Should cycles be registered and insured?
- Thread starter Dr_Herbz
- Start date
Herbsman.
Nah Lotion, Pet, Nor Powder.
dont forget the injuries and deaths.goldenecitrone said:It really is shocking the amount of damage that bikes cause to other road vehicles. The cost of grazed wing mirrors and chipped paintwork caused by bicycles deliberately crashing into cars and lorries must run into billions of pounds.
No, however their negligence does.dervish said:
dervish said:
Apart from whatever went into building hundreds of "£99.99 mountain bike-bargain!" factories in China, the stuff that goes into the production of whatever makes a bicycle worth a grand as opposed to a hundred quid and all the lovely plastics, lycra nd "tech" materials used for clothing.
Oh I nearly forgot, then there's all the fuel used carting mountain bikes around so that their owners can ride them at ludicrous speed down hills into packs of ramblers.
I've read through the thread again and still haven't seen one person give a valid reason why bikes shouldn't be registered and insured. I've seen loads of people whinging about how hard done to they'd be if they were held accountable for their actions and how potholes and butterflies should then be insured also but not one person has attempted to explain why cycles shouldn't be registered and insured.
I've read a few bullshit excuses that bikes don't kill people... give a shit, they have the potential to cause injury and damage property. I've never killed anyone on my motorbike, does that mean I should be exempt also?
The insurance aspect would be a pretty simple system to implement, the rider could be insured for his/her own vehicle and would have automatic 3rd party cover on any other bike.
So, would someone care to convince me, in a non-condescending, rant-free manner, why cyclists shouldn't be insured?
We'll discuss registration and tax shortly
I've read a few bullshit excuses that bikes don't kill people... give a shit, they have the potential to cause injury and damage property. I've never killed anyone on my motorbike, does that mean I should be exempt also?
The insurance aspect would be a pretty simple system to implement, the rider could be insured for his/her own vehicle and would have automatic 3rd party cover on any other bike.
So, would someone care to convince me, in a non-condescending, rant-free manner, why cyclists shouldn't be insured?
We'll discuss registration and tax shortly
christonabike
Elm Park Bencher
As it would discourage some people to take up cycling
christonabike
Elm Park Bencher
The perception of driving is that it makes your life easier
The perception of cycling is that it takes effort and some sacrifice
Or something like that
The perception of cycling is that it takes effort and some sacrifice
Or something like that
christonabike
Elm Park Bencher
I thought we were talking about cycling?
Dr_Herbz said:We'll discuss registration and tax shortly
this one's been looked at by our illustrious mayor already.
source: http://lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=122
christonabike said:The perception of driving is that it makes your life easier
The perception of cycling is that it takes effort and some sacrifice
Or something like that
So me grafting my tits off to keep my bike on the road (taxed, insured etc) isn't a sacrifice?
christonabike said:I thought we were talking about cycling?
So because it would discourage some people from owning a bike, does that make it wrong?
christonabike
Elm Park Bencher
No, it doesn't
But I feel people should be encouraged to cycle rather than using cars and motorbikes, where practical
Dr_Herbz said:I've read through the thread again and still haven't seen one person give a valid reason why bikes shouldn't be registered and insured. I've seen loads of people whinging about how hard done to they'd be if they were held accountable for their actions and how potholes and butterflies should then be insured also but not one person has attempted to explain why cycles shouldn't be registered and insured.
I've read a few bullshit excuses that bikes don't kill people... give a shit, they have the potential to cause injury and damage property. I've never killed anyone on my motorbike, does that mean I should be exempt also?
The insurance aspect would be a pretty simple system to implement, the rider could be insured for his/her own vehicle and would have automatic 3rd party cover on any other bike.
So, would someone care to convince me, in a non-condescending, rant-free manner, why cyclists shouldn't be insured?
We'll discuss registration and tax shortly
well as you're the one looking to change the status quo why don't you put forward a valid reason for cyclists to be registered and insured?
Dr_Herbz said:So, would someone care to convince me, in a non-condescending, rant-free manner, why cyclists shouldn't be insured?
We'll discuss registration and tax shortly
Bicyles do not need to be insured because they do not cause damage that is costly enough to inconvenience the majority of the population. There is no evidence that the damage (financially or physically) caused by bicycles is in any way as costly as that caused by any other 'insured' form of transport.
What you are actually suggesting is only going to benefit two sectors of society, (nay two aspects) insurance companies and the compensation culture.
christonabike
Elm Park Bencher
By sacrifice I mean propelling yourself along, no fossil fuel, maybe in the wet, without a tin box to protect you, and it may take you a while to get there, comparatively speaking
Not "spend a few quid" for a machine that'll get you there with no/little effort!
Not "spend a few quid" for a machine that'll get you there with no/little effort!
Kanda
Diving wanker
editor said:
Trying to kick me off a thread? now now
It was simply a question to Crispy (if thats alright like
)I took note of your previous points and agreed to some. But as said earlier, I don't know what the solution is but I'm pissed off seeing nutters in cars, motorbikes, cycles etc etc... what seems to affect me mostly in my travels is shitty cyclists. Thats all.
There's irresponsible riders of cycles as well as cars/motorbikes/vans... but the latter are (supposed to be) registered and insured as road users (aacountable)
Kanda said:Trying to kick me off a thread? now now
It was simply a question to Crispy (if thats alright like
I took note of your previous points and agreed to some. But as said earlier, I don't know what the solution is but I'm pissed off seeing nutters in cars, motorbikes, cycles etc etc... what seems to affect me mostly in my travels is shitty cyclists. Thats all.
There's irresponsible riders of cycles as well as cars/motorbikes/vans... but the latter are (supposed to be) registered and insured as road users (aacountable)
so you're saying you're not so bothered by the irresponsibility of car drivers because they're registered and insured? You seem to just hate cyclists, and feel resentful because you're paying insurance to be on your motor bike.
So anyone that inconveniences should be insured and registered so that you can somehow hold them accountable? What about teenagers who call you names should they have name tags aswell? Because as far as I'm concerned all you're talking about here is inconvenience and impoliteness that is ruining your days. Yeah some people are impolite and do get in ones way, but that's part of life's riche tapestry baby!
christonabike
Elm Park Bencher
Are you insured?
It's about personal responsibility, so I am
It's about personal responsibility, so I am
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
I was being flip, but my 'point's was the same as ed's - the damage caused by a bicycle is nowhere near that caused by a car or motobike. There are plenty of other human-powered activities with potential to harm, but they aren't insured or licensed.
Obviously, the cut-off point is arbitrary and we can all argue the pros and cons of setting it at different levels till we're blue in the face. The question is "why should we change it?"
Obviously, the cut-off point is arbitrary and we can all argue the pros and cons of setting it at different levels till we're blue in the face. The question is "why should we change it?"
Similar threads
- Poll
