Originally Posted by The PNP

A) Many cyclists pay Council Tax, which is used towards road schemes for motor vehicles. Not to mention also paying for gritting waggons, which never treat cycle-paths. How fair is that?

B) Insurance is only required at time of renewing VED. What guarantee do cyclists have, that the car knocking them off, has continued to be insured? There are fyi, over a million uninsured drivers out there (according to Churchill Ins).

Ridiculous comment, insurance is required for a vehicle at all times. The ONLY exception to this is if the vehicle is declared off road, and has a valid SORN certificate.

Originally Posted by justbecause

Ridiculous comment, insurance is required for a vehicle at all times. The ONLY exception to this is if the vehicle is declared off road, and has a valid SORN certificate.

Disagree.....Many motorists set up direct debit payments, i.e. pay their premiums in 12 instalments over the year. It's not uncommon for a payment to 'bounce', which voids their policy and leaves them (intentionally or otherwise) uninsured for the rest of the year. It's a flawed arrangement, wide open to abuse and which should imo be scrapped. Btw, I always pay 'up front', precisely to avoid the possibility of ever losing cover.

G

Originally Posted by The PNP

Disagree.....Many motorists set up direct debit payments, i.e. pay their premiums in 12 instalments over the year. It's not uncommon for a payment to 'bounce', which voids their policy and leaves them (intentionally or otherwise) uninsured for the rest of the year. It's a flawed arrangement, wide open to abuse and which should imo be scrapped. Btw, I always pay 'up front', precisely to avoid the possibility of ever losing cover.

It doesn’t alter the fact that insurance cover is required at all times. Whether drivers choose to have a policy in force is an entirely different matter.

Originally Posted by The PNP

Disagree.....Many motorists set up direct debit payments, i.e. pay their premiums in 12 instalments over the year. It's not uncommon for a payment to 'bounce', which voids their policy and leaves them (intentionally or otherwise) uninsured for the rest of the year. It's a flawed arrangement, wide open to abuse and which should imo be scrapped. Btw, I always pay 'up front', precisely to avoid the possibility of ever losing cover.

You can disagree to your hearts content, Drivers require to have their vehicle insured, full stop!

If they don't, they commit the offence of driving without insurance, with a starting point of 6 points and an unlimited fine.

Originally Posted by Sap33

You can disagree to your hearts content, Drivers require to have their vehicle insured, full stop!

If they don't, they commit the offence of driving without insurance, with a starting point of 6 points and an unlimited fine.

That may well be so, yet there's plenty at it....According to Churchill Insurance, shamefully there are over one million uninsured motorists on our roads!

Originally Posted by r4dent

A far better guarantee that someone knocked over by a cyclist!
Uninsured vehicles can, and are, be detected by mobile ANPR in Police vehicles, uninsured cyclists can't.

Figures published by the Department for Transport (DfT) show that 531 people were involved in collisions with cyclists in 2017, up by 15 per cent in 12 months. The accident rate was higher than at any time since at least 2013 when the statistics were first published. More than 120 pedestrians were seriously hurt in collisions with bikes last year and three were killed.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c...ians-xtpmlxn6r

Very few cyclist are insured, but the consequences can be severe.
"Cyclist settles case for £30,000 after hitting pedestrian "
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020...oking-at-phone

While the statistics are there, it doesn't actually give any idea of who was at fault. I've lost count of the amount of people who have stepped out in front of me, when I've been out on my bike, as they're often too engrossed in other things (phones like that mentioned in your Guardian link) It's the same for drivers agreed, but it tends to happen to me more on my bike.

Based on that story from the Guardian, the cyclist failed to put a claim in against the pedestrian as both parties were classed as equally to blame. As the consequences would have been as equally severe for the pedestrian had the cyclist claimed, does that mean you recommend that pedestrians need insurance as well?

Originally Posted by The PNP

That may well be so, yet there's plenty at it....According to Churchill Insurance, shamefully there are over one million uninsured motorists on our roads!

Well done, you can read the Churchill figures, but you can't seem to grasp that regardless of whether people do it or not, IT IS AN OFFENCE!!!

