Just had a colleague share a gov e petition with me, the wording just beggars belief, not sure if this is new or has been discussed to death, thankfully it only has 56 signatures!

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49860

there’s thousands of those e-petitions where the person who started it and 40 people who are their friend on Facebook have signed it.

I really wouldn’t worry.

Probably best not advertising it though.

It’s a bag o’shite, don’t worry about it 🙂

Cyclists cause thousands of road traffic accidents every year, some with fatal consequences. When cyclists are involved in automobile accidents, the blame always gets put down to the driver of the vehicle, even if it is not their fault.

She really, really needs to do some more research……

the blame always gets put down to the driver of the vehicle, even if it is not their fault.

Yay, presumed liability was enacted after all!

epetitions aren’t worth the paper they are written on. They are just a con to make people think their views are being listened to. Only an idiot would sign one.

Well I’ve signed it. it makes perfect sence to me and should I fact protect cyclists on the road. I think it would force us to take statory training and wear helmets.

I don’t see why you’re not in favour??

^^^^^^

What you you reckon it’s my first Troll!!! 😈 😀

I agree on the petition thing it’s a bit of a con. I did sign the Mountain rescue vat exemption one though, as its daft they pay.

It is the first of these types of petitions that I have received that was just utter bollocks! Maybe I have just been shielded all this time 🙂

I have always thought those epetions need an opposite to signing, a kind of not-sign for where you can oppose it..

they should just have these on each one;

If you look at the MRT VAT one objectively, rather than based on sentiment, it’s equally daft – apart from being technically nonsensical (VAT exemption is pretty much the position now, i.e. they are in an area of work exempt from charging VAT and therefore one consequence is that they are unable to reclaim any of the purchase VAT costs they incur) it is hard to see, and there’s none on there, any justification for why Mountain Rescue teams should be singled out for special treatment over the many thousands of other charities working in many diverse fields who are burdened with exactly the same problem.

If there was a petition that proposed that, for example, registered charities should be given a more favourable treatment under the VAT regime, then that would make more sense (although still not feasible in the real world for reasons too dull and technical to go into here).

In effect, the petition is asking for the government to subsidise MRTs which, as I understand it, is not something that the MRTs actually want, or have ever asked for.

Here – there was a thread floating around on here recently from someone who’d been hit by a woman in a car, and she was demanding to take their damaged bike “because her insurance company wanted to value it”.

I wonder if her name was Leana Ryall…?

Good point, pondo – did we get an update on that? <goes off to search for thread>

On the flip side though (sticks head way too far above parapet); if insurance was a legal requirement for cycling on the road, it would be one less argument which could be levelled against us…

Personally I might be in favour of it.

if insurance was a legal requirement for cycling on the road, it would be one less argument which could be levelled against us…

Au contraire, it would establish the principle that cyclists access to the highways is conditional, a complete reversal of the current position where, like pedestrians and horses, we have access by right. Once bicycles are considered in the same way as motorised vehicles, all you do is open the door to licences (and tests), roadworthiness tests (MOT) and, er, that thing you pay that they give you a little disc of paper to display for. And compulsory helmets perhaps.

In principle, if you say that people travelling about in public under their own propulsion need third party insurance cover, then it shouldn’t matter whether you use a system of chains, cogs and wheels to achieve motion – pedestrians (who can also be at fault in accidents where people or property are damaged) would equally need liability insurance. Maybe you’d need a “tax disc” displayed before you could walk down the road?

I agree on the petition thing it’s a bit of a con.

Interesting thing to say the day after we had a debate in the Commons about The Get Britain Cycling report. A debate that was in part at least triggered by 71,500 people signing an epetition.

Has the debate done anything other than make people believe they are being listened to?

It was already a parliamentary report, points of which may or may not be implemented without the petition or debate. All they have done is given the impression of some form of electronic democracy while going about business as usual.

wwaswas – Member

they should just have these on each one

think the old thumbs down thing is a bit harsh sometimes – maybe told to get out a bit would suffice or some community work with natives

johnellison – Member

it would be one less argument which could be levelled against us…

the drooling zombies would find another.

idiots should be drowned in slurry, not pandered to.

Has the debate done anything other than make people believe they are being listened to?

From our point of view as campaigners, yes. We now have three of our local MPs on record in the Hansard, backing the recommendations in that report and waxing on about how they want to encourage cycling.

That gives us something to quote to the council and local authority, and possibly something to quote back to those MPs at a later date should they need to be reminded of their commitments!

” It is not right or fair that the cyclist should be able to walk away”

Only the lucky ones walk away.

I think she’s got a very valid point. Pedestrians should have insurance too for that matter, they can make a right mess of windscreens and bodywork that the car driver’s insurance has to pony up for.

It is not right or fair that the cyclist should be able to walk away

That’s why i always reverse back over them, got to be sure.

Thing about these petitions… 1.8 million signed up aagainst the “planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy” which didn’t exist, half a million people signed up against “Ken’s giant mosque” in London which was invented by the BNP, 200000 against the Olympic ban on the Red Arrows which was made up by the Sun… So even when there’s a good cause, it’s hard to overlook all the idiocy.

Signed!….Ooh hang on…was I supposed sign that one or not…..it gets so confusing who to side with! 😯

http://socialsellouts.com/twitter-users/leanarachel/

“By day I’m a full-time mummy and homemaker.. but by night I’m an insurance broker“.

Hmmm…

I’m going to do one for not paying tax

On the flip side though (sticks head way too far above parapet); if insurance was a legal requirement for cycling on the road, it would be one less argument which could be levelled against us…

Personally I might be in favour of it.

And what age would this be from?