"He's an idiot, flipping hell fire. He's off his nut."

[Aristotle]

Yet another example of reckless behaviour we have come to expect from a typical cyclist.

I can sympathise with the illiterate comment made by "Illiyaster" from Gravesend, UK:

Quote

 

Cyclist are the latest group who think they are special don pay for any road upkeep don't pay road tax don't have insurance just another nuisance on the road

 

Is it not time they were made to have insurance? Seriously?

[woolley]

Clearly, even the asylum seekers arriving in Kent are up in arms about the bloody cyclists.

[La Colombe]

29 minutes ago, Aristotle said:

Is it not time they were made to have insurance? 

No, you're just being silly. 

[Aristotle]

21 minutes ago, La Colombe said:

No, you're just being silly. 

I'm just looking out for the best interest of other road users. I wonder how much cyclist-caused traffic issues and accidents cost non-cyclist road users and general tax payers per year?

[Neil Down]

52 minutes ago, Aristotle said:

I'm just looking out for the best interest of other road users. I wonder how much cyclist-caused traffic issues and accidents cost non-cyclist road users and general tax payers per year?

Is that a serious question?

[Aristotle]

2 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

Is that a serious question?

It was a serious rhetorical question.

[Bobbie Bobster]

Who are you not, again?

[Aristotle]

9 minutes ago, Bobbie Bobster said:

Who are you not, again?

Not a cyclist, although would happily cycle to work and back if there were less idiots driving cars.

[Bobbie Bobster]

To avoid the dog poo, I presume?

[Aristotle]

There's no dog poo on the road. It would be a lot quicker and cheaper in terms of buying petrol, as well as healthier, to cycle to work. Sadly, there are so many idiots driving cars, especially 4x4s, that cycling to work (and back) is too much of a risk.

[guzzi]

I doubt that if he had insurance to cover damage done whilst cycling, it would pay out for him diving over the bonnet of a taxi and tearing a windscreen wiper off.  That's criminal damage, not accidental damage. 

It's tempting to say that minimum third party insurance ought to be a legal requirement, after all, a cyclist can easily injure or kill others, and damage vehicles.  But the practicalities might be hard to achieve.  To insure the cycle, you would need registration to identify the bike. Costly, and most countries that have tried that or have had it in the past have abandoned it. 

So, insure the person against damage they might cause whilst cycling. But then why not require everyone to have insurance for damage they might cause whilst walking, jogging, skateboarding,  crossing the road? 

We would have to enforce the law, of course. There would be a significant cost to that. 

On balance, I think let sleeping dogs lie is the best option.

[Declan]

Buster was blustering about this on Facebook. But his rationale was that when a cyclist ran into his car he got &25k and the cyclist had to take out a loan. I think that says quite a lot more about Buster than the cyclist. 

[woolley]

40 minutes ago, guzzi said:

I doubt that if he had insurance to cover damage done whilst cycling, it would pay out for him diving over the bonnet of a taxi and tearing a windscreen wiper off.  That's criminal damage, not accidental damage. 

It's tempting to say that minimum third party insurance ought to be a legal requirement, after all, a cyclist can easily injure or kill others, and damage vehicles.  But the practicalities might be hard to achieve.  To insure the cycle, you would need registration to identify the bike. Costly, and most countries that have tried that or have had it in the past have abandoned it. 

So, insure the person against damage they might cause whilst cycling. But then why not require everyone to have insurance for damage they might cause whilst walking, jogging, skateboarding,  crossing the road? 

We would have to enforce the law, of course. There would be a significant cost to that. 

On balance, I think let sleeping dogs lie is the best option.

You are right. Enforcement would be impossible. You would finish up with the law abiding shelling out while the freeloaders stick up two fingers same as all other forms of insurance and everything else in life.

[Neil Down]

27 minutes ago, Declan said:

Buster was blustering about this on Facebook. But his rationale was that when a cyclist ran into his car he got &25k and the cyclist had to take out a loan. I think that says quite a lot more about Buster than the cyclist. 

I seriously doubt he got £25k, the man sounds more moronic (if that's possible) with every passing day

[guzzi]

There are plenty of voluntary insurance schemes cyclists would be well advised to take up against the possibility of running into Buster or anyone else. Not mega expensive, either, a lot around £50 a year, and you get accident damage & theft cover too.