Should cyclists have the same speed restrictions as motor vehicles?

[OutOfFocus]

On 07/12/2023 at 21:31, Earl Aelfheah said:

There isn’t a speed limit for people travelling by bicycle. You can’t ’adhere’ to a rule that doesn’t exist.

Can you find a legal citation for this. My understanding is a cycle is a vehicle.

[tedfudge]

12 hours ago, OutOfFocus said:

Can you find a legal citation for this. My understanding is a cycle is a vehicle.

Can you get pulled over for speeding on a bicycle UK?

 

 

Bicycles are not included. While you can't normally be charged for speeding on a bicycle you could, in extreme cases, be charged with careless cycling (maximum fine £1,000) or dangerous cycling (max fine £2,500). Furthermore, local bye-laws can impose limits on cyclists.

[malumbu]

This thread disappeared quietly well over a year ago, but as the spin the wheel your turn to do a cycle-phobia story hit the Telegraph in the last few days here is an alternative view:

https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-live-blog-18-november-2024-311281

The arguments why cyclist/bike registration will not be practical are in the discussions above.

Now if you want to discuss delivery riders being on PAYE, having their (road legal) bikes provided by their employer, having training and adhering minimum standards of cycling, compulsory lights, then I'm your person.

Oh no?  Why not, surely we'd all prefer to pay a little more for our Deliveroo takeaways?

[first mate]

The thing is, it is already the case that cyclists can be fined for cycling on paths that are not shared, so why not add this to the work of community wardens as they do their CPZ rounds?

[malumbu]

Re: cycle and cyclist registration/licensing

Jesse Norman, Minister of State at the Department for Transport (DfT) confirmed the government’s position in response to a question from Jim Shannon, DUP MP for Strangford.

The question had asked whether the Secretary of State for Transport, Mark Harper, had “made a recent assessment of the potential merits of requiring electric bike users to (a) have a number plate and (b) be insured.”

In his reply, Mr Norman wrote: “The Department considered issues including a mandatory registration and insurance system for cyclists as part of a cycling and walking safety review in 2018.

“The review concluded that restricting people’s ability to cycle in this way would mean that many would choose other modes of transport instead, with negative impacts for congestion, pollution and health,” he added.

Calls for cyclists to be licensed and insured are regularly made by those who perceive cyclists as a menace on the roads. They have been regularly rejected by the government.

In December 2021, the government rejected calls by motoring lawyer Nick Freeman to display identification – his suggestion was hi-vis tabards bearing a registration number – after a petition he launched on the subject and plugged for several months in newspaper articles and on TV appearances gained 10,000 signatures.

The rejection for cyclists to be registered, due to the complexity and cost of  running such a scheme, is based on real-life precedent, with jurisdictions around the world that have implemented such measures quickly scrapping them afterwards.

As for insurance, most adult cyclists will be covered for third party liability while riding a bike, whether through membership of organisations such as British Cycling and its affiliated clubs, or Cycling UK, or in most cases under their household contents cover.

Or is he part of my cohort who just ignores calls for licensing/registration?  He did buy me a drink once......

 

[first mate]

I do think e-bikes should be licensed or have some form of i/d, especially hire bikes. In this digital age there must be way, surely? The cost could be shared with the various companies that hire them out.

[Spartacus]

@malumbu could you imagine if those sorts of arguments were used by the motoring fraternity when ved, insurance and licencing was first introduced ? There would be outcry at the chaos it would cause. 

The nonsense that cyclists are covered third party by their home insurance takes the micky to be honest. They are covered, in some circumstances, for theft but the average (not club) cyclist has no insurance for third party injuries. Who pays when granny is knocked over by a speeding cyclists? 

So why shouldn't they be insured?  after all every other road users has to be !  

As for passing a test, maybe at school some did the cycling proficiency test (or what ever it's called) but a lot don't and somehow that makes them road legal in your mind and awate of the rules and regulations. (Obviously many aren't) 

Number plates or some form of registration plate would make it easier to catch rogue cyclists who cycle dangerously so why wouldn't responsible cyclists agree to it (apart from their view that they are special cases of course)  maybe those who transgress the rules are shouting the loudest here ! 

