New Rules For Cyclists?

[Jeffrey Shaw]

All road users should be required to insure against killing/injuring others. Whyever not?

[crookesey]

4 minutes ago, Jeffrey Shaw said:

All road users should be required to insure against killing/injuring others. Whyever not?

Yes I’ll go with that, however how do you enforce it?

[Bargepole23]

35 minutes ago, Jeffrey Shaw said:

All road users should be required to insure against killing/injuring others. Whyever not?

Pedestrians too presumably.

39 minutes ago, West 77 said:

Those riding electric bikes or using mobility scooters should be made to have third party insurance.  Also different rules should apply for cyclists using busy roads in the cities and big towns. 

And those different rules would be what?

[dan2802]

Ask cyclists to abide by the Highway Code?

It'll never happen.

[El Cid]

58 minutes ago, West 77 said:

Those riding electric bikes or using mobility scooters should be made to have third party insurance.  Also different rules should apply for cyclists using busy roads in the cities and big towns. 

You will be saying parents should insure their children, just in case they ride a bike or scooter. Roller boots, insurance required?

[ECCOnoob]

24 minutes ago, El Cid said:

You will be saying parents should insure their children, just in case they ride a bike or scooter. Roller boots, insurance required?

It's not some completely wild notion beyond all debate.

 

Ultimately, if someone is doing something in the public highway which could potentially injure themselves or someone else or cause damage to someone else's property or vehicle, then is it beyond reasonable to suggest that there may be some provision to insure themselves???

 

It is a mandatory legal requirement for car drivers to be insured. Yet we have circumstances (increasing particularly in city centres) where cyclists, scooter riders, electric scooter riders, skateboarders, powered skateboards, rollerbladers..... all mingling with car traffic and sometimes going at speeds which can possibly be equal or even overtaking cars.

 

They might be structurally weaker and less protected outside of a metal box, but it doesn't automatically give them some right to be wholly absolved of responsibility and potential financial liability for their causing of accidents, negligence or damage.  So, why shouldn't they necessarily be insured?

 

If a fellow car driver clipped my wing mirror or accidentally scraped my bumper on a manoeuvre, they have a responsibility to admit the error provide their details and compensate.  If they don't, their number plates gives me an opportunity to at least locate them and follow up.   If some arrogant cyclists went rushing by clipping my wing mirror or an over enthusiastic skateboarder failed a trick and smashed my light, shouldn't the same sort of circumstances apply?  Hardly seems unfair. 

Edited August 17, 2022 by ECCOnoob

[Leo Tomlinson]

1 hour ago, dan2802 said:

Ask cyclists to abide by the Highway Code?

It'll never happen.

The new highway code says pedestrians and cyclists now have precedent  at all junctions  , not many drivers take any notice of this what so ever  .    they are blind when it comes to giving away to same at junctions ,just try stepping out and you will be dead  within the hour .

[Bargepole23]

1 hour ago, dan2802 said:

Ask cyclists to abide by the Highway Code?

It'll never happen.

Like drivers then, like you.

52 minutes ago, West 77 said:

There are good arguments for parents to have third party insurance for any children they have.

 

It should be up to our lawmakers to decide different rules. For example anyone riding a cycle in a quiet village such as the local vicar isn't as much risk to others as a cyclist riding his or her bike during the rush hour in London.

So a different rule for a vicar in a village. What about an inner city vicar outside of rus hour? Or a village postman? Same rules?

 

I can see you've given this some serious thought. As per my first post, clickbait for Tory headbangers. 

[Bargepole23]

1 hour ago, ECCOnoob said:

It's not some completely wild notion beyond all debate.

 

Ultimately, if someone is doing something in the public highway which could potentially injure themselves or someone else or cause damage to someone else's property or vehicle, then is it beyond reasonable to suggest that there may be some provision to insure themselves???

 

It is a mandatory legal requirement for car drivers to be insured. Yet we have circumstances (increasing particularly in city centres) where cyclists, scooter riders, electric scooter riders, skateboarders, powered skateboards, rollerbladers..... all mingling with car traffic and sometimes going at speeds which can possibly be equal or even overtaking cars.

 

They might be structurally weaker and less protected outside of a metal box, but it doesn't automatically give them some right to be wholly absolved of responsibility and potential financial liability for their causing of accidents, negligence or damage.  So, why shouldn't they necessarily be insured?

 

If a fellow car driver clipped my wing mirror or accidentally scraped my bumper on a manoeuvre, they have a responsibility to admit the error provide their details and compensate.  If they don't, their number plates gives me an opportunity to at least locate them and follow up.   If some arrogant cyclists went rushing by clipping my wing mirror or an over enthusiastic skateboarder failed a trick and smashed my light, shouldn't the same sort of circumstances apply?  Hardly seems unfair. 

What about pedestrians, how would you identify one who scratched your car? Presumably you're happy to wear a vest of some sort with a registration number when on foot?

[El Cid]

1 hour ago, ECCOnoob said:

 

If a fellow car driver clipped my wing mirror or accidentally scraped my bumper on a manoeuvre, they have a responsibility to admit the error provide their details and compensate.  If they don't, their number plates gives me an opportunity to at least locate them and follow up.   If some arrogant cyclists went rushing by clipping my wing mirror or an over enthusiastic skateboarder failed a trick and smashed my light, shouldn't the same sort of circumstances apply?  Hardly seems unfair. 

As LT says, pedestrians and cyclists have priority. I am watching daytime TV at the moment, Judge Judy, there seems to be loads of motorists in the USA that don't have insurance. Scooters are illegal now and nothing is enforced.

Does anyone seriously think our police force can enforce more rules?