Electric scooters
- Thread starter TopCat
- Start date
teuchter
je suis teuchter
At least there's one thing where I can agree with Saul Goodman - damage to motor vehicles by pedestrians is fair game (in fact is laudable direct action) and no need to worry about insurance for this.
BigTom
Well-Known Member
Neither are cyclists.
Shoes, boots etc or your bare feet are however road-going vehicles. These are the vehicles you use when you are a pedestrian, just like a bike is the vehicle you use when you are a cyclist, or a car is when you are a driver.
So, do you have pedestrian insurance or are you exactly the kind of irresponsible road user that means we can't have nice things?
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
Are you trying to make a case that car drivers shouldn't need insurance, or just being a cyclist?
BigTom
Well-Known Member
You said all road users should be insured.
I'm asking if you follow that belief through fully, since I'm sure that you are, at times, a pedestrian.
If you don't think pedestrians should be insured, why not? They are road users and that is a reason you have said is needed for insurance to be required.
I think you said something about damaging cars, which pedestrians are capable of and have done so many times in the past.
So pedestrians. Insurance or not? And if not, why not?
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
Pedestrians tend to not damage cars or people if they walk into them. Surely even a cyclist could work that out?
BigTom
Well-Known Member
I've taken a wing mirror off whilst walking carrying a bag where the strap caught on it. Cyclists often won't damage a car if they ride into them. Personally would say a bike is not heavy nor spiky enough to tend to damage a car if it was ridden into one, (certainly not at the speeds I ride) given the most likely impact is with a wheel, which is rubber and buckles. I have in fact once ridden into a car and it left no marks, so by own anecdotal experience I'm more likely to damage a car as a pedestrian than a cyclist. Given how many more miles are walked than cycled I would hedge a fair bet that the total amount of damage done to cars by pedestrians is higher than that done by cyclists.
It's perfectly possible to hurt someone else if you walk, jog or run into them. It's perfectly possible not to hurt someone if you cycle into them. 6-20kg is not that much compared to an average person. The inherent risk from a bicycle is not that high. The potential is, but so is the potential from a pedestrian based collision.
Plus pedestrians can cause collisions just like any other road user. I'm sure I've seen you bemoan pedestrians stepping out without looking before. What if you are on your motorbike and you have to swerve because a pedestrian steps out in front of you, and your bike is a write off, you are injured? Don't you think they should be made to have insurance because of those situations?
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
I'll take your anecdote at face value, but a cyclist ran into my car and damaged it, which dictates that 50% of cyclists running into cars results in damage to the car, so it's obvious that cyclists should be insured.
I appreciate your sentiment but the underlying droll humour runs a little thin when you personally know somebody that has lost a spleen because of a cyclist running into them at about 30-40mph.
BigTom
Well-Known Member
And my elderly uncle broke his hip when a pedestrian bumped into him and knocked him over. 30-40mph is an extremely high speed for a cyclist so that's hardly a typical example either. Plus someone getting up to that speed is most likely a sports cyclist, and therefore probably a member of british cycling and insured through that membership. Certainly there's a heightened level of risk associated with sports cycling over transport cycling - a risk that is recognised by British Cycling who govern those sports, hence the insurance for their members.
BigTom
Well-Known Member
Although the one time I've seen a cyclist bump into my may, they didn't leave a mark. So now we're at 33% of anecdotes for cyclists and 100% for pedestrians.
In any case it's quite clear both have the potential to damage vehicles. You and I disagree about the extent of that potential and the need for mandatory insurance and the UK govt happens to agree with me - clearly they don't see the fallout from uninsured collisions as being enough to mandate insurance. Insurance companies often give away cyclist liability insurance as well so they don't see much in the way of claims either. I get my insurance with my Cycling UK membership. You don't see the AA or RAC offering free car insurance to members (or at least if you do it's a short introductory offer which I bet they've done at some point in the past).
Neither are comparable to 1t+ of motor vehicle which can destroy houses and bridges when things go wrong - stuff that is simply not possible on foot and bike - as well as being allowed to move at speeds (30mph) where a collision with a person has a 20% chance of fatality.
You’re being quite location-centric. “Sports cyclist” is an umbrella term that covers an awful lot of people, and I doubt a high proportion of them are in any official club. On a weekend, literally hundreds of road cyclists come through our village at speeds comfortably twice as fast as any car drivers would dream of doing. The woman who lost her spleen was the 65 year old pub owner who took literally one step off her pub stairs, where there is no pavement, and was smashed into by one of these roadies. We’ve had lots of near misses too. Besides, whether or not he was insured is no comfort to her. I personally have no dog in the fight of compulsory insurance, I’m just objecting to you treating the idea of people being hurt by cyclists as a big joke.
hash tag
Reaching out
Yet another thread taken over by cars v cyclists v everybody else thread - shame.
Take the arguments elsewhere Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.
Take the arguments elsewhere Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.
