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

Ladywriter1968

Jane_Blackford wrote: »

I am a cyclist. I do NOT jump red lights, in fact I follow all the rules of the road as I would if I were a driver.

I have had lighted cigarettes thrown at me, tin cans, and a few other things too, all out of moving cars. I have been told off by pedestrians for cycling on cycle paths, by motorists for cycling on roads.

I have had doors opened on me by police cars, I have had people pull out in front of me at junctions (I wear high vis clothing at all times on a bike) to the extent that I have once broken a brake cable and another time I stopped about 2 inches from a car when someone had stopped when she saw me coming (and turned a very pale shade of white!!), ironically if she kept going it would have been better.

You get good cyclists and bad cyclists. The MINORITY of cyclists ignore road rules. I will not be painted with the same brush as them, to ignore the rules of the road is more than my life is worth.

What cyclists really need is more training (I am a qualified trainer). Insurance would probably be unenforceable, but more training for cyclists (and for drivers!) would be a good idea.

Thanks for giving an opinion of where its not a put down or nasty comments. Its a shame more people dont give true opinions like yourself to be honest. Which gets to the point.

Its not good that you also have to put up with all that crap either from motorists and even police, but the fact you obey the rules makes you a good person. A caring person. As you state, to ignore rules of the road is more then your life is worth. Isnt it a shame that others dont have your opinion. The world would be a nicer place if so.

Woody._2

custardy wrote: »

is it
so someone who cant afford a car and buys a £150 bike
now they need £250?
someone who already has insurance has to pay £100 on top of that?
the only way I would injure a pedestrian is if they are where they shouldn't be
so its an idiot tax?
you still havent answered my points

Another example of a poster only hearing what they want to hear.

Ladywriter1968

custardy wrote: »

is it
so someone who cant afford a car and buys a £150 bike
now they need £250?
someone who already has insurance has to pay £100 on top of that?
the only way I would injure a pedestrian is if they are where they shouldn't be
so its an idiot tax?
you still havent answered my points

Its not about me thinking it fully through, its my opinion and others as well. I dont know which type of insurance would be best, that would be up to the individual and depends on clauses etc. or what agreement the person comes to with insurance company as to what type of insurance they have or dont have.

I did not want to get into a row about it all. What the person put below was a good idea. about cycle lanes and taxes on bikes etc. I also read the other lady how she is treated on the bike and had things chucked at her which is very bad and even the police opened the door on her to. So yes runs both ways.

But the one thing I dont appreciate from members on here is being told to get stuffed basically. Just because some dont like my opinion. Or being put down either.

As said my neighbour used to be a cyclist years ago, my old neighbour I mean. As for how long insurance pays out, I think they are the same with everybody, if a persons car burns up they still have to wait and not paid out instantly. Its like that everywhere.

You asked about low insurance how would they do it, I dont know that answer, I guess if everyone had insurance it would be very low and affordable for everyone.

Ex, I have an instrument which costs me just £40 per year to insure, its covered for over 2 grand. Because lots of people have their instruments insured, (musical) I mean. This is for theft and removal out of building etc, if its injured they will replace etc. I don't know the ins and outs of insurance but think that if an insurance can drop prices low and be prepared to pay out over 2 grand then surely cyclists could have same concessions.

I think if everyone paid into it in a small way it would work. and if you yourself decided you wanted to be covered for a higher rate then thats your choice. you could have the fire theft thing or full comp as on cars but at a much lower affordable rate. I mean they even have home insurance now at a very low rate dont they. It was just my idea and opinion really.

adouglasmhor

altered_version_based_on_Woody. wrote: »

The OP hasn't [STRIKE]fully[/STRIKE] thought [STRIKE]this through[/STRIKE].

edited by me
I haven't head anything so unworkable an wasteful suggested in my life a the OP's post.

Ladywriter1968

custardy wrote: »

is it
so someone who cant afford a car and buys a £150 bike
now they need £250?
someone who already has insurance has to pay £100 on top of that?
the only way I would injure a pedestrian is if they are where they shouldn't be
so its an idiot tax?
you still havent answered my points

what about if the person paid a small amount monthly. You put a figure of 250, I didnt put any figures, lots of people do direct debit these days.

So you think its an idiot tax, thats fine and you are entitle to your opinion. or insuring your bike is idiot tax ok. its easier to pull up a fiver a month to pay for insurance then pull up couple hundred quid for a new bike. but oh whatever.

custardy

Ladywriter1968 wrote: »

Its not about me thinking it fully through, its my opinion and others as well. I dont know which type of insurance would be best, that would be up to the individual and depends on clauses etc. or what agreement the person comes to with insurance company as to what type of insurance they have or dont have. well it wouldnt be up to the individual if you made it a legal requirement,would it?

