Should Pedal Bikes pay Insurance and have yearly safety checks?

[Behemoth]

I have to say I have often thought this myself. While on the plus side bikes create no polution when they are being used as they rely on human energy, yet we have the argument that they use the roads like any other motorised vehicle (Car, Motorcycle, Van, Lorry etc.) yet they do not have to pay any tax for being able to do so.

Motor or not, if its on the road it SHOULD be taxed and insured. I appreciate that someone has said what about childrens bikes, and thats a very good question, not sure on that one myself.

[Andy3536]

I didn;t ask for a "I hate cars, you can't hate bikes" thread.. I want to know why bikes are immune to being identified and charged for their damage?

I know car's kill bike riders.. I hate that. It's horrible. But car's are easily traceable.. you don't get away with knocking a bike down... you get caught (99.9% of the time)

So how can a bike rider be found? And charged?

The same way that someone is found and charged for vandalising your car i.e. you call the police and they do nothing unless you have cctc.
Or you chase them and catch them yourself then call the police.

The simple fact is they have commited a crime, but are unlikly to get caught, there is no point asking for insurance for bikes and tax as they'll still be those (as with cars) that avoid paying. And when an offence was commited anyway that could lead to them getting punished i really don't see where your going with this.
The police at the end of the day are not going to help you either way unless you catch them yourself or the're on camera.
There's absolutly no point in getting insurance and tax for bikes, it's completely ludicrous and will never stop what's happened to you or change what happens to the cyclist.

[KidChameleon]

I didn;t ask for a "I hate cars, you can't hate bikes" thread.. I want to know why bikes are immune to being identified and charged for their damage?

Sorry.

I think it's too late to introduce a system similar to cars. If it was 100 years ago when there weren't many bikes around it might have been possible. There are too many bikes out there, and a lot that aren't even known about, that would have to be retrofitted with some kind of registration and ID.

Cars are fairly easy to monitor because they pretty much run on "rails". They won't often be far from a road. A bike can nip down a side alley and into a building, whereas a car can only really stick to roads, where it's going to be visible. Chasing down a rogue, unregistered cyclist would be a lot harder than a car.

Cars aren't disposable, either. They're too big to leave lying around. A £100 bike could be bought on a whim then dumped somewhere. Most cars cost enough that people look after them a bit better and are willing to go through legal channels to make sure they can use their expensive property. You won't find a car in the bushes at the bottom of the garden that you forgot about. That goes with my point about there being a lot of bikes that would need to be registered.


If only a cyclist licence was introduced with no bike registration - what good would that do? It would be exactly the same as now except some of them would have a bit of paper in their pocket.

[JPreston]

a handlebar into my door mirror on my 2 month old car, which has smashed the glass and left it hanging off by the electric heater cable.

And a scratched front wing where he then veered slightly having collected my door mirror on his steering control system, and drove into my car with his wheel.

So.. while I was stationary and had been for 2 minutes, he drove into my new car and damaged it.

My insurance won't cover that.. the excess is higher than the repair.

Answer pls J Preston, Esq...

As everyone has already said, under existing legislation he should have stopped. Just the same as if a pedestrian had damaged your car (which happens, I've had an electric mirror knocked off my car on the pavement side, and once was bemused to watch a massively obese prostitute pull a mirror from a car and smash it through the driver's window because the driver had beeped her while she crossed the road). If you aren't prepared to bear the risk of vandalism to your car then just like anyone else you're going to have to keep it garaged permanently, sell it, or radically improve human nature. And don't go parking in any supermarket car parks, because those trolleys aren't insured either (maybe we should introduce compulsory testing, MOTing, and insurance for shopping trolleys as well?)

So you need to buy yourself a replacement glass for your mirror. I assume the electrics all still work after you reattached it, and the scratch is minor and does not warrant repair, otherwise the cost would certainly be more than your excess (which you might also consider reducing next time you renew). It sucks but it's part of the expense of motoring.

