Cycle Lane past station

[stifflersmom 11]

Cyclists don't pay anything towards roads. That's my only gripe really. A license & insurance should be held for cyclists to use certain roads. Absurd not to consider them road users.

 

Anyone who pays tax contributes to the roads. Try and understand how road funding actually works!

[chakademus 10]

Anyone who pays tax contributes to the roads. Try and understand how road funding actually works!

 

No road tax, no insurance, no license.

[stifflersmom 11]

No road tax, no insurance, no license.

 

If that's your argument...weak as it is, your anger should be focussed on the 1 million plus uninsured vehicles on the roads.

[chakademus 10]

If that's your argument...weak as it is, your anger should be focussed on the 1 million plus uninsured vehicles on the roads.

 

Not an argument just stating fact.

[stifflersmom 11]

Not an argument just stating fact.

 

It cant be fact if its based on a falsehood ( 'road tax') or isn't true (insurance....many people will have 3rd party injury cover as part of their home insurance and anyone who cycles in a club will have it as part of their membership). As far as licences go then yes, you don't need one but as many cyclists also drive then it isn't really an issue. I've often thought that the single thing that would benefit all road users and make cyclists and motorcyclists safer is to include riding them as part of the car test.

[chakademus 10]

It cant be fact if its based on a falsehood ( 'road tax') or isn't true (insurance....many people will have 3rd party injury cover as part of their home insurance and anyone who cycles in a club will have it as part of their membership). As far as licences go then yes, you don't need one but as many cyclists also drive then it isn't really an issue. I've often thought that the single thing that would benefit all road users and make cyclists and motorcyclists safer is to include riding them as part of the car test.

 

So I'm insured if a cyclist causes damage to my motor vehicle, sure about that?

[Vasquez Rich 10]

Are you insured if a pedestrian causes damage to your car?

[Becky B 31]

So I'm insured if a cyclist causes damage to my motor vehicle, sure about that?

 

Yes. .

[Resident 1,193]

It cant be fact if its based on a falsehood ( 'road tax') or isn't true (insurance....many people will have 3rd party injury cover as part of their home insurance and anyone who cycles in a club will have it as part of their membership). As far as licences go then yes, you don't need one but as many cyclists also drive then it isn't really an issue. I've often thought that the single thing that would benefit all road users and make cyclists and motorcyclists safer is to include riding them as part of the car test.

 

But say a cyclist damages my vehicle and decides to make off without giving details, how does the VICTIM of the damage go about claiming off this supposed insurance?

 

Motorists have the Motor Insurance Bureau for when an uninsured driver hits them, Can you point me in the cyclist's version, just for everyone's reference?

 

Yes. .

 

So motorists should just claim on their own insurance, if they have comprehensive cover, since it's not an option with 3rd Party and suck it up when their renewal doubles due to loss of No-Claims because a lycra-loser failed to stop and give details after hitting my vehicle?

[dutch 68]

Most cyclist in Netherlands have liability insurance on a voluntary basis. Its not expensive there, in UK it probably cost ten times more, better off cycling without then feed rip off UK insurance. Comparing cycles with cars as a taxed vehicle is a joke, but that's the way people think here, it displays their real psychology on many issues.

[chakademus 10]

Are you insured if a pedestrian causes damage to your car?

 

Driving???????

 

---------- Post added 14-08-2018 at 22:43 ----------

 

Yes. .

 

Errr I have to claim on my own insurance. Cyclists aren't insured by law.

 

---------- Post added 14-08-2018 at 22:44 ----------

 

It cant be fact if its based on a falsehood ( 'road tax') or isn't true (insurance....many people will have 3rd party injury cover as part of their home insurance and anyone who cycles in a club will have it as part of their membership). As far as licences go then yes, you don't need one but as many cyclists also drive then it isn't really an issue. I've often thought that the single thing that would benefit all road users and make cyclists and motorcyclists safer is to include riding them as part of the car test.

 

I was stating 3 facts bro, please don't argue.

[stifflersmom 11]

But say a cyclist damages my vehicle and decides to make off without giving details, how does the VICTIM of the damage go about claiming off this supposed insurance?

 

Motorists have the Motor Insurance Bureau for when an uninsured driver hits them, Can you point me in the cyclist's version, just for everyone's reference?

 

 

 

So motorists should just claim on their own insurance, if they have comprehensive cover, since it's not an option with 3rd Party and suck it up when their renewal doubles due to loss of No-Claims because a lycra-loser failed to stop and give details after hitting my vehicle?

But, what if, whatabout...

If the cyclust makes off there isn't much you can do, but rare would ne the case when damage to a car is greater than damage to the cyclist/bicycle. Factor in the excess on most peoples policies and it isnt worth claiming on insurance. And there lies the true reason why cyclists aren't required by law to be insured; the risk and consequences of damage are laughably low in comparison with motorised vehicles. 5 pedestrians will have been killed today by motorised vehicles, as they will, on average, every day this year. But, hey, we'll have dangerous cycling laws to cover the 0.6% of deaths involving a pedestrian and cyclist, so all good.