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

Not sure why a lack of insurance stopped your friend claiming from the cyclist. If he refused to pay for damage caused by his negligence, then take him to court.

On the wider point, the reason cyclists don't on the whole require insurance is that there is an imbalance of risk - in the event of a collision with a car, they will sustain far more damage than they inflict. That said, many/most cyclists are insured (either through BC/CTC or household insurance), and those that aren't could be covered at somewhere between five and fifteen pounds per year.

There is no requirement for cyclists to be licensed, but then given that c. 80% of cyclist/vehicle accidents are caused by the motor vehicle, I don't believe that licensing is the panacea you believe it may be. Similarly, it seems common to usual that a motorist does not stop if it's only a pedestrian or cyclist they hit.

There is no way on this earth I would let my 8 year old cycle on the road. No way! She'll stay on the pavement and to hell with anyone who has an issue with it.

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

No, your insurance would. If you weren't insured and you didn't have the cash to pay - like the previous poster whose car had damage of £6.5k - then the innocent party suffers.

Motorists cause a lot more accidents than Cyclists do.

That is not an argument against insuring cyclists.

No one should cycle on a pavement. They are for pedestrians. If your child need to be on a pavement with their bicycle, they should get off and walk the bike.

Sorry that's what I meant, my insurance would.

And as has been said by previous posters, Motorists will do far more damage than Cyclists who are going to come off much worse than a motorist.

My issue is I don't like being lumped in with all the bad cyclists. I occasionally cycle on pavements where it's safer than cycling on the road where to be truthful I would rather be, but don't because I run the risk of being cut in front of, overtaken so I have to slow down or told to get off the bloody road!

Cannot win!

I don't think insurance is because of the number of accidents, though. It's because

(a) cars do more damage than bikes,

(b) cars are prohibitively expensive to replace without insurance. Incidentally, anyone I know who has an expensive bike has it insured, and

(c) most cyclists spend less time on the road and cover less distance than most motorists.

If it was just because of likelihood of being involved in accidents, we would have to insure pedestrians too.

A more reasonable solution would be to increase the level of attention paid to other road users during driver instruction. Motorists need to be taught that they are the dangerous ones by virtue of being in a fast-moving lump of metal and glass, and that they are not more important road users than pedestrians, cyclists, riders, etc.

ltk well then she would never ride a bike at all then because round here it is way to dangerous for her cycle on the road.

Or perhaps that's what some motorists would like? Get kids off their bikes at a young age so they don't piss off the future motorists.

A more reasonable solution would be to increase the level of attention paid to other road users during driver instruction. Motorists need to be taught that they are the dangerous ones by virtue of being in a fast-moving lump of metal and glass, and that they are not more important road users than pedestrians, cyclists, riders, etc.

Yes to all of this.

A more reasonable solution would be to increase the level of attention paid to other road users during driver instruction. Motorists need to be taught that they are the dangerous ones by virtue of being in a fast-moving lump of metal and glass, and that they are not more important road users than pedestrians, cyclists, riders, etc.

This ^

YABU.

Cyclists almost all drive as well, therefore are licensed as they hold a drivers' licence. If they cycle criminally irresponsibly then their driving licence can be taken away by a court - you can be disqualified from driving for offences which are not driving.

Personally I think that if someone is going to be a selfish arse, I'd rather they were a selfish arse on a bicycle where at least their own sense of self-preservation might kick in if nothing else, than be a selfish arse in a car, where their mobile phone using, amber gambling, squeeze-by overtaking, tailgating, speeding etc might kill someone rather than scratch their paintwork.

^ speaks sense

I completely agree about the fact that there are some horrendous drivers out there - I suspect I'm very cyclist aware due to some crap examples which have happened recently.

I can confirm that the friend's stuff is completely 100% accurate.

NoworNot I wish they'd get all the damn cars off the road and let the dc cycle in safety! The amount of cat traffic has increased so much since I was a child and cycled, it really has become unsafe for the dc to cycle i many places. And then everyone whines about dc not playing iut enough. Mine do cycle a lot, but I doubt I could afford to license and insure them. Imagine the cost of insurance for under-18s! Like the cost of insuring teenage drivers.

Cat traffic. Umm. CaR traffic.

Surely cyclists are liable for any damage they cause? Livestock on the road are. When I ride horses on roads or public rights of way, I always make sure to have third party insurance, as if I or the horse was involved in an accident, I would be liable. I guess a large horse is capable of causing more damage than a bike, but the vast majority of accidents involving horses and cars are down to irresponsible motorists.

