Total number of cyclists in the UK is fewer than the number of uninsured drivers.

We are paying over £400 million a year for the damage, injuries and
misery inflicted by these irresponsible muppets, so where are the
outraged letters in the local press?

"spindrift" wrote in message
ps.com...
We are paying over £400 million a year for the damage, injuries and
misery inflicted by these irresponsible muppets, so where are the
outraged letters in the local press?

By we do you mean the motorists who through inflated insurance premiums
finance the Motorists' Insurance Bureau?

Payouts to victims of uninsured motorists come from a levy paid by the
insurance companies MIB to cover claims against uninsured drivers.

Cyclists who are not motorists do not contribute to the MIB pot.

spindrift wrote:
We are paying over £400 million a year for the damage, injuries and
misery inflicted by these irresponsible muppets, so where are the
outraged letters in the local press?

Would you advocate compulsory insurance for /all/ road users so that it
is not only motorists who are /forced/ to subsidise the lawless road users?

--
Matt B

On 14/10/2006 12:33, Matt B said,

Would you advocate compulsory insurance for /all/ road users so that it
is not only motorists who are /forced/ to subsidise the lawless road users?

I don't see why not really. As a CTC member, I do already have 3rd
party cover when on my bike, and as a motorist I obviously pay insurance
for that.

BUT.... a fair few people here would count pedestrians as road users,
so they should also pay insurance when walking on the road if the rest
of had to!

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

In article om
spindrift wrote:
We are paying over £400 million a year for the damage, injuries and
misery inflicted by these irresponsible muppets, so where are the
outraged letters in the local press?


Presumably when you say 'cyclist' you mean cycling enthusiast, as I
don't think there are over 5 million uninsured drivers in the UK.

"Paul Boyd" wrote in message
...
On 14/10/2006 12:33, Matt B said,

Would you advocate compulsory insurance for /all/ road users so that it
is not only motorists who are /forced/ to subsidise the lawless road
users?

I don't see why not really. As a CTC member, I do already have 3rd party
cover when on my bike, and as a motorist I obviously pay insurance for
that.

BUT.... a fair few people here would count pedestrians as road users, so
they should also pay insurance when walking on the road if the rest of had
to!

Nah, although some would /like/ to count pedestrians as road users, the road
is not their natural environment - a bit like some cyclists ;-)

There again if they are insured by Norwich Union, they might like to have
one of those boxes fitted for pay as you go insurance....

In article , Paul Boyd wrote:
On 14/10/2006 12:33, Matt B said,

Would you advocate compulsory insurance for /all/ road users so that it
is not only motorists who are /forced/ to subsidise the lawless road users?

I don't see why not really.

Then think about the relative costs of enforcing such a scheme compared
with the damage done by motorists and cyclists.

Alan Braggins wrote:
In article , Paul Boyd wrote:
On 14/10/2006 12:33, Matt B said,

Would you advocate compulsory insurance for /all/ road users so that it
is not only motorists who are /forced/ to subsidise the lawless road users?

I don't see why not really.

Then think about the relative costs of enforcing such a scheme compared
with the damage done by motorists and cyclists.

Cyclists don't have insurance
I can see some justification for requiring insurance for cyclists, but
we already have a situation where large numbers of cyclists, and almost
all frequent cyclists, are insured anyway through clubs or household
policies, so compulsory insurance would impact mainly on the occasional
or leisure rider - precisely the group who, from a public health
standpoint, we as a country can least afford to discourage.

When riding on the road, there is a wealth of evidence that cyclists
who are injured are most often the victims rather than the cause of
accidents. To cite one study, in Oxford, the rider was to blame in just
17% of cases.

Of this small group a proportion will not have caused significant
damage to property, and a further proportion will be insured anyway
(students, club members, those with some kinds of household policies).
The remainder who cause some damage and are both uninsured and unable
to pay is likely to be small. This may explain why this, too, has never
been viewed as an issue by government, especially in a context where
five percent of drivers are apparently uninsured.

On the other hand, negligent pedestrians can and do cause accidents -
and are far more likely to be at fault. So logically it is hard to
defend requiring cyclists to insure, and not pedestrians. Since the
total number of people who neither ride a bicycle nor walk is very
small indeed, you might just as easily argue that this cover should
come out of general taxation.

Overall the scale and cost of damage caused by negligent cyclists is
insignificant in comparison with, say, the risk from the one and a half
million cars on Britain's roads which are uninsured.

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/...loody_cyclists

One and a half million is a low estimate.

On 14/10/2006 15:12, Alan Braggins said,

Then think about the relative costs of enforcing such a scheme compared
with the damage done by motorists and cyclists.

My suggestion was tongue-in-cheek :-)

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

On 14/10/2006 16:06, spindrift said,

Cyclists don't have insurance

Sorry, but any member of the CTC, as well as a few other cycling clubs
*does* have insurance. If I cause an accident, the motorist can claim
against my insurance in the same way as if I was another motorist.

Anyway, as I said just now, my suggestion was tongue-in-cheek. I had
just come off another forum where people don't take thinks quite so
literally, and hadn't shifted into URC mode :-)

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