Unpopular Opinions

pinno

focuszing723 said:

Should we have personal insurance to walk on the street too? If you trip off a curb into the road and a car crashes to avoid you, then shouldn't you be liable?

You're just being a tw@t (as normal) but i'll bite...

We are road users. 95% of the traffic on roads have insurance, or at least are legally obligated to. We don't somehow.
If car drivers knew that we were all insured, it would placate their sometime (dangerous) indifference and animosity towards us.
If that insurance was pooled for legal purposes, to cover police investigation time, to assist those who suffer injuries that has compromised their lives or for relatives where a life has been lost, it would benefit all cyclists.

There should be tiers - basic insurance which covers injury and up to the equivalent fully comp.
I got a BC quote. Now the bike(s) I could replace and would happily take out insurance that only covers injury and potentially, legal costs but the option isn't there. Quote: £347. More than my car insurance.

So if there were set fees for lower tiers of insurance, then it could be affordable for all.

What mindset would drivers adopt knowing that the cyclist in front of them is insured?

People who walk aren't classed as road users and aren't normally mixing with traffic or in the middle of the road waiting for the lights to go green.

pinno

blazing_saddles said:

The BBC should double the licence fee so that all pensioners continue to not have to pay.

Fair enough. My OH pays the license

blazing_saddles said:

Also, because they makes so many excellent drama series these days and their sports coverage is second to none.

That has to be tongue in cheek.

focuszing723

pinno said:

focuszing723 said:

Should we have personal insurance to walk on the street too? If you trip off a curb into the road and a car crashes to avoid you, then shouldn't you be liable?

You're just being a tw@t (as normal) but i'll bite...

We are road users. 95% of the traffic on roads have insurance, or at least are legally obligated to. We don't somehow.
If car drivers knew that we were all insured, it would placate their sometime (dangerous) indifference and animosity towards us.
If that insurance was pooled for legal purposes, to cover police investigation time, to assist those who suffer injuries that has compromised their lives or for relatives where a life has been lost, it would benefit all cyclists.

There should be tiers - basic insurance which covers injury and up to the equivalent fully comp.
I got a BC quote. Now the bike(s) I could replace and would happily take out insurance that only covers injury and potentially, legal costs but the option isn't there. Quote: £347. More than my car insurance.

So if there were set fees for lower tiers of insurance, then it could be affordable for all.

What mindset would drivers adopt knowing that the cyclist in front of them is insured?

People who walk aren't classed as road users and aren't normally mixing with traffic or in the middle of the road waiting for the lights to go green.

Yeah and I guess you are fountain of wisdom who fecks off to Scotland to solve your problems.

ddraver

focuszing723 said:

Should we have personal insurance to walk on the street too? If you trip off a curb into the road and a car crashes to avoid you, then shouldn't you be liable?

Many countries do have that, I did when I lived in NL. Cost me a euro-buck fifty, a month and seemed like a pretty good idea to me...

pinno

focuszing723 said:

Yeah and I guess you are fountain of wisdom who fecks off to Scotland to solve your problems.

If you're going to insult me, at least make an effort. You also need to work on you comprehension.

focuszing723

pinno said:

focuszing723 said:

Yeah and I guess you are fountain of wisdom who fecks off to Scotland to solve your problems.

If you're going to insult me, at least make an effort. You also need to work on you comprehension.

Lol. Hang on, I wasn't the one who started with the insult. I won't continue with it there is no point.

pinno

focuszing723 said:

pinno said:

focuszing723 said:

Yeah and I guess you are fountain of wisdom who fecks off to Scotland to solve your problems.

If you're going to insult me, at least make an effort. You also need to work on you comprehension.

Lol. Hang on, I wasn't the one who started with the insult. I won't continue with, there is no point.

Two sarcastic posts in succession directed at me, followed by a statement that made absolutely no sense whatsoever. You need to work on your insults, your comprehension and you have amnesia.

focuszing723

pinno said:

focuszing723 said:

pinno said:

focuszing723 said:

Yeah and I guess you are fountain of wisdom who fecks off to Scotland to solve your problems.

If you're going to insult me, at least make an effort. You also need to work on you comprehension.

Lol. Hang on, I wasn't the one who started with the insult. I won't continue with, there is no point.

Two sarcastic posts in succession directed at me, followed by a statement that made absolutely no sense whatsoever. You need to work on your insults, your comprehension and you have amnesia.

Fine, you're entitled to your opinion.

ddraver

Everyone should calm down, go outside and look at the comet. It's cool.

ballysmate

oxoman said:

TV licence should be scrapped and all kids should work through the summer holidays to catch up with missed lessons. Both will be very popular will most parents and very unpopular with BBC management and school teachers and kids.

Nowt wrong with that.
A reminder that this is the place for unpopular opinions though.

essexian

N=N+1 is as false a theory as that of gravity. The Earth does not suck!

focuszing723

ddraver said:

Everyone should calm down, go outside and look at the comet. It's cool.

Damn, I missed that.

essexian

oxoman said:

The earth is flat.

Indeed and "Scimandan" (look him up on Youtube) doesn't have a clue!

Pross

pinno said:

Back on topic (sort of).

I think all cyclists should pay insurance.

I don't have an issue with that. Insurance is to protect the insured, something the ranty motorist 'they don't pay insurance and road tax' element fail to comprehend.

First.Aspect

Voting cards should be made much more complicated, to weed out uninformed opinions of thick people.

ballysmate

First.Aspect said:

Voting cards should be made much more complicated, to weed out uninformed opinions of thick people.

