compulsory insurance for cyclists in the media

[Anthony Jones]

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/city/2006/10/24/274af226-86f8-4659-8ae2-987d504858d9.lpf

Summary:

Motorcyclist is "knocked off" by a pedestrian who happens to be pushing a
bike. Obviously the solution to this is not to exercise care in the
presence of pedestrians, but rather compulsory insurance for cyclists,
because after all "They don't pay road tax or insurance, need an MOT, or
even have to pass a test".

They are asking for feedback to [email protected], and there's
an "online poll" on the page.

Anthony

 

[Paul Boyd]

Anthony Jones said the following on 24/10/2006 14:51:

> They are asking for feedback to [email protected], and there's
> an "online poll" on the page.

Letter sent:

Re your article "Biker in call to insure cyclists"

I've just read this article, and it seems to be a little inaccurate.
Firstly, the motorcyclist was not "knocked off" by a cyclist. He had a
collision with a pedestrian who was pushing a bike. If you replace
"bicycle" with "pushchair", would he be asking for all parents with
pushchairs to be insured?

Secondly, Mr Relph says "the only way I could avoid careering into him"
just after he says "I slowly moved off". Which was it, slowly or careering?

As far as compulsory insurance for cyclists is concerned, I'm not able
to comment objectively as I do already have third party insurance as a
cyclist. I would say though that as the police are incapable of
ensuring that motorists are all insured despite easy traceability of
cars, then there isn't much hope that they could ensure that cyclists
are insured.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[Dave Larrington]

Anthony Jones wrote:

> Motorcyclist is "knocked off" by a pedestrian who happens to be
> pushing a bike. Obviously the solution to this is not to exercise
> care in the presence of pedestrians, but rather compulsory insurance
> for cyclists, because after all "They don't pay road tax or
> insurance, need an MOT, or even have to pass a test".

The motorcyclist is clearly a deluded twonk. If we ignore him, perhaps
he'll go away...

OTOH, it hasn't worked for TrollB :-(

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
The Real Slim Shady's gone to play tennis.

 

[spindrift]

Dave Larrington wrote:
> Anthony Jones wrote:
>
> > Motorcyclist is "knocked off" by a pedestrian who happens to be
> > pushing a bike. Obviously the solution to this is not to exercise
> > care in the presence of pedestrians, but rather compulsory insurance
> > for cyclists, because after all "They don't pay road tax or
> > insurance, need an MOT, or even have to pass a test".
>
> The motorcyclist is clearly a deluded twonk. If we ignore him, perhaps
> he'll go away...
>
> OTOH, it hasn't worked for TrollB :-(
>
> --
> Dave Larrington
> <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
> The Real Slim Shady's gone to play tennis.

We've only got beard face's word for it that a cyclist was even there!

The accident sounds highly dubious to me, he "lay the bike down" to
avoid a collsion? Yeah, right!

 

[Daniel Barlow]

Anthony Jones wrote:
> Motorcyclist is "knocked off" by a pedestrian who happens to be pushing a
> bike. Obviously the solution to this is not to exercise care in the
> presence of pedestrians, but rather compulsory insurance for cyclists,
> because after all "They don't pay road tax or insurance, need an MOT, or
> even have to pass a test".

Given that the cyclist(sic) left the scene without stopping to exchange
details, it's difficult to see how his potential uninsuredness would
have made any difference.

Can't really say who's at fault based only on this report: sounds like a
dozy pedestrian stepping out in front of a motorcyclist who despite his
"tremendous rigorous training" is apparently unaware that pedestrians
are liable to do that kind of thing. 6 vs half-dozen.


-dan

 

[Josey]

"Anthony Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Motorcyclist is "knocked off" by a pedestrian who happens to be pushing a
> bike. Obviously the solution to this is not to exercise care in the
> presence of pedestrians, but rather compulsory insurance for cyclists,
> because after all "They don't pay road tax or insurance, need an MOT, or
> even have to pass a test".

I wonder if the motorcylist reported hitting a with a pedestrian to the
police, or just to his local "news"paper?

L.

 

[vernon]

> Can't really say who's at fault based only on this report: sounds like a
> dozy pedestrian stepping out in front of a motorcyclist who despite his
> "tremendous rigorous training" is apparently unaware that pedestrians
> are liable to do that kind of thing. 6 vs half-dozen.
>
If, as he claims, he's been riding since he was nine and assuming that, as a
motor bike nut, he took his test at the earliest opportunity then his
training will have been non existant and the test a cursory ride round the
block with an emergency stop and riding at walking pace thrown in to
demonstrate slow speed handling skills. I think his observation and
anticipation skills need honing.....

