Make cyclists buy insurance cover

[David Schweizer]

It has always been my understanding that one does not require a Licence or Insurance for any form of unpowered transport, based upon the "ancient rights" principle that they all preceed motorised transport.(which some would argue is the major catalyst for road accidents) To start on Bicycles would create a precedent for horses, Prams, buggies scooters, roller skates, etc. etc.

 

Having said that people who use unpowered transport still have a legal responsibility to use them responsibly and the obligation to do so with due care and attention. Failure to do so can still result in a civil or criminal prosecution, and I understand that it is possible to obtain Insurance against any Third party risks.

 

Our Bicycles are all insured against theft or damage, both at home, and away from home, I am not sure whether third party risk is also included but this debate has prompted me to check. I certainly know that when I purchased my first bike on HP from my paper round income, I had insurance for both theft and third party risk, but that was a long time ago, and insisted upon by the bike shop selling me the bike on HP.

Edited October 29, 2010 by David Schweizer

[NB Alnwick]

As has already been said - most cyclists 'pay there way' on the road because roads are heavily subsidised from our taxes. If the cost of maintaining and regulating (policing) this nations roads were to be born solely by those who use them, most of us would have to give up motoring - although I suspect that the ensuing riots and public disorder would become intolerable. I have never quite understood why we feel that it is perfectly acceptable for us to subsidise roads (and canals) out of our taxes but we somehow think that railways should be self sufficient!

 

With regard to insurance, the CTC insures its members (Third party and theft - bicycles are unlikely to catch fire) and the cost per cycle is minimal compared to the cost of insuring a car - which seems to suggest that cycles and cyclists are regarded as a very much lower risk by insurers . . .

 

With regard to cyclists not obeying the law at traffic lights, or riding on pavements and pedestrian crossings etc. - I think this must be the fault of the parents who seem to encourage child cyclists to do these things in the mistaken belief that it will keep them safe. As they grow up they continue with the same bad habits - most young cyclists do not even realise that they are breaking the law!

 

When I was a child, riding on the pavement would have brought a stern reprimand from the village policeman so I never adopted the habit . . .

Edited October 29, 2010 by NB Alnwick

[Josher]

 

When I was a child, riding on the pavement would have brought a stern reprimand from the village policeman so I never adopted the habit . . .

 

The good old days!

 

[twocvbloke]

While the anti-cyclists are after cyclists blood, why not introduce a mandatory 2-year driving test to ensure that people still know how to drive a couple of years down the line, after all, there are plenty of idiots in control of large 4-wheeled vehicles that are a danger to everyone on and surrounding roads...

 

That said, proper cycling courses for all ages would be a great idea, I hate cycling on roads, mainly cos I don't know what I'm doing, so where I can (as in, on cycle paths, SusTrans routes, or just hopping off the bike and walking), I avoid using roads, so something that can help people like myself ensure they're safe and confident on the roads would be a great benefit...

 

As for using pedestrian crossings for crossing a road safely, well, I think it's more intelligent to do this than to just ride out infront of traffic (which doesn't always pay attention to anything smaller than a Mini!!), especially as most commuter cyclists don't have the acceleration of Lance Armstrong!!!

[alan_fincher]

With regard to cyclists not obeying the law at traffic lights, or riding on pavements and pedestrian crossings etc. - I think this must be the fault of the parents who seem to encourage child cyclists to do these things in the mistaken belief that it will keep them safe. As they grow up they continue with the same bad habits - most young cyclists do not even realise that they are breaking the law!

When our kids were young, and we were trying hard to teach them to cycle safely, I was on on one occasion stopped by the Police, when we were going quite well and safely on a fairly busy road.

 

It was suggested that in that case they would be safer cycling on the pavement, and that is what he would recommend, even though it was of course not strictly legal.....

 

Your serve!......

 

I'd also add that not 5 miles away, in nearby Buckinghamshire, narrow pavements have now been designated as "shared paths", and are marked for joint cycling and pedestrian use, with no segregation. No other modifications have been made to the foot-way, there being for example, no dropped kerbs each time those paths are intersected by a side road.

 

I'm all for promoting cycling, and a great supporter of genuine cycling initiatives, but a lot of the time councils and counties are paying lip service to the fact they are supposed to have "green" credentials, but what they actually do on a cycling front is tantamount to the insane.

 

The link that Natalie posted to some of the cycling "improvements" may be a hoot, but it is also the reality. Our home town has many examples of cycling "improvements", most of them more likely to bring about a cycling death, than to prevent one. This is also a town that was selected to demonstrate what could be done if proper traffic calming measures were put in place, and a lot of money was spent on some very daft ideas, (eg chicanes where motorists speed up to try and beat each other through the gap, rather than being rewduced to a crawl, as was clearly the intention). I'd say 90% of these features have now been engineered out over the years, after spates of near misses.

