Dangerous cyclists could get 14Years pokey.

custardy

anotherbaldrick wrote: »

Perhaps this will mean that cyclists are going to have to take out third party insurance to cover injury claims from people they hit. That would bring the pains on !

why? it costs under £40 for 15 months from Wiggle

asbokid

EdgEy wrote: »

To asbokid:

On the comparison between mopeds and bicycle collisions.

Here is a video of a crash test, a head on collision at 12mph (typical bicycle speed if not flying downhill).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVZ0qiA-jBY

The car comes out virtually undamaged, essentially the same as if a pedestrian had hit the car. It is not unreasonable to suggest at higher speeds you would expect the same. The windscreen doesn't even smash, though that may be due to our rider's inventive airbag helmet (interesting idea).

Thanks!

That is a very strange crash test. What is it supposed to illustrate? A novel design of airbag for cyclists?

The crash test is surely not representative of the typical collision that occurs between car and bicycle.

The stationary bicycle is, unusually, struck from behind by the 12mph car. In the initial impact, the bicycle hardly touches the car, beyond the rear tyre of the bicycle hitting the car's bumper.

I'm no expert but I'm sure that most cycling collisions would be far more unpleasant for the cyclist. Particularly those collisions involving side impacts on the bicycle, or accidents where the bicycle and rider do not get scooped onto the bonnet but, instead, are dragged under the motor vehicle.

The only 'damage' I can concieve of a bicycle doing to a car at any speed under 40mph is cosmetic, with the exception perhaps of driving over the bicycle itself.

Oh heck no! It's much worse than that.

A 40mph collision almost always crushes what I call the "cosmetic" (plastic) bumper. They alone are hundreds of pounds to replace. The impact will also push the front grill backwards, buckling the front of the bonnet, damaging the radiator and various engine components. Probably one of the headlights and side light clusters will be shattered. If the bicycle and rider are lifted onto the bonnet, the windscreen will almost certainly break, too. Most importantly, at 40mph, I would guess that the rider is at grave risk of being killed in the collision.

It is not in any way comparable to the damage a moped/125cc motorcycle can do. A cyclist is for all intents and purposes a fast moving pedestrian. The bicycle itself generally weighs 10-15kg, compared to a 60kg rider.

Comparing like with like, i.e. a collision with a cheap, lightweight moped, I wouldn't have thought that the damage caused would be greatly different.

I can currently buy liability insurance and theft insurance for a £600 bike for just over £50 per year. The liability insurance is around £15, and most of that is probably admin.

Sounds very cheap. Moped insurance was costing £50 maybe 30 years ago. Perhaps cycling liability insurance is very low because hardly anybody claims. It's not likely that cyclists are currently volunteering their insurance details if they cause an accident, since it's not compulsory to have any insurance. The premiums would probably soar once insurance became compulsory, and people started routinely claiming against cyclists who injured them or damaged their property.

On the basis of compensating motorists for damage caused by bicycles, I support the idea of cycle insurance. The problem is the other side of the coin.

It's simply providing barriers to people taking up cycling.

Near impossible to police.

At current prices I would suspect it cheaper for the Government to simply provide liability insurance, than the administration and policing of such a scheme.

Yeah, that's a very good idea. Levy a small road tax for bicycles and use the tax revenues to fund liability insurance.

I don't think motorists would be too impressed with that solution though.

Well I wouldn't mind!

I would much rather see greater education, i.e compulsory cycling proficiency. Remember that the moron being discussed in this topic, in all likelihood is the kind of person who would simply forego paying for insurance anyway. It is clear that his actions were reckless.

Hmm.. I don't know. From my dim and distant youth, I vaguely remember cycling proficiency tests. It was all very haphazard from what I recall. All very amateurish, everyone passed however poor their cycling skills! Maybe it's time for official "CBT" tests for bicyclists.

Also, do you expect commercial cycle insurance would actually pay out in the event of riding on the pavement? Given the loopholes motor insurance companies seem to have for getting out of claims I'd suspect not.

I guess I would expect it, yes. My car insurance should pay out if, heaven forbid, I knocked somebody over on the pavement.

custardy

janninew wrote: »

I do feel cyclist's should have some road training. How do they know how to use a roundabout, what road signs mean etc? When we learn to drive we have to pass a theory test, I think there should be something for cyclist's as well. They say they have as much right as car drivers to be on the roads, lets give them some formal training like car drivers have!

because I passed my driving test some 20 years ago
perhaps the phrase should have been 'some' cyclists
just like some posters are so blinkered the cannot work out that some is different from all

nellytheelephant wrote: »

A lot aren't drivers though, it wouldn't hurt to have some sort of theory test if they are not already drivers (and therefore passed a theory test already), would it?

I've never sat one,dear lord which way is right of way on a roundabout? I'm doomed!

Derivative

Fair enough on the collision front. I'm still not so sure on the car damage, given an actual 40mph impact (no braking beforehand) is rather unlikely. And the vast majority of collisions are at junctions, roundabouts, etc - not NSL roads.

Take a common model of moped, say the Peugeot Speedfight. That thing with a full tank weighs 100kg, with a rider 165kg. Not only does that make it more than twice as heavy as a bicycle/rider combo, it's also a lot more rigid than the human body on impact. An engine block has the potential to do much more damage to a car than anything on a bicycle.

On road tax: current road tax is a tax on emissions, not on use of the road. Electric cars and hybrids pay virtually nothing.

Even if a bicycle yearly levy were introduced, the problem is the same - it's just too hard to police and administrate effectively. Remember that the Government as it stands have no concept of the "registered keeper" of a bicycle.