-=V=-

 

[Josey]

The father of three said: "I personally feel cyclists should not be allowed
on the roads unless they have insurance.
"They don't pay road tax or insurance, need an MOT, or even have to pass a
test - but to ride a motorbike you need to go through tremendous rigorous
training."

You have to laugh.



L.

 

[burt]

"Anthony Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/city/2006/10/24/274af226-86f8-4659-8ae2-987d504858d9.lpf
>
> They are asking for feedback to [email protected], and there's
> an "online poll" on the page.


Thanks for posting this utter absurdity Anthony. My reply below:

Dear Sir,

I read the article about the motorcyclist, Rik Relph, riding into a
pedestrian pushing a bicycle with great amusement.

There are a number of points made by Mr Relph which would seem to challenge
his version of the collision.

Firstly, a pedestrian pushing a bicycle doesn't just "suddenly" walk in
front of you, as they are moving at walking pace.

Secondly, he claims that he moved off slowly, but then claims that he had to
"lay the bike down" to avoid striking the pedestrian. The two statements
are clearly contradictory, and my experience of motorcyclists is that they
accelerate very quickly from traffic lights. What other reason is there for
having a 995cc "sprint" motorcycle?

Mr Relph claims that motorcyclists have to undergo "tremendous rigorous
training" which is simply not true. I passed my motorcycle test at about
the same time as him, and there was no training and the test was
ridiculously simple and unrealistic.

Judging from the discrepancies of Mr Relph's story, it would appear likely
that the incident was at least as much his fault as the pedestrian's.

And of course, this wasn't a cyclist, it was a pedestrian pushing a bicycle.
If a pedestrian pushing a bicycle has to have insurance, then so would all
other pedestrians, including women with pushchairs, those in wheelchairs,
and everyone out walking in fact. Quite how you get from knocking down a
pedestrian to demanding cyclists have insurance is beyond my reasoning
power, but then, I don't ride a motorcycle any more.

Perhaps Mr Relph should admit his fault as well as criticising the
pedestrian, and withdraw his ridiculous proposal for pedestrian insurance.

regards

 

[Tony Raven]

Anthony Jones wrote on 24/10/2006 14:51 +0100:
> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/city/2006/10/24/274af226-86f8-4659-8ae2-987d504858d9.lpf
>
>
> Summary:
>

My letter to the editor:

"Why not?

Insurance does not change Mr Relph's right to compensation one iota. If
the mystery walking "cyclist" was insured he could claim back from his
insurance otherwise he would have to pay it out of his own pocket. So
insurance is a complete red herring.

Mr Relph doesn't seem to have a clue who it was so how is he going to
claim on any insurance?

If I read it right Mr Relph started off, saw the pedestrian and fell of
his bike. In my experience an upright bike braking will always stop much
quicker than a bike on its side sliding down the road raising the
question of why exactly Mr Relph "lay the bike down". It doesn't seem
there was any actual interaction with the pedestrian at all. Usually if
you damage your motorbike by falling off it your own insurance pays for
it and the broken ribs are put down to a painful lesson.

Yours sincerely etc"

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <B5s%[email protected]>, burt wrote:
>
> and my experience of motorcyclists is that they
>accelerate very quickly from traffic lights. What other reason is there for
>having a 995cc "sprint" motorcycle?

Plenty of motor vehicle users (and cyclists) are capable of slowing down
and being cautious in urban conditions with traffic lights and pedestrian
crossings and going much faster under other more appropriate conditions.

Others will have a vehicle whose potential performance they never use
because they enjoy posing. I myself have a car that will do more than
70mph.

 

[Tony Raven]

Alan Braggins wrote on 24/10/2006 19:38 +0100:
> In article <B5s%[email protected]>, burt wrote:
>> and my experience of motorcyclists is that they
>> accelerate very quickly from traffic lights. What other reason is there for
>> having a 995cc "sprint" motorcycle?
>
> Plenty of motor vehicle users (and cyclists) are capable of slowing down
> and being cautious in urban conditions with traffic lights and pedestrian
> crossings and going much faster under other more appropriate conditions.
>

As the rider here described his bike as "careering along the road" do
you think he fits that description?