With the desire for more cyclists, more emphasis needs to be made on responsible cycling and expecting anyone to regulated themselves is folly.

Whilst in the past it has been dismissed, unless the majority cyclists start to abide the rules of the road (red lights mean stop,  pedestrians have priority and lights are compulsory at night) then I can well see a time when public opinion forces regulations on cyclists. 

Cyclists should abide by, not be exempt from, the law and if they won't do it by themselves...  

[snowy]

4 hours ago, first mate said:

I do think e-bikes should be licensed or have some form of i/d, especially hire bikes. In this digital age there must be way, surely? The cost could be shared with the various companies that hire them out.

Hire bikes already have registration numbers and you need to provide ID to hire them when you set up an account.

[first mate]

Great, so there should be a way to issue penalties.

[Penguin68]

It actually depends on how the user data is collected and stored and what uses the data can legally be put to. Once an individual bike has been checked as OK it is quite possible that the user data is disassociated from the bike and maintained simply as a charged use, so it may not be possible for any length of time to associate a journey with a person. 

[DuncanW]

On 19/11/2024 at 11:10, Spartacus said:

 

The nonsense that cyclists are covered third party by their home insurance takes the micky to be honest. They are covered, in some circumstances, for theft but the average (not club) cyclist has no insurance for third party injuries. Who pays when granny is knocked over by a speeding cyclists? 

 

Just to correct this. Most home contents insurance policies provide cover of £1M (some are higher) for third-party liability claims for damage and injury.  I always double-check that this includes 'whilst cycling'  and covers every insured member of my household when looking at change to my provider. I have yet to come across any that don't offer this as standard. So it's true that home contents insurance is not compulsory, so some won't have it but the average cyclist IS insured for this. 

[snowy]

2 hours ago, first mate said:

Great, so there should be a way to issue penalties.

Great. 

[Spartacus]

3 hours ago, DuncanW said:

Just to correct this. Most home contents insurance policies provide cover of £1M (some are higher) for third-party liability claims for damage and injury.  I always double-check that this includes 'whilst cycling'  and covers every insured member of my household when looking at change to my provider. I have yet to come across any that don't offer this as standard. So it's true that home contents insurance is not compulsory, so some won't have it but the average cyclist IS insured for this. 

Interesting 

A quick search shows the opposite unless you add on a specialist cycling option. 

Therefore I am doubting the fact that most cyclists are insured third party if they cause an accident. 

[DuncanW]

A quick search where, dare I ask??

Below is the clause on the policy with Churchill - a well-known, mainstream, domestic insurer making it clear that cover is provided:

You’re covered for ✔ Personal liability Liabilities arising from you occupying your home and your personal liabilities as a private individual in and away from your home. We will pay up to £2,000,000 to cover your legal liability for damages you have to pay if someone makes a claim against you during the period of insurance for: • accidental death or illness of, or bodily injury to, any person • accidental loss of or damage to property. This will also include costs, expenses and legal fees for defending

 

https://www.churchill.com/assets/pdf/ch-home-insurance-policy-document.pdf

 

If you need any further help with this I'm happy to break it down into plainer English for you.

 

 

[Penguin68]

Goodness, I can't imagine why people bother with car insurance then, if this cover is so comprehensive. 

[malumbu]

4 hours ago, Spartacus said:

Interesting 

A quick search shows the opposite unless you add on a specialist cycling option. 

Therefore I am doubting the fact that most cyclists are insured third party if they cause an accident. 

Who cares.

In 2023, 39 people were convicted for careless or inconsiderate cycling, six people were convicted for dangerous cycling, and three people were convicted for cycling under the influence of drink or drugs.

Compare this to16,406 reported cycling accidents in the UK, 91 reported fatalities, 4,056 serious injuries, and 11,546 slight injuries.

More anti-cycling rhetoric I'm afraid.  Cyclists suffer far more harm from other road users than they cause.

[first mate]

But if we are talking path users ...I have had to step aside for more cyclists recently than has ever been the case before. You just did not get so many people cycling or e-biking on non cycleway pavements. 
 

