Bristol mayor George Ferguson believes that all cyclists should have insurance. While rejecting the suggestion that bikes should be fitted with number plates, he also said that more should be done to crack down on those riding on pavements, without lights or without a bell.
Ferguson, who is currently fighting for re-election on May 5, told the Western Daily Press that as a cyclist himself, he felt let down by those who ran red lights and annoyed motorists. “It only creates a war,” he said.
“The liberal – with a small ‘l’ – in me would resist number plates. I have a very nice bike and they’d look terrible.
“But I do think we should all have insurance, and I do think we should get tougher on those who don’t use lights, don’t have a bell and people riding on pavements.
“We should get a lot tougher about it but I would be resistant to screwing number plates onto bikes.”
Ferguson also said he would like to see on-the-spot fines for those caught breaking the law.
The major, who was elected as an independent candidate in 2012, has previously shown support for cyclists through his backing of a rush hour lorry ban, and in 2013 he welcomed a petition calling for a Dutch-style network of bike lanes in Bristol.
He has been a major supporter of 20mph speed limits throughout the city and speaking at the Bristol Road Safety Summit in 2013, he also said that there was a case for greatly increasing the number of dedicated paths for pedestrians and cyclists. On that occasion, he added that, “In every case, the faster, more dangerous form of transport should take a particular responsibility.”
70 thoughts on “Bristol mayor calls for compulsory insurance for cyclists”
He’s wearing red trousers, I
He’s wearing red trousers, I don’t think we need to say anything more…
He said bell, (argument) ends
He said bell, (argument) ends.
So the call for insurance
So the call for insurance does it’s rounds again, which is ony justifiable if it can be shown that cyclists present a greater risk to society than for example any other random violence our species delights in (assault is the 2nd largest cause of head injuries after traffic incidents).
So Mr Ferguson, evidence. Got any?
Along with the reminder that anecdotal evidence is not evidence*, and a collection of anecdotes does not make data.
* except as evidence of prejudice.
When even a pro-cycling
When even a pro-cycling politician comes out with this sort of bollocks, you know you’re in trouble.
Since the law does not seem
Since the law does not seem to treat cyclists injured and killed as a big deal perhaps all cyclists being insured (and thus lawyer’d up) might be a form of addressing the issue? The cynic in me imagines it would just end up in lawyers being paid more and motorists still not realising that being in charge of over a tonne of steel driven at high speed is a serious responsibility.
Precisely what cycling needs,
Precisely what cycling needs, more barriers to access.
In his defense though some things do seem like good ideas on the face of them. Like red for example, red is a nice colour. And trousers, trousers are good. I’d like a pair of red trousers. These thoughts can develop if left unchecked by uncaring friends and family.
He’s wearing red trousers
Yes. He’s wearing red trousers people….
The sound of a beleagured
The sound of a beleaguered politician desperately trying to appeal to a bunch of pig-ignorant Evening Post commenters.
Mr Agreeable wrote:
Oh god yes: did you read the evening post comments after this story was reported?
FYI in the Netherlands all
FYI in the Netherlands all citizens are required to have liability insurance by law, meaning that all cyclists are also insured. This is a cheap and no brainer insurance that is not common in the UK.
ofathens wrote:
In fact it is extremely common in the UK, as it is in almost all household insurance policies.
Don’t really see the problem
Don’t really see the problem that’s going to be solved by cyclists having compulsory insurance. How’s it going to be enforced? Random stop checks? At what age rider should it kick in at, over 16’s or directly after the stabilisers come off?
Why stop at cyclists? How
Why stop at cyclists? How about compulsory insurance for roller skates, skateboards and wheelies? Actually, why keep it to just wheels – force all pedestrians to have insurance too. We could have policemen on every corner asking to inspect your documents and making sure that you have current insurance for all types of transport you may use. When it snows, they could prosecute loads of people for not adding winter sports to their pedestrian/non-wheeled insurance docket.
