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

Sorry Loxley - my mistake. Of course the question was for MrsItsNowOrNotAtAll whom you were quoting.

I'm only bashing those cyclists that give cyclists a bad name Mrsnow - and that includes those who think it is ok to ride on the pavement.

As I've said, Loxley, she goes on the pavement where I deem it unsafe to cycle on the road. And Andrew, somewhere in one of my posts, that's if you can be arsed to scroll back, wouldn't blame you if you couldn't, I said I wouldn't allow her to ride so fast she'd endanger anyone else or herself.

You'd come off worse than the vehicle driver, Mrs, but a pedestrian? Really? So if someone pedalling at high speed slams into a toddler or an old lady, the cyclist is likely to be injured more seriously?

And suzanne, that doesn't follow. Dogs are chipped and registered to their owners. Bikes are not traceable.Yes, we're all ccapable of doing harm, no matter what. Me sitting here with my knitting needles, I could hurt someone. But we're talking about metal vehicles that can reach high speeds and which are ubiquitous on roads and pavements. I'm not saying car driversdon't hurt people, just that cyclists do too. Ask my wee mum with her bad knee! Pointing that out doesn't make me an uppity cyclist-hater!

Another vote for presumed liability!

Is also think many (most?) cyclists will be covered through their home insurance?

Cyclists can of course hurt pedestrians, but the same is true in reverse - in fact I think the only time I've ever seen a serious cyclist-pedestrian accident in 20 years of cycling, the pedestrian stepped into the road without looking and the cyclist took evasive action and had a serious fall.

And even if there is contact between bike and pedestrian the cyclist often comes off worst. At a bike race earlier this year, an umpire stepped backwards into my son's path as he raced to the finish line. My son took a nasty tumble (nothing broken fortunately), umpire was unhurt.

I horse ride, push bike and drive. I 100% agree cyclists should have public liability at least. If my horse is spooked and runs into a car (assuming the car is being driven responcably) I expect to pay to fix it. If I don't look where I am going and crash my bike- same rules.

Well it doesn't matter what I think does it, Agent because I am a cyclist so therefore wrong. I must obey the law of the land and put my life and even that of my kids and resolutely cycle on the road at all times and never cycle on the pavement where sometimes it's safer to be

put my life at risk that was meant to say.

It may be safer for you MrsNow, but it is not safer for the pedestrians - here's an idea - if the road is unsafe, get off and push. Or alternatively carry making up the rules as you go along and give cyclists a bad name.

I don't think riding on the pavement carefully gives people on bikes a bad name. It's often the sensible thing to do as so many drivers are strangers to the highway Code and afford no room to bikes. IT probably gives a 'bad name' to some car drivers who haven't turned a pedal in their entire adult life.

I ride a stretch of pavement beside a death-trap A road which is used heavily by trucks coming off the M-way. I have a daughter who's life chances will be reduced IF she loses a parent. So moaners about what I do can go swivel.

It will be the latter then, Loxley, I'm afraid. You've not read where I've said I don't allow my kids to cycle at any speed where they would endanger pedestrians. And of course not taken into account I know my local area and would avoid busy pedestrian areas where it would be stupid to attempt to cycle and be easier to get off and walk

I'm a cyclist aren't I. Seemingly not capable of using common sense.

Cycling carefully on the pavement and ringing your bell so pedestrians can hear you approaching don't bother me, Mrs. That's sensible if you're by a busy road. Not doing either of the above, and going at top speeds on pavements, that bothers me.

But really, what worries me the most is those who take corners too fast. I walk to work at my local university every morning and there are lots of staff and students who cycle in - it's actively encouraged by the uni, with lots of bike parking spaces and free bike clinics. That's great! But there are a serious number of bad apples who blast round the corner at the busy junction beside the uni, and you don't expect that when there's a red light. What makes matters worse is that this junction is right next to primary school and nursery, and the pedestrian crossing is packed with small children at rush hour. So you get pedestrians scared out of their nuts and screaming kids when a cyclist swings found the corner and doesn't stop or slow down. Of course we'd get an even worse fright if a car did that, but you should feel safe when it's the green man.

