Despite the government, as recently as December, saying it has “no plans” to introduce legislation the so-called debate about cyclists needing compulsory training, a licence and insurance to use the roads has resurfaced in recent days, with several UK media outlets hosting TV segments or publishing news stories on the subject.
Scotland Tonight hosted an on-air debate last week, in which a motoring journalist and cyclist “go head-to-head on whether road cycling should be regulated”. The segment was followed up by Aberdeen-based newspaper The Press and Journal asking: “Should cycling on main roads be banned until you have a licence?”
South of the border, CambridgeshireLive this morning ran a vox pop article asking readers whether cyclists should be required to have insurance, while approaching lunchtime, Channel 4 show Steph’s Packed Lunch posted a Twitter poll asking viewers if “cycling on main roads should be banned until you have a licence?”
Dilemma of the day:
SHOULD CYCLING ON MAIN ROADS BE BANNED
UNTIL YOU HAVE A LICENCE?— Steph’s Packed Lunch (@PackedLunchC4) June 13, 2022
The poll, which currently has more than 60 per cent voting against cycling licences (at the time of writing) has received criticism, with one reply calling it “clickbait nonsense” and another “mad crankery”.
Last week’s Scotland Tonight debate appears to have reignited the media coverage of the topic.
“We need compulsory training and licences for cyclists. They are the only unregulated group of road users,” motoring journalist Alan Douglas said during the Listen Up segment of Wednesday’s current affairs programme.
“Anyone can leap on a bike and head out without any training, licence or insurance. If they commit a traffic offence, like jumping a red light or riding on the pavement, they go unpunished. A driver would be fined or lose their licence, so we need punishments for law-breaking cyclists,” he added.
The debate aspect of the segment was provided by a cyclist Scotland Tonight described as a “keen rider”, Diana Farrell, who argued most cyclists already hold a driving licence and are “very aware” of the Highway Code.
> Near 25% increase in video submissions since Highway Code changes
“I’m not convinced that a licence would ensure people are safe on the roads,” she told the programme. “Every driver on the roads has a licence, not all of them are safe. There’s always going to be a minority within any form of transport, whether that’s cycling or roads, that are not responsible, that are not following the rules.
“Those people are fully aware of what the rules are. The fact that you need a licence to drive a motor vehicle is more reflecting the damage you can do with a motor vehicle.”
The Scotland Tonight segment was repackaged by The Press and Journal who asked its readership: “What do you think? Are cyclists a pain in the gearstick? Are motorist (sic) just not getting it that cyclists are the priority on the road?”
Local news website CambridgeshireLive’s insurance-based vox pops asked readers to share their thoughts on the question of cyclists needing insurance.
The Cambridge news website, part of the Daily Express, Daily Star and Mirror publisher Reach PLC’s regional news portfolio, said: “Calls have been made previously for cyclists to pay road tax and insurance”, but included a marginally more cycling-positive headline than those seen above, featuring the reader quote: “We need less cars and more incentives”.
“A large proportion of our readers agreed cyclists should be required to have insurance,” the piece stated, before hearing from one reader whose car “was scratched badly” by a cyclist, and now wants: “Insurance and an identification plate on bikes like motorcycles.”
Last December, solicitor Nick Freeman, known as ‘Mr Loophole’ for his securing acquittals of drivers accused of motoring offences — often on a technicality — had his petition asking for cyclists to wear identification and have licences, shot down by the government who said it has “no plans” to follow up on the suggestion.
> Mr Loophole’s cyclist ID petition “gathers momentum” says BBC – except it closed last week
The petition was promoted by the Manchester-based lawyer during numerous appearances in local and national print and broadcast media, but yet only scraped over the 10,000-signature threshold required for a government response with less than a day to go.
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
75 thoughts on “Cycling licence ‘debate’ reignited by Channel 4 show and Scotland Tonight”
Quote:
Well, apart from the regulations that cover the use of cycles, I suppose he’s right. Maybe he meant unlicenced but cyclists aren’t even the only unlicenced road users, pedestrians, scooter riders, horse riders spring immediately to mind. There are probably others.
FrankH wrote:
You missed a fair few car drivers
https://media.rac.co.uk/pressreleases/2020-saw-jump-in-number-of-provisional-licence-holders-caught-without-insurance-3161016
Jogle wrote:
Well, apart from the regulations that cover the use of cycles, I suppose he’s right. Maybe he meant unlicenced but cyclists aren’t even the only unlicenced road users, pedestrians, scooter riders, horse riders spring immediately to mind. There are probably others.
