Cyclists should be banned off certain roads

To be fair, it is my experience that there are idiot cyclists and idiot motorists, although for some reason motorcyclists seem to be generally very sensible.

It is my view that the only sensible option is to instal and use a dashboard camera. Whether an accident is caused by an idiot motorist or an idiot cyclist it is important to be able to prove your innocence, especially as if a cyclist is involved the general consensus seems to be that the motorist is inevitably the one at fault.

Ideally, one should try to get a full facial recording as there is usually no other way to prove their identity when they just b u g g e r off.
 
Sponsored Links
After I had been cycling to work for a number of months I realised if I had an accident I could easily be financially in a predicament if I was off work.

I took out a policy to cover my loss of wages through my employers insurers, (Zurich or Allianz I think), and they offered me free third party cover if I had been found to be at fault and someone was injured due to my actions.

If I was to take up cycling again I would have no objection to having to take out insurance and have some identifying marks on my bike.
 
RigidRaider said:
not to mention that the good defensive cyclist takes primary position well out into the carriageway and asserts his right to use the road
Click to expand...

Or perhaps the suicidal cyclist? Or are you assuming that all motorists are good drivers?
 
Sponsored Links
In the event of an accident, it is with almost absolute certainty that the cyclist will come off worse. Perhaps mortally so.
However, it would almost feel like dancing on a grave, to bring up the fact that their own crass stupidity or ineptitude brought about their demise.
So face it - you're not on the bicycle, you're not fubarred, so you're to blame (regardless of the facts).
 
conny said:
After I had been cycling to work for a number of months I realised if I had an accident I could easily be financially in a predicament if I was off work.

I took out a policy to cover my loss of wages through my employers insurers, (Zurich or Allianz I think), and they offered me free third party cover if I had been found to be at fault and someone was injured due to my actions.

If I was to take up cycling again I would have no objection to having to take out insurance and have some identifying marks on my bike.
Click to expand...

I'd like to applaud your very sensible and selfless decision.
 
Brigadier said:
In the event of an accident, it is with almost absolute certainty that the cyclist will come off worse. Perhaps mortally so.
However, it would almost feel like dancing on a grave, to bring up the fact that their own crass stupidity or ineptitude brought about their demise.
So face it - you're not on the bicycle, you're not fubarred, so you're to blame (regardless of the facts).
Click to expand...

So you'd be happy for an innocent motorist to take the blame, and even suffer prosecution and punishment, for an accident caused by a cyclist?
 
If people decided to take to the highway on skateboards, they'd be arrested. FACT.

So why not cycles.??? No-one knows.
 
JBR said:
Brigadier said:
In the event of an accident, it is with almost absolute certainty that the cyclist will come off worse. Perhaps mortally so.
However, it would almost feel like dancing on a grave, to bring up the fact that their own crass stupidity or ineptitude brought about their demise.
So face it - you're not on the bicycle, you're not fubarred, so you're to blame (regardless of the facts).
Click to expand...

So you'd be happy for an innocent motorist to take the blame, and even suffer prosecution and punishment, for an accident caused by a cyclist?
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite - I was merely pointing out that, due to the severity of the consequences for the pillock, the innocent would probably be held accountable. Which is clearly a farce.

Let's face it - unless you had a dashboard cam which proved that some yahoooo had thrown themselves under your car, you'd be foooked, because you were ok, and they were not. Regardless of the facts.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JBR
Brigadier said:
Quite the opposite - I was merely pointing out that, due to the severity of the consequences for the pillock, the innocent would probably be held accountable. Which is clearly a farce.

Let's face it - unless you had a dashboard cam which proved that some yahoooo had thrown themselves under your car, you'd be foooked, because you were ok, and they were not. Regardless of the facts.
Click to expand...

That's the point I was making earlier. Sorry if I misunderstood your post.
 
JBR said:
RigidRaider said:
Cyclists have as much right to use the roads as anybody else...
Click to expand...

...even though they pay nothing towards their upkeep!
Click to expand...

Yes we do!!!!!!!!! Everybody pays for the roads, even those who do not use them.

Roads are paid for out of general taxation. There is no such thing as Road Tax, or even Road Fund Licence. The disc you buy to display in your windscreen is called Vehicle Excise Duty.

Since 1937 there has been no direct relationship between the tax and government expenditure on public roads.
 
So why not have vehicle excise duty on bikes? They are vehicles aren't they?
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JBR
I agree with those who stated that cyclists should have some kind of insurance and an mot of some sort
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top