To think it would be better if cyclists were licenced and insured

[WyldChyld]

I'm really not anti-cyclist when it's done properly!! I currently live in an area hosting a massive cycle race following an equally massive one last year and understandably, cycling has really taken off, especially as it's picturesque as well.

But there's been two or three incidents in the last few months which make me think cyclists who ride on the road need to be licenced and insured. There's lots of places to ride away from public roads so I wouldn't be banning cycling.

Firstly, we've had a number of times when we've had to try pass cyclists riding two and three abreast chatting away and going very slowly, totally oblivious of the traffic jam. I always pass round them wide and slow to avoid rocking them but this is ridiculous! There's also been a few incidences when apparently inexperienced cyclists have committed some terrifying manoeuvres and nearly caused massive crashes.

The key one is a good friend of mine who had a cyclist crash into her because he wanted to try beat her when he was coming out of a T junction. He was, thank God, unhurt but he has written her car off and she is now trying to find a new car for the pittance offered by her insurance company. They told her if it had been a car it wouldn't have been written off because they could have claimed against someone, and he point blank refused to even contribute to the damage, and actually threatened to claim off her insurance for the cost of the damage to the bike!! She is in financial trouble and this was the last thing she needed.

AIBU to think that it would be much better all round if cyclists were licenced (and has thereby proven they had some skill) and insured? I know car drivers can be terrible and can easily kill cyclists but the hope is that they have at least proven they can drive (in the majority) and are insured if any damage occurs

The should be insured and be licensed. There should be a test, just like there is for drivers of other vehicles on the road.

I genuinely do not understand the argument, but if you do X, then fewer people will cycle. And...???? Why is having more people cycling, a good thing in and of itself? More people cycling safely and responsibly, and with better infrastructure, yes.

thing is though how are you going to ID the cyclist or get their insurance info if they don't stop? You'd qlso need some sort of number plate and data base to store owner info which would require far more funds than the gov would be willing to invest :-/

I don't see how it's an issue of money. It would be a relatively small adaptation to the existing system that keeps such a database for many classes of vehicle already. Plus there would be a charge, just like there is for cars.

In fact, as the number of cyclists grows, the government will be looking for ways they can extract money from them like they do drivers of other vehicles.

"Why is having more people cycling, a good thing in and of itself?"

Seriously?

Less cars on the road
Health of the population
More cyclists normalises it which encourages lorries cars etc to be more aware, things get safer, and thus encourages more people to cycle
To name a couple

Where I work the thoroughfares are mainly people who drive for a living, cyclists, motocycles and pedestrians. It is very busy. As everyone is all mixed in, everyone is keeping an eye out and it's really safe.

They found this in, was it Holland? Where if you mixed everyone up a bit, everyone kept an eye out more and it was loads safer. I found that very interesting. People treated each other with respect more, rather than "this is my space you are in it that makes me angry" - and this is reflected in the area I work. Everyone is mixed up and generally rub along surprisingly well considering the chaotic look of it all.

Oh and occasionally horses, scooters and skateboards too

It's great really.

Why is having more people cycling, a good thing in and of itself?

Why is having more people cycling, a good thing in and of itself?

Thanks for saving me typing that out whirlpool

And yes, it is Holland. No one hardly wears helmets, less fatalities and injuries, way, way more cyclists than the UK.

And all with third party insurance too.

I agree that cyclists having third party insurance is sensible.

But TBF, most of the cyclists I encounter are behaving sensibly and responsibly. Perhaps the knowledge that they'll come off far worse in a collision with a car encourages the majority of them to behave safely? Most of the dangerous behaviour I see around cycling is from car drivers.

For instance, drove home along country roads today, loads of cyclists out today (nice afternoon here), and all the bad road behaviour I saw was from car drivers too impatient to behave sensibly - overtaking the cyclists on blind corners and on the brows of hills so no visibility for traffic coming from the other direction. Bloody stupid when you bear in mind that it's a 60 mph limit, most cars on this road are averaging about 50 mph, and the lanes are narrow enough to mean that you have to go onto the wrong side of the road to overtake.

Holland also has presumed liability for drivers if an accident with a cyclist occurs. Something I am very much in favour of.

I was nearly knocked over by a cyclist on a pavement last week, he then had the cheek to glare at me as if I was in the wrong. I mean it's not like it's illegal for a cyclist to be on the pavement or anything..

Then the other morning I saw one right straight through a red light narrowly avoiding a car who's right of way it was!

So YANBU. Cyclists have an almighty chip on their shoulders about motorists, but if they want to equality then they need to start abiding by the same rules as motorists.

I get cyclist rage round here. Fairly rural so lots of cyclists wobbling along, holding up the traffic. Never in cycle lanes, always in the middle of the road with a queue of cars in second gear crawling along behind them. There is a steepish hill on the approach to where I work and very twisty so hard to overtake and there is always a slow queue of cars, buses etc scarcely moving as one lone cyclist puffs and pants up the middle of the road. Bloody selfish and infuriating.

I cycle occasionally. I do it to get from A to B, not for the fun of it and I can assure you that as a rule there's no off-road route for those of us who use a bike for the purpose of actually getting to a destination.

It takes me 10 minutes to cycle to the next village and half an hour or more to walk it. If I had to take out insurance I would stop cycling as the whole reason I do it in the first place is that it's cost free. My funds are limited and cycling would not be a priority.

YANBU just this morning a cyclist almost caused an accident cutting off a car at a roundabout right by me! A few weeks ago a driver accidentally cut of a cyclist who then stopped so the driver got out to apologise and the cyclist punched him! Just like everything, you get considerate cyclists and inconsiderate ones, or 'lycra wankers' as I like to call the rude, dangerous ones.

