Proposed Cyclist Legislation.

[Judith[_4_]]

1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional training for
younger people via schools.
2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for cyclists -
which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
3. Compulsory third party insurance.
4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes, reflectors and
lights.
5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking laws.
7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being checked every
five years- of them and their bike.
8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which must be worn at
all times whilst cycling.
9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of hi-viz
garment and clearly visible.
10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and crushing of cycle
for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling charities
(CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

"Judith" > wrote in message
...
> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional training for
> younger people via schools.
> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for cyclists -
> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes, reflectors and
> lights.
> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking laws.
> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being checked every
> five years- of them and their bike.
> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which must be worn at
> all times whilst cycling.
> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of hi-viz
> garment and clearly visible.
> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and crushing of cycle
> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling charities
> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.

PLUS ONE!
>
>
>

[Juan Carr]

On Fri, 29 May 2015 17:13:22 +0100, Judith >
wrote:

>1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional training for
>younger people via schools.
>2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for cyclists -
>which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
>3. Compulsory third party insurance.
>4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes, reflectors and
>lights.
>5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
>6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking laws.
>7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being checked every
>five years- of them and their bike.
>8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which must be worn at
>all times whilst cycling.
>9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of hi-viz
>garment and clearly visible.
>10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and crushing of cycle
>for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
>11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling charities
>(CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>
>


Why the need?

Wasn't legislation introduced a few years ago that said that in the
event of a collision between a cyclist and a car then the car driver
was automatically deemed liable?

So no requirement for cyclists to even be able to steer in a straight
line.

[jnugent]

On 29/05/2015 17:38, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
> "Judith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional training for
>> younger people via schools.
>> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for cyclists -
>> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
>> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
>> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes, reflectors and
>> lights.
>> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
>> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking laws.
>> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being checked every
>> five years- of them and their bike.
>> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which must be worn at
>> all times whilst cycling.
>> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of hi-viz
>> garment and clearly visible.
>> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and crushing of cycle
>> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
>> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling charities
>> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>
> PLUS ONE!

Hi-viz to be a codified uniform colour, in order to readily distinguish
a moving road-user from a workman or member of the emergency services:

<http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/413ci3BxBOL._SX342_.jpg>

[MrCheerful]

On 29/05/2015 19:35, Juan Carr wrote:
> On Fri, 29 May 2015 17:13:22 +0100, Judith >
> wrote:
>
>> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional training for
>> younger people via schools.
>> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for cyclists -
>> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
>> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
>> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes, reflectors and
>> lights.
>> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
>> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking laws.
>> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being checked every
>> five years- of them and their bike.
>> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which must be worn at
>> all times whilst cycling.
>> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of hi-viz
>> garment and clearly visible.
>> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and crushing of cycle
>> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
>> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling charities
>> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>>
>>
>
>
> Why the need?
>
> Wasn't legislation introduced a few years ago that said that in the
> event of a collision between a cyclist and a car then the car driver
> was automatically deemed liable?
>

No, it wasn't.

[tim.....]

"Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
...
> On 29/05/2015 19:35, Juan Carr wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 May 2015 17:13:22 +0100, Judith >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional training
>>> for
>>> younger people via schools.
>>> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for cyclists -
>>> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
>>> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
>>> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes, reflectors
>>> and
>>> lights.
>>> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
>>> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking laws.
>>> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being checked every
>>> five years- of them and their bike.
>>> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which must be worn
>>> at
>>> all times whilst cycling.
>>> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of hi-viz
>>> garment and clearly visible.
>>> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and crushing of
>>> cycle
>>> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
>>> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling
>>> charities
>>> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Why the need?
>>
>> Wasn't legislation introduced a few years ago that said that in the
>> event of a collision between a cyclist and a car then the car driver
>> was automatically deemed liable?
>>
>
> No, it wasn't.

It was proposed though

(it is, pretty much, the law in Germany and they want the EU to extend their
nanny state)

tim


>

[MrCheerful]

On 29/05/2015 20:13, tim..... wrote:
>
> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 29/05/2015 19:35, Juan Carr wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 May 2015 17:13:22 +0100, Judith >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional
>>>> training for
>>>> younger people via schools.
>>>> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for cyclists -
>>>> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
>>>> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
>>>> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes,
>>>> reflectors and
>>>> lights.
>>>> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
>>>> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking laws.
>>>> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being checked every
>>>> five years- of them and their bike.
>>>> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which must be
>>>> worn at
>>>> all times whilst cycling.
>>>> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of hi-viz
>>>> garment and clearly visible.
>>>> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and crushing of
>>>> cycle
>>>> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
>>>> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling
>>>> charities
>>>> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why the need?
>>>
>>> Wasn't legislation introduced a few years ago that said that in the
>>> event of a collision between a cyclist and a car then the car driver
>>> was automatically deemed liable?
>>>
>>
>> No, it wasn't.
>
> It was proposed though
>
> (it is, pretty much, the law in Germany and they want the EU to extend
> their nanny state)
>
> tim

It was proposed that cyclists be imprisoned for causing death by
dangerous cycling, cyclists were alarmed, why should they be sanctioned
for the pedestrians they kill?

Kate Hoey proposed cyclist registration.

These are also irrelevant as they have not been made law in the UK

[Mike Swift]

In article >, tim.....
> writes
>(it is, pretty much, the law in Germany and they want the EU to extend their
>nanny state)

Replace nanny with fascist, well they lost the war and look likely to
win the peace.

Mike

--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange

[Blue]

On 29/05/2015 17:13, Judith wrote:
> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional training for
> younger people via schools.
> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for cyclists -
> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes, reflectors and
> lights.
> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking laws.
> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being checked every
> five years- of them and their bike.
> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which must be worn at
> all times whilst cycling.
> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of hi-viz
> garment and clearly visible.
> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and crushing of cycle
> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling charities
> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.


I hear that drivers don't need today's speed limits
because the car brakes are that much more powerful.

Problem is however that the roads are still the same
narrow size. Around here you get a couple of big
trucks coming at each other and they both have to
drop to a crawl to get past each other. This on
blind tree lined bends.

So with just a lot of traffic there simply is no room
for a bicycle. Because out in the country lanes there is
no pavement. Now it would be nice if drivers didn't have
to immediately overtake the cyclist, plunging themselves
into on coming traffic, but they do.

You maybe be very lucky when a truck bombing it down
hill will move out some. But if there is traffic coming
up, no, there is no slowing. Feel the wind blow as the
giant truck whistles past your ear at full speed as
it tries to car up with the traffic, or flying cars.

Heaven forbid if these trucks had to hit the breaks because
they don't stop until they're at the bottom of the hill.

Further out in the long country road stretches without pavements
you'll find the speeding sports cars taking blind bends
at 200mph. All the while hugging the tree line.

In town there's a right turn I make which has its own lane.
Now the road coming out onto this main road has a no left
turn sign. But there's always a car there driving into you.

Yes there are cycle lanes, these are full of pedestrians
walking 4 abreast, even thought there's pavement beside
the cycle lane, they choose the cycle lane. Often the lanes
are blocked with yacking mothers and pram blockers. And
of course it's full of broken glass for obvious reasons.
And what ever speed you go past these pedestrians lane
blockers they hate you for your sudden appearance.

And of course there's the walkers who never look around
as they walk right across the cycle lane in a dream
like state. Same goes for groups of children on bikes
who don't look around who cycle from one pavement area,
across the road to the other side. And then turn the air
blue if they're bibbed up.





https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/359016/indicator-table.csv/preview

[MrCheerful]

On 30/05/2015 02:04, Blue wrote:
> On 29/05/2015 17:13, Judith wrote:
>> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional
>> training for
>> younger people via schools.
>> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for cyclists -
>> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
>> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
>> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes,
>> reflectors and
>> lights.
>> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
>> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking laws.
>> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being checked
>> every
>> five years- of them and their bike.
>> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which must be
>> worn at
>> all times whilst cycling.
>> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of hi-viz
>> garment and clearly visible.
>> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and crushing
>> of cycle
>> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
>> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling
>> charities
>> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>
>
> I hear that drivers don't need today's speed limits
> because the car brakes are that much more powerful.
>
> Problem is however that the roads are still the same
> narrow size. Around here you get a couple of big
> trucks coming at each other and they both have to
> drop to a crawl to get past each other. This on
> blind tree lined bends.
>
> So with just a lot of traffic there simply is no room
> for a bicycle. Because out in the country lanes there is
> no pavement. Now it would be nice if drivers didn't have
> to immediately overtake the cyclist, plunging themselves
> into on coming traffic, but they do.
>
> You maybe be very lucky when a truck bombing it down
> hill will move out some. But if there is traffic coming
> up, no, there is no slowing. Feel the wind blow as the
> giant truck whistles past your ear at full speed as
> it tries to car up with the traffic, or flying cars.
>
> Heaven forbid if these trucks had to hit the breaks because
> they don't stop until they're at the bottom of the hill.
>
> Further out in the long country road stretches without pavements
> you'll find the speeding sports cars taking blind bends
> at 200mph. All the while hugging the tree line.
>
> In town there's a right turn I make which has its own lane.
> Now the road coming out onto this main road has a no left
> turn sign. But there's always a car there driving into you.
>
> Yes there are cycle lanes, these are full of pedestrians
> walking 4 abreast, even thought there's pavement beside
> the cycle lane, they choose the cycle lane. Often the lanes
> are blocked with yacking mothers and pram blockers. And
> of course it's full of broken glass for obvious reasons.
> And what ever speed you go past these pedestrians lane
> blockers they hate you for your sudden appearance.
>
> And of course there's the walkers who never look around
> as they walk right across the cycle lane in a dream
> like state. Same goes for groups of children on bikes
> who don't look around who cycle from one pavement area,
> across the road to the other side. And then turn the air
> blue if they're bibbed up.
>

The one that is the anachronism is the cyclist, get them off the streets
and pavements and everyone else's lot will be improved.

[Nick[_4_]]

On 29/05/2015 17:13, Judith wrote:
> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional training for
> younger people via schools.
> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for cyclists -
> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes, reflectors and
> lights.
> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking laws.
> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being checked every
> five years- of them and their bike.
> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which must be worn at
> all times whilst cycling.
> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of hi-viz
> garment and clearly visible.
> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and crushing of cycle
> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling charities
> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>

What are you trying to achieve?

[Judith[_4_]]

On Sat, 30 May 2015 02:04:26 +0100, Blue > wrote:

<snip>


>Problem is however that the roads are still the same
>narrow size.

I was on quite a narrow country road (but an A road) in the country yesterday :
very undulating.

Coming in the opposite direction was a sole cyclist.

Behind the cyclist was a service bus - and then behind that at least half a
mile of cars all doing whatever speed the cyclist was doing.

The cyclist did not even have the commons sense (or courtesy) to dismount and
let the queue go past.

[Judith[_4_]]

On Sat, 30 May 2015 09:23:47 +0100, Nick > wrote:

>On 29/05/2015 17:13, Judith wrote:
>> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional training for
>> younger people via schools.
>> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for cyclists -
>> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
>> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
>> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes, reflectors and
>> lights.
>> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
>> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking laws.
>> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being checked every
>> five years- of them and their bike.
>> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which must be worn at
>> all times whilst cycling.
>> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of hi-viz
>> garment and clearly visible.
>> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and crushing of cycle
>> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
>> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling charities
>> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>>
>
>What are you trying to achieve?



Eeeerm - difficult one that.

[Blue]

On 30/05/2015 09:40, Judith wrote:
> On Sat, 30 May 2015 02:04:26 +0100, Blue > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>> Problem is however that the roads are still the same
>> narrow size.
>
> I was on quite a narrow country road (but an A road) in the country yesterday :
> very undulating.
>
> Coming in the opposite direction was a sole cyclist.
>
> Behind the cyclist was a service bus - and then behind that at least half a
> mile of cars all doing whatever speed the cyclist was doing.
>
> The cyclist did not even have the commons sense (or courtesy) to dismount and
> let the queue go past.
>
>
>

I might be too a defence cyclist but as soon as i hear anything
behind me slowing down I pull over where possible. On the really
narrow places however, where there's also oncoming traffic this
can lead to a race for life as you speed up looking for that
gap in the trees to dive into as the car behind revs up and speeds
up. Not because they want to go at a decent speed for the road
conditions, but because they want to speed. Go faster than the
road conditions.

It's all very well having laws and rules and insurance but
at the end of the day drivers ignore the rules day in
and day out.

Yes, like I say, I've seen plenty of annoying cyclists.
Like pedestrians on a cycle lane they can travel abreast
and block the road. Or have the character holding up
lines of traffic, Just like that tractor driver who
ignores plenty of chances to pull over.

The thing with drivers is they are not going from A to B.
When they get in their car they have joined death
race 2000. Rally car racing. where everything else
on the road has to overtaken and driving must be done
as fast as possible. So they can get to point B and
put their feet up at the pub.

1. Cycling in the road mean cycling with cars driving
over the speed limit.

2. Trucks barrelling down hill will scrape your handle bars
and peddles and they will not stop in any good time if
they knock you off.

3. Turning is likely to see a car come up behing you at
speed and also turn and cut you up leaving you spread
eagle in the road.

4. Where signs say don't turn right into a main road is
where drivers will be turning right.

5. Speeding drivers will have a passenger window down
where someone is suddenly screaming nonsense in your ear.

6. Have cycling as part of the driving test and see
if they live.

[Dr. Sandringham]

On Fri, 29 May 2015 17:13:22 +0100, "Judith" wrote:

Troll.

Which also shows Peter knows as little about cycling as he did about the
Labour party's chance of electing a majority.

[tim.....]

"Judith" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 30 May 2015 09:23:47 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>
>>On 29/05/2015 17:13, Judith wrote:
>>> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional training
>>> for
>>> younger people via schools.
>>> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for cyclists -
>>> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
>>> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
>>> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes, reflectors
>>> and
>>> lights.
>>> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
>>> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking laws.
>>> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being checked every
>>> five years- of them and their bike.
>>> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which must be worn
>>> at
>>> all times whilst cycling.
>>> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of hi-viz
>>> garment and clearly visible.
>>> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and crushing of
>>> cycle
>>> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
>>> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling
>>> charities
>>> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>>>
>>
>>What are you trying to achieve?
>
>
>
> Eeeerm - difficult one that.

well try us!

tim

[Nick[_4_]]

On 30/05/2015 09:47, Judith wrote:
> On Sat, 30 May 2015 09:23:47 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>
>> On 29/05/2015 17:13, Judith wrote:
>>> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional training for
>>> younger people via schools.
>>> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for cyclists -
>>> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
>>> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
>>> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes, reflectors and
>>> lights.
>>> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
>>> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking laws.
>>> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being checked every
>>> five years- of them and their bike.
>>> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which must be worn at
>>> all times whilst cycling.
>>> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of hi-viz
>>> garment and clearly visible.
>>> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and crushing of cycle
>>> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
>>> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling charities
>>> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>>>
>>
>> What are you trying to achieve?
>
>
>
> Eeeerm - difficult one that.
>

Well at the moment it seems the political consensus is that it would be
better if there was more cycling and less driving. So you appear to be
****ing into the wind.

I'm betting we have an default assumption of liability for motorists in
collision with a cyclist before we see any of your 11 proposals.

[MrCheerful]

On 30/05/2015 11:36, Nick wrote:
> On 30/05/2015 09:47, Judith wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 May 2015 09:23:47 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>>
>>> On 29/05/2015 17:13, Judith wrote:
>>>> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional
>>>> training for
>>>> younger people via schools.
>>>> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for
>>>> cyclists -
>>>> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
>>>> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
>>>> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes,
>>>> reflectors and
>>>> lights.
>>>> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
>>>> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking laws.
>>>> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being checked
>>>> every
>>>> five years- of them and their bike.
>>>> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which must
>>>> be worn at
>>>> all times whilst cycling.
>>>> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of hi-viz
>>>> garment and clearly visible.
>>>> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and crushing
>>>> of cycle
>>>> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
>>>> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling
>>>> charities
>>>> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What are you trying to achieve?
>>
>>
>>
>> Eeeerm - difficult one that.
>>
>
> Well at the moment it seems the political consensus is that it would be
> better if there was more cycling and less driving. So you appear to be
> ****ing into the wind.
>
> I'm betting we have an default assumption of liability for motorists in
> collision with a cyclist before we see any of your 11 proposals.
>
>
>

If assumed liability comes in, cyclists will automatically be deemed
responsible for their collisions with pedestrians, so insurance will be
a must have.

[Bill]

In message >, Mrcheerful
> writes
>> Well at the moment it seems the political consensus is that it would be
>> better if there was more cycling and less driving. So you appear to be
>> ****ing into the wind.
>>
>> I'm betting we have an default assumption of liability for motorists in
>> collision with a cyclist before we see any of your 11 proposals.
>>
>>
>>
>
>If assumed liability comes in, cyclists will automatically be deemed
>responsible for their collisions with pedestrians, so insurance will be
>a must have.

Imagining a situation where a cyclist causes life changing injuries to a
child, as could so easily have happened in the above case.
There could well be a court case where damages are awarded against the
cyclist that include a substantial sum for the continued care of the
child into it's adult life and beyond. If it was a motorist in a car
causing this then their insurance would pay out. If it was a cyclist,
without insurance, it could cause them to loose their home and they may
be paying for a very long time. I know that no one ever goes out
intending to harm someone else, well not often anyway, but "accidents"
do happen. I am amazed that cyclists do not voluntarily take out
insurance for their own protection and that of their families. Perhaps
some do, but all too often you hear tales of them saying it isn't
legally required, so they don't. Maybe they should consider the
consequences of not having it.

--
Bill

[Ophelia[_7_]]

"Bill" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Mrcheerful
> > writes
>>> Well at the moment it seems the political consensus is that it would be
>>> better if there was more cycling and less driving. So you appear to be
>>> ****ing into the wind.
>>>
>>> I'm betting we have an default assumption of liability for motorists in
>>> collision with a cyclist before we see any of your 11 proposals.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>If assumed liability comes in, cyclists will automatically be deemed
>>responsible for their collisions with pedestrians, so insurance will be a
>>must have.
>
> Imagining a situation where a cyclist causes life changing injuries to a
> child, as could so easily have happened in the above case.
> There could well be a court case where damages are awarded against the
> cyclist that include a substantial sum for the continued care of the child
> into it's adult life and beyond. If it was a motorist in a car causing
> this then their insurance would pay out. If it was a cyclist, without
> insurance, it could cause them to loose their home and they may be paying
> for a very long time. I know that no one ever goes out intending to harm
> someone else, well not often anyway, but "accidents" do happen. I am
> amazed that cyclists do not voluntarily take out insurance for their own
> protection and that of their families. Perhaps some do, but all too often
> you hear tales of them saying it isn't legally required, so they don't.
> Maybe they should consider the consequences of not having it.

Very good comment.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[MrCheerful]

On 30/05/2015 13:18, Bill wrote:
> In message >, Mrcheerful
> > writes
>>> Well at the moment it seems the political consensus is that it would be
>>> better if there was more cycling and less driving. So you appear to be
>>> ****ing into the wind.
>>>
>>> I'm betting we have an default assumption of liability for motorists in
>>> collision with a cyclist before we see any of your 11 proposals.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If assumed liability comes in, cyclists will automatically be deemed
>> responsible for their collisions with pedestrians, so insurance will
>> be a must have.
>
> Imagining a situation where a cyclist causes life changing injuries to a
> child, as could so easily have happened in the above case.
> There could well be a court case where damages are awarded against the
> cyclist that include a substantial sum for the continued care of the
> child into it's adult life and beyond. If it was a motorist in a car
> causing this then their insurance would pay out. If it was a cyclist,
> without insurance, it could cause them to loose their home and they may
> be paying for a very long time. I know that no one ever goes out
> intending to harm someone else, well not often anyway, but "accidents"
> do happen. I am amazed that cyclists do not voluntarily take out
> insurance for their own protection and that of their families. Perhaps
> some do, but all too often you hear tales of them saying it isn't
> legally required, so they don't. Maybe they should consider the
> consequences of not having it.
>

At present cyclists are not even required to stop and exchange details
following a collision, even when the pedestrian dies. The laws on
cyclists are chronically in need of overhaul, and implementation.

[Ian Smith]

On Sat, 30 May 2015 13:18:31 +0100, Bill > wrote:

> I am amazed that cyclists do not voluntarily take out insurance for
> their own protection and that of their families. Perhaps some do,
> but all too often you hear tales of them saying it isn't legally
> required, so they don't. Maybe they should consider the
> consequences of not having it.

Most do have it. It's on their household contents policy, by default.
Mine, for example, says "We will cover you against any claim for
damages which you may legally have to pay for an accident ... which
causes bodily injury ... or loss of or damage to property". 5 million
cover, zero excess. Most people have contents insurance, and those
that don't are probably not going to be swayed by 'what if you cycle
into something and are at fault?'

I then additionally have cover through belonging to a cycling club.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Bill]

In message >, Ian Smith
> writes
>On Sat, 30 May 2015 13:18:31 +0100, Bill > wrote:
>
>> I am amazed that cyclists do not voluntarily take out insurance for
>> their own protection and that of their families. Perhaps some do,
>> but all too often you hear tales of them saying it isn't legally
>> required, so they don't. Maybe they should consider the
>> consequences of not having it.
>
>Most do have it. It's on their household contents policy, by default.
>Mine, for example, says "We will cover you against any claim for
>damages which you may legally have to pay for an accident ... which
>causes bodily injury ... or loss of or damage to property". 5 million
>cover, zero excess. Most people have contents insurance, and those
>that don't are probably not going to be swayed by 'what if you cycle
>into something and are at fault?'
>
>I then additionally have cover through belonging to a cycling club.
>
>regards, Ian SMith


There again many probably do not have household insurance, I'm thinking
mainly of students here. But also others on low income and living in
rented accommodation, just the sort of people to cycle because they
cannot afford other modes of transport, let alone home insurance.

