http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: "How can we make our roads safer for cyclists?" en Sun, 31 May 2026 13:26:04 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2771&page=2#post-29671 Wed, 20 Apr 2011 06:23:20 +0000 Dave 29671@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Yes, it's funny isn't it?</p> <p>You have to sue someone to get money out of them whether they are insured or not. The reason we have insurance to drive is that there's an unfortunately large number of serious incidents where payouts are stratospherically high.</p> <p>As it happens though, both of us are insured since our house insurance (as with most) includes third party cover. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2771&page=2#post-29669 Wed, 20 Apr 2011 06:10:37 +0000 Smudge 29669@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I only heard a little of the programme, but what I did hear sounded relatively balanced and sensible. As to third party insurance, no, not that I am aware of(!)</p> <p>I have to wonder, what risk is it exactly that I should be insured against? Any minor damage to other vehicles I'm sure could be successfully wrested from me via a small claims court, and any serious personal injury to a third party is statistically so unlikely as to be not worth insuring I'd have thought? (Unless you are an insurance company shareholder who smells some safe profit of course). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2771#post-29666 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 23:26:30 +0000 wee folding bike 29666@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><a href="http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4462" rel="nofollow">http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4462</a></p> <p><em>CTC Insurance<br /> CTC provides the following cover:</p> <p>All individual CTC members normally resident in the UK except Introductory Members are covered for third party claims made against them.</em> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2771#post-29665 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 23:17:33 +0000 gembo 29665@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>As a rule I do not ever listen to You and Yours (or The Archers, or Midweek with Livvy Purviss they make me want to puke). Filtered through my partner, I think it sounded quite annoying [actually it is always quite annoying] but if I am asked by my partner to ask this forum a question viz. Are we insured? (I'm not, except for theft, via my house), I am keen to oblige.</p> <p>I am getting the feeling that all we really need is someone with actuarial training to knock it into the long grass. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2771#post-29664 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 23:11:25 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 29664@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Didn't listen to it as I thought it would annoy me too much.... :P</p> <p>I'd actually LOVE someone to quantify the cost of (potentially insureable) damage by bikes and then compare it to both the actual insured damage caused by cars AND insureable, but not insured, damage caused by cars.</p> <p>But that would just be too easy to then win the argument.</p> <p>*off to work out how to do it* </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2771#post-29663 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 23:06:05 +0000 gembo 29663@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I am insured against theft on my household policy, and was aware of insurance as part of CTC, and indeed chose this thread as the likely progenitor. I did try suggesting to my partner that damage caused to cars by cyclists was negligible compared to the damage caused to cyclists by cars and that cyclists were human beings whereas cars were dangerous machines but she still asked me to ask the question of the forum viz. Are we insured (as I said, I'm not except for theft via my house)? The R4 prog was suggesting regular cyclists should be I take it? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2771#post-29661 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:55:04 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 29661@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Yip, if you have household insurance there's a strong possibility you're insured (I am). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2771#post-29660 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:53:27 +0000 chdot 29660@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"I'm not"</p> <p>Previous thread (<a href="http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2576#post-27823">this one</a>?) mentioned the fact that some people <em>are</em> insured through house policies (car too?) - plus things like CTC/BCF memberships. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2771#post-29659 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:50:32 +0000 gembo 29659@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Can't locate the thread but following the You and Yours programme today my partner has asked me to ask this forum how many of us are insured (I'm not) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2771#post-29648 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:36:18 +0000 kaputnik 29648@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I guess the reason that it's "nearly been sideswiped" is that it happens so often that I now just expect it's going to happen! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2771#post-29647 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:33:30 +0000 Min 29647@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"I'd like to see this enforced. I've lost count of the number of times I've nearly been sideswiped by vehicles making sudden and unsignalled pulls into the bus lane to pass a car in the lane ahead of them that has stopped or is slowing to turn right."</p> <p>Seconded. This happens in South Bridge every day too. They come almost/just past you then just drift across. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2771#post-29642 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:15:16 +0000 kaputnik 29642@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>From the Highway Code;</p> <p>"DO NOT overtake... ...if you would have to enter a lane reserved for buses, trams or cycles during its hours of operation "</p> <p>I'd like to see this enforced. I've lost count of the number of times I've nearly been sideswiped by vehicles making sudden and unsignalled pulls into the bus lane to pass a car in the lane ahead of them that has stopped or is slowing to turn right. It happens nearly every day at Murrayfield - where cars queue outside the bus stop to turn up the hill at Murrayfield Gardens. Happened this morning in fact, sleepy woman in a big black BWM fourbeefour thing. I was actually alongside her when she started moving over so it required a loud blast of "<strong>OI! MISSUS!</strong>" followed by pointing at the road and mouthing "it's a **** bus lane" to stop her maneouvre. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2771#post-29640 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 16:03:41 +0000 Smudge 29640@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Yup filtering, moving between two stationary or very slow moving queues of traffic or overtaking stationary traffic IMO.<br /> Used to be, in the words of a Police instructor I spoke with, "neither legal or illegal, just don't hit anything and you're ok"(!) However I believe the new wording in the highway code has clarified it to being legal.</p> <p>Of course iirc the Highway code advises drivers of stationary cars to watch for cyclists overtaking on either side... again, one for the lawyers, I'm not qualified to comment on that bit! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2771#post-29638 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:41:33 +0000 mgj 29638@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>It's the Fiscal in Scotland that decides on the charge that is taken to court, not the police.</p> <p>By filtering on a motorbike, I assume you mean overtaking on the right of stationary traffic within a lane(you used to be able to fail part of the test for not doing that...) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2771#post-29631 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:29:46 +0000 Smudge 29631@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Dunno, could be either, how's your glass looking? ;-)</p> <p>The sentencing works for Drink Driving because there is a clear and (relatively) simple rule to enforce. That combined with a campaign to change public opinion on the subject of drink driving from acceptable to pariah status has made the difference.