Make cyclists buy insurance cover

[Josher]

An interesting letter in the Yorkshire Evening Post Here.

 

...."Further discontent is caused by the fact that road markings and other aids created to help cyclists come from road tax paid by drivers. Fair enough but surely for the benefit of responsible cyclists and others who have the right to use pavements, canal footpaths and other open spaces unrestricted, obligatory insurance and a registration plate should go a long way to make "couldn't care less cyclists" mend their ways".

 

Probably not a vote winner though, so little chance of success.

[Barry]

It would get my vote, though I can see it would be very difficult to police. I am constantly amazed by the dangerous antics of irresponsible cyclists that I see on the roads.

[Nine of Hearts]

An interesting letter in the Yorkshire Evening Post Here.

 

...."Further discontent is caused by the fact that road markings and other aids created to help cyclists come from road tax paid by drivers. Fair enough but surely for the benefit of responsible cyclists and others who have the right to use pavements, canal footpaths and other open spaces unrestricted, obligatory insurance and a registration plate should go a long way to make "couldn't care less cyclists" mend their ways".

 

Probably not a vote winner though, so little chance of success.

 

I'd imagine that "couldn't care less" cyclists probably "wouldn't care less" and would fail to comply with such legislation. So the only people that would penalise would be considerate cyclists. I've also noticed that there are black and white stripes accompanied with illuminated poles on many roads for the benefit of pedestrians. Perhaps we should make these free-loading bar-stewards get insurance too?

[blodger]

I can see the benefits to the Insurance industry more than to folk who use a bike or others who have interactions with them of whatever kind so I would not encourage it or expect it to be taken up.

[carlt]

Further discontent is caused by the fact that road markings and other aids created to help cyclists come from road tax paid by drivers

 

If only that were true.

 

Most cyclists contribute to the upkeep of the roads....because they own a car and/or pay council tax. When a cyclist leaves his car on the drive then, presumably, he should get a rebate (taking the article's argument to it's logical conclusion), for using an alternative that is less damaging to the road, less likely to be a burden on the NHS and not annoying motorists by adding to congestion.

 

The vehicle excise duty is not a "Road Fund" tax. The Road Fund was scrapped in the thirties and highway maintenance is funded from general taxation, centrally, and the Council Tax, at a local level.

[Nine of Hearts]

Most cyclists contribute to the upkeep of the roads....

 

My little girl doesn't. However, I'm happy to screw a licence plate to her pink princess special, and deduct insurance money from her sweetie allowance, if that makes some grumpy sod in Leeds who's having a bad morning feel a bit better.

[carlt]

if that makes some grumpy sod in Leeds who's having a bad morning feel a bit better.

From the tone of the letter, given that it's the Yorkshire Post, I'd say he was having a particularly good morning.

 

If he'd got out of bed the wrong side, an anti-cyclist Yorkshireman would be outside his house chucking a stinger under the wheels of your daughter's bike, rather than writing a letter.

[Naughty Cal]

It gets my vote as well. My car is no sporting a lovely gash down the side where a cyclists attempted to stop at the lights beside me without putting their feet down. Result they toppled over and damaged my car

[Nine of Hearts]

It gets my vote as well. My car is no sporting a lovely gash down the side where a cyclists attempted to stop at the lights beside me without putting their feet down. Result they toppled over and damaged my car

 

My last car had it's bumper damaged and exhaust ripped off by some arsehole driving into the back of it. He just pissed off and left me to sort it out myself. Perhaps we should get a law passed that requires car owners to carry insurance.

 

Oh...

[Naughty Cal]

My last car had it's bumper damaged and exhaust ripped off by some arsehole driving into the back of it. He just pissed off and left me to sort it out myself. Perhaps we should get a law passed that requires car owners to carry insurance.

 

Oh...

 

Most insurers allow you to claim against uninsured drivers now without affecting your no claims. Not the same with cyclists

[Nine of Hearts]

Most insurers allow you to claim against uninsured drivers now without affecting your no claims. Not the same with cyclists

 

So to combat cars with no insurance, you think a change in the way your policy works is ok. But to combat cyclists with no insurance, you want them to get insurance? Why the double standard?

 

In your example, you're still paying for the damage yourself because he probably wouldn't be paying any attention to an impossible to police piece of useless legislation with more loopholes than one of my granny's jumpers.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Nine of Hearts

[terryvanman]

the reason cyclist get away with riding on pavements, jump traffic lights and generally don't give a shit about rules of the road is.....they don't get nicked by the police,,the sooner the police realise that it would only take about a week of standing in a shop doorway out of sight of the cyclist and have a colleague just up the road to stop and nick the bastard and issue a £60 fine when they jump the lights, they will soon come into line.......but then again

PS I ride a bicycle and a motorcycle and want to stay alive so I don't jump lights

[Naughty Cal]

So to combat cars with no insurance, you think a change in the way your policy works is ok. But to combat cyclists with no insurance, you want them to get insurance? Why the double standard?