I do feel that until insurance is made obligatory that there are some
cyclists living on borrowed time before they run into problems.
--
Bill

[Juan Carr]

On Fri, 29 May 2015 17:13:22 +0100, Judith >
wrote:

>1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional training for
>younger people via schools.
>2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for cyclists -
>which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
>3. Compulsory third party insurance.
>4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes, reflectors and
>lights.
>5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
>6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking laws.
>7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being checked every
>five years- of them and their bike.
>8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which must be worn at
>all times whilst cycling.
>9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of hi-viz
>garment and clearly visible.
>10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and crushing of cycle
>for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
>11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling charities
>(CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>
>

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b78_1432924447

seems to have gone viral and rightly so............

[jnugent]

On 30/05/2015 16:52, Juan Carr wrote:
> On Fri, 29 May 2015 17:13:22 +0100, Judith >
> wrote:
>
>> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional training for
>> younger people via schools.
>> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for cyclists -
>> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
>> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
>> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes, reflectors and
>> lights.
>> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
>> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking laws.
>> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being checked every
>> five years- of them and their bike.
>> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which must be worn at
>> all times whilst cycling.
>> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of hi-viz
>> garment and clearly visible.
>> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and crushing of cycle
>> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
>> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling charities
>> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>>
>>
>
> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b78_1432924447
>
> seems to have gone viral and rightly so............

QUOTE:
I got out to check if he was ok and if there was any damage, The car
didn't appear to be damaged but I noticed later on a dent on the car
which I had not seen, I was distracted by the cyclist who's face was
pouring with blood you can see on full video...
ENDQUOTE

No collision of that violence could possibly occur without causing
damage. In order to get the vehicle back into the nearly-new condition
it appears it was in, such damage is usually likely to have repair costs
in the low thousands of pounds rather than the few hundreds. New panels
would be required, then fitting and re-spraying, all at a main dealers
or upmarket specialist body-work shop. Not cheap. Some damage
(especially a dent in the roofline) is almost impossible to repair so
that it cannot be detected.

The driver of the vehicle should not have let the cyclist depart from
the scene without ascertaining sufficient information to allow the
repair bill (or, as the case might be, the solicitor's letter) to be
appropriately forwarded.

[Phi]

"Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
...
> On 30/05/2015 02:04, Blue wrote:
>> On 29/05/2015 17:13, Judith wrote:
>>> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional
>>> training for
>>> younger people via schools.
>>> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for cyclists -
>>> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
>>> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
>>> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes,
>>> reflectors and
>>> lights.
>>> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
>>> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking laws.
>>> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being checked
>>> every
>>> five years- of them and their bike.
>>> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which must be
>>> worn at
>>> all times whilst cycling.
>>> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of hi-viz
>>> garment and clearly visible.
>>> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and crushing
>>> of cycle
>>> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
>>> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling
>>> charities
>>> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>>
>>
>> I hear that drivers don't need today's speed limits
>> because the car brakes are that much more powerful.
>>
>> Problem is however that the roads are still the same
>> narrow size. Around here you get a couple of big
>> trucks coming at each other and they both have to
>> drop to a crawl to get past each other. This on
>> blind tree lined bends.
>>
>> So with just a lot of traffic there simply is no room
>> for a bicycle. Because out in the country lanes there is
>> no pavement. Now it would be nice if drivers didn't have
>> to immediately overtake the cyclist, plunging themselves
>> into on coming traffic, but they do.
>>
>> You maybe be very lucky when a truck bombing it down
>> hill will move out some. But if there is traffic coming
>> up, no, there is no slowing. Feel the wind blow as the
>> giant truck whistles past your ear at full speed as
>> it tries to car up with the traffic, or flying cars.
>>
>> Heaven forbid if these trucks had to hit the breaks because
>> they don't stop until they're at the bottom of the hill.
>>
>> Further out in the long country road stretches without pavements
>> you'll find the speeding sports cars taking blind bends
>> at 200mph. All the while hugging the tree line.
>>
>> In town there's a right turn I make which has its own lane.
>> Now the road coming out onto this main road has a no left
>> turn sign. But there's always a car there driving into you.
>>
>> Yes there are cycle lanes, these are full of pedestrians
>> walking 4 abreast, even thought there's pavement beside
>> the cycle lane, they choose the cycle lane. Often the lanes
>> are blocked with yacking mothers and pram blockers. And
>> of course it's full of broken glass for obvious reasons.
>> And what ever speed you go past these pedestrians lane
>> blockers they hate you for your sudden appearance.
>>
>> And of course there's the walkers who never look around
>> as they walk right across the cycle lane in a dream
>> like state. Same goes for groups of children on bikes
>> who don't look around who cycle from one pavement area,
>> across the road to the other side. And then turn the air
>> blue if they're bibbed up.
>>
>
> The one that is the anachronism is the cyclist, get them off the streets
> and pavements and everyone else's lot will be improved.
>

Yes proper cycle tracks and underpasses.

[Tarcap]

"Blue" wrote in message ...

On 30/05/2015 09:40, Judith wrote:
> On Sat, 30 May 2015 02:04:26 +0100, Blue > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>> Problem is however that the roads are still the same
>> narrow size.
>
> I was on quite a narrow country road (but an A road) in the country
> yesterday :
> very undulating.
>
> Coming in the opposite direction was a sole cyclist.
>
> Behind the cyclist was a service bus - and then behind that at least half
> a
> mile of cars all doing whatever speed the cyclist was doing.
>
> The cyclist did not even have the commons sense (or courtesy) to dismount
> and
> let the queue go past.
>
>
>

I might be too a defence cyclist but as soon as i hear anything
behind me slowing down I pull over where possible. On the really
narrow places however, where there's also oncoming traffic this
can lead to a race for life as you speed up looking for that
gap in the trees to dive into as the car behind revs up and speeds
up. Not because they want to go at a decent speed for the road
conditions, but because they want to speed. Go faster than the
road conditions.

It's all very well having laws and rules and insurance but
at the end of the day drivers ignore the rules day in
and day out.

Yes, like I say, I've seen plenty of annoying cyclists.
Like pedestrians on a cycle lane they can travel abreast
and block the road. Or have the character holding up
lines of traffic, Just like that tractor driver who
ignores plenty of chances to pull over.

The thing with drivers is they are not going from A to B.
When they get in their car they have joined death
race 2000. Rally car racing. where everything else
on the road has to overtaken and driving must be done
as fast as possible. So they can get to point B and
put their feet up at the pub.

1. Cycling in the road mean cycling with cars driving
over the speed limit.

2. Trucks barrelling down hill will scrape your handle bars
and peddles and they will not stop in any good time if
they knock you off.

3. Turning is likely to see a car come up behing you at
speed and also turn and cut you up leaving you spread
eagle in the road.

4. Where signs say don't turn right into a main road is
where drivers will be turning right.

5. Speeding drivers will have a passenger window down
where someone is suddenly screaming nonsense in your ear.

6. Have cycling as part of the driving test and see
if they live.


Ten out of ten for imagination there, or more commonly known as "making
things up".

[Judith[_4_]]

On Sat, 30 May 2015 11:32:34 +0100, "tim....." >
wrote:

>
>"Judith" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 30 May 2015 09:23:47 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>>
>>>On 29/05/2015 17:13, Judith wrote:
>>>> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional training
>>>> for
>>>> younger people via schools.
>>>> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for cyclists -
>>>> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
>>>> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
>>>> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes, reflectors
>>>> and
>>>> lights.
>>>> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
>>>> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking laws.
>>>> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being checked every
>>>> five years- of them and their bike.
>>>> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which must be worn
>>>> at
>>>> all times whilst cycling.
>>>> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of hi-viz
>>>> garment and clearly visible.
>>>> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and crushing of
>>>> cycle
>>>> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
>>>> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling
>>>> charities
>>>> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>>>>
>>>
>>>What are you trying to achieve?
>>
>>
>>
>> Eeeerm - difficult one that.
>
>well try us!
>
>tim
>


How about a discussion of the suggestion?

[Judith[_4_]]

On Sat, 30 May 2015 11:36:40 +0100, Nick > wrote:

>On 30/05/2015 09:47, Judith wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 May 2015 09:23:47 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>>
>>> On 29/05/2015 17:13, Judith wrote:
>>>> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional training for
>>>> younger people via schools.
>>>> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for cyclists -
>>>> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
>>>> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
>>>> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes, reflectors and
>>>> lights.
>>>> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
>>>> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking laws.
>>>> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being checked every
>>>> five years- of them and their bike.
>>>> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which must be worn at
>>>> all times whilst cycling.
>>>> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of hi-viz
>>>> garment and clearly visible.
>>>> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and crushing of cycle
>>>> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
>>>> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling charities
>>>> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What are you trying to achieve?
>>
>>
>>
>> Eeeerm - difficult one that.
>>
>
>Well at the moment it seems the political consensus is that it would be
>better if there was more cycling and less driving. So you appear to be
>****ing into the wind.

So you think that driving is going to go *down*.

Care to explain?

Do you mean cycling is going to double and perhaps hit as much as 4% of all
journeys?

[Judith[_4_]]

On Sat, 30 May 2015 13:18:31 +0100, Bill > wrote:

>In message >, Mrcheerful
> writes
>>> Well at the moment it seems the political consensus is that it would be
>>> better if there was more cycling and less driving. So you appear to be
>>> ****ing into the wind.
>>>
>>> I'm betting we have an default assumption of liability for motorists in
>>> collision with a cyclist before we see any of your 11 proposals.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>If assumed liability comes in, cyclists will automatically be deemed
>>responsible for their collisions with pedestrians, so insurance will be
>>a must have.
>
>Imagining a situation where a cyclist causes life changing injuries to a
>child, as could so easily have happened in the above case.
>There could well be a court case where damages are awarded against the
>cyclist that include a substantial sum for the continued care of the
>child into it's adult life and beyond. If it was a motorist in a car
>causing this then their insurance would pay out. If it was a cyclist,
>without insurance, it could cause them to loose their home and they may
>be paying for a very long time. I know that no one ever goes out
>intending to harm someone else, well not often anyway, but "accidents"
>do happen. I am amazed that cyclists do not voluntarily take out
>insurance for their own protection and that of their families. Perhaps
>some do, but all too often you hear tales of them saying it isn't
>legally required, so they don't. Maybe they should consider the
>consequences of not having it.


Many cyclists believe that their "fridge - freezer" insurance covers any such
accident.

[Judith[_4_]]

On Sat, 30 May 2015 13:38:41 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith >
wrote:

>On Sat, 30 May 2015 13:18:31 +0100, Bill > wrote:
>
>> I am amazed that cyclists do not voluntarily take out insurance for
>> their own protection and that of their families. Perhaps some do,
>> but all too often you hear tales of them saying it isn't legally
>> required, so they don't. Maybe they should consider the
>> consequences of not having it.
>
>Most do have it. It's on their household contents policy, by default.

You are assuming that most cyclists have household contents policies. care to
substantiate that point?

[Judith[_4_]]

On Sat, 30 May 2015 20:45:58 +0100, "Phi" > wrote:

>
>"Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
...
>> On 30/05/2015 02:04, Blue wrote:
>>> On 29/05/2015 17:13, Judith wrote:
>>>> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional
>>>> training for
>>>> younger people via schools.
>>>> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for cyclists -
>>>> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
>>>> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
>>>> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes,
>>>> reflectors and
>>>> lights.
>>>> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
>>>> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking laws.
>>>> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being checked
>>>> every
>>>> five years- of them and their bike.
>>>> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which must be
>>>> worn at
>>>> all times whilst cycling.
>>>> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of hi-viz
>>>> garment and clearly visible.
>>>> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and crushing
>>>> of cycle
>>>> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
>>>> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling
>>>> charities
>>>> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>>>
>>>
>>> I hear that drivers don't need today's speed limits
>>> because the car brakes are that much more powerful.
>>>
>>> Problem is however that the roads are still the same
>>> narrow size. Around here you get a couple of big
>>> trucks coming at each other and they both have to
>>> drop to a crawl to get past each other. This on
>>> blind tree lined bends.
>>>
>>> So with just a lot of traffic there simply is no room
>>> for a bicycle. Because out in the country lanes there is
>>> no pavement. Now it would be nice if drivers didn't have
>>> to immediately overtake the cyclist, plunging themselves
>>> into on coming traffic, but they do.
>>>
>>> You maybe be very lucky when a truck bombing it down
>>> hill will move out some. But if there is traffic coming
>>> up, no, there is no slowing. Feel the wind blow as the
>>> giant truck whistles past your ear at full speed as
>>> it tries to car up with the traffic, or flying cars.
>>>
>>> Heaven forbid if these trucks had to hit the breaks because
>>> they don't stop until they're at the bottom of the hill.
>>>
>>> Further out in the long country road stretches without pavements
>>> you'll find the speeding sports cars taking blind bends
>>> at 200mph. All the while hugging the tree line.
>>>
>>> In town there's a right turn I make which has its own lane.
>>> Now the road coming out onto this main road has a no left
>>> turn sign. But there's always a car there driving into you.
>>>
>>> Yes there are cycle lanes, these are full of pedestrians
>>> walking 4 abreast, even thought there's pavement beside
>>> the cycle lane, they choose the cycle lane. Often the lanes
>>> are blocked with yacking mothers and pram blockers. And
>>> of course it's full of broken glass for obvious reasons.
>>> And what ever speed you go past these pedestrians lane
>>> blockers they hate you for your sudden appearance.
>>>
>>> And of course there's the walkers who never look around
>>> as they walk right across the cycle lane in a dream
>>> like state. Same goes for groups of children on bikes
>>> who don't look around who cycle from one pavement area,
>>> across the road to the other side. And then turn the air
>>> blue if they're bibbed up.
>>>
>>
>> The one that is the anachronism is the cyclist, get them off the streets
>> and pavements and everyone else's lot will be improved.
>>
>
>Yes proper cycle tracks and underpasses.

I guess you mean paid for by cyclists out of the profits from the registration
and testing scheme.

Good plan - I agree.

[Judith[_4_]]

On Sat, 30 May 2015 17:27:43 +0100, JNugent > wrote:

>On 30/05/2015 16:52, Juan Carr wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 May 2015 17:13:22 +0100, Judith >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional training for
>>> younger people via schools.
>>> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for cyclists -
>>> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
>>> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
>>> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes, reflectors and
>>> lights.
>>> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
>>> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking laws.
>>> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being checked every
>>> five years- of them and their bike.
>>> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which must be worn at
>>> all times whilst cycling.
>>> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of hi-viz
>>> garment and clearly visible.
>>> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and crushing of cycle
>>> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
>>> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling charities
>>> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b78_1432924447
>>
>> seems to have gone viral and rightly so............
>
>QUOTE:
>I got out to check if he was ok and if there was any damage, The car
>didn't appear to be damaged but I noticed later on a dent on the car
>which I had not seen, I was distracted by the cyclist who's face was
>pouring with blood you can see on full video...
>ENDQUOTE
>
>No collision of that violence could possibly occur without causing
>damage. In order to get the vehicle back into the nearly-new condition
>it appears it was in, such damage is usually likely to have repair costs
>in the low thousands of pounds rather than the few hundreds. New panels
>would be required, then fitting and re-spraying, all at a main dealers
>or upmarket specialist body-work shop. Not cheap. Some damage
>(especially a dent in the roofline) is almost impossible to repair so
>that it cannot be detected.
>
>The driver of the vehicle should not have let the cyclist depart from
>the scene without ascertaining sufficient information to allow the
>repair bill (or, as the case might be, the solicitor's letter) to be
>appropriately forwarded.


I think the video also rubbishes the idea that cycling makes you nice and slim
and trim.

[David Lang]

On 30/05/2015 02:04, Blue wrote:
> On 29/05/2015 17:13, Judith wrote:
>> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional
>> training for
>> younger people via schools.
>> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for cyclists -
>> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
>> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
>> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes,
>> reflectors and
>> lights.
>> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
>> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking laws.
>> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being checked
>> every
>> five years- of them and their bike.
>> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which must be
>> worn at
>> all times whilst cycling.
>> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of hi-viz
>> garment and clearly visible.
>> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and crushing
>> of cycle
>> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
>> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling
>> charities
>> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>
>
> I hear that drivers don't need today's speed limits
> because the car brakes are that much more powerful.

The stopping distances in the HC are ridiculous where modern cars are
concerned. Braking has improved beyond recognition.
>
> Problem is however that the roads are still the same
> narrow size. Around here you get a couple of big
> trucks coming at each other and they both have to
> drop to a crawl to get past each other. This on
> blind tree lined bends.
>
> So with just a lot of traffic there simply is no room
> for a bicycle. Because out in the country lanes there is
> no pavement. Now it would be nice if drivers didn't have
> to immediately overtake the cyclist, plunging themselves
> into on coming traffic, but they do.

The cyclist shouldn't be on the road in the first place.
>
> You maybe be very lucky when a truck bombing it down
> hill will move out some. But if there is traffic coming
> up, no, there is no slowing. Feel the wind blow as the
> giant truck whistles past your ear at full speed as

> it tries to car up with the traffic, or flying cars.
>
> Heaven forbid if these trucks had to hit the breaks because
> they don't stop until they're at the bottom of the hill.
>
> Further out in the long country road stretches without pavements
> you'll find the speeding sports cars taking blind bends
> at 200mph. All the while hugging the tree line.

200mph?????
>
> In town there's a right turn I make which has its own lane.
> Now the road coming out onto this main road has a no left
> turn sign. But there's always a car there driving into you.
>
> Yes there are cycle lanes, these are full of pedestrians
> walking 4 abreast, even thought there's pavement beside
> the cycle lane, they choose the cycle lane. Often the lanes
> are blocked with yacking mothers and pram blockers. And
> of course it's full of broken glass for obvious reasons.
> And what ever speed you go past these pedestrians lane
> blockers they hate you for your sudden appearance.

Since cyclists are sponging freeloaders and don't contribute to roads
they should be grateful for what they are given.
>
> And of course there's the walkers who never look around
> as they walk right across the cycle lane in a dream
> like state. Same goes for groups of children on bikes
> who don't look around who cycle from one pavement area,
> across the road to the other side. And then turn the air
> blue if they're bibbed up.
>
>
>
>
>
> https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/359016/indicator-table.csv/preview
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[David Lang]

On 30/05/2015 09:23, Nick wrote:
> On 29/05/2015 17:13, Judith wrote:
>> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional
>> training for
>> younger people via schools.
>> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for cyclists -
>> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
>> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
>> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes,
>> reflectors and
>> lights.
>> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
>> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking laws.
>> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being checked
>> every
>> five years- of them and their bike.
>> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which must be
>> worn at
>> all times whilst cycling.
>> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of hi-viz
>> garment and clearly visible.
>> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and crushing
>> of cycle
>> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
>> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling
>> charities
>> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>>
>
> What are you trying to achieve?
>
The correct & proper regulation of a group of serial law breakers.

[David Lang]

On 30/05/2015 11:36, Nick wrote:
> On 30/05/2015 09:47, Judith wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 May 2015 09:23:47 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>>
>>> On 29/05/2015 17:13, Judith wrote:
>>>> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional
>>>> training for
>>>> younger people via schools.
>>>> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for
>>>> cyclists -
>>>> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
>>>> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
>>>> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes,
>>>> reflectors and
>>>> lights.
>>>> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
>>>> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking laws.
>>>> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being checked
>>>> every
>>>> five years- of them and their bike.
>>>> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which must
>>>> be worn at
>>>> all times whilst cycling.
>>>> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of hi-viz
>>>> garment and clearly visible.
>>>> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and crushing
>>>> of cycle
>>>> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
>>>> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling
>>>> charities
>>>> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What are you trying to achieve?
>>
>>
>>
>> Eeeerm - difficult one that.
>>
>
> Well at the moment it seems the political consensus is that it would be
> better if there was more cycling and less driving. So you appear to be
> ****ing into the wind.

Shame that people simply don't want to cycle. Sensible people that is.
>
> I'm betting we have an default assumption of liability for motorists in
> collision with a cyclist before we see any of your 11 proposals.
>
>
>

[Blue]

On 30/05/2015 21:07, Tarcap wrote:
>
>
> "Blue" wrote in message ...
>
> On 30/05/2015 09:40, Judith wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 May 2015 02:04:26 +0100, Blue > wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>> Problem is however that the roads are still the same
>>> narrow size.
>>
>> I was on quite a narrow country road (but an A road) in the country
>> yesterday :
>> very undulating.
>>
>> Coming in the opposite direction was a sole cyclist.
>>
>> Behind the cyclist was a service bus - and then behind that at least
>> half a
>> mile of cars all doing whatever speed the cyclist was doing.
>>
>> The cyclist did not even have the commons sense (or courtesy) to
>> dismount and
>> let the queue go past.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I might be too a defence cyclist but as soon as i hear anything
> behind me slowing down I pull over where possible. On the really
> narrow places however, where there's also oncoming traffic this
> can lead to a race for life as you speed up looking for that
> gap in the trees to dive into as the car behind revs up and speeds
> up. Not because they want to go at a decent speed for the road
> conditions, but because they want to speed. Go faster than the
> road conditions.
>
> It's all very well having laws and rules and insurance but
> at the end of the day drivers ignore the rules day in
> and day out.
>
> Yes, like I say, I've seen plenty of annoying cyclists.
> Like pedestrians on a cycle lane they can travel abreast
> and block the road. Or have the character holding up
> lines of traffic, Just like that tractor driver who
> ignores plenty of chances to pull over.
>
> The thing with drivers is they are not going from A to B.
> When they get in their car they have joined death
> race 2000. Rally car racing. where everything else
> on the road has to overtaken and driving must be done
> as fast as possible. So they can get to point B and
> put their feet up at the pub.
>
> 1. Cycling in the road mean cycling with cars driving
> over the speed limit.
>
> 2. Trucks barrelling down hill will scrape your handle bars
> and peddles and they will not stop in any good time if
> they knock you off.
>
> 3. Turning is likely to see a car come up behing you at
> speed and also turn and cut you up leaving you spread
> eagle in the road.
>
> 4. Where signs say don't turn right into a main road is
> where drivers will be turning right.
>
> 5. Speeding drivers will have a passenger window down
> where someone is suddenly screaming nonsense in your ear.
>
> 6. Have cycling as part of the driving test and see
> if they live.
>
>
> Ten out of ten for imagination there, or more commonly known as "making
> things up".




Years ago I was coming up Ley street one day and had clear road
ahead so was going across Eastern Avenue and a white van
came up fast behind on my right and then went left.
My handle bars had got jammed on his van and I'd lost control
and went down.

