Sorry, but I just don't see how anyone can argue against cyclists having to have adequate insurance and training.
The standards, from pretty much all cyclists, I see down here every day is woeful and if I drove my car with the same degree of disregard for the rules of the road and the safety of other road users and pedestrians I would rightly lose my licence within a very short space of time. What would happen if I drove around without any lights on my vehicle being a very easy example to give?
We have recently had to introduce speed checks along the prom because so many cyclists ignored the limit. They also ignore the ban on cycling during certain periods of the day because it suits them to or otherwise inconveniences them. This is an area populated by high risk pedestrians and frequently injuries are caused or narrowly avoided by ignorant cyclists weaving in and out amongst children, dogs the elderly, etc. How can anyone argue that it's not a good idea that these road users are insured in the event they knock someone over?
I know that I'll get accused of making sweeping statements but from my experience all cyclists seem to break the Highway Code each and every time they go out. I'm not saying I don't. Of course we all find ourself making mistakes or going 34 in a 30 from time to time (although less and less often as I get older and the roads busier and more heavily policed) but what I do not do is deliberatly flout the law of the land just because I feel morally superior to other road users.
Bournemouth I believe its a case of the economies of insuring so many people for so few actual claims amounting to such a low value of claim
If you drove on the pavement without lights you would do one hell of a lot more damage, which is why you have to have insurance. Obviously. Policing is also a problem as you have pointed out. Your problems in Bournemouth could be improved by better education training and policing. Insurance wouldnt make a difference to the problem, only its outcome.
Compound this with the current problem of non insured drivers of cars in this country, can you imagine the police time that would be wasted enforcing bike insurance?
[cite]Posted By: LawrieAbrahams[/cite]I think wibble is right. Cyclists should be forced to use pavements. That would be much safer.
Not for pedestrians! I hate cyclists on pavements and refuse to move out of their way. They should use the roads like they're supposed to :-)
er ... I was joking.
As a pedestrian in London I think some cyclists can be a pain in the butt, ignoring red lights when pedestrians have a green light and travelling the wrong way up one-way streets. But Bibble's arguments are bonkers.
[cite]Posted By: Bournemouth Addick[/cite]Sorry, but I just don't see how anyone can argue against cyclists having to have adequate insurance and training.
The standards, from pretty muchallcyclists, I see down here every day is woeful and if I drove my car with the same degree of disregard for the rules of the road and the safety of other road users and pedestrians I would rightly lose my licence within a very short space of time. What would happen if I drove around without any lights on my vehicle being a very easy example to give?
We have recently had to introduce speed checks along the prom because so many cyclists ignored the limit. They also ignore the ban on cycling during certain periods of the day because it suits them to or otherwise inconveniences them. This is an area populated by high risk pedestrians and frequently injuries are caused or narrowly avoided by ignorant cyclists weaving in and out amongst children, dogs the elderly, etc. How can anyone argue that it's not a good idea that these road users are insured in the event they knock someone over?
I know that I'll get accused of making sweeping statements but from my experienceallcyclists seem to break the Highway Code each and every time they go out. I'm not saying I don't. Of course we all find ourself making mistakes or going 34 in a 30 from time to time (although less and less often as I get older and the roads busier and more heavily policed) but what I donotdo is deliberatly flout the law of the land just because I feel morally superior to other road users.
Bournemouth,
Some cyclists flout the rules: some drivers also drive with a complete disregard for the rules of the road and the safety of other road users and pedestrians. Unfortunately their innocent victims sometimes pay with their lives - your 34 mph (deliberate or not) would kill a pedestrian - just as a car driver killed a very good friend on mine. The driver was uninsured and didn't have a licence but it didn't stop him driving and killing my mate.
Used to be a member of the London Cycle Campaign which used to throw in free third pary insurance for members amogst it's £30 a year cost. I am now cycling only from home to the station rather than all the way to work and not currently a member.
So a quite a lot of cyclists will have some third party insurance I suspect.
Council tax does not pay for road maintenance parking and traffic fines to car drivers does, why can't they park and drive correctly, where I work we issue 30,000 + fines to car drivers driving through no entry signs turning left and right at junctions where it is banned and turning through junctions where the pedestrian signs say walk. I see daily appalling behaviour from car drivers which is potentially fatal I am not sure what the number of people killed by cycle is but 1/2 a year?
Very, very sorry to hear about your friend but my point was not to defend car drivers. I think it's a given that there are an awful lot of c##ks on the road that shouldn't be there and we see them every day of the week. But it is assumed that all cyclists have a right to be on the road (pavement) and frankly that shouldn't be the case either whether they are insured or not. Insisting that cyclists should have insurance and some sort of training might make a few think more carefully about the way they use the road and the impact they have on other road users, even if it might be difficult to enforce.
By way of example, a friend of mine does a lot of cycling and took part in a time trial recently down here. In that event another cyclist ran into the back of a parked car - because he wasn't looking where he was going (head down, fast as you can go sort of thing). Now, unfortunately this chap was killed as a result but it could just as easily have been someone stepping out in front of him that was killed or seriously injured or at best just seriously damaging a vehicle as a result.