BigTom
Well-Known Member
I'm not treating the idea of people being hurt by cyclists as a joke anymore than anyone who thinks pedestrians shouldn't be mandated to carry insurance is treating the idea of people being hurt by walkers, joggers or runners treats those incidents as a joke. You are reading stuff into my posts that is not there.
No I’m not. Your response that I objected to was being intentionally facetious about the idea of cyclists being potentially dangerous. You followed this up by dismissing my concerns. But this is all wrong. I live somewhere listed on all the cycling websites as being a desirable place to cycle through. Unfortunately, however, as is actually quite common across the Surrey Hills, the village centre is in a dip, which means those cyclists, who care about nothing but their times, have absolute focus on maintaining their speed and nothing else. The fact there is a blind bend and pedestrians milling about is nothing more than background to this speed-maintenance obsession. Ask anybody what they worry about when walking to the village centre and it’s not cars, it’s cyclists. You can’t hear them coming, they can’t stop in time and they only care about going fast. It’s got so bad that the AONB board are consulting on traffic calming measures specifically aimed at cyclists. Your initial response to me spoke volumes about the lack of understanding in the cycling community about how dangerous this is getting. For people coming from the suburbs, it’s just a day out that they can pretend is harmless.
dessiato
🇪🇸 my spirit is crying for leaving
I'd like to give more "likes" to this. Without any shadow of doubt this problem is growing rapidly.
In my wife's family's village the same applies. Sports cyclists ride through it at much greater speeds than the motorised traffic does. They are often up to four abreast, though usually two, there's blind corners which they don't slow down for, it's on a slope so helps keep their times up.
The people in the village have two main problems, lack of parking space for the local hotels and restaurants, but mainly the dangerous cycling.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
4 abreast eh? That would make them almost as wide as a car, so… what, exactly?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
by unofficial test rides you mean you pinched them and abandoned them?Great banternever been discussed before.
In 'Electric Scooter News' I have had a few unofficial test rides on Mi and Pure Scooters and loved it.
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
Absolute whatabouttery. 'Cars are more dangerous' doesn't mean bikes aren't dangerous, but do carry on, it's quite revealing.
dessiato
🇪🇸 my spirit is crying for leaving
First, read the whole post.
Secondly, a car travelling at the same speed as the cyclists would be considered to be travelling dangerously fast. But, somehow, cyclists doing this are, by some, given a free pass. They shouldn't be. In this circumstance they are as big a bunch of cunts as would any other motorised vehicle driver.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
So, just how fast are these cyclists going?
Of course some people ride in a daft manner. But the “they’re riding 4 abreast” line is utterly irrelevant.
BigTom
Well-Known Member
That's not what I'm saying at all. Nothing I've said is dismissive of situations where cycling/cyclists can be dangerous. I have said the potential to cause harm exists for cyclists as it does for pedestrians - how is that dismissing those situations? This is a discussion about insurance so the thing I'm dismissive about is the need for mandatory insurance for cyclists. Not thinking insurance should be mandatory for cyclists does not mean that I am dismissing the situations where they cause harm, anymore than anyone thinking pedestrians should not require insurance is being dismissive of the situations where pedestrians cause harm.
BigTom
Well-Known Member
lol. That is not what I have said. I have said that the danger bikes pose is low enough that - like pedestrians - insurance does not need to be mandatory. I think cars are more dangerous than bikes to the extent that I think insurance is rightly mandatory. Equally you saying "cyclists are more dangerous" doesn't mean pedestrians aren't dangerous... and scooters for me fall into this same bracket as pedestrians and cyclists.
dessiato
🇪🇸 my spirit is crying for leaving
You seem to keep missing this "
I usually drive through the village at UP TO (emphasised so you don't miss it) 20 mph, faster than that is not safe, usually slower. Ive been overtaken by cyclists. There's a school, old people, and cars parked both sides of the road some of which are quite narrow anyway.
Well, should the road cyclists in question all have insurance, in your view? You implied it earlier, when waving away the fact that my neighbour has lost her spleen.
By the way, this attempt to create equivalence between cyclists and pedestrians with respect to danger posed to others looks just as ridiculous as when the car lobbyists do it between cars and cycles. Cyclists pose significantly more danger to pedestrians than other pedestrians do when they are sharing the same space, such as where there are no pavements.
BigTom
Well-Known Member
Yes, I agree with British Cycling that people engaging in sporting activities whilst using a bike should have liability insurance. I haven't waved away the fact that your neighbour has lost her spleen anymore than you have waved away my uncle's broken hip, because I have never said that cyclists can't or don't harm people - in fact I have said the opposite, that they have the potential to cause harm to other road users -so I don't see a specific example of something I have said happens is something I need to respond to in a specific way - I talked about insurance because the conversation was about insurance.
I don't think the risk of harm from a bicycle is intrinsically high enough to mandate all cyclists to have insurance. If there was a reasonable way to legally distinguish between sports cycling and other uses of cycling then I would support mandatory insurance for sports cyclists, but I don't know how you would do that.
