Change to Highway Code and cyclists responsibilities

[MattR]

So all kids will have to have number plates on their bikes when cycling to and from school or to their friends' houses. Presumably they'd have to pay for their plate which would have to be licensed. So 3 kids in a family that's 3 plates and 2 more if mum and dad cycle. Have you thought this through? What about horses too, presumably thye should have number plates. They are road users and hold up traffic on country lanes, and that includes cyclists.

This is a regular topic with the same old demands that cyclists are licensed, taxed and stuck to cycle paths so that perfect car drivers can have the roads to themselves....

 

[Sandancers]

So all kids will have to have number plates on their bikes when cycling to and from school or to their friends' houses. Presumably they'd have to pay for their plate which would have to be licensed. So 3 kids in a family that's 3 plates and 2 more if mum and dad cycle. Have you thought this through? What about horses too, presumably thye should have number plates. They are road users and hold up traffic on country lanes, and that includes cyclists.

How about anyone who intends to take a bicycle / horse / (e scooter when they become legal) on a public road has to buy insurance too cover them for third party damage or injury. No licensing of the vehicle or number plate. Just the person using it. I bet it would be dead cheap, because as others have pointed out, bikes don't tend to cause a lot of damage very often.

Let's say £20 per year as a wild guess, would that be too much to ask ?

 

[MattR]

How about anyone who intends to take a bicycle / horse / (e scooter when they become legal) on a public road has to buy insurance too cover them for third party damage or injury. No licensing of the vehicle or number plate. Just the person using it. I bet it would be dead cheap, because as others have pointed out, bikes don't tend to cause a lot of damage very often.

Let's say £20 per year as a wild guess, would that be too much to ask ?

You don't give up do you? Despite the fact that no other country in the world requires bike insurance, the implementation of the scheme would cost far more than it would "save" and the disbenefits would far outstrip any benefits including reducing traffic congestion, increasing fitness etc, you still want to make it a requirement...?

 

[Sandancers]

You don't give up do you? Despite the fact that no other country in the world requires bike insurance, the implementation of the scheme would cost far more than it would "save" and the disbenefits would far outstrip any benefits including reducing traffic congestion, increasing fitness etc, you still want to make it a requirement...?

Who would it cost ? Not the taxpayer as it would be done by private insurance Companies. For someone who assures us that YOU and your family have insurance for your bike you seem mighty keen that it should not be implemented !

In fact, you will be in a position to tell us all how much that insurance costs won't you ?

 

[Larrynwin]

How about anyone who intends to take a bicycle / horse / (e scooter when they become legal) on a public road has to buy insurance too cover them for third party damage or injury. No licensing of the vehicle or number plate. Just the person using it. I bet it would be dead cheap, because as others have pointed out, bikes don't tend to cause a lot of damage very often.

Let's say £20 per year as a wild guess, would that be too much to ask ?

That would work and perhaps exclude the young.
Following an accident three years ago I needed a mobility scooter for a few weeks and took out insurance in case of accidentally causing injury to pedestrians etc ., from memory it was only around £20.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[tonyidle]

accidentally causing injury to pedestrians etc

I thought that was the whole point of a mobility scooter - a sort of recruitment drive .

 

[MattR]

Who would it cost ? Not the taxpayer as it would be done by private insurance Companies. For someone who assures us that YOU and your family have insurance for your bike you seem mighty keen that it should not be implemented !

I'd wish you good luck with your campaign but won't waste any effort doing so because it is pointless. Your personal vandetta against cyclists isn't going to change anything. I'll leave you to howl into the wind.

 

[cmcardle75]

Totally agree but it has never been possible to insure any vehicle that is illegal to use.

That's not entirely true. Many marine insurance companies many years ago were happy to provide insurance to smugglers and other illegal operations. You could insure against customs stops and the extra costs of fitting out your ship with hidden compartments.

 

[Sandancers]

I'd wish you good luck with your campaign but won't waste any effort doing so because it is pointless. Your personal vandetta against cyclists isn't going to change anything. I'll leave you to howl into the wind.

Well thank you for your kind words, I have no vendetta against cyclists, just want to see a level playing field. If car drivers need insurance because they can cause damage or injury then surely the same applies to other forms of transport which can do the same.

But you know that already or else you would not have taken out YOUR insurance for your bicycle would you.

By the way, I presume that as you put a smiley face under all my posts that is some form of admiration, so I have started doing the same thing to you.

