I had to say something

[classic33]

I hate this sort of conflation.

It is utterly irrelevant that some people get away with breaking the existing law when deciding whether there should be a similar law for other circumstances.

Not irrelevant. If the system is unable to identify, and catch, those who should by law have insurance, how is any system going to say any particular cyclist isn't insured.

Bear in mind that it's possible through membership of cycling clubs/organizations.

 

[steveindenmark]

Is it compulsory in Denmark? How does that work?

No I do not think it is. I have it on my household policy. If a police officer stops me he will ask for my CPR number. Sort of an NI number. From that he can see what vehicles and insurance policies I have alongside a mass of other information.

 

[steveindenmark]

Don't be silly.

If you or one of your family run your bike into my car and damage it. How will you pay to repair it? Or will you just sneak off. If you collide with me, as a moped rider did and put me off work for 3 months . Cause me permanent damage how will you pay? He is looking at a claim of about 30k.
Its not silly to have insurance. People dont seem to realise the damage they can do with a bike or are quite happy to ignore their responsibilities if they are involved in an accident.

 

[classic33]

No I do not think it is. I have it on my household policy. If a police officer stops me he will ask for my CPR number. Sort of an NI number. From that he can see what vehicles and insurance policies I have alongside a mass of other information.

It isn't compulsory in Denmark, any idea why?

 

[matticus]

If you or one of your family run your bike into my car and damage it. How will you pay to repair it? blah ... blah ...

Dude, we had 13 pages of a thread just 2 months ago. it was discussed ALL OVER MAINSTREAM MEDIA!!!
Give it a rest eh? And meanwhile, read this thread:
https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/r...-ministerial-level.287133/page-2#post-6792312

 

[steveindenmark]

excellent idea. That'll get 90% of occasional or casual cyclists back in their cars. It'll get rid of most children learning to ride too.

Where did you pull that figure from? When insurance was brought in for motor vehicles do you think 90% of drivers went back to walking? I dont mind a discussion But quoting magic figures to bolster your point is quite ridiculous.

 

[Profpointy]

Where did you pull that figure from? When insurance was brought in for motor vehicles do you think 90% of drivers went back to walking? I dont mind a discussion But quoting magic figures to bolster your point is quite ridiculous.

OK the 10 year old wants a bike, perhaps a hand me down, but first his parents need to get him an insurance policy costing, what £25 before he can legally have a go. And to what end ? Maybe he'll scratch someone's bumper when he gets run over

Same logic for someone with a bike he uses once a month. Renewal time, doesn't bother, so next time he takes the car

Hey, I've not ridden for a while, and whilst I might keep up a policy just on the off chance a lot of people wont

 

[Alex321]

Well ....
There is no need for a "similar law", because the circumstances are completely different.

Indeed. Which is part of the reason I dislike such conflations.

"We should do X before doing y" when x & y are independent.

and ..
One of the arguments here - not the ONLY one - is practicalities. How would you manage this? What would the costs be?
What would such a law achieve? (Bear in mind the huge number of regular cyclists who *already* have 3rd party cover, from the various methods already listed.)

Oh, I can certainly see strong arguments against compulsory insurance for cyclists. I was just pointing out the fallacy of "they should enforce the insurance laws for motorists before bringing in ones for cyclists".

Note - I have insurance under my household cover - and it paid out around £2500 for the damage I did to the car in my smash in March, but the fact I think it a good idea doesn't mean it should be compulsory.

 

[classic33]

If you or one of your family run your bike into my car and damage it. How will you pay to repair it? Or will you just sneak off. If you collide with me, as a moped rider did and put me off work for 3 months . Cause me permanent damage how will you pay? He is looking at a claim of about 30k.
Its not silly to have insurance. People dont seem to realise the damage they can do with a bike or are quite happy to ignore their responsibilities if they are involved in an accident.

The last damage I did to a car, where the owner had to pay for it to be repaired, was after landing on the bonnet. This was pushed down to the engine.

Isn't the driver at fault in Denmark, unless they can prove otherwise?

 

[classic33]

Indeed. Which is part of the reason I dislike such conflations.

"We should do X before doing y" when x & y are independent.



Oh, I can certainly see strong arguments against compulsory insurance for cyclists. I was just pointing out the fallacy of "they should enforce the insurance laws for motorists before bringing in ones for cyclists".

Note - I have insurance under my household cover - and it paid out around £2500 for the damage I did to the car in my smash in March, but the fact I think it a good idea doesn't mean it should be compulsory.

We are all using road vehicles though. So in many ways we aren't as independent as you may think.

 

[Profpointy]

Indeed. Which is part of the reason I dislike such conflations.

"We should do X before doing y" when x & y are independent.



Oh, I can certainly see strong arguments against compulsory insurance for cyclists. I was just pointing out the fallacy of "they should enforce the insurance laws for motorists before bringing in ones for cyclists".

Note - I have insurance under my household cover - and it paid out around £2500 for the damage I did to the car in my smash in March, but the fact I think it a good idea doesn't mean it should be compulsory.

Re your last point - strictly speaking you are only obliged to have 3rd party injury insurance for a car (or at least that used to be the case, even if few sell the legal minimum). Such car insurance wouldn't have covered it. admittedly (virtually) no one has that bare minimum these days

 

[matticus]

Oh, I can certainly see strong arguments against compulsory insurance for cyclists. I was just pointing out the fallacy of "they should enforce the insurance laws for motorists before bringing in ones for cyclists".

Fair point. (as long as you ignore all those motorists insisting that cyclists should have to follow every requirement that drivers do! :P )

 

[matticus]

TWO MONTHS ago folks. We did all this two months ago - can't we save some favourite topics for the long dark evenings?!?

 

[Alex321]

Not irrelevant. If the system is unable to identify, and catch, those who should by law have insurance, how is any system going to say any particular cyclist isn't insured.

Bear in mind that it's possible through membership of cycling clubs/organizations.

It is irrelevant.

There are loads of laws which are rarely enforced, some even almost cannot be except by chance. That doesn't prevent new laws being introduced, and nor should it.

There are plenty of arguments against compulsory insurance for cyclists, but "they don't enforce the laws for motorists" is not one of them IMO.

And BTW, while many people do get away with driving uninsured, there are still many who don't get away with it. In the first 15 years after police were given powers to seize vehicles of uninsured drivers (2000-2015), they seized two million vehicles - and most of those will also have resulted in convictions for the drivers.

 

[classic33]

It is irrelevant.

There are loads of laws which are rarely enforced, some even almost cannot be except by chance. That doesn't prevent new laws being introduced, and nor should it.

There are plenty of arguments against compulsory insurance for cyclists, but "they don't enforce the laws for motorists" is not one of them IMO.

And BTW, while many people do get away with driving uninsured, there are still many who don't get away with it. In the first 15 years after police were given powers to seize vehicles of uninsured drivers (2000-2015), they seized two million vehicles - and most of those will also have resulted in convictions for the drivers.

It's not that they don't enforce the laws for motorists, more the fact that they can't enforce it. "It" being on the roads, on/in a road vehicle without any insurance.