Consider how many more miles are travelled on public roads by the UK's 1.5 million uninsured drivers than its uninsured cyclists, and the relative damage they cause (around 160 people are killed annually by uninsured drivers vs around 0 by cyclists. Statistics for broken wing mirrors are unavailable), to get some perspective.

Motor or not, if its on the road it SHOULD be taxed and insured. I appreciate that someone has said what about childrens bikes, and thats a very good question, not sure on that one myself.

Right, so it doesn't really take much further thought to see why it is a silly and completely unworkable idea then.

[Georgy291]

Zak33 you ignored my point completely, are you sure your 100% innocent and done nothing wrong?

im not blaming you, im just wondering. Could it be that you might have blocked, cut him off etc?

[JPreston]

Well, if he'd been sat stationary for two minutes then of course it's not his fault, however:

after working in cambridge for the 1st time today i say yes, one dickwad went into the side of my van as i turned left as he thought it was his given right to undertake even though i was indicating.

I wonder whether this is really a case of a cyclist undertaking or a driver not looking (which is way more common) and then rationalising where the cyclist might have came from afterwards. It's 'mirror, signal, manouevre', two out of three isn't really enough.

This is why when I take over the country, everyone wishing to drive will have to clock up two years on a motorbike first . Pedal cycling might well improve their attitude to road safety a bit too.

[schmunk]

This is why when I take over the country, everyone wishing to drive will have to clock up two years on a motorbike first . Pedal cycling might well improve their attitude to road safety a bit too.

I take from this that you've never been to India...

[matty-hodgson]

first and biggest one is people parking their cars on pavements, it bloody obstructs the road for everyone, and when your trying to get past there its sometimes not that easy.

this one REALLY annoys me, why can't you find somewhere to ****ing park?! i walk the 2 miles to 6th form every day instead of driving, even though i just got a new car on monday, but yet, i still walk. but every single morning there is always a car parked on the path, in a very busy area, making it absolutely impossible to walk on the pavement. how can they get away with that?

[GoNz0]

Well, if he'd been sat stationary for two minutes then of course it's not his fault, however:



I wonder whether this is really a case of a cyclist undertaking or a driver not looking (which is way more common) and then rationalising where the cyclist might have came from afterwards. It's 'mirror, signal, manouevre', two out of three isn't really enough.

This is why when I take over the country, everyone wishing to drive will have to clock up two years on a motorbike first . Pedal cycling might well improve their attitude to road safety a bit too.

oh i looked, one woman had already stopped as i was crawling at about 2mph in traffic when Mr USA decided to perform the undertake

[Zak33]

Zak33 you ignored my point completely, are you sure your 100% innocent and done nothing wrong?

im not blaming you, im just wondering. Could it be that you might have blocked, cut him off etc?

nice question....

I was stationary.. in traffic .. as discussed.. for 2 minutes.

But lets say I had blocked his route... lets say for 2 minutes I was blocking another car ..... and then he squeezed/drove past me and knocked my mirror off... I'd write down his reg number and report him.

But no... I was not cutting him up...I'm stopped... for 120 seconds.... and he's coming up the inside... and can't ride properly.

[Zak33]

So you need to buy yourself a replacement glass for your mirror. I assume the electrics all still work after you reattached it, and the scratch is minor and does not warrant repair, otherwise the cost would certainly be more than your excess (which you might also consider reducing next time you renew).

so.. if you had a £17000 car.. for 2 months.. and the wing was scratched... you'd leave it? You'd wash you car, every week... and it would look damaged?

The cost being over the excess is irrelevant.. if it was £1000 i'd still have to pay the excess... for another road users fault.

And what has my excess got to do with someone damamging my car apart from me having to pay it. If my excess was £50, I'd still have tp pay £50 and I'd lose my no claims bonus.

See where this is going? Some one else, with £100 bike damages my £17000 car, and buggers off... leaving me with a bill.

So... what if we introduced compulsory wearing of some kind of visibility vest, with a name and post code on it.

