On 28 Jun, 13:00, NM  wrote:
> On 28 Jun, 09:14, David Hansen 
> wrote:
>
> > I have no move to make. You may wish to brush up on the issues of
> > taxation and spending before making another comment.
>
> Nevertheless you are incorrect, the 'tax disc' is a permit to use the
> roads, cyclists use the rooads and extra facilities provided for them
> without any additional taxation falling on them for this usage, this
> is the inequality I would like to see addressed. Tax and insurance for
> cycles should be mandatory also some type of competence test.
>
> Dutch manage it with their bromfiets.


Absolutely.

I would also like to see a penalty points system applied to cyclists
with three points for a minor offence, and greater numbers of points
for more serious offences, leading to loss of licence after 12 points,
as with other road users.  The cycle should also carry licence plates
so offences can be reported to the police and the offenders brought to
justice.  As with other road vehicles, there should be a
roadworthiness test once a year after the bicycle reaches three years
old.  The "bicycle MOT test" database could be linked to an insurance
database to confirm that a cyclist has insurance and MOT before
obtaining a licence to use the bicycle on public rights of way (not
just roads) or any areas of land that have public access.

Cracking down on anti-social cyclists will make life far more pleasant
for other road users, especially including pedestrians, and of course
the majority of cyclists who are law-abiding.

The licence fees should all be ploughed back into cycling, giving
something back for the money spent.  This could include reducing the
rate of VAT on bicycles, bike clothing, bike accessories, tyres,
spares and repairs from 17.5% to 5%.  Schemes could be introduced that
offer lighting sets at cut prices, buying in bulk and selling at
cost.  This, coupled with the threat of prosecution, would do a lot to
reduce the scourge of cyclists who cycle at night without lights.  The
whole scheme should be revenue neutral.  Manufacturers could be
compelled to stamp identification numbers on every cycle and these
could be held on a central database.with the licence plate numbers so
stolen bikes could quickly be identified.

As long as cyclists pay nothing to use public rights of way, and a
small but extremely antisocial element among cyclists are allowed to
make life very unpleasant for other users of those rights of way,
there will be great resentment towards cyclists.  If their act can be
cleaned up by the measures I and others have suggested, cycling can
shed its antisocial image and be seen as the environmentally sound
alternative to using fossil-fuelled road vehicles that it undoubtedly
is.

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:03:39 +0100, nik.morgan
 wrote:

>> Almost all cyclists are insured for third party risk by way of their
>> home insurance - just as almost all pedestrians are.  It's normally a
>> tucked away clause, but it does exist.
>
>Sorry you are wrong (in most policies) the cycle is covered whilst in the 
>home and being transported but NOT for third party risks whilst being used as 
>transport.

No, you're confusing 'pedal cycle insurance', which does work as you
say, with 'public liability insurance', that operates in most home
contents insurance policies to protect 'the family' against liability
to 'the public' for negligence.  

To quote from my own policy:
"Your legal liability in a personal capacity, for an accident causing
bodily injury to or illness of any person or loss of or damage to
property. We will pay up to £2,000,000 inclusive of costs"

There is an exclusion of
"Use or ownership of Motorised Vehicles, caravans, trailers, aircraft
(other than toys or models), boats, boards and craft designed to be
used on or in water"

But nothing in there about pedal cycles, so it covers me if I injure
someone negligently while riding my bike.

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:42:50 +0100 someone who may be G
 wrote this:-

>No, you're confusing 'pedal cycle insurance', which does work as you
>say, with 'public liability insurance', that operates in most home
>contents insurance policies to protect 'the family' against liability
>to 'the public' for negligence.  

You are confusing the usual suspects with facts. They won't like it.



-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:42:50 +0100, G wrote
(in article ):

> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:03:39 +0100, nik.morgan
>  wrote:
> 
>>> Almost all cyclists are insured for third party risk by way of their
>>> home insurance - just as almost all pedestrians are.  It's normally a
>>> tucked away clause, but it does exist.
>> 
>> Sorry you are wrong (in most policies) the cycle is covered whilst in the 
>> home and being transported but NOT for third party risks whilst being used 
>> as 
>> transport.
> 
> No, you're confusing 'pedal cycle insurance', which does work as you
> say, with 'public liability insurance', that operates in most home
> contents insurance policies to protect 'the family' against liability
> to 'the public' for negligence.  
> 
> To quote from my own policy:
> "Your legal liability in a personal capacity, for an accident causing
> bodily injury to or illness of any person or loss of or damage to
> property. We will pay up to £2,000,000 inclusive of costs"
> 
> There is an exclusion of
> "Use or ownership of Motorised Vehicles, caravans, trailers, aircraft
> (other than toys or models), boats, boards and craft designed to be
> used on or in water"
> 
> But nothing in there about pedal cycles, so it covers me if I injure
> someone negligently while riding my bike.
> 