It's considered safer for a cyclist to cycle in the middle of the lane though demented, particularly when it's unsafe for a driver to overtake as in your example. It's called cycling in primary position. link

I'm an insured cyclist with a car and motorbike licence so arguably I meet your criteria but neither of your ideas are really feasible.

I have 4 bikes at the moment, not including the motorbike, so how would licencing work? Would I have to pay for a registration for each bike?
What happens in cities with hire bike schemes?

For your first example, cars are supposed to give cyclists the same amount of room when passing that they would another car so cycling side by side is safer for the cyclists because it forces any cars overtaking to do that. Otherwise the cars will try to squeeze past when they shouldn't really be overtaking and speaking from experience the cyclists can be forced into a hedge or similar.

I'm a bit dubious about your second example. I'm sorry for your friends trouble but I think there must be a bit more to it than she's told you.

Yes, because insuring and licensing drivers has pretty much eliminated poor driving [hmmm]. I noticed that on my bike the other day, when I stopped at an advanced stop line at a red light, before a single-lane bridge; and the driver behind me swung round me, went through the red light and started to cross the bridge. When there was another car coming towards him, with right of way, no problem - he just reversed, making me move out of the way.

A license doesn't stop twats being twats. When you moan about "cyclists" I think you should be saying "twats who happen to be on bikes at the moment", and for "drivers" "twats who happen to be driving". And there are twats in all walks of life.

I live in central London, on a major-ish road. We are on the corner of a small side road that is one way, going from the main road, down to link up with another main road. Almost every week we have the ambulance outside our house, where a cyclist has decided to go up the side road the wrong way and has either been hit by a car turning into the road, or by a car going along the main road and not expecting to see anyone turning out onto the main road from a one way street.

The other week the police were out, stopping everyone coming up the one way street the wrong way, and also further down the road, stopping all the cyclists who went through the red light on a pedestrian crossing.

So yes, I agree they should be licensed, insured, follow the rules of the road, and also have lights on their bikes at night, which the vast majority here don't seem to have.

Quite interesting about cycling in the Netherlands

Cycle insurance isn't mandatory and if the cyclist isn't at fault in a collision between car and bike then car's insurance pays for damages. If the cyclist is at fault then they pay half.

DH and I cycled 30km last Sunday morning with DC1 aged 9 and DC2 aged 7. When it's safe to do so, we cycle in single file to allow vehicles to overtake, but when the road is bendy or narrow, we cycle two abreast so drivers can see us more clearly. We all wear helmets and hi-vi gear. IME, cycle lanes are only created in urban areas, and we prefer to avoid built up areas with the DCs. I was appalled to be overtaken several times by drivers who couldn't see 100 m ahead of them, including one in an articulated lorry.

It's a wonderful way for our family to spend (rare) time together while teaching the DCs how to cycle safely. It is a relatively cheap activity, and the more we cycle, the better value we get for our money. It is good exercise and allows the DCs to get to know their locality without us having to get the car out. DH also cycles to work when weather/daylight allow, saving diesel and reducing road congestion.

Having more cyclists on the road IS a good thing, and we should be trying to make it easier for cyclists, not more expensive. As with drivers, there will always be idiots, but your average cyclist is going to come off much, much worse in any collision and any damage caused by a cyclist is relatively minor. I fail to see how any car would be written off unless it was damaged while trying to avoid a cyclist and could not stop in time. Which is the driver's responsibility...

A license doesn't stop twats being twats. When you moan about "cyclists" I think you should be saying "twats who happen to be on bikes at the moment", and for "drivers" "twats who happen to be driving". And there are twats in all walks of life.

I agree.

Instead of being an unlicensed twat, you'll be a licenced twat instead.

This is if I were to hit a car whilst cycling I will do some damage to it but nothing that cannot be fixed. If I'm hit by a car I'm going to come off much much worse. Badly injured or killed. If it's the later then being insured is going to do fuck all for me.

There is a steepish hill on the approach to where I work and very twisty so hard to overtake and there is always a slow queue of cars, buses etc scarcely moving as one lone cyclist puffs and pants up the middle of the road. Bloody selfish and infuriating.

Aw dear! Is it really? My heart bleeds. Good on the cyclist for getting off their ass and getting themselves on a bike and exercising eh? Give it a go and see how easy you think it is.

The population health is a big thing, even a small percentage increase in cycling would save the nhs a fortune in dealing with obesity, diabetes heart disease and stroke. ( even taking into account patching up any injured cyclists)

Those saying you could make the insurance inexpensive - doesn't matter. Still pits people off. It has been shown in I think it was Australia, they made helmets mandatory and the number of cyclists fell dramatically.

This is if I were to hit a car whilst cycling I will do some damage to it but nothing that cannot be fixed. If I'm hit by a car I'm going to come off much much worse. Badly injured or killed. If it's the later then being insured is going to do fuck all for me.

Um yeah, but it's not just about you, is it? If you hit a car it may be fixable (could still cause serious injury, by the way) but someone still has to pay for it. That's why drivers have to have insurance.

I wonder how much it is going to cost to license and insure my dc so that they can continue to cycle to school? They cycled alone on public highways from 8 years old, no pavements (nor should they be cycling on pavements!). I suppose it would get a lot of those pesky children off their bicycles. You can price them out of exercise.

Well it would be me wouldn't it? If I was insured I would have to pay wouldn't it?

Motorists cause a lot more accidents than Cyclists do.