UKIP Policies on cycling...

Headhuunter

davmaggs wrote:

A bit naughty just posting bits of their list, no doubt any party's policy looks disagreeable if you grab selected bits of it.

Best thing to kill the insurance debate is to say that the EU is going to mandate it or try logic e.g the reason the insurance is so cheap is because it doesn't really get claimed on so its free money for those selling it.

Like them or not, what UKIP are good at doing is actually listening and responding to the public. The main parties don't really bother with the public now in any genuine sense, and in this particular case it means that your average punter who is sick of morons on bikes misbehaving sees something in writing that they agree with.

Bang on all you like about uninsured drivers etc, but the average person won't be affected by them on a day to day basis so they won't really worry about them. Bikes however are very visible and do stupid things in town centres daily, whilst the decent riders blend in.

edit: typo

The problem with "listening and responding to the public" is that most if ukip policies are populist and not thought through, highlighted by their policy on cycling. They're happy to come down hard on cycling and apparent irresponsibility by cyclists, yet across the country cyclists make up a tiny proportion of road users and an even tinier proportion jump lights. As others have pointed out, most people out there are more affected by dangerous and irresponsible diving, yet ukip had taken the populist, tabloid-like route in an effort to get votes rather than consider the facts and generate intelligent policy. Yes it's important to listen to the public but politicians are voted in supposedly to analyse the wider situation and make policies based on a balance of views rather than just take the ill thought out view of the man in the street

tailwindhome

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

wielding real power in this country, let alone running it.

They've already determined Cameron's strategy with regard to Europe, no?

ketsbaia

vermin wrote:

What I find most interesting is the complete failure on the part of the press, notably the BBC, to register the scale of disaster this was for Labour.

Wait. Hang on just a second. Why would any media organisation in their right mind focus on how much of a 'disaster' this was for the opposition (Labour, who incidentally got 9.6% of the Eastleigh vote at the General Election in 2010 and increased that to 9.82% in this byelection - some disaster), when they could focus on the governing party taking a proper pounding? Please tell me you don't work in the media. Or in statistics, for that matter.

The only media organisation I saw that did try and deflect some of the scheisse on to the Labour party was the Daily Mail. Which speaks volumes.

Back on topic, though, these policies are pretty much unsurprising. As has already been said, they're standard UKIP fare and can be dismissed as just the ravings of 'swivel-eyed loonies'.

meanredspider

ketsbaia wrote:

vermin wrote:

What I find most interesting is the complete failure on the part of the press, notably the BBC, to register the scale of disaster this was for Labour.

Wait. Hang on just a second. Why would any media organisation in their right mind focus on how much of a 'disaster' this was for the opposition (Labour, who incidentally got 9.6% of the Eastleigh vote at the General Election in 2010 and increased that to 9.82% in this byelection - some disaster), when they could focus on the governing party taking a proper pounding? Please tell me you don't work in the media. Or in statistics, for that matter.

The only media organisation I saw that did try and deflect some of the scheisse on to the Labour party was the Daily Mail. Which speaks volumes.

Back on topic, though, these policies are pretty much unsurprising. As has already been said, they're standard UKIP fare and can be dismissed as just the ravings of 'swivel-eyed loonies'.

I think the point he's trying to make is, rather than vote Labour in protest, the electorate voted instead for the "swivel-eyed loonies" - that can't have been very comforting for EM.

ketsbaia

I doubt it would have surprised anyone in Eastleigh or the Labour Party for that matter. They were never in the hunt and wouldn't have expected to have been, despite what they might have said on the election leaflets.

Kind of like the Tories slipping from third to fourth in, say, Easterhouse. A non-story.

meanredspider

ketsbaia wrote:

I doubt it would have surprised anyone in Eastleigh or the Labour Party for that matter. They were never in the hunt and wouldn't have expected to have been, despite what they might have said on the election leaflets.

Kind of like the Tories slipping from third to fourth in, say, Easterhouse. A non-story.

