That's it, I'm f**king done with cyclists...

That's it, I'm f**king done with cyclists...

Author
Discussion

vikingaero

10,256 posts

168 months

Saturday 5th September 2015
quotequote all
SlipStream77 said:
Mave said:
Oh, and you do realise there are more uninsured drivers than uninsured cyclists, right?
Do you have some sources for that? I'd be interested to read the statistics.
Some cyclists will be covered under the public liability section of their household policy. Most won't know they have it and some household Insurers don't provide it. That's making the assumption that the cyclists have household insurance which is less likely in urban conurbations where renting is the norm and people may only have contents only insurance.

Mave

8,208 posts

214 months

Saturday 5th September 2015
quotequote all
Gaz. said:
Mave said:
In your scenario, the veyron owner can sue the cyclist. Worst case realistic scenario the veyron owner is a few grand out of pocket.

Take the opposite situation where a motorist causes physical harm to a cyclist. Worst case realistic scenario is the cyclist is dead. Where is the recourse for the cyclist?

Oh, and you do realise there are more uninsured drivers than uninsured cyclists, right?
Ignore the Veyron comment, if someone damaged something of yours and ran off I would expect you to be pretty fed up at being out of pocket.
Yes I would. But not nearly as fed up as if I was injured.

Mave

8,208 posts

214 months

Saturday 5th September 2015
quotequote all
SlipStream77 said:
Mave said:
Oh, and you do realise there are more uninsured drivers than uninsured cyclists, right?
Do you have some sources for that? I'd be interested to read the statistics.
Google number of cycling commuters - less than a million, whether insured or not
Google number of uninsure drivers - more than a million

TankRizzo

7,246 posts

192 months

Saturday 5th September 2015
quotequote all
How on earth can the number of cycling commuters in the country be quantified? It's just a guess, surely? Uninsured drivers may be a little easier because you could tell number of vehicles registered v number of vehicles insured.

JQ

5,691 posts

178 months

Saturday 5th September 2015
quotequote all
TankRizzo said:
How on earth can the number of cycling commuters in the country be quantified? It's just a guess, surely? Uninsured drivers may be a little easier because you could tell number of vehicles registered v number of vehicles insured.
Ever seen those people sitting at the side of the road all day wearing high viz with a clipboard? They spend all day counting. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about-ons/index.html

TankRizzo

7,246 posts

192 months

Saturday 5th September 2015
quotequote all
JQ said:
Ever seen those people sitting at the side of the road all day wearing high viz with a clipboard? They spend all day counting. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about-ons/index.html
Do they sit on every possible commuting road with a clipboard then? Impressive.

vikingaero

10,256 posts

168 months

Saturday 5th September 2015
quotequote all
TankRizzo said:
JQ said:
Ever seen those people sitting at the side of the road all day wearing high viz with a clipboard? They spend all day counting. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about-ons/index.html
Do they sit on every possible commuting road with a clipboard then? Impressive.
Extrapolation & guesswork. Count 20 routes into a City. Multiply the average per route by the actual number of routes and make a guess - bit like TV & Radio viewing figures.

JQ

5,691 posts

178 months

Saturday 5th September 2015
quotequote all
TankRizzo said:
JQ said:
Ever seen those people sitting at the side of the road all day wearing high viz with a clipboard? They spend all day counting. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about-ons/index.html
Do they sit on every possible commuting road with a clipboard then? Impressive.
I would expect a firm statisticians to be able to extrapolate such data.

Mave

8,208 posts

214 months

Saturday 5th September 2015
quotequote all
Gaz. said:
This is futile and like talking to a child. One outcome does not mean the other does not exist or should be ignored. It isn't CM that annoy me, it's posts from my 'fellow' cyclists that frustrate me like cycling enthusiasts have some kind of social impairment that requires them to annoy anyone who makes the mistake to engage in a conversation with them.
Oh, I'm sorry, I have the social impairment? You're the one throwing insults around rather than engaging in conversation. I agree that one outcome does not necessarily mean the other should necessarily be ignored. But I have little sympathy for a group complaining about rules leading to low consequence outcomes whilst being the self same group most responsible for high consequence outcomes.