Very recently, I'd gone past a road on the right and driver
slowed down but after I'd gone past it suddenly they shot out
and had its front bumper jammed on my back wheel.
Such that I couldn't move the back wheel and get away
because the whole car was acting like a giant brake.
That buckled the rear wheel to the point it got jammed in
the side bars of the bike and the whole wheel needed
to be replaced at cost. But rear wheel sockets didn't
seem right and I eventually got a new bike.

The female driver after some revving realised I wasn't
going anywhere and backed up. She said sorry and took off.

So that's 2 cases where drivers have driven into
a cyclist and got clean away.

You can cycle and be peaceful and perfect as you can
day in, day out. But drivers will run into you and
when that happens you are exposed. If anyone doesn't
think that's the case then they can get on their bike.

[Blue]

On 30/05/2015 11:36, Nick wrote:
>
> I'm betting we have an default assumption of liability for motorists in
> collision with a cyclist before we see any of your 11 proposals.




My personal experience is that after the driver
has hit a cyclist is to drive off as fast as possible.


Of myself having been driving into and newspaper articles
and signs on barriers asking for witnesses.

[jnugent]

On 31/05/2015 00:15, Blue wrote:

> On 30/05/2015 11:36, Nick wrote:
>
>> I'm betting we have an default assumption of liability for motorists in
>> collision with a cyclist before we see any of your 11 proposals.
>
> My personal experience is that after the driver
> has hit a cyclist is to drive off as fast as possible.
> Of myself having been driving into and newspaper articles
> and signs on barriers asking for witnesses.

Was that "translated" into English via the Google app?

[Blue]

On 31/05/2015 00:42, JNugent wrote:
> On 31/05/2015 00:15, Blue wrote:
>
> > On 30/05/2015 11:36, Nick wrote:
>>
>>> I'm betting we have an default assumption of liability for motorists in
>>> collision with a cyclist before we see any of your 11 proposals.
>>
>> My personal experience is that after the driver
>> has hit a cyclist is to drive off as fast as possible.
>> Of myself having been driving into and newspaper articles
>> and signs on barriers asking for witnesses.
>
> Was that "translated" into English via the Google app?


I've been run over that often clhgouch x !

[Blue]

On 30/05/2015 13:18, Bill wrote:
> In message >, Mrcheerful
> > writes
>>> Well at the moment it seems the political consensus is that it would be
>>> better if there was more cycling and less driving. So you appear to be
>>> ****ing into the wind.
>>>
>>> I'm betting we have an default assumption of liability for motorists in
>>> collision with a cyclist before we see any of your 11 proposals.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If assumed liability comes in, cyclists will automatically be deemed
>> responsible for their collisions with pedestrians, so insurance will
>> be a must have.
>
> Imagining a situation where a cyclist causes life changing injuries to a
> child, as could so easily have happened in the above case.
> There could well be a court case where damages are awarded against the
> cyclist that include a substantial sum for the continued care of the
> child into it's adult life and beyond.


Imagine a case where a man owned a knife and ran out
of his house stabbing folk. Does that mean that all
knife owners must have insurance, is it that common
an event?



> If it was a motorist in a car
> causing this then their insurance would pay out. If it was a cyclist,
> without insurance, it could cause them to loose their home and they may
> be paying for a very long time.


Of course fast cyclists, professionals are insured
by their team. Those with jobs which involve cycling
are probably covered by their companies liability insurance.

As for the rest who hug the curb and travel at walking pace,
they are most unlikely to run over and kill someone.
There is of course the jay walker who leaps blindly into
the road or cycle lane. Who need to be watched.

As for a cyclist running into a car or truck and killing
that person, it must be rare as the one who'll come
of worse is the cyclist.



> I know that no one ever goes out
> intending to harm someone else, well not often anyway, but "accidents"
> do happen.


Where the driver is protected in some tonnage of truck
going some hundred of miles, or some car driver whipping
around a roundabout. And just common flow traffic speed
is breaking the speed limit, accidents happen.

where the gas is mistaken for the brakes, accidents happen.

But your cyclist isn't protected behind layer upon layer
of metal. And there's no pedal button that gets accidently
pressed to excelerate them from zero to 60mph.



> I am amazed that cyclists do not voluntarily take out
> insurance for their own protection and that of their families. Perhaps
> some do, but all too often you hear tales of them saying it isn't
> legally required, so they don't. Maybe they should consider the
> consequences of not having it.


I must have been cycling for getting on for 40 years.
And I still haven't run into a pedestrian or hit a car.
Now how many times have you drivers claimed on your insurance,
if you had it, 5, 10 times? Done for speeding, 5, 10 times?


There seems to be the idea here that there is no cycle
insurance around what so ever. So go on google and you'll
find some.

[MrCheerful]

On 31/05/2015 09:12, Blue wrote:
> On 30/05/2015 13:18, Bill wrote:
>> In message >, Mrcheerful
>> > writes
>>>> Well at the moment it seems the political consensus is that it would be
>>>> better if there was more cycling and less driving. So you appear to be
>>>> ****ing into the wind.
>>>>
>>>> I'm betting we have an default assumption of liability for motorists in
>>>> collision with a cyclist before we see any of your 11 proposals.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> If assumed liability comes in, cyclists will automatically be deemed
>>> responsible for their collisions with pedestrians, so insurance will
>>> be a must have.
>>
>> Imagining a situation where a cyclist causes life changing injuries to a
>> child, as could so easily have happened in the above case.
>> There could well be a court case where damages are awarded against the
>> cyclist that include a substantial sum for the continued care of the
>> child into it's adult life and beyond.
>
>
> Imagine a case where a man owned a knife and ran out
> of his house stabbing folk. Does that mean that all
> knife owners must have insurance, is it that common
> an event?
>
>
>
>> If it was a motorist in a car
>> causing this then their insurance would pay out. If it was a cyclist,
>> without insurance, it could cause them to loose their home and they may
>> be paying for a very long time.
>
>
> Of course fast cyclists, professionals are insured
> by their team. Those with jobs which involve cycling
> are probably covered by their companies liability insurance.
>
> As for the rest who hug the curb and travel at walking pace,
> they are most unlikely to run over and kill someone.
> There is of course the jay walker who leaps blindly into
> the road or cycle lane. Who need to be watched.
>
> As for a cyclist running into a car or truck and killing
> that person, it must be rare as the one who'll come
> of worse is the cyclist.
>
>
>
> > I know that no one ever goes out
>> intending to harm someone else, well not often anyway, but "accidents"
>> do happen.
>
>
> Where the driver is protected in some tonnage of truck
> going some hundred of miles, or some car driver whipping
> around a roundabout. And just common flow traffic speed
> is breaking the speed limit, accidents happen.
>
> where the gas is mistaken for the brakes, accidents happen.
>
> But your cyclist isn't protected behind layer upon layer
> of metal. And there's no pedal button that gets accidently
> pressed to excelerate them from zero to 60mph.
>
>
>
>> I am amazed that cyclists do not voluntarily take out
>> insurance for their own protection and that of their families. Perhaps
>> some do, but all too often you hear tales of them saying it isn't
>> legally required, so they don't. Maybe they should consider the
>> consequences of not having it.
>
>
> I must have been cycling for getting on for 40 years.
> And I still haven't run into a pedestrian or hit a car.
> Now how many times have you drivers claimed on your insurance,
> if you had it, 5, 10 times? Done for speeding, 5, 10 times?
>
>
> There seems to be the idea here that there is no cycle
> insurance around what so ever. So go on google and you'll
> find some.
>
ordinary cyclists kill people, they do not even have to report the
crash. the laws need modernising.

[Peter Keller[_3_]]

On Sat, 30 May 2015 22:02:40 +0100, David Lang wrote:

> Sensible people that is.

Thank God I am not sensible by the Dave's definition.
Great compliment coming from Dave.

[Bill]

In message >, Phil W Lee
> writes
>
>If the figures from the Motor Insurance Bureau are to be believed,
>there are almost certainly far more uninsured motorists around than
>uninsured cyclists, and the uninsured motorists have a far higher
>chance of being liable for property damage, life changing injuries,
>and deaths even than average motorists, so many orders of magnitude
>greater than any cyclist.

Quite likely as there are many more motorists on the roads than
cyclists.
I wonder what the figures would be as a percentage though?



--
Bill

[Judith[_4_]]

On Sat, 30 May 2015 23:46:25 +0100, Blue > wrote:

<snip>


>So that's 2 cases where drivers have driven into
>a cyclist and got clean away.


There must be a case for motor vehicles having some sort of ID number on the
vehicle - just the same for cyclists.

[tim.....]

"Judith" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 30 May 2015 11:32:34 +0100, "tim....." >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Judith" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Sat, 30 May 2015 09:23:47 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 29/05/2015 17:13, Judith wrote:
>>>>> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional training
>>>>> for
>>>>> younger people via schools.
>>>>> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for cyclists -
>>>>> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
>>>>> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
>>>>> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes, reflectors
>>>>> and
>>>>> lights.
>>>>> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
>>>>> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking laws.
>>>>> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being checked
>>>>> every
>>>>> five years- of them and their bike.
>>>>> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which must be
>>>>> worn
>>>>> at
>>>>> all times whilst cycling.
>>>>> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of hi-viz
>>>>> garment and clearly visible.
>>>>> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and crushing of
>>>>> cycle
>>>>> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
>>>>> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling
>>>>> charities
>>>>> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What are you trying to achieve?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Eeeerm - difficult one that.
>>
>>well try us!
>>
>>tim
>>
>
>
> How about a discussion of the suggestion?

but that requires us to know you motivation.

The possibilities here are too extreme for us to guess and my only response
to your suggestions is "don't be so bloody stupid".

and you get that answer regardless of my pro/anti bike/car view so don't use
it to assume one

tim

[Nick[_4_]]

On 30/05/2015 21:23, Judith wrote:
> On Sat, 30 May 2015 11:36:40 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>
>> On 30/05/2015 09:47, Judith wrote:
>>> On Sat, 30 May 2015 09:23:47 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 29/05/2015 17:13, Judith wrote:
>>>>> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional training for
>>>>> younger people via schools.
>>>>> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for cyclists -
>>>>> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
>>>>> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
>>>>> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes, reflectors and
>>>>> lights.
>>>>> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
>>>>> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking laws.
>>>>> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being checked every
>>>>> five years- of them and their bike.
>>>>> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which must be worn at
>>>>> all times whilst cycling.
>>>>> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of hi-viz
>>>>> garment and clearly visible.
>>>>> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and crushing of cycle
>>>>> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
>>>>> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling charities
>>>>> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What are you trying to achieve?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Eeeerm - difficult one that.
>>>
>>
>> Well at the moment it seems the political consensus is that it would be
>> better if there was more cycling and less driving. So you appear to be
>> ****ing into the wind.
>
> So you think that driving is going to go *down*.
>
> Care to explain?
>

I don't know how you inferred that? You seem to be using a logic system
even more powerful than the one that can infer fire from smoke.

I was implying that politicians would favour legislation that promoted
cycling and discouraged driving and thus your proposals, which appear to
discourage cycling, would not be supported.

> Do you mean cycling is going to double and perhaps hit as much as 4% of all
> journeys?
>

[Nick[_4_]]

On 31/05/2015 10:00, Mrcheerful wrote:

> ordinary cyclists kill people, they do not even have to report the
> crash. the laws need modernising.
>

lol. Perhaps you could get a former chief commissioner on side like
former Met Chief, Ian Blair. He had massive talents at hyperbole.

Something like "The threats from cyclists are far graver that those
faced in World War II, the Cold War or the IRA"

Would that do it for you?

[tim.....]

"David Lang" > wrote in message
...
> On 30/05/2015 09:23, Nick wrote:
>> On 29/05/2015 17:13, Judith wrote:
>>> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional
>>> training for
>>> younger people via schools.
>>> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for cyclists -
>>> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
>>> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
>>> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes,
>>> reflectors and
>>> lights.
>>> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
>>> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking laws.
>>> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being checked
>>> every
>>> five years- of them and their bike.
>>> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which must be
>>> worn at
>>> all times whilst cycling.
>>> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of hi-viz
>>> garment and clearly visible.
>>> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and crushing
>>> of cycle
>>> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
>>> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling
>>> charities
>>> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>>>
>>
>> What are you trying to achieve?
>>
> The correct & proper regulation of a group of serial law breakers.

and the "criminalisation" of a group of law abiding ones

tim

[Nick[_4_]]

On 31/05/2015 10:22, Bill wrote:
> In message >, Phil W Lee
> > writes
>>
>> If the figures from the Motor Insurance Bureau are to be believed,
>> there are almost certainly far more uninsured motorists around than
>> uninsured cyclists, and the uninsured motorists have a far higher
>> chance of being liable for property damage, life changing injuries,
>> and deaths even than average motorists, so many orders of magnitude
>> greater than any cyclist.
>
> Quite likely as there are many more motorists on the roads than cyclists.
> I wonder what the figures would be as a percentage though?
>

Surely the pertinent figures are the cost to an individual of third
party cover for Cycling and Driving repectively. As near as I can tell
the Cycling figure is negligible (bundled free with house insurance)
compare to hundreds of pounds for driving.

[Bill]

In message >, Nick >
writes
>On 31/05/2015 10:22, Bill wrote:
>> In message >, Phil W Lee
>> > writes
>>>
>>> If the figures from the Motor Insurance Bureau are to be believed,
>>> there are almost certainly far more uninsured motorists around than
>>> uninsured cyclists, and the uninsured motorists have a far higher
>>> chance of being liable for property damage, life changing injuries,
>>> and deaths even than average motorists, so many orders of magnitude
>>> greater than any cyclist.
>>
>> Quite likely as there are many more motorists on the roads than cyclists.
>> I wonder what the figures would be as a percentage though?
>>
>
>Surely the pertinent figures are the cost to an individual of third
>party cover for Cycling and Driving repectively. As near as I can tell
>the Cycling figure is negligible (bundled free with house insurance)
>compare to hundreds of pounds for driving.


Surely the pertinent figures are relating to how many do and do not have
insurance from each group.
As was stated earlier, many people will not be able to rely on their
house insurance to cover them whilst cycling because they do not have
household insurance.

--
Bill

[MrCheerful]

On 31/05/2015 10:41, Nick wrote:
> On 31/05/2015 10:22, Bill wrote:
>> In message >, Phil W Lee
>> > writes
>>>
>>> If the figures from the Motor Insurance Bureau are to be believed,
>>> there are almost certainly far more uninsured motorists around than
>>> uninsured cyclists, and the uninsured motorists have a far higher
>>> chance of being liable for property damage, life changing injuries,
>>> and deaths even than average motorists, so many orders of magnitude
>>> greater than any cyclist.
>>
>> Quite likely as there are many more motorists on the roads than cyclists.
>> I wonder what the figures would be as a percentage though?
>>
>
> Surely the pertinent figures are the cost to an individual of third
> party cover for Cycling and Driving repectively. As near as I can tell
> the Cycling figure is negligible (bundled free with house insurance)
> compare to hundreds of pounds for driving.
>

So as the cost is low there can be no good reason not to make every
cyclist take out such insurance.

[MrCheerful]

On 31/05/2015 10:38, Nick wrote:
> On 31/05/2015 10:00, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
>> ordinary cyclists kill people, they do not even have to report the
>> crash. the laws need modernising.
>>
>
> lol. Perhaps you could get a former chief commissioner on side like
> former Met Chief, Ian Blair. He had massive talents at hyperbole.
>
> Something like "The threats from cyclists are far graver that those
> faced in World War II, the Cold War or the IRA"
>
> Would that do it for you?


Many people are maimed by cyclists every year, a few are killed
outright. They or their families should be compensated.

[MrCheerful]

On 31/05/2015 10:38, tim..... wrote:
>
> "David Lang" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 30/05/2015 09:23, Nick wrote:
>>> On 29/05/2015 17:13, Judith wrote:
>>>> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional
>>>> training for
>>>> younger people via schools.
>>>> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for
>>>> cyclists -
>>>> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
>>>> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
>>>> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes,
>>>> reflectors and
>>>> lights.
>>>> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
>>>> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking laws.
>>>> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being checked
>>>> every
>>>> five years- of them and their bike.
>>>> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which must be
>>>> worn at
>>>> all times whilst cycling.
>>>> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of hi-viz
>>>> garment and clearly visible.
>>>> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and crushing
>>>> of cycle
>>>> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
>>>> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling
>>>> charities
>>>> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What are you trying to achieve?
>>>
>> The correct & proper regulation of a group of serial law breakers.
>
> and the "criminalisation" of a group of law abiding ones
>
> tim
>
>

How would law abiding ones be made criminals ? Laws are often enacted
which make certain actions or inactions illegal.

[MrCheerful]

On 31/05/2015 11:02, Mrcheerful wrote:
> On 31/05/2015 10:38, Nick wrote:
>> On 31/05/2015 10:00, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>
>>> ordinary cyclists kill people, they do not even have to report the
>>> crash. the laws need modernising.
>>>
>>
>> lol. Perhaps you could get a former chief commissioner on side like
>> former Met Chief, Ian Blair. He had massive talents at hyperbole.
>>
>> Something like "The threats from cyclists are far graver that those
>> faced in World War II, the Cold War or the IRA"
>>
>> Would that do it for you?
>
>
> Many people are maimed by cyclists every year, a few are killed
> outright. They or their families should be compensated.

Preferably the cyclists should be made to obey the laws that already
exist, that would save many of the crashes they are involved in.

[Tarcap]

"Peter Keller" wrote in message ...

On Sat, 30 May 2015 22:02:40 +0100, David Lang wrote:

> Sensible people that is.

Thank God I am not sensible by the Dave's definition.
Great compliment coming from Dave.

Or any definition at all.

[David Lang]

On 31/05/2015 01:15, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Ian Smith <i
>>
>> regards, Ian SMith
>
> If the figures from the Motor Insurance Bureau are to be believed,
> there are almost certainly far more uninsured motorists around than
> uninsured cyclists,

Doh!
The halfwit speaks again!

a) there are far more motorists than there are cyclists.
b) there are far mor insured motorists than there are insured cyclists.

> and the uninsured motorists have a far higher
> chance of being liable for property damage, life changing injuries,
> and deaths even than average motorists, so many orders of magnitude
> greater than any cyclist.
>
But if you are involved in a collision with an uninsured motorist, The
MIB will pick up the tab.

[David Lang]

On 31/05/2015 10:38, tim..... wrote:
>
> "David Lang" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 30/05/2015 09:23, Nick wrote:
>>> On 29/05/2015 17:13, Judith wrote:
>>>> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional
>>>> training for
>>>> younger people via schools.
>>>> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for
>>>> cyclists -
>>>> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
>>>> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
>>>> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes,
>>>> reflectors and
>>>> lights.
>>>> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
>>>> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking laws.
>>>> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being checked
>>>> every
>>>> five years- of them and their bike.
>>>> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which must be
>>>> worn at
>>>> all times whilst cycling.
>>>> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of hi-viz
>>>> garment and clearly visible.
>>>> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and crushing
>>>> of cycle
>>>> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
>>>> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling
>>>> charities
>>>> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What are you trying to achieve?
>>>
>> The correct & proper regulation of a group of serial law breakers.
>
> and the "criminalisation" of a group of law abiding ones
>


Like smokers?

[Judith[_4_]]

On Sun, 31 May 2015 01:15:26 +0100, Phil W Lee > wrote:

<snip>


>If the figures from the Motor Insurance Bureau are to be believed,
>there are almost certainly far more uninsured motorists around than
>uninsured cyclists

I am sure that Your Honour will produce the statistics which proves your point
- but I won't hold my breath.

(Could I have more milk in next time please, barista)

[Nick[_4_]]

On 31/05/2015 10:49, Bill wrote:
> In message >, Nick >
> writes
>> On 31/05/2015 10:22, Bill wrote:
>>> In message >, Phil W Lee
>>> > writes
>>>>
>>>> If the figures from the Motor Insurance Bureau are to be believed,
>>>> there are almost certainly far more uninsured motorists around than
>>>> uninsured cyclists, and the uninsured motorists have a far higher
>>>> chance of being liable for property damage, life changing injuries,
>>>> and deaths even than average motorists, so many orders of magnitude
>>>> greater than any cyclist.
>>>
>>> Quite likely as there are many more motorists on the roads than
>>> cyclists.
>>> I wonder what the figures would be as a percentage though?
>>>
>>
>> Surely the pertinent figures are the cost to an individual of third
>> party cover for Cycling and Driving repectively. As near as I can tell
>> the Cycling figure is negligible (bundled free with house insurance)
>> compare to hundreds of pounds for driving.
>
>
> Surely the pertinent figures are relating to how many do and do not have
> insurance from each group.
> As was stated earlier, many people will not be able to rely on their
> house insurance to cover them whilst cycling because they do not have
> household insurance.
>

I was referring to the overall expectation of liability as a percentage.
Apologies if you were looking for the percentage uninsured.

One comment however, you formulate your original post in terms of
concern for the economic risk to cyclists. One would expect the cyclists
most at risk, i.e. those with recoverable assets, to be home owners who
are most likely to have home insurance.

A figure that I think would also interest us both would be the actual
number of third party claims made against cyclists. Obviously this
figure may be biased by low expectation of recovery but it would still
be interesting.

[Nick[_4_]]

On 31/05/2015 11:06, Mrcheerful wrote:
> On 31/05/2015 11:02, Mrcheerful wrote:
>> On 31/05/2015 10:38, Nick wrote:
>>> On 31/05/2015 10:00, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>
>>>> ordinary cyclists kill people, they do not even have to report the
>>>> crash. the laws need modernising.
>>>>
>>>
>>> lol. Perhaps you could get a former chief commissioner on side like
>>> former Met Chief, Ian Blair. He had massive talents at hyperbole.
>>>
>>> Something like "The threats from cyclists are far graver that those
>>> faced in World War II, the Cold War or the IRA"
>>>
>>> Would that do it for you?
>>
>>
>> Many people are maimed by cyclists every year, a few are killed
>> outright. They or their families should be compensated.
>
> Preferably the cyclists should be made to obey the laws that already
> exist, that would save many of the crashes they are involved in.

One suspects a more cost effective saving could be made by firmer
enforcement of driving laws.