L.Willo hasn’t been on yet so
L.Willo hasn’t been on yet so let’s get it out of the way…
“Cyclists should be put in the stocks and force-sold insurance. And red trousers are cool.”
The soon to be history Mayor
The soon to be history Mayor of Bristol, is opposed to registration plates for bikes, because although they are useful, the would look ugly. Putting to one side the rights and wrongs of having Registration plates on cycles (although it’s clearly unnecessary), how do the supporters of this idea propose to fix then to cycles?
In 2014 there were 3.5m bikes sold in the UK compared to 2.6m cars, so the number plates would need to be at least as complex as car number plates to give enough combinations – so 7 letters/digits. The Letters would need to be big enough to read.
Where would you fit a plate big enough? At the back and it would stick out and cause an accident risk.
The only place would be somewhere inside the frame..but then you couldn’t see it for the rider.
As with most knee jerk “common sense” proposals, the practicalities just don’t stack up
What is the purpose of a bell
What is the purpose of a bell… really? if its letting people know you are coming, then surely a simple ‘hello’ gets the job done pretty well.
If its to announce your whereabouts to someone that hasn’t seen you… i.e. an emergency siutation, then surely a more urgent shout does the job very well.
My point being that me, riding my bell-less bikes do not pose any danger or inconveninence to any other road user.
Anyway I digress.
From my understanding, the general Bristolian sees this chap as a mad lefty, cycle loving loon that is ruining their city… so I can appreciate why he feels the need to publically distance himself from this position.
However, I agree with Insurance to a level.. as it could be a viable alternative to the strict liability stance that keeps getting beaten down.
From what I have seen, one of the biggest challenges in car versus bikes /pedestrian interfaces, is that there is no one obligated to represent the pedestrian / cyclist, whereas the car insurance companies are duty bound to represent their clients interests.
Having insurance, means there is a company with a financial interest in protecting our rights etc.
“he felt let down by
“he felt let down by [cyclists] who ran red lights” but, as a motorist, not let down by other motorists who jump red lights. Curious that, innit?
There was a time when we
There was a time when we deported the unwanted dregs of our society to New South Wales as a punishment. However I think this prize twonk would actually like it there.
A good point. why not make
A good point. why not make all cyclists register witha governing body- british cycling for instance- and that body will then provide liability insurance depending on your types of riding as part of your annual membership fee. They are automatically involved in collection of accident data, and automatically have the cyclists’ take on a situation.
hang on, there is someone called British Cycling, and they do this already. I do like the idea though.
willythepimp wrote:
3rd party liability insurance is also included with London Cycling Campaign and Cycling UK (CTC as was) membership subscriptions, so many cyclists are already insured.
Here’s an idea. A bike with
Here’s an idea. A road bike with tax… discs.
Want to stop people riding on
Want to stop people riding on the pavement? Build some proper cycle lanes. Lots of them.
ibike wrote:
those long stretches of black stuff between the pavements are proper cycle lanes. Problem is, we’ve allowed them to fill up with cars, white vans and lorries. The solution is to get rid of those.
The only cylist who needs a
The only cylist who needs a bell is a mute cyclist.
And the only kind of pedestrian an “Excuse me please” won’t work on is a deaf pedestrian.
And no noise a cyclist can make will penetrate a car’s closed windows and hifi system.
It’s an archiac idea which seems to serve no purpose (other than perhaps keeping a factory China in business producing bells that no one wants, are never used and end up in landfills).
maldin wrote:
I like to have a bell on my bike. It doesn’t get any use on the road, but if I end up on shared pavement/cycle path it’s a more polite way to get pedestrians to recognise that I’m coming up behind them (are we still doing “phrasing”?).
As far as compulsory insurance – that makes little sense to me unless it can sensibly be enforced. Just how much of a problem does our society face with uninsured cyclists? I would guess that time/money would be better spent on enforcing existing traffic laws – I’m looking at all the motorists using mobile phones whilst driving, breaking the maximum speed limit and jumping red lights.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Plenty of peds on shared paths find it rude when someone rings a bell at them to make them get out of the way. Personally, I think it’s better to speak.
nowasps wrote:
Plenty of peds on shared paths find it rude when someone rings a bell at them to make them get out of the way. Personally, I think it’s better to speak.
