Law for cyclists to have the same rules as drivers
Comments
-
Couple this with a change in the judicial process, not the law. In the event of an accident causing death or serious injury, a small proceeding with one judge could sit and decide if there is a criminal case to be held or not. Both sides get to present the argument. The insurance scheme can fund it.
This is interesting. Probably not feasible but I like the idea of a grand jury style hearing (but without the jury); I'm not so keen on juries anyway, so it suits my bias. It would also be best to involve a switch from the adversarial judicial system to the inquisitorial system (that once again, I would prefer!).I'm on Twitter! Follow @olake92 for updates on my racing, my team's performance and some generic tweets.0 -
Couple this with a change in the judicial process, not the law. In the event of an accident causing death or serious injury, a small proceeding with one judge could sit and decide if there is a criminal case to be held or not. Both sides get to present the argument. The insurance scheme can fund it.
This is interesting. Probably not feasible but I like the idea of a grand jury style hearing (but without the jury); I'm not so keen on juries anyway, so it suits my bias. It would also be best to involve a switch from the adversarial judicial system to the inquisitorial system (that once again, I would prefer!).
Without meaning to sound confrontational, why do you suggest that it would be unfeasible?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
This highlights human nature. Most humans need to be forced to change habits.
How can I justify this?
What percentage of cyclists have insurance though BC etc?
It should be 100% as it can easily be free, if not cost effective, using discounts when shopping.
Madness not to have it but a lot don't.
Car drivers insisting we wear hi-viz whilst they drive black cars in gloomy conditions without lights.
New laws means new cars will have lights. Forced, as I said.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I read somewhere the colour of car that has the highest accident rate is that day glow yellow colour you get on the likes of Ford focus st hot hatch type of cars. So I hope hi-viz never becomes compulsory with cars.Equal laws. Interesting concept.
I await compulsory hi-viz cars.
Where exactly ? :roll:
Probably on the outside
0 -
First of all, a national compulsory insurance scheme costing very little. Every cyclist can get the benefit of it after an accident, whether loss of earnings or replacing a bicycle or legal fees. £10(?) a year, buy it at the post office. A little slip of weather proofed paper that you can carry in your pocket.
Fine for the likes of us who cycle every day but it would either just criminalise the 95% of people whose cycle use is intermittent and who simply wouldn't bother to pay up or just put people off cycling altogether. £10? How many people on bikes do you see every day in winter who won't even invest half of that amount for a rear light that might save their lives?
You can't apply logic to people!
Faster than a tent.......0 -
First of all, a national compulsory insurance scheme costing very little. Every cyclist can get the benefit of it after an accident, whether loss of earnings or replacing a bicycle or legal fees. £10(?) a year, buy it at the post office. A little slip of weather proofed paper that you can carry in your pocket.
Fine for the likes of us who cycle every day but it would either just criminalise the 95% of people whose cycle use is intermittent and who simply wouldn't bother to pay up or just put people off cycling altogether. £10? How many people on bikes do you see every day in winter who won't even invest half of that amount for a rear light that might save their lives?
You can't apply logic to people!
Without means of identification and with huge reductions in visible policing, how would this be enforced? look at mobile phone use by drivers.
The law needs to change the status of colisions with cyclists to a continental "no fault" rule unless the motorist can prove differently, so a knock on would be all cars would have a dash cam and cyclists might up their game too with proper lighting and insurance.0 -
First of all, a national compulsory insurance scheme costing very little. Every cyclist can get the benefit of it after an accident, whether loss of earnings or replacing a bicycle or legal fees. £10(?) a year, buy it at the post office. A little slip of weather proofed paper that you can carry in your pocket.
Couple this with a change in the judicial process, not the law. In the event of an accident causing death or serious injury, a small proceeding with one judge could sit and decide of there is a criminal case to be held or not. Both sides get to present the argument. The insurance scheme can fund it.
This may dissuade car drivers in that they know their actions given injury can be held accountable after due consideration and maybe the mentality of certain cyclists who give the vast majority a bad name may change as they too could be held accountable in similar circumstances. Too often we have seen in the past, police forces (Reading incident) being dismissive of death to cyclists and drivers getting away with paltry punishment.
Maybe knowing that the cyclist is insured and that he/she has the backing of a funded insurance scheme, they will give us a bit more room and consideration because trying to appeal to the basic right to life/safety just like any other road user is seemingly totally ineffectual. We are 2nd class citizens who are an odd bunch, who wear lycra and go out on our 'push' bikes for some inexplicable reason, to them.
With the rate of accidents and the likelihood of fraudulent claims each time someone wanted a new bike, your estimate for insurance costs would sky rocket. Already specialist cycle insurers quote more than the cost of insuring cars and motorcycles in many cases.
Your second point calls for a change in statute and I can't see how what you propose is any different to what already happens? At a reportable collision, the details are taken either by an attending police officer or a front enquiry desk officer which will include any allegation of guilt and witness details. That officer does not make the decision as to whether a prosecution should ensue. The report then goes to the department that handles all traffic collisions with experience of such collisions. They make a decision whether there are sufficient grounds to prosecute, a realistic chance of succeeding, and the likely punishment justifying the expense of a prosecution. Where there is uncertainty or the prosecution is for death by dangerous or carries a similar gravity, the CPS will make the charging decision. It can be the case in every type of investigation, be it crime or road traffic, that the victim feels shortchanged if no prosecution is made in their case, but the guidelines for prosecutions are clear. You can't just chuck a case into the courts and let a jury decide. It would be wasting millions in court costs payable from the public purse.
