OP
OP
Riverman
Guru
- Location
- sur de Inglaterra
She drives a car.
My ex thinks cycling tests and insurance should be compulsary for cyclists
- Thread starter Riverman
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
wafflycat
New Member
- Location
- middle of Norfolk
I refer the honourable gentleman to my answer above.
wafflycat
New Member
- Location
- middle of Norfolk
I refer the honourable gentleman to my answer above.
OP
OP
Riverman
Guru
- Location
- sur de Inglaterra
And she doesn't cycle.
OP
OP
Riverman
Guru
- Location
- sur de Inglaterra
And she doesn't cycle.
wafflycat
New Member
- Location
- middle of Norfolk
I think everyone who wants to hold a full driving licence should have, as part of the testing procedure, have to have a pedal cycle as their main form of transport for at least 12 months before being allowed anywhere near the controls of a motor vehicle.
Edit to add: WCMnr is learning to drive. It has been noted by his driving instructor that his risk-identification and hazard avoidance skills are very, very good - right from the very first lesson he had. Seems all those years of being a cyclist (leisure/commuting/competing) where he cycled on all roads from minor country lanes to 70mph dual carriageways has been of benefit.
Edit to add: WCMnr is learning to drive. It has been noted by his driving instructor that his risk-identification and hazard avoidance skills are very, very good - right from the very first lesson he had. Seems all those years of being a cyclist (leisure/commuting/competing) where he cycled on all roads from minor country lanes to 70mph dual carriageways has been of benefit.
wafflycat
New Member
- Location
- middle of Norfolk
I think everyone who wants to hold a full driving licence should have, as part of the testing procedure, have to have a pedal cycle as their main form of transport for at least 12 months before being allowed anywhere near the controls of a motor vehicle.
Edit to add: WCMnr is learning to drive. It has been noted by his driving instructor that his risk-identification and hazard avoidance skills are very, very good - right from the very first lesson he had. Seems all those years of being a cyclist (leisure/commuting/competing) where he cycled on all roads from minor country lanes to 70mph dual carriageways has been of benefit.
Edit to add: WCMnr is learning to drive. It has been noted by his driving instructor that his risk-identification and hazard avoidance skills are very, very good - right from the very first lesson he had. Seems all those years of being a cyclist (leisure/commuting/competing) where he cycled on all roads from minor country lanes to 70mph dual carriageways has been of benefit.
Night Train
Maker of Things
- Location
- Greater Manchester
I am a motorist and I pay insurance, a lot of insurance. Some of that insurance money is used by insurance underwriters to cover the uninsured losses when the liability lies with an uninsured driver. That must be a significant amount to cover the size of payout required when an unisured driver causes an incident.
Surely a tiny proportion of this money could be used collectively by insurance companies to provide a group third party cover for any non motorised vehicle? Maybe it could be considered part of the insurance tax that come with all types of insurance premium, not just motoring.
This would then allow a proper amount of cover for any injury, loss of life or damage to property caused by any person on a non motorised vehicle used in accordance with the law on the public highway.
It would mean that there is no individual policy or premium for the cyclist, nor any paper work other that which follows the incident. If the cyclist was legally allowed to be cycling there and caused an incident then the insurers will pay out. If the cyclist was not legally allowed to be cycling there then the injured party can make a personal claim against the cyclist with the law on their side.
This will allow all road users to be covered either by payment for a motor vehicle or by non payment group cover if they are on a bike, skates, skate board, scooter, etc., regardless of age or means.
If a cyclist wants any further insurance cover, say theft, then they can get that separately.
Surely a tiny proportion of this money could be used collectively by insurance companies to provide a group third party cover for any non motorised vehicle? Maybe it could be considered part of the insurance tax that come with all types of insurance premium, not just motoring.
This would then allow a proper amount of cover for any injury, loss of life or damage to property caused by any person on a non motorised vehicle used in accordance with the law on the public highway.
