Guardian article on another "road tax" myth

[400bhp]

Well, a large chunk of my profession price and rate such products. From my knowledge of the insurance industry you're unlikely to be correct. Lets leave it at that as I won't be drawn into a discussion on economics of the insurance industry.

 

[rich p]

Well, a large chunk of my profession price and rate such products. From my knowledge of the insurance industry you're unlikely to be correct. Lets leave it at that as I won't be drawn into a discussion on economics of the insurance industry.

Let (apostrophe)s

 

[benborp]

My recent experience of cycling insurance cover shows how few 'at fault' demands cyclists place on the insurance industry. I'm with British Cycling, which I think at the moment covers about 40,000 cyclists, and was recently involved in an incident where someone wanted to make a claim of £360 against me. I notified BC, they put me in contact with their brokers and I in turn filled in the forms and sent them off. After a couple of weeks I decided to call the brokers and make sure everything was running smoothly (I had included video of the incident and wanted to know if they had been able to get access to it). Without me giving a reference number, name, BC membership number or any description of the incident the claims handler was able to pull all the details up and crosscheck them with me. Those 40,000 cyclists are a long way from keeping anyone busy settling claims made upon them.
This experience also underlined that from an individual cyclist's point of view Insurance is a no brainer. As Twanger said, it is worth it just to hand over the responsibility to a company that has the experience and resources to deal with any claim. Even if all they do is laugh and say no they do it far more effectively than an individual ever could.*
An individual cyclist would be less effectively represented by the insurance industry though if cover became obligatory for all cyclists. The change in the balance of risks and the introduction of the infrastructure necessary to administer the insurance of tens of millions rather than tens of thousands would lead to a far less flexible approach to the settlement of claims.

*The driver in my incident lost his nearside wing mirror while overtaking. BMW wing mirrors apparently cost £360. The owner of the car knows this because she had only just had it replaced. Don't let any of this allow you to form or reinforce any stereotype of any roaduser. Even those that had to move out of their own lane and into the bus lane before they managed to clip the cyclist.

 

[hotfuzzrj]

When I saw the OP I thought it rang a bell, I'd seen a similar headline in the Metro today (not mine, promise!)
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/882297-irresponsible-cyclists-should-pay-road-tax-say-quarter-of-drivers

I like the differentiation of "irresponsible" cyclists; I'm a trained driver (further than most) and perhaps because of that I cycle extremely considerately, so I get really annoyed with other cyclists RLJing, needlessly swerving all over the road when they're not turning etc

Today I saw a cyclist in Birmingham city centre walking through a pedestrian area pushing his bike and I felt a small bloom of happiness that not all cyclists are jerks, only to see him get to the road and cycle down it the wrong way! No wonder we get stick sometimes!

Also, I wonder how many of the 1 in 8 cyclists who have been knocked off their bikes have been in all black with no lights?
I cycle lit up like a florie Christmas tree and (touch wood) haven't even come close. I hope I'm not making a sweeping generalisation and apologies to well lit cyclists who have still been crushed or mangled :-(

 

[marinyork]

Well, a large chunk of my profession price and rate such products. From my knowledge of the insurance industry you're unlikely to be correct. Lets leave it at that as I won't be drawn into a discussion on economics of the insurance industry.

I tend to take the view that quoting ones profession is a total waste of time unless you can come up with the 'goods' in a discussion. I also take a dim view on people that claim 'specialist' knowledge that is somehow out of the reach of the brain power of other people. Your vague and generic answers tend to suggest that you don't know anything more about it than anyone else. So I ask you, what is unlikely to be correct? What is wrong about hypothesising in a logical sense about possible differences between special cases and a general case?

 

[CopperCyclist]

I'm still waiting for my first 'You don't pay road tax' shout. I've already had 'SMIDSY', 'Get off the road' shout and the 'Get on the road' shout too (while on a shared path). I just need the road tax, and 'get a car' for the full set.

 

[Twanger]

When I saw the OP I thought it rang a bell, I'd seen a similar headline in the Metro today (not mine, promise!)
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/882297-irresponsible-cyclists-should-pay-road-tax-say-quarter-of-drivers

I like the differentiation of "irresponsible" cyclists; I'm a trained driver (further than most) and perhaps because of that I cycle extremely considerately, so I get really annoyed with other cyclists RLJing, needlessly swerving all over the road when they're not turning etc

Today I saw a cyclist in Birmingham city centre walking through a pedestrian area pushing his bike and I felt a small bloom of happiness that not all cyclists are jerks, only to see him get to the road and cycle down it the wrong way! No wonder we get stick sometimes!

Also, I wonder how many of the 1 in 8 cyclists who have been knocked off their bikes have been in all black with no lights?
I cycle lit up like a florie Christmas tree and (touch wood) haven't even come close. I hope I'm not making a sweeping generalisation and apologies to well lit cyclists who have still been crushed or mangled :-(

The metro article is suggesting that all cyclists are irresponsible, not that only irresponsible cyclists should pay road tax. There is no differentiation.

