Martin Lewis polls Twitter over Lord Winston's call for cyclists to be licensed and insured - and is surprised by the replies

Simon E wrote:

I'm really bored of this bullshit argument. Your posts on this thread are rubbish.

I started writing another response, but then it dawned on me - when he went for the stream of abuse while accusing others of being 'hostile' option - that sriacha is just another petrol-head troll.  Waste of time responding - he's just one of those who has some sort of paraphilia about his car and so is consumed with hatred for anyone he perceives as threatening his love affair.

Edit - I wonder if he's one of the old ones returned under _yet another_ forum ID?  It was always pretty clear that several of them were the same guy, but maybe not all of them?

hawkinspeter wrote:

Maybe have sound-bites at the end such as "Cyclists - they don't foul the very air you breathe".

well, maybe occasionally, but only if I had beans on toast for tea.

Sriracha wrote:

So of the total respondents 2/3 agree with Lord Winston. Of those who agree, just shy of 1 in 5 are themselves cyclists. And of cyclists in general, just over 40% agree with Lord Winston. So we can argue about the questionnaire design, the demographic of his followers, the guilt of the non-participants, the merits of the proposal, or the character of Lord Winston and Martin Lewis. Or we can ask ourselves, how can we address the situation where so many have this view of cyclists.

You might like to do some research on the accuracy of self-reporting polls.

ktache wrote:

Nice Scoob, though I would offset it to the right, and have scratchy things on the end.

i want one as wide as a car with the number plate 

y0u asked for 1t

then i can take the whole lane at all times, like the knobs who can't wait 5 seconds to join the next queue of cars.

ktache wrote:

Nice Scoob, though I would offset it to the right, and have scratchy things on the end.

i want one as wide as a car with the number plate 

y0u asked for 1t

then i can take the whole lane at all times, like the knobs who can't wait 5 seconds to join the next queue of cars.

Scoob_84 wrote:

Could work

Is there an aero version?

PRSboy wrote:

I thought Martin Lewis was a money saving expert.  I would have thought he'd be all over cycling as a way for people to save money commuting, not to mention wider health benefits and saving the taxpayer money.  He could also have pointed out as RobD above that if you have car insurance you are likely covered third party anyway to ride a bike.

Disappointing he could not make a useful contribution to the debate rather than this Twitter nonsense.

1. MoneySavingExpert.com (presumably) makes a large amount of money from the insurance price comparison feature on its website. 
2. Martin Lewis AKA MoneySavingExpert holds a poll to see whether a further area of compulsory insurance for the general public should be introduced.

I'm not sure about anyone else, but I for one am entirely satisfied that the above points are entirely unrelated...

TedBarnes wrote:

PRSboy wrote:

I thought Martin Lewis was a money saving expert.  I would have thought he'd be all over cycling as a way for people to save money commuting, not to mention wider health benefits and saving the taxpayer money.  He could also have pointed out as RobD above that if you have car insurance you are likely covered third party anyway to ride a bike.

Disappointing he could not make a useful contribution to the debate rather than this Twitter nonsense.

 

1. MoneySavingExpert.com (presumably) makes a large amount of money from the insurance price comparison feature on its website. 
2. Martin Lewis AKA MoneySavingExpert holds a poll to see whether a further area of compulsory insurance for the general public should be introduced.

 

I'm not sure about anyone else, but I for one am entirely satisfied that the above points are entirely unrelated...

cycle insurance* can be had for about a tenner . I doubt anyone is getting rich on commissions on that

*(3rd party liability, not theft coverage which it seems will buy you a new bike about every 6 years)

PRSboy wrote:

I thought Martin Lewis was a money saving expert.  I would have thought he'd be all over cycling as a way for people to save money commuting, not to mention wider health benefits and saving the taxpayer money.  He could also have pointed out as RobD above that if you have car insurance you are likely covered third party anyway to ride a bike.

Disappointing he could not make a useful contribution to the debate rather than this Twitter nonsense.

Where do you get the idea that third party cover for a motor vehicle will cover you when you are riding a bicycle? I stand to be corrected, but as far as I am aware it ONLY covers damage to a third party made by you when driving your car, unless you specifically have a clause written into the policy covering such damage when you are riding your bike.

Most home insurance policies do cover an individual for third party liability, so it may be possible for a third party to make a claim against such a policy. However, the amount of cover may vary from policy to policy and there may be specific exclusions. Always best to check the small print before assuming that you have any such cover.

