Arriva bus running me off the road!

Googlewhacker

I have to say surprisingly this has not become like most other cyclist vs car driver threads which is refreshing!

Bikes should have insurance because they can cause damage indirectly if they cause a car to swerve and hit other items. And Fluffnutter it doesn't matter who comes off worse, if a bike goes into a car and its the cyclists fault then there will be repairs to the car.

I feel they should be registered if they are on the road for getting data easier say if the cyclist just carries on.

Mr Fishbulb does raise a good point, ultimately if a pedestrian is at fault then the car owner could always sue for the negligence. However I would guess this is alot less likely to happen than a cyclist causing an accident (and yes a cyclist causing an accident is less likely than a car causing an accident but thats not the discussion)

fluffnutter

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Bikes should have insurance because they can cause damage indirectly if they cause a car to swerve and hit other items. And Fluffnutter it doesn't matter who comes off worse, if a bike goes into a car and its the cyclists fault then there will be repairs to the car.

Yes, I can see this point. But there are reasons why a government might be reluctant to make insurance mandatory. The main being, if you impose a charge on something, fewer people will do it (that's one of the tenets behind taxing goods like cigarettes). Problem is, the government doesn't want to discourage people from cycling, because cycling as opposed to driving has other benefits for society as a whole.

Googlewhacker

fluffnutter wrote: »

Yes, I can see this point. But there are reasons why a government might be reluctant to make insurance mandatory. The main being, if you impose a charge on something, fewer people will do it (that's one of the tenets behind taxing goods like cigarettes). Problem is, the government doesn't want to discourage people from cycling, because cycling as opposed to driving has other benefits for society as a whole.

Valid point I hadn't thought off. Ultimately insurance for cyclists would be minimal and I think the vast majority would pay for it than pay for the upkeep of a car (I know some have both).

Handsome90

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Valid point I hadn't thought off. Ultimately insurance for cyclists would be minimal and I think the vast majority would pay for it than pay for the upkeep of a car (I know some have both).

Yes, insurance for cyclists can be very cheap! I think I got mine for around £30 which includes breakdown cover, legal helpline, third party cover up to £1 million (if I happen to scratch a Ferrari) and other things that I can't remember.

I'm glad to know this isn't turning into a world war III

Googlewhacker

Handsome90 wrote: »

Yes, insurance for cyclists can be very cheap! I think I got mine for around £30 which includes breakdown cover, legal helpline, third party cover up to £1 million (if I happen to scratch a Ferrari) and other things that I can't remember.

I'm glad to know this isn't turning into a world war III

£30 is very reasonable and if more people had insurance I would suspect/hope this would go down even further!

Handsome90

Googlewhacker wrote: »

I have to say surprisingly this has not become like most other cyclist vs car driver threads which is refreshing!

Bikes should have insurance because they can cause damage indirectly if they cause a car to swerve and hit other items. And Fluffnutter it doesn't matter who comes off worse, if a bike goes into a car and its the cyclists fault then there will be repairs to the car.

I feel they should be registered if they are on the road for getting data easier say if the cyclist just carries on.

Mr Fishbulb does raise a good point, ultimately if a pedestrian is at fault then the car owner could always sue for the negligence. However I would guess this is alot less likely to happen than a cyclist causing an accident (and yes a cyclist causing an accident is less likely than a car causing an accident but thats not the discussion)

It will certainly make cyclists more accountable. I have heard stories of cyclists ripping off the wing mirrors of cars or snatching the keys from the ignition and running away if they get in an argument with a car driver.

Moreover, a lot of thieves snatch phones from pedestrian while ridding a bike. It's almost impossible to bring these thieves to justice as they cycle away really fast.

Anyways, Googlewhacker, I'm off so you have a super-awesome day!

custardy

Googlewhacker wrote: »

A common cause of accidents though is when cyclists pull out without looking into the road....surely if all cyclists had to take a test then this would help reduce accidents as well?

Plus make them all have insurance and a registration plate

is it. wheres your data on that?

fluffnutter

Handsome90 wrote: »

Yes, insurance for cyclists can be very cheap! I think I got mine for around £30 which includes breakdown cover, legal helpline, third party cover up to £1 million (if I happen to scratch a Ferrari) and other things that I can't remember.

I suspect that £30 would increase dramatically if it were mandatory. Part of the reason why car drivers are charged such shocking premiums is that the insurance companies have them over a barrel. Plus if insurance were mandatory, you'd start to see insurance claims. Companies would seek to protect their profits hence premiums would rise. At the moment the chances of a claim against an insured cyclist is probably very low.

fluffnutter

Handsome90 wrote: »

It will certainly make cyclists more accountable. I have heard stories of cyclists ripping off the wing mirrors of cars or snatching the keys from the ignition and running away if they get in an argument with a car driver.

Moreover, a lot of thieves snatch phones from pedestrian while ridding a bike. It's almost impossible to bring these thieves to justice as they cycle away really fast.

These people aren't 'cyclists', they're criminals! It's not a great argument I'm afraid. Making everybody pay insurance doesn't suddenly make someone of criminal bent accountable. The type of person in your second example is just not going to have bike insurance. Just like your average tool who creates havoc on the road driving around badly doing his drug deals with a crowbar in the back doesn't have insurance either! In some parts of the country, uninsured drivers account for a third of all drivers on the road!

FirstClassMale

A lot of cyclists do have insurance and do not even know it.

If you are to blame as a cyclist/pedestrian, a third party car insurer can pursue you on your home insurance.

Several years ago, a cyclist hit my parked car and caused £1400 worth of damage. I claimed on my comp insurance and had the cyclist (was hospitalised so em services had his details) had home insurance, that would have been liable. As my luck would have it, the guy didn't so I was left with a claim on my policy.