From the position of a vulnerable road user when riding horses, I always try to be defensive, allow people to pass as soon as possible and thank people for their consideration. I always try to be considerate to cyclists, but they rarely seem to thank people, and some don't seem to have that much regard for their own safety, let alone anyone else's. I have seen plenty of cyclists ignore signals from horse riders, and pass in a potentially dangerous manner, regardless of the risk to themselves and the horse and rider.

I agree that motorists in cars are most dangerous, and many could do with being more aware, but that doesn't mean a cyclist isn't capable of causing injury or damage by acting irresponsibly. It sounds like insurance is not very expensive- so why not make it a requirement and make cyclists give their details at the scene of an accident?

Personally. I think there's a whole perception problem about who "owns" the road here. Cyclists have just as much right to use the road as any other vehicle. And before anyone gets there- it's not road tax you're paying its vehicle emissions duty- you're paying for the right to pollute the air.

In the main cyclists are considerate as to do otherwise usually ends quite badly for them. However, even my husband a cyclist admits some other cyclists behave very badly. They're a small minority.

But then again I also have experience of some very bad behaviour by taxi drivers and motorcyclists- both of whom are insured and licensed. Not to mention car drivers. . . .

FWIW I think everyone using the London underground should be trained in basic etiquette so that I wouldn't have to deal with lots their poor choices, on where to stand, how many to walk abreast and how many ankles to take out with their wheeled suitcase. But I've learned to chill out about it in my old age.

YANBU.

I saw a cyclist go through a red light at a pedestrian crossing last year. He hit a 14 year old boy. The boy had head injuries, a broken wrist and a ruptured spleen. I had to phone his mum - the poor woman's first question after I told her what had happened was "is he dead?".

Sorry hit post too soon.

Had that cyclist been insureed the family would have had some recourse but as it was they didn't

Could they not have taken the cyclist to court?

I'd quite happily take photos of any uninsured person/car esp if they refused to give their details and legged it. Some would go to the police and others would be plastered all over facebook. Also have dash cam :-) So don't think I wouldn't be able to find you and make you pay for any damages.

If you want to be on the road you need to accept that if you cause an accident/damage and you don't have insurance then you're going to have to pluck that money tree in your garden for all it's got.

I don't have a spare 10K to replace my horse so I insure my horses. I don't have spare money for if my dogs get out and cause damage so they're insured. And guess what, I don't have spare money for if my livestock get out so I have insurance.

Your lack of insurance must mean that you have the funds to 'make right' any potential damage you could in theory cause so I won't be making any claims through my own insurance I'll be coming straight to you if it was your fault.

YABU

If you want to change the law, contact your MP, or possibly RoSPA, or a cycling organisation like CTC, and actually do something constructive.

Do you really think if you post on a forum like this that something will magically happen?

How do you think change happens, OP?

It isn't because you post on an internet forum, even if many people with not enough to do reply.

Because you can't be bothered to do any proper research or campaigning, I would assume you don't want anything to change, you just want to start a bunfight.

YABU.

There are far, far more dangerous drivers than there are dangerous cyclists. However, cyclists seem to get tarred with the same brush in a way motorists don't.

There is always recourse even if the cyclist isn't insured. But very often cyclists have third party insurance via other policies they may hold. My 12 year old who is a competition cyclist is covered both by our house insurance (third party) and by his club licence (which incorporates personal and third party insurance).

Licensing leisure cyclists and commuters is never going to happen - it would basically destroy cycling as a casual leisure pursuit (would you purchase licences for your preteens so they could cycle to the park?), and would be totally unworkable (who would pay for and administer tests, including to young children?).

Pedestrians cause accidents too - should we consider licensing anyone who wants to leave their house on foot?

I agree cyclists should have 3rd party insurance as a minimum.

A cycling license is a bit of unnecessary bureaucracy I think.

?
Cycling is a fabulous way to get about but we are not well set up for it over here.
Holland seems to be the best country for cyclists, I'm thinking that many of their roads will have been designed with cyclists in mind.
Perhaps things will improve when we have driverless cars?
What about pedestrians, should they be insured and licensed, after all lots of them have accidents with cars? ?

I think Cat traffic could be interesting lkt

This is just another cyclist bashing thread, oh well.