Yet another stupid law in Northern Ireland

radamfi · 4 Jun 2018

Many people now know, if they didn't already know, that Northern Ireland is out of step with more progressive countries on various matters.

A bizarre law that not many people will know about is that electric bicycles, where electrical assistance cuts out at 25 km/h, are treated the same as mopeds in Northern Ireland and require the user to have insurance and a motorcycle helmet. So if you take your electric bike to Northern Ireland you can be fined and given penalty points.

RailUK Forums

DarloRich · 4 Jun 2018

Whilst important I think there may be bigger fish to fry than this issue. Two I can think of are the potential collapse of the Good Friday agreement and the impact of Brexit on the NI/Eire border.

AM9 · 4 Jun 2018

DarloRich said:
Whilst important I think there may be bigger fish to fry than this issue. Two I can think of are the potential collapse of the Good Friday agreement and the impact of Brexit on the NI/Eire border.

And even the knock-on from the Irish referendum on abortion.

61653 HTAFC · 4 Jun 2018

There seems to have been an increase in people on this site taking issue with subjects being discussed at all, simply because they're not interested/think it isn't important/think it might be too controversial.

If we're only allowed to discuss the most pressing issues, then there's not much point in having a railway forum at all, let alone a "General Discussion" section.

If you don't think an issue is worth discussing, don't discuss it. But don't police others.

After all, I think Rugby Union is just an excuse for upper-class twits to relive their boarding-school days (players) or for less-talented upper-class twits to play at doing what they think the proles do (supporters). However I've said that (with tongue-in-cheek) here to make a point, rather than spamming the Rugby Union thread.

Yes, there are bigger issues around... but this does seem a very stupid law even for the land of stupid laws.

DarloRich · 4 Jun 2018

61653 HTAFC said:
but this does seem a very stupid law even for the land of stupid laws.

I agree - it seems very silly. However, I maintain there are more important things to focus public resource on at this time. Once we have fixed the pressing issues we can fix the silly ones.

I simply wish, as often with this site, there was a sense of perspective.

61653 HTAFC · 4 Jun 2018

DarloRich said:
I agree - it seems very silly. However, I maintain there are more important things to focus public resource on at this time. Once we have fixed the pressing issues we can fix the silly ones.

I simply wish, as often with this site, there was a sense of perspective.

I don't think a fairly niche online discussion forum needs a sense of perspective on such matters... unless I'm underestimating the influence that the forum has on government policy, of course.

In which case, could the moderators please lock all the threads on sports, entertainment and nostalgia, lest we miss the opportunity to have influence on the Brexit deal and the Irish border question. I await my emails from David Davis and Boris Johnson.

:lol:

AlterEgo · 4 Jun 2018

There was some discussion in the news about it in the last few months. It is indeed completely bonkers and I believe requires a functioning Executive to amend the law.

DarloRich · 4 Jun 2018

AlterEgo said:
There was some discussion in the news about it in the last few months. It is indeed completely bonkers and I believe requires a functioning Executive to amend the law.

and there is the bigger issue. The lack of a functioning executive in NI is hamstringing all kinds of legislation. That such an issue has not been fixed is incredibly stupid.

By the same token as the OP's example. I can drink 1 pint of ale in Berwick get in my car and drive home perfectly legally. If i cross the border to Scotland i may be breaking the law.

36270k · 4 Jun 2018

radamfi said:
Many people now know, if they didn't already know, that Northern Ireland is out of step with more progressive countries on various matters.

A bizarre law that not many people will know about is that electric bicycles, where electrical assistance cuts out at 25 km/h, are treated the same as mopeds in Northern Ireland and require the user to have insurance and a motorcycle helmet. So if you take your electric bike to Northern Ireland you can be fined and given penalty points.

Knowing how erratic Irish car drivers can be, it sounds like a sensible precaution.

BestWestern · 6 Jun 2018

Cyclists require insurance... Sounds good to me, can we have some of those politicians over here?!

radamfi · 6 Jun 2018

BestWestern said:
Cyclists require insurance... Sounds good to me, can we have some of those politicians over here?!

If you want to cut the amount of cycling and replace cycling with car trips, mandating insurance is a good idea.

DarloRich · 6 Jun 2018

BestWestern said:
Cyclists require insurance... Sounds good to me, can we have some of those politicians over here?!

lets also get cyclists to abide by the highway code!