Originally Posted by Sap33

Well done, you can read the Churchill figures, but you can't seem to grasp that regardless of whether people do it or not, IT IS AN OFFENCE!!!

Yes it is an offence, and I never claimed otherwise....But I did claim it was easy to sign up for a years ins, in order to re-tax a car - then simply default on the subsequent ins instalments. Imo, it's an obvious loophole that urgently needs closing.

Originally Posted by The PNP

Yes it is an offence, and I never claimed otherwise....But I did claim it was easy to sign up for a years ins, in order to re-tax a car - then simply default on the subsequent ins instalments. Imo, it's an obvious loophole that urgently needs closing.

You may not have claimed otherwise, but the fact is you seem to 'disagree' with everyone who points out that it is an offence!

Since there's no longer a requirement to have a 'tax disc', no one takes out insurance just to 'tax' a car, there's simply no need as both offences would flag up on ANPR.

Your idea of a 'loophole' needing to be closed in relation to instalments for car insurance, is quite possibly one of the most ridiculous ideas I've heard! Trying to find the full premium in one go, would more than likely mean even less insured drivers. New drivers face premiums well in excess of £1000, having just paid for lessons/tests etc how do you realistically expect someone to find it, without the option of instalments?

Out of curiosity, do you deliberately go out of your way to irritate cyclists (like myself) as well as motorists, so you come across as impartial?

Originally Posted by Sap33

A) Since there's no longer a requirement to have a 'tax disc', no one takes out insurance just to 'tax' a car, there's simply no need as both offences would flag up on ANPR.

B) Your idea of a 'loophole' needing to be closed in relation to instalments for car insurance, is quite possibly one of the most ridiculous ideas I've heard! Trying to find the full premium in one go, would more than likely mean even less insured drivers. New drivers face premiums well in excess of £1000, having just paid for lessons/tests etc how do you realistically expect someone to find it, without the option of instalments?

C) Out of curiosity, do you deliberately go out of your way to irritate cyclists (like myself) as well as motorists, so you come across as impartial?

A) The 'tax disc' was never completely foolproof. Being sometimes the subject of falsification, either by cutting out/altering the date, soaking it in brake fluid, obscuring part of it - or was simply stolen from another vehicle.....It wouldn't surprise me, if the majority of Churchills milliion+ uninsured, were also VED cheats!

B) At the very least, ins co's computers should be automatically required to check with the DVLA database, when the ins instalments go out each month. But I can't see it happening anytime soon. As it wouldn't be a surprise to find that policy claims are void, for a vehicle with lapsed VED.

C) I drive and cycle, so see issues from both sides. As for clearing cycle-paths of snow, they do it in NL, so why not here? Claiming to want more bike usage, yet leaving riders floundering on snowy paths, is typical of those here at the top!

Originally Posted by The PNP

A) The 'tax disc' was never completely foolproof. Being sometimes the subject of falsification, either by cutting out/altering the date, soaking it in brake fluid, obscuring part of it - or was simply stolen from another vehicle.....It wouldn't surprise me, if the majority of Churchills milliion+ uninsured, were also VED cheats!

B) At the very least, ins co's computers should be automatically required to check with the DVLA database, when the ins instalments go out each month. But I can't see it happening anytime soon. As it wouldn't be a surprise to find that policy claims are void, for a vehicle with lapsed VED.

C) I drive and cycle, so see issues from both sides. As for clearing cycle-paths of snow, they do it in NL, so why not here? Claiming to want more bike usage, yet leaving riders floundering on snowy paths, is typical of those here at the top!

A) Have you considered ever moving into Politics? You twist a point and then make a totally irrelevant comment! Who cares whether tax discs/veal’s were easy to deface, that’s not the point! The point made was no one needs to tax a car to get a VEL!

B) There is an insurance database, which all insurers have to update by law. The Police have access to this and it is one of the databases that the Police ANPR references. The insurers update this as soon as soon as a default notice is served. It’s been in place for over 15 years, so you ‘won’t see it happening anytime soon’ as it happened quite a while ago.