<br /> Without an element of both it's unlikely to work, </p> <p>However that charge (death by dangerous driving) is only used even now when the case against is clear, and the key is in the charging, which is done by Policepeople who have to deal with the carnage daily, the sympathy vote only comes in at court and if the question is guilty or not, a mandatory sentence makes sentencing relatively easy for the judge.</p> <p>But i am no legal expert!! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2771#post-29628 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:54:16 +0000 Min 29628@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"@Min, I believe making a life ban mandatory for the most serious offence (death by dangerous driving) would work in the same way as the mandatory years ban for drink driving. Everyone knows you'll get it and therefore the majority have it in the back of their minds when they are presented with the choice."</p> <p>In principal this is a really good idea. In practise I think it would lead to even fewer convictions of death by dangerous driving than there are now since "everyone" would understand that the accused "needs" their car.<br /> (Pessimist or realist??) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2771#post-29621 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:48:01 +0000 Smudge 29621@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I filter on a bicycle the same way I would on a motorbike (but with smaller gaps viable!).<br /> I do however obey the traffic signals...</p> <p>I know that this sometimes upsets car drivers, however as I tell all my car driving friends,they have the option not to queue either, it's a simple deal, sit in a car in the dry going nowhere listening to the radio and burning expensive fuel, or don't queue but if it rains you get wet. Their choice... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2771#post-29610 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:26:44 +0000 DaveC 29610@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@chdot, I'm with the film maker on this one. I wait in turn instead of cuting up to the front. No wonder drivers get hacked off at cyclist riding to the front, and then through a red light! I keep my place in the queue and usually remain in the middle of the lane. It tells the drivers I'm there (instead of being on the inside and likely to be cut up) and that I'm adhearing to the rules and not running red lights. I can usually keep up with traffic as the lights turn green until 20mph and then slot into the LHS.</p> <p>Those chicains (sp?) are bad when we have the bike trailer, as we can't get trough. I've had to remove the children in the past and lift the trailer over! and this usually on Nat cycle routes. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2771#post-29597 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:22:27 +0000 chdot 29597@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>As just mentioned on the programme -</p> <p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H95pnjNVU8" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H95pnjNVU8</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2771#post-29595 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:17:54 +0000 Kim 29595@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I am all in favour of increasing <a href="http://www.kimharding.net/blog/?p=1638">fairness and liability on the roads</a>... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2771#post-29591 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:58:42 +0000 Smudge 29591@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Min, I believe making a life ban mandatory for the most serious offence (death by dangerous driving) would work in the same way as the mandatory years ban for drink driving. Everyone knows you'll get it and therefore the majority have it in the back of their minds when they are presented with the choice.</p> <p>@MGJ, they have to work better than "it was a momentary lapse that caused them to do something outrageous and kill someone" therefore "it could happen to anyone" and so a 4-5 year ban (at worst). I see that a lot more often than the already banned driving. For an already banned driver make it automatic that the car is crushed and a large minimum fine/jail sentence. After all, if an individual used a firearm in that way what punishment would we expect. there is <strong>NO</strong> difference. Despite the arguments to the contrary! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2771#post-29589 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:46:44 +0000 mgj 29589@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Lifetime bans dont work; how often do you see the killer driver is already banned for x years and is driving without license or insurance? Need to incorporate biometric smartcard into the ignition with a tach and a breathalyser? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2771#post-29588 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:45:24 +0000 chdot 29588@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"according to Flikr its Oxgangs"</p> <p>Yes, map location is accurate. First section of path by Braid Burn upstream from Braidburn Valley Park. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2771#post-29586 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:40:48 +0000 steveo 29586@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>Is that the lane beside the former guided busway?</em></p> <p>It looks like Balgreen but according to Flikr its Oxgangs. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2771#post-29583 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:27:35 +0000 Min 29583@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Liability - it's the only game in town."</p> <p>And</p> <p>"Lifetime bans for causing death with a motor vehicle."</p> <p>Serious question- given that there are already laws to deal with dangerous drivers and given that such drivers are almost never charged with them (instead getting lesser charges) and that even if they are the driver will undoubtedly get the minimum sentance available, would increasing available sentances or having strict liability actually make any difference "on the ground"? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2771#post-29576 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:51:49 +0000 wingpig 29576@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Is that the lane beside the former guided busway?<br /> No it isn't, not with that wee wall on the left. Hmm. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2771#post-29575 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:49:09 +0000 amir 29575@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Golly - that'd be hard to get through cycling - anyone tried? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2771#post-29570 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:41:41 +0000 chdot 29570@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Or maybe we just put fenced chicanes across the road"</p> <p>You mean like this? -</p> <p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/chdot/5630162811"><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5270/5630162811_2583f4cd9b.jpg"><br /> </a></p> <p>(Note the 'desire' line!) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2771#post-29568 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:28:06 +0000 kaputnik 29568@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I like the one that whenever there is a cyclist or pedestrian knocked down by a car, the road is closed to cars for xxx amount of time. Or maybe we just put fenced chicanes across the road that even the smallest cars have difficulty fitting through, and those with a long wheelbase have to get out and push through. That seems to be the way that they treat cyclists whenever they think they might be going to fast. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2771#post-29566 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:09:18 +0000 Smudge 29566@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Lifetime bans for causing death with a motor vehicle.</p> <p>Would help to get rid of the assumption that a licence is a right, would also reflect the reality that the victims family have lost them permanently. </p>