Pillock on Bike malliciously mows down blind pensioner, escapes practically laughing



Jon Senior (jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

>> I got nothing back from him because he was uninsured and claimed
>> poverty in court (he lied). Is £400 "trivial" to you?

> Not really. But it's a manageable sum.

Obviously not to the person responsible for the accident.

> Imagine he had been driving a car
> How much damage would he have caused then?

How's that relevant? If he'd been driving a car, he'd have been required to
have insurance by law. If he weren't insured, then he'd have a heavy legal
penalty imposed, and the innocent party would be able to claim against an
uninsured driver central fund (AIUI). In the circumstances Steve describes
- not actually looking where he was going - a car driver would be eminently
liable for prosecution for several other offences, too - not least driving
without due care and attention.

It's not unique, by the way - a friend of mine at school went through the
back window of a parked car in virtually identical circumstances.
 
Just zis Guy, you know? ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

> the fine for driving without insurance is about a third of the average
> price for third-party only motor insurance.

I'd be very surprised at that.

The average price for 17yo chavs in Novas, perhaps - but the average price
for *all* motor insurance, as you imply? No chance, unless the fine is
ludicrously low.

I pay £400 for business use fully comp on a group 15 car, at age 33. Let's
assume £300 for TPFT.

Which would put the fine at £100. The same as a parking ticket in central
London.
 
Just zis Guy, you know? ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

> A motorist did over £1,000 worth of damage to my car once, I lost my
> insurance discount because they were uninsured.

So why are you supporting road users being legally uninsured?
 
On 15 Sep 2004 11:14:41 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Just zis Guy, you know? ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
> sounding much like they were saying :
>
>> the fine for driving without insurance is about a third of the average
>> price for third-party only motor insurance.
>
> I'd be very surprised at that.
>
> The average price for 17yo chavs in Novas, perhaps - but the average
> price
> for *all* motor insurance, as you imply? No chance, unless the fine is
> ludicrously low.
>
> I pay £400 for business use fully comp on a group 15 car, at age 33.
> Let's
> assume £300 for TPFT.
>
> Which would put the fine at £100. The same as a parking ticket in central
> London.

From a news story in August this year:

"According to the Association of British Insurers (ABI) the average fine
for driving without insurance is £150, despite the fact that the maximum
fine for the offence is £5,000."

Colin
 
Colin Blackburn ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

>> Which would put the fine at £100. The same as a parking ticket in
>> central London.

> "According to the Association of British Insurers (ABI)

Yes, well, they've got a bit of a vested interest, haven't they?

> the average fine for driving without insurance is £150, despite the
> fact that the maximum fine for the offence is £5,000."

But it does sound ludicrously low.
 
On 15 Sep 2004 11:27:33 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Colin Blackburn ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying :
>
>>> Which would put the fine at £100. The same as a parking ticket in
>>> central London.
>
>> "According to the Association of British Insurers (ABI)
>
> Yes, well, they've got a bit of a vested interest, haven't they?

Yes, but I suspect even they can add up lots of publicly available numbers
and divide by the count.

>> the average fine for driving without insurance is £150, despite the
>> fact that the maximum fine for the offence is £5,000."
>
> But it does sound ludicrously low.

It is.

Colin
 
In article <1gk5kbd.1daxjbhvhyvnN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, usenet-
[email protected] says...
> He was cycling flat out with his dead down, when he hit the rear bumper
> of my car he dented it severely enough to require both a new plastic
> cover and a replacement of the metal beneath it. The front forks of his
> bike broke, and the headstock went up over the boot of the car gouging
> the paint through to the metal and putting a gouge into the metal that
> coudl not be repaired (needed a new boot lid). He rolled up the boot and
> into the back window, breaking it. The back window had a heater matrix
> (expensive).

Oof.

> I could only get the cost down to £400 by using secondhand components.
> If I had used new the cost would have been closer to £1000.

OK. Now to continue the (Biased, goal-post moving) trend. How much of
your car would be left if he had hit it in similar circumstances while
driving a car. My guess would be... not a lot.

So why do we insist on insurance for drivers but not cyclists?

> > Not really. But it's a manageable sum.
>
> So why should I have to pay it and not the person who actually was
> responsible?

You shouldn't. And the fact that you did shows a failure of the legal
system to uphold the law, not that he should have insurance. Given that
he (alledgedly) lied in court about his financial status, what makes you
think that he wouldn't just do the same wrt a fine for being uninsured?

> Just look at those goalposts move (again).

No-one has moved any goalposts, we've just offered explanations as to
why car insurance is mandatory and cycle insurance isn't. As I believe I
stated in a previous post, I feel that _everyone_ should have mandatory
personal third party insurance and that additional insurance for a
vehicle above and beyond that could be optional.