You must be a Tory!

rick_chasey

Pross said:

pinno said:

Back on topic (sort of).

I think all cyclists should pay insurance.

I don't have an issue with that. Insurance is to protect the insured, something the ranty motorist 'they don't pay insurance and road tax' element fail to comprehend.

Big barrier to people just hopping on a bike and cycling somewhere.

Same with kids and all sorts.

More people cycling as a form of transport is more important than a few petty third party insurance claims.

ballysmate

They are not always petty. Cause an accident resulting in significant damage or injury and you can and will be sued.
Fancy selling your house to settle a claim?
Just because you have no insurance doesn't absolve you of liability.

rick_chasey

ballysmate said:

They are not always petty. Cause an accident resulting in significant damage or injury and you can and will be sued.
Fancy selling your house to settle a claim?
Just because you have no insurance doesn't absolve you of liability.

Usually are.

pblakeney

ballysmate said:

They are not always petty. Cause an accident resulting in significant damage or injury and you can and will be sued.
Fancy selling your house to settle a claim?
Just because you have no insurance doesn't absolve you of liability.

People don't have liability as part of their home insurance?

kingstongraham

pblakeney said:

ballysmate said:

They are not always petty. Cause an accident resulting in significant damage or injury and you can and will be sued.
Fancy selling your house to settle a claim?
Just because you have no insurance doesn't absolve you of liability.

People don't have liability as part of their home insurance?

Not everyone has home insurance.

pinno

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

pinno said:

Back on topic (sort of).

I think all cyclists should pay insurance.

I don't have an issue with that. Insurance is to protect the insured, something the ranty motorist 'they don't pay insurance and road tax' element fail to comprehend.

Big barrier to people just hopping on a bike and cycling somewhere.

Same with kids and all sorts.

Family policy? If it was affordable, why not? If the scheme worked financially, couldn't excess funds pay for cycle paths and infrastructure?
Surely, at the base level, mandatory insurance for commuters?
We have to address the tw@t mentality of drivers.

You have to have a bike license plate in Switzerland.

ballysmate

Each policy varies to the extent of cover but the point remains that 3rd party cover is needed, from whichever policy.

rick_chasey

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

pinno said:

Back on topic (sort of).

I think all cyclists should pay insurance.

I don't have an issue with that. Insurance is to protect the insured, something the ranty motorist 'they don't pay insurance and road tax' element fail to comprehend.

Big barrier to people just hopping on a bike and cycling somewhere.

Same with kids and all sorts.

Family policy? If it was affordable, why not? If the scheme worked financially, couldn't excess funds pay for cycle paths and infrastructure?
Surely, at the base level, mandatory insurance for commuters?
We have to address the tw@t mentality of drivers.

You have to have a bike license plate in Switzerland.

What about swiss cycling culture makes you think it's worth copying?

Who wants all that paperwork for something that is very rare?

pinno

rick_chasey said:

What about swiss cycling culture makes you think it's worth copying?

That is typical of you.

How would you, Rick Chasey, address the continuing animosity drivers have with cyclists?
How would you address the number of deaths of cyclists in say Londinium?
Apart from the 'barrier to hopping on your bike and going for a cycle', why are you opposed to something that would protect cyclists and theoretically:
1. Pay for loss or damage
2. Pay legal fees
3. Cover police time costs
4. Cover court costs
5. Reduce animosity from drivers
6. Potentially pay for infrastructure ?

pinno

[Note: Theoretically]

rjsterry

ballysmate said:

They are not always petty. Cause an accident resulting in significant damage or injury and you can and will be sued.
Fancy selling your house to settle a claim?
Just because you have no insurance doesn't absolve you of liability.

Would prefer we don't head down the same route as professional services where claims are made on the basis of who has the biggest insurance cover.

TheBigBean

I have third party liability simply because I met someone who was hit by a car, and the driver's insurance company chose to go after him. After months of stress and legal cost, he was eventually awarded £800, so ended up better off financially. I don't fancy that hassle, so pay my LCC dues and accept the insurance policy.

Do I think I should have to? No. I'd prefer strict liability whereby my responsibility as a cyclist is to not hit pedestrians under any circumstances, and drivers are responsible for not hitting pedestrians and cyclists.

rick_chasey

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

What about swiss cycling culture makes you think it's worth copying?

That is typical of you.

How would you, Rick Chasey, address the continuing animosity drivers have with cyclists?
How would you address the number of deaths of cyclists in say Londinium?
Apart from the 'barrier to hopping on your bike and going for a cycle', why are you opposed to something that would protect cyclists and theoretically:
1. Pay for loss or damage
2. Pay legal fees
3. Cover police time costs
4. Cover court costs
5. Reduce animosity from drivers
6. Potentially pay for infrastructure ?

You could use the same liability laws like you do in the Netherlands - in a car v bicycle accident, the car is assumed to be at fault unless it can be proved otherwise.

I'd invest more seriously in segregated infrastructure, and make it generally more difficult to drive cares in urban areas. Basically copy the Dutch approach to urban road infrastructure.

You're just approaching the problem like a vehicular cyclist.

The problem is not the insurance or the liabilities.

pinno

rick_chasey said:

You could use the same liability laws like you do in the Netherlands - in a car v bicycle accident, the car is assumed to be at fault unless it can be proved otherwise.

Guilty until proven innocent? Don't like that system at all.
You would have to alter the law. That would have implications for other laws.
Far simpler to impose mandatory insurance.