I've never paid much attention to UKIP but I've always thought of them as to the right of the Tories. Eastleigh was/is obviously a strong LibDem town. Is it that obvious, these days, that the electorate would swing to right? I'm not expecting a balanced answer as it's clear where your politics lie but I was surprised that the only meaningful opposition party picked up nothing from the dissatisfaction with the government. The correspondent on the Today prog was too. I should point out I have no time for politicians of any colour and that the "swivel-eyed loonies" worry me more than the rest of them.

ketsbaia

"I'm not expecting a balanced answer..."

Well you doubtless won't read one then.

But for the record, Eastleigh has been Lib Dem and then Conservative for decades. Labour only had a slight sniff way back in 1974 when they only lost by more than 7000 votes. Incidentally, Eastleigh is where Farage launched his political career.

unixnerd

If this lot of fascists get any power thank heavens we have a Scottish Parliament. Who on earth votes for these dinosaurs?

se-po

Mandatory insurance for cyclists?
No way, not going to give away money to insurance companies.

cookdn

se-po wrote:

Mandatory insurance for cyclists?
No way, not going to give away money to insurance companies.

That doesn't seem logical when third-party insurance for cyclists is so inexpensive (incidentally this is a very unambiguous measure of the tiny risk we pose to other road users).

Not that I advocate third-party insurance for cyclists being mandatory (if you want to 'self-insure' that should be your choice), but if you spend any time in traffic (which commuting in London you clearly do) surely the reassurance that in the event you accidentally scratch a car it will be taken out of your hands and sorted is worth the small annual expense of BC Ride membership (or similar).

Best regards

unixnerd

if you spend any time in traffic (which commuting in London you clearly do) surely the reassurance that in the event you accidentally scratch a car it will be taken out of your hands and sorted is worth the small annual expense of BC Ride membership

+1 and the reassurance that if you get hit you have legal backup that actually understands cyclists. < 3 quid a month!

se-po

cookdn wrote:

if you spend any time in traffic (which commuting in London you clearly do) surely the reassurance that in the event you accidentally scratch a car it will be taken out of your hands and sorted is worth the small annual expense of BC Ride membership (or similar).
Best regards

Yeah right, then the following year my premium would become more expensive than fixing the damage by myself.
The car was already scratched, anyway...

pete_s

Anyone who wants mandatory insurance for cyclists is really arguing for less people to ride bikes. Cars rightly have mandatory insurance because they are much more destructive when they crash and cause more damage & harm.

veronese68

se-po wrote:

cookdn wrote:

if you spend any time in traffic (which commuting in London you clearly do) surely the reassurance that in the event you accidentally scratch a car it will be taken out of your hands and sorted is worth the small annual expense of BC Ride membership (or similar).
Best regards

Yeah right, then the following year my premium would become more expensive than fixing the damage by myself.
The car was already scratched, anyway...

Errr no. There isn't any no claims bonus on British Cycling membership and the insurance is included free.
But don't you let a little thing like the truth get in the way, keep your head buried in the sand.

se-po

Veronese68 wrote:

Errr no. There isn't any no claims bonus on British Cycling membership and the insurance is included free.
But don't you let a little thing like the truth get in the way, keep your head buried in the sand.

Let me understand: are you saying that, with your insurance, if you scratch the car of your mate, they will take care of the damage and the following year you won't pay anything more (other than the usual inflation rise)?
Now it's becoming interesting...

cookdn

pete_s wrote:

Anyone who wants mandatory insurance for cyclists is really arguing for less people to ride bikes. Cars rightly have mandatory insurance because they are much more destructive when they crash and cause more damage & harm.

[Pulling figure out of the air, but it seems reasonable to me ] I bet 90%+ of people on bikes on the road are insured for third-party liability to motorists and pedestrians, even if they don't realise it, through the third-party liability benefits of household contents policies.

The broken-record arguments of motorists "no insurance, no tax" are simply based on ignorance.

cookdn

se-po wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Errr no. There isn't any no claims bonus on British Cycling membership and the insurance is included free.
But don't you let a little thing like the truth get in the way, keep your head buried in the sand.