 

[MattR]

Well thank you for your kind words, I have no vendetta against cyclists, just want to see a level playing field. If car drivers need insurance because they can cause damage or injury then surely the same applies to other forms of transport which can do the same.

But you know that already or else you would not have taken out YOUR insurance for your bicycle would you.

By the way, I presume that as you put a smiley face under all my posts that is some form of admiration, so I have started doing the same thing to you.

I've taken out insurance as a member of British Cycling primarily because they give legal support to claim against drivers who cause accidents. I've been knocked off twice by idiotic drivers but was lucky that they admitted liability without expensive investigations. I joined BC after these events as BC would have handled the claims more effectively than I could have.

I put the smiley as it seems amusing that despite everything mentioned so far, you persist in claiming that everyone should be insured. It won't happened but you are determined...

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[busby]

Well thank you for your kind words, I have no vendetta against cyclists, just want to see a level playing field. If car drivers need insurance because they can cause damage or injury then surely the same applies to other forms of transport which can do the same.

But you know that already or else you would not have taken out YOUR insurance for your bicycle would you.

By the way, I presume that as you put a smiley face under all my posts that is some form of admiration, so I have started doing the same thing to you.

Instead of posting on here you would be better off lobbying your MP or start a petition BUSBY.

 

[AXO66]

Unfortunately it seems that more drivers do that even when crossing into cycle lanes and travelling straight on or turning right. Some of those turning left will also block the cycle lane even if there is a cycle space at the front of each lane (ASLs).

no cycle lanes in our part of the world, any that are are actually shared with pedestrians,

however believe they exist in cities.

so when i visit a city and have to turn left with a cycle lane next to me, i should expect cyclists to undertake and clearly they will have right of way, until i see a space in my left hand wing mirror.when i can move thus allowing cars held up behind to move. Hopefully it won’t be driving rain , or misty and the front lights of the cyclists can (hopefully) be seen.cos they could be doing 20mph and i am stopped and struggling to see clearly.



(plan b , my passenger gets out of a now stationary car , thereby cyclist will have to stop, as they no longer have priority allowing me to turn left safely)

just making the point undertaking is inherently dangerous and to mitigate that danger i will drive close to curb if able to , to prevent a potentially dangerous situation developing but only when i have a left hand turn coming up.

 

[tonyidle]

That's not entirely true. Many marine insurance companies many years ago were happy to provide insurance to smugglers and other illegal operations. You could insure against customs stops and the extra costs of fitting out your ship with hidden compartments.

Okaaay

 

[Stoosal]

So all kids will have to have number plates on their bikes when cycling to and from school or to their friends' houses. Presumably they'd have to pay for their plate which would have to be licensed. So 3 kids in a family that's 3 plates and 2 more if mum and dad cycle. Have you thought this through? What about horses too, presumably thye should have number plates. They are road users and hold up traffic on country lanes, and that includes cyclists.

Why not? I don’t understand why people think it’s ok to allow untrained road users to use what can be a dangerous location......are you happy with sending children out to play in live lanes of traffic with no idea of what is safe.

Having been involved in cycle training for a long period of time my suggestion is that those under twelve by and large already cycle under some form of supervision and haven’t really had time to recognise rules nor legal responsibilities of using a road nor had formal training. They should use roads under supervision of a responsible adult.

Difficult age is 12-16 where they become more independent so should have at least a pass in a cycle proficiency scheme so that they are aware of rules of the road and are now subject to legal responsibility. Adults have a basic test of competence the same as a motorcycle cbt scheme. If it can be rolled out for motorcyclists same can be done for cyclists.

A hi viz tabard with a registered number to be worn to aid visibility and allow cyclists to be traced if required.

Cycle use is being encouraged for a number of factors. The legislation should keep pace and all road users should share their responsibilities. This sometimes costs money and cyclists have no need to be exempt.

I believe that the introduction of formal schemes for training and registration would actually drive the uptake in cycling and allow for safer roads, more cycle lanes and reduce road casualties as well as the health benefits that are associated with cycle use.

For those who think cyclists should be exempt from any form of training to keep them safe on a road I would ask why they are against keeping people safe? Should we stop teaching children to swim or of the dangers of sub stations, stranger danger? Should we stop other training for adults just because we may not like it?

 

[Sandancers]

Why not? I don’t understand why people think it’s ok to allow untrained road users to use what can be a dangerous location......are you happy with sending children out to play in live lanes of traffic with no idea of what is safe.