While insurance is not compulsory, a large proportion of cyclists are
probably already covered for third party, whether or not they are aware
of it.

Jon
 
In article <1gk5kk0.1drgee111wrgdvN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, usenet-
[email protected] says...
> My experience is that cyclists fall into two categories, those that
> barrel through red lights unchecked, and those who take tot eh pavement
> and cycle round the red light. Seeing a cyclist stop for a red light,
> and particularly for a red light on a pedestrian crossing is so rare as
> to be memorable.
>
> Since it is only four days since the last pillock on a bike attempted to
> charge straight at me on a crossing, I'll call you a liar to your face
> if you attempt to deny this shocking behaviour is the norm for cyclists.

So where does your experience come from? A sizeable minority (noticable
number, but still a minority) round here jump reds. They all appear to
slow and check for traffic before doing so.

So... feel free to call me a liar (If you wish to do so to my face,
you'll have to come visit!) because "this shocking behaviour" is very
far from the norm for cyclists.

Jon
 
Steve Firth wrote:


> A cyclist did approximately £400 worth of damage to my (legally) parked
> car. I got nothing back from him because he was uninsured and claimed
> poverty in court (he lied). Is £400 "trivial" to you?

Yes, it is, as a matter of fact. If you are so pitifully short of petty
cash, I suggest you give up pouring money into your car and get a bike
instead. You'd probably save that much in a few weeks.

A motorcyclist did approximately $50,000 worth of damage to my (legally
cycling) wife and I a few years ago. His insurance company tried to deny
coverage, so they ended up paying substantially more including lawyers
fees. Sadly this was in the USA so is probably not helping to put up
your premium.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
 
Steve Firth wrote:

>> My third party bike insurance is free, the fine for driving without
>> insurance is about a third of the average price for third-party only
>> motor insurance. So the fine for cycling without insurance, to give
>> parity, is a third of bugger all. Which seems entirely reasonable
>> to me, nicely reflecting the relative risks posed.

> You snipped the entire part where I pointed out that the fine imposed
> for not having car insurance has no relationship to the premium paid
> for that insurance.

So true. Which is why driving uninsured is cheaper than driving insured, to
the delight of chavs everywhere. For some reason you want that not to be
the case for cyclists, whose death causing even on the pavement is two
orders of magnitude lower than motor drivers. I wonder why you think that
way? Fitness envy is my guess, although incoherent anger brought on by too
much driving is a strong possibility as well.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the vast disparity in risk posed by
cycles and cars says more about you than the rapid hand movements under your
duvet ever will.

> That shows your bias, and I'm afraid to say a
> remarkable level of stupidity on your part.

What shows stupidity on my part is attempting to reason with Steve Firth.
But hey, keep on trolling. Why change now?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University
 
Colin Blackburn wrote:

> "According to the Association of British Insurers (ABI) the average
> fine for driving without insurance is £150, despite the fact that the
> maximum fine for the offence is £5,000."

Supported Up There ^^^ by a regular who is apparently a former magistrate.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University
 
Adrian wrote:

>> A motorist did over £1,000 worth of damage to my car once, I lost my
>> insurance discount because they were uninsured.

> So why are you supporting road users being legally uninsured?

Because they are very unlikely ever to even approach £1000 worth of damage
to my car. Simple, really.

You also ignore the fact that a fair proportion of them already are insured,
through household or club policies, so you are looking to introduce a vast
bureaucracy to control a part of a problem which is in any case miniscule in
effect.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University
 
Steve Firth wrote:

>> A motorist did over £1,000 worth of damage to my car once, I lost my
>> insurance discount because they were uninsured.

> And did he escape from the consequences of his actions? I suspect not.

She did indeed. She was in the UK as a visitor, and left the country
without a stian on her character or a dent in her pocketbook.

> But if he had been a cyclist, he would.

UNless she was one of the many who are covered by household or club
policies, in which case your assertion would be invalid. As it was, you can
sue the cyclist for the cost of repairs, and that is a civil debt like any
other.

> Anyway £1000s not a lot after all is it? And if you own a car you can
> afford to pay. To use the cyclist's argument.

I could indeed afford to pay. Just as well, really. What was your
pointless again?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University
 
Steve Firth wrote:

> My experience is that cyclists fall into two categories, those that
> barrel through red lights unchecked, and those who take tot eh
> pavement and cycle round the red light.

My experience is that trolls fall into two categories: those who make
ridiculous generalisations based on prejudice and those who are simply
immune to reason.

There is an intersection set. Guess where FirthWorld[tm] is to be found?


> Seeing a cyclist stop for a
> red light, and particularly for a red light on a pedestrian crossing
> is so rare as to be memorable.