PP

RobD wrote:

So I have a car driving license and insurance, I'm already covered right? As are probably 75%+ of adults who cycle, I don't get why people who are non cyclists assume all cyclists are non people.

I doubt your car insurance would cover you, but most people have got home insurance which gives 3rd party cover.

hirsute wrote:

RobD wrote:

So I have a car driving license and insurance, I'm already covered right? As are probably 75%+ of adults who cycle, I don't get why people who are non cyclists assume all cyclists are non people.

I doubt your car insurance would cover you, but most people have got home insurance which gives 3rd party cover.

Home insurance may cover you for third party risks when cycling, but only may, not definitely, so you have to read the small print.

burtthebike wrote:

hirsute wrote:

RobD wrote:

So I have a car driving license and insurance, I'm already covered right? As are probably 75%+ of adults who cycle, I don't get why people who are non cyclists assume all cyclists are non people.

I doubt your car insurance would cover you, but most people have got home insurance which gives 3rd party cover.

Home insurance may cover you for third party risks when cycling, but only may, not definitely, so you have to read the small print.

The simplest answer to me would be to make this a compulsory addition to car insurance. 

There is already the Motor Insurers Bureau (MIB) scheme, which effectively covers 3rd parties where the negligent driver doesn't pay car insurance, and a similar scheme for untraced drivers i.e. hit and runs - though from memory it is a less generous scheme than where the driver is known but uninsured. 

It is objectively unfair that drivers that do pay for insurance have to cover those that don't, but society has decided that it is more unfair for injured people to be left without compensation for injuries. It was decided that what is effectively a tax on car insurance (albeit self-administered by the insurance industry as a whole), is the most pragmatic way to deal with it. 

So, since such a large proportion of cyclists are drivers with car insurance anyway, simply extend that scheme: 

• The (mahooossive) admin overhead of assessing and collecting premiums from millions of cyclists, including very occasional cyclists, is neatly side-stepped.
• The occasional cyclists and those wanting to try/get back into cycling are not put off by admin headaches of arranging insurance
• Those affected by injuries caused by cyclists can now claim - whether pedestrians, other cyclists or - no laughing at the back - drivers and other occupants of 1-2 tonne boxes of metal that are somehow injured by cyclists.
• It wouldn't matter if the cyclist was effectively a hit and run, as the MIB scheme covers those
• Drivers would see a near neglible increase to their premiums. 

Of course this will never happen. The idea of drivers paying for cyclists' insurance would be incendiary, notwithstanding how many cyclists are drivers anyway. But if injuries (and damage to other vehicles?) caused by cyclists with no insurance is a real problem, this strikes me as the simplest way of dealing with it. 

Oh - and if people really complain, we could point them to the changes the government have made to effectively remove lawyers from low value RTA injury claims involving whiplash. That's expected to massively reduce the numbers and costs of such claims, and the insurance industry was very vocal in how much it would reduce premiums for decent, honest & hard working motorists (or some such bollocks).

burtthebike wrote:

hirsute wrote:

RobD wrote:

So I have a car driving license and insurance, I'm already covered right? As are probably 75%+ of adults who cycle, I don't get why people who are non cyclists assume all cyclists are non people.

I doubt your car insurance would cover you, but most people have got home insurance which gives 3rd party cover.

Home insurance may cover you for third party risks when cycling, but only may, not definitely, so you have to read the small print.

Just checked this out - my car insurance definitely does not cover me when riding a bike (all cover relates to driving my car or another car I have permission to drive), but my home insurance (arguably) does - it covers me for personal injury / property damage I cause to others as a private individual. 

Sriracha wrote:

So, the poll is wrong, the question was wrong, the votes are wrong, etc etc. On a previous thread about a cyclists fined for cycling in a non-cycling zone it was the fault of 'plod' for enforcing the regulation, the cyclist should be excused due to the culpability of motorists, 'plod' should exercise 'discretion' (i.e. turn a blind eye on account of it being a cyclist). And the prevailing advice was that the cyclist should just have ridden off. Any wonder the rest of society wants cyclists held to account?

Okay, I'm not going to bother addressing your irrelevant bits as I think we should keep these comments relevant to the story.

It's easy to throw a poll together but it's difficult to make sure that it's done well or is fit for purpose.