Having been involved in cycle training for a long period of time my suggestion is that those under twelve by and large already cycle under some form of supervision and haven’t really had time to recognise rules nor legal responsibilities of using a road nor had formal training. They should use roads under supervision of a responsible adult.

Difficult age is 12-16 where they become more independent so should have at least a pass in a cycle proficiency scheme so that they are aware of rules of the road and are now subject to legal responsibility. Adults have a basic test of competence the same as a motorcycle cbt scheme. If it can be rolled out for motorcyclists same can be done for cyclists.

A hi viz tabard with a registered number to be worn to aid visibility and allow cyclists to be traced if required.

Cycle use is being encouraged for a number of factors. The legislation should keep pace and all road users should share their responsibilities. This sometimes costs money and cyclists have no need to be exempt.

I believe that the introduction of formal schemes for training and registration would actually drive the uptake in cycling and allow for safer roads, more cycle lanes and reduce road casualties as well as the health benefits that are associated with cycle use.

For those who think cyclists should be exempt from any form of training to keep them safe on a road I would ask why they are against keeping people safe? Should we stop teaching children to swim or of the dangers of sub stations, stranger danger? Should we stop other training for adults just because we may not like it?

Best get your tin hat on and prepare for incoming !

You can't speak to the "untouchable" cyclists like that !

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Silver-Fox]

just making the point undertaking is inherently dangerous and to mitigate that danger i will drive close to curb if able to , to prevent a potentially dangerous situation developing but only when i have a left hand turn coming up.

Doubt getting close to the kerb will work.
I’ve had cyclists bump up onto the path and back off to continue their undertaking.

Also why in slow moving traffic is it ok for a cyclist to undertake/overtake very close to a car, but not the other way round

 

[Otter Spotter]

It's rather obvious that very few ever read it.BUSBY

No legal requirement for cyclists and pedestrians to purchase and read the Highway Code so they don’t., but Cyclists will spend a fortune on Lycra

 

[MattR]

No legal requirement for cyclists and pedestrians to purchase and read the Highway Code so they don’t., but Cyclists will spend a fortune on Lycra

On the basis that most cyclists wearing Lycra will be licensed to drive on the highway, I'd suggest that most will have read the Highway Code.

 

[MattR]

Doubt getting close to the kerb will work.
I’ve had cyclists bump up onto the path and back off to continue their undertaking.

Also why in slow moving traffic is it ok for a cyclist to undertake/overtake very close to a car, but not the other way round

When are you suggesting that cars can't overtake cyclists in slow moving traffic?

 

[MattR]

Why not? I don’t understand why people think it’s ok to allow untrained road users to use what can be a dangerous location......are you happy with sending children out to play in live lanes of traffic with no idea of what is safe.

Having been involved in cycle training for a long period of time my suggestion is that those under twelve by and large already cycle under some form of supervision and haven’t really had time to recognise rules nor legal responsibilities of using a road nor had formal training. They should use roads under supervision of a responsible adult.

Difficult age is 12-16 where they become more independent so should have at least a pass in a cycle proficiency scheme so that they are aware of rules of the road and are now subject to legal responsibility. Adults have a basic test of competence the same as a motorcycle cbt scheme. If it can be rolled out for motorcyclists same can be done for cyclists.

A hi viz tabard with a registered number to be worn to aid visibility and allow cyclists to be traced if required.

Cycle use is being encouraged for a number of factors. The legislation should keep pace and all road users should share their responsibilities. This sometimes costs money and cyclists have no need to be exempt.

I believe that the introduction of formal schemes for training and registration would actually drive the uptake in cycling and allow for safer roads, more cycle lanes and reduce road casualties as well as the health benefits that are associated with cycle use.

For those who think cyclists should be exempt from any form of training to keep them safe on a road I would ask why they are against keeping people safe? Should we stop teaching children to swim or of the dangers of sub stations, stranger danger? Should we stop other training for adults just because we may not like it?

Who said that cyclists should be exempt from training?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[busby]

Just like I said,,UK is the only country I have driven in that motorists and cyclists cannot get on and use the roads without bickering.Like a load of children.Come on grow up and just share the rubbish roads that we have and stop bickering.BUSBY.

 

[Otter Spotter]

On the basis that most cyclists wearing Lycra will be licensed to drive on the highway, I'd suggest that most will have read the Highway Code.