Your third point that drivers would take more care knowing you've got insurance is clearly arguable by the fact that it doesn't stop them having collisions with other motorists they can be pretty sure have insurance. It will make no difference to the average anti cyclist driver who you are or whether you have insurance. Their mind set is that they pay "road tax" and you don't, so the right of way is their's. We know they don't pay road tax and until they are educated to the fact their priority on public roads is way down the list, you will never change them. We had a charity marathon around here recently raising lots of money for breast cancer, but the complaints from motorists were ridiculous. Claiming that illegal road blocks and lane closures were put on, didn't let them through at junctions and roundabouts and the ever present why weren't they on the pavement. If they knew the priorities, they'd know they have to give way to pedestrians, riders on horseback, cattle being herded and cyclists among the list before they get a look in.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
I have put this idea forward before but have been contradicted. However, here goes. I have got my helmet on though it won't be much use.
First of all, a national compulsory insurance scheme costing very little. Every cyclist can get the benefit of it after an accident, whether loss of earnings or replacing a bicycle or legal fees. £10(?) a year, buy it at the post office. A little slip of weather proofed paper that you can carry in your pocket.
Couple this with a change in the judicial process, not the law. In the event of an accident causing death or serious injury, a small proceeding with one judge could sit and decide of there is a criminal case to be held or not. Both sides get to present the argument. The insurance scheme can fund it.
This may dissuade car drivers in that they know their actions given injury can be held accountable after due consideration and maybe the mentality of certain cyclists who give the vast majority a bad name may change as they too could be held accountable in similar circumstances. Too often we have seen in the past, police forces (Reading incident) being dismissive of death to cyclists and drivers getting away with paltry punishment.
Maybe knowing that the cyclist is insured and that he/she has the backing of a funded insurance scheme, they will give us a bit more room and consideration because trying to appeal to the basic right to life/safety just like any other road user is seemingly totally ineffectual. We are 2nd class citizens who are an odd bunch, who wear lycra and go out on our 'push' bikes for some inexplicable reason, to them.
People would see this as just another stealth tax which would do nothing but dissuade people from cycling if they had to pay into another scheme. How do you licence a minor? Not every cyclist is a lycra clad roadie. What about elderly people who use a bike to go to the shops? Children on their way to school? Not every road in the UK is a busy city road with juggernauts flying up and down it but you would need to implement the same rules to every stretch of highway. I would need to have insurance just to cycle off my own driveway.
A driver should be dissuaded from hiting a cyclist not because they may be insured but because they are a human being in a vunerable position. What about premiums? Would the insurance make helmet wearing compulsory before companies cover you? You cannot say a person in London commuting accross the centre of the city would be paying the same as someone who lives in a rurual area with barely a car in sight. Thats how insurance works. Higher risk, higher premiums. A cyclist in London would be given a massive hike in cost. That would be so counterproductive that many would end up not cycling at all. Not just commuting but as you would need it no matter when you rode it would a trip to the shops. Children going to school would not be able to cycle as parents could not afford the extra costs. A child cannot enter a contract so how can you insure a child is properly insured?
The fact is, A bike is not a car. You cannot even begin to compare the two for insurance or regulating it is just impossible. If you were to treat a car and a bike the same you would destroy the entire bike industry since noone would be able to afford to even ride. You would need to tax, insure, register, MOT, every bike in the country. You would need to license riders, test riders to check they are competent. You would no longer be able to swap bits about without informing the authorities. Lights and brakes and any safety feature would need a legislative body to regulate to meet standards - more costs. Even if you just want to ride cross country on your MTB you would still need to do all the above as it can still be ridden on the road just as much as any other bike. Would the insurance make helmet wearing compulsory before companies cover you?
Where you idea is trying to tackle the subject and I applaude you for that, it is fundamentally flawed as is any idea of regulating anything to do with cycling. Even a Boris Bike in London could not be just hired as they would be duty bound to check those hiring meet the insurance guidelines laid down.
To make cycling safer you need better infrastructure, better training of drivers. The current driving test should be overhauled IMO. It takes months and a few grand to get a license in Germany. If you fail or lose it in your first year its very expensive to get it back. It also means drivers are better trained. If the threat of losing your license was greater for drivers who drive badly or cause accidents they would soon find it very expensive even to the point they are priced off the road - which can only be a good thing. Heavier punishments for anyone found guilty of causing death or injury through dangerous driving.
Where not all cyclists are the innocent party, Red light jumpers etc there needs to be a higher financial penalty for anyone caught offending. I know its hard to catch them in the act but if the threat was high and some police forces have pushed out traps at junctions capturing them the risk of fine should be high enough to deter them. This goes for vehicles too.0 -
To make cycling safer you need better infrastructure, better training of drivers. The current driving test should be overhauled IMO. It takes months and a few grand to get a license in Germany. If you fail or lose it in your first year its very expensive to get it back. It also means drivers are better trained. If the threat of losing your license was greater for drivers who drive badly or cause accidents they would soon find it very expensive even to the point they are priced off the road - which can only be a good thing. Heavier punishments for anyone found guilty of causing death or injury through dangerous driving.