C) back to point A, don’t turn things around, take it on board! I am a keen cyclist and all I see on here is how you seem to want to antagonise motorists so they turn against cyclists. Out of curiosity why did you bring up clearing g snow from cycle paths? I haven’t had an issue with snow on any of Sefton’s cycle paths in over 10 years! Feel free to show me evidence of any cyclists in Sefton having ‘floundering on a Snowy path!

Originally Posted by Sap33

A) Have you considered ever moving into Politics? You twist a point and then make a totally irrelevant comment! Who cares whether tax discs/veal’s were easy to deface, that’s not the point! The point made was no one needs to tax a car to get a VEL!

B) There is an insurance database, which all insurers have to update by law. The Police have access to this and it is one of the databases that the Police ANPR references. The insurers update this as soon as soon as a default notice is served. It’s been in place for over 15 years, so you ‘won’t see it happening anytime soon’ as it happened quite a while ago.

C) back to point A, don’t turn things around, take it on board! I am a keen cyclist and all I see on here is how you seem to want to antagonise motorists so they turn against cyclists. Out of curiosity why did you bring up clearing g snow from cycle paths? I haven’t had an issue with snow on any of Sefton’s cycle paths in over 10 years! Feel free to show me evidence of any cyclists in Sefton having ‘floundering on a Snowy path!

A) No, I doubt I'd cut it as a politician. Btw, what is a 'VEL?'.

B) Yes I'm aware of the police database/ins co link. What I said was, that the ins co's don't check to see if a vehicle continues to be 'taxed'.

C) Having, as a cyclist, had a bellyful of motorists cavalier behaviour, I am 'happy' to highlight it. The alternative, of remaining silent about it for fear of antagonising motorists, never did any good and is imo not the way to go.

This thread's about forecast snow, hence why I mention it re cycle paths. The lack of preparedness from Councils to treat and clear these paths is a disgrace - it's time they got equipped.....inc for yellow snow!

Originally Posted by The PNP

A) No, I doubt I'd cut it as a politician. Btw, what is a 'VEL?'.

B) Yes I'm aware of the police database/ins co link. What I said was, that the ins co's don't check to see if a vehicle continues to be 'taxed'.

C) Having, as a cyclist, had a bellyful of motorists cavalier behaviour, I am 'happy' to highlight it. The alternative, of remaining silent about it for fear of antagonising motorists, never did any good and is imo not the way to go.

This thread's about forecast snow, hence why I mention it re cycle paths. The lack of preparedness from Councils to treat and clear these paths is a disgrace - it's time they got equipped.

No, you’d make a great Politician, you talk lots of bulls*it, and you’re disliked by lots of people on here.

Originally Posted by justbecause

no, you’d make a great politician, you talk lots of bulls*it, and you’re disliked by lots of people on here.

Lol!

Originally Posted by The PNP

A) No, I doubt I'd cut it as a politician. Btw, what is a 'VEL?'.

B) Yes I'm aware of the police database/ins co link. What I said was, that the ins co's don't check to see if a vehicle continues to be 'taxed'.

C) Having, as a cyclist, had a bellyful of motorists cavalier behaviour, I am 'happy' to highlight it. The alternative, of remaining silent about it for fear of antagonising motorists, never did any good and is imo not the way to go.

This thread's about forecast snow, hence why I mention it re cycle paths. The lack of preparedness from Councils to treat and clear these paths is a disgrace - it's time they got equipped.....inc for yellow snow!

A) VEL is a Vehicle Excise Licence, what the ill informed call ‘car tax’ and think it gives them more tights.

B) back to my point of you being a politician, you constantly try and twist things. Why would the Insurance Ombudsman give two hoots whether a driver pays? It has no bearing what so ever on insurance!

C) I wouldn’t expect you to not fight your corner. I stand up for cyclists, the big difference is your approach does nothing but wind people up, to the point that you come across as blinkered to anything but cyclists. A long time ago, one of the biggest lessons I was taught was engage brain before speaking. Maybe if you engaged brain before typing, you could get your point across and have people listen.