Then good luck if you try to claim, this has previously been discussed to 
death on UK Transport, whilst some policies may cover, the majority don't but 
it's a handy little smokescreen useful for cyclists to hide behind.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 13:15:52 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ):

> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:42:50 +0100 someone who may be G
>  wrote this:-
> 
>> No, you're confusing 'pedal cycle insurance', which does work as you
>> say, with 'public liability insurance', that operates in most home
>> contents insurance policies to protect 'the family' against liability
>> to 'the public' for negligence.  
> 
> You are confusing the usual suspects with facts. They won't like it.
> 

There are facts and beliefs, you seem to have trouble making the 
distinction.NM

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:22:57 +0100, nik.morgan
 wrote:

>There are facts and beliefs, you seem to have trouble making the 
>distinction.

And it is a fact that most home insurance policies cover you against
legal liability for injury or property damage caused while riding a
bicycle.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On 29 Jun, 23:27, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
wrote:
> And it is a fact that most home insurance policies cover you against
> legal liability for injury or property damage caused while riding a
> bicycle.

.....In places where it is legal to do so, which doesn't include
pavements that aren't designated cycle paths in any way.

Same as your car insurance. Try making a claim, saying you knocked
someone over on the footpath!

They'll laugh you into court......

Chris wrote:
> On 29 Jun, 23:27, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
> wrote:
>> And it is a fact that most home insurance policies cover you against
>> legal liability for injury or property damage caused while riding a
>> bicycle.
> 
> .....In places where it is legal to do so, which doesn't include
> pavements that aren't designated cycle paths in any way.
> 
> Same as your car insurance. Try making a claim, saying you knocked
> someone over on the footpath!
> 
> They'll laugh you into court......

Surely your insurance company would have to pay out to the 
unfortunate pedestrian?

Charlie

wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 23:56:08 +0100, Tony Polson
> wrote:
>
>>And my suggestions allow *anyone* to identify and report a miscreant
>>cyclist, not just a police(wo)man or PCSO.  
>
>This is true, though the police wouldn't be able to do much about odd
>one-off reports, as these would be one person's word against
>another's.
>
>If there are lots of reports about one person, OTOH...


Precisely.  The people we are talking about don't commit one single
offence, they regularly flout the law.

On 30 Jun, 10:46, Charlie Hulme  wrote:
> > Same as your car insurance. Try making a claim, saying you knocked
> > someone over on the footpath!
>
> > They'll laugh you into court......
>
> Surely your insurance company would have to pay out to the
> unfortunate pedestrian?

Only if you can prove that you weren't on the pavement
deliberately.....if they can show that you were on the footpath under
your own free will, they will not pay!

Chris wrote:
> On 30 Jun, 10:46, Charlie Hulme  wrote:
>>> Same as your car insurance. Try making a claim, saying you knocked
>>> someone over on the footpath!
>>> They'll laugh you into court......
>> Surely your insurance company would have to pay out to the
>> unfortunate pedestrian?
> 
> Only if you can prove that you weren't on the pavement
> deliberately.....if they can show that you were on the footpath under
> your own free will, they will not pay!

Remarkable. Does this apply to other rules as well? If I am
knocked down by an impoverished but insured motorist going
at 40 in a 30 mph area, his insurance company will not pay
me any damages?

Charlie

Tony Polson wrote:

> 
> The people we are talking about don't commit one single
> offence, they regularly flout the law.  
> 

But of course they would always scrupulously pay their 
registration fees, and never dream of using a false number 
plate to flout the law requiring registration.

Charlie

On Jun 30, 12:00�pm, Charlie Hulme 
wrote:
> Chris wrote:
> > On 30 Jun, 10:46, Charlie Hulme  wrote:
> >>> Same as your car insurance. Try making a claim, saying you knocked
> >>> someone over on the footpath!
> >>> They'll laugh you into court......
> >> Surely your insurance company would have to pay out to the
> >> unfortunate pedestrian?
>
> > Only if you can prove that you weren't on the pavement
> > deliberately.....if they can show that you were on the footpath under
> > your own free will, they will not pay!
>
> Remarkable. Does this apply to other rules as well? If I am
> knocked down by an impoverished but insured motorist going
> at 40 in a 30 mph area, his insurance company will not pay
> me any damages?

Motor insurance is different in that third party insurance is
compulsory.  If the motorist is insured the company HAS to pay out but
they retain the option to sue the motorist privately to get their
money back.  If he is not insured the Bureau of Motor Insurers (or
some similar name) have a scheme to cover it, which all the honest
motorists pay for through increased premiums.  Again they retain the
option to sue the motorist privately to get their money back but the
important thing is that the innocent party gets compensation.
Remember however, that this is third party RTAct only, ie personal
injury not property.