Where not all cyclists are the innocent party, Red light jumpers etc there needs to be a higher financial penalty for anyone caught offending. I know its hard to catch them in the act but if the threat was high and some police forces have pushed out traps at junctions capturing them the risk of fine should be high enough to deter them. This goes for vehicles too.
Cant argue with you on any of this, but the fact is with spending cuts, visible policing is plumeting and the high penalties for using a mb and driving dont deter their use, new laws and penalties are useless without detection and as others would say " the tories were voted in on a mandate to cut public spending"0 -
To make cycling safer you need better infrastructure, better training of drivers. The current driving test should be overhauled IMO. It takes months and a few grand to get a license in Germany. If you fail or lose it in your first year its very expensive to get it back. It also means drivers are better trained. If the threat of losing your license was greater for drivers who drive badly or cause accidents they would soon find it very expensive even to the point they are priced off the road - which can only be a good thing. Heavier punishments for anyone found guilty of causing death or injury through dangerous driving.
Where not all cyclists are the innocent party, Red light jumpers etc there needs to be a higher financial penalty for anyone caught offending. I know its hard to catch them in the act but if the threat was high and some police forces have pushed out traps at junctions capturing them the risk of fine should be high enough to deter them. This goes for vehicles too.
Cant argue with you on any of this, but the fact is with spending cuts, visible policing is plumeting and the high penalties for using a mb and driving dont deter their use, new laws and penalties are useless without detection and as others would say " the tories were voted in on a mandate to cut public spending"
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Its not helping0 -
Couple this with a change in the judicial process, not the law. In the event of an accident causing death or serious injury, a small proceeding with one judge could sit and decide if there is a criminal case to be held or not. Both sides get to present the argument. The insurance scheme can fund it.
This is interesting. Probably not feasible but I like the idea of a grand jury style hearing (but without the jury); I'm not so keen on juries anyway, so it suits my bias. It would also be best to involve a switch from the adversarial judicial system to the inquisitorial system (that once again, I would prefer!).
Without meaning to sound confrontational, why do you suggest that it would be unfeasible?
NP. Nothing to do with your comment, more an indictment of the resistance to change in the UK. IT is technically very feasible and pretty easy to implement, but it's more of a 'resistance' sort of thing.
We don't have grand juries and we don't have an inquisitorial system so it would require massive changes in that respect. It would be a high profile, regular situation where judges are given precedence over juries; I don't think the general public would understand (plus certain media outlets would do their usual fear-mongering, which wouldn't help). People already don't understand anything to do with the law, all you have to do is look at the judgment from the latest Supreme Court ruling re parking tickets to see that.
I'd love to see it happen though.I'm on Twitter! Follow @olake92 for updates on my racing, my team's performance and some generic tweets.0 -
I have put this idea forward before but have been contradicted. However, here goes. I have got my helmet on though it won't be much use. I told you.
First of all...pocket.
Couple...it.
This...them.
People would see this as just another stealth tax which would do nothing but dissuade people from cycling if they had to pay into another scheme. How do you licence a minor? Not every cyclist is a lycra clad roadie. What about elderly people who use a bike to go to the shops? Children on their way to school? Not every road in the UK is a busy city road with juggernauts flying up and down it but you would need to implement the same rules to every stretch of highway. I would need to have insurance just to cycle off my own driveway.
What is wrong with that if the cost of insurance was inexpensive? If a bicycle was found to be defective in an accident enquiry, then the fault may lie with the user. There's no need for a convoluted infrastructure to test and maintain them.
A driver should be dissuaded from hiting a cyclist not because they may be insured but because they are a human being in a vunerable position.
We have covered that. The fact is they don't and without legislation they won't.
What about premiums? Would the insurance make helmet wearing compulsory before companies cover you? You cannot say a person in London commuting accross the centre of the city would be paying the same as someone who lives in a rurual area with barely a car in sight. Thats how insurance works. Higher risk, higher premiums. A cyclist in London would be given a massive hike in cost. That would be so counterproductive that many would end up not cycling at all. Not just commuting but as you would need it no matter when you rode it would a trip to the shops. Children going to school would not be able to cycle as parents could not afford the extra costs. A child cannot enter a contract so how can you insure a child is properly insured?
Rubbish, sorry. No one has done the maths. Without someone trying to ascertain likely costs, pure presumption.Why not bring in insurance as mandatory for 18 or older?
The fact is, A bike is not a car. You cannot even begin to compare the two for insurance or regulating it is just impossible. If you were to treat a car and a bike the same you would destroy the entire bike industry since noone would be able to afford to even ride. You would need to tax, insure, register, MOT, every bike in the country. You would need to license riders, test riders to check they are competent. You would no longer be able to swap bits about without informing the authorities. Lights and brakes and any safety feature would need a legislative body to regulate to meet standards - more costs. Even if you just want to ride cross country on your MTB you would still need to do all the above as it can still be ridden on the road just as much as any other bike. Would the insurance make helmet wearing compulsory before companies cover you?
More drivel. The point I was trying to make was that car drivers often see the cyclist as some sort of freeloader. If the cyclist was paying in some way (constructively) maybe we wouldn't be perceived as unwarranted users of the road.
The issue of wearing helmets is already in legal circulation. Courts are arguably more favourable to those who 'take reasonable precaution' and wearing helmets is seen as just that.
