Live blog: Sustrans launch major overhaul of National Cycle Network; “It’s just not true to say the cause of congestion is cyclists,” says Mayor of London + more

StuInNorway wrote:

Sadiq - what tosh, can't you see all those queues are queues of bikes ? All the cars have got home already as they are such space efficient vehicles, while the inneficient cycles are clogging up the roads. .  .  .  .  . Oh wait, I may have got those two means of transport transposed there. 
Increased numbers of vans, and particularly PHVs (whom oddly get their licence to operate in the city from Sadiq's TfL) don't help. 
Multiple "local collection points" across the central areas so people can collect parcels on their way to the tube home, and stopping the vast number of short stop/start runs by mainly diesel vans would be a big help. Offering incentives to the delivery firms to swap over to electric vans where they have to deliver in a stop/start cycle.  And cutting the numbers of PHVs in the centre would reduce queues and make cycling a lot less dangerous.  

Except that's not strictly true about the PHV licenses, there was a report earlier this year saying that there's a loophole in the law being exploited by PHV operators which allows them to get a license elsewhere (say, Luton), but then only ever operate in London.

alexb wrote:

Except that's not strictly true about the PHV licenses, there was a report earlier this year saying that there's a loophole in the law being exploited by PHV operators which allows them to get a license elsewhere (say, Luton), but then only ever operate in London.

Time to introduce proper controls on that then....  along the lines of foreign truckers coming into Norway, they are allowed 3 internal jobs within a week before they leave the country again, to stop companies flagging out their fleet to eastern Europe and paying them a pittance, and on the jobs within Norway they have to pay the Norwegian minimum wage (about 6x what the eastern europeans are on) 

scouser_andy wrote:

I work in the insurance industry and the first we heard of discounts for those who complete the bikeability course was when we read it in the press; the industry weren't consulted prior to the paper being published. Surely, asking the industry what could be done should have been the starting point?

Of course, ask insurers and they are bound to say 'We aren't paying for this,' aren't they?  Don't be fooled -- this is just their first shot in a negotiation.

But there will probably be a proper consultation, when the industry can have their say and you'll see how much public support there is for the idea. If enough people think it's worth taking the training to get the discount, it's more likely to happen, and the industry would be hard-pressed to argue against so many of their own customers. So they try to shoot it down before the idea gets established. Standard tactics.

If, to be fair, they do have a point, the government should waive insurance tax for people who have been trained. That is entirely in the government's hands.

brooksby wrote:

Quote:

in 2017 less than 0.1 per cent of motor claims involved cyclists, so it is hard to see how this could have any meaningful impact on premiums

Maybe not, but it might have a meaningful effect on general road safety...  But I guess "general road safety" isn't a monetised quantity that the ABI is interested in.

If it was the have an effect on general road safety ( I'm not arguing that it woudn't)  the Government should be paying for it as they are the ones who would be benefiting from it, not expect the insurance industry to pay for it, for ( as it turns out) no benefit to the industry.

marcswales wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Quote:

in 2017 less than 0.1 per cent of motor claims involved cyclists, so it is hard to see how this could have any meaningful impact on premiums

Maybe not, but it might have a meaningful effect on general road safety...  But I guess "general road safety" isn't a monetised quantity that the ABI is interested in.

If it was the have an effect on general road safety ( I'm not arguing that it woudn't)  the Government should be paying for it as they are the ones who would be benefiting from it, not expect the insurance industry to pay for it, for ( as it turns out) no benefit to the industry.

The Government's money is our money, from taxes.

So, if we want general road safety then we should pay for it as we would be the ones benefiting from it.  Rather than expecting the insurance industry to pay for it because they're the ones who would benefit (since they wouldn't have to pay out so many claims...?).

brooksby wrote:

Quote:

in 2017 less than 0.1 per cent of motor claims involved cyclists, so it is hard to see how this could have any meaningful impact on premiums

Maybe not, but it might have a meaningful effect on general road safety...  But I guess "general road safety" isn't a monetised quantity that the ABI is interested in.

It may not have much of an impact on insurance rates in general, but on a personal level, if you've taken the course you would presumably be a better driver, therefore avoid premium rate increases by avoiding accidents?