Should pedestrians get insurance as well?

One answer is for all cyclists to carry insurance to protect them from claims for injury and damage to third parties and property.

Surely so we can claim from them, PLUS registration with number plates front and rear so they can be made accountable and reported and prosecuted for traffic offences.

When will the smokies get it into their heads that they are the problem? In 1843, when bikes we're classed as "carriages" alongside horse-drawn vehicles, there was no need for registrations, traffic lights and Lord knows how many rules of the road. We have these restrictions and impositions nowadays simply because of the risk that MOTOR VEHICLES impose. For the mother of all that is sacred, stop trying to come up with ways to deter cycling. Nobody in authority is listening to you anyway!

When will cyclists get it into their heads that they are dangerous themselves. So many ride on the roads with no cycling proficiency or equivalent and seem to have no basic idea of the rules of the road. And when will someone tell them that the red lights mean stop at traffic lights?

Rodneyspooch - you are not listening! We only have restrictions like traffic lights cos of motor transport and the combination of it's speed and volume. Have you tried crossing town on a bike? It's awful! There's no wonder some of them are breaking the law. We need a new code to promote cycling and that means a whole mindstep shift in thinking that involves making the roads totally safe and open to them. Remember those guys with the red-flag.....:-))

I often cross town on a bike and at no time have i felt the urge to go through lights-particularly at crossroads on Blossom street and the number of times i have seen cyclists sooting from micklegate bar across the top of nunnery lane when traffic is still oncoming is ridiculous. If everybody cycled we would still need laws to stop them killing themselves.

It's that 'dangerous' thing again (yawn...).

Number of people killed because a bike ran into them per year: on average it approaches zero (makes headline news if it does ever happen).

Number of people killed by cars each year on average: around 3000.

Which is dangerous?

The cost (huge - there are more bikes than cars - think an agency bigger than the DVLA)) and practicality (forget it!) of licensing/registerin
g bikes would be out of all proportion to the actual danger/harm they cause. Yes idiots on bikes do occasionally cause harm (and much more often they cause annoyance and a perception of danger) but the kneejerk reaction of suggesting registration is frankly daft. The irresponsible idiots who ride fast amid pedestrians will be exactly the ones who ignore any registration/insuran
ce scheme anyway (a bit like the idiot uninsured motorists ignoring existing legislation who are responsible for a disproportionate number of deaths and injuries). So it would just be a hugely costly, pointless bit of burocracy which penalises the sensible cyclist and has no effect on the idiots. Motorists proposing such a daft measure might also consider that every person on a bike is one less person in a car contributing to the traffic jams you seem to so enjoy sitting in, so vindictively adding pointless disincentives to cycling just makes your journeys longer.

If everybody cycled we would still need laws to stop them killing themselves.

We already have them, including the Road Traffic Act. What we don't have is police prepared to enforce the law in an even-handed manner (think crackdowns on this, that and the other).

correction - recently police in Fishergate have been handing out fixed penalty fines to people riding on the footpath. What about catching the motorists who regularly jump the red lights at junctions in the city centre, risking the lives of pedestrians and cyclists? Doesnt happen.

rodneysdog wrote:
I often cross town on a bike and at no time have i felt the urge to go through lights-particularly at crossroads on Blossom street and the number of times i have seen cyclists sooting from micklegate bar across the top of nunnery lane when traffic is still oncoming is ridiculous. If everybody cycled we would still need laws to stop them killing themselves.

Rodneysmutt - I agree that a sizeabke minority of cyclists are p1llocks but this doesn't warrant impeding the taking up of cycling in general. The issue is analogous to the overwhelming concern for saftey on the railways. There, it puts up the cost of rail travel so much that many turn to the roads, where the risk of death/injury increases 100-fold.

