Is crash for cash a thing where you live?
Changes to the highway code.
- Thread starter Chippy_Tea
- Start date
Help Support The Homebrew Forum:
I know it happens and there's no reason to believe that we don't have the same percentage of scammers. Someone tried to back up and hit the car of someone I know. She just put it in reverse so the scammer couldn't touch her and he gave up. Nothing to stop someone from doing it when there are no other cars around to witness.
We have "No Fault" insurance in Michigan. I should know more about what it means but generally your own insurance company pays no matter who's at fault.
We have "No Fault" insurance in Michigan. I should know more about what it means but generally your own insurance company pays no matter who's at fault.
Our top level of insurance is Comprehensive (AKA fully comprehensive) this offers the highest level of protection, It includes all the cover you'd get with a third-party fire and theft policy, but also protects you for damage you cause to your own car.
I have posted this brilliant video before in threads like this this is the cut down version -
Last edited:
Bjorn Toulouse
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2010
- Messages
- 168
- Reaction score
- 120
OK going to be unpopular here. I have scooters, cars and a motorhome. A lot of cyclists I observe do not have a clue about how to use the road or look after their own safety. I have hardly ever seen a cyclist do a lifesaver. Like wise signal. I lose count of the amount of time they jump red lights. Last week I was at a set of lights ready to make a right turn (indicating), Lights change, go to make my turn when a cyclist who was on the pavement behind me jumped onto the road in front of me, dropped the scoot as he *ucked off.
Cyclists should have to pass a test or / and should have insurance. Also since e-bikes now can hit speeds up to 50mph, should have plates on them.
Cyclists should have to pass a test or / and should have insurance. Also since e-bikes now can hit speeds up to 50mph, should have plates on them.
I see lots of car drivers speeding, texting, not signalling, etc. does that mean that all drivers behave like this? Why do people always assume that all cyclists jump red lights, don't indicate, etc. because a minority do?
For the record I hate when a cyclist jumps a red light as I know it just pours fuel on the fire and it means that I have to deal with comments like this on a regular basis despite the fact I adhere to the rules of the road.
All road users are obligated to adhere to the highway code, failure to do so can result in fines and/or prosecution depending on the severity of the infraction. Can you honestly say that you know every rule in the highway code despite having had to do a test?
A lot of cyclists do have insurance, I have mine through British Cycling, and it covers me for third party liabilities as well as personal injuries, but how do you propose to enforce insurance for a 6 year-old riding a bike around their local housing estate?
There is also a gross misunderstanding about what insurance actually does; people assume that having insurance means that blame can be apportioned in the result of an accident. This is simply not the case; in any accident blame can and will be apportioned and the guilty party is liable for covering any costs that the victim incurs, insurance provides them with the financial security of being able to do so. The reason that is a legal requirement for car drivers to have insurance is because they are capable of causing damage of far greater value than someone riding a bicycle. If I crash my bike into someone's car then I would still be expected to cover their repair costs but the value is unlikely to be such that I would need to use an insurance policy to do so.
As a society we really need to move away from this narrative of cars v. cyclists and reach a point where we can all share the roads.
The changes to the highway code mentioned in the OP are intended to be a step towards that as it recognises that those who pose the greatest danger have to take more responsibility for ensuring the safety of others but it is wholly reliant on everyone playing their part.
The changes to the highway code mentioned in the OP are intended to be a step towards that as it recognises that those who pose the greatest danger have to take more responsibility for ensuring the safety of others but it is wholly reliant on everyone playing their part.
Bjorn Toulouse
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2010
- Messages
- 168
- Reaction score
- 120
@ stu's brews
"a test" not so for motorcyclists we have to do 4, cbt, theory, part 1 and part 2.
The damage that fecker caused to my scoot £1000 plus new jeans and gloves.
"a test" not so for motorcyclists we have to do 4, cbt, theory, part 1 and part 2.
The damage that fecker caused to my scoot £1000 plus new jeans and gloves.
Can you honestly you've never ran a red light, or you've never been over the speed limit or never driven when you've had "one too many"? People break rules whether they're on bikes, in cars or walking on the street, and it's precisely why a revision to the highway code is needed.
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2019
- Messages
- 7,694
- Reaction score
- 10,275
Same old story you have bad drivers in every category. The biggest problem is everyone seems to be in a mad rush
Was in Liverpool at the weekend, watching the E-scooters and the boys that delivery the food on bikes is crazy.
Was in Liverpool at the weekend, watching the E-scooters and the boys that delivery the food on bikes is crazy.
Something I have noticed since moving away from the UK and I think could be a factor, is that cycling as a sport isn't really that big in the UK compared to France, Italy and Spain. I live in Spain and have ridden in France and Italy and the way cars treat you as a cyclist is noticeably different. Obviously I've had incidents with drivers but as a whole they are a lot more pacient and courteous with you. I think it's because they are more used to and also expect roads to have cyclists on them, especially in the summer when the pro cycling season is in full swing. Whereas back home there was definitely a "roads are for cars" attitude.
