Cyclists!!!!!

[SexyGreyFox]

and I said I thought they didn't need to pay -just like green vehicles

BUT I did say they should be licenced or tied to a generic driving licence

why shouldn't it be a "vehicle licence" that covers cars, bikes, and cycles ?

but riding a bike/cycle is not the same as driving a car.
I am a daily cyclist and I think we should be tested and have some form of insurance after some of the stuff I've seen.
New drivers especially should be taught about other road users and their right to be on the road and that ROAD TAX DOESN'T EXIST
However, I think back to one of my daughters who passed her test about 4 years ago and during one lesson she told me her instructor had said something like "Be careful of this stupid idiot in front on a bike" and the cyclist had done nothing wrong.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

anyone disagree?

Me.

BUT I did say they should be licenced or tied to a generic driving licence

Something like 96% of all adult cyclists also hold a driving license, ergo the vast majority of cyclists are aware of the rules of the road.

 

[Buckster]

So why would they mind to have them tied ?

 

[233]

Me.

so you don't think cyclists should be trained to a minimum standard or have basic insurance in place,


care to elaborate why?

 

[Deleted member 66701]

So why would they mind to have them tied ?

Because the cost.benefit ratio doesn't make it worth it.

The benefit would just be to placate angry motorists - it wouldn't have any meaningful safety effect. I'm not paying £50 to make some cager happy.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

so you don't think cyclists should be trained to a minimum standard or have basic insurance in place,


care to elaborate why?

No, as above, most are already trained.

As for insurance, no again, mainly because the cost would be a barrier to cycling (similar to my argument why I do not want to see mandatory helmet laws) and accident costs involving cyclists are generally on the very low end compared to vehicle vs vehicle collisions, similar to pedestrian vs vehicle accidents (and we don't need peds to have insurance). I personally do have insurance when cycling (via the CTC), but I like that being a personal choice as I cycle a lot - I would not like to see mandatory insurance for the person who only cycles a lot or can only cycle as they cannot afford a car (e.g. unemployed, student, OAP etc). At the end of the day, if a cyclist is involve din a collision with a car and they can cycle off without exchanging details, exactly how much damage do you think there would be to the vehicle? Again, the cost benefit ration simply doesn't add up.

 

[Buckster]

^^ lol - says it all really

 

[233]

No, as above, most are already trained.

As for insurance, no again, mainly because the cost would be a barrier to cycling (similar to my argument why I do not want to see mandatory helmet laws) and accident costs involving cyclists are generally on the very low end compared to vehicle vs vehicle collisions, similar to pedestrian vs vehicle accidents (and we don't need peds to have insurance). I personally do have insurance when cycling (via the CTC), but I like that being a personal choice as I cycle a lot - I would not like to see mandatory insurance for the person who only cycles a lot or can only cycle as they cannot afford a car (e.g. unemployed, student, OAP etc).

you could have fooled me that most are already trained. if thats the case theres a significant number have a blatant disregard for the rules of the road.


and explain to me why cyclists shouldn't have to be insured against a basic third party liability, surely a cyclist can easily damage a car or injure a fellow road user/pedestrian? where does this leave the other party? if cyclists want to keep having the same rights as car drivers they should have to make sure they can meet the responsibilities of a responsible road user and that is having a basic understanding of safe cycling and being covered against liabilities

you can get a third party cover policy for cycling for a mere £30 a year (less if your a student or retired/unemployed iirc £17 a year) why should this not be compulsory to protect other road users?

 

[Deleted member 66701]

you could have fooled me that most are already trained. if thats the case theres a significant number have a blatant disregard for the rules of the road.

Just like a lot of motorists then I suppose.

Here's a thought - those middle lane hoggers on the motorway and cyclists that jump red lights are actually probably the same person.

and explain to me why cyclists shouldn't have to be insured against a basic third party liability, surely a cyclist can easily damage a car or injure a fellow road user/pedestrian? where does this leave the other party? if cyclists want to keep having the same rights as car drivers they should have to make sure they can meet the responsibilities of a responsible road user and that is having a basic understanding of safe cycling and being covered against liabilities

See my response above = cost/benefit ratio. In the majority of cases the cost would be so low and could be recovered from the cyclist direct if the cyclist is at fault - no need to mandate costly insurance -which is generally a big con anyway - who really benefits from mandatory insurance?

 

[233]

Just like a lot of motorists then I suppose.

Here's a thought - those middle lane hoggers on the motorway and cyclists that jump red lights are actually probably the same person.




See my response above .

