My ex thinks cycling tests and insurance should be compulsary for cyclists

[wafflycat]

Why should insurance be compulsory for cyclists? Should it be compulsory for pedestrians? And cyclists & peds are the same in that both have a right to use the public highway, whereas when we are driving, we do not have a right, merely a *licence* This reflects the much greater danger to third parties brought to the public highway when in charge of a tonne or more of metal, often moving at some considerable speed and which inflicts death on more than 2000 people a year and injury on tens of thousands more. Indeed, if a cyclist happens to have contents insurance, he or she may well already be insured, and if a member of a cycling orgnaisation such as British Cycling or CTC, then insurance is included as part of the basic membership fee. Clue to the ignorant motorist - it is so cheap to provide as cyclists with insurance as just one of many membership benefits - costing so little to reflect the actual level of risk to others brought to the public highway by cyclists: very, very little. Unlike the very real level of risk brought to the public highway when we are driving: quite a lot actually. As a motorist, pedestrian & cyclist, I have no problem whatsoever paying out a compulsory insurance premium for my motoring, as I can see the logic and reality of the risks involved in that activity. Also, as a cyclist & pedestrian I can see the level of risk associated with those activities and it is as nothing compared to motoring.

As for tests - as we have a right to use our cycles and a right to walk the highway, should there be compulsory tests for pedestrians? I think not.

 

[wafflycat]

Why should insurance be compulsory for cyclists? Should it be compulsory for pedestrians? And cyclists & peds are the same in that both have a right to use the public highway, whereas when we are driving, we do not have a right, merely a *licence* This reflects the much greater danger to third parties brought to the public highway when in charge of a tonne or more of metal, often moving at some considerable speed and which inflicts death on more than 2000 people a year and injury on tens of thousands more. Indeed, if a cyclist happens to have contents insurance, he or she may well already be insured, and if a member of a cycling orgnaisation such as British Cycling or CTC, then insurance is included as part of the basic membership fee. Clue to the ignorant motorist - it is so cheap to provide as cyclists with insurance as just one of many membership benefits - costing so little to reflect the actual level of risk to others brought to the public highway by cyclists: very, very little. Unlike the very real level of risk brought to the public highway when we are driving: quite a lot actually. As a motorist, pedestrian & cyclist, I have no problem whatsoever paying out a compulsory insurance premium for my motoring, as I can see the logic and reality of the risks involved in that activity. Also, as a cyclist & pedestrian I can see the level of risk associated with those activities and it is as nothing compared to motoring.

As for tests - as we have a right to use our cycles and a right to walk the highway, should there be compulsory tests for pedestrians? I think not.

 

[Coco]

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.

You do take responsibility for your actions. If you're to blame in an accident then the motorist can (and insurance companies will) sue the ass off you. Its just that the likelihood of you being to blame and causing serious damage are significantly less than the other way around, hence the lack of demand for insurance.

Might be worth digging out the accident/death stats that Wee_E posted a while ago to show her the probabilities.

(I'm a motorist too and in 25 years of driving have never claimed against a cyclist. )

 

[Coco]

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.

You do take responsibility for your actions. If you're to blame in an accident then the motorist can (and insurance companies will) sue the ass off you. Its just that the likelihood of you being to blame and causing serious damage are significantly less than the other way around, hence the lack of demand for insurance.

Might be worth digging out the accident/death stats that Wee_E posted a while ago to show her the probabilities.

(I'm a motorist too and in 25 years of driving have never claimed against a cyclist. )

 

[wafflycat]

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.

So, when is your ex going to take some pedestrian tests and get specific insurance for when she walks anywhere? Or does she levitate/magically transport from one location to another via a space-time distortion?

 

[wafflycat]

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.

So, when is your ex going to take some pedestrian tests and get specific insurance for when she walks anywhere? Or does she levitate/magically transport from one location to another via a space-time distortion?

 

[wafflycat]

You do take responsibility for your actions. If you're to blame in an accident then the motorist can (and insurance companies will) sue the ass off you. Its just that the likelihood of you being to blame and causing serious damage are significantly less than the other way around, hence the lack of demand for insurance.

Quite. And if what you've done breaks law, then you may also end up in court.

 

[wafflycat]

You do take responsibility for your actions. If you're to blame in an accident then the motorist can (and insurance companies will) sue the ass off you. Its just that the likelihood of you being to blame and causing serious damage are significantly less than the other way around, hence the lack of demand for insurance.

Quite. And if what you've done breaks law, then you may also end up in court.

 

[Riverman]

costing so little to reflect the actual level of risk to others brought to the public highway by cyclists: very, very little. Unlike the very real level of risk brought to the public highway when we are driving:

I think she thinks that the costs for her to insure her car may be higher because cyclists aren't made to take tests.

She reports that she's seen some cyclists do some dangerous things a couple of times and this almost caused her to have the accident several times. I think maybe she's just annoyed at having to make allowances for bad cyclists and some of them not understanding the rules of the road.

Out of interest, what are the figures on cycling collisions with cars Particularly those where the cyclist was found to be at fault?

 

[Riverman]

costing so little to reflect the actual level of risk to others brought to the public highway by cyclists: very, very little. Unlike the very real level of risk brought to the public highway when we are driving:

I think she thinks that the costs for her to insure her car may be higher because cyclists aren't made to take tests.

She reports that she's seen some cyclists do some dangerous things a couple of times and this almost caused her to have the accident several times. I think maybe she's just annoyed at having to make allowances for bad cyclists and some of them not understanding the rules of the road.

Out of interest, what are the figures on cycling collisions with cars Particularly those where the cyclist was found to be at fault?

 

[Night Train]

I agree with cycling tests, not as a compulsory thing for cyclists but compulsory prior to taking a car or motorbike lessons.
Essentially, if you are physically able to ride a bike and can't pass a bike test then you shouldn't be allowed to drive a motor vehicle.

 

[Night Train]

I agree with cycling tests, not as a compulsory thing for cyclists but compulsory prior to taking a car or motorbike lessons.
Essentially, if you are physically able to ride a bike and can't pass a bike test then you shouldn't be allowed to drive a motor vehicle.

 

[Riverman]

I agree but allowances should be made for people with things like dyspraxia. Some people just can't ride a bike. A friend uses a trike as she's dyspraxic and has poor sense of balance.

 

[Riverman]

I agree but allowances should be made for people with things like dyspraxia. Some people just can't ride a bike. A friend uses a trike as she's dyspraxic and has poor sense of balance.

 

[Night Train]

I agree but allowances should be made for people with things like dyspraxia. Some people just can't ride a bike. A friend uses a trike as she's dyspraxic and has poor sense of balance.

Yeah, that's why I was thinking of 'physically being able to ride' a bike.

Perhaps even better would be to have to pass a cycling test and then cycle for a year before being allowed to get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle for lessons. Some sort of log would have to be made to ensure that the prospective driver didn't just sit on the ass for a year though.

It would probably encourage more prospective drivers to keep up with the cycling anyway.