I agree with your concern for compensation. However administration costs
of individual insurance would swamp genuine risk premium so an
alternative method for raising funding would be needed. something like a
surcharge on new bikes. However I think probably the best solution to
fit the zeitgeist of promoting cycling would be for premiums to be
funded from general taxation.

[Bill]

In message >, Nick >
writes
>On 31/05/2015 10:49, Bill wrote:
>> In message >, Nick >
>> writes
>>> On 31/05/2015 10:22, Bill wrote:
>>>> In message >, Phil W Lee
>>>> > writes
>>>>>
>>>>> If the figures from the Motor Insurance Bureau are to be believed,
>>>>> there are almost certainly far more uninsured motorists around than
>>>>> uninsured cyclists, and the uninsured motorists have a far higher
>>>>> chance of being liable for property damage, life changing injuries,
>>>>> and deaths even than average motorists, so many orders of magnitude
>>>>> greater than any cyclist.
>>>>
>>>> Quite likely as there are many more motorists on the roads than
>>>> cyclists.
>>>> I wonder what the figures would be as a percentage though?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Surely the pertinent figures are the cost to an individual of third
>>> party cover for Cycling and Driving repectively. As near as I can tell
>>> the Cycling figure is negligible (bundled free with house insurance)
>>> compare to hundreds of pounds for driving.
>>
>>
>> Surely the pertinent figures are relating to how many do and do not have
>> insurance from each group.
>> As was stated earlier, many people will not be able to rely on their
>> house insurance to cover them whilst cycling because they do not have
>> household insurance.
>>
>
>I was referring to the overall expectation of liability as a
>percentage. Apologies if you were looking for the percentage uninsured.

Fair enough.


>
>One comment however, you formulate your original post in terms of
>concern for the economic risk to cyclists. One would expect the
>cyclists most at risk, i.e. those with recoverable assets, to be home
>owners who are most likely to have home insurance.

Indeed, but how about those without home insurance who have claims made
against them? It would surely be sensible for them, and anyone claiming
against them, to be protected.


>
>A figure that I think would also interest us both would be the actual
>number of third party claims made against cyclists. Obviously this
>figure may be biased by low expectation of recovery but it would still
>be interesting.

Indeed it would be. Does anyone have any figures?

--
Bill

[Tony Dragon]

On 31/05/2015 10:41, Nick wrote:
> On 31/05/2015 10:22, Bill wrote:
>> In message >, Phil W Lee
>> > writes
>>>
>>> If the figures from the Motor Insurance Bureau are to be believed,
>>> there are almost certainly far more uninsured motorists around than
>>> uninsured cyclists, and the uninsured motorists have a far higher
>>> chance of being liable for property damage, life changing injuries,
>>> and deaths even than average motorists, so many orders of magnitude
>>> greater than any cyclist.
>>
>> Quite likely as there are many more motorists on the roads than cyclists.
>> I wonder what the figures would be as a percentage though?
>>
>
> Surely the pertinent figures are the cost to an individual of third
> party cover for Cycling and Driving repectively. As near as I can tell
> the Cycling figure is negligible (bundled free with house insurance)
> compare to hundreds of pounds for driving.
>

How many households in the country do not have insurance?
I have seen figures that suggest that it is about 20%.
Also how many people living in single rooms (students?) have no
household insurance?

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Judith[_4_]]

On Sun, 31 May 2015 10:26:08 +0100, "tim....." >
wrote:

<snip>


>> How about a discussion of the suggestion?
>
>but that requires us to know you motivation.

How about discuss the following:

Cyclists are a nuisance on the road.
They have little or no training.
They do not contribute financially to the roads directly.
They break the law on a regular basis.
Many do not have any insurance - they could put you in a coma for life after
hitting you on the footpath and it would be tough luck.
There is no way of identifying a cyclist who cycles in to you on the path and
then buggers off smartish.

[Judith[_4_]]

On Sun, 31 May 2015 10:22:07 +0100, Bill > wrote:

>In message >, Phil W Lee
> writes
>>
>>If the figures from the Motor Insurance Bureau are to be believed,
>>there are almost certainly far more uninsured motorists around than
>>uninsured cyclists, and the uninsured motorists have a far higher
>>chance of being liable for property damage, life changing injuries,
>>and deaths even than average motorists, so many orders of magnitude
>>greater than any cyclist.
>
>Quite likely as there are many more motorists on the roads than
>cyclists.
>I wonder what the figures would be as a percentage though?


M'Lud made it up he will not be able to supply the figures. he may supply
extra milk if you ask him nicely.

[Judith[_4_]]

On Sun, 31 May 2015 10:41:43 +0100, Nick > wrote:

>On 31/05/2015 10:22, Bill wrote:
>> In message >, Phil W Lee
>> > writes
>>>
>>> If the figures from the Motor Insurance Bureau are to be believed,
>>> there are almost certainly far more uninsured motorists around than
>>> uninsured cyclists, and the uninsured motorists have a far higher
>>> chance of being liable for property damage, life changing injuries,
>>> and deaths even than average motorists, so many orders of magnitude
>>> greater than any cyclist.
>>
>> Quite likely as there are many more motorists on the roads than cyclists.
>> I wonder what the figures would be as a percentage though?
>>
>
>Surely the pertinent figures are the cost to an individual of third
>party cover for Cycling and Driving repectively. As near as I can tell
>the Cycling figure is negligible (bundled free with house insurance)


And many people just do not have such insurance.

Be hit by a cyclist on the footpath - in to a coma for the rest of your life -
and tough luck.

[Judith[_4_]]

On Sun, 31 May 2015 12:19:21 +0100, Nick > wrote:

<snip>

> One would expect the cyclists
>most at risk, i.e. those with recoverable assets, to be home owners who
>are most likely to have home insurance.


why would you expect that?

[Judith[_4_]]

On Sun, 31 May 2015 10:38:59 +0100, "tim....." >
wrote:

<snip>


>>> What are you trying to achieve?
>>>
>> The correct & proper regulation of a group of serial law breakers.
>
>and the "criminalisation" of a group of law abiding ones


Perhaps you could explain how the criminalisation of the law abiding ones will
actually happen?

[Nick[_4_]]

On 31/05/2015 13:13, Bill wrote:

> Indeed, but how about those without home insurance who have claims made
> against them? It would surely be sensible for them, and anyone claiming
> against them, to be protected.
>

I agree beneficial for those claiming against them however in economic
terms clearly it wouldn't be sensible for the insured individual. There
is cost and effort to getting insurance compared to the negligible
benefit of protection to their minimal assets.

Many insurance policies make little economic sense to the insured
individual and this is an extreme example.

>
>>
>> A figure that I think would also interest us both would be the actual
>> number of third party claims made against cyclists. Obviously this
>> figure may be biased by low expectation of recovery but it would still
>> be interesting.
>
> Indeed it would be. Does anyone have any figures?
>

[Nick[_4_]]

On 31/05/2015 13:35, Judith wrote:
> On Sun, 31 May 2015 12:19:21 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> One would expect the cyclists
>> most at risk, i.e. those with recoverable assets, to be home owners who
>> are most likely to have home insurance.
>
>
> why would you expect that?
>

Which part isn't obvious?

[Bill]

In message >, Nick >
writes
>On 31/05/2015 13:13, Bill wrote:
>
>> Indeed, but how about those without home insurance who have claims made
>> against them? It would surely be sensible for them, and anyone claiming
>> against them, to be protected.
>>
>
>I agree beneficial for those claiming against them however in economic
>terms clearly it wouldn't be sensible for the insured individual. There
>is cost and effort to getting insurance compared to the negligible
>benefit of protection to their minimal assets.
>
>Many insurance policies make little economic sense to the insured
>individual and this is an extreme example.

Insurance makes no economic sense, until the day that you need it.
Then it is invaluable, both for the insured and the person claiming
against them in the event of an accident. Extreme examples always
happen to other people, I just would not wish to be that other person.

--
Bill

[MrCheerful]

On 31/05/2015 13:45, Nick wrote:
> On 31/05/2015 13:35, Judith wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 May 2015 12:19:21 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> One would expect the cyclists
>>> most at risk, i.e. those with recoverable assets, to be home owners who
>>> are most likely to have home insurance.
>>
>>
>> why would you expect that?
>>
>
> Which part isn't obvious?

a quarter of UK homes have no insurance

[Blue]

On 31/05/2015 13:31, Judith wrote:
> On Sun, 31 May 2015 10:26:08 +0100, "tim....." >
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>> How about a discussion of the suggestion?
>>
>> but that requires us to know you motivation.
>
> How about discuss the following:
>
> Cyclists are a nuisance on the road.
> They have little or no training.


For cars there is an age group.
For cyclists you get a lot of kids on bike.
You can't lump them all in the same group.

Parents need to tell there kids when they
give them a bike, not zooming down busy
pavements knocking people over.

What laws apply to under tens is debatable.



> They do not contribute financially to the roads directly.


Car tax doesn't go on roads.
General tax paid by everyone who pays general tax
including cyclists and pedestrians goes on
road maintenance


> They break the law on a regular basis.

You're thinking of speeding cars.

> Many do not have any insurance


They not speeding on the highways with tonnes of lethal metal.

- they could put you in a coma for life after
> hitting you on the footpath


They're bikes, not get a get out of jail free cards.
Any damages come under normal personal injury laws.


and it would be tough luck.

Tough luck is cyclist on the floor after the
speeding car has done a hit and run.


> There is no way of identifying a cyclist who cycles in to you on the path and
> then buggers off smartish.

They'll have more luck than the poor soul on the
floor after the motor vehicles has left then
with a squashed head.




1. All Motor vehicles should have a high visibility cone
stuck in the middle of their roof, In the shape of a, finger.

2. Because drivers are always pretending they drive
legally even after they've run over someone. They should
all be fitted with GPS. Linked to road speed limits.
Which when they break the speed limit they're automatically
fined and get automatic points on the licence.

Drivers won't mind paying the extra costs for the fittings
because they've got nothing to hide as they're all such
saintly drivers.

[Blue]

On 31/05/2015 13:53, Bill wrote:
> In message >, Nick >
> writes
>> On 31/05/2015 13:13, Bill wrote:
>>
>>> Indeed, but how about those without home insurance who have claims made
>>> against them? It would surely be sensible for them, and anyone claiming
>>> against them, to be protected.
>>>
>>
>> I agree beneficial for those claiming against them however in economic
>> terms clearly it wouldn't be sensible for the insured individual.
>> There is cost and effort to getting insurance compared to the
>> negligible benefit of protection to their minimal assets.
>>
>> Many insurance policies make little economic sense to the insured
>> individual and this is an extreme example.
>
> Insurance makes no economic sense, until the day that you need it. Then
> it is invaluable, both for the insured and the person claiming against
> them in the event of an accident. Extreme examples always happen to
> other people, I just would not wish to be that other person.
>


When a car hits a cyclist you're looking at a death.

When a bicycle hits a car you're looking at a scratch.

Any who thinks these need the same insurance needs their bumps felt.

[Blue]

On 30/05/2015 21:26, Judith wrote:







> Many cyclists believe that their "fridge - freezer" insurance covers any such
> accident.





Many drivers believe that people need fridge insurance
for that rare occasion when someone runs outside with
their fridge and whack someone with it.

[steve robinson]

Blue wrote:

> On 31/05/2015 13:53, Bill wrote:
> > In message >, Nick
> > > writes
> > > On 31/05/2015 13:13, Bill wrote:
> > >
> > > > Indeed, but how about those without home insurance who have
> > > > claims made against them? It would surely be sensible for
> > > > them, and anyone claiming against them, to be protected.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I agree beneficial for those claiming against them however in
> > > economic terms clearly it wouldn't be sensible for the insured
> > > individual. There is cost and effort to getting insurance
> > > compared to the negligible benefit of protection to their minimal
> > > assets.
> > >
> > > Many insurance policies make little economic sense to the insured
> > > individual and this is an extreme example.
> >
> > Insurance makes no economic sense, until the day that you need it.
> > Then it is invaluable, both for the insured and the person claiming
> > against them in the event of an accident. Extreme examples always
> > happen to other people, I just would not wish to be that other
> > person.
> >
>
>
> When a car hits a cyclist you're looking at a death.
>
> When a bicycle hits a car you're looking at a scratch.
>
> Any who thinks these need the same insurance needs their bumps felt.

When a cyclist hits a car or van it can result in several thousand
pounds worth of damage , hit the rear doors of a van , thats £2000 to
replace straight away , break any light clusters £400 a time even a
handlebar acratch can result in a complete respray of a vehicle with
pearlesent or metalic paint

When my car door got scratched the whole side of the car had to be
resprayed so that the paint matched, in sunlight it looked fine under
artificial ight and the amber street lights the car looked like a
patchwork quilt.

£2000 for the respray

[MrCheerful]

On 31/05/2015 14:19, Blue wrote:
> On 31/05/2015 13:53, Bill wrote:
>> In message >, Nick >
>> writes
>>> On 31/05/2015 13:13, Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>> Indeed, but how about those without home insurance who have claims made
>>>> against them? It would surely be sensible for them, and anyone
>>>> claiming
>>>> against them, to be protected.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I agree beneficial for those claiming against them however in economic
>>> terms clearly it wouldn't be sensible for the insured individual.
>>> There is cost and effort to getting insurance compared to the
>>> negligible benefit of protection to their minimal assets.
>>>
>>> Many insurance policies make little economic sense to the insured
>>> individual and this is an extreme example.
>>
>> Insurance makes no economic sense, until the day that you need it. Then
>> it is invaluable, both for the insured and the person claiming against
>> them in the event of an accident. Extreme examples always happen to
>> other people, I just would not wish to be that other person.
>>
>
>
> When a car hits a cyclist you're looking at a death.
>
> When a bicycle hits a car you're looking at a scratch.
>
> Any who thinks these need the same insurance needs their bumps felt.

and when the cyclist runs into a pedestrian? Yes, I know the cyclist
runs away.

Seriously though a cyclist running into a car may cause many thousands
of pounds worth of damage, every other road user on wheels has to have
insurance to cover damage to third parties, both property and people,
why should cyclists be exempt?

A cyclist running into a person may kill or maim them for life, why
should the family or the state have to pick up the tab ?

[Blue]

On 31/05/2015 14:29, steve robinson wrote:
> Blue wrote:
>
>> On 31/05/2015 13:53, Bill wrote:
>>> In message >, Nick
>>> > writes
>>>> On 31/05/2015 13:13, Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Indeed, but how about those without home insurance who have
>>>>> claims made against them? It would surely be sensible for
>>>>> them, and anyone claiming against them, to be protected.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree beneficial for those claiming against them however in
>>>> economic terms clearly it wouldn't be sensible for the insured
>>>> individual. There is cost and effort to getting insurance
>>>> compared to the negligible benefit of protection to their minimal
>>>> assets.
>>>>
>>>> Many insurance policies make little economic sense to the insured
>>>> individual and this is an extreme example.
>>>
>>> Insurance makes no economic sense, until the day that you need it.
>>> Then it is invaluable, both for the insured and the person claiming
>>> against them in the event of an accident. Extreme examples always
>>> happen to other people, I just would not wish to be that other
>>> person.
>>>
>>
>>
>> When a car hits a cyclist you're looking at a death.
>>
>> When a bicycle hits a car you're looking at a scratch.
>>
>> Any who thinks these need the same insurance needs their bumps felt.
>
> When a cyclist hits a car or van it can result in several thousand
> pounds worth of damage , hit the rear doors of a van , thats £2000 to
> replace straight away , break any light clusters £400 a time even a
> handlebar acratch can result in a complete respray of a vehicle with
> pearlesent or metalic paint
>
> When my car door got scratched the whole side of the car had to be
> resprayed so that the paint matched, in sunlight it looked fine under
> artificial ight and the amber street lights the car looked like a
> patchwork quilt.
>
> £2000 for the respray



In real world most car scratch are caused the car driver.
They're rough with their own keys.
They clean it badly, or leave others to clean their precious.
They drive over the speed limit while passing bushes.
They drive into other cars, concrete bollards, posts..
Park to close to other cars where the passengers have
to get out of a tight space.
Park where loose metal shopping trolleys roll around
a parking lot.
They damage their own car on purpose to pay for
some new respray or new car and blame it on someone else.

[MrCheerful]

On 31/05/2015 14:39, Blue wrote:
> On 31/05/2015 14:29, steve robinson wrote:
>> Blue wrote:
>>
>>> On 31/05/2015 13:53, Bill wrote:
>>>> In message >, Nick
>>>> > writes
>>>>> On 31/05/2015 13:13, Bill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed, but how about those without home insurance who have
>>>>>> claims made against them? It would surely be sensible for
>>>>>> them, and anyone claiming against them, to be protected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree beneficial for those claiming against them however in
>>>>> economic terms clearly it wouldn't be sensible for the insured
>>>>> individual. There is cost and effort to getting insurance
>>>>> compared to the negligible benefit of protection to their minimal
>>>>> assets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Many insurance policies make little economic sense to the insured
>>>>> individual and this is an extreme example.
>>>>
>>>> Insurance makes no economic sense, until the day that you need it.
>>>> Then it is invaluable, both for the insured and the person claiming
>>>> against them in the event of an accident. Extreme examples always
>>>> happen to other people, I just would not wish to be that other
>>>> person.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When a car hits a cyclist you're looking at a death.
>>>
>>> When a bicycle hits a car you're looking at a scratch.
>>>
>>> Any who thinks these need the same insurance needs their bumps felt.
>>
>> When a cyclist hits a car or van it can result in several thousand
>> pounds worth of damage , hit the rear doors of a van , thats £2000 to
>> replace straight away , break any light clusters £400 a time even a
>> handlebar acratch can result in a complete respray of a vehicle with
>> pearlesent or metalic paint
>>
>> When my car door got scratched the whole side of the car had to be
>> resprayed so that the paint matched, in sunlight it looked fine under
>> artificial ight and the amber street lights the car looked like a
>> patchwork quilt.
>>
>> £2000 for the respray
>
>
>
> In real world most car scratch are caused the car driver.
> They're rough with their own keys.
> They clean it badly, or leave others to clean their precious.
> They drive over the speed limit while passing bushes.
> They drive into other cars, concrete bollards, posts..
> Park to close to other cars where the passengers have
> to get out of a tight space.
> Park where loose metal shopping trolleys roll around
> a parking lot.
> They damage their own car on purpose to pay for
> some new respray or new car and blame it on someone else.
>

ah yes, like this one:
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/videos/caught-on-film-the-moment-a-cyclist-rides-into-back-of-parked-car-174201

[David Lang]

On 31/05/2015 14:14, Blue wrote:
> On 31/05/2015 13:31, Judith wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 May 2015 10:26:08 +0100, "tim....."
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>>> How about a discussion of the suggestion?
>>>
>>> but that requires us to know you motivation.
>>
>> How about discuss the following:
>>
>> Cyclists are a nuisance on the road.
>> They have little or no training.
>
>
> For cars there is an age group.
> For cyclists you get a lot of kids on bike.
> You can't lump them all in the same group.

The kids on bikes aren't the problem, it''s the overgrown kids. MAMILs.
>
> Parents need to tell there kids when they
> give them a bike, not zooming down busy
> pavements knocking people over.

The adults clearly haven't learned that.
>
> What laws apply to under tens is debatable.


Lots of laws apply to adult cyclists but they igore them.
>
>
>
>> They do not contribute financially to the roads directly.
>
>
> Car tax doesn't go on roads.

It did originally but was stolen by politicians.

> General tax paid by everyone who pays general tax
> including cyclists and pedestrians goes on
> road maintenance
>
Motorists pay £46 billion in specific extra taxes in order to use their
cars on the road as well as general taxation.
>
>> They break the law on a regular basis.
>
> You're thinking of speeding cars.
Who are regularly apprehended due to the number plates.

>
>> Many do not have any insurance
>
>
> They not speeding on the highways with tonnes of lethal metal.
True, they are mainly on the pavement.
>
> - they could put you in a coma for life after
>> hitting you on the footpath
>
>
> They're bikes, not get a get out of jail free cards.
> Any damages come under normal personal injury laws.
>
>
> and it would be tough luck.
>
> Tough luck is cyclist on the floor after the
> speeding car has done a hit and run.
>
>
>> There is no way of identifying a cyclist who cycles in to you on the
>> path and
>> then buggers off smartish.
>
> They'll have more luck than the poor soul on the
> floor after the motor vehicles has left then
> with a squashed head.
>
>
After which the motorist would be apprehended

via his number plate.
>
>
> 1. All Motor vehicles should have a high visibility cone
> stuck in the middle of their roof, In the shape of a, finger.
>
> 2. Because drivers are always pretending they drive
> legally even after they've run over someone. They should
> all be fitted with GPS. Linked to road speed limits.
> Which when they break the speed limit they're automatically
> fined and get automatic points on the licence.
>
> Drivers won't mind paying the extra costs for the fittings
> because they've got nothing to hide as they're all such
> saintly drivers.
>
>
>
Cyclists gibberish.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[David Lang]

On 31/05/2015 14:19, Blue wrote:
> On 31/05/2015 13:53, Bill wrote:
>> In message >, Nick >
>> writes
>>> On 31/05/2015 13:13, Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>> Indeed, but how about those without home insurance who have claims made
>>>> against them? It would surely be sensible for them, and anyone
>>>> claiming
>>>> against them, to be protected.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I agree beneficial for those claiming against them however in economic
>>> terms clearly it wouldn't be sensible for the insured individual.
>>> There is cost and effort to getting insurance compared to the
>>> negligible benefit of protection to their minimal assets.
>>>
>>> Many insurance policies make little economic sense to the insured
>>> individual and this is an extreme example.
>>
>> Insurance makes no economic sense, until the day that you need it. Then
>> it is invaluable, both for the insured and the person claiming against
>> them in the event of an accident. Extreme examples always happen to
>> other people, I just would not wish to be that other person.
>>
>
>
> When a car hits a cyclist you're looking at a death.
>
> When a bicycle hits a car you're looking at a scratch.

And when a cyclists hits a pedestrian you are looking at serious injury
or death.
>
> Any who thinks these need the same insurance needs their bumps felt.

Car insurance is compulsory. Cyclist insurance isn't, but should be.

[jnugent]

On 31/05/2015 12:16, Judith wrote:

> Phil W Lee > wrote:
> <snip>

>> If the figures from the Motor Insurance Bureau are to be believed,
>> there are almost certainly far more uninsured motorists around than
>> uninsured cyclists

> I am sure that Your Honour will produce the statistics which proves your point
> - but I won't hold my breath.