I did not want to get into a row about it all. What the person put below was a good idea. about cycle lanes and taxes on bikes etc. I also read the other lady how she is treated on the bike and had things chucked at her which is very bad and even the police opened the door on her to. So yes runs both ways. a "row". when questioned on your idea or opinion its not a row. dont try and use the victim mentality in place or argument and reason

But the one thing I dont appreciate from members on here is being told to get stuffed basically. Just because some dont like my opinion. Or being put down either. you put forward an idea not an opinion. why dont we create a separate road network for the whole of the UK for bikes only. doesnt matter i have no idea how it would work. I just think it should be that way and thats it

As said my neighbour used to be a cyclist years ago, my old neighbour I mean. As for how long insurance pays out, I think they are the same with everybody, if a persons car burns up they still have to wait and not paid out instantly. Its like that everywhere. a car burning down or being stolen is a simple claim. claims for injuries are not

You asked about low insurance how would they do it, I dont know that answer, I guess if everyone had insurance it would be very low and affordable for everyone. all car drivers have insurance(well the legal ones) is it low and affordable?

Ex, I have an instrument which costs me just £40 per year to insure, its covered for over 2 grand. Because lots of people have their instruments insured, (musical) I mean. This is for theft and removal out of building etc, if its injured they will replace etc. I don't know the ins and outs of insurance but think that if an insurance can drop prices low and be prepared to pay out over 2 grand then surely cyclists could have same concessions. a musical instrument isnt subject to the same risks as a bike.

I think if everyone paid into it in a small way it would work. and if you yourself decided you wanted to be covered for a higher rate then thats your choice. you could have the fire theft thing or full comp as on cars but at a much lower affordable rate. I mean they even have home insurance now at a very low rate dont they. It was just my idea and opinion really.

everyone is paying. council tax pays for the road network
so everyone from people who use buses and housebound people are paying for the roads. why do you feel the theft risk is lower on a bike vs car/home?
I have already told you how much it would cost me to tick all the boxes with my bikes.
thats more than my day to day car costs to insure

custardy

Ladywriter1968 wrote: »

what about if the person paid a small amount monthly. You put a figure of 250, I didnt put any figures, lots of people do direct debit these days.

So you think its an idiot tax, thats fine and you are entitle to your opinion. or insuring your bike is idiot tax ok. its easier to pull up a fiver a month to pay for insurance then pull up couple hundred quid for a new bike. but oh whatever.

I didnt put a figure of £250
your said adding £100 to the cost of a bike purchase was a good idea
so i picked a very low bike purchase price,then added £100
every insurer i have used charges a healthy premium for paying up your insurance
£5 a month doesnt add up to £100 a year

no_more_cards_for_me

Why should a cyclist be penalised £100 to use the roads, that's utterly stupid. VED is based on CO2 emissions, bikes don't produce any so why should I have to pay for the fact that the government has not developed an integrated transport infrastructure.

The government and private sponsorship should take steps to encourage more onto cycles and develop the road network to ensure that short urban journeys are by bike, foot or bus. Reduce the number of cars on the road and you don't need bike lanes.

sequence

Another week, another thread generalising about cyclists.

To the OP.

Why should cyclists be required to have more than third party insurance, when drivers are required by law only to have third party insurance?

Why should a cyclist pay a tax on the roads that they already pay for in general taxes ?

And most importantly, what happens if you slip on the pavement and break your leg, who will pay for your time off work ? I suggest third party insurance for pedestrians in case they scratch any cars during their fall. Wait no, they need personal injury insurance. Actually, I propose a tax on shoes, say £100 per pair of shoes to pay for new pavements and crossing for pedestrians.

I don't think the OP has thought this through very well.

For the record, most cycle clubs, many house insurances, the CTC, will give you third party insurance either free, or for almost nothing. Insurance companies are very experienced at calculating risk, that shows how little risk a cyclist poses to anyone.

Funny post from the OP though, can't be serious.

ventureuk

Ladywriter1968 wrote: »

I wonder if they should bring in a law so that cyclists on the roads are registered like car drivers.

Why?

because if the cyclist hits someone crossing they are not insured and can ride off into the blue yonder and no one can trace them?

The amount of cyclists that just go over crossings on red when people are actually crossing it to. They just dont care at all and have no consideration for pedestrians. They go over red lights as well. They seem to think that the rules of the road dont apply to them. Maybe they would think twice if they were registered.

Even disabled people in those cart things have to be registered I believe. so why shouldn't a cyclist be registered then? Even if they had a special number or something and the bike registered in their name as well and a low insurance or something.

The amount of times I have been crossing when cyclists have nearly hit me. It makes me really mad. They just ride off and dont even say sorry or nothing. One actually clipped me once and just rode off.

What do you think people? dont you think they should be insured and registered if being on the road?

A very many regular cyclists have insurance, some have public liability cover, even breakdown, I even pay vehicle excise duty.

What exactly is your point, your post seems poorly researched.