George

On 30 Jun, 12:00, Charlie Hulme  wrote:
> > Only if you can prove that you weren't on the pavement
> > deliberately.....if they can show that you were on the footpath under
> > your own free will, they will not pay!
>
> Remarkable. Does this apply to other rules as well? If I am
> knocked down by an impoverished but insured motorist going
> at 40 in a 30 mph area, his insurance company will not pay
> me any damages?

If you are legally entitled to be there, they'll pay.

If you willingly break the law by using a footpath, or cause an
accident on a private road (unless the law has changed), they can
refuse.
But as stated elsewhere, the person you damage gets picked up by the
cover-all scheme instead. You, on the other hand, don't!

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 02:09:12 -0700 (PDT), Chris
 wrote:

>.....In places where it is legal to do so, which doesn't include
>pavements that aren't designated cycle paths in any way.

It doesn't specify that.

>Same as your car insurance.

The third-party element of car insurance does, and must, cover you for
your negligence, including if that negligence is contrary to the law.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

"furnessvale"  wrote
>
>Motor insurance is different in that third party insurance is
>compulsory.  If the motorist is insured the company HAS to pay out but
>they retain the option to sue the motorist privately to get their
>money back.  If he is not insured the Bureau of Motor Insurers (or
>some similar name) have a scheme to cover it, which all the honest
>motorists pay for through increased premiums.  Again they retain the
>option to sue the motorist privately to get their money back but the
>important thing is that the innocent party gets compensation.
>Remember however, that this is third party RTAct only, ie personal
>injury not property.

Compulsory motor insurance (and therefore the liability on the Motor
Insurers' Bureau to pay third party claims by victims of the negligence of
uninsured drivers) has been extended to property damage. There are
differences with their liability to pay out on personal injury claims -
first there is a minimum value threshold (e.g. they won't pay if the
driver's negligence amounts to driving through surface water on the road, so
that you get splashed to an extent that ruins your clothes, but does not do
you any personal injury), and second they won't pay out on property damage
caused by an unidentified hit-snd-run driver, but they have to pay out on
personal injury caused in these circumstances.

Peter

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:16:13 +0100, Arthur Figgis
<afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote:

>Tony Polson wrote:
>> wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:
>>> And I, as a cyclist who does not ride on the pavement, through red
>>> traffic lights etc, would prefer that cost to be paid by those who
>>> infringe the law[1], just as happens with pedestrians.  There needs to
>>> be strict enforcement and hefty fines set at a level to cover the cost
>>> of the enforcement.
>> 
>> 
>> Employing sufficient Police and PCSOs to enforce the law would cost
>> many times more than what I have suggested.
>> 
>> And my suggestions allow *anyone* to identify and report a miscreant
>> cyclist, not just a police(wo)man or PCSO.  
>
>"We've been tipped-off that bike P01 s0n was seen in the High Street 
>with a muddy reflector last week. It's a free trip to Cuba for you, 
>sunshine."
>
>It's not going to happen, is it?
>
No, it'll be a couple of hours community service.

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 00:06:21 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote
(in article ):

> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:16:13 +0100, Arthur Figgis
> <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Tony Polson wrote:
>>> wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:
>>>> And I, as a cyclist who does not ride on the pavement, through red
>>>> traffic lights etc, would prefer that cost to be paid by those who
>>>> infringe the law[1], just as happens with pedestrians.  There needs to
>>>> be strict enforcement and hefty fines set at a level to cover the cost
>>>> of the enforcement.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Employing sufficient Police and PCSOs to enforce the law would cost
>>> many times more than what I have suggested.
>>> 
>>> And my suggestions allow *anyone* to identify and report a miscreant
>>> cyclist, not just a police(wo)man or PCSO.  
>> 
>> "We've been tipped-off that bike P01 s0n was seen in the High Street 
>> with a muddy reflector last week. It's a free trip to Cuba for you, 
>> sunshine."
>> 
>> It's not going to happen, is it?
>> 
> No, it'll be a couple of hours community service.


In NL it's spot fine, repeat offences is confiscation and crush. 
NM

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

nik.morgan wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 00:06:21 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote
> (in article ):
> 
>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:16:13 +0100, Arthur Figgis
>> <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Tony Polson wrote:
>>>> wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:
>>>>> And I, as a cyclist who does not ride on the pavement, through red
>>>>> traffic lights etc, would prefer that cost to be paid by those who
>>>>> infringe the law[1], just as happens with pedestrians.  There needs to
>>>>> be strict enforcement and hefty fines set at a level to cover the cost
>>>>> of the enforcement.
>>>>
>>>> Employing sufficient Police and PCSOs to enforce the law would cost
>>>> many times more than what I have suggested.
>>>>
>>>> And my suggestions allow *anyone* to identify and report a miscreant
>>>> cyclist, not just a police(wo)man or PCSO.  
>>> "We've been tipped-off that bike P01 s0n was seen in the High Street 
>>> with a muddy reflector last week. It's a free trip to Cuba for you, 
>>> sunshine."
>>>
>>> It's not going to happen, is it?
>>>
>> No, it'll be a couple of hours community service.
> 
> 
> In NL it's spot fine, repeat offences is confiscation and crush. 