That’s a wide generalisation, there are many cyclists in London that just have no reason to learn to drive, as for Gods country Yorkshire, where I am it seems that since ‘Tour deFrance‘ came, every pensioner has a bike and they all love wearing Laycra and those stupid clip shoes they have that make them walk bandy

 

[MattR]

That’s a wide generalisation, there are many cyclists in London that just have no reason to learn to drive, as for Gods country Yorkshire, where I am it seems that since ‘Tour deFrance‘ came, every pensioner has a bike and they all love wearing Laycra and those stupid clip shoes they have that make them walk bandy

Are those the same kind of stupid shoes that football and rugby players wear or like the stupid shoes tennis and basketballs players wear?

Should these fine pensioners in Yorkshire be denied the opportunity of wearing comfortable clothing for cycling in because it makes you woozy?

 

[Jaws]

I’ll stick to riding in countries where drivers seem to have a decent respect for other road users

This may be a bit contentious but to be, respect is earned and not a given
I had the misfortune to work in and around Cambridge some time ago... THAT is what made me totally anti push irons

 

[the1andonly]

My background to start, i was a club cyclist and toured Britain and Northern Europe staying at youth hostels. Ridden Motorcycles (125 to 1000cc) to a few years ago learned to drive a second time at 35 (used to drive a van on the mountain at 15). Rode cycle to work 12miles in london and more sensible areas. Now i restrict cycle riding on the road mainly mountain biking. My uncles used to drive HGV and coaches a and as a kid used to sit with them (different times) Now i own my own PHGV. MY ideal view of personel transport would see a GSCE or whatever in road safety as a compulsary subject (including practical bike riding). Any progression in any given mode of transport (bike or car) would require minimum experiance of CBT on a motorbike equivalent (currently does not exist)in a car and lorry (7.5t or pick your wt) and a Push bike (also add step system to car driving) EDIT ie all 4 to ride or drive. This would prefferably be retrospective ie all current licence holders will need to go through the loop. Eutopian , yes , but I' ll add one more saftey measure to every car, a 6inch stainless steel spike to every steering wheel instead of an airbag.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Stoosal]

Who said that cyclists should be exempt from training?

You can’t be exempt from something when there is no requirement to do it in the first place therefore people appear happy to have untrained users in a dangerous environment.

 

[huck999]

maybe a set of speed limits like those in force in Spain would even things up a bit? 12mph in town!

 

[Larrynwin]

That’s a wide generalisation, there are many cyclists in London that just have no reason to learn to drive, as for Gods country Yorkshire, where I am it seems that since ‘Tour deFrance‘ came, every pensioner has a bike and they all love wearing Laycra and those stupid clip shoes they have that make them walk bandy

Nowt to do with the shoes it’s those silly narrow arse rubbing seats they ride on

 

[MattR]

You can’t be exempt from something when there is no requirement to do it in the first place therefore people appear happy to have untrained users in a dangerous environment.

I was using your term "exempt" and no one has referred to untrained users apart from you. There is a difference between being trained and being licenced. I think that many folk support training but licencing is a different matter.

 

[Beryl]

no cycle lanes in our part of the world, any that are are actually shared with pedestrians,

however believe they exist in cities.

so when i visit a city and have to turn left with a cycle lane next to me, i should expect cyclists to undertake and clearly they will have right of way, until i see a space in my left hand wing mirror.when i can move thus allowing cars held up behind to move. Hopefully it won’t be driving rain , or misty and the front lights of the cyclists can (hopefully) be seen.cos they could be doing 20mph and i am stopped and struggling to see clearly.



(plan b , my passenger gets out of a now stationary car , thereby cyclist will have to stop, as they no longer have priority allowing me to turn left safely)

just making the point undertaking is inherently dangerous and to mitigate that danger i will drive close to curb if able to , to prevent a potentially dangerous situation developing but only when i have a left hand turn coming up.

Driving in Berlin, you're required to look over your shoulder as well as looking in your mirrors, specifically to look for cyclists passing as you're turning. If you hit them while turning because you didn't look, it's your fault. Not sure if that's the case in the rest of Germany, but I was warned about it repeatedly in Berlin.

I also used to cycle a lot in Amsterdam, and if you hit a cyclist it's always your fault because you were too close. Hit one once, your insurance goes way up. Hit a cyclist a couple of times you can't get insurance. I got hit by a taxi (clipped my elbow with his wing mirror). I wasn't hurt, but he offered me money not to report it!

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}