. So everyone who mentions cyclists' insurance hates them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milquetoast1 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 So everyone who mentions cyclists' insurance hates them? No, many of them are cyclists that would like insurance for themselves and think it would be a good idea to protect their investment in their bikes and/or provide a cash sum if they are injured or killed. I think that most people that demand that cyclists should have mandatory third-party insurance are probably motivated by hatred for cyclists, because it is practically useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmyR Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 No, many of them are cyclists that would like insurance for themselves and think it would be a good idea to protect their investment in their bikes and/or provide a cash sum if they are injured or killed. I think that most people that demand that cyclists should have mandatory third-party insurance are probably motivated by hatred for cyclists, because it is practically useless. There is some argument for it but i agree its largely pointless. Its at least better than the road tax argument. I do have insurance simply because i get it free when I join the CTC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perplexed Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I think that the CTC has a membership of around 35000 - all with automatic insurance cover, so that's 35000 for a start. Obviously there are loads of clubs as mentioned who include it with general membership, plus I don't know how many who've got independent cover. I guess the point is that insurance companies, not noted for their generosity, perceive cyclists to be of such a low insurance risk, they practically almost give the cover away for nowt... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spilldig Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Can you fix your quoting please, you've written your replies in the middle of quoting me. Picking out what you've said, you think that children don't have the sense not to run in front of a cycle, but DO have the sense not to run into the road. And that cyclists would be passing pedestrians so closely that a child could make "a sudden sideways movement" and get in front of them. Frankly you appear to be scrabbling around for a reason to claim that mixing cycles and pedestrians is dangerous. It's not. There are already many mixed areas and no reports of any injuries or accidents taking place. You've also referred to the law as a reason it shouldn't be done, but don't accept that if the law changed you'd no longer have that point? I had to do it like that because of the amount of points you were making. So I will try doing it in one, without the silly faces. Yes. It is. Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 If there is an area of the road marked up for the use of cyclists only I keep my car out of it. That's the 'logic' I apply. That doesn't answer my question about whether you know why they are there and what implications that has for your reasons for blocking cyclists from passing you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 A trouble causer who will get up the wrong persons nose eventually. How is he causing trouble? How indeed? GormanD seems to be one of those annoying people who says something ridiculous and never comes back to persue the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Almost knocked off my bike this evening by a lorry driver. If only I had a cam like this chap. I certainly would be posting his appalling driving on the internet or to the police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now