— hawkinspeter
Been using a bell on bike to warn others of my presence for over 30 years. As children we grew up hearing that innocent, harmless dingaling of a bicycle bell. There is nothing rude about them at all.
Hearing a cycle bell behind you means a cyclist is behind you and will be closing in faster than than those on foot. Not a slow jogger or a skateboarder or nearby yobs kicking ball around and smoking weed. Bell = Bike and 15kgs of metal.
Shouting out a loud “excuse me!” or “Coming through!” when you’re out of breath and panting can often appear abrupt and be translated into, “Get outta make way now!” rather than “Please excuse me my friend”. I’ll stick with the bell. It’s what they are designed for. Just because I use bell all the time doesn’t mean I don’t put a hand up and say cheers when I pass. It just works. Anyone who finds a bell rude is just not a civilised human being and doesn’t deserve to spoken to!
Back on topic, I don’t like red.
Critchio wrote:
Plenty of peds on shared paths find it rude when someone rings a bell at them to make them get out of the way. Personally, I think it’s better to speak.
— nowasps Been using a bell on bike to warn others of my presence for over 30 years. As children we grew up hearing that innocent, harmless dingaling of a bicycle bell. There is nothing rude about them at all. Hearing a cycle bell behind you means a cyclist is behind you and will be closing in faster than than those on foot. Not a slow jogger or a skateboarder or nearby yobs kicking ball around and smoking weed. Bell = Bike and 15kgs of metal. Shouting out a loud “excuse me!” or “Coming through!” when you’re out of breath and panting can often appear abrupt and be translated into, “Get outta make way now!” rather than “Please excuse me my friend”. I’ll stick with the bell. It’s what they are designed for. Just because I use bell all the time doesn’t mean I don’t put a hand up and say cheers when I pass. It just works. Anyone who finds a bell rude is just not a civilised human being and doesn’t deserve to spoken to! Back on topic, I don’t like red.— hawkinspeter
exactly Chritchio. Folk forget that the bell is an announcement that you are there. It’s not a get out of the way announcement. When I ring my bell. I don’t want the pedestrian or cyclist to move. I’ve already determined on how I’m going to pass. A bell with a decent pitch can be rung or pinged 20/30 feet away whereas a call only six feet before it turns into a shout giving you and the other road user time to react.
nowasps wrote:
Plenty of peds on shared paths find it rude when someone rings a bell at them to make them get out of the way. Personally, I think it’s better to speak.
— hawkinspeter
Whole heartedly agree with this, peds either take offense or freak out. On rare occasions the bell is appreciated 😉
I have bike insurance for bike courier work and sportive stuff, it’s a good thing – got broken bones commuting so approve of it but it would be a barrier for newbies for sure.
Do get pretty narked with people who run red lights – they are all types of cyclists, posh types in full lycra and carbon down to kid on bmx’s – give us all bad name.
As regards spot fines, your lucky to see police at all in Bristol (apart from during football games) and after dark? It’s like the wild west with the crazy taxis and dodgy sport cars. Good luck with policing spot fines, Mr Red Pants.
maldin wrote:
not sure about that. they seem to be able to hear the odd verbal insult thrown at them cocooned in their metal box with the radio blasting after passing me leaving a gnats ball of wiggle room!
maldin wrote:
No, loud bells (not useless pingers) and loud Air Horns (not stupid electric ‘horns’) are useful, speech is often not sensible or practical, especially at distance, before a procession of runner or when wearing a pollution mask.
I don’t have any issue with
I don’t have any issue with using a bell. Bells are good, as are lights at night.
Oh dear, another “crackpot
Oh dear, another “crackpot crackdown” on a non-problem just to get a few votes. What a loser!