— FrankH You missed a fair few car drivers https://media.rac.co.uk/pressreleases/2020-saw-jump-in-number-of-provisional-licence-holders-caught-without-insurance-3161016
Was there not earlier in the year an 84 y/o who was caught driving without licence or insurance? Apparently he had been driving since he was 12.
Quote:
Oh no they wouldn’t!
But but but what about the
But but but what about the million drivers losing their licences i read about on the internets?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/drivers-lose-almost-a-million-licences-in-the-last-year
Very common to hear that
Very common to hear that people express – with absolute certainty – that drivers doing any naughty things will immediately be brought to book, and anyone who kills someone else on the road is looking at a very heavy sentence. Presumably those saying this are the “law-abiding motorists”? At least in the anecdata of road.cc stories there are quite a few people that this “fact” doesn’t apply to.
Steph’s Packed Lunch was the
Steph’s Packed Lunch was the programme that was officially recorded to have a grand total of zero viewers at one point, wasn’t it?
Indeed it was.
Indeed it was.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/steph-mcgoverns-new-show-failed-22739018
Most adult cyclists also hold
Most adult cyclists also hold a full driving licence, I’m sure I’ve seen figures quoted of around 85%, but am too lazy to check that.
Maybe this idea about licencing should be turned around so that gaining a recognised cycle proficiency qualification is a prerequisite to applying for a provisional driving licence and mandatory for anyone found guilty of a driving offence that involved a cyclist as victim or complainant.
I was going to post similar.
I was going to post similar. I mean I’d assume having had a driving license for 25 years, would negate doubling up and requiring a second license.
Moreover being both a driver and cyclists I’d suggest as part of the driving test, prospective drivers should be taken out for a few lessons on a bicycle to get a better perspective of hazards etc.
I’d have to check but I think
I’d have to check but I think my license allows me to drive vehicles up to 7.5t. I’d like to know what extra training I require for cycling.
The perfect topic to increase
The perfect topic to increase the ratings of a show dead on it’s feet…well done C4
A driver would be fined or
A driver would be fined or lose their licence
As brooksby has said, oh no they wouldn’t! (not in Lancashire, anyway). Just for a change from all the red light crashing motorists where Lancashire Constabulary takes no action at all and doesn’t even acknowledge the report, here’s a different triplet of offences with the same outcome. Guess what they are
FFS, not this again. It does
FFS, not this again. It does always amaze me how many falsehoods can be delivered in such a short space of time.
1) Most cyclists (this source says 80%, but it’s a decade old) hold driving licences.
2) As Diana says, not everyone is going to follow the rules, but it’s rarely due to ignorance. Let’s face it: no-one is unsure what the big red light means.
3) Cyclists can be prosecuted for road traffic offences. Prosecutions aren’t especially common, but it does happen (see e.g. this article). In theory, you can even be disqualified from driving due to offences committed on a bicycle (source).
4) Having a licence is no guarantee that you will follow the law, or be punished if you fail to do so. See e.g. 80% of drivers speeding; countless other examples of law breaking by drivers.
5) Plenty of other road users (e.g. pedestrians) are not required to have licences or insurance.
6) Cyclists can be held liable for damage they cause. Many cyclists will have third-party liability insurance through their home insurance policies, or specific cycling policies. Even without insurance, you can persue the cyclist personally for costs. Most cyclists could afford to cover the cost of repairing a scratch.
7) Being a legal requirement is no guarantee that drivers will actually have insurance. It is estimated that 1 million drivers do not have insurance.
8) Even if they have insurance, there is no guarantee that a driver will stop. Plenty of people (myself included) have experiences of cars being damaged whilst parked (presumably by other motor vehicles) and no details left.
But all of that misses the fundamental issue: the people spouting this nonsense have no actual interest in road safety or making the world a better place; they simply have an irrational hatred of cyclists (or want to get clicks from those who do), and their “ideas” are purely spiteful and propose only to make cycling less convenient and less affordable (at no benefit to anyone).
May I steal this verbatim for
May I steal this verbatim for posting up to pretty much each and every social media discussion even remotely linked to cycling on the public highway?
Knock yourself out (although
Knock yourself out (although you might want to remove the reference to Diana in 2 which doesn’t make much sense out of context)
There is not a single western
There is not a single western developed democracy which insists on cycling licenses, insurance or a test to ride on their roads. So why so we allow the anti-cycling brigade continue to push for such nonsense?