I too was wondering about that.

Presumably the MIB compares:

1. the number of vehicles known to exist in the United Kingdom,

2. the number of vehicles in respect of which its members say they are
on risk under current insurance policies,

3. the number of vehicles in the UK known to have SORN status,

4. the number of vehicles in the UK known to be owned by hire-car
companies and covered by group-insurance policies,

5 the number of vehicles in the UK known to be owned and operated by
government departments (which frequently have no insurance at all
because the department opts to act as its own insurer) and

6.the number of vehicles in the UK known (or estimated) to be either new
and unregistered or in the hands of dealers and covered under
multi-vehicle insurance policies.

But it would be reassuring to know that they can count properly and that
their estimation methodology is sound.

[jnugent]

On 31/05/2015 14:39, Blue wrote:
> On 31/05/2015 14:29, steve robinson wrote:
>> Blue wrote:
>>
>>> On 31/05/2015 13:53, Bill wrote:
>>>> In message >, Nick
>>>> > writes
>>>>> On 31/05/2015 13:13, Bill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed, but how about those without home insurance who have
>>>>>> claims made against them? It would surely be sensible for
>>>>>> them, and anyone claiming against them, to be protected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree beneficial for those claiming against them however in
>>>>> economic terms clearly it wouldn't be sensible for the insured
>>>>> individual. There is cost and effort to getting insurance
>>>>> compared to the negligible benefit of protection to their minimal
>>>>> assets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Many insurance policies make little economic sense to the insured
>>>>> individual and this is an extreme example.
>>>>
>>>> Insurance makes no economic sense, until the day that you need it.
>>>> Then it is invaluable, both for the insured and the person claiming
>>>> against them in the event of an accident. Extreme examples always
>>>> happen to other people, I just would not wish to be that other
>>>> person.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When a car hits a cyclist you're looking at a death.
>>>
>>> When a bicycle hits a car you're looking at a scratch.
>>>
>>> Any who thinks these need the same insurance needs their bumps felt.
>>
>> When a cyclist hits a car or van it can result in several thousand
>> pounds worth of damage , hit the rear doors of a van , thats £2000 to
>> replace straight away , break any light clusters £400 a time even a
>> handlebar acratch can result in a complete respray of a vehicle with
>> pearlesent or metalic paint
>>
>> When my car door got scratched the whole side of the car had to be
>> resprayed so that the paint matched, in sunlight it looked fine under
>> artificial ight and the amber street lights the car looked like a
>> patchwork quilt.
>>
>> £2000 for the respray
>
>
>
> In real world most car scratch are caused the car driver.
> They're rough with their own keys.
> They clean it badly, or leave others to clean their precious.
> They drive over the speed limit while passing bushes.
> They drive into other cars, concrete bollards, posts..
> Park to close to other cars where the passengers have
> to get out of a tight space.
> Park where loose metal shopping trolleys roll around
> a parking lot.
> They damage their own car on purpose to pay for
> some new respray or new car and blame it on someone else.

Please explain how that means that it doesn't matter when a cyclist does
£2,000 worth of damage to a car.

[tim.....]

"Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
...
> On 31/05/2015 10:41, Nick wrote:
>> On 31/05/2015 10:22, Bill wrote:
>>> In message >, Phil W Lee
>>> > writes
>>>>
>>>> If the figures from the Motor Insurance Bureau are to be believed,
>>>> there are almost certainly far more uninsured motorists around than
>>>> uninsured cyclists, and the uninsured motorists have a far higher
>>>> chance of being liable for property damage, life changing injuries,
>>>> and deaths even than average motorists, so many orders of magnitude
>>>> greater than any cyclist.
>>>
>>> Quite likely as there are many more motorists on the roads than
>>> cyclists.
>>> I wonder what the figures would be as a percentage though?
>>>
>>
>> Surely the pertinent figures are the cost to an individual of third
>> party cover for Cycling and Driving repectively. As near as I can tell
>> the Cycling figure is negligible (bundled free with house insurance)
>> compare to hundreds of pounds for driving.
>>
>
> So as the cost is low there can be no good reason not to make every
> cyclist take out such insurance.

It's only low cost when bundled with a housing policy because most won't
claim on it even when they could, some out of ignorance, but most because it
would make next years renewal rise by more than the value of the claim

If it were a stand alone policy claims would (relatively) sky rocket

tim

[tim.....]

"Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
...
> On 31/05/2015 10:38, Nick wrote:
>> On 31/05/2015 10:00, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>
>>> ordinary cyclists kill people, they do not even have to report the
>>> crash. the laws need modernising.
>>>
>>
>> lol. Perhaps you could get a former chief commissioner on side like
>> former Met Chief, Ian Blair. He had massive talents at hyperbole.
>>
>> Something like "The threats from cyclists are far graver that those
>> faced in World War II, the Cold War or the IRA"
>>
>> Would that do it for you?
>
>
> Many people are maimed by cyclists every year, a few are killed outright.
> They or their families should be compensated.

do you have evidence that they are not?

[tim.....]

"Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
...
> On 31/05/2015 10:38, tim..... wrote:
>>
>> "David Lang" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 30/05/2015 09:23, Nick wrote:
>>>> On 29/05/2015 17:13, Judith wrote:
>>>>> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional
>>>>> training for
>>>>> younger people via schools.
>>>>> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for
>>>>> cyclists -
>>>>> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
>>>>> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
>>>>> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes,
>>>>> reflectors and
>>>>> lights.
>>>>> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
>>>>> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking
>>>>> laws.
>>>>> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being checked
>>>>> every
>>>>> five years- of them and their bike.
>>>>> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which must be
>>>>> worn at
>>>>> all times whilst cycling.
>>>>> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of hi-viz
>>>>> garment and clearly visible.
>>>>> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and crushing
>>>>> of cycle
>>>>> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
>>>>> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling
>>>>> charities
>>>>> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What are you trying to achieve?
>>>>
>>> The correct & proper regulation of a group of serial law breakers.
>>
>> and the "criminalisation" of a group of law abiding ones
>>
>> tim
>>
>>
>
> How would law abiding ones be made criminals ? Laws are often enacted
> which make certain actions or inactions illegal.

you really think that a responsible person who has been cycling for 40 years
would comply with point (1)?

tim

[tim.....]

"Judith" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 31 May 2015 10:26:08 +0100, "tim....." >
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>> How about a discussion of the suggestion?
>>
>>but that requires us to know you motivation.
>
> How about discuss the following:
>
> Cyclists are a nuisance on the road.

No they are not

> They have little or no training.

Most will have done the CPT at school, what else is required?

> They do not contribute financially to the roads directly.

neither do pedestrians

> They break the law on a regular basis.

No they don't

> Many do not have any insurance - they could put you in a coma for life
> after
> hitting you on the footpath and it would be tough luck.

as would be the case if you suffered that after being tripped up by a ped

> There is no way of identifying a cyclist who cycles in to you on the path
> and
> then buggers off smartish.

and how does having a tiny number etched to the frame of the bike solve
this?

tim

[tim.....]

"David Lang" > wrote in message
...
>
> On 31/05/2015 14:14, Blue wrote:
>> On 31/05/2015 13:31, Judith wrote:
>>> On Sun, 31 May 2015 10:26:08 +0100, "tim....."
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> How about a discussion of the suggestion?
>>>>
>>>> but that requires us to know you motivation.
>>>
>>> How about discuss the following:
>>>
>>> Cyclists are a nuisance on the road.
>>> They have little or no training.
>>
>>
>> For cars there is an age group.
>> For cyclists you get a lot of kids on bike.
>> You can't lump them all in the same group.
>
> The kids on bikes aren't the problem, it''s the overgrown kids. MAMILs.

so prosecute the miscreants

>>
>> Parents need to tell there kids when they
>> give them a bike, not zooming down busy
>> pavements knocking people over.
>
> The adults clearly haven't learned that.
>>
>> What laws apply to under tens is debatable.
>
>
> Lots of laws apply to adult cyclists but they igore them.

so prosecute the miscreants

tim

>

[tim.....]

"Judith" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 31 May 2015 10:38:59 +0100, "tim....." >
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>>> What are you trying to achieve?
>>>>
>>> The correct & proper regulation of a group of serial law breakers.
>>
>>and the "criminalisation" of a group of law abiding ones
>
>
> Perhaps you could explain how the criminalisation of the law abiding ones
> will
> actually happen?

see my reply to Cheerful (he didn't snip the relevant point)

tim


>

[Blue]

On 31/05/2015 16:15, JNugent wrote:
> On 31/05/2015 14:39, Blue wrote:

>> In real world most car scratch are caused the car driver.
>> They're rough with their own keys.
>> They clean it badly, or leave others to clean their precious.
>> They drive over the speed limit while passing bushes.
>> They drive into other cars, concrete bollards, posts..
>> Park to close to other cars where the passengers have
>> to get out of a tight space.
>> Park where loose metal shopping trolleys roll around
>> a parking lot.
>> They damage their own car on purpose to pay for
>> some new respray or new car and blame it on someone else.
>
> Please explain how that means that it doesn't matter when a cyclist does
> £2,000 worth of damage to a car.


Who does what to what? This is all fictional damage right.


If someone bought a £2,000 oil painting and left it in
the road. What would the insurance be? Who's fault
would it be if it suffered natural weather damage,
everyday knocked and bumps, that an artwork might
pick up, being left in the road.

All those fast powered stones that pop out from
under car wheels, salt and grit from gritters.

If tarts want to pimp out their transport to such an
extent and then drag it around the streets
then I think the onus is on them.

If a driver covers his car in diamonds and arrives
home to find 2 diamonds have come off.
Who's fault is that?

Why should every cyclist and pedestrian in the UK
be made to get million pound insurance just in case
they bump into the tart who has done up their car in diamonds?

[Bill]

In message >, Blue >
writes
>On 31/05/2015 16:15, JNugent wrote:
>> On 31/05/2015 14:39, Blue wrote:
>
>>> In real world most car scratch are caused the car driver.
>>> They're rough with their own keys.
>>> They clean it badly, or leave others to clean their precious.
>>> They drive over the speed limit while passing bushes.
>>> They drive into other cars, concrete bollards, posts..
>>> Park to close to other cars where the passengers have
>>> to get out of a tight space.
>>> Park where loose metal shopping trolleys roll around
>>> a parking lot.
>>> They damage their own car on purpose to pay for
>>> some new respray or new car and blame it on someone else.
>>
>> Please explain how that means that it doesn't matter when a cyclist does
>> £2,000 worth of damage to a car.
>
>
>Who does what to what? This is all fictional damage right.
>
>
>If someone bought a £2,000 oil painting and left it in
>the road. What would the insurance be? Who's fault
>would it be if it suffered natural weather damage,
>everyday knocked and bumps, that an artwork might
>pick up, being left in the road.
>
>All those fast powered stones that pop out from
>under car wheels, salt and grit from gritters.
>
>If tarts want to pimp out their transport to such an
>extent and then drag it around the streets
>then I think the onus is on them.
>
>If a driver covers his car in diamonds and arrives
>home to find 2 diamonds have come off.
>Who's fault is that?
>
>Why should every cyclist and pedestrian in the UK
>be made to get million pound insurance just in case
>they bump into the tart who has done up their car in diamonds?



Blue,
your analogies and comments are getting more and more fanciful making
what started out as sensible, reasoned, discussion into a farce. Is this
your intention?
If not and you truly believe in what you say may I ask what substances
you have been taking today so that I can avoid them.

Thank you.
--
Bill

[Blue]

On 31/05/2015 18:10, Bill wrote:





> what started out as sensible,




Sure

[Blue]

On 31/05/2015 18:10, Bill wrote:

> Blue,
> your analogies and comments are getting more and more fanciful making
> what started out as sensible, reasoned, discussion into a farce. Is this
> your intention?





> If not and you truly believe in what you say may I ask what substances
> you have been taking today so that I can avoid them.



Usual ad hominem driver abuse that the grown ups have to ignore.

[Blue]

On 31/05/2015 18:22, Blue wrote:
> On 31/05/2015 18:10, Bill wrote:
>
>> Blue,
>> your analogies and comments are getting more and more fanciful making
>> what started out as sensible, reasoned, discussion into a farce. Is this
>> your intention?
>
>
>
>
>
>> If not and you truly believe in what you say may I ask what substances
>> you have been taking today so that I can avoid them.
>
>
>
> Usual ad hominem driver abuse that the grown ups have to ignore.
>



I can see Bill now, in his black austin allegro, windows down,
swerving around on his half deflated tyres.
Car seats full of cigarette burn holes from the times
he's dropped his fag and while fetching it heard some
strange banging sounds on the bonnet. His thick bottle bottom
glasses super glued to his propeller hat. Constantly driving
with one hand because the other one is busy waving at
other road users. Constantly making loud requests as
to what drugs a cyclist is on before running them off
the road.

[MrCheerful]

On 31/05/2015 16:29, tim..... wrote:
>
> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 31/05/2015 10:38, Nick wrote:
>>> On 31/05/2015 10:00, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>
>>>> ordinary cyclists kill people, they do not even have to report the
>>>> crash. the laws need modernising.
>>>>
>>>
>>> lol. Perhaps you could get a former chief commissioner on side like
>>> former Met Chief, Ian Blair. He had massive talents at hyperbole.
>>>
>>> Something like "The threats from cyclists are far graver that those
>>> faced in World War II, the Cold War or the IRA"
>>>
>>> Would that do it for you?
>>
>>
>> Many people are maimed by cyclists every year, a few are killed
>> outright. They or their families should be compensated.
>
> do you have evidence that they are not?
>
>
>
>

Who would compensate them when the cyclist is untraceable?

[tim.....]

"Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
...
> On 31/05/2015 16:29, tim..... wrote:
>>
>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 31/05/2015 10:38, Nick wrote:
>>>> On 31/05/2015 10:00, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ordinary cyclists kill people, they do not even have to report the
>>>>> crash. the laws need modernising.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> lol. Perhaps you could get a former chief commissioner on side like
>>>> former Met Chief, Ian Blair. He had massive talents at hyperbole.
>>>>
>>>> Something like "The threats from cyclists are far graver that those
>>>> faced in World War II, the Cold War or the IRA"
>>>>
>>>> Would that do it for you?
>>>
>>>
>>> Many people are maimed by cyclists every year, a few are killed
>>> outright. They or their families should be compensated.
>>
>> do you have evidence that they are not?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Who would compensate them when the cyclist is untraceable?

and how is any of Judith's proposals going to change that part of the
scenario

[Tony Dragon]

On 31/05/2015 18:34, Blue wrote:
> On 31/05/2015 18:22, Blue wrote:
>> On 31/05/2015 18:10, Bill wrote:
>>
>>> Blue,
>>> your analogies and comments are getting more and more fanciful making
>>> what started out as sensible, reasoned, discussion into a farce. Is this
>>> your intention?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> If not and you truly believe in what you say may I ask what substances
>>> you have been taking today so that I can avoid them.
>>
>>
>>
>> Usual ad hominem driver abuse that the grown ups have to ignore.
>>
>
>
>
> I can see Bill now, in his black austin allegro, windows down,
> swerving around on his half deflated tyres.
> Car seats full of cigarette burn holes from the times
> he's dropped his fag and while fetching it heard some
> strange banging sounds on the bonnet. His thick bottle bottom
> glasses super glued to his propeller hat. Constantly driving
> with one hand because the other one is busy waving at
> other road users. Constantly making loud requests as
> to what drugs a cyclist is on before running them off
> the road.

How desperate you are getting, can you not grasp the fact that damage
should be the responsibility of the one that caused it?


Now tell us how a cyclist who has caused damage/injury should pay if
they have no cycle insurance (under whatever guise that may be).

For example, a lot of university students use bicycles, very few have
household insurance & their parents household insurance would not cover
them unless it was specified as an extra.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[MrCheerful]

On 31/05/2015 19:42, tim..... wrote:
>
> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 31/05/2015 16:29, tim..... wrote:
>>>
>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 31/05/2015 10:38, Nick wrote:
>>>>> On 31/05/2015 10:00, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ordinary cyclists kill people, they do not even have to report the
>>>>>> crash. the laws need modernising.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> lol. Perhaps you could get a former chief commissioner on side like
>>>>> former Met Chief, Ian Blair. He had massive talents at hyperbole.
>>>>>
>>>>> Something like "The threats from cyclists are far graver that those
>>>>> faced in World War II, the Cold War or the IRA"
>>>>>
>>>>> Would that do it for you?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Many people are maimed by cyclists every year, a few are killed
>>>> outright. They or their families should be compensated.
>>>
>>> do you have evidence that they are not?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Who would compensate them when the cyclist is untraceable?
>
> and how is any of Judith's proposals going to change that part of the
> scenario
>

Item 9 would certainly help.

[David Lang]

On 31/05/2015 16:36, tim..... wrote:
>
> "David Lang" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> On 31/05/2015 14:14, Blue wrote:
>>> On 31/05/2015 13:31, Judith wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 31 May 2015 10:26:08 +0100, "tim....."
>>>> >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> How about a discussion of the suggestion?
>>>>>
>>>>> but that requires us to know you motivation.
>>>>
>>>> How about discuss the following:
>>>>
>>>> Cyclists are a nuisance on the road.
>>>> They have little or no training.
>>>
>>>
>>> For cars there is an age group.
>>> For cyclists you get a lot of kids on bike.
>>> You can't lump them all in the same group.
>>
>> The kids on bikes aren't the problem, it''s the overgrown kids. MAMILs.
>
> so prosecute the miscreants

Exactly why they should be regulated.
>
>>>
>>> Parents need to tell there kids when they
>>> give them a bike, not zooming down busy
>>> pavements knocking people over.
>>
>> The adults clearly haven't learned that.
>>>
>>> What laws apply to under tens is debatable.
>>
>>
>> Lots of laws apply to adult cyclists but they ignore them.
>
> so prosecute the miscreants

If they could be traced.

>
> tim
>
>>
>
>
>
>

[David Lang]

On 31/05/2015 16:34, tim..... wrote:
>
> "Judith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 31 May 2015 10:26:08 +0100, "tim....."
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>>> How about a discussion of the suggestion?
>>>
>>> but that requires us to know you motivation.
>>
>> How about discuss the following:
>>
>> Cyclists are a nuisance on the road.
>
> No they are not

Of course they are. Don't be silly.
>
>> They have little or no training.
>
> Most will have done the CPT at school, what else is required?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

>
>> They do not contribute financially to the roads directly.
>
> neither do pedestrians

They don't use vehicles on the roads.
>
>> They break the law on a regular basis.
>
> No they don't

Of course they do. How often do they ride on pavements and jump lights?
>
>> Many do not have any insurance - they could put you in a coma for life
>> after
>> hitting you on the footpath and it would be tough luck.
>
> as would be the case if you suffered that after being tripped up by a ped

Once again - no vehicle involved.
>
>> There is no way of identifying a cyclist who cycles in to you on the
>> path and
>> then buggers off smartish.
>
> and how does having a tiny number etched to the frame of the bike solve
> this?
>
Large number on compulsory hi viz.
>

[TMS320]

"Mrcheerful" > wrote
> On 31/05/2015 16:29, tim..... wrote:
>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote
>
>>> Many people are maimed by cyclists every year, a few are killed
>>> outright. They or their families should be compensated.
>>
>> do you have evidence that they are not?
>
> Who would compensate them when the cyclist is untraceable?

And how many aren't traced after a maiming or killing?

[Blue]

On 31/05/2015 20:43, Tony Dragon wrote:




> How desperate you are getting, can you not grasp the fact that damage
> should be the responsibility of the one that caused it?




How desperate you are getting to have to use straw man
arguments to win.

NO ONE has if someone causes injury it is not their responsibility.

If a walking person goes up to another walking person and
does them damage, then they are of course responsible,
and that is allowed for under the laws we have today.
It doesn't follow though that all walkers should have walking insurance.

In fact, what is more likely to happen, someone attacking someone,
robbing, causing damage, by everyday walking persons,
or by a bicycle.

what Judith wants is for the world to be insured in case they
walk past her diamond studded car, in case she loses a couple of stones.
why must the whole world pay insurance for someone else's luxury goods.
Especially when they have got those goods to be one up and get
one over pedestrians, cyclists...

[Blue]

On 31/05/2015 18:48, Mrcheerful wrote:




> Who would compensate them when the cyclist is untraceable?


How much does the hit and run driver pay up?

[jnugent]

On 31/05/2015 16:30, tim..... wrote:
>
> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 31/05/2015 10:38, tim..... wrote:
>>>
>>> "David Lang" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 30/05/2015 09:23, Nick wrote:
>>>>> On 29/05/2015 17:13, Judith wrote:
>>>>>> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional
>>>>>> training for
>>>>>> younger people via schools.
>>>>>> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for
>>>>>> cyclists -
>>>>>> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
>>>>>> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
>>>>>> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes,
>>>>>> reflectors and
>>>>>> lights.
>>>>>> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
>>>>>> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking
>>>>>> laws.
>>>>>> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being checked
>>>>>> every
>>>>>> five years- of them and their bike.
>>>>>> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which must be
>>>>>> worn at
>>>>>> all times whilst cycling.
>>>>>> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of
>>>>>> hi-viz
>>>>>> garment and clearly visible.
>>>>>> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and crushing
>>>>>> of cycle
>>>>>> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
>>>>>> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling
>>>>>> charities
>>>>>> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What are you trying to achieve?
>>>>>
>>>> The correct & proper regulation of a group of serial law breakers.
>>>
>>> and the "criminalisation" of a group of law abiding ones
>>>
>>> tim
>>>
>>>
>>
>> How would law abiding ones be made criminals ? Laws are often
>> enacted which make certain actions or inactions illegal.
>
> you really think that a responsible person who has been cycling for 40
> years would comply with point (1)?
>
> tim

Yes, of course.

What, after all, does the word "responsible" MEAN?

In the circumstances posited, how could a cyclist refusing to comply
with such a basic requirement of the law be termed "responsible"?

[jnugent]

On 31/05/2015 16:34, tim..... wrote:
>
> "Judith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 31 May 2015 10:26:08 +0100, "tim....."
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>>> How about a discussion of the suggestion?
>>>
>>> but that requires us to know you motivation.
>>
>> How about discuss the following:
>>
>> Cyclists are a nuisance on the road.
>
> No they are not

Maybe not to you. Maybe not to most people most of the time.

