Bristol mayor calls for compulsory insurance for cyclists

giff77 wrote:

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

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.  

 

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. 

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.

Paul M wrote:

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. 

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:

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?

Of course, he introduced 20 mph limits and then got caught speeding...

Paul M wrote:

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?

You are of course correct, I hereby withdraw my previous kneejerk attempt at jumping on the bandwagon.

maldin wrote:

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). 

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:

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

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:

hawkinspeter wrote:

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

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.

 

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:

nowasps wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

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

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.

 

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.

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:

hawkinspeter wrote:

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

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.

 

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:

And no noise a cyclist can make will penetrate a car's closed windows and hifi system.

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:

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). 

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.

ibike wrote:

Want to stop people riding on the pavement? Build some proper cycle lanes. Lots of them.

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.

willythepimp wrote:

hang on, there is someone called British Cycling, and they do this already. I do like the idea though.

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.