Where you idea is trying to tackle the subject and I applaude you for that, it is fundamentally flawed as is any idea of regulating anything to do with cycling. Even a Boris Bike in London could not be just hired as they would be duty bound to check those hiring meet the insurance guidelines laid down.
No. It would be a bit like the old dog license. No one went on a training course to keep a dog before a license was issued.
To make cycling safer you need better infrastructure, better training of drivers. The current driving test should be overhauled IMO. It takes months and a few grand to get a license in Germany.
Bollox. No amount of driver training and infrastructure is going to change the attitude of drivers. It does cost a packet to pass your test in the UK, more, as a young driver, premiums are very high. You cannot enforce a moral responsibility but you can legislate. Re-vamping the test will only effect new drivers, not the 25m + existing one's.
Heavier punishments for anyone found guilty of causing death or injury through dangerous driving.
That's the thing. The police (and there is plenty of evidence) do not take death caused by bad driving that seriously. The bin lorry driver in Glasgow is a case in point. It's almost always just an accident to them. It takes enormous pressure from family and solicitors to prompt proper investigation.
Where not all cyclists are the innocent party, Red light jumpers etc there needs to be a higher financial penalty for anyone caught offending. I know its hard to catch them in the act but if the threat was high and some police forces have pushed out traps at junctions capturing them the risk of fine should be high enough to deter them. This goes for vehicles too.
In an ideal world ^ ? That brings me back to the judicial process where both sides can have their say. If a cyclist jumps a red light without injury to anyone, then there's not really a lot you can do. If a cyclist jumps a red light and gets injured, that's a different matter. Especially if a driver ends up swerving to avoid contact and causing further damage/injury, my proposed judicial process would allow the driver and those involved, some form of recompense.
If a cyclist causes an accident through irresponsible riding at the moment, unless individuals take out personal proceedings, the cyclist basically gets away with acting stupidly. An insurance scheme/license would change that.
As far as those who say that you wouldn't be able to enforce any legislation.
A) I am not asking for any legislative powers above the insurance scheme. You could make such a scheme non-mandatory. Anyone involved in an accident without insurance gets looked on less favourably.
The law is we should have an MOT, Tax and insurance for our cars. There are laws that that govern behaviour on the road. Stealing and burglary is illegal. The vast majority of the population adhere to these laws. We don't all need constant monitoring/enforcement for us to comply.
"NP. ...more an indictment of the resistance to change in the UK. IT is technically very feasible and pretty easy to implement, but it's more of a 'resistance' sort of thing."
I quite agree. This thread is a perfect example. No wonder we have a nanny state.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
What is wrong with that if the cost of insurance was inexpensive?
Do you honestly expect insurance companies to offer low cost insurance to ride a bike? IT cost an arm and a leg to insure it against theft or damage alone. You think rider accident on the road is going to be any cheaper?
Insurance is means tested. Riders in London commuting in heavy traffic will get smashed. Thats insurance for you - its a business
Where you idea is trying to tackle the subject and I applaude you for that, it is fundamentally flawed as is any idea of regulating anything to do with cycling. Even a Boris Bike in London could not be just hired as they would be duty bound to check those hiring meet the insurance guidelines laid down.
No. It would be a bit like the old dog license. No one went on a training course to keep a dog before a license was issued.
But if you need insurance to ride, how could you just jump on a hire bike without proof? A tourist visiting would not have it so if they are involved in an accident then a duty of care on the part of the bike hire would need to know the people hiring are insured on their bikes. If it was included in the cost then the prices would rocket.
Why not bring in insurance as mandatory for 18 or older?
And those UNDER 18? Kids cycling to school, college? where are they meant to get insurance from? They are just as vunerable.
You are quick to dismiss everything I say but your ideas are flawed and you have no real answer to my questions other than to call them bollox and drivel. No other country in the world does this. Why is the UK so backwards that we would ever suggest insuring cyclists this way?0 -
I will ask again.What is wrong with that if the cost of insurance was inexpensive?
Do you honestly expect insurance companies to offer low cost insurance to ride a bike? IT cost an arm and a leg to insure it against theft or damage alone. You think rider accident on the road is going to be any cheaper?
Insurance is means tested. Riders in London commuting in heavy traffic will get smashed. Thats insurance for you - its a business
Where you idea is trying to tackle the subject and I applaude you for that, it is fundamentally flawed as is any idea of regulating anything to do with cycling. Even a Boris Bike in London could not be just hired as they would be duty bound to check those hiring meet the insurance guidelines laid down.
No. It would be a bit like the old dog license. No one went on a training course to keep a dog before a license was issued.
But if you need insurance to ride, how could you just jump on a hire bike without proof? A tourist visiting would not have it so if they are involved in an accident then a duty of care on the part of the bike hire would need to know the people hiring are insured on their bikes. If it was included in the cost then the prices would rocket.
Why not bring in insurance as mandatory for 18 or older?
And those UNDER 18? Kids cycling to school, college? where are they meant to get insurance from? They are just as vunerable.
You are quick to dismiss everything I say but your ideas are flawed and you have no real answer to my questions other than to call them bollox and drivel. No other country in the world does this. Why is the UK so backwards that we would ever suggest insuring cyclists this way?
What is wrong with British Cycling membership?
Insurance included for £33/year nationwide, plus discounts at shops. (I notice an increase from £20 odd though).
