compulsary insurance and tax

BarryBonds

Is it time for cyclists to wake up the obvious facts that when riding a bikle on the public highwaywe are in fact riding a machine that caues a potential danger to other road users.

if so is it not time that we had compulsary insurance and protective headwear?

Not meant as a troll, a genuine question about getting our heads out of the sand.

Equally is it reasonable to allow timed or bunch racing on dual carriageways and open roads? Whilst its generally the cyclist thats killed the pain of the resultant fall out is always felt by the innocent driver of the car.

Seems to be one rule for one group and none for the other...........

cee

oh....and....no....

tax (or more corerectly excise duty, based on emissions) is easy.....zero rated, like a prius. where do i collect my disc?

insurance....can of worms.....3rd party liability can be purchased, and comes along with membership to ctc etc....of course....there are no uninsured car drivers on the road are there? and what about children etc...should they be insured?

and of course the whole question about the level of damage that can actually be done with a bicycle....at the end of the day, if we cause damage to someones car, they can already recoup costs through the small claims court etc.....

of course, this requires actually swapping details with the parties in the accident.....easier in a car because of the licence plate, however, again, there are no tales of car drivers fleeing the scene and being unable to be found are there?

Compulsory Helmets? I don't see how that affects anyone other than the cyclist, so should be their choice (as per the minister earlier today who said the same thing).

And then the crashing reality....is it that much of an issue that actually needs legislation to fix? I do not believe it is

BiggerBoat

Oh look! It's this thread again. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Ollieda

I work in a childrens department of a popular retail outlet, lots of parents come in with prams/ buggies / pushchairs (call them what you will) these are pushed from home, across pavements and sometimes across roads and are machines that cause a potential danger to other road and pavement users. (If you don't believe it then go along to a shops childrens department and see how many people throughout the day crash into each other, overload buggies and then they flip or even step out in front of cars and cause collisions)

Maybe all users of said machines should get insurance to use them and all pushers and all riders should wear saftey helmets?

CyclingBantam

Exactly right. I mean, who do we think we are even being on their roads in the first place.

To answer your questions, answer mine:

Why do you imply car drivers have priority on the roads? My 1 year old neice has as much right to be on a road (all be it walking) as a 60,000 mile per year trucker.

Bearing in mind the number of car accidents per year vs the number of bike and car accidents per year where the cyclist causes damage (and isn't insured anyway (bearing in mind CTC membership includes insurance)) are you happy for your car insurance premiums to raise significantly to allow for the cost of administering all the additional insurance required (bearing in mind how low the cost of the cyclists insurance would be.

How do you tell who has insurance? Should we all have number plates that would have to be highly visable as well?

Does my 1 year old neice have to have insurance on her first bike? (if not, why not and where does the cut off come and why).

If cyclists have to wear helmets, do pedesrians have to as well? (if not, again, why not?)

Is it reasonable to allow cars on roads when there is a road race and or time trial on?

It does seem to be one set of rules for operating very dangerous machinery that kills thousands per year and less rules for something else that causes 1 or two death's per year.

Please do answer the points above.

Pross

I can't believe you fell for BarryBonds trolling guys, you ought to know by now that is what he lives for (and has done in his numerous guises in the past

GiantMike

Tom Butcher

BarryBonds wrote:

Is it time for cyclists to wake up the obvious facts that when riding a bikle on the public highwaywe are in fact riding a machine that caues a potential danger to other road users.

if so is it not time that we had compulsary insurance and protective headwear?

Not meant as a troll, a genuine question about getting our heads out of the sand.

Agree absolutely - anyone riding a bikle should be subject to all those things - so long as they don't extend that to people riding bikes I'm happy to agree with you.

BarryBonds

Pross wrote:

I can't believe you fell for BarryBonds trolling guys, you ought to know by now that is what he lives for (and has done in his numerous guises in the past

Not trolling pross, just wondering if it isnt time to stop hiding heads in the sand or howling with indignation.

I think there may come a time when we are forced to and daily mail apart there is an argument for it.

Le Commentateur

CTC & British Cycling members already have third-party insurance as part of their membership.

squired

The problem with a discussion about insurance is that most of the people on a forum like this cycle reguarly, so they aren't representative. A large number of people have bikes that they may only ride a handful of times a year, or just to the shops to get their morning paper. If insurance for cyclists like that was implemented I believe it would be a massive step backwards. Only the hardcore bikers who know they are going to ride regularly would continue to.

Ollieda

BarryBonds wrote:

Pross wrote:

I can't believe you fell for BarryBonds trolling guys, you ought to know by now that is what he lives for (and has done in his numerous guises in the past

Not trolling pross, just wondering if it isnt time to stop hiding heads in the sand or howling with indignation.

I think there may come a time when we are forced to and daily mail apart there is an argument for it.

A fairly flawed arguement! There is also an argument that there was not a holocaust of the jews during WWII, just cause theres an argument for it doesn't mean its correct.