But...

>> They have little or no training.
>
> Most will have done the CPT at school, what else is required?

All of them to have done it and be able to prove it? And to be bannable
on conviction for traffic offences?

>> They do not contribute financially to the roads directly.

> neither do pedestrians

And?

>> They break the law on a regular basis.
>
> No they don't

Oh, come off it.

>> Many do not have any insurance - they could put you in a coma for life
>> after hitting you on the footpath and it would be tough luck.
>
> as would be the case if you suffered that after being tripped up by a ped
>
>> There is no way of identifying a cyclist who cycles in to you on the
>> path and then buggers off smartish.
>
> and how does having a tiny number etched to the frame of the bike solve
> this?

You're right on that bit.

So a BIG and easily-readable number (on the back of a hi-viz jacket) is
what is required. In addition to a plate affixed to the frame of the
bike, not instead of it.

[jnugent]

On 31/05/2015 17:29, Blue wrote:

> On 31/05/2015 16:15, JNugent wrote:
>> On 31/05/2015 14:39, Blue wrote:
>
>>> In real world most car scratch are caused the car driver.
>>> They're rough with their own keys.
>>> They clean it badly, or leave others to clean their precious.
>>> They drive over the speed limit while passing bushes.
>>> They drive into other cars, concrete bollards, posts..
>>> Park to close to other cars where the passengers have
>>> to get out of a tight space.
>>> Park where loose metal shopping trolleys roll around
>>> a parking lot.
>>> They damage their own car on purpose to pay for
>>> some new respray or new car and blame it on someone else.
>
>> Please explain how that means that it doesn't matter when a cyclist does
>> £2,000 worth of damage to a car.
>
> Who does what to what? This is all fictional damage right.

Did you see the video of a cyclist piling into the back of a stationary car?

That would be a £1,000 job absolute minimum. Done properly, it would
need a new tailgate and bumper, plus spraying to match.

If you really aren't aware of what sort of cost the repair of damage to
motor vehicle demands, you aren't qualified to argue in a thread on this
sort of topic.
>
> If someone bought a £2,000 oil painting and left it in
> the road. What would the insurance be? Who's fault
> would it be if it suffered natural weather damage,
> everyday knocked and bumps, that an artwork might
> pick up, being left in the road.

Are you drunk?

What has any of that to do with cyclists committing traffic offences and
causing damage to other vehicles?

[Blue]

On 01/06/2015 00:44, JNugent wrote:
> On 31/05/2015 17:29, Blue wrote:
>
>> On 31/05/2015 16:15, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 31/05/2015 14:39, Blue wrote:
>>
>>>> In real world most car scratch are caused the car driver.
>>>> They're rough with their own keys.
>>>> They clean it badly, or leave others to clean their precious.
>>>> They drive over the speed limit while passing bushes.
>>>> They drive into other cars, concrete bollards, posts..
>>>> Park to close to other cars where the passengers have
>>>> to get out of a tight space.
>>>> Park where loose metal shopping trolleys roll around
>>>> a parking lot.
>>>> They damage their own car on purpose to pay for
>>>> some new respray or new car and blame it on someone else.
>>
>>> Please explain how that means that it doesn't matter when a cyclist does
>>> £2,000 worth of damage to a car.
>>
>> Who does what to what? This is all fictional damage right.
>
> Did you see the video of a cyclist piling into the back of a stationary
> car?


I was doing something worthwhile with my time instead.



> That would be a £1,000 job absolute minimum. Done properly, it would
> need a new tailgate and bumper, plus spraying to match.

Does it come with a matching hand bang and curtains?



> If you really aren't aware of what sort of cost the repair of damage to
> motor vehicle demands, you aren't qualified to argue in a thread on this
> sort of topic.


If you ladies want to drive around in the biggest glitter balls
in town then it's your own fault. You're only doing it to out
do the other driver. Let alone rub the nose in it of every
cyclist and walkers you speed by. I've seen your sort with
your sports cars, you can't just go from A to B. You have to
go up and down the same road so that everyone can see just
what a prima donna you are. In your glistening pinkest car.

If car dealers and garages make too much money out of you
it's your own fault, you've got too much bloody money.
But it doesn't mean every cyclists and walker and soul
in the land has to be insured to the point of being indebted
to banks for life just because you characters want to ponce
about the streets beeping up girls.




>> If someone bought a £2,000 oil painting and left it in
>> the road. What would the insurance be? Who's fault
>> would it be if it suffered natural weather damage,
>> everyday knocked and bumps, that an artwork might
>> pick up, being left in the road.
>
> Are you drunk?


Sounds like you spiked your own drink.



> What has any of that to do with cyclists committing traffic offences and
> causing damage to other vehicles?



What has any of this got to do with cyclists, at all.
It's just drivers getting windy as usual.

[Blue]

Flash Harry, Status symbol mongers.






http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3101081/Pictured-Driver-18-boasting-hits-142mph-night-killed-innocent-motorist-drove-high-powered-Audi-red-light.html



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3105266/Three-people-hospitalized-including-nine-year-old-girl-fighting-life-vehicle-crashes-LAX-terminal.html

[MrCheerful]

On 01/06/2015 00:20, Blue wrote:
> On 31/05/2015 18:48, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> Who would compensate them when the cyclist is untraceable?
>
>
> How much does the hit and run driver pay up?
>
>
>
>

The injured parties are paid out by the MIB

[David Lang]

On 01/06/2015 00:44, JNugent wrote:
> On 31/05/2015 17:29, Blue wrote:
>
>> On 31/05/2015 16:15, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 31/05/2015 14:39, Blue wrote:
>>
>>>> In real world most car scratch are caused the car driver.
>>>> They're rough with their own keys.
>>>> They clean it badly, or leave others to clean their precious.
>>>> They drive over the speed limit while passing bushes.
>>>> They drive into other cars, concrete bollards, posts..
>>>> Park to close to other cars where the passengers have
>>>> to get out of a tight space.
>>>> Park where loose metal shopping trolleys roll around
>>>> a parking lot.
>>>> They damage their own car on purpose to pay for
>>>> some new respray or new car and blame it on someone else.
>>
>>> Please explain how that means that it doesn't matter when a cyclist does
>>> £2,000 worth of damage to a car.
>>
>> Who does what to what? This is all fictional damage right.
>
> Did you see the video of a cyclist piling into the back of a stationary
> car?
>
> That would be a £1,000 job absolute minimum. Done properly, it would
> need a new tailgate and bumper, plus spraying to match.
>
> If you really aren't aware of what sort of cost the repair of damage to
> motor vehicle demands, you aren't qualified to argue in a thread on this
> sort of topic.
>>
>> If someone bought a £2,000 oil painting and left it in
>> the road. What would the insurance be? Who's fault
>> would it be if it suffered natural weather damage,
>> everyday knocked and bumps, that an artwork might
>> pick up, being left in the road.
>
> Are you drunk?

More like insane.
>
> What has any of that to do with cyclists committing traffic offences and
> causing damage to other vehicles?

[Peter Keller[_3_]]

On Sun, 31 May 2015 11:13:02 +0100, Tarcap wrote:

> Or any definition at all.

Thanks for the very great compliment coming from you.
After all I do ride a bike.

[Tarcap]

"Blue" wrote in message ...

On 31/05/2015 13:31, Judith wrote:
> On Sun, 31 May 2015 10:26:08 +0100, "tim....." >
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>> How about a discussion of the suggestion?
>>
>> but that requires us to know you motivation.
>
> How about discuss the following:
>
> Cyclists are a nuisance on the road.
> They have little or no training.


For cars there is an age group.
For cyclists you get a lot of kids on bike.
You can't lump them all in the same group.

Parents need to tell there kids when they
give them a bike, not zooming down busy
pavements knocking people over.

What laws apply to under tens is debatable.



> They do not contribute financially to the roads directly.


Car tax doesn't go on roads.
General tax paid by everyone who pays general tax
including cyclists and pedestrians goes on
road maintenance


> They break the law on a regular basis.

You're thinking of speeding cars.

> Many do not have any insurance


They not speeding on the highways with tonnes of lethal metal.

- they could put you in a coma for life after
> hitting you on the footpath


They're bikes, not get a get out of jail free cards.
Any damages come under normal personal injury laws.


and it would be tough luck.

Tough luck is cyclist on the floor after the
speeding car has done a hit and run.


> There is no way of identifying a cyclist who cycles in to you on the path
> and
> then buggers off smartish.

They'll have more luck than the poor soul on the
floor after the motor vehicles has left then
with a squashed head.




1. All Motor vehicles should have a high visibility cone
stuck in the middle of their roof, In the shape of a, finger.

2. All cyclists should have a high visibility cone stuck on their heads,
in the shape of a dunce's hat. Pretty appropriate, really.

[Tarcap]

"David Lang" wrote in message ...

On 01/06/2015 00:44, JNugent wrote:
> On 31/05/2015 17:29, Blue wrote:
>
>> On 31/05/2015 16:15, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 31/05/2015 14:39, Blue wrote:
>>
>>>> In real world most car scratch are caused the car driver.
>>>> They're rough with their own keys.
>>>> They clean it badly, or leave others to clean their precious.
>>>> They drive over the speed limit while passing bushes.
>>>> They drive into other cars, concrete bollards, posts..
>>>> Park to close to other cars where the passengers have
>>>> to get out of a tight space.
>>>> Park where loose metal shopping trolleys roll around
>>>> a parking lot.
>>>> They damage their own car on purpose to pay for
>>>> some new respray or new car and blame it on someone else.
>>
>>> Please explain how that means that it doesn't matter when a cyclist does
>>> £2,000 worth of damage to a car.
>>
>> Who does what to what? This is all fictional damage right.
>
> Did you see the video of a cyclist piling into the back of a stationary
> car?
>
> That would be a £1,000 job absolute minimum. Done properly, it would
> need a new tailgate and bumper, plus spraying to match.
>
> If you really aren't aware of what sort of cost the repair of damage to
> motor vehicle demands, you aren't qualified to argue in a thread on this
> sort of topic.
>>
>> If someone bought a £2,000 oil painting and left it in
>> the road. What would the insurance be? Who's fault
>> would it be if it suffered natural weather damage,
>> everyday knocked and bumps, that an artwork might
>> pick up, being left in the road.
>
> Are you drunk?

More like insane.
>
> What has any of that to do with cyclists committing traffic offences and
> causing damage to other vehicles?

Don't discourage him. At last we seem to have a suitable replacement
psycholist for all the barking ones that have passed through here but have
all buggered off.
Simon Mason, Doug, Brian Robertson, Bertie Wooster and many, many others.

He'll be great for entertainment value.

[Ophelia[_7_]]

"Tarcap" > wrote in message
...

> 1. All Motor vehicles should have a high visibility cone
> stuck in the middle of their roof, In the shape of a, finger.
>
> 2. All cyclists should have a high visibility cone stuck on their heads,
> in the shape of a dunce's hat. Pretty appropriate, really.

lol but I must ask ... which finger?


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[Blue]

On 01/06/2015 07:25, Mrcheerful wrote:
> On 01/06/2015 00:20, Blue wrote:
>> On 31/05/2015 18:48, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Who would compensate them when the cyclist is untraceable?
>>
>>
>> How much does the hit and run driver pay up?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> The injured parties are paid out by the MIB




Where as a normal injured person is just left in the street.

I was of course talking about A driver, the drivers.


However I've made the point that bad is bad and
it doesn't matter what rules you have in such
circumstances.

[Blue]

On 01/06/2015 10:58, Tarcap wrote:



> ones that have passed through here but
> have all buggered off.


As usual the scum rise to the top.

[Blue]

On 01/06/2015 08:21, David Lang wrote:

>> Are you drunk?
>
> More like insane.



LOL, you want the poorest 90% of people in the land
to go bankrupt paying for the richest 1% in the land, with
their flash diamond stubbed cars, on the off chance that anyone
of them could brush past it and their vajazzle might lose
a few gems. Anyone seen reality around here lately?

[Blue]

On 01/06/2015 11:03, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "Tarcap" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> 1. All Motor vehicles should have a high visibility cone
>> stuck in the middle of their roof, In the shape of a, finger.
>>
>> 2. All cyclists should have a high visibility cone stuck on their heads,
>> in the shape of a dunce's hat. Pretty appropriate, really.
>
> lol but I must ask ... which finger?
>
>


Looks like Carpfish has been messing with the format.
That's my post. The finger is of course a very middle finger.

[MrCheerful]

On 01/06/2015 10:58, Tarcap wrote:
>
>
> "David Lang" wrote in message ...
>
> On 01/06/2015 00:44, JNugent wrote:
>> On 31/05/2015 17:29, Blue wrote:
>>
>>> On 31/05/2015 16:15, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 31/05/2015 14:39, Blue wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In real world most car scratch are caused the car driver.
>>>>> They're rough with their own keys.
>>>>> They clean it badly, or leave others to clean their precious.
>>>>> They drive over the speed limit while passing bushes.
>>>>> They drive into other cars, concrete bollards, posts..
>>>>> Park to close to other cars where the passengers have
>>>>> to get out of a tight space.
>>>>> Park where loose metal shopping trolleys roll around
>>>>> a parking lot.
>>>>> They damage their own car on purpose to pay for
>>>>> some new respray or new car and blame it on someone else.
>>>
>>>> Please explain how that means that it doesn't matter when a cyclist
>>>> does
>>>> £2,000 worth of damage to a car.
>>>
>>> Who does what to what? This is all fictional damage right.
>>
>> Did you see the video of a cyclist piling into the back of a stationary
>> car?
>>
>> That would be a £1,000 job absolute minimum. Done properly, it would
>> need a new tailgate and bumper, plus spraying to match.
>>
>> If you really aren't aware of what sort of cost the repair of damage to
>> motor vehicle demands, you aren't qualified to argue in a thread on this
>> sort of topic.
>>>
>>> If someone bought a £2,000 oil painting and left it in
>>> the road. What would the insurance be? Who's fault
>>> would it be if it suffered natural weather damage,
>>> everyday knocked and bumps, that an artwork might
>>> pick up, being left in the road.
>>
>> Are you drunk?
>
> More like insane.
>>
>> What has any of that to do with cyclists committing traffic offences and
>> causing damage to other vehicles?
>
> Don't discourage him. At last we seem to have a suitable replacement
> psycholist for all the barking ones that have passed through here but
> have all buggered off.
> Simon Mason, Doug, Brian Robertson, Bertie Wooster and many, many others.
>
> He'll be great for entertainment value.
>

You missed out Justin and 36and7/8th

[Blue]

On 01/06/2015 10:51, Tarcap DID NOT wrote:






Bit soon to start stealing my entertaining posts, isn't it?

[Blue]

On 01/06/2015 11:44, Mrcheerful wrote:
> On 01/06/2015 10:58, Tarcap wrote:

>> He'll be great for entertainment value.
>>
>
> You missed out Justin and 36and7/8th




I'm sure Tarquin has *saved* everyone's posts for reuse.

[Blue]

On 01/06/2015 06:04, Blue wrote:
>
> Flash Harry, Status symbol mongers.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3101081/Pictured-Driver-18-boasting-hits-142mph-night-killed-innocent-motorist-drove-high-powered-Audi-red-light.html
>
>
>
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3105266/Three-people-hospitalized-including-nine-year-old-girl-fighting-life-vehicle-crashes-LAX-terminal.html
>




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3105342/Brazilian-binman-sacked-pictured-dragging-injured-dog-road-throwing-animal-rubbish-truck.html

[Tarcap]

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ...

On 01/06/2015 10:58, Tarcap wrote:
>
>
> "David Lang" wrote in message ...
>
> On 01/06/2015 00:44, JNugent wrote:
>> On 31/05/2015 17:29, Blue wrote:
>>
>>> On 31/05/2015 16:15, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 31/05/2015 14:39, Blue wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In real world most car scratch are caused the car driver.
>>>>> They're rough with their own keys.
>>>>> They clean it badly, or leave others to clean their precious.
>>>>> They drive over the speed limit while passing bushes.
>>>>> They drive into other cars, concrete bollards, posts..
>>>>> Park to close to other cars where the passengers have
>>>>> to get out of a tight space.
>>>>> Park where loose metal shopping trolleys roll around
>>>>> a parking lot.
>>>>> They damage their own car on purpose to pay for
>>>>> some new respray or new car and blame it on someone else.
>>>
>>>> Please explain how that means that it doesn't matter when a cyclist
>>>> does
>>>> £2,000 worth of damage to a car.
>>>
>>> Who does what to what? This is all fictional damage right.
>>
>> Did you see the video of a cyclist piling into the back of a stationary
>> car?
>>
>> That would be a £1,000 job absolute minimum. Done properly, it would
>> need a new tailgate and bumper, plus spraying to match.
>>
>> If you really aren't aware of what sort of cost the repair of damage to
>> motor vehicle demands, you aren't qualified to argue in a thread on this
>> sort of topic.
>>>
>>> If someone bought a £2,000 oil painting and left it in
>>> the road. What would the insurance be? Who's fault
>>> would it be if it suffered natural weather damage,
>>> everyday knocked and bumps, that an artwork might
>>> pick up, being left in the road.
>>
>> Are you drunk?
>
> More like insane.
>>
>> What has any of that to do with cyclists committing traffic offences and
>> causing damage to other vehicles?
>
> Don't discourage him. At last we seem to have a suitable replacement
> psycholist for all the barking ones that have passed through here but
> have all buggered off.
> Simon Mason, Doug, Brian Robertson, Bertie Wooster and many, many others.
>
> He'll be great for entertainment value.
>

You missed out Justin and 36and7/8th

Oh, there's been so many of them I couldn't possibly remember them all.
But I think this one's going to be a real corker - he's showing great
promise already.

[David Lang]

On 01/06/2015 11:31, Blue wrote:
> On 01/06/2015 08:21, David Lang wrote:
>
>>> Are you drunk?
>>
>> More like insane.
>
>
>
> LOL, you want the poorest 90% of people in the land
> to go bankrupt paying for the richest 1% in the land, with
> their flash diamond stubbed cars, on the off chance that anyone
> of them could brush past it and their vajazzle might lose
> a few gems. Anyone seen reality around here lately?
>
I must live in a deprived area, I haven't seen a flash diamond stubbed
car for weeks.

What is a stubbed car anyway?

[Judith[_4_]]

On Mon, 1 Jun 2015 11:03:22 +0100, "Ophelia" > wrote:

>
>
>"Tarcap" > wrote in message
...
>
>> 1. All Motor vehicles should have a high visibility cone
>> stuck in the middle of their roof, In the shape of a, finger.
>>
>> 2. All cyclists should have a high visibility cone stuck on their heads,
>> in the shape of a dunce's hat. Pretty appropriate, really.
>
>lol but I must ask ... which finger?


Are you asking Tarcap - or Tricky Ricky?

[Judith[_4_]]

On Sun, 31 May 2015 16:34:36 +0100, "tim....." >
wrote:

>> Cyclists are a nuisance on the road.
>
>No they are not

No - of course they don't

>> They have little or no training.
>
>Most will have done the CPT at school, what else is required?

Sorry - I am not talking about history: I'm talking about recent years.
Do you have figures to back up such a claim?

A compulsory theory test based on the HC is required - the same as it is for
car drivers.

>> They break the law on a regular basis.
>
>No they don't

No - of course they don't

>> Many do not have any insurance - they could put you in a coma for life
>> after
>> hitting you on the footpath and it would be tough luck.
>
>as would be the case if you suffered that after being tripped up by a ped

Oh yes - it happens every day: one pedestrian tripping up another and causing
serious harm

>> There is no way of identifying a cyclist who cycles in to you on the path
>> and
>> then buggers off smartish.
>
>and how does having a tiny number etched to the frame of the bike solve
>this?

Did I say that it did?



Could you tell us which country you are in - as it's obviously not England.


(Or am I assuming too much with planet Earth?)

[Judith[_4_]]

On Sun, 31 May 2015 06:45:39 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason >
wrote:

<snip>

>
>Hear hear. Never heard of cycle damaged cars at all.


Now, now Mr Mason - we had enough of your lies in uk.rec.cycling.

[Judith[_4_]]

On Sun, 31 May 2015 06:52:51 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason >
wrote:

>On Sunday, 31 May 2015 15:39:59 UTC+2, Blue wrote:
>
>> They damage their own car on purpose to pay for
>> some new respray or new car and blame it on someone else.
>
>Exactly - my mate not only fiddled car damage, he claimed he had a load of valuable electronic gear as well as two leather jackets inside that got stolen!
>

Most people have "mates" who are quite similar to themselves.

Do you?

[Judith[_4_]]

On Sun, 31 May 2015 06:40:57 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason >
wrote:

>On Sunday, 31 May 2015 15:30:25 UTC+2, steve robinson wrote:
>
>>
>> When my car door got scratched the whole side of the car had to be
>> resprayed so that the paint matched, in sunlight it looked fine under
>> artificial ight and the amber street lights the car looked like a
>> patchwork quilt.
>>
>> £2000 for the respray
>
>Whereas a car full of teenage lads with no insurance that maims them all for life costs the rest of us £millions.


Yes - but we don't all live in Hull so it rarely happens.

[Judith[_4_]]

On Sun, 31 May 2015 14:23:04 +0100, Blue > wrote:

>On 30/05/2015 21:26, Judith wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Many cyclists believe that their "fridge - freezer" insurance covers any such
>> accident.
>
>
>
>
>
>Many drivers believe that people need fridge insurance
>for that rare occasion when someone runs outside with
>their fridge and whack someone with it.

When does the outlawing of legal highs come in?

[Judith[_4_]]

On Sun, 31 May 2015 16:30:44 +0100, "tim....." >
wrote:

<snip>


>you really think that a responsible person who has been cycling for 40 years
>would comply with point (1)?
>
>tim


I realise that many cyclists are serial law-breakers - but I would expect more
mature people to comply with the legislation even if they are cyclists.

But I can see why you have your doubts.

[Blue]

On 01/06/2015 18:47, David Lang wrote:
> On 01/06/2015 11:31, Blue wrote:

> I must live in a deprived area, I haven't seen a flash diamond stubbed
> car for weeks.
>
> What is a stubbed car anyway?