There is compulsory insurance for cars but IIRC there are about 1,000,000 drivers who are not covered. Never mind those without a license or banned.
And how will compulsory insurance for cyclists help anyone?
He’s just lost my vote.
He’s just lost my vote.
Quote:
So the vacuous turd doesnt want bike registration because “it would look terrible” rather than the simple fact that it is expensive and doesnt have anywhere near the rate of return. He could do 5 minutes of research to find that out as to why every country that has implemented it, has fazed it out.
How about he insist that the police do continuous road checks so that they ensure every Bristol reisdent with a vehicle has insurance as they are legally bound to have (unless they can prove the vehicle is ‘off road’) and scrap all vehicles that dont?
I have often wondered about
I have often wondered about people who comment on road.cc but now I know that most of them are cretins.
If any of them had done even rudimentary research on Ferguson instead of just knee-jerking, they would know that he has done more in office for urban cycling than anyone else in the UK with the possible exception of Boris Johnson. Bristol’s widespread 20mph limit and most of its segregated cycle infrastructure are thanks to him.
And he did not demand compulsory insurance, so road.cc – don’t get into the slimy press practice of misleading headlines which don’t match the body copy. What he said was that it was a good idea for cyclists to have third party insurance, which is entirely different and an entirely sensible observation to make. After all, if you were unfortunate enough to knock over a pedestrian and cause them life-changing injury, would you not prefer to know that, for a few quid a year, you had ensured that they could receive adequate compensation which would nevertheless bankrupt you personally?
Paul M wrote:
Where can we see this chart of UK’s urban cycling contribution you’re using?
And just how often do you spend wondering about people who post on a cycling website?
*rubs hands*
Paul M wrote:
Of course, he introduced 20 mph limits and then got caught speeding… 😉
Paul M wrote:
You are of course correct, I hereby withdraw my previous kneejerk attempt at jumping on the bandwagon.
I’m loving some of the
I’m loving some of the comments on this post… I have to say, I share the opinion that a bell is a very inpersonal, and rude way to make your presence known on a shared path.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
Maybe it depends on what kind of bell it is. Mine is a very small one that does a single “ding” and I haven’t had a problem with it around Bristol. At least with a bell you have a choice whether to use that or your voice.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
The lion works bell has a lovely pitch to it and doesn’t come across as arrogant. I sometimes feel that when some cyclists call out it can sometimes come across as impatient and bullish. And the pedestrian is as likely to jump out of their skins as the call is usually made as the cyclist goes bombing past.
giff77 wrote:
It’s hard to gauge. Bells appear to enrage those on the Taff Trail (for example). I generally go for a slow down and early “on your right” in as cheery a tone as I can manage.
Yes, I’d be voting the fellow
Yes, I’d be voting the fellow out and letting him know why.
Yes, I’d be voting the fellow
Yes, I’d be voting the fellow out and letting him know why.
British cycling membership
British cycling membership £30 gets you 10% off at Halfords and includes 3rd party insurance and legal cover.
I believe you can get just the insurance from LCC for £8. Small price to pay for piece of mind.
All household contents
All household contents insurance policies have personal liability insurance, normally for £2 million at least. It covers you for cycling (but not racing)
I wouldn’t be surprised if there are less uninsured cyclist than there are motorists.
It’s such a non issue propogated by the ignorant just to give cyclists a kicking.
Quote:
Yeah but sod that, what does he know? He wears red trousers and has the audacity to think that cyclists should take / be held responsible for our cycling. So old school.
The nutter.
…. only on road.cc ……
L.Willo wrote:
Yeah but sod that, what does he know? He wears red trousers and has the audacity to think that cyclists should take / be held responsible for our cycling. So old school.
The nutter.