And who's hiding heads in the sand? Not even the ostriches are doing that

neiltb

so much as noted above that you chose to ignore barry.

If insurance and tax is required, let's throw in licensing too. We could do it as a precursor to a driving license, to cycle on roads you would have to be how old, 14. pass a test so would need lessons too, people to test you, people to print your license etc. What do kids do below the age of allowance?

As for the insurance, surely my insurance company would want to be sure my bike met a minimum standard of road worthiness, so perhaps an annual MOT (cycle) test would be a good idea, make sure your lights, bell, brakes work and other minimum requirements are met, how much tread would be required on Tyres? They would also like to know I meet a minimum standard of competence, read paragraph on license above.

Tax, how do I register my bike to get it, maybe the govt could just tax me (oh they do already) and would it cost more than a prius (zero)? if not, what's the point? To prove I have insurance?

not touching the helmet debate.

-spider-

BarryBonds wrote:

Pross wrote:

I can't believe you fell for BarryBonds trolling guys, you ought to know by now that is what he lives for (and has done in his numerous guises in the past

Not trolling pross, just wondering if it isnt time to stop hiding heads in the sand or howling with indignation.

I think there may come a time when we are forced to and daily mail apart there is an argument for it.

Barry, for someone who is 'just wondering' you use a lot of emotive language ("hiding heads in the sand", "howling with indignation", "Cyclists to wake up", "innocent driver of the car").

For someone to post on a cycling forum and use language like that and then say they are not trolling is a little disingenuous at the least.

BarryBonds

ok so buckets of sand all round,

And yes i can see a time where we will need insurance and i can see a time where the insurance will require a minimum level of maintennace to be in place for the insurance to be valid. accident becasue you had poor brakes??? thats the riders fault why pay out etc etc

Ron Stuart

BarryBonds wrote:

Is it time for cyclists to wake up the obvious facts that when riding a bikle on the public highwaywe are in fact riding a machine that caues a potential danger to other road users.

if so is it not time that we had compulsary insurance and protective headwear?

Not meant as a troll, a genuine question about getting our heads out of the sand.

Equally is it reasonable to allow timed or bunch racing on dual carriageways and open roads? Whilst its generally the cyclist thats killed the pain of the resultant fall out is always felt by the innocent driver of the car.

Seems to be one rule for one group and none for the other...........

Barry, you must work for the Daily Mail surely, this just the attention grabbing rubbish that is their hallmark.

Oh, and you need to run your script past one of the proof readers too. :shock:

"the innocent driver of the car." .............your avin a laarf ain't ya?

neiltb

so you agree then that a license system will be required also. Again, how old do you need to be to get a bike, as to cycle it you must be taxed and insured?

if the age to cycle is 4? How much is a 4 yr old expected to pay in insurance? do they have the cognitive skills to understand and pass a test? or should kids bikes be banned outright.

Is it a full moon tonight, all the loonies are out.

BarryBonds

Is it time for cyclists to wake up the obvious facts that when riding a bikle on the public highwaywe are in fact riding a machine that caues a potential danger to other road users.

Ok so does anyone not believe the above???????????

hardly a troll and certainely not just an opinion, its a fact. end of.

Insurance is one possible remedy to the potential problems caused, thats all quite why thats trolling is beyond me

CyclingBantam

BarryBonds wrote:

Is it time for cyclists to wake up the obvious facts that when riding a bikle on the public highwaywe are in fact riding a machine that caues a potential danger to other road users.

Ok so does anyone not believe the above???????????

hardly a troll and certainely not just an opinion, its a fact. end of.

Insurance is one possible remedy to the potential problems caused, thats all quite why thats trolling is beyond me

Please can you answer my questions above or are you going to simply avoid them and continue to just bait everyone on the thread?

BarryBonds

neiltb wrote:

so you agree then that a license system will be required also. Again, how old do you need to be to get a bike, as to cycle it you must be taxed and insured?

if the age to cycle is 4? How much is a 4 yr old expected to pay in insurance? do they have the cognitive skills to understand and pass a test? or should kids bikes be banned outright.

Is it a full moon tonight, all the loonies are out.

Quite why would you need a licence?

you buy a bike you could have insurance

A child has a bike they have insurance cognetive skills apart the insurance indutry would soon gather enough information to work out the risks and the premium would reflect them

Maybe only a few pounds to administer the system or more if there was a real risk

What is so abhorent about that?

TMR

BarryBonds wrote:

if so is it not time that we had compulsary insurance and protective headwear?

I do have both already. You're pushing against an open door.

BarryBonds

CyclingBantam wrote:

BarryBonds wrote:

Is it time for cyclists to wake up the obvious facts that when riding a bikle on the public highwaywe are in fact riding a machine that caues a potential danger to other road users.

Ok so does anyone not believe the above???????????

hardly a troll and certainely not just an opinion, its a fact. end of.