1. All car owners to have their insurance cost
based Not around the value of their vehicle,
but based on them hitting the most expensive
car in the land.

[Blue]

On 01/06/2015 23:51, Judith wrote:
> On Sun, 31 May 2015 14:23:04 +0100, Blue > wrote:








>> Many drivers believe that people need fridge insurance
>> for that rare occasion when someone runs outside with
>> their fridge and whack someone with it.




> When does the outlawing of legal highs come in?






Typical driver.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3106073/Get-f-cycle-lane-c-t-Shocking-moment-driver-cyclist-furious-row-middle-road-overtaking-manoeuvre.html

[Tarcap]

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...

"tim....." > considered Sun, 31 May 2015
16:28:54 +0100 the perfect time to write:

>
>"Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
...
>> On 31/05/2015 10:41, Nick wrote:
>>> On 31/05/2015 10:22, Bill wrote:
>>>> In message >, Phil W Lee
>>>> > writes
>>>>>
>>>>> If the figures from the Motor Insurance Bureau are to be believed,
>>>>> there are almost certainly far more uninsured motorists around than
>>>>> uninsured cyclists, and the uninsured motorists have a far higher
>>>>> chance of being liable for property damage, life changing injuries,
>>>>> and deaths even than average motorists, so many orders of magnitude
>>>>> greater than any cyclist.
>>>>
>>>> Quite likely as there are many more motorists on the roads than
>>>> cyclists.
>>>> I wonder what the figures would be as a percentage though?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Surely the pertinent figures are the cost to an individual of third
>>> party cover for Cycling and Driving repectively. As near as I can tell
>>> the Cycling figure is negligible (bundled free with house insurance)
>>> compare to hundreds of pounds for driving.
>>>
>>
>> So as the cost is low there can be no good reason not to make every
>> cyclist take out such insurance.
>
>It's only low cost when bundled with a housing policy because most won't
>claim on it even when they could, some out of ignorance, but most because
>it
>would make next years renewal rise by more than the value of the claim
>
>If it were a stand alone policy claims would (relatively) sky rocket
>
>tim

Really?
Is that why stand alone third party cover (which DOES get claimed on -
just ask CTC if you really want to know) is so cheap it's given away
with cycle club memberships.

The day you suddenly wake up and it dawns on you that in this life you get
exactly what you pay for, then life suddenly becomes a lot easier.
You stop grubbing about trying to find the cheapest of everything, and you
start to enjoy a quality life.
But as a psycholist you will never enjoy that realisation, and will continue
to eke out your miserable existence as cheaply as possible.
I bet your house is stuffed with "Kwality" Chinese made tat, isn't it?

[Tarcap]

"Blue" wrote in message ...

On 01/06/2015 23:51, Judith wrote:
> On Sun, 31 May 2015 14:23:04 +0100, Blue > wrote:








>> Many drivers believe that people need fridge insurance
>> for that rare occasion when someone runs outside with
>> their fridge and whack someone with it.




> When does the outlawing of legal highs come in?






Typical driver.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3106073/Get-f-cycle-lane-c-t-Shocking-moment-driver-cyclist-furious-row-middle-road-overtaking-manoeuvre.html


This is a cycling NG. Please stay on topic.

[Blue]

On 02/06/2015 12:31, Tarcap wrote:
>
>
> "Blue" wrote in message ...
>
> On 01/06/2015 23:51, Judith wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 May 2015 14:23:04 +0100, Blue > wrote:
>
>
>
>>> Many drivers believe that people need fridge insurance
>>> for that rare occasion when someone runs outside with
>>> their fridge and whack someone with it.
>
>
>
>
>> When does the outlawing of legal highs come in?
>
>
> Typical driver.
>
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3106073/Get-f-cycle-lane-c-t-Shocking-moment-driver-cyclist-furious-row-middle-road-overtaking-manoeuvre.html
>
>
>
> This is a cycling NG. Please stay on topic.



Now you're a bad NetCop, LOL.

The entertainment gift that keeps on giving.

[jnugent]

On 02/06/2015 03:20, Blue wrote:
> On 01/06/2015 18:47, David Lang wrote:
>> On 01/06/2015 11:31, Blue wrote:
>
>> I must live in a deprived area, I haven't seen a flash diamond stubbed
>> car for weeks.
>>
>> What is a stubbed car anyway?
>
> 1. All car owners to have their insurance cost
> based Not around the value of their vehicle,
> but based on them hitting the most expensive
> car in the land.

It's actually worse than that...

Insurance premiums have to be set against the possibility (however
distant) that the insured vehicle and/or driver might hit (and kill or
seriously injure) another human being.

Property pales into relative insignificance in that context.

I could write off my car (new last year) and buy another one tomorrow
out of savings. But I couldn't provide for the dependents of someone
killed in a car-crash in which I was involved and adjudged at fault. At
least, not without the strength of insurance around me.

If you really don't understand insurance, let's hope you never take
control of anything more deadly than a pea-shooter.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

"JNugent" > wrote in message
...
> On 02/06/2015 03:20, Blue wrote:
>> On 01/06/2015 18:47, David Lang wrote:
>>> On 01/06/2015 11:31, Blue wrote:
>>
>>> I must live in a deprived area, I haven't seen a flash diamond stubbed
>>> car for weeks.
>>>
>>> What is a stubbed car anyway?
>>
>> 1. All car owners to have their insurance cost
>> based Not around the value of their vehicle,
>> but based on them hitting the most expensive
>> car in the land.
>
> It's actually worse than that...
>
> Insurance premiums have to be set against the possibility (however
> distant) that the insured vehicle and/or driver might hit (and kill or
> seriously injure) another human being.
>
> Property pales into relative insignificance in that context.
>
> I could write off my car (new last year) and buy another one tomorrow out
> of savings. But I couldn't provide for the dependents of someone killed in
> a car-crash in which I was involved and adjudged at fault. At least, not
> without the strength of insurance around me.
>
> If you really don't understand insurance, let's hope you never take
> control of anything more deadly than a pea-shooter.

You are wasting your time with this guy.
He is a well known fruitcake/troll/time waster.

[David Lang]

On 02/06/2015 03:20, Blue wrote:
> On 01/06/2015 18:47, David Lang wrote:
>> On 01/06/2015 11:31, Blue wrote:
>
>> I must live in a deprived area, I haven't seen a flash diamond stubbed
>> car for weeks.
>>
>> What is a stubbed car anyway?
>
>
>
>
>
> 1. All car owners to have their insurance cost
> based Not around the value of their vehicle,
> but based on them hitting the most expensive
> car in the land.
>
So where does the stubbed bit come in?

[Blue]

On 02/06/2015 18:48, JNugent wrote:
> On 02/06/2015 03:20, Blue wrote:
>> On 01/06/2015 18:47, David Lang wrote:
>>> On 01/06/2015 11:31, Blue wrote:
>>
>>> I must live in a deprived area, I haven't seen a flash diamond stubbed
>>> car for weeks.
>>>
>>> What is a stubbed car anyway?
>>
>> 1. All car owners to have their insurance cost
>> based Not around the value of their vehicle,
>> but based on them hitting the most expensive
>> car in the land.
>
> It's actually worse than that...
>
> Insurance premiums have to be set against the possibility (however
> distant) that the insured vehicle and/or driver might hit (and kill or
> seriously injure) another human being.


In words, but not in reality.

Do you really think your 600 quid a year will bring
someone back to life. Does a car and 600 quid insurance
make you think you're a god of the road.



>
> Property pales into relative insignificance in that context.
>
> I could write off my car (new last year) and buy another one tomorrow
> out of savings. But I couldn't provide for the dependents of someone
> killed in a car-crash in which I was involved and adjudged at fault. At
> least, not without the strength of insurance around me.
>
> If you really don't understand insurance, let's hope you never take
> control of anything more deadly than a pea-shooter.

[Blue]

On 02/06/2015 20:13, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
> "JNugent" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 02/06/2015 03:20, Blue wrote:
>>> On 01/06/2015 18:47, David Lang wrote:
>>>> On 01/06/2015 11:31, Blue wrote:
>>>
>>>> I must live in a deprived area, I haven't seen a flash diamond stubbed
>>>> car for weeks.
>>>>
>>>> What is a stubbed car anyway?
>>>
>>> 1. All car owners to have their insurance cost
>>> based Not around the value of their vehicle,
>>> but based on them hitting the most expensive
>>> car in the land.
>>
>> It's actually worse than that...
>>
>> Insurance premiums have to be set against the possibility (however
>> distant) that the insured vehicle and/or driver might hit (and kill or
>> seriously injure) another human being.
>>
>> Property pales into relative insignificance in that context.
>>
>> I could write off my car (new last year) and buy another one tomorrow out
>> of savings. But I couldn't provide for the dependents of someone killed in
>> a car-crash in which I was involved and adjudged at fault. At least, not
>> without the strength of insurance around me.
>>
>> If you really don't understand insurance, let's hope you never take
>> control of anything more deadly than a pea-shooter.
>
> You are wasting your time with this guy.
> He is a well known fruitcake/troll/time waster.




I've weighed you characters up years ago and you were
found wanting then as you are now. No change.

[Tarcap]

"Blue" wrote in message ...

On 02/06/2015 12:31, Tarcap wrote:
>
>
> "Blue" wrote in message ...
>
> On 01/06/2015 23:51, Judith wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 May 2015 14:23:04 +0100, Blue > wrote:
>
>
>
>>> Many drivers believe that people need fridge insurance
>>> for that rare occasion when someone runs outside with
>>> their fridge and whack someone with it.
>
>
>
>
>> When does the outlawing of legal highs come in?
>
>
> Typical driver.
>
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3106073/Get-f-cycle-lane-c-t-Shocking-moment-driver-cyclist-furious-row-middle-road-overtaking-manoeuvre.html
>
>
>
> This is a cycling NG. Please stay on topic.



Now you're a bad NetCop, LOL.

The entertainment gift that keeps on giving.

Someone has to be, otherwise lunatics like you will drag us all down to your
level.

[Paul Cummins[_7_]]

In article >, (Blue)
wrote:

> Do you really think your 600 quid a year will bring
> someone back to life. Does a car and 600 quid insurance
> make you think you're a god of the road.

£600 for insurance? How many accidents did you have last year?

That's more than double the cost of my car AND motorbike together.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ

[MrCheerful]

On 03/06/2015 08:36, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article >, (Blue)
> wrote:
>
>> Do you really think your 600 quid a year will bring
>> someone back to life. Does a car and 600 quid insurance
>> make you think you're a god of the road.
>
> £600 for insurance? How many accidents did you have last year?
>
> That's more than double the cost of my car AND motorbike together.
>

And nearly as much as my multivehicle insurance, fully comp, ncd
protected, Ferrari, van, Lexus, two drivers and motorcycles all included.

[TPT]

On Wednesday, 3 June 2015 09:36:26 UTC+2, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article >, (Blue)
> wrote:
>
> > Do you really think your 600 quid a year will bring
> > someone back to life. Does a car and 600 quid insurance
> > make you think you're a god of the road.
>
> £600 for insurance? How many accidents did you have last year?
>
> That's more than double the cost of my car AND motorbike together.

Mine's just £170 - no claims in 40 years.

[Blue]

On 03/06/2015 07:38, Tarcap wrote:
>
>
> "Blue" wrote in message ...

>> This is a cycling NG. Please stay on topic.
>
>
>
> Now you're a bad NetCop, LOL.
>
> The entertainment gift that keeps on giving.
>
> Someone has to be, otherwise lunatics like you will drag us all down to
> your level.



Posts look properly formatted at my level.

[Nick[_4_]]

On 03/06/2015 09:07, Mrcheerful wrote:

>
> And nearly as much as my multivehicle insurance, fully comp, ncd
> protected,


ncd protected, lol, what good do you think that is?

[MrCheerful]

On 03/06/2015 11:04, Nick wrote:
> On 03/06/2015 09:07, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
>>
>> And nearly as much as my multivehicle insurance, fully comp, ncd
>> protected,
>
>
> ncd protected, lol, what good do you think that is?
>

Without ncd my policy would more than triple in price. So some ****
riding into me could give me a massive increase in premiums, ncd
protection avoids that (I understand) Although I have not made an
insurance claim in over thirty years, there is always the possibility.

[Nick[_4_]]

On 03/06/2015 11:11, Mrcheerful wrote:
> On 03/06/2015 11:04, Nick wrote:
>> On 03/06/2015 09:07, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And nearly as much as my multivehicle insurance, fully comp, ncd
>>> protected,
>>
>>
>> ncd protected, lol, what good do you think that is?
>>
>
> Without ncd my policy would more than triple in price. So some ****
> riding into me could give me a massive increase in premiums, ncd
> protection avoids that (I understand) Although I have not made an
> insurance claim in over thirty years, there is always the possibility.

It doesn't protect your actual premium.

After an accident the insurance company will calculate a new premium
based upon the risk you pose, i.e. how much your business is worth to them.

ncd is a nonsense, reality is the premium you actually pay not some
nominal figure they apply the ncd to.

[MrCheerful]

On 03/06/2015 12:16, Nick wrote:
> On 03/06/2015 11:11, Mrcheerful wrote:
>> On 03/06/2015 11:04, Nick wrote:
>>> On 03/06/2015 09:07, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And nearly as much as my multivehicle insurance, fully comp, ncd
>>>> protected,
>>>
>>>
>>> ncd protected, lol, what good do you think that is?
>>>
>>
>> Without ncd my policy would more than triple in price. So some ****
>> riding into me could give me a massive increase in premiums, ncd
>> protection avoids that (I understand) Although I have not made an
>> insurance claim in over thirty years, there is always the possibility.
>
> It doesn't protect your actual premium.
>
> After an accident the insurance company will calculate a new premium
> based upon the risk you pose, i.e. how much your business is worth to them.
>
> ncd is a nonsense, reality is the premium you actually pay not some
> nominal figure they apply the ncd to.
>

Quite likely, however as I am (touch wood) claim free and as ncd
protection is standard with the policy I am not too bothered, my old
company did not do NCD protection and charged nearly double what this
company does for less cover.
But the point was that 600 quid for a personal car insurance is pretty
high compared to the amount I have to pay.

[Judith[_4_]]

On Tue, 02 Jun 2015 02:17:42 +0100, Phil W Lee > wrote:

<snip>


>On the contrary, it wasn't he who brought up 2 grand resprays for a
>minor scratch, when a more sensible paint scheme on the car, designed
>with "fitness for purpose" as it's principle factor, would be twenty
>quid for a bit of filler, some sandpaper, and a couple of rattle cans.


Yes - but if you are not a hard up cyclist, then you can afford to do the job
properly.

Of course if you *are* a hard-up cyclist then you have to do things on the
cheap.

(May I have some extra milk next time please?)

[Judith[_4_]]

On Tue, 02 Jun 2015 02:24:51 +0100, Phil W Lee > wrote:

<snip>


>Is that why stand alone third party cover (which DOES get claimed on -
>just ask CTC if you really want to know) is so cheap it's given away
>with cycle club memberships.


Oh - so the money paid to the insurance company does not come out of the
"inclusive" club membership fees.

I wonder where it comes from?

[Nick[_4_]]

On 03/06/2015 12:51, Mrcheerful wrote:

> Quite likely, however as I am (touch wood) claim free and as ncd
> protection is standard with the policy I am not too bothered, my old
> company did not do NCD protection and charged nearly double what this
> company does for less cover.

Sounds like you are ok then, just don't pay extra for it as it is a scam.

The insurance I saved a shocking amount on by switching was my home
(buildings and contents). I had just been renewing it for decades
without checking out alternatives. When I did change it went from
something like £800 a year to £150.

> But the point was that 600 quid for a personal car insurance is pretty
> high compared to the amount I have to pay.
>

Yep it is much higher than mine too, due in large part to me being a
boring old man. But I think the average is about £600.

[MrCheerful]

On 03/06/2015 13:50, Nick wrote:
> On 03/06/2015 12:51, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
>> Quite likely, however as I am (touch wood) claim free and as ncd
>> protection is standard with the policy I am not too bothered, my old
>> company did not do NCD protection and charged nearly double what this
>> company does for less cover.
>
> Sounds like you are ok then, just don't pay extra for it as it is a scam.
>
> The insurance I saved a shocking amount on by switching was my home
> (buildings and contents). I had just been renewing it for decades
> without checking out alternatives. When I did change it went from
> something like £800 a year to £150.
>

Same for me, I was with prudential home insurance for several years and
it just rose every year, when I moved to more-than it dropped from
800ish to 200 and a bit. And that was with no claims for 20 plus years
and they were only quite small claims.

Same with energy prices, shopping around can save a third or more for
some people, Sainsbury's energy saved me over 200 quid for the next year
(was with Scottish Power) which is about 15 percent

[Judith[_4_]]

On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 09:58:26 +0100, Blue > wrote:

>On 03/06/2015 07:38, Tarcap wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Blue" wrote in message ...
>
>>> This is a cycling NG. Please stay on topic.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now you're a bad NetCop, LOL.
>>
>> The entertainment gift that keeps on giving.
>>
>> Someone has to be, otherwise lunatics like you will drag us all down to
>> your level.
>
>
>
>Posts look properly formatted at my level.

In the gutter?

[tim.....]

"Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
...
> On 31/05/2015 19:42, tim..... wrote:
>>
>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 31/05/2015 16:29, tim..... wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On 31/05/2015 10:38, Nick wrote:
>>>>>> On 31/05/2015 10:00, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ordinary cyclists kill people, they do not even have to report the
>>>>>>> crash. the laws need modernising.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> lol. Perhaps you could get a former chief commissioner on side like
>>>>>> former Met Chief, Ian Blair. He had massive talents at hyperbole.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Something like "The threats from cyclists are far graver that those
>>>>>> faced in World War II, the Cold War or the IRA"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would that do it for you?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Many people are maimed by cyclists every year, a few are killed
>>>>> outright. They or their families should be compensated.
>>>>
>>>> do you have evidence that they are not?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Who would compensate them when the cyclist is untraceable?
>>
>> and how is any of Judith's proposals going to change that part of the
>> scenario
>>
>
> Item 9 would certainly help.

and how is anyone ever going to know that a random cyclist is displaying the
correct number

are there going to be continual "stop and checks" on cyclist's
documentation?

Amongst a bunch of nonsensical suggestions this is one that makes some of
the rest look sensible

tim




>

[tim.....]

"Judith" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 31 May 2015 16:30:44 +0100, "tim....." >
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>you really think that a responsible person who has been cycling for 40
>>years
>>would comply with point (1)?
>>
>>tim
>
>
> I realise that many cyclists are serial law-breakers - but I would expect
> more
> mature people to comply with the legislation even if they are cyclists.

There's a complete difference between having to do something simple (and
arguably worthwhile) such as wearing a hi-viz vest

and having to do something that inconveniences you, and is totally pointless
such as having to take a day off work to go and be taught how to do
something that you already know how to do

Who would somebody who has 40 years of "responsible" cycling be persuaded
that going on some training is useful?

tim

[tim.....]

"JNugent" > wrote in message
...
> On 31/05/2015 16:30, tim..... wrote:
>>
>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 31/05/2015 10:38, tim..... wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "David Lang" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On 30/05/2015 09:23, Nick wrote:
>>>>>> On 29/05/2015 17:13, Judith wrote:
>>>>>>> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional
>>>>>>> training for
>>>>>>> younger people via schools.
>>>>>>> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for
>>>>>>> cyclists -
>>>>>>> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
>>>>>>> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
>>>>>>> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes,
>>>>>>> reflectors and
>>>>>>> lights.
>>>>>>> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
>>>>>>> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking
>>>>>>> laws.
>>>>>>> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being checked
>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>> five years- of them and their bike.
>>>>>>> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which must
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> worn at
>>>>>>> all times whilst cycling.
>>>>>>> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of
>>>>>>> hi-viz
>>>>>>> garment and clearly visible.
>>>>>>> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and crushing
>>>>>>> of cycle
>>>>>>> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
>>>>>>> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling
>>>>>>> charities
>>>>>>> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What are you trying to achieve?
>>>>>>
>>>>> The correct & proper regulation of a group of serial law breakers.
>>>>
>>>> and the "criminalisation" of a group of law abiding ones
>>>>
>>>> tim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> How would law abiding ones be made criminals ? Laws are often
>>> enacted which make certain actions or inactions illegal.
>>
>> you really think that a responsible person who has been cycling for 40
>> years would comply with point (1)?
>>
>> tim
>
> Yes, of course.
>
> What, after all, does the word "responsible" MEAN?
>
> In the circumstances posited, how could a cyclist refusing to comply with
> such a basic requirement of the law be termed "responsible"?

because breaking a "rule made for rules sake" is not irresponsible

tim

[MrCheerful]

On 04/06/2015 09:40, tim..... wrote:
>
> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 31/05/2015 19:42, tim..... wrote:
>>>
>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 31/05/2015 16:29, tim..... wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On 31/05/2015 10:38, Nick wrote:
>>>>>>> On 31/05/2015 10:00, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ordinary cyclists kill people, they do not even have to report the
>>>>>>>> crash. the laws need modernising.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> lol. Perhaps you could get a former chief commissioner on side like
>>>>>>> former Met Chief, Ian Blair. He had massive talents at hyperbole.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Something like "The threats from cyclists are far graver that those
>>>>>>> faced in World War II, the Cold War or the IRA"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would that do it for you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many people are maimed by cyclists every year, a few are killed
>>>>>> outright. They or their families should be compensated.
>>>>>
>>>>> do you have evidence that they are not?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Who would compensate them when the cyclist is untraceable?
>>>
>>> and how is any of Judith's proposals going to change that part of the
>>> scenario
>>>
>>
>> Item 9 would certainly help.
>
> and how is anyone ever going to know that a random cyclist is displaying
> the correct number
>
> are there going to be continual "stop and checks" on cyclist's
> documentation?
>
> Amongst a bunch of nonsensical suggestions this is one that makes some
> of the rest look sensible
>
> tim

the majority would be correctly identifiable, just as motor vehicles are
at present

[MrCheerful]

On 04/06/2015 09:44, tim..... wrote:
>
> "Judith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 31 May 2015 16:30:44 +0100, "tim....."
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>> you really think that a responsible person who has been cycling for
>>> 40 years
>>> would comply with point (1)?
>>>
>>> tim
>>
>>
>> I realise that many cyclists are serial law-breakers - but I would
>> expect more
>> mature people to comply with the legislation even if they are cyclists.
>
> There's a complete difference between having to do something simple (and
> arguably worthwhile) such as wearing a hi-viz vest
>
> and having to do something that inconveniences you, and is totally
> pointless such as having to take a day off work to go and be taught how
> to do something that you already know how to do
>
> Who would somebody who has 40 years of "responsible" cycling be
> persuaded that going on some training is useful?
>
> tim
>
>

You make it useful to them personally: You cannot continue to ride
without taking the training and passing the test. Should be very easy
for the hypothetical responsible cyclist.

