Cycle insurance to take responsibility for their actions.
I ain’t signing that, I’d rather my free mode of transportation remains free thanks.
Contraflow:
I ain’t signing that, I’d rather my free mode of transportation remains free thanks.
My sentiments entirely. It is my understanding anyway, for what it’s worth, that all road users stand liable for consequences of their actions/ mis-deeds?
So if you cause an accident you don’t think it fair that you be held responsible for the mistake you make? Some other bugger has to pay the price?
Aye, very good.
The Cyclist Touring Club (CTC)
used to provide free insurance to members
stagedriver:
So if you cause an accident you don’t think it fair that you be held responsible for the mistake you make? Some other bugger has to pay the price?Aye, very good.
I won’t cause an accident. 
How many insurance companies would insure a 3 year old child?
What next, you can’t ride a bike till you’re 17 ?. Load of ■■■■■■■■.
ajt:
What next, you can’t ride a bike till you’re 17 ?. Load of ■■■■■■■■.
+1
Despite TruckNet on the whole being very “anti-cyclist”, I don’t think you’re going to get much support for your ill thought out petition here, Mr Stagedriver.
For starters, It’s not my petition.
It’s a shame people have that sort of attitude. A cyclist damaged my vehicle recently having weaved through traffic, but it’s ok - I’ll just suffer and foot the bill.
stagedriver:
For starters, It’s not my petition.
Maybe so… but you are the one pimping it on here.
What next? Insurance for pedestrians? 
Contraflow:
stagedriver:
So if you cause an accident you don’t think it fair that you be held responsible for the mistake you make? Some other bugger has to pay the price?Aye, very good.
I won’t cause an accident.
I won’t ever do anything wrong either, but if I do it in my car or my van, or (unlikely as it seems) in my truck I bet I’m held responsible for it.
As a pedestrian if I knock a shopping trolley into a vehicle and it damages the paintwork then of course I’m not insured, but am I responsible for the damage? This is the situation for cyclists. You can certainly cause damage. You are certainly responsible in certain situations for causing accidents which result in injuries, property damage and in some cases loss of life (including your own) but because you have no legal registration you can walk (or cycle) away without any legal responsibility.
I can be as smug as anybody else by saying I won’t do anything wrong…but pride comes before a fall.
Cyclist are responsible for their actions, if they do something stupid and damage your vehicle. and you can prove it, you can sue them, the only difference insurance would make is who signs the cheque you would get.
Peoples definition of a cyclist on this forum is a lycra wearing racer biker weaving through city centre traffic or riding two abreast on the open road with head cams on.
But what about the other types who ride, EG:
The family bloke who’s out with his kids?
The couple who are out for a nice cycle on a sunny day?
Children playing in and around the housing estate?
Its utterly ridiculous to suggest we should live in a society where the above examples could or should have insurance.
If any person here present ever rode a BMX or a chopper, hell for that matter a tricycle when you were a youngster, can you not at least start to be able to understand the complexities of legalising cycles 
who’s going to pay for it.
I’m not signing, not because I cycle to work, but because it’s supporting a sweeping change that as usual punishes the majority for the sake of a few.
I’m probably having yet another dull moment but I’m struggling to understand why mobile phone insurance is seen as a necessity but children are sent out to, in effect, play chicken with the traffic without any…
What is your most valued possession??
Piston broke:
I’m probably having yet another dull moment but I’m struggling to understand why mobile phone insurance is seen as a necessity but children are sent out to, in effect, play chicken with the traffic without any…What is your most valued possession??
eh? So you want to insure a kid so if / when they have an accident you get paid out? So you’d let the kid still play chicken do long as they’re insured?
Some people insure a phone so they get a new one if it’s damage or lost, they won’t be replacing kids.
I’ve not read it because I’ve the same view of most of the posters on the thread but I’d imagine the insurance is 3rd party, so you wouldn’t get a new kid anyway.
stagedriver:
For starters, It’s not my petition.It’s a shame people have that sort of attitude. A cyclist damaged my vehicle recently having weaved through traffic, but it’s ok - I’ll just suffer and foot the bill.
Once saw an old dear come out of a shop and get mown down by a fool cyclist… Didn’t stop either so tough ■■■■■ eh?
fredthered:
stagedriver:
For starters, It’s not my petition.It’s a shame people have that sort of attitude. A cyclist damaged my vehicle recently having weaved through traffic, but it’s ok - I’ll just suffer and foot the bill.
Once saw an old dear come out of a shop and get mown down by a fool cyclist… Didn’t stop either so tough ■■■■■ eh?
But why would being insured make the stop? Dicks are dicks
stevieboy308:
Piston broke:
I’m probably having yet another dull moment but I’m struggling to understand why mobile phone insurance is seen as a necessity but children are sent out to, in effect, play chicken with the traffic without any…What is your most valued possession??
eh? So you want to insure a kid so if / when they have an accident you get paid out? So you’d let the kid still play chicken do long as they’re insured?
Some people insure a phone so they get a new one if it’s damage or lost, they won’t be replacing kids.
I’ve not read it because I’ve the same view of most of the posters on the thread but I’d imagine the insurance is 3rd party, so you wouldn’t get a new kid anyway.
Sorry, I didn’t explain myself particularly well…
Of course I wouldn’t send them out to play on the M6 just because I’ve rang and paid up to GeneralLifeAccidentMegaInsurers and neither would I want to be paid out ( although I guess some would! )
To be blunt, dead is still dead and there is nothing that laws, insurance, bleeding hearts or you and I can do about it.
I just think that it must be possible to pay a nominal fee to cover all costs in the event of an unfortunate accident. Of course you cannot replace flesh and blood but why should any driver have to pay for damage to their own vehicle caused by the carelessness or stupidity of other road users? This nominal fee could also pay for the best of private health care to relieve the NHS burden, perhaps pay some of the costs that the emergency services incur dealing with the event and, obviously, replace the broken phone! 
I don’t share the same view as most on this thread either. I may just be playing Devil’s Advocate or, as I said, I may just be being thick… 
but I’m sure there must be an alternative answer rather than just a flat No! 