Jump to content

Compulsory Bicycle Insurance - Yes or No?

Recommended Posts

But then you’ve got to enforce it. There’s plenty of motorists breaking laws as it is - as you well know -without adding cyclists to the list. Are we making kids get insurance as well? Do we criminalise the parents if they don’t have it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, nikki-red said:

Please dont turn this into yet another cyclist-bashing thread.

Cheers.

Not bashing all cyclists, there are a few considerate good eggs on the roads. Unfortunately I can only speak from my personal experience & find that as such they are a minority, 

 

Just now, Baron99 said:

So as cyclists are road users then?

 

So what about the ones who insist on riding on ordinary, (not dedicated cycle paths), pavements? 

 

God knows what sort of costs a cyclist would be looking at for knocking down a pedestrian?

 

We were crossing the top of the High St. only yesterday, when 2 cyclists, (late teens), came down Fargate at speed then straight down a very busy High St., dodging in & out of pedestrians, hardly breaking their speed. 

 

On such a crowded street, I'd only take one pedestrian to suddenly move to their right or left & someone is going to get seriously hurt. 

Cycling on a pavement that has not been designated a cycle route either shared or segregated is against the law under Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835. Penalty is a FPN of £30, charged under Schedule 3 and Section 51 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. (Yes I googled, I couldn't remember it specifically 🤣)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not bashing cyclists, I think it's a great idea to make cycling insurance compulsory. Not sure how children would fit into all of this but the cost wouldn't be all that much I wouldn't have thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Resident said:

All vehicles using the public highway should be required to have identification plates & minimum 3rd party insurance inlcuding Bicycles, mobilty scooters. 

 

Militant cyclists will never accept such though. They wouldn't be able to ignore road traffic laws or commit acts of criminal damage with impunity. 

 

*INB4 Cyclone gets the massive hump and starts about motor vehicle users breaking the law, despite his own posts stating he breaks laws regardless of the transport method

 

Why would the state provide it? A bicycle isn't a government vehicle. 

I spend upwards of 9 hours on the road in and around S Yorks. There are 2 leaders in the 'race for worst road user' Taxis and cyclists. 

How are you defining "worst road user"? 

 

Causes most pollution?

Causes most deaths?

Causes most traffic jams?

Causes most wear and tear to road surfaces?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Resident said:

All vehicles using the public highway should be required to have identification plates & minimum 3rd party insurance inlcuding Bicycles, mobilty scooters. 

 

Militant cyclists will never accept such though. They wouldn't be able to ignore road traffic laws or commit acts of criminal damage with impunity. 

 

*INB4 Cyclone gets the massive hump and starts about motor vehicle users breaking the law, despite his own posts stating he breaks laws regardless of the transport method

 

Why would the state provide it? A bicycle isn't a government vehicle. 

I spend upwards of 9 hours on the road in and around S Yorks. There are 2 leaders in the 'race for worst road user' Taxis and cyclists. 

My bold.  What about horses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Becky B said:

My bold.  What about horses?

Horses can’t ride bikes, silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Bargepole23 said:

How are you defining "worst road user"? 

 

Causes most pollution?

Causes most deaths?

Causes most traffic jams?

Causes most wear and tear to road surfaces?

We're not discussing who are the worst road users; polluters or who wears the tarmac down quickest, the last of which is covered by motorist Road tax, which as far as I can see, nobody is advocating that cyclists should pay?

The topic is about whether they should have compulsory insurance, let's say from the age of 17, in line with the youngest drivers. 

 

Don't forget insurance is a two-way street.  A cyclist would also be covered for any injury sustained in an accident.  Cycling on busy city centre roads, as we are often told, is a dangerous form of transport, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Baron99 said:

the last of which is covered by motorist Road

1) no it isn't - road maintenance comes from general taxation, council tax basically. Which means everyone pays for it, even if they haven't got a car. It's just one of the ways we subsidise cars.

 

2) no such thing as road tax, it's ved. For Which some cars pay zero. (Another way we subsidise cars)

Edited by ads36

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Resident said:

Not bashing all cyclists, there are a few considerate good eggs on the roads. Unfortunately I can only speak from my personal experience & find that as such they are a minority, 

 

Cycling on a pavement that has not been designated a cycle route either shared or segregated is against the law under Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835. Penalty is a FPN of £30, charged under Schedule 3 and Section 51 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. (Yes I googled, I couldn't remember it specifically 🤣)

And multiple home secretaries have said that cyclists SHOULD use the pavement though.  The police, when using cycles, use the pavement!


Why they don't just change the law to shut up people like you I don't know.

8 hours ago, Baron99 said:

We're not discussing who are the worst road users; polluters or who wears the tarmac down quickest, the last of which is covered by motorist Road tax, which as far as I can see, nobody is advocating that cyclists should pay?

The topic is about whether they should have compulsory insurance, let's say from the age of 17, in line with the youngest drivers. 

 

Don't forget insurance is a two-way street.  A cyclist would also be covered for any injury sustained in an accident.  Cycling on busy city centre roads, as we are often told, is a dangerous form of transport, 

So there's no need for insurance if a 16 year old cycles into someone and is sued by the idiot who walked out in front of them?  But at 17 it becomes required, but basically unenforceable.

Edited by Cyclone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

And multiple home secretaries have said that cyclists SHOULD use the pavement though.  The police, when using cycles, use the pavement!


 

Have you thought that it might be an unpopular law change, outside of the realm of militant cyclists such as yourself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

Have you thought that it might be an unpopular law change, outside of the realm of militant cyclists such as yourself?

I would not say he was militant.

 

Just accurate.  And facts seem to scare people.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's unecessary and massively complicated for next to no benefit.

Registering bikes, means registering them to a keeper. Won't work.

A cyclist can cause minimal damage compared to a vehicle.

A pedestrian can also cause injury requiring compensation, in lots of different situations. This actual case was one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.