Speed limits: 40mph plan for country roads

[emordnilap]

Yup. And the number of times I get overtaken by a car driver approaching a junction - I hear them behind me, getting their foot down to overtake me and they have to brake hard in front of me, to turn left! This is why I move out into the middle of the lane when I approach junctions, to deliberately block this behaviour. It also means I hardly have to use my brakes.

Yep, same here.

(Having first looked over my shoulder of course!) Just saying.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

The Daily Mail seems to be sniffing this particular lamp post as well.

'A law that will force cyclists to take a proper test and abide by the Highway Code is long overdue'

[JohnB]

The Daily Mail seems to be sniffing this particular lamp post as well.

'A law that will force cyclists to take a proper test and abide by the Highway Code is long overdue'

I read that article while listening to an audio book of 1984. Seems like a good subject to display on the telescreen during the Daily Hate.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

The Daily Mail seems to be sniffing this particular lamp post as well.

'A law that will force cyclists to take a proper test and abide by the Highway Code is long overdue'

I read that article while listening to an audio book of 1984. Seems like a good subject to display on the telescreen during the Daily Hate.

Eh?

Making roads safer by ensuring all users are properly trained and insured is a suitable subject for a Daily Hate?

I don't follow your reasoning there at all.

The top dozen or so comments all seem to take the entirely reasonable view that all road users should be insured, licenced and using safe machines.

Perhaps we can look forward to a private members bill some time soon to take our mind off something else.

[JohnB]

"The hit-and-run Lycra louts: How thuggish minority of cyclists are terrorising our roads with one elderly pensioner being hit twice in a month". What's that headline about, other than stirring up hatred of cyclists?

Something along the lines of "Minority of cyclists risk giving majority a bad name" might be more appropriate. There are thuggish minorities in every group of people that engage in potentially dangerous activities.

[rue_d_etropal]

Whenever there is talk of making more people take out insurance, I see those banksters rubbing their hands with glee. And yes I know it is insurance companies not banks, but having worked in financial industry I know there are very close connections.
A poll of how many people have actually had to use their insurance(car or home), would probably reveal how few people get something back and how much money the industry makes.
There are only a minority of road users who abuse the system, and insurance won't stop them, just make the rest of pay for their stupidity. It has also been suggested that everyone should carry some type of insurance, even if they are just pedestrians - how many accidents are caused by stupid people just walking out into the road.
That makes me think, if there as no insurance, even for drivers, I wonder if people would drive better, knowing they will pay if they have an accident. All about risk(and the insurance companies have nicely manipulated that to suit them)

[emordnilap]

The state should provide insurance. No-one else.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

The state should provide insurance. No-one else.

Why? Private vehicles used by private individuals in public spaces should be insured so that other private individuals who suffer lose as a result of the exercise of that freedom can be recompensed.

What has any of that to do with Government?

Compulsory insurance is there to protect the majority from the reckless or unlucky few.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

"The hit-and-run Lycra louts: How thuggish minority of cyclists are terrorising our roads with one elderly pensioner being hit twice in a month". What's that headline about, other than stirring up hatred of cyclists?

Something along the lines of "Minority of cyclists risk giving majority a bad name" might be more appropriate. There are thuggish minorities in every group of people that engage in potentially dangerous activities.

Indeed. Hence the need to mandate training and insurance.

If we all behaved responsibly then there wouldn't be a need for these laws but some people clearly need to be made to share safely.

I think firearms should be next and I'd gladly trade that restriction for a repeal of the legislation against handguns and larger magazine shotguns.

[kenneal - lagger]

The gun licensing laws are in place to stop nutters getting hold of weapons. In theory the car licensing laws do the same for cars. Nutters who would use the car as a weapon wouldn't be deterred by the cost of insurance or by the loss of their license.

The legislation against hand guns, large magazine shotguns and military type weapons is only a means of controlling the large scale arming of the people. It's the government keeping us under control.

[Little John]

The state should provide insurance. No-one else.

I agree with this. A few pence on each litre of fuel and everyone would be de-facto third-party covered. They could then pay extra to private insurance sharks for extra bells and whistles if they so desired.

[emordnilap]

The state should provide insurance. No-one else.

I agree with this. A few pence on each litre of fuel and everyone would be de-facto third-party covered. They could then pay extra to private insurance sharks for extra bells and whistles if they so desired.

Fine but not everyone drives; I mean all insurance, other than the 'bells and whistles'. The old NHS is an example of state insurance.

Hypothecation of general taxation would be a preferable method; a risk assessment can still be built in to discourage abuse. The thing most people ignore is that misfortune should not be regarded as an opportunity to line pockets.

Once the profit motive is removed, insurance becomes cheaper for everyone. Any excess can be returned to the taxpayer.

[RenewableCandy]

With the Co-Op (they actually do Insurance of various types) the shareholders and the punters are effectively one and the same. So you get your money back anyway.

[emordnilap]

Some of their investments were dubious but, through consumer pressure, the Co-op insurance arm has become a paragon. Just goes to show what's possible and profitable.