We all agree that other road users should be properly insured, and tested, etc (even though many ignore this requirement) why should someone who is capable of inflicting this sort of damage to themselves and other road users be exempt from this?
I disagree that there are only some cyclists that ignore the rules of the road when it suits them or they think they can get away with it. I refuse to believe that the average cyclist would stop while turning left at a red light at 01:30 on a rainy night if the junction is clear and there's no one else about for example.
No there were no roads before the cars etc, there were tracks though. So yes they belong to motorised vehicles because we pay for them, when are cyclists going to get this concept? And they are built for the exclusive use of motorised vehicle for the same reason. I would love to see the cycle fraternity put there hand in there pocket and pay for road tax, imagine the revenue generated!! However they would just bitch and moan as ever!!
Comments
The standards, from pretty much all cyclists, I see down here every day is woeful and if I drove my car with the same degree of disregard for the rules of the road and the safety of other road users and pedestrians I would rightly lose my licence within a very short space of time. What would happen if I drove around without any lights on my vehicle being a very easy example to give?
We have recently had to introduce speed checks along the prom because so many cyclists ignored the limit. They also ignore the ban on cycling during certain periods of the day because it suits them to or otherwise inconveniences them. This is an area populated by high risk pedestrians and frequently injuries are caused or narrowly avoided by ignorant cyclists weaving in and out amongst children, dogs the elderly, etc. How can anyone argue that it's not a good idea that these road users are insured in the event they knock someone over?
I know that I'll get accused of making sweeping statements but from my experience all cyclists seem to break the Highway Code each and every time they go out. I'm not saying I don't. Of course we all find ourself making mistakes or going 34 in a 30 from time to time (although less and less often as I get older and the roads busier and more heavily policed) but what I do not do is deliberatly flout the law of the land just because I feel morally superior to other road users.
You know what, it's been a tough hour or so, might go have a little nap ;p
Not for pedestrians! I hate cyclists on pavements and refuse to move out of their way. They should use the roads like they're supposed to :-)
I believe its a case of the economies of insuring so many people for so few actual claims amounting to such a low value of claim
If you drove on the pavement without lights you would do one hell of a lot more damage, which is why you have to have insurance. Obviously.
Policing is also a problem as you have pointed out.
Your problems in Bournemouth could be improved by better education training and policing. Insurance wouldnt make a difference to the problem, only its outcome.
Compound this with the current problem of non insured drivers of cars in this country, can you imagine the police time that would be wasted enforcing bike insurance?
er ... I was joking.
As a pedestrian in London I think some cyclists can be a pain in the butt, ignoring red lights when pedestrians have a green light and travelling the wrong way up one-way streets. But Bibble's arguments are bonkers.
Bournemouth,
Some cyclists flout the rules: some drivers also drive with a complete disregard for the rules of the road and the safety of other road users and pedestrians. Unfortunately their innocent victims sometimes pay with their lives - your 34 mph (deliberate or not) would kill a pedestrian - just as a car driver killed a very good friend on mine. The driver was uninsured and didn't have a licence but it didn't stop him driving and killing my mate.
So a quite a lot of cyclists will have some third party insurance I suspect.
Council tax does not pay for road maintenance parking and traffic fines to car drivers does, why can't they park and drive correctly, where I work we issue 30,000 + fines to car drivers driving through no entry signs turning left and right at junctions where it is banned and turning through junctions where the pedestrian signs say walk. I see daily appalling behaviour from car drivers which is potentially fatal I am not sure what the number of people killed by cycle is but 1/2 a year?
Very, very sorry to hear about your friend but my point was not to defend car drivers. I think it's a given that there are an awful lot of c##ks on the road that shouldn't be there and we see them every day of the week. But it is assumed that all cyclists have a right to be on the road (pavement) and frankly that shouldn't be the case either whether they are insured or not. Insisting that cyclists should have insurance and some sort of training might make a few think more carefully about the way they use the road and the impact they have on other road users, even if it might be difficult to enforce.
By way of example, a friend of mine does a lot of cycling and took part in a time trial recently down here. In that event another cyclist ran into the back of a parked car - because he wasn't looking where he was going (head down, fast as you can go sort of thing). Now, unfortunately this chap was killed as a result but it could just as easily have been someone stepping out in front of him that was killed or seriously injured or at best just seriously damaging a vehicle as a result.
We all agree that other road users should be properly insured, and tested, etc (even though many ignore this requirement) why should someone who is capable of inflicting this sort of damage to themselves and other road users be exempt from this?
I disagree that there are only some cyclists that ignore the rules of the road when it suits them or they think they can get away with it. I refuse to believe that the average cyclist would stop while turning left at a red light at 01:30 on a rainy night if the junction is clear and there's no one else about for example.
One million journeys have been made on cycles in London's bike hire scheme since its launch 10 weeks ago.
More than 90,000 people have signed up as members of the £140m scheme since it began on 30 July.
It had been hit by some technical problems at the beginning and a charity has called for helmets to be part of the hire.
But mayor Boris Johnson, who has said only three bikes had been stolen, said its success had "gladdened my heart"
Bibble what do you make of this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14610857