…. only on road.cc ……
The problem, as you know fine well, is the ambition to make people take responsibility for the cycling of others, an ambitions he doesn’t feel for car drivers, else he’d spend all his time wailing about being let down by the dangerous drivers. But in his, and your, weird world 1500 kg of metal travelling at 40 mph is safe, 110 kg of flesh and metal travelling at 20 mph is terrifying and dangerous.
oldstrath wrote:
Straw man, false dilemma, false equivalence, ignoratio elenchi/another straw man. I know the guy is unpopular with a lot of folk but that might be pushing it a bit far.
Are kids cyclists as soon as
Are kids cyclists as soon as they get on a bike? Are people who call for this ready to shell out?
Incidently my kids and I have 3rd party liability insurance but that is my choice, I do not think it should be a legal requirement.
No, 1500Kg of metal at 40mph
No, 1500Kg of metal at 40mph is accountable with a reg plate. Even if the police are not present, you can report it and if caught on CCTV, action can be taken.
Currently 110Kg of combined twat and aluminium isn’t very accountable, even as he is riding the wrong way around Aldwych, as I witnessed today. Zero fucks given when that fully-grown, lawless twat tries his luck one time too many and ends up under a bus.
There are some arsehole drivers, this goes without saying. How many more arsehole drivers would there be on the road if cars and drivers were as practically untraceable as cyclists?
Greater accountability would make the roads a much safer and much more pleasant environment for all road users. I don’t discriminate because my preferred mode of transport in London just happens to be the bicycle. Motorists and pedestrians are not my enemy. They are fellow road users and deserve to be treated with respect too.
L.Willo wrote:
So I assume you’ve worked out exactly how much more damage uninsured/unlicensed drivers and unregistered vehicles do…
I wonder whether you are spending the appropriate proportion of time on sanctimonious lecturing and victim-blaming of drivers on, say, pistonheads?
davel wrote:
Than what? Are we playing a game of guess davel’s hidden comparison? Oh goody!
OK, I think it is owls …. the answer is owls and that uninsured / unlicensed drivers and unregistered vehicles cause more damage to the environment than owls.
Am I right? What do I win?
L.Willo wrote:
Than what? Are we playing a game of guess davel’s hidden comparison? Oh goody!
OK, I think it is owls …. the answer is owls and that uninsured / unlicensed drivers and unregistered vehicles cause more damage to the environment than owls.
Am I right? What do I win?— davel
Than the antisocial, unregistered and arsewitted cyclists you wibble about on Every. Chuffing. Thread. On a bike site.
Get back under your bridge. Or in the sea.
L.Willo wrote:
No country in the world has that sort of ‘accountability’ for cyclists. Switzerland used to have a vignette system, they abandoned it as not cost effective.
Most countries in Europe spend the money separating vehicles from squishy things, not on trying to bully the squishy things into behaving nicely (i.e. defensively).
Don’t the feed the troll.
Don’t the feed the troll. Just ask road.cc to delete the account.
George Ferguson has done a
George Ferguson has done a lot to address transport issues in Bristol: pretty much blanket 20mph speed limits, residents parking zones, even starting to consider low emissions zones. Has also overseen a number of cycle paths (proper segregated ones). Has done a lot of quite unpopular things, to move Bristol in the direction he wanted, moving toward ‘transport transition’, I guess you’d call it.
Which is why he is almost universally hated by the good drivers of Bristol, to a degree that you cannot believe without reading below the line on the Bristol Post website.
I’d venture that these latest comments are an off the cuff attempt to seem a bit more down-with-the-motorists, ahead of the election for mayor on Thursday…
(Unfortunately I live on the wrong side of the Avon so I don’t get to vote in the mayoral election).
Quote:
I’d say he’s more like BoJo circa first term – lots of fine words about encouraging cycling but very little to actually promote it. And a lot of claiming credit for work which was actually initiated by previous administrations. The little bits of cycle infrastructure that have been built during his terms are stuck on their own with barely anyone using them, and meanwhile key commuter routes like Park Street, Gloucester Road and Whiteladies Road are actually getting worse to cycle along. He’s also backed the Metrobus project which takes away space from walking and cycling routes, and killed off a dedicated walking and cycling bridge across the New Cut.
