Random bloke says Grant Shapps stole his compulsory insurance for cyclists idea

Good point. Added bonus is that either a greater number of pedestrians would be killed by motor vehicles or that share of the total would increase by a tiny fraction. That would obviously lead to fewer complaints about road danger because people are used to this / "accidents happen" / it's inevitable if we want progress etc.

I like how they intone, "but enforcement has fallen" as if that's exclusive to cyclists.  Tell that to wtjs of this parish... (they won't be surprised).

I think they have a composite pic of the cyclists going across the (empty?) crossing. They accompany it with the shocking message that "Many of the cyclists were not wearing helmets as they tore along the busy road." (c Craig Hibbert)

To my eyes, many are wearing helmets and the way they are cycling and the bikes they are on seems to show not many "tearing" along. 

Whilst I don't condone going through a red, I suspect there was no actual danger caused at all otherwise the paper would have published the close calls. Instead they have to use language to stoke the outrage (as well as having to dredge up 4 stories over 6 years to show how dangerous all these cyclists are where other vehicles would have lots more stories to choose from.)

Yep, just looks like a composite photo of all the riders they saw going through the red light at the pedestrian crossing.

I don't condone it either, but if there are no pedestrians about, then it's not dangerous.

I can also see why it's tempting, as it gives the cyclist a bit of clear road ahead whilst motorised traffic is held at the lights.

There's a pedestrian crossing on a section of road near me that always seems to attract dodgy close passes when I'm trying to turn right. I'm sorely tempted to briefly stop the bike and press the beg button, so the lights turn red behind me and hold up the traffic. Allowing me a nice clear section of road to do the problematic right-turn a bit further up!

4 way junction below my old flat sees at least 30 motorists per hour jump the lights and that's counting only one road and nothing gets done about that. 

At least Peter Hitchens was more contemptible regarding our friend Shapp. Anyway. Do all these people not realise that many regular cyclists have a low opinion of those who flout the HC. 

I wonder as well who the two columnists would prefer to cross the road in front of. Cyclist weighing 80kg travelling at 16kph or a motor vehicle weighing 1.5tonnes travelling at 64kph. 

its silly season in so far as how they present it, and I definitely think some of the language theyve used there is outrageous.

but we have to recognise and accept that it is a thing in London more so than elsewhere imo, thats very noticeable as you walk around central London, and Im not talking about the ones who steal a few seconds or sit ahead of the line to get a head start, Im talking about the ones who just sail through red lights as if they arent there at all.

on one of my last visits to London, it got to the stage where the green man crossing would light up, but after youve had several near misses you still had to check no-one was coming through still, and you actually become nervous to trust crossing the road at all, there was one specifically near Holborn,on an electrically enhanced bike, they werent thinking of stopping, theres no way they could have stopped at the speed they were going anyway, and they went straight through a crossing that was green for pedestrians with people crossing, they had to cut the corner to miss them, had that individual collided with anyone, and its pure luck they didnt, thats potentially another Charlie Alliston case, because theres no way that e-bike was legal, let alone being ridden in a safe manner.

now Im not naive enough to think motorists never do this stuff either, theres a 4 way light junction near me that every change of lights, at least one vehicle ignores the red light, youd get way more than 26 in a hour if the authorities ever bothered doing something about it, but its a very specific junction that seems to be treated that way, whereas IME in central London its every traffic light junction, and I didnt see a single person on a bike stop for a single one, and I saw more than a few whose attitude was no better than the motorists we complain about daily.

but the consequences of that are when our politicians, who rarely leave the confines of London see the same things, and start the cogs in their brains whirring, they come up with ideas like Grant Shapps did as to them it becomes something they can fix.

Im not sure it can be fixed in London, unless the police do start cracking down on it heavily, but then we just get back to why are they blaming cyclists and not dealing with motorists thing again, and we get nowhere.

Your E-bike anecdote, they should be charged with Careless Driving because any e-bike tampered with to de-restrict speed cut off or travelling without pedeling is then classed as a motor vehicle. 

and Im sure in our sliding doors multiverse, the press would have naturally drawn their readers attention to that particular nuance.

the issue is red light jumping by people on bicycles is endemic in central London, its not a Daily Mail plot just to make cyclists look bad, its a real thing that happens alot, and is something we should acknowledge as such and not try to minimise as a but whatabout....

Because there is a depressing inevitability that decision makers will decide eventually something must & can be done about it, and that something ends up directly leading to the kind of language Shapps was using earlier in the week.

Why do angry non cyclists always assume that "cyclists" don't have insurance? I've had the accusation shouted at me more than once despite a) having third party liability cover, and b) doing nothing at the time that would in any way mean that cover would need to be utilised.

One assumes it must be that their view is that if something isn't mandatory then they themselves wouldn't bother, so that clearly frames their view of the world. Thank F*ck motor insurance is mandatory.....

 only after the Govt. have ensured that ALL motorised vehicles that should be insured ARE insured. There are far too many getting away with that and we all pay for the uninsured tossers in our own insurance premiums already

This is a very unlikely outcome when the police actually encourage people to evade MOT, insurance and VED by refusing to take action against them. PJ07 NFP has been enjoying carefree Lancashire motoring for 2 1/2 years without any of the tiresome over-regulation of hard-working motorists, and despite the actions of tell-tale cyclists

IanMK wrote:

I'm confused by this story. Where was the car parked at the time? How did it happen? Did someone see this kid? If no one saw it happen why would registration make any difference? How does he know the alleged culprit isn't insured? If someone has a photo why couldn't you put it on social media and track the culprit that way? Why does the media give airspace to illogical rants?

What do you think the chances are of the car being parked on the 'extended parking area beside the road' more commonly known as the 'pavement'?

giff77 wrote:

A tin of T -Cut and a rag would have buffed out a couple of scratches and taken less time than processing an insurance claim. 

TheBillder wrote:

giff77 wrote:

A tin of T -Cut and a rag would have buffed out a couple of scratches and taken less time than processing an insurance claim. 

A tap in the right place with a mallet by a decent panel beater and all those dents will pop out and she'll be as good as new. 
 

Actually knew a fella once who a could repair certain prangs in the above manner he was that skilled. Other dings needed a bit more time and attention. But it was amazing to watch him. He would hunker down and examin the car. Get up select a mallet and cloth. Walk back over and smack the offending panel and the dent would pop out. He would then give it a quick buff and hold out his hand for some cash. 

That's a fair point, but in this case, tackling the problem at source would be more prudent. Children should receive training on how to drink whilst cycling and perhaps the practice of parking delicate motor vehicles on public roads could be reviewed.

"He took his calls to Barrow and Furness MP Simon Fell after a child collided with his car while taking a drink on a push bike a few months ago, he said."

This is inline with countries such as Germany, there it is normal to take out third party insurance for everything. If you don't have insurance and cause damage then you still pay.

In Germany it is normal to take out insurance for anything! It is one of those peculiar national traits. My potential son-in-law is German and although he has been in the UK for over a decade, still hankers after his "insurances".