Jump to content

Compulsory Bicycle Insurance - Yes or No?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Cyclone said:

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.

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.

Just indicates what idiots we have for home secretaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Baron99 said:

(...)

 

Personally I think all road users should carry insurance. 

In an ideal world, they would, out of their sense of personal responsibility and for the same purpose of financial risk mitigation as car drivers, businesses and a plethora of other types with a potential exposure to personal liability out of their every day actions.

 

But we don't live in an ideal world (which many on here, of a highly liberal conviction, are happy to keep as is, so well...). So for those without insurance, there's (unlimited, potentially lifetime) personal liability instead, such as in the OP's link.

 

Personally, I'd rather pay £5.something and know that if if happen to knock someone down with my bike by accident, the collective is picking up the tab. Especially if the consequences should result in life-altering injuries/conditions/disabilities (wherein you can easily add a zero to that 6-figure sum in the OP). But that's just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, altus said:

Let's get something clear about this case. The judge held both parties equally liable - the cyclist should have been ready for the pedestrian to suddenly walk into the road and the pedestrian shouldn't have walked into the road whilst looking at her phone. The reason the cyclist faces all the costs is because he doesn't believe in compo culture and so didn't put in a claim for compensation like the pedestrian did.

Something that surprised me was that the compensation claim awarded was something like £4000.

 

It was the pedestrian's lawyers claiming £96000 in legal fees that have made this so shocking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, of course there shouldn't be compulsory insurance for cyclists.

Share this post


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

Just indicates what idiots we have for home secretaries.

If someone was tear arsing along a busy pavement on a bike, weaving in between pedestrians then you'd expect the police to have a word and advise the cyclist to dismount there, but when a cyclist is gently riding along a quiet stretch of pavement, as I often did along West Bar and Gibraltar Street, and isn't causing any harm, the police can and do use there own discretion and generally don't bother.

Share this post


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

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

It's hilarious that you think that someone who rides a bike and argues against the massive stereotypes deployed with regularity on this forum is somehow "militant".

Shared spaces have been shown to be safer for everyone, so I can't see why pedestrians would be against this idea, nor motorists who would surely be happier now that they don't have to negotiate the difficult obstacle of another road users...  Cyclists who want to travel fast would no doubt still use the road where it was safe, as then they don't have to dodge pedestrians or slow down for side roads.

6 hours ago, alchresearch said:

Something that surprised me was that the compensation claim awarded was something like £4000.

 

It was the pedestrian's lawyers claiming £96000 in legal fees that have made this so shocking.

Even more surprising is that the judge said they were at least equally to blame - although how a cyclists on the road, cycling correctively and actively trying to avoid a pedestrian who has just stepped into the street without looking is at all to blame I don't know) - he still awarded damages to one of them...  I find that quite bizarre.

Edited by Cyclone

Share this post


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

It's hilarious that you think that someone who rides a bike and argues against the massive stereotypes deployed with regularity on this forum is somehow "militant".

Shared spaces have been shown to be safer for everyone, so I can't see why pedestrians would be against this idea, nor motorists who would surely be happier now that they don't have to negotiate the difficult obstacle of another road users...  Cyclists who want to travel fast would no doubt still use the road where it was safe, as then they don't have to dodge pedestrians or slow down for side roads.

The constant carping and arguing that you do, coupled with the helmet cam and YouTube channel, suggest that you are more militant than most.

 

Of course, cyclists sharing with pedestrians wouldn’t be dodging pedestrians. They would  be giving way to them and treating them as vulnerable road users who need due care and attention 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, basically if you argue against the militant anti-cyclist and their dogerel, if you happen to record some of the more egregious and dangerous driving you see, then that makes you "militant"...  Well, you know what they say about opinions.

 

Cyclists sharing with pedestrians would be cycling slower and obviously avoiding the pedestrians.  The big difference between a bike and a car, is that if you collide with something on a bike, you still get hurt.  Unlike in a car, where you get out and say "sorry mate, I didn't see you there", as they bleed out under your wheels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d rather not get hit by a bike though. It hurts quite a lot. The fact that it also hurts the cyclist doesn’t make it hurt the pedestrian any less.

 

And I’m not too keen on having to dodge cyclists whilst I’m trying to walk. Thanks all the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Pettytom said:

I’d rather not get hit by a bike though. It hurts quite a lot. The fact that it also hurts the cyclist doesn’t make it hurt the pedestrian any less.

 

And I’m not too keen on having to dodge cyclists whilst I’m trying to walk. Thanks all the same.

You missed my point.  The fact that it hurts the cyclist as well makes cyclists inherently cautious when using shared space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with cyclists on the pavement being annoying and dangerous.

 

I used to cycle frequently (perhaps 80 miles a week, mostly on roads) so I am fairly experienced.

 

Anyone over the age of 14 should be on the roads, with an exception made for adults accompanying children under that age.

 

SYP should start pulling over and fining people who ignore this, it will help with funding whilst getting the message across that pavement cycling by adults is not acceptable. 

 

With regards to mandatory insurance, I don't think it is feasible and not really necessary.  The capacity for damage (and financial cost) is fairly low on a bike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JamesR123 said:

I agree with cyclists on the pavement being annoying and dangerous.

 

I used to cycle frequently (perhaps 80 miles a week, mostly on roads) so I am fairly experienced.

 

Anyone over the age of 14 should be on the roads, with an exception made for adults accompanying children under that age.

 

SYP should start pulling over and fining people who ignore this, it will help with funding whilst getting the message across that pavement cycling by adults is not acceptable. 

 

With regards to mandatory insurance, I don't think it is feasible and not really necessary.  The capacity for damage (and financial cost) is fairly low on a bike.

So whilst the capacity for damage is fairly low, you'd still be happy to use police resource to fine cyclists on the pavement? If you're going to use resource for enforcement, it should be directed at those who have the capacity to cause most damage ( and financial cost). That'll be motorists, specifically the 1 million or so uninsured motorists on the road in the UK. Is compulsory insurance working for them?

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.