As for cars parked on kerbs.. the police can sort that.. ring them.

[Disturbedguy]

The fact you were sat in the car and he did this and just rode off makes it worse. I see it almost every day, people on bikes weaving in and out of traffic dangerously not bothering to look around for cars. Only yesterday I saw someone riding a bike through Picadilly, while it was dark, wearing nothing clearly visibile in the poor lighting weaving in and out of BUSES, barely slowing down and to make it worse, he did this on the left hand side of the bus (where passengers get on), he didn't apologise to those he nearly knocked over or make any attempt to correct the way he was riding.

While I was at college I rode a bike to work every day for three years, not once damaging a car and there WERE cars blocking my way nearly every day, I just took that extra bit of time and effort to move around the car safely, if it meant getting off the bike then I did. I rode home with a lad one night and I never rode with him again, he was completely careless and didnt give a crap about anyone around him. It's lazy bikers who are the problem, but like with car drivers, the good are punished for the acts of those bad drivers and so it should be for cyclists.

Some form of identification should be worn by cyclists, cars have licence plates so why can't people on bikes wear something that is visible to other road users so just incase something does happen, details can be gained, as Zak has said?

If I could I would ride to work, but its a 15 mile trip one way and that's using motorways so having to avoid all the motorways would add god know's how long to my journey so it just isn't possible, I dont drive at the moment either, so this is coming from a neutral stand point.

[kalniel]

When I was a cyclist in Cambridge (yes, I feel the love) I went through bikes at an alarming rate, but then I never paid more than about £20 for them either (would often cobble together a bike from spare parts).

They were always fully road worthy and safe, I cycled a lot, and fast, and wouldn't put my life on the line for the sake of cheap brakes or whatever.

But insurance? Just wouldn't be economically feasible, unless it only cost £5 a year. Safety checks - great idea.

We did have to register our bikes, and in fact had college ID numbers painted on them, so theoretically we were traceable.

[Salazaar]

Is it all worth it though?

Firstly, I don't know how many bikes there are on the road, but I imagine the number is very large.

Secondly, the actual amount of damage a bicycle is capable of inflicting, both in actual and in financial terms, is tiny compared to any motor vehicle.

Setting up a system to license riders and then register and insure bike would be massively expensive and bureaucratic, a just not worth it when you consider the actual scale of the problem. Not only that, and as mentioned before, it would be a severe barrier to cycling in a climate where we're trying to encourage alternative transport.

[Arthran]

This is why when I take over the country, everyone wishing to drive will have to clock up two years on a motorbike first . Pedal cycling might well improve their attitude to road safety a bit too.

having been a biker, been abused by cars and lorries then got a car myself, i'd agree with this completely. Being on a bike teaches a certain level of humility and road awareness that you don't get in a car.

Regarding pushbikes, what ever happened to the cycling proficiency test we did when i was at school? they don't seem to do it anymore and tbh as big headed as this is, it made me a better road user by being tutored on road use at the age of 10!

You cant tax and licence cyclists, just because of the number of them. but certain things should be made legal and mandatory (things like safety gear etc).

Somebody mentioned pavement earlier. The amount of cyclists who have almost knocked me down on the pavement is appalling, especially when it is ILLEGAL to have ANY wheeled vehicle on the pavement. As a child i was disciplined by the local street bobby for riding on the pavement, yet modern police don't seem to care and modern cyclists don't seem to know.

[Salazaar]

Somebody mentioned pavement earlier. The amount of cyclists who have almost knocked me down on the pavement is appalling, especially when it is ILLEGAL to have ANY wheeled vehicle on the pavement. As a child i was disciplined by the local street bobby for riding on the pavement, yet modern police don't seem to care and modern cyclists don't seem to know.

That's because Home Office guidelines explicitly state that those laws should only be used in circumstance where the cyclist in question is causing a danger to other footway users. If the police were to enforce that one I'd also like to see pedestrians prohibited from cycle paths!