Get membership, buy a bike, helmet, jacket and lights and it ends up free.
No it doesn't cover your bike for theft etc but that is not the issue here.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
@ Maglia Rosa. You are just chucking spanners in the spokes. The Dog License wasn't issued by private companies. No one mentioned private companies delivering insurance. How would revenue from insurance premiums possibly fund the legislative process I proposed and return a profit fr themselves? A national scheme, not for profit, run by (local?) government.
Minors are viewed differently under the law. That is a complicated area. No one said minors
"No other country does this"; Switzerland.
What is wrong with a hire company having insurance? They probably have to.
The long and the short of it is that most people are whiners not complainers. they whinge about everything but are not prepared to change or do something about it. My idea maybe is flawed, maybe requires tinkering but I have yet to come across anyone who is willing to put coherent, solid ideas forward other than the intangible, over-optimistic, unworkable ideas of educating drivers, heavier penalties and more policing.
I heard you PBlakeney. I think that is over priced.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
The long and the short of it is that most people are whiners not complainers. they whinge about everything but are not prepared to change or do something about it. My idea maybe is flawed, maybe requires tinkering but I have yet to come across anyone who is willing to put coherent, solid ideas forward other than the intangible, over-optimistic, unworkable ideas of educating drivers, heavier penalties and more policing.
...and thats what your doing Pinno, whinging that not everyone agrees with you.
Your ideas wont work, how do cyclists having insurance make drivers act differently when overtaking or how they behave at junctions ? it doesnt. why cars pull out in front of cyclists or M/C is a complex issue and doesnt involve whether ot not the rider has insurance or indeed hi vis or their head light on.
Car drivers dont like cyclists because they have to slow down for us, cyclist are in the way, we should nt be there.
Take drink driving, the min 12month ban forces drivers to act differently, the reduction in road Policing has made drink driving seen as a crime that drivers can "get away with" so rates have gone up.
the only thing that will change driver behavior is harsher penalties and that needs to be enforced, together with a default no blame clause applied to the cyclist involved in a colision, is used in may euro countries and it works, so there is your wanted coherent argument.0 -
@ Maglia Rosa. You are just chucking spanners in the spokes. The Dog License wasn't issued by private companies. No one mentioned private companies delivering insurance. How would revenue from insurance premiums possibly fund the legislative process I proposed and return a profit fr themselves? A national scheme, not for profit, run by (local?) government.
Minors are viewed differently under the law. That is a complicated area. No one said minors
"No other country does this"; Switzerland.
What is wrong with a hire company having insurance? They probably have to.
The long and the short of it is that most people are whiners not complainers. they whinge about everything but are not prepared to change or do something about it. My idea maybe is flawed, maybe requires tinkering but I have yet to come across anyone who is willing to put coherent, solid ideas forward other than the intangible, over-optimistic, unworkable ideas of educating drivers, heavier penalties and more policing.
I heard you PBlakeney. I think that is over priced.
So you want low cost insurance and you think BC is overpriced. What f@#king planet are you living on? You expect someone to giveyou cheap insurance in a bike in this day and age.
I am not putting spanners in spokes. Its called debating an issue. You dont agree with me but god forbid anyone would not agree with you. Your excuses are pathetic. Insurance for adults but not kids for example. Whats the difference when either are on the road. Differentiate between a 17yr old and an 18yr old riding along the road on thier bike.
Your opinion that no one has come up with a way to solve the problem is because it has too many interwoven issues that are too expensive or impractical to implement. Some things cannot be just fixed by some guy going "I got an idea" cos as soon as you look at the finer details it all begins to unravel just like yours does. Just cos that is the case dont get arsey that your ideas suck and are not thought through0 -
@ Maglia Rosa. You are just chucking spanners in the spokes. The Dog License wasn't issued by private companies. No one mentioned private companies delivering insurance. How would revenue from insurance premiums possibly fund the legislative process I proposed and return a profit fr themselves? A national scheme, not for profit, run by (local?) government.
Minors are viewed differently under the law. That is a complicated area. No one said minors
"No other country does this"; Switzerland.
What is wrong with a hire company having insurance? They probably have to.
The...policing.
I heard you PBlakeney. I think that is over priced.
So you want low cost insurance and you think BC is overpriced. What f@#king planet are you living on? You expect someone to giveyou cheap insurance in a bike in this day and age.
If it was compulsory, the pool of money would be very big. How many cyclists on the road are there?
I am not putting spanners in spokes. Its called debating an issue. You dont agree with me but god forbid anyone would not agree with you.
I am debating the issue, you are the one getting arsey.
Your excuses are pathetic. Insurance for adults but not kids for example. Whats the difference when either are on the road. Differentiate between a 17yr old and an 18yr old riding along the road on thier bike.
My 'excuses' for what exactly?
Your opinion that no one has come up with a way to solve the problem is because it has too many interwoven issues...
You mean that there isn't the will? I had this idea debated in the Campaign section years ago {Mamba]. The fundamental thing was that people were willing to criticise and debate but no one came up with any practical solution. Perhaps because of what you said Maglia Rosa but I think mainly because 'it's too complex' for people to bother their arisesseanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Cyclists having insurance would effect drivers. They would have not only have Judicial process [under my previous proposition], they would have legal weight behind them if necessary. This may affect car driver insurance rates and ultimately, attitudes. If drivers knew that had to face an inquisitorial proceeding and face possible criminal charges, then why wouldn't it have effect?
knowing how contemptible sentences for offences behind the wheel of a car are, drivers pay less heed to other road users.