And "*anyone*" (the requirement above) can issue these spot fines, can 
they? If they can, it would be wide open to abuse. If, as I rather 
suspect, there is more to it that you are letting on - perhaps only the 
officials can issue these fines, and anonymous accusations by random 
people would count for little in themselves - there is no need for 
registrations.

While I've not done a statistically valid survey, when I've been in the 
Netherlands I've noticed that cycling on the pavement seemed a lot more 
common than in Britain - over here it tends to be yoofs and people who 
are going to be a problem however they get about, in the Netherlands it 
was pretty much everyone.

Of course, it could actually be allowed there. If it was permitted in 
.uk it would solve the problem after a fashion, but would lead to 
cyclists being driven completely off the road - at the moment cyclists 
can at least point out the law to people who demand they go on the 
pavement so they are "out the way".

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:16:32 +0100, Arthur Figgis
<afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote:

>While I've not done a statistically valid survey, when I've been in the 
>Netherlands I've noticed that cycling on the pavement seemed a lot more 
>common than in Britain - over here it tends to be yoofs and people who 
>are going to be a problem however they get about, in the Netherlands it 
>was pretty much everyone.

That wasn't really my experience, more that one of the two pavements
on a given road was usually also a marked cycle path.  Not dissimilar,
really, to the situation in Milton Keynes.

But, yes, in the Netherlands bikes are certainly seen as an aid to
pedestrianism rather than a method of road transport.  It's one hell
of a lot more civilised than London - for all road users - as a
result.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Neil Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:16:32 +0100, Arthur Figgis
> <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> While I've not done a statistically valid survey, when I've been in the 
>> Netherlands I've noticed that cycling on the pavement seemed a lot more 
>> common than in Britain - over here it tends to be yoofs and people who 
>> are going to be a problem however they get about, in the Netherlands it 
>> was pretty much everyone.
> 
> That wasn't really my experience, more that one of the two pavements
> on a given road was usually also a marked cycle path.  Not dissimilar,
> really, to the situation in Milton Keynes.

I found navigating Utrecht on foot by night a bit hairy at first, with 
lots of bikes being ridden in ways which would upset lots of people here.

Admittedly in .uk instead of bikes it would be gangs of drunks and 
undesirables in most city centres, perhaps with the bikes replaced by 
cars with thumping stereos.

> But, yes, in the Netherlands bikes are certainly seen as an aid to
> pedestrianism rather than a method of road transport.  It's one hell
> of a lot more civilised than London - for all road users - as a
> result.

"more civilised than London" isn't the strongest recommendation!

The impression I got was that bikes are just simply a method of 
transport, rather than a "problem" to be solved, or a way for councils 
to tick the "tree-hugging" boxes.
-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

On 1 jul, 21:50, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:16:32 퍝, Arthur Figgis
>
> <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
> >While I've not done a statistically valid survey, when I've been in the
> >Netherlands I've noticed that cycling on the pavement seemed a lot more
> >common than in Britain - over here it tends to be yoofs and people who
> >are going to be a problem however they get about, in the Netherlands it
> >was pretty much everyone.
>
> That wasn't really my experience, more that one of the two pavements
> on a given road was usually also a marked cycle path.  Not dissimilar,
> really, to the situation in Milton Keynes.
>
> But, yes, in the Netherlands bikes are certainly seen as an aid to
> pedestrianism rather than a method of road transport.  It's one hell
> of a lot more civilised than London - for all road users - as a
> result.

I am in Amsterdam as I reply to this, the neighbourhood I am in at the
moment has just had barriers put up to stop cyclists riding on the
pavement, sort of chicane which requires dismounting to negociate. It
is illegal and woe betide one who causes an accident whilst so doing.

NM

On 5 Jul, 09:47, NM  wrote:
> I am in Amsterdam as I reply to this, the neighbourhood I am in at the
> moment has just had barriers put up to stop cyclists riding on the
> pavement,

Sort of like this?
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/June2008.htm

Tim.

On 5 jul, 16:01, "goo...@woodall.me.uk"  wrote:
> On 5 Jul, 09:47, NM  wrote:
>
> > I am in Amsterdam as I reply to this, the neighbourhood I am in at the
> > moment has just had barriers put up to stop cyclists riding on the
> > pavement,
>
> Sort of like this?http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/June2...
>

No, but you can see that years of thought and development went into to
UK version, well anyway as much as was needed, seeing that it will be
ignored anyway.

NM