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[John Hearns]

Hmmm. One second he is "movi

 

[Sniper8052(L96A1)]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Anthony Jones wrote on 24/10/2006 14:51 +0100:
>
>> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/city/2006/10/24/274af226-86f8-4659-8ae2-987d504858d9.lpf
>>
>>
>>
>> Summary:
>>
>
> My letter to the editor:
>
> "Why not?
>
> Insurance does not change Mr Relph's right to compensation one iota. If
> the mystery walking "cyclist" was insured he could claim back from his
> insurance otherwise he would have to pay it out of his own pocket. So
> insurance is a complete red herring.
>
> Mr Relph doesn't seem to have a clue who it was so how is he going to
> claim on any insurance?
>
> If I read it right Mr Relph started off, saw the pedestrian and fell of
> his bike. In my experience an upright bike braking will always stop much
> quicker than a bike on its side sliding down the road raising the
> question of why exactly Mr Relph "lay the bike down". It doesn't seem
> there was any actual interaction with the pedestrian at all. Usually if
> you damage your motorbike by falling off it your own insurance pays for
> it and the broken ribs are put down to a painful lesson.
>
> Yours sincerely etc"
>

I agree in my opinion his description of what happened is almost
undoubtably incorrect. I have a theory on the latter part of your
question which I expressed to the editor in line with my experiences of
this type of collision.

> Sir,
>
> I read with interest and mounting incredulity the article printed in your
> paper refering to the collision, I will not say accident, between Mr Relph
> and a pedel cyclist.
>
> I have been a police officer for some 14 years, investigated numerous
> collisions and a number of points came to my mind as I read the article
> none of which lead me to suppose that Mr Relph is in fact the careful
> motorist described in your article.
>
> Firstly Mr Relph describes the incident ..."When the lights turned to
> green I slowly moved off, but suddenly someone walked in front of me
> pushing a bike. I slammed the breaks on and the only way I could avoid
> careering into him was to lay the bike down. I did catch his bike but it
> would have been much worse if I hadn't taken action."
>
> Well, which was it had Mr Relph " ...slowly moved off " ? In which case he
> should have been able to brake smoothly and under full control.
>
> Or,
>
> Did Mr Relph give it what is commonly called 'a handfull' and blast away
> from the lights without taking effective observation. Then finding a
> pedestrian in his path overbraked or as Mr Relph put it
>
> " I slammed the breaks on and the only way I could avoid careering into
> him was to lay the bike down."
>
> I would suggest that slamming on the brakes suggests rather strongly that
> Mr Relph induced a skid that removed any ability to stop and that this was
> the cause of the motorcycle impacting with the ground, that it missed the
> pedestrian was a fortuitious coincidence rather than any 'skill' or
> 'deliberate act' on Mr Relph's part.
>
> We should remember we are talking about a relativly short distance here,
> the distance between one set of junction lights and another - should Mr
> Relph have been travelling at such a speed that he could not stop before
> reaching the obstruction? I would suggest he should not.
>
> Next we move on to the topic of observation.
>
> We are informed in the article that the collision occured between Mr Relph
> and cyclist who was wheeling his cycle. If one accepts this then the
> only conclusion we can come to is that the pedestian, for that is what the
> other party was at this stage, miraculously appeared from nowhere in Mr
> Relph's path. A person pushing a pedal cycle is not an insubstantial
> thing, neither are they commonly fast moving, so it is unlikely that the
> pedestrian suddenly did anything and far more likely that Mr Relph,
> despite having spent some time stationary behind the red ATS failed to
> observe the person waiting to cross and who, probably not unreasonably
> assumed that traffic moving away from the lights at normal speed would
> allow him enough time to cross the roadway. This being a more rational
> explanation of the collision it again suggests that Mr Relph's description
> of the collision is not wholly accurate.
>
> There are other points in the article that I should point out as being
> inaccurate.
>
> Cyclist do not pay road tax - Neither does Mr Relph... Roads are funded
> through general taxation not the Vehicle Excise License which is what Mr
> Relph and every other motorist pays.
>
> Most cyclists own a car and pay vehicle excise duty. I pay twice, once
> for my car and again for my motorcycle.
>
> Whilst cyclists are not required to hold third party insurance many do so
> through membership of cycle clubs such as the CTC. Were it compulsory for
> cyclists to hold insurance at what age would Mr Relph suggest that
> cyclists be required to hold it. Or does he propose that children should
> not be allowed to ride on the road? Who would enforce the requirement and
> how? Cycles are not registered and there is no effective way for them to
> be so.
>
> One might also ask what requirement there is for them to be generally
> insured. The case for vehicle insurance is obvious, vehicles striking
> pedestrians or other road users are almost certain to result in serious
> injury hence the need for insurance to compensate and care for the victims
> of such collisions. Whilst there are a number of serious, life changing,
> collisions between cyclists and pedestrians these are the very smallest
> percentage of a miniscule statistic. Any action taken to provide
> insurance against these collisions would be out of proportion with their
> incidence and is one reason that cyclists have not been required to have
> compulsory insurance. Indeed in a number of countries the motorist is
> automatically liable for any collision between themselves and a cyclist or
> pedestrian - although they may not actually be 'at fault'.
>
> Another point, what qualifies as a cyclist? Is a cyclist a person who
> buys an expensive bicycle and the kit that goes with it, makes certain his
> lights etc are in order and cycles carefully obeying the rules of the
> road?
>
> Or,
>
> Is a cyclist anyone who has a bicycle of any description that he rides
> around any old how without caring to pennies for anyone else?
>
> Clearly the latter, like some motorists would not care to have insurance,
> pass a test or have their bicycle tested for road worthyness. All of
> which are pointless given the current Road Traffic Collision Statistics
> which suggest that there is not a problem in relation to collisions caused
> by cyclists.
>
> I feel that whilst it is unfortunate that Mr Relph was involved in a
> collision and that he has been injured I find it hard to accept his
> version of the collision when I compare it with my experience of such
> incidents and my experience as a motorcyclist, driver and cyclist.
>
> Respectfully Yours