This really is becoming the most backwards, inwardly focused nation on the planet. Its about time we stopped allowing this sort of thing oxygen.
Smoggysteve wrote:
Can I introduce you to the United States of America?
Wherever they lead we blindly
Wherever they lead we blindly follow
Smoggysteve wrote:
They decided to skip the middleman and just kill kids at source. None of this namby pamby squishing them with cars nonsense.
“They are the only
“They are the only unregulated group of road users” – This gets my goat… so ignorant and shows that whoever says it think they own the road
Happymanc wrote:
Um, pedestrians? Are they trained and regulated?
Edit – I see IanMK and OnYerBike have already made the point, and more betterer too!
So Alan’s points were:
So Alan’s points were:
I didn’t expect anything less!
“We need compulsory training
“We need compulsory training and licences for cyclists. They are the only unregulated group of road users,” motoring journalist Alan Douglas
Wait until poor old Alan hears about pedestrians, horse riders, wheelchair users …..
I would like to see IQ tests, compulsory training and licenses for those calling themselves journalists.
PS If Alan happens to read this, he’ll find various types of road user listed, with all applicaple regulations, in something called the Highway Code. It might be a real eye opener.
They should have finished the
They should have finished the segment with a driver vs. cyclist highway code knowledge test!
My money would have been on Alan getting roundly trounced by Diana.
Want to know what needs to be
Want to know what needs to be regulated? Journalism!
Journalism? I think it would
Journalism? I think it would be a good idea to have some. (With apologies to whoever quipped it)
While we are at it, isn’t it
While we are at it, isn’t it shocking that pedestrians are also allowed outdoors without formal licence and training, Mr Douglas? Indeed, when there is no footpath, they have the right to walk in the road and motorists are treated like second class citizens and obliged to give them room when the walkers could easily jump in the hawthorn out the way.
Worse, these pedestrians know the law and sneakily take advantage of it at things like pedestrian crossings.
So, to follow his line of argument, nobody is allowed out of their front door until they’ve got a licence.
I don’t suppose he’s met UK DashCam Driver of the Day Joe and seeen how effective the licensing system is?
I demand that shoes are MOT’d
I demand that shoes are MOT’d !!
Would we also need to go
Would we also need to go through an test to make sure we are competent at operating shoes safely?
I propose a test for laces and another for velcro/slip on.
Just filing my SORN, mate.
Just filing my SORN, mate.
With all of this media
With all of this media attention, it does make you wonder if there’s an organisation ‘behind it’.. and I don’t even think you’d need to be a tin hat wearer to come to this question?
However how does one go about finding out who or where the ‘prompting’ might have come from? I’m guessing some car focussed lobby group.. possibly insurance based as the article alludes to..
Of course it all could be a massive coincidence, but as the stories are mostly ‘negative led’ and as negativity towards encouraging cycling makes no sense to anyone with half a brain (even our buffoon of a PM can see it) … then it would suggest otherwise.
peted76 wrote:
— peted76Not so much an organisation, just lazy journalism and attacking an outgroup that isn’t protected. Once a publication finds that denigrating cyclists is easy, can’t be challenged, and generates lots of clicks, they’ll pick up any vaguely cyclist related story, spin it negatively and press the button. Simple, quick, easy.
It is interesting that a lot
It is interesting that a lot comes from the right wing libitarian press that are generally all for reduction of regulations – well when it suits who is paying for them.
Whats it matter? I could just
Whats it matter? I could just ride without a licence or insurance,
Or I could be ride pissed hit a more vulnerable road user and just tell the nice policeman “well I hate pedestrians, they’re stupid aren’t they…”
Yeah bloomin cyclists,
Yeah bloomin cyclists, causing carnage and death every day…
And yet… https://uk.news.yahoo.com/reckless-driver-jailed-six-years-killing-brother-104724271.html
Only 6 years! I think that
Only 6 years! I think that might be the worst one yet. Is there anything more he could have done wrong?
Wouldn’t have happened *if he
Wouldn’t have happened *if he had a licence* and was *insured*…or, even if he had been a cyclist…
How much damage do cyclists
How much damage do cyclists cause each year vs say shopping trolleys? How many hit & run cyclists have escaped justice vs motorists? My guess is the numbers really aren’t that big, but sit in the mind of people easily triggered by the next lazy piece in the papers. If there were tonnes of cases they wouldn’t need to go over the same old cases time and time again. Given the most commonly used one ended in a prison sentence it suggests cyclists are already easier to prosecute when you think of the examples of deaths & permanent injury caused by poor & dangerous driving that have escaped justice.
