CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
"heaven forbid you hit an expensive Jaguar with out the financial ability to repay it, there are far more serious offences with far more trivial penalties which are actually in place to protect people."
Or kill or maim pedestrians or cyclists and have to pay for their care for the rest of their lives/compensation to their families.
That's why it's serious.
It is serious because you might do some serious damage to someone and then not be in a position to compensate them for their injury and the difficulties of their continuing life.
The laws to remind people not be in a position where they might injure someone are far more important in making sure that people are never in that position, they're just massively unreinforced because they're difficult, see above.
If you are seriously injured by a hit and run or an uninsured driver, firstly your initial care is met by the NHS secondly you can claim from MIB, who are funded by the insurance industry.
Well, if no-one had car insurance, the insurance industry wouldn't have any money to compensate those hit by drivers without insurance. Not to mention it makes claiming more bureaucratic and traumatic. And those without insurance cost those with insurance more. But keep making excuses for him if you want.
I really just want a transport minister who builds some damn cycle lanes.
Folk in public office must lead by example. A government minister even more so.
Personally I don't accept (not sure I believe or not) the mitigating circumstances
If he'd over claimed his expenses because the forms were incorrectly filled in by an underling, well it would still be his responsibility to check IMO.
I do think his position as transport minister, indeed minister for any portfolio, is now untenable.
But keep making excuses for him if you want.
Who's making excuses! you want to lynch someone go after folk speeding past schools or running over cyclists whilst texting. They're the actual dangerous drivers, the ones who're probably insured and more than likely to cause the maiming or death in the first place.
Stop killing people then worry about the bloody paper work!
Well, if no-one had car insurance,
if no one had horse no one would buy buggy whips, so what!
I'm not trying to lynch anyone. Just pointing out driving without insurance is reasonably serious, and as Transport Minister it's a pretty poor show.
No disagreement about stopping dangerous drivers!
If we was driving sober and carefully personally I don’t consider it that big a deal either insurance is just about money.
Unless you get hit by a gov type you can claim from the Motor insurance bureau uninsurance or untraced drivers, crown vehicles are exempt, also gov employees private cars exempt if they have blocked plates. The ones that do not appear on dvla or insurance companies data base only the police system.
My car was hit my gov type in 2012 with blocked plates, he also crashed in to another car on my street drunk.
The police refused to give his details to my insurance company.
I had a letter yesterday with them re instating my 13 years no claims as they closed the "case" but still no details or payment.
The only cars you can be hit by that legally are not covered by uninsured or untraced drivers fund are crown and those with blocked plate status typically government employees.
Well, if no-one had car insurance...
...drivers would drive a lot more carefully, knowing they had to bear the full costs in the event of a crash.
The government could compensate people for their injuries (this is what happens in New Zealand, where motor vehicle insurance is not mandatory).
To "help" drivers drive more safely, I would make it mandatory for a minimum insurance excess of say £2000 or 10% of your salary, whichever is the greater.
And that £2000+ has to be held by the insurance company up-front, as a retainer
His mitigating (and substantiated) circumstances are that he phoned his insurers to advise of the change of ownership, but the policy holder wasn't changed (as it wasn't flagged that only the policy holder could do that).
That strikes me as someone who endeavored to remain insured, but was let down by the call centre.
For this he should lose his position?
Given that he's made much better than usual noises with regard to active travel, I'd be loathe to bounce him for this. Of course, if he is just better at making the right noises than his predecessors, then certainly, swap him for another...
Robert
Just pointing out driving without insurance is reasonably serious, and as Transport Minister it's a pretty poor show.
I don't disagree its a shoddy example for someone in his position but as pointed out by Eddie, there are plenty of alternatives to fully comp car insurance its just that the current mandatory system is cheap for the government however only because of the disproportionate penalties to dissuade people from not taking out insurance and the ease of enforcement.
If driving without insurance was treated like Speeding many more people wouldn't bother just as many people don't really worry about the speed limit.
Ed1, my experience is of the MOD, who didn't insure vehicles as the government underwrote everything. 17 year olds driving HGVs wouldn't get insured by a civvy insurer, not to mention the monumental cost of insuring 100s of thousands of drivers, so it seemed sensible. And I've never heard of the MOD or other government department not paying out, although you seem to have an unfortunate experience.
I don't know what you mean by 'blocked plates'. As a member of the RAF I certainly needed insurance for my car!
I'm not going to join any HY media or politicking witchhunt - he has grown on me somewhat in his short (so far) tenure.
But I would point out that his excuse of "I believed I was in possession of fully comprehensive insurance, not just for my own car, and as such that I was insured to drive vehicles other than my own" is nonsense. Modern day policies increasingly don't include this cover (https://www.confused.com/motor-insurance/your-cover/driving-other-cars-on-your-car-insurance), and it's ridiculous that it's a Minister of the state (who one would hope should be good at details stuff)trotting this urban myth out rather than White Van Man down the pub.
Ed1 - Government employees need motor insurance, the same as everyone else. I guess there may be a tiny number of vehicles used in very particular circumstances (undercover police surveillance, security service, members of the royal family) where driver details may not be passed on. However, it wouldn't make any sense to draw attention to these vehicles - so I imagine the Government would just cough up.
My understanding of how my employer's fleet insurance policy works is that the details I give out are simply of a claims handling company and any successful claims against the fleet policy are paid out (via the 'insurance company') from an internal self insurance budget.
The reason given being the fleet pool is so huge there's no advantage to insuring in the domestic sense where you are just entering into a large pool of shared risk.
Yep - put up a bond of £500k and you don't need insurance.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/section_144_road_traffic_act_198?unfold=1
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts