How to Normalise Cycling in East Dulwich

[jonsuissy]

the-e-dealer Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So who pays when a cyclist kills a pedestrian?

What do you think?

I'd imagine if the cyclist was behaving dangerously he'd face legal consequences. These legal consequences may involve damages.

Does this help you?

Jon

[the-e-dealer]

And if the Cyclist is on benefit or poor? who pays then?

If a cyclist killed a Father of Three aged 30 that's 30 years of lost earning/ support

not many people have that kind of spare cash. Surely wouldn't insurance do the job?

[johnie]

CTC membership is worth it for the peace of mind alone (?10m third-party insurance included in the membership fee)

http://www.ctc.org.uk/insurance/third-party-insurance

and for a family it is pretty good value:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/join-membership

Johnie

[DaveR]

And if the Cyclist is on benefit or poor? who pays then?

If a cyclist killed a Father of Three aged 30 that's 30 years of lost earning/ support

not many people have that kind of spare cash. Surely wouldn't insurance do the job?

Yes it would. As it would for all the other unlikely causes of death out there. For example, the number of fatal dog attacks (whilst low in absolute terms) consistently outstrips fatal accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians. Compulsory third party insurance for every dog owner?

[henryb]

the-e-dealer Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And if the Cyclist is on benefit or poor? who pays

> then?

> If a cyclist killed a Father of Three aged 30

> that's 30 years of lost earning/ support

> not many people have that kind of spare cash.

> Surely wouldn't insurance do the job?

Hmm as you are roughly 60 times more likely to struck by lightening than be killed by a cyclists it is not actually at the top of concern list. However if it was a criminal act then I suppose criminal injuries compensation would be available.

[the-e-dealer]

That's how insurance works. With a low frequency the cost of insuring would be quite small. But 20 People a year Die Falling out of Bed so maybe we should stop worrying about Cyclists completely!

[henryb]

It is the same if a pedestrian walks out in front of cyclist and kills them. Most home insurance has some personal liability cover but then home owners have a house you can take off them. But yes there is always a risk you might be injured in an accident and not be able to get any money from the person responsible. If it is a real concern then you should probably get your own life insurance as fatal dog attacks and lightening strikes do happen.

[jonsuissy]

the-e-dealer Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And if the Cyclist is on benefit or poor? who pays

> then?

> If a cyclist killed a Father of Three aged 30

> that's 30 years of lost earning/ support

> not many people have that kind of spare cash.

> Surely wouldn't insurance do the job?

I know you should never feed the trolls..... however, if I understand correctly, joggers, mums with prams, people polishing their cars, basically anybody who goes outside needs insurance.

Have I got that right?

[LadyDeliah]

Prevalance & extent of damage and therefore costs against the person causing the damage = extent of need for compulsory insurance.

E.g tens of thousands of deaths plus damage to person & property by cars per year = need for compulsory insurance.

Partaking in boxing and martial arts = usually needs compulsory insurance.

Walking = no need for insurance

Running = no need for insurance

Cycling = no need for insurance

Roller skating = no need for insurance.

Damage to anyone or anything that happens relatively infrequently and therefore doesn't fall under actions which require compulsory insurance would have remedies in criminal injury compensation or personal injury etc.

[Loz]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Prevalance & extent of damage and therefore costs against the person causing the damage = extent of need for compulsory insurance.

> Cycling = no need for insurance

So, how many is too many? The DfT figures recorded over 33,000 incidents involving bicycles, of which in about 52% of cases the bicycle contributed in some way towards the incident. And remember that injuries cause can mean huge medical bills.

But, if indeed you are right, LD, then premiums would be trivial. So what is the problem?

Registration alone would fix the issue. Once a few cyclists are sued for a few tens of thousands of pounds then insurance would automatically become very popular,

[LadyDeliah]

How many accidents involving cyclists resulted in them damaging other people's property or person?

[Loz]

I would guess most accidents where the cyclist was at fault would have caused some damage. How many a year that is I can't find numbers on, except for the DfT numbers I quoted earlier, which would suggest numbers in the low thousands per year.

Again, if this is, as you seem to be claiming, such a rare occurrence with such a low damage cost then insurance premiums will be next to nothing. So what are you worried about?

[LadyDeliah]

It's burdensome for no good reason.

If you think otherwise, lets have a breakdown of why and how it would actually operate.

I have 4 bikes. Two hybrids, a racer and an old mountain bike. My 14 year old had a bmx from the age of 5 and now has a hybrid. My other daughter aged 21 has a hybrid.