£17 a year? its hardly going to break the bank for anyone.

and as for middle lane joggers, they have completed a minimum level of training and can and should be punished for their behaviour up to and including having the driving privileges revoked as for any other bad or dangerous driving.

cyclists seem to sit in a place where they have no responsibilities or comeback for the minority who indulge in anti social and unwelcome behaviour

 

[233]

See my response above = cost/benefit ratio. In the majority of cases the cost would be so low and could be recovered from the cyclist direct if the cyclist is at fault - no need to mandate costly insurance -which is generally a big con anyway - who really benefits from mandatory insurance?

the person who's car you damage would benefit enormously. especially if cyclists are made to display a unique identifier on their bikes too.


now imagine you scrape down the side of a car damaging the paintwork, that could easily run into thousands of pounds of damage.

 

[mattyg]

To be honest the way the cash/claim culture is heading we should all be looking at personal insurance just in case we bump into someone coming out of Tesco.

 

[touch]

See my response above = cost/benefit ratio. In the majority of cases the cost would be so low and could be recovered from the cyclist direct if the cyclist is at fault - no need to mandate costly insurance -which is generally a big con anyway - who really benefits from mandatory insurance?

It's expensive to get even minor scratches on a car repaired - far more than the £30/year insurance costs.
What if you hit another cyclist? I was involved in a crash with another bicycle a couple of years ago. £5000 worth of bike written off. (Wasnt me at fault - and wasnt my bike that was trashed).

I think all cyclists should have liability insurance. It's mandatory for anybody who wants to enter races and is heavily recommended (if not mandatory) to join most cycling clubs.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

cyclists seem to sit in a place where they have no responsibilities or comeback for the minority who indulge in anti social and unwelcome behaviour

They do have responsibilities and can be punished in a similar manner to motorists, excepting points on a license. Fines are roughly the same for both road users for similar offenses.

I think you're confusing traceability with accountability and responsibility, although in a cyclists case they aren't that much different to pedestrians in that respect.

 

[233]

To be honest the way the cash/claim culture is heading we should all be looking at personal insurance just in case we bump into someone coming out of Tesco.

so true, i've watched my public liability cover on the taxis go from 1 to 2 to 5 and now to 10 million over the last few years.


in regards to cyclists, i hear so many complaints from drivers of a cyclist clipping their car and doing a disappearing act, make them easily identifiable and insured i say so many cyclists make good use of their anonymity to not bother stopping

 

[Deleted member 66701]

in regards to cyclists, i hear so many complaints from drivers of a cyclist clipping their car and doing a disappearing act, make them easily identifiable and insured i say so many cyclists make good use of their anonymity to not bother stopping

Will insurance solve that problem? Does mandatory car insurance stop car users driving off after bumping someone in a supermarket car park or clipping your wing on the roundabout.

Insurance isn't a magic bullet - it's a placebo.

 

[233]

Will insurance solve that problem? Does mandatory car insurance stop car users driving off after bumping someone in a supermarket car park or clipping your wing on the roundabout.


Insurance isn't a magic bullet - it's a placebo.

no but a unique identifier for every cyclist would


and good luck to you if you run your bars down the side of a bentley or some other high end car and don't have insurance in place.


5 figure claim ahoy

 

[bloodiedathame]

I'm torn about the whole thing. I cycle to and from the station every day, 4 miles, no biggy, people are generally pretty good considering that I cycle along a busy countryside A road which is mostly NSL.

However there are so many cyclists out for a jolly at the weekends around Surrey/Kent that it's become pretty ridiculous to drive. When the weather is good it's pretty much the case that you overtake one person, it's not long before you get to another. And it's the same in the other direction. I'm patient and courteous to cyclists, which can't be said for a lot of drivers that I see. What gets me is the insane amount of piousness that most cyclists seem to carry, like they are part of some self-improvement wife-less elite lycra club, and that sort of gets on my ****. I don't know exactly what bothers me so much; the dedication to the trend, the ongoing pursuit of climbing ridiculous hills with very few overtaking spots for cars to pass, the enjoyment of something that I really can't find any enjoyment from myself. I tend to think that hobbyists of both the cycling and horse-riding brigade would have a lot more fun off road than being laughed/cursed/resented by other road users. But what do I know? I'll continue to be nice to cyclists, but I will laugh at you if you don't release your cleats in time, struggle up hills or get caught in the rain, I'm a bit of a ******* like that.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

if thats the case theres a significant number have a blatant disregard for the rules of the road.

Same as drivers then.

My commute home became so traumatic that I now have a route that is about 90% off road but the only problem is it rattles my road bike to death.
My commute to work is about 90% road but I only have the odd 'incident'.