Let me understand: are you saying that, with your insurance, if you scratch the car of your mate, they will take care of the damage and the following year you won't pay anything more (other than the usual inflation rise)?
Now it's becoming interesting...

Yes.

And they will claim on your behalf from motorist/pedestrian that damages you and/or your bike. I went for BC Ride membership on the strength of this alone, though having additional cycling specific third-party liability insurance is a reassurance.

Just do it and forget about it. Being a Londoner you can get a 25% discount on BC Ride Membership through a TfL voucher. £18 is the cost of a decent pair of cycling mitts.

Best regards

veronese68

se-po wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Errr no. There isn't any no claims bonus on British Cycling membership and the insurance is included free.
But don't you let a little thing like the truth get in the way, keep your head buried in the sand.

Let me understand: are you saying that, with your insurance, if you scratch the car of your mate, they will take care of the damage and the following year you won't pay anything more (other than the usual inflation rise)?
Now it's becoming interesting...

Exactly, make a habit of that and they may look at you for fraud though.
I've got a claim going through at the moment using their legal cover, not against me though, from when I got doored. Well worth paying for as their lawyers are dealing with it all for me. Well worth it for a bit of peace of mind.

Widgey

I'm with Veronese, I had an accident in November and one phone call to British Cycling and they are on it. Pretty simple, just had to fill out a few forms, they set up a doctor's visit and are dealing with the third parties insurance etc. For some silly amount of money, £20, they have saved me thousands in aggro.

For that reason alone, they are worth your custom.

Also I do not work for British Cycling.

se-po

Veronese68 wrote:

Exactly, make a habit of that and they may look at you for fraud though.
I've got a claim going through at the moment using their legal cover, not against me though, from when I got doored. Well worth paying for as their lawyers are dealing with it all for me. Well worth it for a bit of peace of mind.

Started like trolling, but now I'm seriously curious and I'll have a look.
Thanks for that (-:

se-po

cookdn wrote:

Just do it and forget about it. Being a Londoner you can get a 25% discount on BC Ride Membership through a TfL voucher. £18 is the cost of a decent pair of cycling mitts.
Best regards

And thanks for the voucher (-:

veronese68

se-po wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Exactly, make a habit of that and they may look at you for fraud though.
I've got a claim going through at the moment using their legal cover, not against me though, from when I got doored. Well worth paying for as their lawyers are dealing with it all for me. Well worth it for a bit of peace of mind.

Started like trolling, but now I'm seriously curious and I'll have a look.
Thanks for that (-:

Your avatar makes it look even more like trolling. In all seriousness it's well worth it. I get 10% off for paying by direct debit.

msmancunia

Veronese68 wrote:

se-po wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Exactly, make a habit of that and they may look at you for fraud though.
I've got a claim going through at the moment using their legal cover, not against me though, from when I got doored. Well worth paying for as their lawyers are dealing with it all for me. Well worth it for a bit of peace of mind.

Started like trolling, but now I'm seriously curious and I'll have a look.
Thanks for that (-:

Your avatar makes it look even more like trolling. In all seriousness it's well worth it. I get 10% off for paying by direct debit.

I wish I could get you a bit of commission Veronese

CJ Bill

spadve71 wrote:

Guy Fawkes had the right idea :roll:

What, trying to kill a bunch of people because he wanted a catholic monarch in place of a protestant one?

davmaggs

CookeeeMonster wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

Bang on all you like about uninsured drivers etc, but the average person won't be affected by them on a day to day basis so they won't really worry about them. Bikes however are very visible and do stupid things in town centres daily, whilst the decent riders blend in.
edit: typo

I spent a week in hospital and 3 months in outpatients because of an uninsured driver...no cyclists have come close to causing me that sort of damage (well ok one RLJ w*nker)

in certain parts of london (and london as a whole) the uninsured percentage is pretty damn high, which is one of the reasons why there are so many hit and runs I wouldve thought.