Edited by Mave on Saturday 5th September 22:24

otolith

55,899 posts

203 months

Sunday 6th September 2015
quotequote all
I doubt that cars would be required to have third party coverage if they only caused as much harm as bikes do. Cars are not really insured because they sometimes damage paintwork, it's more to do with the deaths and serious injuries.

Blakewater

4,303 posts

156 months

Sunday 6th September 2015
quotequote all
Mr Gear said:
Finlandia said:
I ask again, why not keep a slightly lower speed to increase your own safety?
Why not indeed? Do you? Do you slow down to a crawl for every side road just in case someone pulls out?
Take this junction local to me as an example. You can be as silly as you like about the need to adjust your speed at junctions but you can't accuse someone of not looking properly just because he can't see through the house, down the dip and round the bend to his right when he pulls up at this junction.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.8345198,-2.56707...

The countryside is full of junctions like this.

Too many people can't regulate their speed according to the situations they find themselves in, whatever their vehicle of choice. It's a common theme in dashcam videos as well. That's why miles of perfectly good roads have had their speed limits cut along them. One or two junctions along their length combined with people too stupid or bloody minded to slow down through them means we all have to be restricted, not yet to 10mph, but to 50mph or below with speed traps and average speed cameras and everything else. If you want to know who to blame for the speed limit cuts and draconian enforcement it's the people too self centred and big headed to make compromises to fit in with everyone else. They charge through not appreciating or caring what other people can and can't see and do and just expect everyone to make way for them.

It's not just certain cyclists that are guilty of it, but if you're pulling out of a junction on your bicycle you won't take kindly to someone in a car coming steaming round the next bend and rebuking you for being there. As a cyclist, it'll hurt whether you're the one going too fast and hitting someone else in a motor vehicle or whether you're the one being hit by a motor vehicle as you pull out of a junction. You can't absolve yourself of responsibility in both scenarios and say the motorist is entirely to blame.

Mr Gear

9,416 posts

189 months

Sunday 6th September 2015
quotequote all
Blakewater said:
Take this junction local to me as an example. You can be as silly as you like about the need to adjust your speed at junctions but you can't accuse someone of not looking properly just because he can't see through the house, down the dip and round the bend to his right when he pulls up at this junction.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.8345198,-2.56707...

The countryside is full of junctions like this.

Too many people can't regulate their speed according to the situations they find themselves in, whatever their vehicle of choice. It's a common theme in dashcam videos as well. That's why miles of perfectly good roads have had their speed limits cut along them. One or two junctions along their length combined with people too stupid or bloody minded to slow down through them means we all have to be restricted, not yet to 10mph, but to 50mph or below with speed traps and average speed cameras and everything else. If you want to know who to blame for the speed limit cuts and draconian enforcement it's the people too self centred and big headed to make compromises to fit in with everyone else. They charge through not appreciating or caring what other people can and can't see and do and just expect everyone to make way for them.

It's not just certain cyclists that are guilty of it, but if you're pulling out of a junction on your bicycle you won't take kindly to someone in a car coming steaming round the next bend and rebuking you for being there. As a cyclist, it'll hurt whether you're the one going too fast and hitting someone else in a motor vehicle or whether you're the one being hit by a motor vehicle as you pull out of a junction. You can't absolve yourself of responsibility in both scenarios and say the motorist is entirely to blame.
You're absolutely right, the whole reason we have to have speed limits and traffic lights is because people don't know how to behave on the roads and have to be told via black-and-white rules.

saaby93

32,038 posts

177 months

Sunday 6th September 2015
quotequote all
Mr Gear said:
...the whole reason we have to have speed limits and traffic lights is because people don't know how to behave on the roads and have to be told via black-and-white rules.
are you sure thats the whole reason?