little rant

nuggets

Native
Jan 31, 2010
1,070
0
england
I like the way them horse`s rear up on there back legs -just like the `lone rangers` horse does in the movie,s - when i drive past them in me landy :) , quite aproppiate as my landy is silver also - just like the lone rangers horse !! strange but true !! :)
 

Paul_B

Bushcrafter through and through
Jul 14, 2008
6,412
1,698
Cumbria
Rik - there is an over-exaggeration on that. Take one recent BBC documentary on how dangerous cyclists are, the only video clip they found as evidence of this was a commercial film company's YouTube promo they shot of a staged "race" between cycle couriers! That led to a load of newspaper sites either jumping on the bandwagon or exposing the bias of the BBC. The producer who commissioned it even admitted their production company just bought the video after a researcher found it on YouTube...
I'm not saying there's no bad cyclists at all just compared to car, truck, van, 4x4s and bus drivers its still a relatively small proportion. Having said this, as a motorist, I have been behind cyclists and seen red. Often it seems like they're holding you up for ages but reality is its seconds not minutes like I think as I'm screaming at them to shift. I think that is more down to my reaction behind the wheel. I'm like many who have little patience for cyclists when in a car.
Reality is you're no it paying for cyclists. If they cause an accudent , you as a car driver, will come off better. Your insurance should pay out and with legal sue them. If you cause an accident then they get hurt more than you and your insurance will pay out for you and no doubt, with legal, put the blame on the cyclist particularly if they have no insurance. Either way it is rare for cyclists to come out on top. I've read enough about cyclists being knocked down by a driver who gets done for their driving but the insurers reduce payout because of no helmet on the cyclist even when the rider's injuries were not head based.
 

Paul_B

Bushcrafter through and through
Jul 14, 2008
6,412
1,698
Cumbria
Of course I respect but disagree with your views on cyclists. I doubt we'll ever come to a consensus.
 

santaman2000

M.A.B (Mad About Bushcraft)
Jan 15, 2011
16,909
1,120
68
Florida
There are a LOT of bad cyclists Paul, to be honest down here they are a danger to themselves and others, stupid idiots on mountain bikes et el crossing lanes without a care in the world, no lights, no helmets and if I have to carry insurance to cover my bottom so should they, why should I subsidise their stupidity.

Sounds logical when you put it that way. But your insurance (just the mandatory bit, not any additional, optional bit) is it actually for you? Or is it third party liability to cover damage you may cause to others?

The reason I ask is that TBH it seems unlikey a bicyclist is going to cause much damage in a collision with a car.
 

Lister

Settler
Apr 3, 2012
992
2
37
Runcorn, Cheshire
Sounds logical when you put it that way. But your insurance (just the mandatory bit, not any additional, optional bit) is it actually for you? Or is it third party liability to cover damage you may cause to others?

The reason I ask is that TBH it seems unlikey a bicyclist is going to cause much damage in a collision with a car.

The minimum requirement is third party as to cover any third party involved, not you.
 

Paul_B

Bushcrafter through and through
Jul 14, 2008
6,412
1,698
Cumbria
Mandatory bit is 3rd party, fire and theft. You harm someone you'll get a certain level of public liability cover. Their car gets fixed and any restitution for injuries but you fix or replace own car.

A cyclist can get similar cover but not mandatory. However certain cycling associations give 3rd party cover as part of membership I believe. If you race you need a race licence I think which comes through British Cycling membership used to be RTTC licenses once. CTC also offers cover.

Lots of bad cyclists? Ever noticed how many bad drivers out there? Mobile phone users, speeders, lane weavers, too slow drivers in middle or outer lanes, bad parkers blocking footpaths so pedestrians have to use the road, the increasing numbers of banned or uninsured drivers, unsafe vehicles, etc. Drivers who are tired and weave about. Heck I was driving down a road near Manchester airport once and came face to face with a large road stone truck that had weaved into the middle of the road once. Scared the whats its out of me as he only woke up just in time to swerve out of my way!

We can all give examples but I wonder which group are the worst? Which creates the most liability in an own fault accident? If any group actually avoids paying for their liability just because of no insurance? Uninsured drivers are an increasing risk that costs all drivers who do get their insurance. They're probably responsible for more losses due to lack of cover than cyclists.
 

Paul_B

Bushcrafter through and through
Jul 14, 2008
6,412
1,698
Cumbria
Plus uninsured drivers are unlikely to have VED. Not that it contributes directly to road upkeep but it's another example of how some users don't pay their way.
 

santaman2000

M.A.B (Mad About Bushcraft)
Jan 15, 2011
16,909
1,120
68
Florida
Mandatory bit is 3rd party, fire and theft. You harm someone you'll get a certain level of public liability cover. Their car gets fixed and any restitution for injuries but you fix or replace own car......
.....Uninsured drivers are an increasing risk that costs all drivers who do get their insurance. They're probably responsible for more losses due to lack of cover than cyclists.

Sounds similar to here.Except that fire & theft aren't a legal requirement; although the bank will likely require you to have it as a condition of the car loan.
 

Paul_B

Bushcrafter through and through
Jul 14, 2008
6,412
1,698
Cumbria
I've only ever seen them lumped together but perhaps you only need 3rd party here too.