It would mean that there is no individual policy or premium for the cyclist, nor any paper work other that which follows the incident. If the cyclist was legally allowed to be cycling there and caused an incident then the insurers will pay out. If the cyclist was not legally allowed to be cycling there then the injured party can make a personal claim against the cyclist with the law on their side.
This will allow all road users to be covered either by payment for a motor vehicle or by non payment group cover if they are on a bike, skates, skate board, scooter, etc., regardless of age or means.
If a cyclist wants any further insurance cover, say theft, then they can get that separately.
Night Train
Maker of Things
- Location
- Greater Manchester
I am a motorist and I pay insurance, a lot of insurance. Some of that insurance money is used by insurance underwriters to cover the uninsured losses when the liability lies with an uninsured driver. That must be a significant amount to cover the size of payout required when an unisured driver causes an incident.
Surely a tiny proportion of this money could be used collectively by insurance companies to provide a group third party cover for any non motorised vehicle? Maybe it could be considered part of the insurance tax that come with all types of insurance premium, not just motoring.
This would then allow a proper amount of cover for any injury, loss of life or damage to property caused by any person on a non motorised vehicle used in accordance with the law on the public highway.
It would mean that there is no individual policy or premium for the cyclist, nor any paper work other that which follows the incident. If the cyclist was legally allowed to be cycling there and caused an incident then the insurers will pay out. If the cyclist was not legally allowed to be cycling there then the injured party can make a personal claim against the cyclist with the law on their side.
This will allow all road users to be covered either by payment for a motor vehicle or by non payment group cover if they are on a bike, skates, skate board, scooter, etc., regardless of age or means.
If a cyclist wants any further insurance cover, say theft, then they can get that separately.
Surely a tiny proportion of this money could be used collectively by insurance companies to provide a group third party cover for any non motorised vehicle? Maybe it could be considered part of the insurance tax that come with all types of insurance premium, not just motoring.
This would then allow a proper amount of cover for any injury, loss of life or damage to property caused by any person on a non motorised vehicle used in accordance with the law on the public highway.
It would mean that there is no individual policy or premium for the cyclist, nor any paper work other that which follows the incident. If the cyclist was legally allowed to be cycling there and caused an incident then the insurers will pay out. If the cyclist was not legally allowed to be cycling there then the injured party can make a personal claim against the cyclist with the law on their side.
This will allow all road users to be covered either by payment for a motor vehicle or by non payment group cover if they are on a bike, skates, skate board, scooter, etc., regardless of age or means.
If a cyclist wants any further insurance cover, say theft, then they can get that separately.
OP
OP
Riverman
Guru
- Location
- sur de Inglaterra
My ex feels that I don't understand that people need to take responsibility for their own actions, so any scheme I suggest that doesn't seem to involve this is deemed unacceptable.
OP
OP
Riverman
Guru
- Location
- sur de Inglaterra
My ex feels that I don't understand that people need to take responsibility for their own actions, so any scheme I suggest that doesn't seem to involve this is deemed unacceptable.
Baggy
Cake connoisseur
- Location
- Where the chevrons are
I have third party insurance on the bike - included with my CTC membership. I'm also a motorist. I don't think compulsory tests or insurance are a good idea, and it would be virtually impossible to enforce either.
Agree with Waffles it would be good to see cycling (where practical) brought into the driving test preliminaries, but again, difficult to enforce.
Agree with Waffles it would be good to see cycling (where practical) brought into the driving test preliminaries, but again, difficult to enforce.
Baggy
Cake connoisseur
- Location
- Where the chevrons are
I have third party insurance on the bike - included with my CTC membership. I'm also a motorist. I don't think compulsory tests or insurance are a good idea, and it would be virtually impossible to enforce either.
Agree with Waffles it would be good to see cycling (where practical) brought into the driving test preliminaries, but again, difficult to enforce.
Agree with Waffles it would be good to see cycling (where practical) brought into the driving test preliminaries, but again, difficult to enforce.
