Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
thesultanofsheight

They should have had insurance

Recommended Posts

On ‎6‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 8:57 PM, display name said:

Cyclists should only have two large wheels. On one axle,operated by hands.

 

On ‎6‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 8:59 PM, Bobbie Bobster said:

The wheels came off that post quite rapidly!

To be honest,that would just make it more amusing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, thesultanofsheight said:
22 hours ago, Yibble said:

It does not include cyclist deaths caused by pedestrians 

Highly probably because there aren’t any. You’re clutching at straws to try to challenge manxst. 

I couldn't find any examples, though individual traffic accidents of any type tend not to appear when you google because they rarely appear in national papers.  But it's not implausible is it?  For example: a pedestrian unexpectedly steps off a pavement into the path of a cyclist who falls off, hitting their head or ending up under another vehicle.  Remember all the statistics are about which categories of road user are involved, not who causes any particular accident.  To get reliable figures for that you'd need to find and go through thousands of coroners' findings at least. 

The figures we do have, as others have pointed out, show just how tiny the involvement of cyclists is in pedestrian deaths.  As the Full Fact website pointed out last August[1]:

Quote

This is correct, although proportionally very few pedestrian casualties involve cyclists. From 2012 to 2016, 2,120 pedestrians were killed by a vehicle in Britain—0.8% of these involved a bicycle, and 66% involved a car. In 2016, 448 pedestrians were killed by a vehicle—3 of these deaths involved a bike, and 289 involved a car.

Of course even that comparatively tiny number may not all be caused by the cyclists involved.  As in my example, pedestrians can also be careless or feckless (there's some discussion in the US about whether an increase in pedestrian deaths is affected by smartphone use), but no one suggests that we should all be forced to take out Third Party insurance before we step out of the front door.  Of course cyclists can also be aggressive and incompetent - angry Middle Aged Men In Lycra who think the roads are for their own personal convenience and everyone else is wrong[2].  But they're probably behave the same when they get behind the wheel of a car - and much more dangerous.

 

[1]  There's some interesting other information in there as well, notably the fact that the most vulnerable road users (per journey-mile) aren't cyclists or road users but motorcyclists.   Which makes sense when you consider they combine the physical exposure of cyclists with much higher speeds.

[2]  I speak as someone who was once nearly mown down by Boris Johnson.  Mercifully he wasn't in lycra.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

I couldn't find any examples, though individual traffic accidents of any type tend not to appear when you google because they rarely appear in national papers.  But it's not implausible is it?  For example: a pedestrian unexpectedly steps off a pavement into the path of a cyclist who falls off, hitting their head or ending up under another vehicle.  Remember all the statistics are about which categories of road user are involved, not who causes any particular accident.  To get reliable figures for that you'd need to find and go through thousands of coroners' findings at least. 

The figures we do have, as others have pointed out, show just how tiny the involvement of cyclists is in pedestrian deaths.  As the Full Fact website pointed out last August[1]:

Of course even that comparatively tiny number may not all be caused by the cyclists involved.  As in my example, pedestrians can also be careless or feckless (there's some discussion in the US about whether an increase in pedestrian deaths is affected by smartphone use), but no one suggests that we should all be forced to take out Third Party insurance before we step out of the front door.  Of course cyclists can also be aggressive and incompetent - angry Middle Aged Men In Lycra who think the roads are for their own personal convenience and everyone else is wrong[2].  But they're probably behave the same when they get behind the wheel of a car - and much more dangerous.

 

[1]  There's some interesting other information in there as well, notably the fact that the most vulnerable road users (per journey-mile) aren't cyclists or road users but motorcyclists.   Which makes sense when you consider they combine the physical exposure of cyclists with much higher speeds.

[2]  I speak as someone who was once nearly mown down by Boris Johnson.  Mercifully he wasn't in lycra.

The problem is Roger that  no matter what evidence anybody produces in support of cyclists, it doesn’t fit in with the anti cyclists rantings. Yes there are idiot cyclists but my guess is there are more inconsiderate motorists.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

I couldn't find any examples, though individual traffic accidents of any type tend not to appear when you google because they rarely appear in national papers.  But it's not implausible is it?  For example: a pedestrian unexpectedly steps off a pavement into the path of a cyclist who falls off, hitting their head or ending up under another vehicle.  Remember all the statistics are about which categories of road user are involved, not who causes any particular accident.  To get reliable figures for that you'd need to find and go through thousands of coroners' findings at least. 

The figures we do have, as others have pointed out, show just how tiny the involvement of cyclists is in pedestrian deaths.  As the Full Fact website pointed out last August[1]:

Of course even that comparatively tiny number may not all be caused by the cyclists involved.  As in my example, pedestrians can also be careless or feckless (there's some discussion in the US about whether an increase in pedestrian deaths is affected by smartphone use), but no one suggests that we should all be forced to take out Third Party insurance before we step out of the front door.  Of course cyclists can also be aggressive and incompetent - angry Middle Aged Men In Lycra who think the roads are for their own personal convenience and everyone else is wrong[2].  But they're probably behave the same when they get behind the wheel of a car - and much more dangerous.

