Do You Think That Cyclists Should be Insured and Registered On Roads, I do

Ladywriter1968

prowla wrote: »

Do you think pedestrians should be insured?

good point. People have accident insurance, well some do, not everyone. At least you made a point without being insultive or put downs like couple of others on here

Ladywriter1968

custardy wrote: »

why are you still posting and not answering my points?
I dont think you need to explai to us how personal insurance would work
however givne I have more than one bike,numerous spares,2 cars and pair of working legs
me getting to work is my look out
why would the state force me to have insurance for my look out?
car drivers arent required to have that much cover

Give me a chance ok to reply, car drivers do pay a lot of insurance, especially if they are younger.

No one actually answered my question about running red lights either. so there you go.

Ladywriter1968

vikingaero wrote: »

I'm all for less regulation, but the cycling brigade have essentially drawn their own short straws by their actions.

Let's face it - the MAJORITY of cyclists jump red lights. The MINORITY of motorists do the same. Whilst we're shaking cyclists let's include the mobility scooter brigade into the registration/insurance debacle.

Thanks for a good point on all here. Trying to reply to all now

Ladywriter1968

no_more_cards_for_me wrote: »

Ladywriter,

Seeing as your still here, insurance doesn't work that way

Thats the problem, nothing ever does seem to work, does it.

custardy

Ladywriter1968 wrote: »

Give me a chance ok to reply, car drivers do pay a lot of insurance, especially if they are younger.

No one actually answered my question about running red lights either. so there you go.

lorry drivers pay lots
large corporation pay more
Roya Mail self insures
Im not sure what your point is

we already have laws regarding bikes and red lights
how do you feel insurance will change that?

Woody._2

custardy wrote: »

lorry drivers pay lots
large corporation pay more
Roya Mail self insures
Im not sure what your point is

we already have laws regarding bikes and red lights
how do you feel insurance will change that?

What would you do with a five year old who had no insurance?

Ladywriter1968

Woody. wrote: »

How would that work then?

You crash your car and injure yourself, if it's your fault you do not have a claim. How would this work for cyclists?

this is a good point. but say you went down a pot hole or something. I guess it would be an insurance for cyclists with all the usual clauses and all that stuff, as they have so many now for so many things. I guess even if they pay small amount a year. But I was told that its up to insurances to battle it out between them to decide who's fault it is anyway. If I did cycling now on the roads I think I would rather be covered by something then have nothing at all.

no_more_cards_for_me

vikingaero wrote: »

I'm all for less regulation, but the cycling brigade have essentially drawn their own short straws by their actions.

Let's face it - the MAJORITY of cyclists jump red lights. The MINORITY of motorists do the same. Whilst we're shaking cyclists let's include the mobility scooter brigade into the registration/insurance debacle.

What are you basing that suggest on ? Myth or Folklore?

If the majority were RLJ's then there would be even higher numbers of deaths on the roads. In the last three months then reported accidents relate to cars and lorries overtaking cyclists too close or crushing riders when turning left. I am not defending cyclists who undertake lorries at junctions.

On my 12 mile cycle to work and several traffic light sets I've never seen a rider RLJ and in london I've seen a few. As above we are not all quilty just because a few don't think.

brian_723

Ladywriter1968 wrote: »

You are the back ward one. you drive on the road and pay like the rest of us. If you have accident, then you got no insurance for yourself either.

where as if you had this, even if you say broke your arm or leg, you could then claim for yourself to the time it left you not being able to work.

If I am backward then blame it on the pathetic nanny state .

Woody._2

Ladywriter1968 wrote: »

this is a good point. but say you went down a pot hole or something. I guess it would be an insurance for cyclists with all the usual clauses and all that stuff, as they have so many now for so many things. I guess even if they pay small amount a year. But I was told that its up to insurances to battle it out between them to decide who's fault it is anyway. If I did cycling now on the roads I think I would rather be covered by something then have nothing at all.

Claim off the highways same as a car driver.