Should cyclists have to take out compulsory insurance?

Mids_Costcutter

Norman_Castle wrote: »

I think both motorists and cyclists who use cameras can create and provoke situations in a way they wouldn't do without a camera.

Are you really sure this is the case? Can you provide some examples of situations created by use of vehicle mounted cameras? Were these collisions / near misses?

I'd suggest that increased use of cameras by both sets of road users is due to a lack of traffic policing (and more poor / dangerous behaviour as a result), increased motor insurance costs and the camera technology itself becoming more affordable.

Membership of the CTC also includes 3rd party insurance cover, however I don't think such cover should be compulsory: it would be another barrier to cycling.

System

I think its more a case of engineering a situation worthy of recording being the problem. Youtube has numerous videos where it is fairly obvious that the driver/cyclist instead of mitigating a potential problem intentionally takes no action or even takes action that makes it worse to get a better shot. Some of the time their own audio damns them

Marco_Panettone

!!!!!! wrote: »

I think its more a case of engineering a situation worthy of recording being the problem. Youtube has numerous videos where it is fairly obvious that the driver/cyclist instead of mitigating a potential problem intentionally takes no action or even takes action that makes it worse to get a better shot. Some of the time their own audio damns them

Youtube also has numerous videos 'proving' every conspiracy theory out there. It doesn't make them right. As a source it's massively unreliable, and hugely unrepresentative in this sense.

System

I never made any representations as to whether it is unrepresentative or not but however unreliable you think it is it still provides some proof that there is an element of engineering incidents in some cases unless of course you have proof that every one is set up for the camera

You are trying to use the argument that because some are fake then all must be fake - doesn't wash I'm afraid

Norman_Castle

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

Are you really sure this is the case? Can you provide some examples of situations created by use of vehicle mounted cameras?

You tube is full of motoring and cycling non events which are dramatised for the camera.
I'm not suggesting all camera users do this but there are a proportion who are literally looking for trouble and there are others who will continue in situations where without a camera gathering supporting evidence or a bit of drama they would otherwise walk away.

Extreme example.

Brickwall

I was going along the road last year when a car shot out of a side street and straight into me, he claimed he didn't see me? After claiming he didn't see me he got back in his car and drove off, I was left on the roadside with a damaged bike.

I now use a camera, it's soley for my own peace of mind.

Norman_Castle

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Youtube also has numerous videos 'proving' every conspiracy theory out there. It doesn't make them right. As a source it's massively unreliable, and hugely unrepresentative in this sense.

You Tube is hugely representative in this sense as it is the major showcase for these diy dramas.

Tobster86

!!!!!! wrote: »

Taking out a pedestrian on a pavement or pedestrian crossing can easily rack up a 5 figure injury compensation bill

You'd probably have to ride in a pretty irresponsible manner to cause that though.

Whereas with a car, it'd only take a brake hose popping out of it's ferrule just before you stop at the crossing, then crunch; someone's complaining about their leg being under your wheel.

System

Tobster86 wrote: »

You'd probably have to ride in a pretty irresponsible manner to cause that though..

By that token, lets use the same argument between cyclist and car. You'd have to drive pretty irresponsibly to injure a cyclist.

All a cyclist needs to do is try to squeeze through non existent gaps at speed, as happens and clip somebody from behind to send them spinning to the ground or even, as seen, pushing the pedestrian into the road into the the path of another vehicle. If you mix pedestrians and cyclists in a place not intended for both then the car/cyclist argument now becomes cyclist/pedestrian and collisions, resulting in injuries to the pedestrian.
A 5 figure compensation sum can be the result of a broken arm, twisted back or something else that appears minor, putting somebody off work for a few weeks.

Tobster86

!!!!!! wrote: »

All a cyclist needs to do is try to squeeze through non existent gaps at speed, as happens and clip somebody from behind to send them spinning to the ground or even, as seen, pushing the pedestrian into the road into the the path of another vehicle.

But you can choose not to do that. Normal, responsible operation of a bicycle carries only very small risks to third parties; which don't dictate a legislatory requirement.

Operating a car inherently carries much larger third party risks due to it's size, weight and momentum. You can't choose not to have a blow out, but whatever consequences it has will still be your liability.