egafd.com

Now that dog owners may have to insure themselves in case their mutt attacks another mutt or a person (I saw this on the news and there is a thread about it on here) should cyclists have to get third-party insurance too? They rarely obey the law, jump red lights, buzz pedestrians on zebra-crossings, go the wrong way up one-way streets, and will abuse you if you point this out to them. I think they should have insurance. If they hit something, or someone, how will they pay for the damage?

Insurance, tax and test for any road user. Including mobility carts, too.

And what about pedestrians? Can't even cross the road properly some of them. And children...don't get me started on children crossing the road

Quite right David,but since children are not made of metal they don't do the same amount of damage.
Some of the less aware pedestrians even stay on the pavement and only cross the road when they need to. All car/ motorbike users should know that pedestrians have the right of way (if they've passed their test) but many cyclists don't seem to be aware of the Highway Code or they choose to ignore it. I know not all drivers are perfect but I can't recall seeing any driving down the pavement.

"Quite right David,but since children are not made of metal they don't do the same amount of damage."

They do if they cause a motorbike or car to swerve in order to avoid them and end up crashing into something/somebody else.

D

Fair enough. If you don't want cyclists to take out insurance what about making them pay road tax ? Some of them actually use the road.

In the 90s, regularly driving a variety of vehicles around London and watching the antics of many a cyclist - especially push bike couriers - breaking red lights, riding the wrong way down one way streets, riding on pavements and deliberately lining up at traffic lights, when they did bother to stop, at the front of and in the middle of the traffic lane, my summation of most of them, especially hearing they abuse THEY gave out when challenged was "No tax, no insurance, no brain".

I can only think it has got worse

It's a funny thing, but most of the cyclists I know are wankers. They nearly all seem to have an argumentative nature and boast of how they enjoy holding up traffic because "it's my right". They quote the law at you about what they're allowed to do - but they never respond to any questions about why they break all the fucking rules themselves.

Only sexy girls in tiny skirts should ride bikes anyway.

Deano! wrote:


>
> Only sexy girls in tiny skirts should ride bikes anyway.

[IMG]http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/3320 ... estxf8.jpg[/IMG]

There has always been a rule that if someone driving a car crashes into the back of another car, then it is THEIR insurance (the rear car) which must pay for the damage. Even if the front car braked suddenly, the driver was reaching down to the passenger seat floor to retrieve a CD, or generally not concentrating, then it is still the car behind that would have to pay for the damage to the rear end of the front car. So there are cases of even when it isn't a drivers fault they still have to pay for the damage in an accident.

So with that being the case I think there is an even greater need for cyclists to have insurance - if motorists have to pay when it wasn't even down to them then certainly a cyclist should have to pay when it WAS their fault. Third-party insurance for cars is usually quite cheap. As in most cases where a cyclist causes an accident the damage will be minor, I think a ?20.00 a year third-party policy would be a good idea for all cyclists. And while they are about it maybe the authorities could insist on insurance for those three-wheel contraptions (trike taxis) that ferry people around the West End of London. Those things are out in abundance on a Friday and Saturday night in town, carry passengers, often have no lights, and as far as I'm aware have no insurance!