As for Andy's comment regarding penalty notices in Fishergate, when on-the-spot fines were introduced in 1999, the Home Office issued guidance on how the new legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used where a cyclist was riding in a manner that might endanger others. Home Office minister Paul Boateng issued a letter stating: "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."

sheddie wrote:
It's that 'dangerous' thing again (yawn...). Number of people killed because a bike ran into them per year: on average it approaches zero (makes headline news if it does ever happen). Number of people killed by cars each year on average: around 3000. Which is dangerous? The cost (huge - there are more bikes than cars - think an agency bigger than the DVLA)) and practicality (forget it!) of licensing/registerin g bikes would be out of all proportion to the actual danger/harm they cause. Yes idiots on bikes do occasionally cause harm (and much more often they cause annoyance and a perception of danger) but the kneejerk reaction of suggesting registration is frankly daft. The irresponsible idiots who ride fast amid pedestrians will be exactly the ones who ignore any registration/insuran ce scheme anyway (a bit like the idiot uninsured motorists ignoring existing legislation who are responsible for a disproportionate number of deaths and injuries). So it would just be a hugely costly, pointless bit of burocracy which penalises the sensible cyclist and has no effect on the idiots. Motorists proposing such a daft measure might also consider that every person on a bike is one less person in a car contributing to the traffic jams you seem to so enjoy sitting in, so vindictively adding pointless disincentives to cycling just makes your journeys longer.

Well done Sheddie - very well put.

Number of people killed because a bike ran into them per year: on average it approaches zero (makes headline news if it does ever happen).

This must never have happened then?

Killer cyclist escapes jail after running down man
on pavement
Last updated at 11:57am on 17th November 2007
A biker who admitted "wanton or furious cycling" after killing a man he crashed into on the pavement at 25mph escaped jail today.

Reckless Peter Messen, 28, ploughed into tragic Gary Green as he loaded his car to go on holiday to Venice with his girlfriend.
Tesco store man Gary, 41, lived at the bottom of a hill and witnesses saw Messen "going like a bat out of hell" down the slope at around 25mph.

Killer: Peter Messen escaped jail despite cycling 'like a bat out of hell' and causing a death

Seconds before the collision on March 30, 2006 at Stenalees in Cornwall one resident even shouted at him:"You are going to kill someone".

Messen mounted the kerb as he sped down the hill on his Apollo mountain bike just as Gary stepped onto the pavement to fetch his glasses from the house.

He was knocked to the floor unconscious and died four days later on April 3 in Royal Cornwall Hospital from massive head injuries including multiple skull fractures.

Appearing at Truro Crown Court, Messen, of Swindon, Wilts, was handed a 12-month suspended sentence and 300 hours community service.

Of the 3000 road deaths a year, on the most congested road network in Europe, where we enjoy the lowest fatal road accident figures in Europe, how many exactly are caused by cars as opposed to other vehicles, and how many are the fault of car drivers as opposed to pedestrians and bike riders not looking where they are going?

Aww, Bemused, you've let us down. Usually you give the air of intelligence even though you are misguided. I thought you would have had a grip on numbers?

Here's the sheddie quote -

Number of people killed because a bike ran into them per year: on average it approaches zero (makes headline news if it does ever happen).

The key words being "on average it approaches zero". Not "It's never happened."

The point was 3000 is more than not many.

Of the 3000 road deaths a year, on the most congested road network in Europe, where we enjoy the lowest fatal road accident figures in Europe, how many exactly are caused by cars as opposed to other vehicles, and how many are the fault of car drivers as opposed to pedestrians and bike riders not looking where they are going?

Sounds like you've been hanging round with professional truth-twisters like barristers or politicians?

Bemused. If cars were going slower, much slower, then this wouldn't happen. It beats me why we think that the average-IQ homo sapiens has the right to propel his one-ton-plus, maniacal machine aound at 30mph (up to 50mph in practise) in built-up areas, beats me?

Bemused - proves my point. It made headline news because it so rarely happens. Yes, it's a tragedy but thankfully a rare one.

Yes, there may also be a few other accidents caused by cars swerving to avoid cyclists/peds etc, but even that only becomes a dangerous situation because there is a car involved i.e. a ton of metal moving generally 30mph plus (and possibly other cars approaching also at 30-odd mph). The presence of the cars and their speed creates the danger.