Drivers only want cyclists to
Drivers only want cyclists to be insured and licenced so they can claim for scratches to their cars or mirrors being broken. They have literally no concern for protection of life by this demand. Yet, they are so thick as to not realise why a cyclist might be so close to their car as to cause it damage. They drove close to the cyclist, they encroached on a cycle lane whilst playing with their phone, they cut across a cyclist, they pulled out on a cyclist. I shouldn’t wish harm on another person, but sometimes I think the only way these producers are going to stop with these stupid headlines is for them to get hit by a car and understand where the real danger and menace to society is.
They, they, they.
They, they, they.
I ride a bike (“serious road cyclist”) and I drive a car when necessary. I’d like to see all road users to have third-party insurance — as I do in my car as required by law, and on my bike through Cycling UK family membership — so that in the event of someone causing damage to my property (car, bike or person), I’m not left out of pocket. Are you seriously suggesting that if you ride your bike into my car mirror and break it, I should *not* be able to claim if it were your fault?
Many years ago, a friend of mine was head-down on a mountain bike and rode into the back of a parked van — 100% his fault. He caused over £1000 of damage to the van roof and was personally liable as he had no insurance.
With my CUK insurance, I know that if any of my family were to accidentally cause damage to a car (or anything else, but cars are the most likely “victims” for expensive damage) through their own fault, we’re covered. That doesn’t take *any* responsibility away from the person driving the car to treat the cyclists with care, of course — the car in question could be parked, for example.
You are echoing exactly the same thought processes as those people that say cyclists jump red lights — gross generalisations that promote harmful and toxic division. Try to get out of that habit.
You can take the person to a
You can take the person to a small claims court in that situation.
Why do you say pedestrians should have insurance ?
Why do you think drivers are required to have insurance?
Troon wrote:
You can claim, you just have to claim against the person instead of an insurance company. I can’t believe this has to be explained again, but the reason motorists have to carry third-party insurance and cyclists don’t is that motorists are capable of writing off other vehicles at costs that could run into the tens of thousands, causing massive damage to buildings that could run into hundreds of thousands, and causing physical damage to other road users that could have lifelong consequences running into millions. The odds of a cyclist causing damage that would be more than a couple of hundred quid (and so for most people able to be met out of their own pocket) are so minimal that the law deems it unnecessary for them to have compulsory insurance.
Rendel Harris wrote:
That is the point that people fail to grasp. I have been involved in one collision where there was damage to my bike and a car. (Motorist was 100% at fault). The aftermath of the collision was that my bike was a write off… front wheel buckled, carbon fibre frame split in 3 places, handle bars buckled. Cost to replace was into 4 figures. The total damage to the car was a dent on the bonnet where I landed, the damage to their car would have cost maybe £200 if that.
An out of control cyclist crashing into a parked vehicle will damage that one vehicle, maybe costing a thousand pounds at a push. An out of control car hitting a parked vehicle can, and quite often will, cause catastrophic damage to multiple vehicles and private property running into the tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds
Yeah right, its so easy to
Yeah right, its so easy to claim against a person rather than their insurance. Don’t be ridiculous.
Actually it is, if you are
Actually it is, if you are fully comp’d your insurance co will do it for you, and set the bailiffs on them if they dont pay up.
If you arent, hire a solicitor, same deal.
Or just go via the small claims court process yourself, fill in a form, pay a fee, sit back & wait.
JimM777 wrote:
Have you heard of the Small Claims Court at all? That’s exactly what it’s there for and lodging a claim against someone, as I know from experience (a landlord who witheld our deposit, a plumber whose work wasn’t up to scratch, won both times), is simplicity itself, you just fill in a form online, pay the fee and wait for your court date. I suggest you might like to clue yourself up before calling other people ridiculous, otherwise that epithet might end up being applied to yourself.
Good luck with small claims
Good luck with small claims courts; getting a judgement is one thing.. getting the guilty party to cough up the amount awarded is entirely something else; the time and expense to enforce a judgement is not worth it for the typical small claim; ask me how I know..
grOg wrote:
Guess it depends on personal experience, both times I’ve been I’ve recovered not inconsiderable sums (£1400 and £450, respectively), taken me two hours including travelling time, and the other party paid within a day.