As to the mandatory insurance for cyclists stuff, I dont agree it'll do anything but prevent 99.9% from getting a bicycle, it'll be too much hassle for most people and is just a way to drive people off the roads (same with helmet and reg number debate) (from someone who got BC membership just to get the 3rd party insurance).

Your accident whilst being bad for you is still hidden from the public. A moron riding a bike through a town centre probably hacks off a dozen people at every set of lights, so over the space of month hundreds of people have seen a cyclist being an anti-social git.

I'm not downplaying the impact of uninsured drivers, but pointing out that one is anonymous to the public (with big consquences), and the other is in your face anti-social.

davmaggs

Veronese68 wrote:

se-po wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Errr no. There isn't any no claims bonus on British Cycling membership and the insurance is included free.
But don't you let a little thing like the truth get in the way, keep your head buried in the sand.

Let me understand: are you saying that, with your insurance, if you scratch the car of your mate, they will take care of the damage and the following year you won't pay anything more (other than the usual inflation rise)?
Now it's becoming interesting...

Exactly, make a habit of that and they may look at you for fraud though.
I've got a claim going through at the moment using their legal cover, not against me though, from when I got doored. Well worth paying for as their lawyers are dealing with it all for me. Well worth it for a bit of peace of mind.

They won't have "their lawyers", they will just be a no win no fee outfit that probably pays for your referral. Any member of the public can use the same firm on the same terms as you, except you've just paid for the privilege.

The reason that third party insurance is so cheap is that virtually nobody claims on it. In fact it might be the case that no-one claims on it.

edhornby

worth pointing out that the netherlands had bike registration, but it didn't last because the admin cost was a nightmare and it didn't provide real benefit

what about people who have more than one bike (not any of us eh, why do you need more than one bike ;-) ) and what about stolen bikes, you'd need a replacement disc everytime your bike is nicked

prawny

vermin wrote:

pdw wrote:

many if not most cyclists, like pedestrians, do have 3rd party insurance.

Poppycock! And out of the tiny proportion of cyclists that do own a household policy that will cover third party damage caused whilst cycling, how many do you seriously think would volunteer that information to a driver whose car they had just scratched?

Sorry if this has already been address I've not read the rest of the thread yet but, any standard household contents policy covers every occupant in the house for third party liablity, even if they're living away temporarily. I can't speak for everyone but I would say that would cover more than a tiny proportion of cyclists, no special cover required.

On the second point if you've had a crash and you don't provide your details when asked, then you're as bad a any other minor hit and run evil doer whatever your mode of transport.

rjsterry

davmaggs wrote:

They won't have "their lawyers", they will just be a no win no fee outfit that probably pays for your referral. Any member of the public can use the same firm on the same terms as you, except you've just paid for the privilege.

The reason that third party insurance is so cheap is that virtually nobody claims on it. In fact it might be the case that no-one claims on it.

Well, you've paid for the membership of BC or LCC or whatever, and the insurance is included; the same as it being included on home contents insurance. Would be interesting to see how many use 3rd party insurance to cover personal injury claims against them.

vermin

prawny wrote:

vermin wrote:

pdw wrote:

many if not most cyclists, like pedestrians, do have 3rd party insurance.

Poppycock! And out of the tiny proportion of cyclists that do own a household policy that will cover third party damage caused whilst cycling, how many do you seriously think would volunteer that information to a driver whose car they had just scratched?

Sorry if this has already been address I've not read the rest of the thread yet but, any standard household contents policy covers every occupant in the house for third party liablity, even if they're living away temporarily. I can't speak for everyone but I would say that would cover more than a tiny proportion of cyclists, no special cover required.

If that is the case, I stand corrected. But...

prawny wrote:

On the second point if you've had a crash and you don't provide your details when asked, then you're as bad a any other minor hit and run evil doer whatever your mode of transport.

I agree, (to the extent that people are more aware than I am!) I do think it would help people to become more recognisable, and therefore accountable, though. Cyclists are pretty anonymous at present; a fact that some exploit rather too readily.