 

In your example, you're still paying for the damage yourself because he probably wouldn't be paying any attention to an impossible to police piece of useless legislation with more loopholes than one of my granny's jumpers.

 

There are ways in which drivers with no insurance are being dealt with. There are currently measures in place to remove the offenders car and either crush or resell the vehicle. Obviously in an ideal world every driver of a motor vehicle would be insured, but there are always those who will try to beat the system and car insurers are helping their customers by recognising this and offering uninsured driver clauses in their policies.

 

As it stand cyclists are not required to have insurance. When they damage the vehicles of another road user it is up to the owner of the car to repair the damage. How is that fair when the owner of the car has done nothing wrong? If cyclists want to use the road they should be insured and taxed just like other road users are required to be.

[Nine of Hearts]

As it stand cyclists are not required to have insurance. When they damage the vehicles of another road user it is up to the owner of the car to repair the damage. How is that fair when the owner of the car has done nothing wrong? If cyclists want to use the road they should be insured and taxed just like other road users are required to be.

 

My car is sporting two scratches down its side which I believe were caused by some little tykes colliding with it on their scooters. Perhaps kids with scooters need insurance, too. And kids with conkers. And kids on roller skates. In fact.. let's get everybody! (had an accident lately that wasn't your fault...)

 

But do go on, how do we police this bike insurance scheme? Who has to have it? All ages? Just for roads use, or is use elsewhere ok (I don't think car insurance is required if you're off road, f'rinstance)?

[muddywaters]

not sure it would work pn the roads tbh.

I mean motor cycles need road tax, insurance and a license yet you still get a lot of idiots riding around on them with none of that.

Tell you what I would be in favour of though but don't think it would be workable really unless BW employed a lot of staff to check which won't happen.

If I bought a boat tomorrow I would need a license to keep it on take it onto BW waterways, if I go finishing on a canal I need a rod license and a permit for that stretch of water.

BW have spent millions upgrading towpaths for cyclists, what do they contribute apart from tax towards the cost and if anyone wants to argue that they do contribute with taxes why should boaters need to buy a license because so do they.

So how about a charge to cycle on towpaths

[David Mack]

As it stand cyclists are not required to have insurance. When they damage the vehicles of another road user it is up to the owner of the car to repair the damage. How is that fair when the owner of the car has done nothing wrong? If cyclists want to use the road they should be insured and taxed just like other road users are required to be.

 

Liability for damage and insurance are entirely different matters.

 

If you can identify the cyclist who damages your car, and prove it was his fault, you can sue him for the cost of the damage, whether he is insured or not (although if he is not insured he may have less means to pay up). If you can't prove he did it then it doesn't make any difference whether he's insured or not.

 

David

[casper ghost]

We should do what they do in some other counrties and make all accidents involvong cyclists and cars the fault of the car.. That cut these type of accidents dramatically over there..

 

Casp' a cyclist...

[stewey]

not sure it would work pn the roads tbh.

I mean motor cycles need road tax, insurance and a license yet you still get a lot of idiots riding around on them with none of that.

Tell you what I would be in favour of though but don't think it would be workable really unless BW employed a lot of staff to check which won't happen.

If I bought a boat tomorrow I would need a license to keep it on take it onto BW waterways, if I go finishing on a canal I need a rod license and a permit for that stretch of water.

BW have spent millions upgrading towpaths for cyclists, what do they contribute apart from tax towards the cost and if anyone wants to argue that they do contribute with taxes why should boaters need to buy a license because so do they.

So how about a charge to cycle on towpaths

You have to buy a licence to cover the additional costs needed only by boaters. eg

 

Canal lock maintenance

Canal dredging

Provision of water points

Effluent disposal

Shower and laundry facilities

Canal bank maintenance

Mooring provision

Signage

etc etc

 

Stewey

[andywatson]

It gets my vote as well. My car is no sporting a lovely gash down the side where a cyclists attempted to stop at the lights beside me without putting their feet down. Result they toppled over and damaged my car

 

One of my cycling mates is sporting a lovely broken neck after being rammed from behind whilst waiting to turn right. Whether or not the vehicle was insured is not material as the driver did a runner.

 

EDIT.

I do not condone the bad riding of reckless or ignorant cyclists but I can't understand why it gets people any more het up than bad motoring. It seems to on here.

Generally a cyclist in collision with a pedestrian will come off with more or less the same amount of injury, both being soft. Most cyclists ride accordingly.

 

Any cyclist or pedestrian in collision with a car is likely come off much worse.

I'm sure someone protected by 0.1mm of clothing and a polystyrene helmet is less likely to take chances with their own or other peoples lives than a driver with a ton of steel around him/her, crumple zones, ABS, ESC, airbags, not to mention Radio/CD and mobile phone.

 

More are killed and injured by motor vehicles on pavements than bikes and I see plenty of cars parked on pavements that did not transpose themselves there.