That assumes that the cyclist
That assumes that the cyclist who bashed your car gave you his correct name and address. Yeah right.
Is your point that insurance
Is your point that insurance or lack of it is a red herring in this debate, and that the base problem is that a lot of people are just gits with no respect for the property of others?
JimM777 wrote:
And if cyclists had insurance, that would prevent them giving you a false name and address to save their no claims, would it?
JimM777 wrote:
That’s on them though.
As pointed out, if someone on a horse, in a car with false plates, on a spacehopper or a pedestrian did so – how would that be different? One of my bikes would be more expensive to replace than some cheap cars – and more easily damaged – so I’ve skin in the game there.
Personally I’ve got 3rd party cover through Cycling UK in case I cause damage and would recommend same to others. But you can tell the scale of the problem by the fact that it’s not bankrupting them.
If you want some kind of ID for everyone (tattooed on the back of their neck / on an implanted RFID so you can scan them before they scarper that’s something else, no?
I’m only pointing out the
I’m only pointing out the obvious. If a conscientious cyclist damages a car, he will offer to pay for the damage and you don’t need to take him to court. If on the other hand, he is a rascal, then good luck getting compensation from him.
If cyclist insurance etc was compulsory, then as is the case for most motorists, in the event of an accident, the cyclist would be covered by third party insurance, and for most incidents, the insurance would work as intended. Of course, as for cars, there would be those who would not insure themselves. None of this implies that I am in favour of compulsory cyclist insurance etc.
JimM777 wrote:
If insurance for cyclists was compulsory then insurance companies would doubtless introduce the same rules as for cars, i.e. there would be an excess to pay and premiums would go up in the event of any claims required. Why would your “rascal” give you correct details when it would mean s/he would have to pay an excess and an increased premium?
I didn’t say that the real
I didn’t say that the real rascals would conform. My original post was simply pointing out that your argument against compulsory cyclist insurance, that, without such insurance, one could take the cyclist to court, was not a very convincing argument, because of the difficulties involved (as someone else has pointed out). And to make a small claim you have to first shell out over £90, which you may not get back.
In the other hand, if there was compulsory cyclist third party insurance, properly regulated, the cost per cyclist should be reasonably small so that might tend to encourage cyclists to follow procedure in the event of an incident. Of course there would always be a few rotten apples.
Just because I don’t find your argument against compulsory cyclist insurance convincing does not imply I am in favour of such insurance. I think the cost of maintaining and properly policing such a scheme would be grossly excessive compared to any overall benefit.
I’ve heard that drivers cause
I’ve heard that drivers cause lots of damage but as this short thread shows, it’s a rare thing
https://road.cc/content/forum/car-crashes-building-please-post-your-local-news-stories-276441
It’s interesting how some
It’s interesting how some motorists repeatedly bleat about uninsured cyclists causing damage to cars, yet how many of them would provide their insurance details if for example they scraped someone elses parked car in a supermarket? Or if they clipped the wing mirror of a parked car as they were driving past? Or damaged a fence? (I know a farmer who had to replace around £2k of fencing damaged by a motorist who caught a verge, and was pulled into the verge damaging multiple fence posts and a gate and they drove away)
How many of them would check to see if anyone was watching, and if no one was watching, just drive off leaving their victim to deal with the costs of their actions? Why would they do that? Because they know that in their car they have an excess to pay and a loss of no claims discount….. then it doesn’t cost them anything and in their mind “well the other person can claim from their insurance”.
And you have a serious misunderstanding of third party insurance….. Third party insurance indemnifies you against claims against you, it most definitely does not ensure you are not left out of pocket if someone damages your bike. In the same way that if a motorist who is insured Third party crashes their car into another vehicle/object…. their insurance will pay for the damage that the motorist caused, it will not pay for any damage to the motorists car.
TriTaxMan wrote:
I don’t: I think you misread my sentence. I said “I’d like to see all road users to have third-party insurance […] so that in the event of someone causing damage to my property (car, bike or person), I’m not left out of pocket”
It may be that the clause I’ve omitted above was the cause of your misinterpretation. If so, I apologise.