Must admit other country's insurance systems vary wildly. Some insurers charge to risk but other countries I believe don't in the same way. I think that is like Columbia's way. Think their car insurance is a lot cheaper due to the system.
 

decorum

Full Member
May 2, 2007
5,064
12
Warwickshire
But the car drivers continue paying tax every time they top up the fuel tank. Fuel taxes are generally the single largest source of road maintanance funding.

That said, it's a complicated issue. Roads are built for ALL traffic, not just cars. Would you charge a pedestrian for walking on along a B road? However one poster's suggestion wasn't about banning them from all roads, just A roads. Certainly you wouldn't want them on the motorway, country lanes would be pushing it too far. But where in between to draw a line?

Road funding is from general and local taxes. It might be that a big chunk of that tax comes from fuel duty, but the same kind of thing might be said for taxes taken from smoking and alcohol paying for the bulk of the NHS ~ you wouldn't expect a drinker or smoker to get fast tracked just because they've paid a tax to the government coffers.

Don't get me wrong, I thing drivers get the rough end of the stick. Before you use your car it needs to be insured ~ and they have you over the barrel. Once you have it insured it needs fuel and you pay through the nose.

I used to drive ~ I got that miffed with the cost of insurance and rapidly rising fuel that I decided enough was enough, decided to do something about it, and stopped. Not feasible for some, I know.


But yes, it is a complicated issue. Several road going conveyances rightfully aren't allowed to use UK motorways* ~ bicycles, tractors, horses, mopeds / motor scooters below 50cc (I think that's it, someone will nudge me if not :eek: ). Some overly wide loads and / or speed restricted vehicles can only travel via the motorway network after gaining special permission for that trip and will only do so if they have an official escort.

* Some A roads also have motorway classification / regulation and, as with the M-Roads, cannot be used by these low powered users.


Personally I'd like to see a requirement for all users of motor vehicles to have to make trips in traffic using horse or pedal power (or battery for those not capable of pedalling) ~ it might lead to a better understanding and a bit more leniency on all sides. That won't happen, of course, but it doesn't stop me thinking it'd be a good idea ;) :D .


I think you know what I meant by 'road tax'

Yep, I knew exactly what you meant ~ which is why previous post asked why horse riders and cyclists should pay more to use the roads than drivers of Band A cars. The fact that the majority do pay at the moment is irrelevant ~ because you could be an ordinary driver paying zero VED.


How about compulsory insurance then for cyclists and horse riders who use the road system? Happy with that? Paying a couple of quid a week is better than someone like me suing them if they cause an accident and having them pay me each month for potentially the rest of their lives?

More than happy for all road users to be insured in case of causing damage to another user / their mode of transport ~ cyclists who zip recklessly in and out of traffic need a clack round the lug-hole, as do pavement cyclists (Max fine of £500 for that by the way ;) ).

Here's a somewhat absurd thought ... How do you feel about pedestrians crossing the road? Only at designated crossing points? Require insurance in case they cross when they shouldn't and damage a road conveyance?

What age should you be to cycle or ride a horse on the road? Where should people under that age cycle or horse ride?


There are a LOT of bad cyclists Paul, to be honest down here they are a danger to themselves and others,

To be fair Rik, there a lot of poor road users. We need to concentrate on poor road skills and poor road awareness than the number of wheels or legs ~ because you can almost guarantee that a cyclist with poor road sense will likely be a poor driver too (most adult cyclists also drive :yikes:). Similarly most adult horse riders are also likely to be drivers.


stupid idiots on mountain bikes et el crossing lanes without a care in the world, no lights, no helmets and if I have to carry insurance to cover my bottom so should they, why should I subsidise their stupidity.

Again it's road skills and awareness, it's not just cyclists who do the lane swapping without paying due care and attention ~ watch at a roundabout to see just how many cars, vans, lorries flit from one to the other and back again.
 

Harvestman

Bushcrafter through and through
May 11, 2007
8,656
26
55
Pontypool, Wales, Uk
On the pedestrians point, I believe (I might be wrong) that unless the highway is designated as 'No pedestrians' - such as motorways or certain signposted sections of roads, then pedestrians have right of way on UK roads.
 

rik_uk3

Banned
Jun 10, 2006
13,320
28
70
south wales
So back to my question, why should cyclists be able to use the highways of this country without insurance whether they be the sensible rider or the common place idiot? Car drivers whether good or bad have to so why not cyclists?

There is also a massive difference between the often narrow town roads in the UK and the Cycle paths found in the wider avenues of places like Holland and Germany.
 

boatman

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Feb 20, 2007
2,444
8
78
Cornwall
It's called freedom, which is restricted enough as it is, to be able to go out on the bike or out onto the water without licence etc. OK. there are inland waterway restrictions and permits but it cetainly apples to the sea and estuaries. Be very careful about calling for more ostensibly reasonable restrictions. We can all call for restrictions on other people but the rachet of tightening control only ever seems to go one way.
 

Lister

Settler
Apr 3, 2012
992
2
37
Runcorn, Cheshire
I think the polite vests are a great idea. After all you never see many of the real vests these days.

really? Our local cop force wear them routinely:

tac_hi_vis.jpg


high-vis stabjackets, from the rear look very like the "polite" vests
 

BCUK Shop

We have a a number of knives, T-Shirts and other items for sale.

SHOP HERE