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 OP is also dripping with anti-biking sentiment. Just how did a bike write off a car? Hmmm??

and your bit about 'not banning cycling' as there are places other than roads to ride on says a lot about your starting point of thinking.

It'll never happen, and for good reason. Putting barriers in the way of getting people out of cars and onto bikes is completely counter-productive.

It's odd that folk are seeing this as a cyclists vs car drivers issue. I don't even bloody drive, so have no chance of crashing into a cyclist and crushing them. I'm a plain old pedestrian and I absolutely stand by the fact that those of us on foot are the most vulnerable on the roads and pavements. And I honestly do feel less at risk from cars as they don't tend to blast round corners at red lights, when you should be able to cross safely. Obviously a car doing this would be much worse and more dangerous than a bike, but it's not all about you and them. That battle's for the both of you, we foot passengers just want a bit more care and consideration from ALL vehicle operators.

I would like to see every motorist have to cycle as part of their driving licence, possible then they will treat cyclist with more care and follow the simple rules about overtaking cyclist. Obviously this couldn't happen as not everyone can ride a bike, but the thought of having some drivers experience the close -within inches- overtaking that is life risking, may stop that type of stupidity.

Most cyclist have insurance already, bike riders often don't but then they probably would just stop riding or they would continue without in the same way motorist drive without insurance.

There have been studies done in Denmark to assess how much money is saved on health care when money is spent on cycle infrastructure, it was for every euro spent the saving is five Euros. So if you spend one billion pounds on cycle paths etc in this country we will see a saving of five billion on the NHS. This figure though is most probably under estimated. If you spend one billion increasing cycle lanes you also decrease the need to spend on motor infrastructure as there will be less.

If we spend purely on motorists then the money is spent and doesn't create any savings.

Most 2 mile journeys are made by car, if this was changed can you imagine the school run by bike and would you want to then still make children be licensed to ride a bike and put an obstical in the way?

I am seriously wondering if a good number of the contributors to this discussion are called Russell or Nigel, have moustaches, drive Audis, and see cyclists as a pest to be exterminated along with badgers.

If traffic planners treated cyclists fairly, there wouldn't be collisions between cyclists and pedestrians because cyclists wouldn't need to use the pavement. There wouldn't be accidents were cyclists went the wrong way up one-way streets because there wouldn't be any need for one way streets.

The problem is that road planners think of motorists first, and no one else at all. Hardly surprising that motorists think they own the road and then blame cyclists for "getting in the way".

As for the OP's example:

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.

It isn't clear what happened, but I am left suspecting that the cyclist isn't actually responsible for the accident. If he is, as others have said, he can be sued.

Something really needs to be done. By making cyclists accountable, they might actually stop and think about their actions.
Yes the majority are safe cyclist. But not all are.

Everyday in London I see cyclists riding on pavements, ignoring signs telling them to dismount. Ringing their bells to pedestrians to get out of their way.. Or screaming at people to move out of their way.

I see countless cyclists riding through red lights. Sometimes the other lights are green and unfortunately I have witnessed a considerable amount of accidents. I see them riding through red lights when pedestrians can cross. Many times I and others have been able to cross because of the endless stream just going through.

Then there's the ones that are stuck behind a large group of cyclists and the lights are red, so the go into the pavement and back into the road at the traffic lights. A few have caused accidents.

Strange, in all my life I have witnessed 3 car accidents where the driver was at fault... This year alone I have witnessed 9 bike accidents and the cyclist has been at fault each and everytime.

Toadinthehole You say It isn't clear what happened, but I am left suspecting that the cyclist isn't actually responsible for the accident. If he is, as others have said, he can be sued but that's a fat lot of use if he has no money and no insurance!

Agree utterly with ivy about getting drivers out on the road to experience what it is like to be riding in the conditions we do. OF course most drivers wouldn't want to, but then that sort of disenfranches them to an extent on pontificating about when people on bikes do things beyond their comprehension.

The stats indicate that accidents are caused over-whelmingly by cars drivers. Car drivers on commutes compete with each other and do really really stupid things every day. And appear happy to beep horns, shout abuse, park on pavements, use mobile phones, speed, give no room, not have insurance, drink drive, stop in the bike box, etc etc etc...The majority of commuter bikers are also car drivers, but not the other way round.