Bletchleyite · 6 Jun 2018

BestWestern said:
Cyclists require insurance... Sounds good to me, can we have some of those politicians over here?!

Most cyclists have insurance. Home contents insurance normally provides general third party liability cover, from which the use of motor vehicles is excluded but the use of bicycles is not.

However, very rarely is there any need for a claim on it. So much so, for instance, that in Switzerland where there was a requirement for a separate cycle policy (the Velovignette, which cost next to nothing recognising the low number and value of claims) that they abolished it.

This rather recognises the difference in likely damage and injury caused by a 2000kg battering ram at 70mph as compared to that by a 120kg bicycle and rider at maybe 20mph if that.

tony_mac · 6 Jun 2018

it isn't just insurance, it is treated exactly like a moped - so also registration, number plate, driving licence, crash helmet, and you can't even use cycle lanes!

furnessvale · 6 Jun 2018

DarloRich said:
lets also get cyclists to abide by the highway code!

Surely that is too small an issue for you to waste your time discussing.

furnessvale · 6 Jun 2018

Bletchleyite said:
Most cyclists have insurance. Home contents insurance normally provides general third party liability cover, from which the use of motor vehicles is excluded but the use of bicycles is not.

However, very rarely is there any need for a claim on it. So much so, for instance, that in Switzerland where there was a requirement for a separate cycle policy (the Velovignette, which cost next to nothing recognising the low number and value of claims) that they abolished it.

This rather recognises the difference in likely damage and injury caused by a 2000kg battering ram at 70mph as compared to that by a 120kg bicycle and rider at maybe 20mph if that.

From everything you have said, it is apparent that the cost of cycle insurance is miniscule.

There is therefore no excuse for not making it compulsory, either free standing or via household insurance, thus giving a measure of protection to those injured, and the relatives of those (occasionally) killed by errant cyclists.

Bletchleyite · 6 Jun 2018

furnessvale said:
From everything you have said, it is apparent that the cost of cycle insurance is miniscule.

There is therefore no excuse for not making it compulsory, either free standing or via household insurance, thus giving a measure of protection to those injured, and the relatives of those (occasionally) killed by errant cyclists.

Given that cycling is to be encouraged, and given that the majority of the cost is administrative (which was the main reason for abolishing the Swiss scheme[1]), I would instead propose a scheme funded by general taxation covering anyone for demonstrable injuries (evidence of NHS treatment and of financial costs incurred required) and property damage sustained by way of the use of a bicycle.

[1] I believe it was CHF5 a year at the end - about £3.50 at present rates, or about £2 in real terms. About 75% of it went on the costs of administering the scheme.

Ianno87 · 6 Jun 2018

DarloRich said:
lets also get cyclists to abide by the highway code!

As well as motorists and pedestrians while you're at it. All 3 modes have a range of excellent and awful adherence to the Highway Code.

BestWestern · 6 Jun 2018

Bletchleyite said:
Most cyclists have insurance. Home contents insurance normally provides general third party liability cover, from which the use of motor vehicles is excluded but the use of bicycles is not.

However, very rarely is there any need for a claim on it. So much so, for instance, that in Switzerland where there was a requirement for a separate cycle policy (the Velovignette, which cost next to nothing recognising the low number and value of claims) that they abolished it.

This rather recognises the difference in likely damage and injury caused by a 2000kg battering ram at 70mph as compared to that by a 120kg bicycle and rider at maybe 20mph if that.

A cyclist going at warp speed will do a fair bit of damage to whatever they collide with (as well as to themselves, of course!), particularly if you have a modern car made out of papier mache and bubbles that like to cost a fortune to repair at every opportunity! They'll do even more damage if they hit a human. They might be insured, but how many of them are willing to nip off home and make a claim on their policies, particularly if they were being reckless at the time? Indeed, how does that even work - is a home insurance policy really going to pay out for damage to a vehicle or for an expensive pedestrian injury claim?

It's also the licensing issue that's worth a look. Perhaps some level of accountability might stem the flow of appalling riding that is on constant display in cities. Indeed it might even focus minds enough to help cyclists save themselves, being sufficiently aware to avoid jamming their cycles up the inside of lorries clearly turning left, etc.

Of course, in reality the authorities have barely got time to police criminals, so cyclists are probably safe for the forseeable!

tony_mac · 6 Jun 2018

well, this thread quickly turned into a moan about cyclists thread!