As memorable as seeing a BMW driver drive round me, stopped at the red
light, in order to jump it himself? That was a doozy, that one.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University
 
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:55:06 +0100, Steve Firth <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jon Senior <jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove> wrote:
>
> > Thus neatly ignoring an earlier post regarding research carried out by
> > the RAC. If they were unable to prove a majority then it's probably a
> > minority.
>
> Since it is only four days since the last pillock on a bike attempted to
> charge straight at me on a crossing, I'll call you a liar to your face
> if you attempt to deny this shocking behaviour is the norm for cyclists.

Only if you only see less than one cyclist every two days on average.
Even then, it only establishes majority behaviour, not norm. And that
only if it were regularly observed - a single anecdote establishes
nothing about 'norm' or 'majority' behaviour, as you really ought to
be well aware.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
On 15 Sep 2004 11:27:33 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

>Colin Blackburn ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
>much like they were saying :
>>
>> the average fine for driving without insurance is £150, despite the
>> fact that the maximum fine for the offence is £5,000."
>
>But it does sound ludicrously low.

I'd be quite happy for it to be zero, provided there was a mandatory
requirement for the chav-mobile to be crushed. Victims of uninsured drivers
could put their names into a lottery for the chance to operate the
crusher...

--
Don't get even - get odd.

Mail john rather than nospam...
 
Steve Firth wrote:

> And your argument is that the innocent party oin this shoudl have to
> foot the bill incurred by the person who through their recklessness or
> carelessness caused the damage?

No, I think you should sue them though, if that trivial sum is such a
big deal for you. It's only a small claims court job, why don't you stop
snivelling and get on with it?

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
 
Steve Firth wrote:

>> While insurance is not compulsory, a large proportion of cyclists are
>> probably already covered for third party, whether or not they are
>> aware of it.

> So there is no valid objection to making it compulsory.

Apart from the unecessary bureaucracy required to effect a change in a
minority of the target population who in any case pose negligible risk. And
then you'll have to start making pedestrians carry compulsory third-party
insurance, because they are far more likely to be responsible for crashes in
which they are involved - usually due to alcohol.

Alternatively you could simply allow those whose cars are damaged by any
uninsured third party to claim from the insurers' uninsured loss pool.
Which would have the same effect (covering the poor dears who scratch their
cars running over people) but without imposing any additional regulatory
burden.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University
 
In article <1gk5qww.55keee19l1wthN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, usenet-
[email protected] says...
> From the cities that I visit each week, principally Chester, Birmingham,
> Manchester, Worcester, London and York. I have yet to see a single
> cyclist stop at a red light in any of those cities and only see them
> stop for red lights here in rural Hampshire. Presumably because light
> controlled intersections here are at the junctions of "A" roads signed
> NSL.

Do we have any residents of these chaotic cities who can verify this, or
must we assume that your own bias ensures that you are blind to the
cyclists who do stop at reds?

> Chester and London are also both notable for the density (in all senses
> of the words) of their pavement cyclists. Particularly Chester where
> Grosvenor Bridge is turned into a nightmare by cyclists who expect
> pedestrians to step into the road to avoid being run down. I have now
> found that walking down the road with my fist aimed at the nose of
> cyclists is the way to persuade them of the error of their ways.

Yet they continue? Surely if you have persuaded them otherwise, they
must be becoming fewer.

> I also laugh at cyclsits whpo try to claim that they are "vulnerable"
> since they (as a group) care bugger all for we pedestrians.

Who are also vunerable. Both groups are at far more risk from cars than
from each other. Although in areas with a high proportion of neds,
pedestrians pose a far greater danger to cyclists!

> Liar.

Not really to my face, but fair enough. I'll keep a tally of the number
I see here during the week and down south during the weekend and we can
compare notes. Or would the presence of data other than your own run the
risk of spoiling your bias?

Jon
 
James Annan wrote:

> I think you should sue them though, if that trivial sum is such a
> big deal for you. It's only a small claims court job, why don't you
> stop snivelling and get on with it?

I'm sure the legal assistance cover supplied with his insurance would help
to get the process underway.

Unless, of course, the facts are not as straightforward as he would have us
believe. After all, he could have been doing a Baxter.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
'Pillock' warning hits bike week
Replies
1
Views
515
UK and Europe
Wafflydirtycatl
W
mtb passion
Bike odyssey 2019
Replies
0
Views
1K
UK and Europe
mtb passion
mtb passion
Joe Johnson
Anyone near hertfordshire who wants a mountain bike buddy.
Replies
0
Views
2K
UK and Europe
Joe Johnson
Joe Johnson
S
Do you know bike rental in scenic spot in europe? please reply me. thanks.
Replies
0
Views
2K
UK and Europe
Scona
S
J
Granfondo roma, bike rent?
Replies
0
Views
2K
UK and Europe
JHaklis
J
Top Bottom Back