Back on thread, surely, especially where e-bikes are concerned, surely insurance is a good idea? They are powered vehicles and while they may not cause as much damage as a car I still would not want to be hit by either an e-bike or someone travelling at speed on a pushbike. 

Edited November 21 by first mate

[Spartacus]

On 21/11/2024 at 17:20, DuncanW said:

A quick search where, dare I ask??

Below is the clause on the policy with Churchill - a well-known, mainstream, domestic insurer making it clear that cover is provided:

You’re covered for ✔ Personal liability Liabilities arising from you occupying your home and your personal liabilities as a private individual in and away from your home. We will pay up to £2,000,000 to cover your legal liability for damages you have to pay if someone makes a claim against you during the period of insurance for: • accidental death or illness of, or bodily injury to, any person • accidental loss of or damage to property. This will also include costs, expenses and legal fees for defending

 

https://www.churchill.com/assets/pdf/ch-home-insurance-policy-document.pdf

 

If you need any further help with this I'm happy to break it down into plainer English for you.

 

 

Reading the policy you posted, plus my own and a friends insurance policies, all with personal liability insurance cover, none of them.will cover you as cyclust if you cause an accident. 

They ate worded "We will provide cover under section 4 Family Legal Protection as long as: • we and the appointed representative agree that your claim has reasonable prospects of success for the duration of the claim" 

I think, and I'm no.legal expert that you are on shaky ground if you think this policy will cover you if you cause an accident when cycling. 

 

@malumbu your dismissing of the low number of accidents caused by cyclists, I'm sure anyone injured by a cyclist would care. Equally, whilst numbers convicted are low, it could simply be that there are more breaking the rules who simply aren't caught. 

[DuncanW]

Family Legal Protection is an additional cost extra with that policy and doesn't relate to liability claims, it's for taking an action against a party who has caused injury (or death) to the insured party or damage to their property, not the other way round.

I know you're desperate not to be wrong here, but it might be time to knock it on the head. 🤣

[malumbu]

Around 400 pedestrians are injured each year following a collision with a cyclists, most are on the carriageway.  There is as far as I am aware no data on how often the cyclist was at fault.  Compare this with 30,000 killed or seriously injured on our roads, and around 5 times this for all injuries. Around 6500 pedestrians are killed or seriously injured each year, so the vast majority involve a car, motorbike, lorry or bus.

I really don't understand this obsession with cyclists, beyond some people's issue with attempts to make our roads safer including promoting active travel with its multiple benefit.  I am repeating what I have said numerous times.

[Rockets]

Malumbu, are you suggesting it is time to start recording when cyclists are at fault? I do wonder whether there will come a time where accidents with cycles will need to be better recorded. 

I think the problem some of us have is that there are many, perhaps even most, in the cycle community who don't want to acknowledge or try and rectify the increasing problems being caused by cyclists because cars and other motorised vehicles injure and kill many more people.

And you are doing just that. Again.

 

[malumbu]

I'm saying in terms of harm it's very low.  40,000 people a year have medical attention due to power tools.  A licensing scheme for owning and operating an electric drill would save far more money to the NHS than registering/licensing cyclists.  But imagine the accusations of nanny state if any government restricted use of power tools for DIY

[Rockets]

So you are acknowledging they do do harm....that's a start I presume..

I would hazard a guess that with e-bikes, some ludicrous cycle infrastructure (like floating bus stops) and some really bad cycling by some that injuries involving cycles is growing at a fast rate. Does anyone know?

[Spartacus]

Typical Mal response 

"Whatabout...." but never accepting that even ine cyclists causing an accident is a road safety problem. 

DuncanW, guess the proof of the pudding is in the eating, good luck if you ever need to claim. 

 

[malumbu]

Slurs and digs are unhelpful.  Yes cyclists over a certain age, say 12, should generally not ride on pavements.  Yes cyclists should avoid harming pedestrians.  Yes adults riding on pavements, and adults letting older children ride on pavements are generally in the wrong.

So perhaps you could agree that politicians will not introduce registration/licensing of bikes and riders, as the last administration confirmed.

And you could agree with the national statistics that drivers cause far more harm than cyclists.

At that point the discussion will hopefully  be exhausted.