It would in all probability be less costly for the Government to pay for liability insurance for all bicycles than have DVLA deal with millions of bicycles, most sitting unused in sheds. That could change if as you say, claims become more commonplace.

Bicycles currently pay full rate VAT - of my £550 road bike, £91.50 went into government coffers. We're not exempt from taxation - we just skip on emissions tax

samba

EdgEy wrote: »

On road tax: current road tax is a tax on emissions, not on use of the road. Electric cars and hybrids pay virtually nothing.

Even if a bicycle yearly levy were introduced, the problem is the same - it's just too hard to police and administrate effectively. Remember that the Government as it stands have no concept of the "registered keeper" of a bicycle.

It would in all probability be less costly for the Government to pay for liability insurance for all bicycles than have DVLA deal with millions of bicycles, most sitting unused in sheds. That could change if as you say, claims become more commonplace.

If you introduce road tax for bicycles, then to be fair, you would have to intorduce road tax on all those vehicles that currently pay nothing due to low emissions.

Secondly, would you have to SORN your bike if you didn't use it for a while?

Thirdly, the only people who benefit from this are the ambulance chasing lawyers who get another excuse for encouraging people to litigate.

The guy who started this whole debate was a prat and should have been prosecuted for manslaughter. No need to change the law or penalise sensible law-abiding cyclists.

thelawnet

asbokid wrote: »

That is an awful lot of injuries, and those figures account only for injuries which are officially recorded.

It is a small fraction of injuries caused by cars. There are injuries caused by trains, buses, helicopters, planes, everything, only a dribbling idiot would look at one mode in isolation without considering the alternatives.

Are cyclists even obliged, like motorists, to stop and exchange details when they are involved in an accident?

Cyclists have the same obligations as skateboarders, pedestrians, etc., in respect of accidents. Not being responsible for mass carnage and destruction in the way that 3-tonne motor vehicles are, they are considered alongside other non-motorised road users.

Returning to those figures, they also do not account for all the damage that is caused by cyclists to cars and other road vehicles.

There is a definite need for compulsory third party insurance for cyclists. Introducing such a law would be parliamentary time well spent.

You've failed to demonstrate any such need, you've just blustered a lot about how you believe cyclists are a menace.

My 3-year-old daughter is more likely to damage your car with her scooter than I am with my bike. Any comparison between 3-tonne motor vehicles, which can cause thousands of pounds of damage at high speed, and a bicycle, which would be lucky to dent a panel, is, as with most of your output, utterly inane. Stray footballs present a bigger third party risk.

thelawnet

asbokid wrote: »

Sounds very cheap. Moped insurance was costing £50 maybe 30 years ago.

It costs less than £5 for compulsory third party bicycle insurance in Switzerland. Presumably a portion of that covers admin, making the disc, etc., so the actual risk must be extremely low.

http://mct.sbb.ch/mct/en/reisemarkt/services/fuer-alle/velo/velovignette.htm

I guess I would expect it, yes. My car insurance should pay out if, heaven forbid, I knocked somebody over on the pavement.

Uninsured drivers kill 200 people per year.

sequence

samba wrote: »

If you introduce road tax for bicycles, then to be fair, you would have to intorduce road tax on all those vehicles that currently pay nothing due to low emissions.

Exactly. Isn't it one of the selling points of hydrogen/electric/eco cars that they pay no VED ("road tax"). That would put an end to that :rotfl:

What would be the purpose of this tax on bicycles ? VED is a tax to compensate society for the toxic emissions from cars. What will bike tax be defined as ? Will it be appropriated for something ?

asbokid

thelawnet wrote: »

It is a small fraction of injuries caused by cars. There are injuries caused by trains, buses, helicopters, planes, everything, only a dribbling idiot would look at one mode in isolation without considering the alternatives.

This isn't about fractions or proportions. Proportionately, very few people die in airline accidents yet insurance is still compulsory.

This is about raw figures.

Over 200 pedestrians were injured by cyclists in 2009 and more than 60 were seriously injured, i.e. they were maimed and hospitalised.

Many more injuries caused by cyclists goe unreported. So too for all the damage that cyclists are causing to others' property.

Almost all cyclists are uninsured. Injured parties are not bothering to report collisions. Recovering damages from a cyclist is unlikely to be successful. The cyclist may not even stop to leave his details.

Cyclists have the same obligations as skateboarders, pedestrians, etc., in respect of accidents.

In other words, the cyclist has no obligations.

To sum up, the cyclist, unlike the motorist, doesn't need insurance, he's not required to stop after a collision, he doesn't have to provide his details to the third party, and he doesn't have to report the collision to the police..

And yet you have the temerity to claim that existing laws on cycling are satisfactory.

You are certainly no ambassador for other Lycra louts!

asbokid

sequence wrote: »

VED is a tax to compensate society for the toxic emissions from cars.

VED is not "a tax to compensate society for toxic emissions" ?! Of course it is not!

You've swallowed the Government propaganda for those living in the fairytale make-belief world of anthropogenic global warming from benign compounds like CO2.

VED is a Government revenue source that, theoretically, funds the upkeep of our public highways, pays for their policing, and part funds the cost of treating those injured in road traffic accidents.

In practice, however, VED is a source of general taxation that the Government uses for all sorts of things, like waging wars of aggression on the orders of shadowy bankers.

There is nothing to read into the fact that VED for obscure, completely impractical, but very costly vehicles is zero rated.

Our Government, corrupt as ever, has put a zero rated VED on those vehicles as a favour to the manufacturers to stimulate their sale, as well as promoting its own junk science policies of "fighting global warming", the construction of useless but very costly wind farms, and most importantly, the very lucrative carbon emission trading exchange in London..

Since bicyclists are sharing the public roads that are funded by other VED-paying road users, they should contribute to the costs.