Do you have many examples of a cyclist 'causing' an accident?

Do you have many examples of a 3rd party car driver causing an accident and the damaged party(s) claiming on his/her insurance?

 

Why do I need to give you examples? Are you suggesting cyclists are never at fault? that would be right coming from a cyclist.

 

I've already made this point: lack of insurance does not equate to lack of liability.

Of course you can claim against an individual who is not insured, just like you claim against an individual when they are. It's just where the money comes from when you are compensated that is different.

Oh, and about that comment about me being a hard done to cyclist.

I'm just about to pay my £250 VED, so I'm not sure where that leaves your argument...

I'm a motorist myself, I just choose to cycle to work and for leisure.

Incidentally: it's interesting that no-ones managed to counter the original post I made

 

And just how difficult do you think that will be, and that is if the cyclist offers up such cover as opposed to just saying they have none? It's not a valid argument in my opinion as it is not the same as claiming off of someone's vehicle insurance. Trying to take someone to the small claims court would be even worse, and even then they can just say they can't afford to pay any sums awarded and so all that stress and still no compensation for the damage done.

Avoid all that and make it compulsory, simple.

 

Well to one of the points you made, you stated that pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists have a right to be on the road and motorists do not.

I disagree, cyclists have no greater right to the road than motorists, everyone has equal rights to use the Queen's carriageways.

 

But tha'ts just it, it isn't either simple or straight forward...ergo its never gonna happen

 

Which is incorrect. You require a licence (i.e. permission) to use a motor vehicle on the public highway, you do not need one to cycle, walk or ride a horse.

You have no right to use the road in a car.

 

But it's the licence that gives a motorist that right surely?

 

Absolutely not. It's simply permission to do so, a permission that can be removed. You cannot remove a right, this was the basic premise of my first post - and one I think that many motorists miss.

You have no right to use the roads in a motor vehicle, and the more people that act like they are 'guests' on the roads, the better.

 

I guess, with all the bickering, one thing I think is that you might as well get used to bikes, fuel is knocking one pound fifty a litre, there will be more and more bikes on the road.

 

There is a difference between to have the right and to have permission. Everyone has the right the use the road, but you need a licence to have permission to use the road, hence why you have different classes of licences for different kinds of vehicles.

 

You have a right to use the road, but not in a motor vehicle - you need permission for that (that was the very first point I made)

 

Well I tried.

 

I think the clue is in the title ?

Zebra CROSSING

The pedestrians are not using the road they are crossing it ?

If pedestrians were 'using' the road in the same way that motor vehicles 'use' the road, there would be no need for pedestrian crossings !

They could simply saunter along the roads with all the other traffic !

As far as I am aware that is why we have pavements to keep pedestrians off the roads ?

I try to avoid driving on pavements and expect pedestrians to return the courtesy !

 

Militant cyclist alert

 

so pedestrians on country lanes are fair game

 

In the 28 years I have been riding motorcycles I have been knocked off twice by pedestrians, once by a cyclist and once by a car.
The first pedestrian stepped out from between parked cars, the second didn't fancy waiting for the pedestrian crossing and ran into the road, the cyclist decided turning right didn't need to involve any looking or signalling and just veered from the left towards the side road.
In the incident with the car I was filtering and was sideswiped by a car coming from a side road on the left and turning right. Although bashed/cut/bruised in the others, this was the only hospital visit and the only one of the four where I received any compensation (reduced as by filtering I was held partly to blame). And the only one where the insurance companies were involved as a matter of course.
There are a large number of dangerous/irresponsible drivers on the roads but as a percentage of their numbers, there are far more idiot pedestrians and cyclists than drivers.
As a demonstration of my impartiality I will add that I currently pay Vehicle Excise License/Road Tax/Whatever the hell you want to call it on 1 van, 1 car, and 2 motorcycles. I also have 3 bikes that require me to rotate my feet.

 

I also use the Green Cross Code when I cross the road

 

That's just it though, common sense should prevail. I have a bike and if I ever have to ride it on the road (thankfully hardly ever) I make sure I stay well out the way of anything with an engine in it. I do not have the attitude of they have no right to be here but because i'm on a bike I do

 

I am without bike now, in bits in the garage, just ordered, 2 tyres, new 50t chainring, chain, cassette and bar tape, £109

 

I just got a new bike instead!

 

Absolutely !

If you a daft enough to walk around on roads with no pavements you have obviously not got the message !

Isn't the phrase 'go out and play with the traffic' meant to be a joke ?

 

It's not an attitude - it's a fact. I think you may be getting the impression I'm a militant cyclist, I'm not. I guess the only thing I get militant about it stupidity on the roads: from EVERYONE that uses them.

I've had more head-shake moments due to motorists (I don't get shouty very often, I just shake my head and carry on) but I can promise you, I get my fair share of them from pedestrians and cyclists. Oh, and I'm talking about when I driving or riding. I've had the ABS on the Audi cut in a few times due to some pratt not looking.

I was simply making the point that people in motor vehicles seem to have the impression that the roads are 'theirs'. They're not, that's all.

 

Car drivers do have a right as they earn their right to be on the road Kieran by way of a driving test and getting their license, cyclists and the biggest road hazard of all, horses (especially those owned by p!keys), do not earn their right and are a liability due to the fact any moron can get on a horse or bicycle with no training or insurance to cover any accidents they may cause.

 

You've actually contradicted yourself in that argument.

If you look at my first post and see the definition for licence, you'll hopefully see why.

No motorist has earned the 'right', they have earned the permission (licence) to do so.

This is the crux of my initial post and one you seemed to have missed.

 

No Kieran it is a right to use it by gaining your license.

 

Okay - you're clearly not reading the definition nor what else has been written, so we're going to have to disagree on this.

 

 

Something we agree on

 

Hmm except it is completely legal; pedestrians have just as much right to be there as motorists.