I knew the helmet would be ineffectual.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Cyclists having insurance would effect drivers. They would have not only have Judicial process [under my previous proposition], they would have legal weight behind them if necessary. This may affect car driver insurance rates and ultimately, attitudes. If drivers knew that had to face an inquisitorial proceeding and face possible criminal charges, then why wouldn't it have effect?
knowing how contemptible sentences for offences behind the wheel of a car are, drivers pay less heed to other road users.
I knew the helmet would be ineffectual.
I would wager the vast majority of incidents between cyclists and cars is purely accidental.
How is this going to effect these drivers? How will effect the attitude of decent upstanding citizens who still get involved in road accidents. These are not anger filled maniacs who need to be brought to rights. Its as though your idea of a cyclist/car collision is the sought of hyped up sh1t you watch on youtube0 -
Cyclists..ineffectual.
I would wager the vast majority of incidents between cyclists and cars is purely accidental.
Yes, I agree. I am not counting the vast majority of incidents.
Just made a calculation.
[According to CTC fugures.] 5.1 million cyclists in the UK cycle 3-4 times per week.
Lets remove 10% for those who would cycle but not pay the insurance.
4.5 million pounds raised by a £10 fee into a 'pool' annually to cover the Judicial process and compensation to either parties in the event of death or serious injury. Any excess to go towards cycle paths, cycle schemes, routes etc. Maybe even payable to SUSTRANS.
Is that from another planet? (Expletive removed) So £33 is too little ?!
...hyped up sh1t you watch on youtube
Woah easy.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Cyclists..ineffectual.
I would wager the vast majority of incidents between cyclists and cars is purely accidental.
Yes, I agree. I am not counting the vast majority of incidents.
Just made a calculation.
[According to CTC fugures.] 5.1 million cyclists in the UK cycle 3-4 times per week.
Lets remove 10% for those who would cycle but not pay the insurance.
4.5 million pounds raised by a £10 fee into a 'pool' annually to cover the Judicial process and compensation to either parties in the event of death or serious injury. Any excess to go towards cycle paths, cycle schemes, routes etc. Maybe even payable to SUSTRANS.
Is that from another planet? (Expletive removed) So £33 is too little ?!
...hyped up sh1t you watch on youtube
Woah easy.
To get this straight. I am on your side here. I would like to see anything that helps prevent casualties but the idea of cheap insurance in an inherently dangerous activity as it can be in some places is just not going to happen. One massive payout the whole system falls on its knees.
As for helping pay for cycling paths and infrastructure. That cannot be moved away from council responsibility. You start getting private paid for paths etc it will be wrapped up in red tape and that money will disappear.0 -
I have a problem with this on two levels.To get this straight. I am on your side here. I would like to see anything that helps prevent casualties but the idea of cheap insurance in an inherently dangerous activity as it can be in some places is just not going to happen. One massive payout the whole system falls on its knees.
1. We will get nowhere as long as there is an attitude that cycling is "inherently dangerous" whilst is is not. Cyclists do not have any more accidents than any other activity and the serious ones are usually the fault of drivers. Remove vehicles from the road and cycling would be a whole lot safer. But that will never happen. It is generally drivers that make cycling dangerous, not the activity itself.It is the attitude that cycling is dangerous that I have a problem with, not the reality.
2. British Cycling have had claims on their insurance but still it exists. Their system has not fallen on it's knees. Is the vehicle insurance system falling on it's knees?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Pinno, your figures dont add up, an ins scheme with a 4.5 pot, probabaly would nt even pay the salaries of those who would run it,
so, it would need to be more than £10 and how would you make enough people pay to ensure it was viable? if it had to be compulsory, with no means of enforcement or identification of riders, how could this be achieved?
But regardless, i do not see how ins and the threat of penalties on drivers would make any difference, might lead to more hit an runs though
the reason some drivers seemingly get away with injurying or even killing cycists is because they are prosecuted for their actions NOT for what then follows, which is basically down to the riders pot luck or lack off and you cant send someone to jail for that.
what is needed is to prevent accidents, and as i drew the comparision with drink drive laws, we need harsh penalties for even so called minor infringments, part of this might be a compulsory ins scheme and mandatory bike and dash cams, together with a return to road policing.
but yours and my ideas are never ever going to happen or indeed any thing else that will improve the lot of the road cyclist.0 -
Cyclists having insurance would effect drivers. They would have not only have Judicial process [under my previous proposition], they would have legal weight behind them if necessary. This may affect car driver insurance rates and ultimately, attitudes. If drivers knew that had to face an inquisitorial proceeding and face possible criminal charges, then why wouldn't it have effect?
knowing how contemptible sentences for offences behind the wheel of a car are, drivers pay less heed to other road users.
I knew the helmet would be ineffectual.
Cyclists, like every section of the public has access to the legal processes of this country as it is. You seem to be making out that they don't and only will have if they sign up to your scheme. Whether or not a cyclist has insurance won't make the slightest difference to a driver. Do you really imagine that a driver sits there and contemplates before a collision; has this rider got insurance? Of course they don't. Although the term "accident" has been replaced with collisions as virtually all have some element of blame to be apportioned, very rarely is there any intent to cause a collision involved. If there were, it would be classed under the criminal category of the offence i.e. assault rather than the road traffic collision.
