bike on train
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: A danger to motorists...
Next: Brown bin day!
From: JNugent on 13 Dec 2009 08:28 Keitht wrote: > The Medway Handyman wrote: >> Neil Williams wrote: >>> On 9 Dec, 13:41, "Paul Rigg" <gzero...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> 1 Have registration numbets >>> As, unlike a car, it's easier for police to stop a cyclist seen >>> committing an offence, I'm not sure this is worth bothering with. >> >> No it isn't idiot. The police don't have to stop offending motorists, >> they simply take note of the registration number. Cyclists wishing to >> avoid the constabulary ignore red lights, one way streets, ride on >> pavements etc. >>>> 2 Have compulsory insurance >>> You are presumably aware that most cyclists have third-party liability >>> insurance cover which is provided to any inhabitant of their home as >>> part of their home contents insurance? It's not mandatory, OK, but I >>> would think that more people have home contents insurance than not. >> >> What a load of bollox. Cysclists do not have any specific insurance >> for road use. >>>> 3 Have them confiscated if found riding the pavement or otherwise >>>> disobeying traffic regulationsl, which would certainly include >>>> riding on station platforms. >>> A fine would seem a more appropriate sanction, as is applied to >>> motorists. It just needs to be applied more often. >> >> If cyclists had a license it could be endorsed. >> > > And that will stop it all? > If so why are endorsements 'topped up' and not a prevention, not > something that stops the behaviour? Endorsements are not "topped up"; they are "totted up".
From: Neil Williams on 13 Dec 2009 10:24 On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:28:59 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> You are presumably aware that most cyclists have third-party liability >> insurance cover which is provided to any inhabitant of their home as >> part of their home contents insurance? It's not mandatory, OK, but I >> would think that more people have home contents insurance than not. > >What a load of bollox. Cysclists do not have any specific insurance for >road use. They don't need it, though it is available if they want it and don't have household insurance. Third-party liability insurance with household insurance typically has exclusions for the use of *motor* vehicles on the road, hence the requirement for a separate policy, but not for the use of unpowered[1] bicycles, or indeed for road use as a pedestrian where liability can still arise. [1] I genuinely don't know about those battery-powered bikes. Those may well also be excluded. Read your policy - you might be surprised! >If cyclists had a license it could be endorsed. Would you propose that a cycling licence is issued to every 5-year-old on a bike with stabilisers? Would you propose a minimum age for cycling? Or would you incur the massive cost of issuing everyone in the population a cycling licence? It's prohibitive. Better just to apply the existing law, which provides offences which may be used to charge and fine cyclists for running red lights, riding on the pavement, not using lights etc. These just need to be applied more often. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply.
From: Keitht on 14 Dec 2009 05:51 JNugent wrote: > Keitht wrote: >>> >> >> And that will stop it all? >> If so why are endorsements 'topped up' and not a prevention, not >> something that stops the behaviour? > > Endorsements are not "topped up"; they are "totted up". you know what I mean -- Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle
From: JNugent on 15 Dec 2009 06:37 Keitht wrote: > JNugent wrote: >> Keitht wrote: >>> And that will stop it all? >>> If so why are endorsements 'topped up' and not a prevention, not >>> something that stops the behaviour? >> Endorsements are not "topped up"; they are "totted up". > you know what I mean Do I? The two phrases do not mean the same thing. It obviously wasn't either a typo or a spelling error. You were positively thinking of the wrong word, with different implications. If it was a simple moment of dyslexia, fair enough.
From: Keitht on 15 Dec 2009 15:07
JNugent wrote: > Keitht wrote: > >> JNugent wrote: >>> Keitht wrote: > >>>> And that will stop it all? >>>> If so why are endorsements 'topped up' and not a prevention, not >>>> something that stops the behaviour? > >>> Endorsements are not "topped up"; they are "totted up". > >> you know what I mean > > Do I? > > The two phrases do not mean the same thing. It obviously wasn't either a > typo or a spelling error. You were positively thinking of the wrong > word, with different implications. > > If it was a simple moment of dyslexia, fair enough. Both end up with the same result. Point make prizes. -- Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle |