Rant Silly Cyclists

Paid for by the cyclist of course... just like other road users have to do. This system whereby cyclists can just use the roads, free of charge, and do so with impunity simply has to end. If a cyclist damages my car, I have absolutly no recourse whatsoever, other than trying to physically stop him until the police arrive. In reality... that will never happen. If I scratch a cyclists bike, or knock him off... he takes my registration, and I get a knock on the door.

How is this a fair system?

We need parity for ALL road users.

 

Motorists don't pay to use the roads! Vehicle Excise Duty ('road tax') is an annual tax on the ownership of road vehicles. If you drive a car that emits less than 100g/km of CO2 you pay no road tax, so therefore a cyclist who emits zero emissions should not have to pay anything either.

You cannot identify the driver of a car by the number plate, neither can you be sure the driver has a license or insurance so you have no less recourse against a cyclist than you would against a car driver.

It's not like a cyclist can make off at a speed that a car driver cannot follow, so you would have plenty of time to inform the police of any accident whilst following them in even a low gear.

If a cyclist collides with a car, the cyclist is going to end up in a worse state in almost all cases.

 

I would say the percentage of car drivers that don't have insurance is much less than that of cyclist

If a cyclist collides with my car through his own negligence then sorry but I want the damage he caused on my car repaired at his expense, unless he has insurance it will end up going through my insurance and ultimately will come out of my pocket.

 

Indeed, because it's not law that a cyclist has to have insurance... although you will find that a larger majority than you think do because they are members of a cycling club.

The potential damage a car can do to a third party could easily be thousands of pounds (potentially millions if injury or property is involved) and the driver could not be reasonably expected to reimburse this amount, this is why only third party insurance is required by law.

I'd be surprised if a cyclist could cause much more than minor cosmetic damage to a car, possible a broken wing mirror or windscreen if serious. This is an amount that could be easily claimed via the small claims court and insurance would not be required by law for potential damages of this level.

A cyclist is bound to stop at the scene of an accident the same as a car driver, failing to stop at the scene of an accident is an offence by law. They could not make off at a speed that a car driver couldn't follow (most likely the will have been knocked off their bike after even the smallest collision). If they do make away you are entitled to call the police the same as you would for an accident with a car.

If you get hit by someone on a £50 freeads bought bike they might be unlikely to stop, but they would be unlikely to have insurance even if it was law. These are the same dishonest people who don't have car licenses or insurance so aren't confined to just cyclists.

------------------------------------

Most cyclists I know are very decent people and if they caused any damage would stop and offer to pay for said damage. Road bikes are often worth more than second hand cars so you're more likely to find someone with a good job commuting by bike than someone on minimum wage.

Truthfully, cyclists are never going to require registration or insurance as the government are trying to get drivers out of their cars and barriers like these to cycling would do the total opposite. Cyclists are seen by the government as a way to help congested roads and get people away from being lazy slobs with health problems.

If the government invested in dutch style roads, most car drivers would never have to share the road with cyclists. Problem solved for both parties... we can only dream.

 

As sensible as it may theoretically be to register cyclists like drivers/cars are, it's about as practical as trying to trying to register people to walk on the pavements. Will never happen, and it hasn't been attempted for a reason!

 

The US are very progressive in these matters...always ahead of the curve:

 

I had a copper pull a gun on me in Austria for that wtf

 

Something that has worried me is that local councils, in cheaping out on providing Westminster-ordered cycle paths, have started reducing dual-carriageways to single carriageway+cycle path.
How are we supposed to pass lorries now?

 

I don't think they realise no one wants to undertake a lorry. They're probably thinking the lorry knows not to drive on the cycle path. But we all know that never happens.

Councils should have a requirement that all town planners must be a resident of the borough. I believe they have no clue what changes are really needed.
The number of roads I've seen in my short lifetime that have been reduced to single carriageway or narrowed to create a ridiculously wide pavement for a quiet shopping area which doesn't need it is too darn high. Only for them to change it back to how it was just two years or so later because they might have received complaints about traffic congestion or maybe one of them accidentally drove down the road themselves and realised how bad it is.

 

im a cyclist and ill be the first to say i see a lot of cyclist that don't have a clue what they're doing on the road or how to treat cars.

Be progressive, leave and give plenty of room. dont be in the middle of the dam road, signal!

 

Didn't we have a forum member who was a cyclist (bigsharn I think) who filmed his rides. He seemed to deliberately antagonise drivers as well. I don't mind cyclists as long as they obey the rules if the road, it's the ones that want to cycle in the middle of the road but at red lights and junctions decide to use the pavements. I think there should be some form of registration for cyclists (paid for by cyclists) and a requirement to have at a minimum third party insurance.

 

I don't care how practical it is... road users should be identifiable and have third party insurance. The fact they have no engine should be irrelevant.

There's no argument against it. "It would be difficult to implement" doesn't cut it as a counter argument for me. I don't see what's so difficult anyway. You apply for permit, which you will get once you prove you have 3rd party insurance, and you are issued with a number you attach to your HV vest (also mandatory). Anyone riding without those items will be stopped by the police when noticed. I really don't see how that's the insurmountable task some seem to think it is. I'd rather pay taxes to fund that than a stupid high speed rail link that no one really needs anyway... and many, many other things my taxes are being spent on currently.

 

Well cyclist nearly always come of worse. The number of people killed per million miles travelled which aren't the ones in control of the car or bicycle. Is that statistic somewhere?

It also doesn't really work with trying to encourage cycling. How many kids are going to get taught by their parents if they need a registration number?

 

TBH no one should be allowed to take a bike on the road without first getting some proper training I really don't believe being taught by their parents is good enough

 

Implementing mandatory insurance, a mandatory HV vest(While I wear one, I don't see it as mandatory, bright clothing should be enough) and a permit(which therefore assumes that the permit would include testing, at a cost to the cyclist)...you know what, instead of doing that, we should spend some money on a proper segregated cycle path network like in the Netherlands.

All the red tape you guys are suggesting will simply push more people into cars instead of cycling.

 

I'd happily welcome segregated roads. I think I mentioned so wayyy back in this thread.

HV vest.. bright clothing.. whatever.... so long as it has a number pinned to it.

No one mentioned testing... just have to apply for a number, and have insurance.

 

If we cyclists have to register to be allowed on the road (of which I have no problem doing if this then allows me to claim on my insurance when some **** in a van pushes me off the road)
Then you the motorists should have to do an extra driving test so that you are more courteous and considerate when overtaking & dealing with cyclists on the road, is it too much to ask to pass us with a larger gap then 2 inches.

 

You are supposed to give cyclists the same amount of room you would give to a vehicle as you overtake it, this is why some cyclists choose to ride two a breast or in the middle of the road to try and ensure that drivers do so.

I used to cycle before I buggered my knee in an accident and drivers were bloody stupid, especially on the windy country roads that we have around here.

 

Any new regulation on cyclists wont do jack, the effect will be entirely negative, car driving is already heavily regulated, how many car drivers actually obey the speed limit as a result? ..or the rest of the highway code for that matter ..what is the ratio between deaths caused by cyclists compared to car drivers. How many car drivers go around with music blasting, fiddling with buttons, on the phone etc or just generally driving without due care and attention ....see examples of that everyday, cyclists not so much, 2-3 times per year if even, cyclists tend to be way more careful, due to the fact they are not surrounded by metal protection & can die easily.

 

Hope you pay more attention on the road