Yes, it's the ninja's who get knocked off.

That was sarcasm, by teh way.

I have been knocked off my bike twice both times in broad daylight, both times from behind. Once by an idiot doing a u-turn in Southampton Row, and another time when I had to brake sharply to avoid a child on a tricycle suddenly shooting into the road...the car behind me didn't stop in time.

Perhaps the Metro is just run by cycle hating idiots?

 

[srw]

I tend to take the view that quoting ones profession is a total waste of time unless you can come up with the 'goods' in a discussion. I also take a dim view on people that claim 'specialist' knowledge that is somehow out of the reach of the brain power of other people. Your vague and generic answers tend to suggest that you don't know anything more about it than anyone else. So I ask you, what is unlikely to be correct? What is wrong about hypothesising in a logical sense about possible differences between special cases and a general case?

You want specifics? Here are specifics.

I don't know whether 400bhp and I share a profession (I suspect we do), but we almost certainly share an industry. I can see where (s)he is coming from, and (s)he is being vague and generic probably in order to preserve anonymity rather than to befuddle you - the comments are entirely logical and absolutely correct. I'm not quite so so sanguine, or so diplomatic.

400bhp's view is that the risk premium of insuring cyclists is so small (demonstrably so because the CTC and BC both offer insurance more-or-less for free as a part of membership) that compulsory insurance would be cheap because of competition. I suspect that compulsory insurance for bikes would become more like PPI cover than like motor cover - prices will go up because access to markets will be controlled by intermediaries and because admin costs would be astronomical relative to the risk premium. Very few insurance companies would be interested in writing the pence per policy that this cover would attract. Those that are would be happy to outsource most of the administration, and most of the profit, to an intermediary. Much of the premium would go in the frictional costs of marketing rather than to actually provide the cover.

 

[Mushroomgodmat]

"Out of the 1,000 questioned, 31 percent said they had been forced to swerve their vehicle because of a cyclist, 22 percent said their journeys had been delayed by a cyclist, while 30 percent reckoned they’d seen a cyclist go through a red light. 46 percent said they are sometimes annoyed by cyclists on the road"

Tragic and sad..

Heres my take....iv had to swerve many times, in car and cycle because of cars, I would say that every road journey iv EVER made has been delayed by other cars.

It's truly amazing that you can single out cyclists I'm this way.

As for jumping red lights...yes, everyone who does it (cycle/car/horse) should obey the laws of the road. But that's the only criticism I think is valid.

 

[benb]

Perhaps the Metro is just run by cycle hating idiots?

FTFY

 

[400bhp]

I tend to take the view that quoting ones profession is a total waste of time unless you can come up with the 'goods' in a discussion. I also take a dim view on people that claim 'specialist' knowledge that is somehow out of the reach of the brain power of other people. Your vague and generic answers tend to suggest that you don't know anything more about it than anyone else. So I ask you, what is unlikely to be correct? What is wrong about hypothesising in a logical sense about possible differences between special cases and a general case?

Sir, your initial quote of my post intimated to me that you had a poor grasp of the subject in hand. In isolation that is fine and I will gladly share my knowledge with people when I understand something and they don't. What I will not do is share my knowledge with someone who won't listen. Your initial quote of my post and your post above had quite an agressive/dismissive tone and my thoughts were that whatever I posted would have been (incorrectly/unfairly) dismissed and would end up in several long replies that in the end serve little purpose.

Perhaps I have misunderstood your post and that would not be the way you would have reacted to a longer, drawn out explanation.

 

[Jezston]

Perhaps the Metro is just run by cycle hating idiots?

Daily Mail innit.

Metro pissed me off one too many times when it kept referring in the past tense to mostly peaceful protests as 'riots' and would at least twice a week print a prominent story that had been delivered to them by the Taxavoiders Alliance. It's gradually just turning into the Daily Mail Mini.

I find reading the BBC and other paper's websites on my phone a far better use of my time.

 

[twowheelsgood]

We have compulsory 3rd party cycle insurance here in Switzerland (the equivalent of about a fiver for up to 15 months). It really isn't worth the cost of administering it. Apparently the net worth is about 90p due to the very low risk cyclists actually pose.

 

[srw]

We have compulsory 3rd party cycle insurance here in Switzerland (the equivalent of about a fiver for up to 15 months). It really isn't worth the cost of administering it. Apparently the net worth is about 90p due to the very low risk cyclists actually pose.

That's interesting - I didn't know that. 90p sounds about right for the true risk premium.

Switzerland's insurance market is dominated by tied agents (i.e. sales reps "belonging" to specific companies), so distribution costs tend to be pretty low - because companies don't need to waste money competing with each other to sell 90p's worth of business. Even so, there's a mark-up of about 5 times.

 

[Nortones2]

The "road tax" farce has been aired on this site: http://conversation.which.co.uk/transport-travel/cyclists-pay-road-tax-compulsory-cycling-tests/
I'm glad to say that the thesis has been comprehensively shot down. Not that logic would play a part in changing some drivers beliefs.