Registering bikes - what about kids and teens. They bump up and down curbs, on and off roads. In fact some older lads are on bikes that they blast around without a care to road laws (usually on a BMX with no lights, no brakes, no helmet). I doubt they are going to pay any attention to a registering scheme or law. So do we tell them to stay on pavements?

 

How many heinous 'hit and runs' do cyclists commit per year exactly?

 

OK, so lets assume all cycle owners are open and honest and are happy to comply with the new legislation (because look how well tax\registration\mot works with [significantly fewer], car ownership), and of course the manufacturers of new cycles by in too...who administers it and more importantly who pays for that administration?

It will never happen

 

Oh sorry you're right, fair cop, let them carry on then

While we're at it I keep seeing disqualified drivers on these police programmes driving without a care so let's abolish the driving licence as that obviously doesn't work either

 

On pedestrians, probably plenty.

 

I have no idea, we have no figures as they are not licensed!

 

Are you saying there are more bikes than cars on the road?

 

No idea...but potentially yes; in the same way all cars must be registered then all bikes must also be registered. They can potentially all -cars and bikes- be used on the road after all

 

Register Bikes!
Got any other similarly clever ideas gentlemen?

 

Nope, read my post from earlier

 

Pigeons...those little bastids have got away with cr@pping all over the place for too long, they need to be identifiable so they can to held accountable for their actions

 

When you've finished trying to take the p1ss ... maybe you can let us know why cyclists think that out of all the major road users they are the only ones that shouldn't have some form of road licensing or for that matter some test/qualification to be on the roads.

When you think about it they should have the most stringent test of all as they are the most vulnerable. Just saying

 

Back to relying on the populous to comply then...it's unworkable due to the sheer number and diversity of bikes in use. Current BMX trend is to ride brakeless, do you really think some 15yo+ rider is going to tow the line when they don't even run brakes...and then there is a skagy kids on £99 full sus just hanging around smoking **** and spitting, I'm sure they will obey too. The manpower costs required to enforce registration would be truly phenomenal...never gonna happen

 

Covering bikes on an individual basis is impractical and unenforcable.
A more sensible way would be to either include 3rd party cover in the 'Home and Contents' policy or as part of the motor insurance policy (be that car or motorcycle). It would be easier to have family cover as cyclists or pedestrians as part of home and contents cover because motor policies are most often specific to one person.
I think the individuals specified within any motor insurance policy should be covered 3rd party as pedestrians and cyclists as a matter of course, with cover offered as extras on home and contents when required (kids for example). In the event of an incident the motor policy can be first port of call and then home and contents if necessary.

I've been knocked off a motorcyle twice by pedestrians and once by a cyclist. They were at fault each time and all three came off worse than I did. Two of them got what was coming (broken arm in one instance, trashed pushbike and cuts and bruises in the other). The first I have some sympathy for, an OAP who ended up with a broken pelvis. That's bad at any age. He wandered out into the road between two parked cars. Maybe his eyesight wasn't too good, who knows, but at his age I'd cut him some slack. The other two were pr#ts.
I got nothing but cuts, bruises and repair bills in each case. I would have been happy if the pr#ts had insurance.

 

because part of cycling's appeal -in all its forms- is its accessibility and freedom...do you really want to legislate fun?

 

If it's climbing trees or swinging on a rope over a river then no.

 

Sensible...but only if the rider sticks around

 

When it's swerving between cars and running red lights, then yes.

 

safety harness and a life jacket and we have permission

 

You can do it in your birthday suit if you like

 

I rode through a red light today at a cross roads...after the signal in the opposite direction had turned red and the traffic stopped, beating the signal meant i could safely turn right across a clear junction

I swerved through cars today as i filtered through stationary traffic where the police had closed the road due to an RTA. When I reached the head of the jam the nice policeman waved me through the closed section of road

 

not really, there is legislation to stop that kind of tom foolery

 

Cyclists are already regulated with laws about lights, maintenance, and helmets IIRC?

What would be totally unenforceable is to register cyclists, give them plates, etc. Also pointless.

 

And I overtook five vehicles at over 100mph in a 60 limit on a bumpy country road on the way home.
Neither of us had an incident. No problem then.
However if somebody in a car swerved to miss you as you run a red light and then ploughed into a lampost, or somebody coming the other way swerves to avoid me and chucks it in a ditch, then who gets more grief?
Me or you? I think we both know the answer. Yet we would be equally guilty of an offense.

 

Is that not a bit like saying that the Americans should regulate school children because they're not bullet proof?

A car / HGV can be just as lethal as an automatic firearm in the wrong hands.

I do agree that all road users should obey the rules of the road. But, driving a large or powerful vehicle means that you have to assume the responsibility for your actions whilst doing it.

 

On a wide straight road that you know very well with good visibility in a suitable car not necessarily dangerous...excessive regardless of how safe it was though.

But I waited until the traffic was stationary. ..even the two cars that ignored the amber signal.

My point is that legality and safety don't always go hand in hand in every situation

 

I think what generally deters any legislation as regards liability cover for pedestrians/cyclists is the fact that they generally get injured as a result of their daft behaviour when there is an incident.

 

But when the only thing in common with other road users is the requirement, in law, to obey the rules of the road your 'it was safe when I looked' argument just feeds the perception that cyclists feel that they own the road. It's a simple set of rules to protect everyone, being on a bike doesn't make you exempt.

 

See my pic above , there's no way the tractor driver could see this cyclist , and were he to brake suddenly the cyclist would certainly at least have fell onto a dual carriageway where cars could be approaching at 70mph. Some of them do themselves no favours. I see alot of dumb driving too , but doesn't take away the fact there are alot of dumb cyclists .

Undertaking makes me mad as a driver as I just don't expect anyone to be there as no other road user is allowed. I know drivers should be more aware , but cyclists (iMo) should be alot more cautious as they are more vulnerable.

 

I drive a car(s), ride motorcycle(s), cycle and walk.
When on a cycle or as a pedestrian I am very conscious of my mortality and therefore behave accordingly. Insurance of any kind would not change this. A lot of cyclists and pedestrians appear to believe themselves invincible however. To date I have only tested this on a motorcycle, and they appeared to be relatively fragile and therefore misguided. I expect when they test their cloak of invincibility with a car/van/truck they die.
Perhaps they should reconsider their position.