And of course we need less road building and more bike facilities. I'd read recently from a city planner in Vancouver that " building more roads to relieve congestion is like loosening a belt as a cure for obesity".

I agree with Ivy as well.

Dickhead motorists need to experience that feeling of fright from having to slam on the brakes and using their feet to stop them skidding and colliding into the car that just HAD to squeeze past their bike and the island in the road to get in front of them because that car just could not wait for the cyclist to get the Fuck out of the way.

Building roads to reduce congestion will never work, build segregated cycle lanes that join up whole stretches of communiting will relieves congestion of motor cars.

Just look what happens when it rains and the slow hours become worse due to fair weather cyclists taking to their cars and adding to the congestion - this is why in wet weather motor traffic is more congested.

Ivy A lot of the journeys made by car and most of those made by truck cannot be replaced by bicycles - distances too far, load too heavy. To say that building roads to relieve congestion will never work is too simple. Ask the inhabitants of towns which have been bypassed and whose High Street no longer doubles as a through route for essential freight and see what they say.

Andrew, I agree there are many trips that are just not possible to replace by bike. But there are thousands of trips that are replaceable by bike and the main reason for trips under two miles not being replaced by bike is due to gpfeelings of safety to cycle on the roads due to motor vehicles.

I live in a town with a bypass for freight and the freight has been replaced by local traffic congestion and constant traffic jams with cars travelling less than two miles and less than five. So it is still complete grid lock at rush hour and not much better the rest if the day.

In face recently the whole town and local by pass and nearby motor way came to a complete stop for around four to five hours due to s crash and the only way to travel was by foot or bike. But usual pace is ten mins utes to work on a bike and twenty minutes in the car. I cycle as it quicker and T rush hour the cars are mostly stationary so its safer cycling.

The average commuting distance, according to the census, in the UK is under 10 miles. That's a lot of shot journeys that could easily be undertaken by bike, and it is a only a small amount of traffic which makes the difference between moving and not. Rather than putting barriers in the way we should be encouraging people to take the healthier and socially responsible option.

I'd love to know how a cyclist can "write off" a car. A road bike typically weighs between 10 and 12kg, a car weighs 1-1.5 tonnes. With the best will in the world, I cannot conceive how a bike can cause the sort of structural damage to a car that would result it in becoming permanently unroadworthy. It smells like bullshit to me.

I've been in two collisions (both 100% the fault of the car driver). Rode into a car that turned out of a side road without looking, and had a car ride over my bike while stationary at a roundabout. On neither occasion was there any noticeable damage to the car, the same could not be said of my bike ...

I'd love to know how a cyclist can "write off" a car.

By forcing it to swerve and hit a wall or another car. That's how.

I will say it again: cyclists who think red lights don't apply to them and that if they are on the pavement they are entitled to keep up the momentum are a bloody menace to themselves and everybody else.

I'd have thought that IF that was the detail of the OP's friend's accident it would have been indicated. As it wasn't the smell of bullshit lingers, which would be consistent with the rest of the OP.

Andrew - you can say it as many times as you like!! There are times (as I had noted for me) going through on red is a safety measure when other road users don't care less for your safety. And additionally pavement-riding also features sometimes as the reasonable thing to do.

Yes, let's make cycling much more of an expense for those who rely on a cheap way of transport (and exercise. Genius idea that.

And I'll say it again! On my 13 mile commute (with 22 traffic lights and 5 roundabouts) it's the car drivers who both numerically AND proportionately 'sneak through' on red, cutting across me when I am going straight on. (and the tossers who nicely occupy the bike box also attract the cry "Why don't drivers follow the rules of the road like everyone else")

Cycling on the pavement may be safer but you must avoid the pedestrians and not the other way round. Even if you have to slow down. Even if they are walking two abreast. And don't ring your bell to invite them to move out of your way. You are in their way.

Going through on the red may sometimes be unavoidable but as I think you know I mean the types who do it not for safety but to avoid slowing down.