I’ve heard of motorists that
I’ve heard of motorists that after clipping a parked car, stop and looking very contrite in front of passersby, write on a piece of paper and place the note under a wiper of the parked car; the owner returning to their car finds the note has fake details..
grOg wrote:
I’ve heard stories of notes being found that read “Lots of people saw me hit your car so they think I’m leaving you my details but I’m not.” One disgraceful suggestion I’ve seen, which nobody should ever follow, is always to ask black cab drivers for their business card whenever one takes a ride with them; in the event of scraping someone’s car, simply write “Sorry, please contact me” on the back of one and slip it under the wiper.
Ironically, the clearest
Ironically, the clearest demonstration (for me) that cycling insurance is not necessary, also highlights that for an adult, its a no-brainer to have it.
I’m talking about cost. Third party liability insurance comes with my BC membership, and is literally something stupid like £20 a year. That’s the scale of perceived risk a cyclist is deemed to carry.
Which brings me to self-insurance. As many have already stated, the chances are, I am positioned to directly cover the costs of any damage my indiscretions may cause.
…and “they” (ie the
…and “they” (ie the angrier and more vocal element of the drivist community) will all calm the f*ck down and patiently wait behind for a safe overtaking opportunity without objection if cyclists were to be registered.
Of course they will because it’s the ability to make a claim in the (unlikely) event that a cyclist damages/writes off their car, and the ability to identify road traffic offenders through reg plates (which has been so effective in stamping out speeding, mobile phone use, RLJing, insurance dodging etc amongst drivists) that is their main concern here. Not cyclist bashing because they get “held up” occasionally & don’t like it. No, definitely not that.
I find that asking one of
I find that asking one of those drivers “If you got all of your wishes and cyclists had to have licences, insurance, registrations, paid VED to use the roads….. will you give cyclists respect?” it tends to end any discussion about it.
You do occasionally get one who says “No, even if they have to do all of that I won’t give cyclists any respect until they stop breaking the rules of the road”….. always said with zero irony……. as if all motorists obey the rules of the road 100% of the time
Even “respect” doesn’t matter
Even “respect” doesn’t matter though when they don’t notice you’re even there. As so many say. I’m even willing to believe this occasionally on account of all the other big, non-moving, often brightly coloured stuff (houses, bridges, bollards) that people drive into all the time to their own detriment.
Muddy Ford wrote:
I don’t think it’s even that. I think it’s simply a “we have to have them, so so should you” false equivalence.
Steve K wrote:
I think you are spot on with that one. Lots of people of that opinion think that the introduction of licences, insurance, registration plates, road tax, Hi-Viz etc. would mean that the roads would be safer for cyclists because they would then be subject to the rules of the road like motorists.
Unfortunately as chrisonatrike says it really wouldn’t change anything because the same sh!tty drivers would still treat all cyclists the same as they currently do. And they would still find excuses to hate cyclists…. most likely because we aren’t going at the speed target for any given road
TriTaxMan]
I think you are spot on with that one. Lots of people of that opinion think that the introduction of licences, insurance, registration plates, road tax, Hi-Viz etc.
/quote]
I think you’re almost right. It’s about being selfish. The reality is that many motorists think that the more obstacles that the cyclists have to adhere to, then more cyclists will be dissuaded, leading to less cyclists and more space for them (in their ignorance).
TriTaxMan wrote:
It’s a limit, not a target
belugabob wrote:
It’s a limit, not a target— TriTaxMan
Yes, I think we can assume it was an ironic use.
“It’s not fair!”
“It’s not fair!”
Alan Douglas is a typical old
Alan Douglas is a typical old crank that hates cyclists using ‘his’ roads, having spent his working life as a motoring journalist, making a living from spruiking motor vehicles.
Most drivers consider
Most drivers consider themselves as significantly above average in ability. We all do this in many aspects of our daily lives but perception of own driving ability seems to be particularly ego dependent.
Cyclists present a challenge to negotiate safely involving; observation, forward planning, vehicle control and patience. Basic driving skills to be sure but exposing those who are less competent.
As the motorist considers themselves to be a good driver and also has the superiority of speed and power any issue they have with a cyclist must therefore be the cyclist’s fault.
Hence cyclists are a menace on the roads and the cause of any misfortune that befalls them.
Demands for registration, licencing, insurance hi viz, banishment to the pavement and all the other nonsense are flags of an inconsiderate and probably not very competent car owner.
Okay I’ll accept compulsory
Okay I’ll accept compulsory insurance as a cyclist, in return for strict liability of blame on all drivers of a motor vehicles involved in a collision, unless evidence exists to prove the contrary.
At which point cyclist
At which point cyclist insurance premiums are going to amount to little more than the admin fee plus a profit margin.