On breakfast tv this morning they said that a lawyer had given his 'legal' opinion on this particular interpretation of the new rules : 'You are driving a car around a roundabout. If you see a cyclist who intends to join the roundabout, the car driver should stop on the roundabout and give way to the cyclist joining.' Surely that cannot be safe and is ignoring all of the give way markings on the road??
Everyone needs to be aware of these new rules but there has been a complete lack of publicity over them and I think it will cause many accidents over the next 6 months before someone decides on a rethink.
I think we also need a lot of education for ALL road-users.
In the last 2 days I have nearly been involved in 2 accidents involving cyclists. The first on a country road (50mph speed limit). Cyclist was on the opposite side of the road and a van was behind him. The van decided to overtake the cyclist without slowing down just as I was passing the other way. There was not enough room for the overtake and I had to slow and swerve to let the van through. It would have hit either me or the cyclist if I hadn't.
In the second, similar country roads, I was approaching a T junction. A cyclist on a 'training run' (happens a lot around here) turned left onto my road but took such a large swing that he was completely on my side of the road when he turned the corner. Good job I was slowing for the junction.
Everyone needs to be aware of these new rules but there has been a complete lack of publicity over them and I think it will cause many accidents over the next 6 months before someone decides on a rethink.
I think we also need a lot of education for ALL road-users.
In the last 2 days I have nearly been involved in 2 accidents involving cyclists. The first on a country road (50mph speed limit). Cyclist was on the opposite side of the road and a van was behind him. The van decided to overtake the cyclist without slowing down just as I was passing the other way. There was not enough room for the overtake and I had to slow and swerve to let the van through. It would have hit either me or the cyclist if I hadn't.
In the second, similar country roads, I was approaching a T junction. A cyclist on a 'training run' (happens a lot around here) turned left onto my road but took such a large swing that he was completely on my side of the road when he turned the corner. Good job I was slowing for the junction.
And having done 4 tests can you confidently say that you know every single rule that is in the highway code and have never broken a single one of them? A lack of tests isn't the problem, people not adhering to the rules is the problem and that is true whether it is a pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist or a car/van/bus/truck driver. By your logic we should be making people do a test before they are allowed to walk across the road.
When I saw that line, I thought, "Oh, boy, here we go!" Then the post didn't turn out to be controversial, in my mind.
But you were right after all--clearly stepped on toes.
From day one, it was clear to me that cars and bicycles don't mix, if only because of the speeds they travel at. It's a forced, unnatural coexistence.
Our roads were clearly not designed with bicycles in mind but there's been much effort in the past two or three decades to accommodate them which is nice. Nevertheless, the solutions come up short because of what the designers have to work with--roads designed for just cars.
As I said before, dedicated paths need to be made for bicycles.
Our roads were clearly not designed with bicycles in mind but there's been much effort in the past two or three decades to accommodate them which is nice. Nevertheless, the solutions come up short because of what the designers have to work with--roads designed for just cars.
As I said before, dedicated paths need to be made for bicycles.
It is controversial because arguments like 'cyclists always jump red lights' and 'cyclists should have insurance' are regularly used by motorists to justify their beliefs that all cyclists are a nuisance.
The reason cyclists get so upset about it is that in the great scheme of things, cyclists pose almost no risk to a motorist but motorists pose a potentially fatal risk to cyclists. People driving round in cars with the belief that cyclists are a nuisance are often the same people that will perform a dangerous 'close pass' or some other risky manoeuvre.
allotment_fox
Regular.
I do Cycle and drive but being a car driver feel I have more of an insight Into things like blind spots where car drivers may not see me and I tend to be cautious in certain situations, on the other hand Mrs allotment_fox cycles but doesn't drive a car and seems more bold when it comes to road junctions and traffic lights. I'm not sure who's right or wrong but feel there has been little in the way of publicising these changes I only saw this on the news the other day
The poster originally said "a lot," not all, which you might agree is true.
He didn't see that he made the argument "cyclists always jump red lights" but was still implying that it's "a lot." And if I know humans, that's probably true. It seemed like a post of personal experiences.
If he had prefaced with "there are a lot of bad drivers of cars" would that be acceptable? We all know there are, again, because they're humans.
That's what I got from learning to ride a motorcycle. Now I drive a car like I'm driving my motorcycle. It's not fear but added knowledge.
I'd argue it is a minority rather than 'a lot' in the same way it is a minority of motorists that don't adhere to the rules.
Regardless of whether it is said as 'a lot' or 'all' my points about such comments being used as justification for people's bias towards cyclists still stand. They are the same old arguments that you see time and time again.
There are 'bad' cyclists just as much as there are 'bad' motorists, but only one has the potential to cause a fatal injury to the other. That is why the highway code is being updated in an attempt to offer more protection to vulnerable road users.
