Spartacus

Reading the policy you posted, plus my own and a friends insurance policies, all with personal liability insurance cover, none of them.will cover you as cyclust if you cause an accident. They ate worded "We will provide cover under section 4 Family Legal Protection as long as: • we and the appointed representative agree that your claim has reasonable prospects of success for the duration of the claim" I think, and I'm no.legal expert that you are on shaky ground if you think this policy will cover you if you cause an accident when cycling. @malumbu your dismissing of the low number of accidents caused by cyclists, I'm sure anyone injured by a cyclist would care. Equally, whilst numbers convicted are low, it could simply be that there are more breaking the rules who simply aren't caught.

Sadly, the impact this budget is having on the economy was felt far and wide before it even occurred BBC News - Retail sales fell in October as Budget fears hit spending - BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gmy9xldgno The increase in employers NI, whilst not directly taxing working people, will be passed on to them in higher costs of services and goods so it's an indirect tax. The argument of the alleged 20 billion black hole, I was always taught "To cut your coat according to your cloth" and the government should have taken a little time to boost the econimy before increasing wages and spending. The current feel is that they are increasing costs, red tape and inflation, all of which is not giving businesses the confidence to grow and generate income which inversely increases the tax income.

From your last post @malumbu it's obvious that the police on crystal palace road are on a stakeout looking for you .....

Interesting A quick search shows the opposite unless you add on a specialist cycling option. Therefore I am doubting the fact that most cyclists are insured third party if they cause an accident.

Haven't they found you yet ? 😅

If 500 farms sell off 20% of their land each year (the PMs estimate on the back of a Rizla paper) then how long before we lose large chunks of farm land ? As for giving away land, sure providing they live 7 years afterwards Stop being a labour cheerleader and put yourself in farmers wellies for a moment. Farming is a necessity, doesn't make Massive profits and after you consider the 7 days a week often 14 hour days, I bet most farmers don't even earn minimum wage per hour. You will soon be whinging if there's no fresh veg on the shelves to go with your non existent turkey at Chrustmas.

Farmers don't earn a lot, work 7 days a week and whilst they are land rich, it's a working asset not a space that can (or should) be sold for building on. But as you are so keen on change, give up your day job and go buy a farm then come back on here in a year and tell us how well that goes for you. Sometimes you really are a handle that opens doors 🤔

New blood comes from the young inheriting the farms, not faceless corporations buying them up

An alarmist headline I admit, but today, the 1000th day of the Ukraine conflict, saw US allow their long range missiles to be fired in to Russia. As a result, how will Russia respond, they already have said it is seen as an joint attack on Russia. Posturing, maybe, but will it result in escalation and will the UK follow Americas stance. Whilst stopping the invasion of Ukraine is important, and maybe morw should have occurred when Crimea was first occupied, where will this latest development take us ?

Right or wrong, his public statements are going to make it difficult for him to work with the new US president. Lessons from the past, don't bite the hand that feeds you. If farmers have to sell land to pay inheritance tax, then we lose food security and at the moment that isn't a good idea.

@malumbu could you imagine if those sorts of arguments were used by the motoring fraternity when ved, insurance and licencing was first introduced ? There would be outcry at the chaos it would cause. The nonsense that cyclists are covered third party by their home insurance takes the micky to be honest. They are covered, in some circumstances, for theft but the average (not club) cyclist has no insurance for third party injuries. Who pays when granny is knocked over by a speeding cyclists? So why shouldn't they be insured? after all every other road users has to be ! As for passing a test, maybe at school some did the cycling proficiency test (or what ever it's called) but a lot don't and somehow that makes them road legal in your mind and awate of the rules and regulations. (Obviously many aren't) Number plates or some form of registration plate would make it easier to catch rogue cyclists who cycle dangerously so why wouldn't responsible cyclists agree to it (apart from their view that they are special cases of course) maybe those who transgress the rules are shouting the loudest here ! With the desire for more cyclists, more emphasis needs to be made on responsible cycling and expecting anyone to regulated themselves is folly. Whilst in the past it has been dismissed, unless the majority cyclists start to abide the rules of the road (red lights mean stop, pedestrians have priority and lights are compulsory at night) then I can well see a time when public opinion forces regulations on cyclists. Cyclists should abide by, not be exempt from, the law and if they won't do it by themselves...

Nothings impossible Mal If it's legislated, it can be delivered, but yet again the cry of the lycra warrior is "because we are special" Resistance is futile

Undeliverable only because you and your cohort don't want it. It's deliverable, will take some work but hey we licence mopeds, motor cycles and cars so why can't we do bikes ?

Love the fact that the pro cycle lobby are attempting to poo poo the idea of licencing, insurance, and compulsory testing for cyclists. If car drivers did the same they (cyclists) would soon be arguing it is needed. What's good for the goose is good for the gander as they say, and if we all want fair use and equal safety on the road then bring it on I say. But yet again the usual suspects disagree as it appears cyclists are "special"

This article in the Telegraph will get Malumbu and others ranting about "what about car drivers" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/17/lets-get-tough-on-the-scourge-of-rogue-cyclists/ It's titled "Let's get tough on the scourge of rogue cyclists" What Simon Heffer is saying is a good discussion point.

And that's your choice, but it's not everyone's choice. Some people don't like or can't do what you do.

You can But you can't put PayPal in a card like you can with a cheque or postal order 🙄

This is an interesting analysis of why the economy just about grew by 0.1% over the past 3 months BBC News - UK economy barely grew between July and September - BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwygw982e3xo It was potentially a by effect of the doom mongering talk before the budget.

You sound like the person in the radio advert for Octopus energy. You're been brilliant you've all been brilliant

But @malumbu As you are so fond of doing "what about the car drivers" ? 😅 We cant have a thread about cycling without mentioning cars (your rules 😉)

Oh @malumbu so many incorrect assumptions in your last post Without knowing me you make assumptions about my financial experience, politics and yet again you cry "what about the motorists" Where will all that tax you say could be spent on hospitals and schools come from if everyone cycled?

Is it? Let's see Farming is a tough gig with increasingly lower returns, if farms have to sell off land to pay inheritance tax it will reduce their ability to survive. Which in real terms could mean more farm land lost and more reliance on imported food which sees money flowing out, not in to the country. But I guess as long as you get cheap food that doesn't concern you 😉 Lol "what about the cars" again Mal... like a broken record.... Governments know that squeezing car drivers for more fuel duty will drive down income from taxes as people switch to electric, which would leave them with a black hole in income. Guess the fuel duty is a fine balancing act tiĺl enough electric cars have been sold to raise tax revenue from their use.

In 2022, Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng delivered what was seen as a disastrous budget by the markets and it is claimed they crashed the economy. Rachel Reeves appears to be going after farmers, Pensioners, pension pots and increasing NI for employers, which whilst not taxing "working people" will see prices going up to cover the costs for already squeezed businesses, all this whilst changing how the government fiscal rules work. The change of administration in the States may impact our exports to them (potential tarrifs) which also may see growth stall slightly. Will her gamble work or will we as individuals and a nation see stagnation in growth as businesses reduce investment whilst prices go up. With the farmers protest planned on Tuesday 19th, it is starting to feel like the bad old days of the winter of discontent (1978/79) again. Whilst investment is needed to help the country grow, are we in danger of not supporting the businesses and people who normally are responsible for growth? Discuss.

They probably have to, just to pay the higher NI bills 🤔

Bob, i would recommend Kopi Luwak as that possibly matches your digestive requirements