mort Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Just one warning - if this thread descends into the usual bickering and trolling that cycling threads tend to I wil be issuing bans for those responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 This lady has the right idea ...on a more serious note, this is all that is needed. Replace the writing with a cycle ID number. I don't think it would be enforceable unless you increased Police cycle units dramatically to oversee. Would 5yr old children have to take a test? Would they be susceptible to insurance? Does any other country have such a policy..if so, does it work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shef_Fitness Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 I disagree with this idea. For the sole reason that we are going insurance mad in this country. Its going to get to a point where you need to have insurance in order to leave your own house soon. No to this idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted October 31, 2012 Author Share Posted October 31, 2012 I don't think it would be enforceable unless you increased Police cycle units dramatically to oversee. Why would you need increased Police cycle units? If it was compulsory to wear the number, it would simply be an offence to cycle without one. Like driving without a reg plate. The same police could deal with both. Would 5yr old children have to take a test? Would they be susceptible to insurance? Personally, I would never let a 5yr old cycle on the road Does any other country have such a policy..if so, does it work? I don't know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted October 31, 2012 Author Share Posted October 31, 2012 I disagree with this idea. For the sole reason that we are going insurance mad in this country. Its going to get to a point where you need to have insurance in order to leave your own house soon. No to this idea. I don't think that the act of "Leaving your own house" causes much damage or injury to others and their property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 I would like the third party insurance to be applicable to pedestrians,horse riders,milkmen with carts and all people who use or cross roads.All insured people should display a large number when in public but these may be removed in shops,theatres and other enclosed public spaces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted October 31, 2012 Author Share Posted October 31, 2012 I would like the third party insurance to be applicable to pedestrians,horse riders,milkmen with carts and all people who use or cross roads.All insured people should display a large number when in public but these may be removed in shops,theatres and other enclosed public spaces. I agree with insuring horse riders, and electric vehicles (regardless of speed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medusa Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 I'd like to think that it was possible, but if we're still getting less than 90% of cars to comply with the laws as far as tax, insurance and MOT apply, then how would we do the same with bikes, when there is currently no legislation and no measuring how many bikes there are currently in the country, how many people ride etc? We've had 100 years of registering cars and we still don't have all vehicles meeting the standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 No. The cyclist that did £1000 of damage to RootsBooster's car is liable and should have paid, not him or his insurance company. The only reason that motor insurance is mandatory is because of the potential liability risks involved, which could bankrupt anybody involved in an accident. Walking and cycling are not without risks, but don't carry the same liability risks of driving by some significant margin. Most cyclists are occasional cyclists, like RootsBooster and myself, and adding another hurdle to getting on our bikes would probably mean we wouldn't at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted October 31, 2012 Author Share Posted October 31, 2012 No. The cyclist that did £1000 of damage to RootsBooster's car is liable and should have paid, not him or his insurance company. What if he couldn't pay, or didn't want to? The only reason that motor insurance is mandatory is because of the potential liability risks involved, which could bankrupt anybody involved in an accident. Walking and cycling are not without risks, but don't carry the same liability risks of driving by some significant margin. Most cyclists are occasional cyclists, like RootsBooster and myself, and adding another hurdle to getting on our bikes would probably mean we wouldn't at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.