So pavement riding is reasonable when the cyclist cannot be bothered waiting behind a que of cyclists at a red light?
Pavement riding is ok when there are signs telling cyclists to dismount?
Going through red lights is fine when sitting at th traffic lights, green lights for other cars at the cross roads, they go on red to allow the green man.. So still on red but you think fuck it, I will cycle off now?

I supposed I must be imagining it. Or it's the traffic lights fault. Or it's my fault as a pedestrian to have the nerve to want to walk places.

I am really tempted to get the camera and do what the cyclists do. Start filming my daily walk.. Although I suspect any footage of this nature would be accused of being tampered with lol.

As for the costs to the cyclist. Wouldn't have to be a lot. No claims bonus. Not cycle like an entitled nobber and your yearly cost is reduced. Just like car drivers.

Fair enough Andrew. I understand what you are saying, which I'm sure is reciprocated.
But yes bloodyteenagers you are imagining all of your little rant.

For those claiming "bullshit", it was kept deliberately vague. However, for the sake of honesty and to prove I am NOT being bulshitty, the bike was a bloody beast of one (heavy duty, off road thing I think) and the cyclist was going down hill and bloody fast so hit at top speed. He hit the wing and the door, ripped off the mirror and cracked the window / massive dent in the door and the wing from the frame / wheel. He also flew forward, breaking the windscreen and denting the bonnet. Because it was an older car and the insurance weren't getting their money back, the cost of replacing the wing, door, mirror, window, windscreen and bonnet was more than the car cost and so it was written off. The option of taking the car back and getting the work done privately was outweighed by the fact that finding insurance was going to be a nightmare. My friend was doing about 15 miles per hour in traffic, and he had clearly completely misjudged the junction and speed.

The cyclist was bloody lucky to walk away completely unharmed and that is the only good part about the whole thing.

I've accepted that licensing is impossible further up and no, I'm not seeking to change the law. Rather, I'm seeking to vent about the seeming sharp increase in rude and inconsiderate cyclists. I have also accepted there are lots of OTHER rude and inconsiderate commuters, but have stressed there seem to be lots of cyclists at present who fit that category and who seem to get away scot free when they do cause injury and damage, as outlined by lots of the examples above.

It's never entered my head to ring my bell at any pedestrians I've encountered. Much easier to wait till they either become aware of me and I wait till it's safe for them and myself to pass or they decide to let me through and then I thank them.

And yes, Cyclist haters, I know I shouldn't be on the pavement but I happen to value my life you see. Is that so wrong?

I cycled to work every day for about five years when I lived in London. (Six miles from zone 3 to the centre). I did see cyclists doing stupid things but they were vastly outnumbered by motorists driving carelessly and, all too often, outright dangerously. I used cycle routes where possible but even so I was knocked off twice and lost count of the near misses.

I'm probably a bit like MrsItsNow - basically law-abiding but prepared to bend the rules if necessary for prudent, defensive cycling. This included occasional pavement excursions where appropriate, and anticipating changes of lights in order to avoid being boxed by a lorry or bus. I also learnt fairly quickly to take up road space if necessary - often the alternative is literally being forced off the road onto the pavement by a driver who thinks that 6 inches is an adequate passing distance.

There are stupid cyclists who don't value their lives - but they are vastly outnumbered by stupid motorists who don't value other people's lives. How many drivers posting in this thread religiously obey speed limits? Have never jumped a red light? Have never parked illegally? If I take my colleagues as an example (a generally decent, responsible, educated sample of people) then almost all of them have had a speeding ticket at some point in their lives. I think cyclists get held to higher standards than motorists - perhaps rightly because a motorist's error is more likely to result in someone else's death or injury than his or her own, whereas a cycling misjudgment is often painful and occasionally fatal for the perpetrator. But nevertheless I am always astonished at motorists' ability to rationalize and excuse errors and lawbreaking by motorists, while they are quick to condemn other road users...

I cycle a lot on cycle paths (I live on a street that runs parallel to NCR1, so it's easy for me to get on it) and the amount of pedestrians that walk on it (fair enough) with headphones in (not cool) is ridiculous. I do ring my bell to alert pedestrians to my presence, but they don't hear me when they're listening to music. I have scared many a walker as I try and get round them. Pisses me right off especially because there's a Strava segment on it and I'm QOM and don't want to lose it