It's already been explained to you that the only way of changing attitudes of drivers is through driver training. A cyclist is that annoying object that slows their journey down. It's an objective thought process rather than subjective. Britain's road infrastructure doesn't cater for both forms of transport to share the highways in harmony. Driver's already know that if they have a collision and some form of negligence can be proved, they will be punished both in terms of penalties to their licence and higher insurance premiums, if they pay for insurance that is.
Punishment for driving offences reflect the scale and prevalence of the offence. The more an offence happens and is presented t the courts, the less of an impact it has with regards to sentencing. Decades ago swearing in the streets would have seen you before the beak, nowadays it's rare for anybody to be punished for it. So it is with driving offences. You can't eradicate them by chucking everyone that commits them in prison simply because the load on the courts couldn't manage it. A custodial term for a fatal RTC is only really a consideration in death by dangerous cases. The sentencing Judge still has to consider several factors beforehand. What does a custodial achieve against what is expected. Not all fatal RTCs invlove an allegation of dangerous driving.
Car insurance is already high yet you want to see higher premiums. Car owners are already penalised by fraudulent claims and claims against the insurance companies for collisions involving uninsured drivers. You seem to want them to pay more to subsidize cyclists. Your estimation of 10% of cyclists not paying the insurance I believe is a way under estimation. As has already been pointed out, anyone that rides a bike on the public highway and that includes footpaths, or in a public space would have to be covered. A child having their first wobble on the park would need cover just in case they career into some OAP knocking them to the ground and breaking their hip. Premiums would need to be levied against location, age, experience, safety equipment, time of day used, congestion of the roads used, previous claims, criminal convictions (car owners are penalised nowadays if they have criminal convictions so why shouldn't cyclists) age of the bike, where stored etc. Again as has already been pointed out, how are you going to enforce this new legislation? How will anyone be able to identify that cyclist that just ran that red light or rode down the pavement of the high street and knocked that child flying? There aren't enough police as it is without expecting them to be on ever corner waiting for just such an eventuality.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
I have a problem with this on two levels.To get this straight. I am on your side here. I would like to see anything that helps prevent casualties but the idea of cheap insurance in an inherently dangerous activity as it can be in some places is just not going to happen. One massive payout the whole system falls on its knees.
1. We will get nowhere as long as there is an attitude that cycling is "inherently dangerous" whilst is is not. Cyclists do not have any more accidents than any other activity and the serious ones are usually the fault of drivers. Remove vehicles from the road and cycling would be a whole lot safer. But that will never happen. It is generally drivers that make cycling dangerous, not the activity itself.It is the attitude that cycling is dangerous that I have a problem with, not the reality.
2. British Cycling have had claims on their insurance but still it exists. Their system has not fallen on it's knees. Is the vehicle insurance system falling on it's knees?
This is not me, but the attitude of the insurance companies. If they consider someone riding through rush hour traffic in the centre of London dangerous - and they will based on the amount of deaths and all other RTIs there then do not expect them to give cheap insurance. This is a fact. You cannot call it attitude or opinion. They base it on statistics. And where they feel a risk is higher than average the cost of insurance will rise. British cycling costs about 33 quid and this has risen in the last year or so. It will go up again i have no doubt.
The vehicle system has not fallen on its knees cos they know they can whack up premiums safe in the knowledge you cannot refuse to pay. Drive with no onsurance and you're breaking the law. Big fine and points or even lose your car. Thats why. If it was mandatory for bikes to be insured you can bet your life the prices would rise. They woukd fleece cyclists like they do with motor insurance0 -
So, in summary......
We just accept out lot and get on with it as nothing will change.
Wonderful.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Cyclists...ineffectual.
Cyclists, like every section of the public has access to the legal processes of this country as it is.
..but the legal process often does not work. There is not a framework in place that acts as a 'preliminary hearing'.
You seem to be making out that they don't and only will have if they sign up to your scheme.
That is a presumption.
Whether or not a cyclist has insurance won't make the slightest difference to a driver. Do you really imagine that a driver sits there and contemplates before a collision; has this rider got insurance? Of course they don't. Although the term "accident" has been replaced with collisions as virtually all have some element of blame to be apportioned, very rarely is there any intent to cause a collision involved. If there were, it would be classed under the criminal category of the offence i.e. assault rather than the road traffic collision.
That is just muddying the waters and over-complicating the issue. I am only referring to the cases where there has been gross negligence on the part of the driver or indeed, the cyclist, where serious injury or death occurs.
It's already been explained to you that the only way of changing attitudes of drivers is through driver training.
I am glad you have 'explained things to me again despite me covering this in an earlier post and to which I did not agree with which is all part of a debate. However, there are 25m + cars on the road. Are you expecting to re-train them all?
A cyclist is that annoying object that slows their journey down. It's an objective thought process rather than subjective. Britain's road infrastructure doesn't cater for both forms of transport to share the highways in harmony. Driver's already know that if they have a collision and some form of negligence can be proved, they will be punished both in terms of penalties to their licence and higher insurance premiums, if they pay for insurance that is.
I agree with the first part of the paragraph but the first two sentences do not add anything constructive to the debate.
All too often, drivers are not given severe punishment, even if they kill someone. this is just one example.
http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/no-further-action-following-death-4246037
Punishment for driving offences reflect the scale and prevalence of the offence.