He’s figured out that a “cycling culture” is a handy shorthand for a progressive, European city which attracts investment, so he does everything possible to associate himself with it, but in terms of making Bristol centre a pleasant place to cycle, he’s got a long way to go.
It would be lovely if people
It would be lovely if people could just move on from the idea that if we all behaved ourselves, things would get better… this is utterly ridiculous sentiment.
Do you judge all car drivers on the actions of the minority of idiots out there? Do you assume everyone that owns a hoody is going to murder you / sell you drugs?
Of course you don’t.
So why will a bunch of well behaving cyclists make any difference to how car drivers feel about us? That is driven by the media…
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
So very true. However if you have a sure fire cure to human prejudice please share it and make the World a far far better place. In the meantime, like it or not, the antisocial actions of a few tarnish the general perception of the blameless many.
Mungecrundle wrote:
So why isn’t the ‘general percecption’ of drivers that they are all lawbreaking, antisocial ‘knobheads’, given that at least half the drivers I know have 3 or more points for speeding, and most admit to using a mobile phone at the wheel ‘when I need to’?
All cyclists should be
All cyclists should be insured against causing injury to third parties.
The Motor Insurance Bureau, which covers uninsured and untraceable drivers, should be funded by government to manage a level of national coverage for injuries caused by cyclists.
MIB currently levies £15-£20 on every motoring policy. The physical risk presented by cyclists is significantly less than that of cars and the cost of extending the MIB’s services would be tiny in comparison.
Not an overnight solution, but definitely achievable.
I live in Bristol. George got
I live in Bristol. George got my vote last time, he’s just lost it this time.
I do not need a bell. I gave them up after about the hundredth time someone shouted abuse at me after ringing it. As has been said here, the voice is far preferable, you can give it inflectilon, nuance, make it polite. Plus people often don’t recognise the ‘ping’ of the commonest type of bell. And am I going to be forced to put bells and number plates and all manner of weight and drag on my expensive lightweight racing bike?
Yes to stopping the red light jumping though, I too feel let down by red light jumping cyclists ruining the reputation of the rest of us.
Third party Insurance makes
Third party Insurance makes complete sense. If only to protect your wallet if an errant pedestrian walks into you and sues for damages.
Every cyclist should have
Every cyclist should have third party insurance to provide cover not only for him or her self, but also to protect from being sued by another road user in the event of a collision.
“Cracking down on” cyclists
“Cracking down on” cyclists without bells seems a bit harsh since they aren’t a legal requirement and are in fact completely pointless.
To be fair I’ve been crashed
To be fair I’ve been crashed into: by uninsured cyclists who made ‘mistakes’ , luckily I had full cover: to cover the costs if a new frame.
If you collide with someone
If you collide with someone or something and cause injury or damage, then the fact that you have/have not got insurance does not in the slightest affect the injured party’s right to claim damages off YOU.
Not the phrase “Claim damages off YOU” – the claim is not against the insurance company, but against the perpetrator. All insurance means is that you can pass on the cost, and management, of the claim to your insurer – along with legal costs which can be considerable.
If you are not insured, you have to pay yourself. And if you are unable to pay, – well, if you are hit by an uninsured driver, who was unable to pay damages, how would you feel?
And if you injured someone and the damages claim ran into a big enough sum to be life-changing for you, how would you feel?
The word “compulsory” simply means that
a) An enforcement regime would have to be put in place
b) If you do have an accident and were not insured, you would end up with a penalty (whether your fault or not) as well as having to pay damages.
Remember – insurance does not cover your potential victim, it covers YOU.
RMurphy195 wrote:
Of course third party insurance is sensible, and the low cost of such policies points very clearly to the low level of actual danger posed by cyclists. What seems to me objectionable about Ferguson’s comments is simply the singling out of poor cycling, ad though poor driving didn’t both exist, and pose a much larger objective danger.