[David Lang]

On 04/06/2015 09:40, tim..... wrote:
>
> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 31/05/2015 19:42, tim..... wrote:
>>>
>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 31/05/2015 16:29, tim..... wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On 31/05/2015 10:38, Nick wrote:
>>>>>>> On 31/05/2015 10:00, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ordinary cyclists kill people, they do not even have to report the
>>>>>>>> crash. the laws need modernising.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> lol. Perhaps you could get a former chief commissioner on side like
>>>>>>> former Met Chief, Ian Blair. He had massive talents at hyperbole.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Something like "The threats from cyclists are far graver that those
>>>>>>> faced in World War II, the Cold War or the IRA"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would that do it for you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many people are maimed by cyclists every year, a few are killed
>>>>>> outright. They or their families should be compensated.
>>>>>
>>>>> do you have evidence that they are not?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Who would compensate them when the cyclist is untraceable?
>>>
>>> and how is any of Judith's proposals going to change that part of the
>>> scenario
>>>
>>
>> Item 9 would certainly help.
>
> and how is anyone ever going to know that a random cyclist is displaying
> the correct number

The same way we ensure a car is displaying the correct number.
>
> are there going to be continual "stop and checks" on cyclist's
> documentation?

Absolutely. Just block off a section of pavement.
>

>
>
>

[David Lang]

On 04/06/2015 09:45, tim..... wrote:
>
> "JNugent" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 31/05/2015 16:30, tim..... wrote:
>>>
>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 31/05/2015 10:38, tim..... wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "David Lang" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On 30/05/2015 09:23, Nick wrote:
>>>>>>> On 29/05/2015 17:13, Judith wrote:
>>>>>>>> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional
>>>>>>>> training for
>>>>>>>> younger people via schools.
>>>>>>>> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for
>>>>>>>> cyclists -
>>>>>>>> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
>>>>>>>> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
>>>>>>>> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes,
>>>>>>>> reflectors and
>>>>>>>> lights.
>>>>>>>> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
>>>>>>>> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking
>>>>>>>> laws.
>>>>>>>> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being
>>>>>>>> checked
>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>> five years- of them and their bike.
>>>>>>>> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which
>>>>>>>> must be
>>>>>>>> worn at
>>>>>>>> all times whilst cycling.
>>>>>>>> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of
>>>>>>>> hi-viz
>>>>>>>> garment and clearly visible.
>>>>>>>> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and
>>>>>>>> crushing
>>>>>>>> of cycle
>>>>>>>> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
>>>>>>>> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling
>>>>>>>> charities
>>>>>>>> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What are you trying to achieve?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The correct & proper regulation of a group of serial law breakers.
>>>>>
>>>>> and the "criminalisation" of a group of law abiding ones
>>>>>
>>>>> tim
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How would law abiding ones be made criminals ? Laws are often
>>>> enacted which make certain actions or inactions illegal.
>>>
>>> you really think that a responsible person who has been cycling for 40
>>> years would comply with point (1)?
>>>
>>> tim
>>
>> Yes, of course.
>>
>> What, after all, does the word "responsible" MEAN?
>>
>> In the circumstances posited, how could a cyclist refusing to comply
>> with such a basic requirement of the law be termed "responsible"?
>
> because breaking a "rule made for rules sake" is not irresponsible
>

Try doing 45mph at 1:00 am on a deserted 30mph road with a speed camera,
then arguing with a judge.

[David Lang]

On 04/06/2015 09:44, tim..... wrote:
>
> "Judith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 31 May 2015 16:30:44 +0100, "tim....."
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>> you really think that a responsible person who has been cycling for
>>> 40 years
>>> would comply with point (1)?
>>>
>>> tim
>>
>>
>> I realise that many cyclists are serial law-breakers - but I would
>> expect more
>> mature people to comply with the legislation even if they are cyclists.
>
> There's a complete difference between having to do something simple (and
> arguably worthwhile) such as wearing a hi-viz vest

Which most cyclists don't.

There's a complete difference between having to do something simple (and
arguably worthwhile) such as wearing a helmet.

>
> and having to do something that inconveniences you, and is totally
> pointless such as having to take a day off work to go and be taught how
> to do something that you already know how to do

But they clearly don't.
>
> Who would somebody who has 40 years of "responsible" cycling be
> persuaded that going on some training is useful?
>

The cyclist may not think so but the general public do.

[Bod[_5_]]

On 04/06/2015 17:41, David Lang wrote:
> On 04/06/2015 09:40, tim..... wrote:
>>
>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 31/05/2015 19:42, tim..... wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On 31/05/2015 16:29, tim..... wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> On 31/05/2015 10:38, Nick wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 31/05/2015 10:00, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ordinary cyclists kill people, they do not even have to report the
>>>>>>>>> crash. the laws need modernising.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> lol. Perhaps you could get a former chief commissioner on side like
>>>>>>>> former Met Chief, Ian Blair. He had massive talents at hyperbole.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Something like "The threats from cyclists are far graver that those
>>>>>>>> faced in World War II, the Cold War or the IRA"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would that do it for you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Many people are maimed by cyclists every year, a few are killed
>>>>>>> outright. They or their families should be compensated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> do you have evidence that they are not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Who would compensate them when the cyclist is untraceable?
>>>>
>>>> and how is any of Judith's proposals going to change that part of the
>>>> scenario
>>>>
>>>
>>> Item 9 would certainly help.
>>
>> and how is anyone ever going to know that a random cyclist is displaying
>> the correct number
>
> The same way we ensure a car is displaying the correct number.
>>
>> are there going to be continual "stop and checks" on cyclist's
>> documentation?
>
> Absolutely. Just block off a section of pavement.
>>
>
>The same applies to the thousands of cars that use cloned plates.

[Blue]

On 03/06/2015 22:14, Judith wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 09:58:26 +0100, Blue > wrote:
>
>> On 03/06/2015 07:38, Tarcap wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Blue" wrote in message ...
>>
>>>> This is a cycling NG. Please stay on topic.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Now you're a bad NetCop, LOL.
>>>
>>> The entertainment gift that keeps on giving.
>>>
>>> Someone has to be, otherwise lunatics like you will drag us all down to
>>> your level.
>>
>>
>>
>> Posts look properly formatted at my level.
>
> In the gutter?




When was the last time you cycled in the road?

[jnugent]

On 04/06/2015 09:45, tim..... wrote:
>
> "JNugent" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 31/05/2015 16:30, tim..... wrote:
>>>
>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 31/05/2015 10:38, tim..... wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "David Lang" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On 30/05/2015 09:23, Nick wrote:
>>>>>>> On 29/05/2015 17:13, Judith wrote:
>>>>>>>> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional
>>>>>>>> training for
>>>>>>>> younger people via schools.
>>>>>>>> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for
>>>>>>>> cyclists -
>>>>>>>> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
>>>>>>>> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
>>>>>>>> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes,
>>>>>>>> reflectors and
>>>>>>>> lights.
>>>>>>>> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to individual.
>>>>>>>> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking
>>>>>>>> laws.
>>>>>>>> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being
>>>>>>>> checked
>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>> five years- of them and their bike.
>>>>>>>> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which
>>>>>>>> must be
>>>>>>>> worn at
>>>>>>>> all times whilst cycling.
>>>>>>>> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of
>>>>>>>> hi-viz
>>>>>>>> garment and clearly visible.
>>>>>>>> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and
>>>>>>>> crushing
>>>>>>>> of cycle
>>>>>>>> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
>>>>>>>> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling
>>>>>>>> charities
>>>>>>>> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What are you trying to achieve?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The correct & proper regulation of a group of serial law breakers.
>>>>>
>>>>> and the "criminalisation" of a group of law abiding ones
>>>>>
>>>>> tim
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How would law abiding ones be made criminals ? Laws are often
>>>> enacted which make certain actions or inactions illegal.
>>>
>>> you really think that a responsible person who has been cycling for 40
>>> years would comply with point (1)?
>>>
>>> tim
>>
>> Yes, of course.
>>
>> What, after all, does the word "responsible" MEAN?
>>
>> In the circumstances posited, how could a cyclist refusing to comply
>> with such a basic requirement of the law be termed "responsible"?
>
> because breaking a "rule made for rules sake" is not irresponsible

Breaking a rule the breach of which would put one completely outside the
law for cycling purposes would be highly irresponsible.

It would be analogous to a driver refusing to obtain a driving licence
on the ground that they know how to drive and don't feel the need to
prove it.

[David Lang]

On 04/06/2015 17:47, Bod wrote:
> On 04/06/2015 17:41, David Lang wrote:
>> On 04/06/2015 09:40, tim..... wrote:
>>>
>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 31/05/2015 19:42, tim..... wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On 31/05/2015 16:29, tim..... wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> On 31/05/2015 10:38, Nick wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 31/05/2015 10:00, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ordinary cyclists kill people, they do not even have to report
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> crash. the laws need modernising.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> lol. Perhaps you could get a former chief commissioner on side
>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>> former Met Chief, Ian Blair. He had massive talents at hyperbole.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Something like "The threats from cyclists are far graver that
>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>> faced in World War II, the Cold War or the IRA"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Would that do it for you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Many people are maimed by cyclists every year, a few are killed
>>>>>>>> outright. They or their families should be compensated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> do you have evidence that they are not?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who would compensate them when the cyclist is untraceable?
>>>>>
>>>>> and how is any of Judith's proposals going to change that part of the
>>>>> scenario
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Item 9 would certainly help.
>>>
>>> and how is anyone ever going to know that a random cyclist is displaying
>>> the correct number
>>
>> The same way we ensure a car is displaying the correct number.
>>>
>>> are there going to be continual "stop and checks" on cyclist's
>>> documentation?
>>
>> Absolutely. Just block off a section of pavement.
>>>
>>
>> The same applies to the thousands of cars that use cloned plates.

And the millions who don't.

[Judith[_4_]]

On Thu, 4 Jun 2015 05:30:52 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason >
wrote:

>On Thursday, 4 June 2015 10:41:01 UTC+2, tim..... wrote:
>
>>
>> and how is anyone ever going to know that a random cyclist is displaying the
>> correct number
>>
>> are there going to be continual "stop and checks" on cyclist's
>> documentation?
>>
>> Amongst a bunch of nonsensical suggestions this is one that makes some of
>> the rest look sensible
>
>What would happen if a dozen cyclists are in the locker room after a shift and someone rides home with the wrong vest on? What mechanism would identify this "lawbreaker"?

Trust a cyclist not to know his own number and nick someone elses.

What if someone had the incorrect number plate on their car - what mechanism
would identify this "lawbreaker".

I recall why you were known as Simple Simon.

[Judith[_4_]]

On Thu, 4 Jun 2015 09:44:31 +0100, "tim....." >
wrote:

>
>"Judith" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 31 May 2015 16:30:44 +0100, "tim....." >
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>>you really think that a responsible person who has been cycling for 40
>>>years
>>>would comply with point (1)?
>>>
>>>tim
>>
>>
>> I realise that many cyclists are serial law-breakers - but I would expect
>> more
>> mature people to comply with the legislation even if they are cyclists.
>
>There's a complete difference between having to do something simple (and
>arguably worthwhile) such as wearing a hi-viz vest
>
>and having to do something that inconveniences you, and is totally pointless
>such as having to take a day off work to go and be taught how to do
>something that you already know how to do

How do you *know* that you already "know how to do"?

Are all cyclists totally familiar with the HC (apart from the bit about not
cycling on footpaths and obeying red lights of course)


>Who would somebody who has 40 years of "responsible" cycling be persuaded
>that going on some training is useful?

They would not need persuading - it would be the law. Or are you of the
opinion that all laws are optional to cyclists?

I assume you mean "responsible" in their own eyes.

Perhaps the older cyclists on the footpaths think they are being responsible
and don't realise they are breaking the law.

Perhaps there are older cyclists who believe lights at night are optional.

[Bill]

In message >, tim.....
> writes
>There's a complete difference between having to do something simple
>(and arguably worthwhile) such as wearing a hi-viz vest
>
>and having to do something that inconveniences you, and is totally
>pointless such as having to take a day off work to go and be taught how
>to do something that you already know how to do
>
>Who would somebody who has 40 years of "responsible" cycling be
>persuaded that going on some training is useful?
>
>tim
>
Possibly because with that amount of experience they would realise that
we can all learn more, unlike youngsters who know it all and have to be
told that they need to learn more.

It's the same with many things, not just cycling, those with the most
experience are those that have the desire to increase their knowledge
further.

--
Bill

[Peter Keller[_3_]]

On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 00:16:59 +0100, Judith wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Jun 2015 05:30:52 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason
> > wrote:
>
>>On Thursday, 4 June 2015 10:41:01 UTC+2, tim..... wrote:
>>
>>
>>> and how is anyone ever going to know that a random cyclist is
>>> displaying the correct number
>>>
>>> are there going to be continual "stop and checks" on cyclist's
>>> documentation?
>>>
>>> Amongst a bunch of nonsensical suggestions this is one that makes some
>>> of the rest look sensible
>>
>>What would happen if a dozen cyclists are in the locker room after a
>>shift and someone rides home with the wrong vest on? What mechanism
>>would identify this "lawbreaker"?
>
> Trust a cyclist not to know his own number and nick someone elses.
>
> What if someone had the incorrect number plate on their car - what
> mechanism would identify this "lawbreaker".
>
> I recall why you were known as Simple Simon.

See above

[tim.....]

"David Lang" > wrote in message
...
> On 04/06/2015 09:45, tim..... wrote:
>>
>> "JNugent" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 31/05/2015 16:30, tim..... wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On 31/05/2015 10:38, tim..... wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "David Lang" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> On 30/05/2015 09:23, Nick wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 29/05/2015 17:13, Judith wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional
>>>>>>>>> training for
>>>>>>>>> younger people via schools.
>>>>>>>>> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for
>>>>>>>>> cyclists -
>>>>>>>>> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
>>>>>>>>> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
>>>>>>>>> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes,
>>>>>>>>> reflectors and
>>>>>>>>> lights.
>>>>>>>>> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to
>>>>>>>>> individual.
>>>>>>>>> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking
>>>>>>>>> laws.
>>>>>>>>> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being
>>>>>>>>> checked
>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>> five years- of them and their bike.
>>>>>>>>> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which
>>>>>>>>> must be
>>>>>>>>> worn at
>>>>>>>>> all times whilst cycling.
>>>>>>>>> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of
>>>>>>>>> hi-viz
>>>>>>>>> garment and clearly visible.
>>>>>>>>> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and
>>>>>>>>> crushing
>>>>>>>>> of cycle
>>>>>>>>> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
>>>>>>>>> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and cycling
>>>>>>>>> charities
>>>>>>>>> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What are you trying to achieve?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The correct & proper regulation of a group of serial law breakers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and the "criminalisation" of a group of law abiding ones
>>>>>>
>>>>>> tim
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How would law abiding ones be made criminals ? Laws are often
>>>>> enacted which make certain actions or inactions illegal.
>>>>
>>>> you really think that a responsible person who has been cycling for 40
>>>> years would comply with point (1)?
>>>>
>>>> tim
>>>
>>> Yes, of course.
>>>
>>> What, after all, does the word "responsible" MEAN?
>>>
>>> In the circumstances posited, how could a cyclist refusing to comply
>>> with such a basic requirement of the law be termed "responsible"?
>>
>> because breaking a "rule made for rules sake" is not irresponsible
>>
>
> Try doing 45mph at 1:00 am on a deserted 30mph road with a speed camera,
> then arguing with a judge.

but that's not a rule for rule sake, is it

tim


>

[jnugent]

On 06/06/2015 13:04, tim..... wrote:
>
> "David Lang" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 04/06/2015 09:45, tim..... wrote:
>>>
>>> "JNugent" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 31/05/2015 16:30, tim..... wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On 31/05/2015 10:38, tim..... wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "David Lang" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> On 30/05/2015 09:23, Nick wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 29/05/2015 17:13, Judith wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional
>>>>>>>>>> training for
>>>>>>>>>> younger people via schools.
>>>>>>>>>> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for
>>>>>>>>>> cyclists -
>>>>>>>>>> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
>>>>>>>>>> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
>>>>>>>>>> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes,
>>>>>>>>>> reflectors and
>>>>>>>>>> lights.
>>>>>>>>>> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to
>>>>>>>>>> individual.
>>>>>>>>>> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking
>>>>>>>>>> laws.
>>>>>>>>>> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being
>>>>>>>>>> checked
>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>> five years- of them and their bike.
>>>>>>>>>> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which
>>>>>>>>>> must be
>>>>>>>>>> worn at
>>>>>>>>>> all times whilst cycling.
>>>>>>>>>> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of
>>>>>>>>>> hi-viz
>>>>>>>>>> garment and clearly visible.
>>>>>>>>>> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and
>>>>>>>>>> crushing
>>>>>>>>>> of cycle
>>>>>>>>>> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
>>>>>>>>>> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and
>>>>>>>>>> cycling
>>>>>>>>>> charities
>>>>>>>>>> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What are you trying to achieve?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The correct & proper regulation of a group of serial law breakers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and the "criminalisation" of a group of law abiding ones
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tim
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How would law abiding ones be made criminals ? Laws are often
>>>>>> enacted which make certain actions or inactions illegal.
>>>>>
>>>>> you really think that a responsible person who has been cycling for 40
>>>>> years would comply with point (1)?
>>>>>
>>>>> tim
>>>>
>>>> Yes, of course.
>>>>
>>>> What, after all, does the word "responsible" MEAN?
>>>>
>>>> In the circumstances posited, how could a cyclist refusing to comply
>>>> with such a basic requirement of the law be termed "responsible"?
>>>
>>> because breaking a "rule made for rules sake" is not irresponsible
>>>
>>
>> Try doing 45mph at 1:00 am on a deserted 30mph road with a speed
>> camera, then arguing with a judge.
>
> but that's not a rule for rule sake, is it

That depends.

I know of dual carriageways with a 30 limit.

In some cases, stretches with a 40 or 50 limit feeding into 30 limits
maybe a mile apart have had it reduced to 30 in order to "avoid confusion".

Perhaps highway and traffic engineers are easily confused and can't
understand that others aren't.

[David Lang]

On 06/06/2015 13:04, tim..... wrote:
>
> "David Lang" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 04/06/2015 09:45, tim..... wrote:
>>>
>>> "JNugent" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 31/05/2015 16:30, tim..... wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On 31/05/2015 10:38, tim..... wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "David Lang" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> On 30/05/2015 09:23, Nick wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 29/05/2015 17:13, Judith wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 1. Compulsory training for those 16 years and over - optional
>>>>>>>>>> training for
>>>>>>>>>> younger people via schools.
>>>>>>>>>> 2. A theory test - just like the Highway Code specific for
>>>>>>>>>> cyclists -
>>>>>>>>>> which must be passed in order to get a cycling permit.
>>>>>>>>>> 3. Compulsory third party insurance.
>>>>>>>>>> 4. Enforcement of requirements for bikes including brakes,
>>>>>>>>>> reflectors and
>>>>>>>>>> lights.
>>>>>>>>>> 5. Each cycle to have unique ID and be registered to
>>>>>>>>>> individual.
>>>>>>>>>> 6. Much stronger enforcement of dealing with cyclists breaking
>>>>>>>>>> laws.
>>>>>>>>>> 7. Each cyclist to be registered, with requirements being
>>>>>>>>>> checked
>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>> five years- of them and their bike.
>>>>>>>>>> 8. Each cyclist issued with hi-viz slip on/slip over which
>>>>>>>>>> must be
>>>>>>>>>> worn at
>>>>>>>>>> all times whilst cycling.
>>>>>>>>>> 9. Unique cyclist's registration number displayed on back of
>>>>>>>>>> hi-viz
>>>>>>>>>> garment and clearly visible.
>>>>>>>>>> 10. Loss of cycling permit for repeat law-breakers - and
>>>>>>>>>> crushing
>>>>>>>>>> of cycle
>>>>>>>>>> for persistent offenders or those guilty of serious offence.
>>>>>>>>>> 11. Total costs of scheme to be carried by cyclists and
>>>>>>>>>> cycling
>>>>>>>>>> charities
>>>>>>>>>> (CTC) - and cyclists only: not out of general taxation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What are you trying to achieve?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The correct & proper regulation of a group of serial law breakers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and the "criminalisation" of a group of law abiding ones
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tim
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How would law abiding ones be made criminals ? Laws are often
>>>>>> enacted which make certain actions or inactions illegal.
>>>>>
>>>>> you really think that a responsible person who has been cycling for 40
>>>>> years would comply with point (1)?
>>>>>
>>>>> tim
>>>>
>>>> Yes, of course.
>>>>
>>>> What, after all, does the word "responsible" MEAN?
>>>>
>>>> In the circumstances posited, how could a cyclist refusing to comply
>>>> with such a basic requirement of the law be termed "responsible"?
>>>
>>> because breaking a "rule made for rules sake" is not irresponsible
>>>
>>
>> Try doing 45mph at 1:00 am on a deserted 30mph road with a speed
>> camera, then arguing with a judge.
>
> but that's not a rule for rule sake, is it
>
> tim
>
>
>>
>
Of course it is.

[TMS320]

"Mrcheerful" > wrote in
> On 04/06/2015 09:44, tim..... wrote:

>> Who would somebody who has 40 years of "responsible" cycling be
>> persuaded that going on some training is useful?
>
> You make it useful to them personally: You cannot continue to ride
> without taking the training and passing the test. Should be very easy for
> the hypothetical responsible cyclist.

Except the whole system would have to start off with those very cyclists
setting the content of any training.

For the priveledge of passing a driving test, my driving licence has a P
category. What extra requirements do you imagine are involved in riding a
bicycle, apart from bigger muscles, that aren't necessary for riding a
moped?