Cyclists should hold full insurance before being anywhere near the public highway. Who pays for this? <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tyyGlIHcpaQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
you should be paying tax for using your car. Which you don't. I do agree with the insurance point. And I agree most motorists should pass an advanced test.
Roads are paid for out of general taxation in the same way that hospitals aren't just paid for by ill people and schools aren't paid for just by parents.
The same reasons why you have car insurance. If some cyclist hit my car there's f*ck all chance I'd be claiming my insurance to repair my car.
Highly unlikely there will be any damage. The clip you have posted doesn't suggest there was any damage to the vehicle.
If you hit someone and injured them, you could be deemed liable. I think house insurance has a cycling insurance option
I live partly in Germany where it is illegal to cycle on a road if the road has a footpath. I've cycled here for years and believe me it is FAR safer on the paths. Some paths have a dedicated cycle lane, others just have a coloured strip so that cyclists and pedestrians can avoid each other. A cyclist seeing a pedestrian just rings his bell (a legal requirement here) and he/she just steps aside. It works perfectly in the small town where I live. I agree it wouldn't work in a big city if the paths were full of pedestrians, but most cities here have network of cycle paths anyway, so the problem doesn't arise. I just can't see the argument that cycling on paths is dangerous, when the alternative is sharing a road with traffic 10 times the size travelling 2 or 3 times faster. It makes no sense to me, it's a recipe for disaster.
My bikes are covered under my home insurance for theft but there was no option for personal injury. To be honest I wouldn't really consider it an issue because I don't think I've ever come close to hitting a pedestrian.
The answer to this is consideration.....from both sides. Cyclists should realise when they may be causing a hold up, and act accordingly by letting traffic past. This should apply to any vehicle travelling slowly. Motorists should heed the advice which states "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 213) and 214 to 215)." Highway Code 163
Because they can cause damage just like cars can. I have no problem with cyclists and have only seen a few instances of bad riding on the roads but I do think they need to be insured and to be honest licences to be on the highway. Itd be a cheap licence obviously and cheap insurance but its needed. What happens if they hit someone? A cyclist can kill someone easily
Stats are a bit out of date but best I could find on a quick search. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13040607
You seriously don't think that caused damage? It will have made a right mess to the front of the car. What weight will there be on a bike and rider? 10 stone minimum? All of that into one inch wide and about 3 inches high bit of rubber and that is a hell of a lot of pressure and force when that 10 stones came to a complete halt instantly
Cheers Marc, I was referring to the highway code. My only issue with your explanation is that often I meet several groups of cyclists and those that ride single file can usually be passed safely and quite easily even if another car is on the other side of the road. By the way, going back to the opening post, what do you think of cycling on the A1?
Exactly. The law states you have to because motorists are far more likely to injure pedestrians than cyclists.
Re: simple answer While we're at it let's have a pedestrian tax. All these people thinking they can walk around on the pavement for FREE. The cheek of it.