Insurance is one possible remedy to the potential problems caused, thats all quite why thats trolling is beyond me

Please can you answer my questions above or are you going to simply avoid them and continue to just bait everyone on the thread?

see above and i shouldnt have mentioned helmets, thats a seperate issue. Do you work for the CTC??? you sounds indignant enough to

Down the Road

Rode with someone a few years ago who had the misfortune to run into the back of a van.

Damage to the van was over £2K due to the large person shaped dent in the 2 doors. Luckily they were insured as a BCF member. As they said best £30 they ever spent.

Just think if you fall and bring someone down you can be sued for damages which could be in the £100,00's

BarryBonds

But on the helmet issue, i think thats a red herring, why be forced to wear something that only provides a percieved not actual benifit to the wearer?

BarryBonds

Down the Road wrote:

Rode with someone a few years ago who had the misfortune to run into the back of a van.

Damage to the van was over £2K due to the large person shaped dent in the 2 doors. Luckily they were insured as a BCF member. As they said best £30 they ever spent.

Just think if you fall and bring someone down you can be sued for damages which could be in the £100,00's

a very good example. thank you.

Pross

BarryBonds wrote:

Pross wrote:

I can't believe you fell for BarryBonds trolling guys, you ought to know by now that is what he lives for (and has done in his numerous guises in the past

Not trolling pross, just wondering if it isnt time to stop hiding heads in the sand or howling with indignation.

I think there may come a time when we are forced to and daily mail apart there is an argument for it.

If you say so mate, I can still remember your previous personas though and your first post as BarryBonds advocating some sort of communist cycling rally. I thought this troll attempt was poor by your usual standards (too obvious) but seems some are more gullible than I realised. Maybe you should send them an email claiming to be a Ugandan politician who needs a few grand but will pay them back millions etc.

ETA a previous non-trolling post by the OP (caught me out that time I think) http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=16599954&highlight=#16599954

Ron Stuart

BarryBonds wrote:

But on the helmet issue, i think thats a red herring, why be forced to wear something that only provides a percieved not actual benifit to the wearer?

Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha,

---

perfect troll, I new it was a wind-up, great

BarryBonds

Pross wrote:

BarryBonds wrote:

Pross wrote:

I can't believe you fell for BarryBonds trolling guys, you ought to know by now that is what he lives for (and has done in his numerous guises in the past

Not trolling pross, just wondering if it isnt time to stop hiding heads in the sand or howling with indignation.

I think there may come a time when we are forced to and daily mail apart there is an argument for it.

If you say so mate, I can still remember your previous personas though and your first post as BarryBonds advocating some sort of communist cycling rally. I thought this troll attempt was poor by your usual standards (too obvious) but seems some are more gullible than I realised. Maybe you should send them an email claiming to be a Ugandan politician who needs a few grand but will pay them back millions etc.

Pross im glad im memorable but its fair to comment on an issue that seems to be gaining masinstream consideration including in the executive law making organisation in the UK.

Pretending its just a troll is precisley the sort head in sand dismissal that sees so many ridiculous laws passed.
the problem with inertia in this area like in many other areas of life is that unless these things are nipped in the bud, by the time people start taking notice its too late and no amount of howling is going to stop the wheels from turning.

Good reasoned debate will not be enough

mattsaw

Obvious troll is obvious

But at the risk of encouraging him and sticking in my 2p

As a 'serious' cyclist who commutes daily and rides at weekends I have looked into insurance myself in the past and will probably end up getting some kind of 3rd party/theft/crash cover.

For someone who cycles once a month or irreguarly they're simply not going to bother, and either ride illegally (more likely) or not to bother at all. This would go against government policy of getting people out of cars - therefore its not going to happen.

VED - as others have said bikes would be zero rated anyway, so bringing in a scheme for them, registering and collecting 0 tax revenue seems rather counter productive.

An idea I have seen mooted in the past that would go along with government policy is stick a few quid on drivers VED/insurance and use that as a fund to cover 3rd party claims while maintaining peoples incentive to cycle. Not many drivers are keen on that though

Pross

Just to join in then - as others I have 3rd party insurance through BC, 0g/km emissions so VED rate of £0 and yes I wear a helmet but disagree with compulsion. Out of interest how does bike licencing work in those countries that have it?

CyclingBantam

BarryBonds wrote:

CyclingBantam wrote:

BarryBonds wrote:

Is it time for cyclists to wake up the obvious facts that when riding a bikle on the public highwaywe are in fact riding a machine that caues a potential danger to other road users.

Ok so does anyone not believe the above???????????

hardly a troll and certainely not just an opinion, its a fact. end of.

Insurance is one possible remedy to the potential problems caused, thats all quite why thats trolling is beyond me

Please can you answer my questions above or are you going to simply avoid them and continue to just bait everyone on the thread?

see above and i shouldnt have mentioned helmets, thats a seperate issue. Do you work for the CTC??? you sounds indignant enough to

You have not answered any of them, they were laid out so you can comment under each of them. It would really help the discussion if you could please. Not indignant, apologies if it came across that way, simply keen to discuss this properly as you are, don't want this to just end up as a troll thread as I'm sure you will agree.