BestWestern said:
, how does that even work - is a home insurance policy really going to pay out for damage to a vehicle or for an expensive pedestrian injury claim?

some home insurance policies may include public liability insurance.
You sue the cyclist, their insurance company deals with it, in the same way third-party motor insurance works.

Bletchleyite · 6 Jun 2018

tony_mac said:
some home insurance policies may include public liability insurance.

I'd say "most". I've never come across one that didn't, though some may be more restricted than others, e.g. some may only cover liability arising from the ownership and use of the domestic property itself, e.g. if a visitor is injured by an unknowingly faulty electrical appliance in your home.

I did ask the question of Direct Line (Home Insurance Plus) some time ago and they confirmed that the general liability clause did include cycling or pedestrianism.

WelshBluebird · 6 Jun 2018

DarloRich said:
lets also get cyclists to abide by the highway code!

Getting drivers to abide by the highway code (especially regarding overtaking cyclists and other vulnerable road users) would be much more worthwhile!

tony_mac · 6 Jun 2018

Bletchleyite said:
I'd say "most". I've never come across one that didn't, though some may be more restricted than others, e.g. some may only cover liability arising from the ownership and use of the domestic property itself, e.g. if a visitor is injured by an unknowingly faulty electrical appliance in your home.

I did ask the question of Direct Line (Home Insurance Plus) some time ago and they confirmed that the general liability clause did include cycling or pedestrianism.

I only checked Direct Line. Their liability insurance is for 'liabilities arising from you occupying your property', and I couldn't see how that could possibly include cycling.

DarloRich · 6 Jun 2018

furnessvale said:
Surely that is too small an issue for you to waste your time discussing.

oh what jolly japes!

WelshBluebird said:
Getting drivers to abide by the highway code (especially regarding overtaking cyclists and other vulnerable road users) would be much more worthwhile!

OK - but as a pedestrian I would prefer if cyclists stuck to the road where they belong rather than zooming along the pavement.

farleigh · 7 Jun 2018

DarloRich said:
oh what jolly japes!

OK - but as a pedestrian I would prefer if cyclists stuck to the road where they belong rather than zooming along the pavement.

It is not about bicycles but electric bicycles.
Just read the first thread and it explains :rolleyes:

Bletchleyite · 7 Jun 2018

DarloRich said:
OK - but as a pedestrian I would prefer if cyclists stuck to the road where they belong rather than zooming along the pavement.

While a lot of it is pavement cycling which is a nuisance and gives cycling a bad name, don't forget that in MK a great many pavements are in fact shared Redways (you can tell by the colour of the tarmac on them which ones are, however all of the pedestrian underpasses in CMK allow cycling in addition even though not all of these are red).

Minilad · 7 Jun 2018

DarloRich said:
lets also get cyclists to abide by the highway code!

Maybe we could start with getting most car drivers abiding by it before we start on cyclists

DarloRich · 7 Jun 2018

farleigh said:
It is not about bicycles but electric bicycles.
Just read the first thread and it explains

The interesting thing, which perhaps you missed, is that the thread moved on. Read the rest of the threads. They explain................

Bletchleyite said:
While a lot of it is pavement cycling which is a nuisance and gives cycling a bad name, don't forget that in MK a great many pavements are in fact shared Redways (you can tell by the colour of the tarmac on them which ones are, however all of the pedestrian underpasses in CMK allow cycling in addition even though not all of these are red).

Indeed - but not ALL of the pavements are redways. As you say it is clear which are which

Minilad said:
Maybe we could start with getting most car drivers abiding by it before we start on cyclists

I don't own a car so no problem

Senex · 7 Jun 2018

Minilad said:
Maybe we could start with getting most car drivers abiding by it before we start on cyclists

Let's start on both simultaneously. Cyclists riding on pavements, riding the wrong way through one-way streets, riding through red lights when green is shewing for pedestrians crossing are every bit as much criminals as motorists doing 35 in a 30 zone and should be treated as such. (The wrong way in one-way streets is especially threatening in places like York where some of the one-way streets are supposed to be foot-streets for much of the day.) As for the motorists, it would be good at one end of the spectrum to see much tougher enforcement of the double-yellow-lines rules and at the other to see killing and maiming by motor-vehicle taken very much more seriously than it is by the courts.

Bletchleyite · 7 Jun 2018

As a cyclist who dislikes being given a bad name I would like to see more enforcement of these matters. But like many motoring offences they can't be enforced by camera, so it requires police on the streets again.

Yet another stupid law in Northern Ireland

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member