Edited October 28, 2010 by andywatson

[MartinC]

Two thoughts on this:

 

1. Household Insurance includes third party liability for the whole family for non-motorised cycles. The majority of householders have insurance. It is unlikely that standalone insurance for cycles would be economic.

 

2. The present government is moving away from central control towards the "Big Society". Less compulsion not more.

 

I await the usual rants!!

[casper ghost]

I was on my tandem with my daughter recently and the same thing happened, except the brocken neck bit. At a junction a car drove into the back of my bike... Like i'm not big enough to see! Also when I was 11 I got hit by a car who slid across the road on a sharp corner, I was flung into the air after denting his windscreen 10" in with the back of my head. He then tried to take my dad to court, but the Police stopped him threatening action against him.. It's no fun.

Casp'

[Byeckerslike]

the reason cyclist get away with riding on pavements, jump traffic lights and generally don't give a shit about rules of the road is.....they don't get nicked by the police,,the sooner the police realise that it would only take about a week of standing in a shop doorway out of sight of the cyclist and have a colleague just up the road to stop and nick the bastard and issue a £60 fine when they jump the lights, they will soon come into line.......but then again

PS I ride a bicycle and a motorcycle and want to stay alive so I don't jump lights

 

Would not the same logic / argument apply to catching a very common form of criminal activity - using a mobile phone whilst driving?

 

or,

 

Inconsiderate lane hogging of the middle lane / outside lane of motorways, since the police decide to abandon proper patrol car presence on the motorways and resort to highway robbery by installing "speed cameras/revenue collectors, since then, "lane discipline" has deteriorated alarmingly.

 

Rob

[mrsmelly]

An interesting letter in the Yorkshire Evening Post Here.

 

...."Further discontent is caused by the fact that road markings and other aids created to help cyclists come from road tax paid by drivers. Fair enough but surely for the benefit of responsible cyclists and others who have the right to use pavements, canal footpaths and other open spaces unrestricted, obligatory insurance and a registration plate should go a long way to make "couldn't care less cyclists" mend their ways".

 

Probably not a vote winner though, so little chance of success.

 

What about horses ? they are big and having dealt with a couple of road accidents involving them years ago you would not beleive the damage they can cause but they need no insurance either. Lots of people who use our roads and footpaths do stupid things, last week on a narrow country road I passed ( slowly ) some idiot running, he was not only facing the wrong way but also had earphones in no doubt listening to music,a total pillock and not on his own as we have all seen people doing it. Many of the cyclists in Oxford are also stupid and I would never get on a pedal cycle as I have no death wish but it is not possible to bring legislation on them as to insurance as it could not be policed effectively.

[Natalie Graham]

I was on my tandem with my daughter recently and the same thing happened, except the brocken neck bit. At a junction a car drove into the back of my bike... Like i'm not big enough to see! Also when I was 11 I got hit by a car who slid across the road on a sharp corner, I was flung into the air after denting his windscreen 10" in with the back of my head. He then tried to take my dad to court, but the Police stopped him threatening action against him.. It's no fun.

Casp'

 

I like the ones who try and turn left and overtake you at the same time. I've had that happen twice. Then there was the one who turned across the road in front of me causing to run into the wall at the side of the road. Thankfully I was able to jump clear of the bike as it hit. I then jumped the wall as well, ran across to where the driver was parking his car, opened his door, dragged him out by the lapels of his jacket and told him, very loudly, just what I thought of him. He was the guest of honour at an event where I worked two days later too. His face was a picture of embarrassment when he walked in and saw me.

 

The worst one though was the red Porsche with a personalised number plate with two letters to indicate his initials and one digit for his IQ. He tried to overtake a line of traffic following a furniture van by screaming round it on the outside of a sharp blind bend and i was cycling the other way. I thought I'd had it and thought I'd stare him in the eyes as I met my end just to give him nightmares about it later. Thankfully the driver of the last car in the line reacted to what was happening and slammed his brakes on making room for the Porsche to swerve and avoid me by inches as he braked. I really thought I was done for that time. I think cyclists might be better advised to have life insurance than third party insurance in the event they have an altercation with a motorist.

 

On the opinion in the article, I am unclear as to the mechanism by which making cyclists buy insurance from an insurance company would address the writer's misguided concerns about road tax paying for road markings of cycleways. In any case, most cycleways seem to be more for the benefit of motorists by removing cyclists from the roadway to speed up traffic than of any benefit to the cyclists,

 

Edited to add this wonderful link on cycle facilities. http://homepage.ntlw...y-of-the-month/ Why would anyone object to funding such brilliant facilities?

Edited October 28, 2010 by Natalie Graham

[jez1954]

It gets my vote as well. My car is no sporting a lovely gash down the side where a cyclists attempted to stop at the lights beside me without putting their feet down. Result they toppled over and damaged my car

Bloody miracle they were on the road at all. Round our neck of the woods all the little bastards - kids and grown ups - only ever ride on the pavements....regardless of pedestrian traffic!! What do the cops do - as usual, absolutely nothing.

 

Jez