I use mine daily and switch depending on the weather and if one or the other needs fixing. My 14 year old uses hers approximately twice a week to get to and from school and my 21 year old uses hers about once or twice a month.

Occasionally my housemate hops on one or other of the available bikes, as has my brother and son.

So I'd be interested in how you think the insurance of cycling for me and others would be administered.

[the-e-dealer]

Same as Cars. Regestered Keeper Authorised Riders. Not Really a Problem works with cars most of the Time Except with Lib Dem MPs

[uncleglen]

My sister was injured by an adult cyclist who was riding on the pavement- she was unable to walk properly for a year- he didn't even stop let alone be held responsible

[LadyDeliah]

So registration AND insurance?

And we come back to the problem of where the registration number is going to be put, how big it will need to be to be monitored, how much this will all cost to be administered etc.

If all the hassle and cost involved was outweighed by the public interest in ensuring victims of damage by cyclists were adequately compensated, then it would have already been introduced.

If we use the same logic, maybe people who consume alcohol should also have to take out compulsory insurance, to compensate the victims of drunken attacks, which are far more numerous than people/property damaged by cyclists.

Lets have compulsory insurance for everyone, for every activity we can think of, on the off-chance they may damage someone/someone's property.

[LadyDeliah]

My niece was killed by a car. The driver didn't stop and was never prosecuted.

My sister in law has never been the same again since the death of her daughter and my brother nearly had a nervous breakdown.

Repeat this for the thousands of people killed by cars every year and then add the ones injured by cars, plus the damage to property caused by car drivers and I think you'll find that bikes are pretty lame in the destruction-of-people's-lives stakes.

[DaveR]

In 2009 DoT recorded 271 accidents involving pedestrian and cyclist and c.19,000 involving pedestrian and car.

[henryb]

> So, how many is too many? The DfT figures

> recorded over 33,000 incidents involving bicycles,

> of which in about 52% of cases the bicycle

> contributed in some way towards the incident. And

> remember that injuries cause can mean huge medical

> bills.

And of how many of those was the other road user injured? And of how many of those was the cyclist fully negligent and liable for damages. For someone who accuses others of distorting and misusing statistics you seem very willing to do it yourself.

[Loz]

henryb Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > So, how many is too many? The DfT figures recorded over 33,000 incidents involving bicycles,

> > of which in about 52% of cases the bicycle contributed in some way towards the incident. And

> > remember that injuries cause can mean huge medical bills.

>

> And of how many of those was the other road user injured? And of how many of those was the cyclist

> fully negligent and liable for damages. For someone who accuses others of distorting and

> misusing statistics you seem very willing to do it yourself.

There are no misuse of stats there, unless you'd like to point out the error. You just tried to read something in there that I am in no way claiming. Poor strawman attempt, henryb. Really, is that the best you've got left?

See, unlike you, at least I use the right terminology and reference my sources (which in turn referenced the original source). And I don't quote a stat and then claim it represents something else completely (like your 2% attempt). Just because you've been caught out misusing stats, don't try and offload it onto me.

[Loz]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> My niece was killed by a car. The driver didn't stop and was never prosecuted.

>

> My sister in law has never been the same again since the death of her daughter and my brother

> nearly had a nervous breakdown.

>

> Repeat this for the thousands of people killed by cars every year and then add the ones injured by

> cars, plus the damage to property caused by car drivers and I think you'll find that bikes are

> pretty lame in the destruction-of-people's-lives stakes.

I'm sorry to hear that.

But as an argument it's just whataboutery and nothing to do with the subject at hand. It's like arguing that in 2011, 1,901 people were killed in road accidents, but about 74,000 were killed by heart disease, so lets disband all traffic control and concentrate on heart research.

To repeat, these things are not mutually exclusive. We can tackle both bad car drivers and bad cyclists. And heart disease.

[LadyDeliah]

Loz, you're trying to deflect the argument. Your argument and my replies were about whether cyclists should be insured, and now you want to widen the debate.

Heart disease is not caused by someone else so therefore no need to insure against someone giving you heart disease.

You are comparing non-comparable issues.

Edited cos my spelling's gone to crap!

[LadyDeliah]

You ready to tap out on your crap insurance-for-cyclists argument yet Loz?

If so, I'm ready to start on the issue of general road saftey and enforcement of the Highway Code. I think you may find that cars would still lose over bikes on that one too.

[LadyDeliah]

And Loz, I'm still waiting for your detailed breakdown on how all this extra registration and insurance would work, especially when it comes to kids.

[the-e-dealer]

no kids on road until 16. Other than that same rules as cars.