 

[1]  There's some interesting other information in there as well, notably the fact that the most vulnerable road users (per journey-mile) aren't cyclists or road users but motorcyclists.   Which makes sense when you consider they combine the physical exposure of cyclists with much higher speeds.

[2]  I speak as someone who was once nearly mown down by Boris Johnson.  Mercifully he wasn't in lycra.

Was he on a Boris bike?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, finlo said:

Was he on a Boris bike?

Oh this was years ago (2005 or so) when he was Editor of the Spectator - it was just round the corner from their offices in Doughty Street.  He probably has 'people' to run over pedestrians for him now.

So it was before the Boris Bike was launched, though not before it was planned.  Even the few successes that marked his time as Mayor (such as the Olympics) were mostly set up under Livingstone and Boris just bounced up to take the credit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2019 at 12:51 PM, woolley said:

Don't see why there is a controversy. He hit them, he pays for the damage. It is no defence to say that the sunlight dazzled him. That's tantamount to saying "I couldn't see so I carried on anyway." That's reckless.

I must admit though, I am coming round to thinking that there might be a case for insurance cover on cyclists. Maybe I'm going soft.

sunlight dazzled him could that not be seen as an act of god ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2019 at 2:46 PM, hissingsid said:

Why should cyclists not have to pay road tax and they insurance, they use the road and are quite capable of causing accidents what if they run a child over or any pedestrian?     This yawn scenario does not give a valid answer.    Why should cyclists be treated like sacred cows ?    They should start taking responsibility like everyone else.

Electric cars don`t pay road tax, do they  ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/15/2019 at 7:59 PM, gettafa said:

Still poor driving. No excuse for it. Grown adults should be able to read the conditions. And having an inoperative windscreen washer as in the case shown is no excuse. The person driving must have known the windscreen washer wasn't working and to use it in mitigation is outrageous.

It's all about who you know, eh.

 

-

Edited by LightBulb
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, display name said:

To be honest,that would just make it more amusing

I agree, you set the humour bar incredibly low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LightBulb said:

the equivelant of manx version of

Well done, I love the tortured syntax.

Bulbman finally hits his stride!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LightBulb said:

Electric cars don`t pay road tax, do they  ?

not yet, give it time. remember how diesel went up in price when diesel cars became mainstream,  get ready for electric to go up in the same way.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2019 at 4:37 PM, gettafa said:

This chap did ok.

In this case the prosecutor himself professed to the court that "The sun was a major factor in this incident, It was very low in the sky and blinding when travelling towards Port St Mary - it was simply a case of not seeing the cyclist". Who needs a defence lawyer with a prosecutor saying that?

1687942923_20180622IMXpNNcyclistluckytobealive011.thumb.jpg.86a38d3feeda8ed1e2f8043471e34f76.jpg

 

The unfortunate victim in this is still in a serious way, properly knackered. 

So all you Lycra haters, just think about what can happen, all big balls on here and in the car calling Lycra wankers but that ordinary person you then hit and turn into a brain dead or kill was someone’s father/ mother, son/daughter, brother/sister. 

So stop being a compete cunt and just give the Lycra wankers room. They don’t hold you up and they don’t need to pay “road tax” (whatever that is) and you’d be rather surprised how many have insurance. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Gizo said:

The unfortunate victim in this is still in a serious way, properly knackered. 

So all you Lycra haters, just think about what can happen, all big balls on here and in the car calling Lycra wankers but that ordinary person you then hit and turn into a brain dead or kill was someone’s father/ mother, son/daughter, brother/sister. 

So stop being a compete cunt and just give the Lycra wankers room. They don’t hold you up and they don’t need to pay “road tax” (whatever that is) and you’d be rather surprised how many have insurance. 

You do understand that people are debating accidents with cyclists? Accidents being the appropriate word. There is nobody going round deliberately trying to kill or injure cyclists using their cars in the IOM. Unfortunately our narrow roads are not really suited to mixed traffic. So god only knows why Ray Harmer and his team seem to be focusing a lot of their efforts on getting more cyclists to use our totally lethal road network and putting in ever more dangerous cycling lanes like the one in Ramsey. Perhaps the focus should be on more off road cycleways and paths. It’s not like we dont have the space where they wouldn’t need insurance or to pay road tax anyway. 

Edited by MrPB
Spells
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, MrPB said:

You do understand that people are debating accidents with cyclists? Accidents being the appropriate word. There is nobody going round deliberately trying to kill or injure cyclists using their cars in the IOM. Unfortunately our narrow roads are not really suited to mixed traffic. So god only knows why Ray Harmer and his team seem to be focusing a lot of their efforts on getting more cyclists to use our totally lethal road network and putting in ever more dangerous cycling lanes like the one in Ramsey. Perhaps the focus should be on more off road cycleways and paths. It’s not like we dont have the space where they wouldn’t need insurance or to pay road tax anyway. 

In the unlikely event that you learn to understand what is printed you will see that Gizo is stating a valid point. The person in the clip didn’t deliberately set out to injure the cyclist. I stand to be corrected but Gizo quite rightly points out that motorists not taking care and having the view that they are more important than cyclists results in injuries to cyclists when they come together. In a car/bike collision, it is the cyclist who comes off worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...