Sensible, considerate cyclists are great. I wish we had more, better cycle paths in the UK, but we don't. Until we do, we need to look out for each other and be held properly accountable for our actions and their consequences.

A small bump by an 8 year old on a bike would be enough to break the hip of an elderly lady, accidents happen no matter how careful you are. But you clearly don't care about the safety of others so carry on...

And a car clipping my child's back wheel and knocking her off would injure her...

So yeah, I'll carry on being careful thanks

Ugh... for the pp accusing me of starting a bun fight, or just bashing cyclists, I do not have a problem with those cyclists who cycle considerately and following the rules of the law. Just as I do not have an issue with the car / van / lorry drivers / horse riders / skateboarders / whatever and pedestrians who do the same. Unfortunately, there seem to be a lot of these cyclists at the minute who because it's healthy and they're not polluting anything seem to think it's alright to go whizzing through red lights and God knows what else.

Fair enough, licensing is probably impractical but I do think insurance should be required. We're currently investigating a civil action for my friend but it's time, money, stress and knowledge she doesn't have - as I say, if the cyclist was insured, simple. There will always be twunts who leave the scene of an accident but I do think insurance should be necessary so there is at least some come back where it is possible to track them down!

I don't have a bike at the moment, but I do have a horse who I ride on roads. We are both insured, covered head to toe in hi-vis and are only out on roads during daylight hours.

Its not too expensive to insure a live animal, so surely insuring an object which is always completely under the users control should be much cheaper?

I agree. My daughters both ride ponies on the road and are insured,wear high vis / reflective gear and have sensible ponies who are used to traffic. I very rarely have a problem with cars,never with motorbikes or lorries,tractors ect,but cyclists are a law unto themselves. I understand that they are meant to shout a warning or ring their bell to warn that they are approaching,but in 4 years of riding on the roads,this has happened probably half a dozen times.
I don't know why they think it is a good idea to ride in a group at top speed up behind and past an unpredictable animal with a strong flight instinct. Perhaps if they found quarter of a tonne of horseflesh on top of them,they might think again. It was far worse during the Tour de France,everyone was out going as fast as they could.One group nearly rode head on into a car coming from the opposite direction as they couldn't wait a few seconds for us to ride around a blind bend and just had to get past. We always thank every road user who passes us in a safe manner,it is rare that we thank a cyclist.

MrsItsNoworNotatAll - if she isn't safe on the road the she shouldn't be there, however being unsafe on the road does not give you the automatic right to cycle on the pavement.

You can bitch all you want but there is no requirement for cyclists to have insurance and I suspect if the Govt. allowed the same for motorists a lot of people would not have car insurance. Who would pay for the admin. of the database and how would it be enforced? DVLC estimate there are 2 million uninsured/untaxed cars on the road and if the DVLC has no idea about them they certainly won't be able to track cyclists.

She isn't safe on the road, Loxley, because of the attitude of motorists.

I'm not safe on the road either as it goes, not that I expect you to give a toss.

Good grief - If you aren't safe then don't go on the road - use a cycle path. It doesn't matter how many different ways you say it - you shouldn't be riding a bike on the pavement.

And if there are no cycle paths??? Where then?? Cos there isn't any round here love

You need to get over the fact I will let my kids cycle on pavements until they themselves feel confident enough to cycle on the roads along side dangerous motorists like yourselves

Till then they'll stay on the pavement and the likes of you will just have to suck it up.

Loxley - in your world everyone would be doing exactly as they should. But for everyone who rides regularly, esp in heavy traffic, that just does not happen.

So sensibly and practically one has to negotiate their way round problems - in the usual case it's drivers who do not pay any attention to the HC.

As well as occasional pavement riding, there are two lights I ride through on red - one on an incline where my progess doesn't interfere with anyone elses, and one where to not ride through on red means I have to 'battle' with cars and buses at a bottle neck - so again I ride through. Sorry, safety first.

and btw for all those 'red lighter' drivers, I see far more cars going through red lights than bikes even proportionately. "Nipping through" when you've been queuing is such a temptation, so berating people on bikes who interfere with no-one else is just hilarious.