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

Yanbu op
You get a lot of people who seem to think cyclists can do no wrong but I have seen two things that make me think something should be done about the licensing etc issues - one was my dd was clipped by a bike in a pedestrianised shopping area, guy whizzing through on a bike all in Lycra etc, she was walking just ahead of me perfectly sensibly, he came from no where, clipped her, she fell over and he rode into a bench, I went MAD, he was complaining about the damage to his precious bike! I rang 101 but I never got his name or anything so not much could be done, dd unhurt anyway

Secondly a neighbour's daughter was killed riding her bike at dusk, no lights, no helmet, headphones in, coming up a shortcut onto a v v busy access road for HGV's, the HGV was going 30mph but couldn't stop, he saw her last minute and she literally rode under his wheels. Killed. Just tragic. I hate to blame her, it was a genuine accident, but if she'd been more aware she would've seen the HGV. So sad.

In the UK there are no jaywalking laws. This means that pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders all use the road by right. It's theirs. It's for the public. Motorists on the other hand use the highway by licence and under tolerance. The groups are treated differently because motorists have much greater kinetic energy. Whilst cyclists and pedestrians can undoubtedly cause damage (I'll leave the weightier problem of horses aside for now) they simply are not capable of the sustained degree of damage one can do in a car. (You can read about the invention of jaywalking laws in other countries here www.citylab.com/commute/2012/04/invention-jaywalking/1837/ )

Motorists have to be licensed and insured simply because the greater mass and speed of their vehicles means they can do far more damage. There is no equivalence between what someone does on a bike and what they do driving - a bike weighs around 10kg a car around 1300kg.

I would think about what you're trying to achieve through licensing. The OP seems to think that licensing would help make cyclists less likely to break the law. Evidently this is nonsense. Drivers are licensed and yet in any surveys the majority (anywhere between 50 and 80+ %) admit to breaking traffic laws in various ways. Also around 80% of cyclists actually are drivers thus whatever it is you think they're doing wrong, they're doing it with the same level of training as you.

I would suggest that if you want a greater level of law abidance on the road you'd be better off supporting greater enforcement for ALL users. The laws and regulations are there to keep us safe but licensing does not make people obey them. More traffic police, more effective policing and much, much harsher sentences for drivers who speed would soon make the roads safer for everyone. Personally I also support better infrastructure for cycling as that too makes all groups safer by designing out conflict between different groups.

Yanbu for wanting people to cycle safely, but cyclists are supposed to ride in the middle of the lane and two or three abreast. You should overtake a bike only where it would be safe to overtake a car. It's U to imagine that bikes should be at the edge of a lane so people can zoom past them at will.

Instead of licenses you could instead ask for cameras that automatically take a photo when cyclists mount the pavement in areas where pavement cycling is a problem. This would be similar to speed cameras for motorist. Then the photos can be plastered on billboards in a name and shame style excerise... And come with a fine and reward for a name on the face.