When it comes to RTA's, no it doesn't. That's an ideal world to which we don't live in.
The more an offence happens and is presented t the courts, the less of an impact it has with regards to sentencing.
So what are you saying - Kill a cyclist or injure them through poor driving and just give them a ticking off? It doesn't matter because sentencing gets 'lighter' and 'lighter'?
You can't eradicate them by chucking everyone that commits them in prison simply because the load on the courts couldn't manage it.
What part of "in the event of death or serious injury, there should be a preliminary inquisitorial hearing to see if the case should be taken further" do you not understand?
A custodial term for a fatal RTC is only really a consideration in death by dangerous cases.
The current system rarely, if ever gets that far even when serious injury or death occurs.
The sentencing Judge still has to consider several factors beforehand. What does a custodial achieve against what is expected. Not all fatal RTCs invlove an allegation of dangerous driving.
A preliminary hearing could ascertain that. Maybe in certain cases, it would not get that far. Why clog a complex, expensive and time consuming legal process up unnecessarily when you could have a preliminary hearing?
Car insurance is already high yet you want to see higher premiums. Car owners are already penalised by fraudulent claims and claims against the insurance companies for collisions involving uninsured drivers. You seem to want them to pay more to subsidize cyclists.
No. There's insurance fraud in every aspect of life, it is unavoidable. If the cost of driving reduces the number of cars on the road, fine.
A child having their first wobble on the park would need cover just in case they career into some OAP knocking them to the ground and breaking their hip.
Parks and recreational areas haven't got reams of cars going through them. The insurance would not be there to cover minor bumps, it is only in the vent of serious injury or death. I have already said that the law covering minors is a complicated area. Unless there is an extreme case of a minor acting stupidly, they cannot be held responsible. The insurance scheme would not over-ride or remove the existing legal structure anyway.
Premiums would need to be levied against location, age, experience, safety equipment, time of day used, congestion of the roads used, previous claims, criminal convictions (car owners are penalised nowadays if they have criminal convictions so why shouldn't cyclists) age of the bike, where stored etc.
The scheme would only be set up for cases of ser... etc Have I got through yet?
Again as has already been pointed out, how are you going to enforce this new legislation? How will anyone be able to identify that cyclist that just ran that red light or rode down the pavement of the high street and knocked that child flying? There aren't enough police as it is without expecting them to be on ever corner waiting for just such an eventuality.
So lets rely on the current legal process which all too often has failed the cyclist, even when there is very clear evidence that the driver has driven like an idiot. I am not expecting an officer at every point on the road. If a cyclist is proved negligent, then he/she won't get the benefit of the insurance scheme and is left to current due legal process as you could revoke a license. If a cyclist without insurance has committed multiple offences, then just like multiple offenders, they would get punished accordingly. Slim chance as the insurance scheme would only be there for cases of serious injury or death.
PM from someone who didn't want to get involved in this thread (any wonder?):
"Got my BC insurance and sod anyone who's too tight to buy it " seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
PM from someone who didn't want to get involved in this thread (any wonder?):
"Got my BC insurance and sod anyone who's too tight to buy it "
So what does that prove?
Insurance is good, i ve amate who has broken loads of bones after hitting a car that pulled out in front of him, his BC ins will ensure he gets legal rep, all good.
BUT how does the insurance change the drivers attitude? he/she didnt see him. As i said why car drivers dont see cyclists/m.c is complex, even where they do see them, some drivers cannot judge closing speeds.
Car drivers who diberately want to intimidate cyclists will carry on doing so UNLESS they have a good chance of being caught and punished, insurance aint gong to change that.
One reason i sold my R1 was because the penalities for high speeds became jail, bans and big fines and with a nice big number plate means a realistic chance of being caught, but now, there are few, if any, mobile speed traps, so if i still had the bike, i d have kept it.
to PB yes we have to accept our lot and cycle in places and in amannor that reduces our exposure to risk, i dont xxxxing like it any more than anyone else but it isnt going to change because the majority dont vote for parties that will introduce measures to protect us, like the Greens or even Corbyns labour.0 -
PM from someone who didn't want to get involved in this thread (any wonder?):
"Got my BC insurance and sod anyone who's too tight to buy it "
So what does that prove?
Insurance is good, i ve amate who has broken loads of bones after hitting a car that pulled out in front of him, his BC ins will ensure he gets legal rep, all good.
BUT how does the insurance change the drivers attitude? he/she didnt see him. As i said why car drivers dont see cyclists/m.c is complex, even where they do see them, some drivers cannot judge closing speeds.
Car drivers who diberately want to intimidate cyclists will carry on doing so UNLESS they have a good chance of being caught and punished, insurance aint gong to change that.
One reason i sold my R1 was because the penalities for high speeds became jail, bans and big fines and with a nice big number plate means a realistic chance of being caught, but now, there are few, if any, mobile speed traps, so if i still had the bike, i d have kept it.
to PB yes we have to accept our lot and cycle in places and in amannor that reduces our exposure to risk, i dont xxxxing like it any more than anyone else but it isnt going to change because the majority dont vote for parties that will introduce measures to protect us, like the Greens or even Corbyns labour.
Ive been a gold bc member for 3 years so I don't get what it means either. I have it by choice fir racing. But thats a different story i guess0