 

The only remaining evidence is the decaying state of the roads where humps, chicanes, and other narrowings have been removed, without properly reinstating the surface, leaving a lot of additional hazards.

[carlt]

 

It was suggested that in that case they would be safer cycling on the pavement, and that is what he would recommend, even though it was of course not strictly legal.....

 

I agree.

 

I would much rather be hit, by by a cyclist, whilst walking on the footway than hit a cyclist, on the road, whilst driving my car.

[Natalie Graham]

When I was a child, riding on the pavement would have brought a stern reprimand from the village policeman so I never adopted the habit . . .

 

 

 

The good old days!

 

 

 

That policeman has taken his bike off him for riding on the pavement, and made him cry by the look of it. But fancy you having a picture of NB Alnwick when he was little.

[rubblequeen]

As an avid cyclist (just finished LEJOG and heading over to Oz for Perth to Sydney) I also condemn the people who ride irresponsibly and are basically anti social and who are probably that whether on a bike or not. My car has just been keyed along with all my neighbours - so they don't have to be on a bike to do damage. I'm sure that any responsible person would own up if they accidently damaged someone's property.

 

Yes as a householder I am insured for accidents outside the home. So tick that box. As for car tax mine costs £400+ my wife's £10 and she does more mileage than me contributing to more wear and tear of the roads. Whereas cycles do very little damage to the road surface and no pollution so therefore would be classed as zero rated, how much would that cost to administer?

 

As for contributing to paying for the tow paths to be upgraded it is possible that we do but LA get grants to provide cycle paths and most of them are a big waste of money, you want a laugh get "Crap Cycle Lanes" except it makes me angry because of the utter waste of money just so a council can tick a box and get the grant. This bit I'm not sure of but I wondered if upgrading a tow path was also included in the grant if not then is should be, much better way to spend our money.

 

One last question - why do motorists have so little patience with cyclists? I know at times I cause a short delay and always thank anyone I have inconvenienced, but then someone turning right and stopping the flow or just dithering a bit as they are lost doesn't seem to get any response, quite rightly. Must go and pump up me tyres

[casper ghost]

 

I would much rather be hit, by by a cyclist, whilst walking on the footway than hit a cyclist, on the road, whilst driving my car.

I saw a cyclist crash into an old lady. He was going up the inside of a long line of stopped traffic and didn't notice the lady crossing at the zebra crossing. It was a pretty nasty accident with the lady having a trip in an ambulance. I think the cyclist waited until the ambulance left and then carried his bike off before any police could turn up..

Casp'

[David Schweizer]

As has already been said - most cyclists 'pay there way' on the road because roads are heavily subsidised from our taxes. If the cost of maintaining and regulating (policing) this nations roads were to be born solely by those who use them, most of us would have to give up motoring - although I suspect that the ensuing riots and public disorder would become intolerable. I have never quite understood why we feel that it is perfectly acceptable for us to subsidise roads (and canals) out of our taxes but we somehow think that railways should be self sufficient!

 

 

I would like to see the facts that substantiate that statement. It is corect to state that most highway maintenance is payed from Local Council tax which is payed by all households irrespective of whether they have a vehicle or not. However, non vehicle owners do presumably use public transport, which does use the public highway. Highway Aurthorities do also receive a Rates Support Grant, which comes from Government Tax Revenue. However it is not that simple.

 

I seem to remember both the AA and RAC complaining, in the past, that the amount of tax collected both directly and inderectly from motorists through road fund licence fees, tax on Fuel, tax on vehicle insurance, MOT certificte charges, tax on the purchase and servicing of vehicles etc. far outweighs that spent Nationally on the Highways. I do not have the figures but I expect someone will produce them.

Edited October 29, 2010 by David Schweizer

[carlt]

I do not have the figures but I expect someone will produce them.

Less than a third of the total of road and fuel tax is spent on Highway Maintenance.

 

Maybe car owners could strive to identify what else they are paying for, out of the remaining two thirds, and charge cyclists extra, for accessing those services, too?

[rubblequeen]

Surely as we have to buy insurance and have a licence we should expect those (probably cyclists when on dry land) people in canoes and dinghies to need a licence & insurance. Just as daft as the OP

 

Ps my wife (who does not come on this site) agrees with the OP which I think proves just how daft it is.

Edited October 29, 2010 by rubblequeen

[Josher]

Just as daft as the OP

 

Ps my wife (who does not come on this site) agrees with the OP which I think proves just how daft it is.

 

Well if you think this is daft - you should see some of the other stuff I come out with!

 

[rubblequeen]

No that's good

[furnessvale]

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

 

Yet cyclists pay nothing towards the additional costs they impose eg towpath damage, sinage etc etc.

