Compulsory Bicycle Insurance - Yes or No?

[Baron99]

19 minutes ago, Bash Street said:

Yes, I'll go with that, should be compulsory for riding a bike on the road.They do cause quite a few accidents and quite a few have a disregard for the highway code. I pulled up at a Pelican crossing the other day as it was on a red and the cyclist just went straight through, at speed.

One caused an accident a few weeks ago somewhere around Salisbury with a tank, bike was smashed to bits and the poor bloke was taken off to hospital, fortunately the tank driver was OK.😀 

I have to disagree with this as cyclists are road users and pedestrians are not.

So as cyclists are road users then?

 

So what about the ones who insist on riding on ordinary, (not dedicated cycle paths), pavements? 

 

God knows what sort of costs a cyclist would be looking at for knocking down a pedestrian?

 

So compulsory insurance might be good idea. 

Edited June 23, 2019 by Baron99
Spelling

[Penistone999]

Yes, definitely compulsory  

[tinfoilhat]

But then you’ve got to enforce it. There’s plenty of motorists breaking laws as it is - as you well know -without adding cyclists to the list. Are we making kids get insurance as well? Do we criminalise the parents if they don’t have it?

[Resident]

Just now, nikki-red said:

Please dont turn this into yet another cyclist-bashing thread.

Cheers.

Not bashing all cyclists, there are a few considerate good eggs on the roads. Unfortunately I can only speak from my personal experience & find that as such they are a minority, 

 

Just now, Baron99 said:

So as cyclists are road users then?

 

So what about the ones who insist on riding on ordinary, (not dedicated cycle paths), pavements? 

 

God knows what sort of costs a cyclist would be looking at for knocking down a pedestrian?

 

We were crossing the top of the High St. only yesterday, when 2 cyclists, (late teens), came down Fargate at speed then straight down a very busy High St., dodging in & out of pedestrians, hardly breaking their speed. 

 

On such a crowded street, I'd only take one pedestrian to suddenly move to their right or left & someone is going to get seriously hurt. 

Cycling on a pavement that has not been designated a cycle route either shared or segregated is against the law under Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835. Penalty is a FPN of £30, charged under Schedule 3 and Section 51 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. (Yes I googled, I couldn't remember it specifically 🤣)

[Bash Street]

I'm not bashing cyclists, I think it's a great idea to make cycling insurance compulsory. Not sure how children would fit into all of this but the cost wouldn't be all that much I wouldn't have thought.

[Bargepole23]

1 hour ago, Resident said:

All vehicles using the public highway should be required to have identification plates & minimum 3rd party insurance inlcuding Bicycles, mobilty scooters. 

 

Militant cyclists will never accept such though. They wouldn't be able to ignore road traffic laws or commit acts of criminal damage with impunity. 

 

*INB4 Cyclone gets the massive hump and starts about motor vehicle users breaking the law, despite his own posts stating he breaks laws regardless of the transport method

 

Why would the state provide it? A bicycle isn't a government vehicle. 

I spend upwards of 9 hours on the road in and around S Yorks. There are 2 leaders in the 'race for worst road user' Taxis and cyclists. 

How are you defining "worst road user"? 

 

Causes most pollution?

Causes most deaths?

Causes most traffic jams?

Causes most wear and tear to road surfaces?

[Becky B]

1 hour ago, Resident said:

All vehicles using the public highway should be required to have identification plates & minimum 3rd party insurance inlcuding Bicycles, mobilty scooters. 

 

Militant cyclists will never accept such though. They wouldn't be able to ignore road traffic laws or commit acts of criminal damage with impunity. 

 

*INB4 Cyclone gets the massive hump and starts about motor vehicle users breaking the law, despite his own posts stating he breaks laws regardless of the transport method

 

Why would the state provide it? A bicycle isn't a government vehicle. 

I spend upwards of 9 hours on the road in and around S Yorks. There are 2 leaders in the 'race for worst road user' Taxis and cyclists. 

My bold.  What about horses?

[Pettytom]

13 minutes ago, Becky B said:

My bold.  What about horses?

Horses can’t ride bikes, silly.

[Baron99]

32 minutes ago, Bargepole23 said:

How are you defining "worst road user"? 

 

Causes most pollution?

Causes most deaths?

Causes most traffic jams?

Causes most wear and tear to road surfaces?

We're not discussing who are the worst road users; polluters or who wears the tarmac down quickest, the last of which is covered by motorist Road tax, which as far as I can see, nobody is advocating that cyclists should pay?

The topic is about whether they should have compulsory insurance, let's say from the age of 17, in line with the youngest drivers. 

 

Don't forget insurance is a two-way street.  A cyclist would also be covered for any injury sustained in an accident.  Cycling on busy city centre roads, as we are often told, is a dangerous form of transport, 

[ads36]

8 hours ago, Baron99 said:

the last of which is covered by motorist Road

1) no it isn't - road maintenance comes from general taxation, council tax basically. Which means everyone pays for it, even if they haven't got a car. It's just one of the ways we subsidise cars.

 

2) no such thing as road tax, it's ved. For Which some cars pay zero. (Another way we subsidise cars)

Edited June 24, 2019 by ads36