If instead a cyclist has to swerve to avoid another cyclist/ped then (barring a very few freak injuries) the worst that happens is a few cuts and bruises. There's simply an order of magnitude less kinetic energy involved.

I'm not saying that reckless and inconsiderate cyclists aren't idiots who endanger lives on occasion. But bear in mind that they mainly endanger only their own lives.

If you choose to drive in a heavy, wide vehicle in an urban area then you need to take responsibility for your action and drive slowly and cautiously enough that (within reason) you can safely react to the actions of children and/or idiots (in cars, on bikes, or on foot).

No, I'm not saying it's always the driver's fault - but injuries and deaths caused by their vehicle are their responsibility. The (slim) possibility of having a death or maiming on your conscience is something you take on when you decide to drive a ton of metal around town at speeds which can kill.

Yes, cyclists and pedestrians also take on the responsibility of causing death of injury by their actions, but it's a magnitude less and is mainly themselves at risk. Their possible impact on those around them is much lower by the basic laws of physics.

Could ramble on but gotta go do some work!

It beats me why we think that the average-IQ homo sapiens has the right to propel his one-ton-plus, maniacal machine aound at 30mph (up to 50mph in practise) in built-up areas, beats me?

Maybe because he pays for the privilege through taxation.

Sheddie, you make some valid points, TooRad I ignore, he/she/it appears incapable of posting on any topic without being insulting, abusive, and or offensive.

Bemused wrote:

It beats me why we think that the average-IQ homo sapiens has the right to propel his one-ton-plus, maniacal machine aound at 30mph (up to 50mph in practise) in built-up areas, beats me?

Maybe because he pays for the privilege through taxation.

No he heasn't. This argument has been repelled a million times. If it were true then smokers would be allowed freedom to pollute everywhere instead of treating them like lepers. Don't confuse morality and justice with the governments insatiable demands for cash! Totally separate things.

I remember when Vehicle Excise Licences were called Road Fund Licences, and it was because that's where the money went - on roads. Then governments got greedy, the tax went up but it clearly wasn't all being spent on roads so the name changed to VEL.

However, what is the case is that vehicle and fuel taxation pays for the road network and one hell of a lot more, and car owner/drivers pay for in addition to income tax.

If it were true then smokers would be allowed freedom to pollute everywhere instead of treating them like lepers.

So it's OK to treat smokers like lepers is it, says a lot about you I suggest.

Would it be OK for car drivers to consider pedal cyclists as parasites and road vermin, by your standards perhaps the answer is "Yes!"

Bemused. I didn't say it was ok to treat smokers like lepers - it was an observation of the current situation as practised by society, even though tey contribute £9 billions to the exchequer every year.

You know the answer to your other comments - even though you don't like them. Vehicles can be wonderful things and contribute vastly to our society. But used selfishly, and dangerously, the harm that they have done to society outweighs the benefits. The balance needs to be redressed.

petethefeet - I think we may be on more or less the same song sheet, but you can't put the cork back in the bottle now.

I know I'm swimming against the tide but I sense that the tide is turning, albeit slowly. I was very heartened by the poll on this site for the introduction of a 20mph limit. It was virtually 50:50 and that took me by surprise. The majority of people who contribute to these blogs seem to concur that something needs to change.
So the crusade continues..........:
-))

Bemused wrote:
Sheddie, you make some valid points, TooRad I ignore, he/she/it appears incapable of posting on any topic without being insulting, abusive, and or offensive.

Im honoured to be ignored for being offensive by someone who regularly calls people idiots when they disagree.

And anyway I was complimenting your intelligence, if you took offence you must be such a sensitive soul...

I'd like to know what the statistics are for accidents in Deangate?
Cyclists and pedestrians seem, at first sight, to mix quite easily there and I can't recall seeing any headlines of accidents or seeing anyone being injured and taken to hospital. But maybe I missed them.However if it really does work there considering the large amount of tourists milling around in the Summer then why can't it work in other places in York too?