 

I believe BW attempted to enforce payment for cycling permits, picking the K & A as a test case. Mass disobedience by cyclists sent BW scurrying back to HQ making plans to up the cost of boat licences to make up the shortfall.

 

I also think there was once a problem on the Lancaster with the boaters(but I cannot remember the details). In that case there was some sort of mass resistance which had a slight effect. Perhaps ALL boaters should refuse to pay, just like cyclists, then we can see what happens.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Guest]

Whilst we are on I advocate the compulsory third party insurance for drivers of supermarket trolleys, had a good few bits of paint scraped off by them over the years..

Edited October 29, 2010 by MJG

[andywatson]

That policeman has taken his bike off him for riding on the pavement, and made him cry by the look of it. But fancy you having a picture of NB Alnwick when he was little.

 

The kid's not crying he's being breathalysed.

[alan_fincher]

I believe BW attempted to enforce payment for cycling permits, picking the K & A as a test case. Mass disobedience by cyclists sent BW scurrying back to HQ making plans to up the cost of boat licences to make up the shortfall.

BW could presumably have made up far more "shortfall" by ensuring that every boater on the K&A had actually paid for a licence, than by trying to collect licence money from cyclists ?

 

I did once cycle on the K&A at a time this was in force. As the tow-path was littered with cut Hawtorn that made cycling a nightmare, charging for the "privilege" seemed a bit unreasonable, in the circumstances.

[Pretty Funked Up]

BW could presumably have made up far more "shortfall" by ensuring that every boater on the K&A had actually paid for a licence, than by trying to collect licence money from cyclists ?

 

Fixed penalties for dog owners who dont pick up (yes including the runny ones) would go along way too, I'd apply for warden job (for a free mooring of course ) £80 sounds fair and I reckon i'd collect £800 a day for em.

Edited October 29, 2010 by Pretty Funked Up

[NB Alnwick]

A bicycle is a road vehicle and like horse and steam rollers, bicycle have been lawfully used on the roads since before the motor car was invented. At present it is illegal in this country to ride a bicycle on a pavement or in other areas that are specifically reserved for pedestrians - for that reason I will not ride on pavements and I think it is a very poor show when parents encourage their children to break these laws. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why our country is presently witnessing a decline in standards. If it is deemed acceptable to break one law - why not break another or even all of them? In fact why bother having laws at all?

 

The modern concept (held by many people) of cycling is that it is a leisure or fitness activity and that cyclist can ride on unpaved surfaces and rarely travel fast enough to keep up with modern traffic. I spent ten years commuting to work on a bicycle and could do the 20 miles from my house to my office in an hour and ten minutes (although, after a long day, it sometimes took as much as an hour and a half tpo get home in the evening) - I am not particularly fit but the journey was not much quicker by car - there were always long queues of traffic waiting to enter the town and on that last stretch I could certainly move a lot faster without being a danger either to the cars or myself.

I didn't need to travel on any pavements and with an average speed approaching 20 mph it would have been dangerous to do so. I also obeyed traffic lights, speed limits and road signs. What is more, my journey was a genuine commute to and from my workplace so I think I had as much right to be making that journey as those who chose to travel as the sole occupant of a huge 4x4 or the parents who got the car out just to take their fat kids to school a few hundred yards down the road.

 

Lately, I have noticed some signs at junctions and traffic roundabouts that say 'Cyclists Dismount' - this is something that I really cannot get to grips with. Surely a cyclist moving with the traffic flow has got to be far safer than a pedestrian pushing a bicycle across a busy road junction. And if the cyclist is in danger because drivers are unable to control their vehicle or have a limited field of vision inside their metal cocoon - is it really the fault of the cyclist? I prefer the way the law works in some other European countries where the driver of a powered vehicle is automatically deemed to be responsible in any collision that he may have with an unpowered vehicle.

 

And, furthermore, why discriminate solely against cyclists? I haven't seen signs that say 'horse riders dismount', 'motorcyclists dismount' or 'moterrorists get out of your vehicles and push' - in my view, it all comes back to the same thing: these crazy signs and the so-called 'bike-lanes' are all being designed by people who do not do any real cycling themselves and have no idea what it is all about - I doubt if they have even read the Highway Code.

[Guest]

but what about cycle ways that are painted on pavements...

[Guest]

It is pedestrians who need to carry 3rd party liability insurance.

[NB Alnwick]

but what about cycle ways that are painted on pavements...

 

Indeed - but is it safe to have cyclists riding at anything up to 40 mph on the same path as pedestrians? If so why not allow motorcycles to use cycle paths too?

[Pretty Funked Up]

Or minimotos, they only do 28-30mph the cheap chinese ones, far less dangerous than a 15st chap gunning it on a mountain bike. so much fun, even did McDonalds drive thru on the once , just for laugh I hate McD's

Edited October 30, 2010 by Pretty Funked Up

[Boaty Jo]

Mmmm!

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11657376