Compulsory Bicycle Insurance - Yes or No?

[Janus 28]

3 hours ago, max said:

I see far more cars being driven at night with no lights than I do cyclists with no lights and dark clothing. Perhaps if the law was applied to the greater number of dumb drivers first then the problem of the tiny number of dumb cyclists might be addressed.

You see more cars driven at night without lights than cycles because there are far more cars on the roads than cycles.

The law should be applied to both motorists and cyclist as as when encountered. It's not a competition.

[Cyclone 10]

On 20/07/2019 at 10:19, makapaka said:

Should be a test in place for cyclists wishing to ride on the roads. Also a minimum age limit.

 

agree care needs to be taken but some (not all) cyclists have poor road awareness or are simply too young to be on the road.

 

coupled with the increased vulnerability which I agree with - they need to make sure they are qualified to use the road.

So, no more bikes for kids then.  Nice one, you've just totally changed childhood for anyone living outside of a city.  Unless you're going to make the age limit like 4 or something...

Presumably, much like motorbikes, a "provisional" license to ride on the road would only require a demonstration of the basic ability to control the thing?  You remember how a CBT works and motorbikes on L plates?  They get to ride on the road, and the CBT doesn't test any road knowledge or skills, simply control of the bike.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Cyclone

[Guest makapaka]

53 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

So, no more bikes for kids then.  Nice one, you've just totally changed childhood for anyone living outside of a city.  Unless you're going to make the age limit like 4 or something...

Presumably, much like motorbikes, a "provisional" license to ride on the road would only require a demonstration of the basic ability to control the thing?  You remember how a CBT works and motorbikes on L plates?  They get to ride on the road, and the CBT doesn't test any road knowledge or skills, simply control of the bike.

No kids can still have bikes. Strawman.

[Cyclone 10]

They can have them yes.  They simply can't use them outside their houses on quiet estate or village roads.

[Guest makapaka]

24 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

They can have them yes.  They simply can't use them outside their houses on quiet estate or village roads.

Correct.

Edited July 22, 2019 by makapaka

[Cyclone 10]

So, like I said then.

 

I'm going to hazard a guess that as a child you cycled on the road, why would you take that away from the children of today in your crusade to make life more difficult for adult cyclists?

Edited July 22, 2019 by Cyclone

[JamesR123 0]

5 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

So, like I said then.

 

I'm going to hazard a guess that as a child you cycled on the road, why would you take that away from the children of today in your crusade to make life more difficult for adult cyclists?

Where would you draw the line?

 

Would you think it ok for a 4 year old to ride down an A road during peak traffic?

 

I think that there perhaps should be an minimum age for riding on the road, before which they can ride on the pavement at a reduced speed.

[Guest makapaka]

49 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

So, like I said then.

 

I'm going to hazard a guess that as a child you cycled on the road, why would you take that away from the children of today in your crusade to make life more difficult for adult cyclists?

No you said “no more bikes for kids then”.

 

which is incorrect.

[ads36 213]

1 hour ago, JamesR123 said:

Would you think it ok for a 4 year old to ride down an A road during peak traffic?

definitely not.

 

which is why we need segregated cycle lanes.

 

which also hugely mitigate a wide raft of other problems - many of them mentioned on this thread.

[Cyclone 10]

1 hour ago, JamesR123 said:

Where would you draw the line?

 

Would you think it ok for a 4 year old to ride down an A road during peak traffic?

 

I think that there perhaps should be an minimum age for riding on the road, before which they can ride on the pavement at a reduced speed.

Well, lets look at how it currently stands.  There is no line drawn.  Currently there is no crisis of 4 year olds cycling on A roads.

So...  How do you explain that?  Did you just entirely make up a thing that has literally never happened, in order to spuriously use it to support a proposal to "solve" said made up thing that has literally never happened?  Yes you did.

1 hour ago, makapaka said:

No you said “no more bikes for kids then”.

 

which is incorrect.

Not much point in owning a bike that they can't use.  But why are you avoiding the question and instead playing semantics with the fact that children will be able to own, but not use, bikes?

 

I'm going to hazard a guess that as a child you cycled on the road, why would you take that away from the children of today in your crusade to make life more difficult for adult cyclists?

 

Feel free to try to answer that.

[JamesR123 0]

Just now, Cyclone said:

Well, lets look at how it currently stands.  There is no line drawn.  Currently there is no crisis of 4 year olds cycling on A roads.

So...  How do you explain that?  Did you just entirely make up a thing that has literally never happened, in order to spuriously use it to support a proposal to "solve" said made up thing that has literally never happened?  Yes you did.

What silly response. Just because legislation doesn't currently exist, do you think that means it should never exist?

 

Lol.  Ha he ha. Wow.

[Cyclone 10]

2 minutes ago, JamesR123 said:

What silly response. Just because legislation doesn't currently exist, do you think that means it should never exist?

 

Lol.  Ha he ha. Wow.

So, you made up a scenario of 4 year olds on A roads.  You know it doesn't happen, has never happened and won't ever happen.  But you say it's silly that I don't support legislation to stop it happening.

 

I totally agree with the wow.  But point out where I'm wrong, show that it's an actual real problem that you want addressing instead of some nonsense fantasy.