Sniper8052

 

[John Hearns]

He had to "jam the breaks on"
FFS, these people publish a newspaper and cannot even spell.

BTW, one second he's "slowly moving off" the next he's "jamming on the
brakes". Looks like an accident report to his insurance company being
carefully repeated to the newspaper.

 

[Just Visiting]

"Anthony Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/city/2006/10/24/274af226-86f8-4659-8ae2-987d504858d9.lpf
>
> They are asking for feedback to [email protected], and there's
> an "online poll" on the page.
>
> Anthony

Their letters page could be interesting tomorrow. Mine ended by pointing
out that if it had been a mother pushing a pram, then the story they would
have printed would have been the one about the dangerous motorcyclist.

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven wrote:
>Alan Braggins wrote on 24/10/2006 19:38 +0100:
>> In article <B5s%[email protected]>, burt wrote:
>>> and my experience of motorcyclists is that they
>>> accelerate very quickly from traffic lights. What other reason is there for
>>> having a 995cc "sprint" motorcycle?
>>
>> Plenty of motor vehicle users (and cyclists) are capable of slowing down
>> and being cautious in urban conditions with traffic lights and pedestrian
>> crossings and going much faster under other more appropriate conditions.
>
>As the rider here described his bike as "careering along the road" do
>you think he fits that description?

No, and given that he dropped it, the "careering" description seems more
likely than his "I set off slowly" description.
But 'What other reason is there for having a 995cc "sprint" motorcycle?'
is not a question about just this rider.

 

[Tim Woodall]

On 24 Oct 2006 07:49:44 -0700,
spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The accident sounds highly dubious to me, he "lay the bike down" to
> avoid a collsion? Yeah, right!
>
I've never riden a motorbike but I think "lay the bike down" is
something that is done when a collision is inevitable.

I think the idea is to try to put the motorbike (and your legs) between
you and whatever you are going to hit.

However, I'm not sure how you do this or how you practice it. At least
with the cycling escape manoeuvre for a left hook by turning inside the
the other vehicle you can practice making sharp turns and (hopefully)
not coming a cropper but for this one ISTM that you can't practice it.


Tim.


--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

 

[Tim Woodall]

nice letter but a couple of points.

Firstly you have a lot of break/brake errors. I think that every time
you've used break you mean brake. (you do get it right some of the time
as well.)

also:

>> Indeed in a number of countries the motorist is
>> automatically liable for any collision between themselves and a cyclist or
>> pedestrian - although they may not actually be 'at fault'.
>>

This is not correct. In these countries the motorist is _presumed_ to be
liable for any medical expenses of a vulnerable road user unless they
can show otherwise.

AIUI, if a motorist totals your 7000GBP carbon fiber baby but you escape
without a scratch you still have to argue the toss with their insurance
company about percentages and, if necessary, take it to court.

(BICBW)


Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

 

[Tony Raven]

Tim Woodall wrote on 24/10/2006 22:54 +0100:
> On 24 Oct 2006 07:49:44 -0700,
> spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The accident sounds highly dubious to me, he "lay the bike down" to
>> avoid a collsion? Yeah, right!
>>
> I've never riden a motorbike but I think "lay the bike down" is
> something that is done when a collision is inevitable.
>

But usually when a collision cannot be avoided with something that will
hurt. Since he didn't hit the pedestrian with the bike laid down he
would have fared much much better using the bike's brakes to stop even
quicker. And if you can stop before you hit something you brake, not
lay the bike down as it takes much longer to stop on its side than on
its tyres.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci