Compulsory Bicycle Insurance - Yes or No?

[OhhEnnEmm]

I personally ride a motorcycle as my main vehicle. However, I feel that it is right for bicycles to not have mandatory insurance. 

 

Motorcycles are cheaper to insure than cars, this makes sense since motorcycles are smaller, weigh far less, cost less etc. You also give up a lot of features that you have in a car, so the insurance drop feels justified to the rider, you legitimately get less so you pay less. 

 

A bicycle doesn't even have an engine, if it hits a vehicle, it's likely only the rider of the bicycle will be affected. I think bicycle/pedestrian incidents are so few and far between that we don't need compulsory insurance as it's more logical to deal with such an issue as a cyclist, if and when it comes to it, if it ever does. 

 

They're so harmless, I can't see why so many motor vehicle users have such an issue with bicycles not being forced to be ripped off as much as we are. We are ripped off so bad but we get the pleasure of an engine to take us around, and in the case of a car, shelter, music etc.

 

I think there's a lot of stupidity surrounding this subject. 

 

People should stay out of matters that don't concern them. If you have never had an issue with cyclists and aren't one yourself, it's an inefficient use of your mental capacity to focus so much on cyclists. Obviously.

 

I'm not a fisherman, I have no involvement with fishermen, therefore I've never found myself worrying about their licenses (which actually are compulsory). 

 

I'm sure this should be simple? As in just not even a discussion. 

[Cyclone]

I guess that motorists get frustrated that it's so much quicker for a cycle to get through traffic, and that it makes cyclists fit and attractive whilst they sit in their cars getting fat and ugly (okay, that's tongue in cheek).

What they fail to appreciate is that they're part of the congestion that annoys them, and if a cyclist wasn't on a bike, they'd be in a car most likely and the queues would be even longer!

[PRESLEY]

From the age of 18  cyclist shoud be compelled to have insurance plus road tax like other road users.  £20 a year at least.  

[Bargepole23]

1 hour ago, PRESLEY said:

From the age of 18  cyclist shoud be compelled to have insurance plus road tax like other road users.  £20 a year at least.  

So taxed more than a zero VED rated car? Why?

[PRESLEY]

33 minutes ago, Bargepole23 said:

So taxed more than a zero VED rated car? Why?

Ok! The same as a VED rated car. If your a road user contribute. Plus it only makes sense to get your self covered. 

[Becky B]

I do have insurance, out of a sense of personal responsibility and financial risk mitigation (as noted earlier).

 

What is disturbing about this tale is the societal change  that people don't pay any attention to their surroundings when they're out.

Why would anyone step into a road without looking, and concentrating entirely on something else?  If she'd been hit by a car, would it have still been 50/50 blame?

 

I have to dodge round people as a pedestrian because they're so absorbed in a screen that they can't see someone walking along a pavement in the opposite direction.  People stop in doorways because they can't think that other people may be around in the area and want to pass through the door (just one of my pet hates).

 

Take some personal responsibility for behaviour out in public!!!

 

Though the chap  I saw walk into a bus stop because he was staring at his phone was absolutely hilarious 🤣

[ads36]

9 hours ago, PRESLEY said:

Ok! The same as a VED rated car.

Lots of cars have a ved rating of zero.

 

[ads36]

10 hours ago, PRESLEY said:

Plus it only makes sense to get your self covered. 

Lots of people choose to have 3rd party cycle insurance. Despite no legal requirement to do so.

[Cyclone]

1 hour ago, ads36 said:

Lots of cars have a ved rating of zero.

 

That ended that line of thought didn't it

 

Actually though I'd like a rebate on my VED.  I pay £550 a year to allow my car on the road, each time I take out my bike instead of the car I'd like £1.50 back (for not using the car for an entire day, but using the bike for at least one journey).

It seems obvious that by using my bike I'm reducing wear on the roads, reducing congestion and reducing pollution.  But am I thanked by having some VED returned to me, no I am not!

Edited June 26, 2019 by Cyclone

[Tickling]

2 hours ago, Cyclone said:

That ended that line of thought didn't it

 

Actually though I'd like a rebate on my VED.  I pay £550 a year to allow my car on the road, each time I take out my bike instead of the car I'd like £1.50 back (for not using the car for an entire day, but using the bike for at least one journey).

It seems obvious that by using my bike I'm reducing wear on the roads, reducing congestion and reducing pollution.  But am I thanked by having some VED returned to me, no I am not!

What's wear on the roads and congestion got to do with VED?