Imagine a society where 40% are vegetarian, 30% love beef but won't eat pork and 30% love bacon and pork chops but won't eat beef.

Now imagine that for some reason there's a poll to decide what everyone is going to eat tonight but the only options are for "meat" or "no meat". Assuming that everyone votes for their own preference, you'd end up with 60% voting for "meat" and 40% voting for "no meat". A nice clear result you may think.

However, when the pollster goes to buy ingredients, what should they buy? If they choose pork then 70% are going to be unhappy. If they choose beef, then again 70% will be against it. (If they went for vegetables then only 60% would be unhappy, but that would also highlight the uselessness of the poll).

Obviously the "meat" option is poorly defined and the poll needs to be redesigned so that the voters know what exactly they are voting for.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

So, the poll is wrong, the question was wrong, the votes are wrong, etc etc. On a previous thread about a cyclists fined for cycling in a non-cycling zone it was the fault of 'plod' for enforcing the regulation, the cyclist should be excused due to the culpability of motorists, 'plod' should exercise 'discretion' (i.e. turn a blind eye on account of it being a cyclist). And the prevailing advice was that the cyclist should just have ridden off. Any wonder the rest of society wants cyclists held to account?

Okay, I'm not going to bother addressing your irrelevant bits as I think we should keep these comments relevant to the story.

It's easy to throw a poll together but it's difficult to make sure that it's done well or is fit for purpose.

Imagine a society where 40% are vegetarian, 30% love beef but won't eat pork and 30% love bacon and pork chops but won't eat beef.

Now imagine that for some reason there's a poll to decide what everyone is going to eat tonight but the only options are for "meat" or "no meat". Assuming that everyone votes for their own preference, you'd end up with 60% voting for "meat" and 40% voting for "no meat". A nice clear result you may think.

However, when the pollster goes to buy ingredients, what should they buy? If they choose pork then 70% are going to be unhappy. If they choose beef, then again 70% will be against it. (If they went for vegetables then only 60% would be unhappy, but that would also highlight the uselessness of the poll).

Obviously the "meat" option is poorly defined and the poll needs to be redesigned so that the voters know what exactly they are voting for.

Let them eat nuts!

Except when it's trolls. Don't feed the trolls!

ConcordeCX wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

So, the poll is wrong, the question was wrong, the votes are wrong, etc etc. On a previous thread about a cyclists fined for cycling in a non-cycling zone it was the fault of 'plod' for enforcing the regulation, the cyclist should be excused due to the culpability of motorists, 'plod' should exercise 'discretion' (i.e. turn a blind eye on account of it being a cyclist). And the prevailing advice was that the cyclist should just have ridden off. Any wonder the rest of society wants cyclists held to account?

Okay, I'm not going to bother addressing your irrelevant bits as I think we should keep these comments relevant to the story.

It's easy to throw a poll together but it's difficult to make sure that it's done well or is fit for purpose.

Imagine a society where 40% are vegetarian, 30% love beef but won't eat pork and 30% love bacon and pork chops but won't eat beef.

Now imagine that for some reason there's a poll to decide what everyone is going to eat tonight but the only options are for "meat" or "no meat". Assuming that everyone votes for their own preference, you'd end up with 60% voting for "meat" and 40% voting for "no meat". A nice clear result you may think.

However, when the pollster goes to buy ingredients, what should they buy? If they choose pork then 70% are going to be unhappy. If they choose beef, then again 70% will be against it. (If they went for vegetables then only 60% would be unhappy, but that would also highlight the uselessness of the poll).

Obviously the "meat" option is poorly defined and the poll needs to be redesigned so that the voters know what exactly they are voting for.

Let them eat nuts!

Except when it's trolls. Don't feed the trolls!

...but they voted for "meat"!

Awavey wrote:

sheesh he claims its just a random fun poll, since when did money saving advice need to run twitter opinion polls anyway, but then only retweets the Kim Briggs campaign, and then moans alot about cyclists attacking him, way to go for balance there, not.

For someone who has done so much work in challenging misselling he was sold and bought a fallacy simply because it came from someone who calls themselves a scientist. He never thought to check out the validity of the unsubstantiated claims or the history of the seller in peddling post-truths and lies as part of a campaign against cycling.

As innocent and fun as such polls by the media appear by ignorantly promoting such whack-a-doodle ideas they give credence and validity to the ideas and embolden their creators to continue pursuing a campaign of lies that go unchecked.