Cyclists don't count as road users

[whole diary]

[ChrisB]

The reason that motor vehicles must have third party insurance is because they cause a significant amount of damage to third parties (both people and property) and that the monetary compensation recoverable under the law for that damage is very often much more than the driver is in a position to pay. 

Indeed - so have you seen the usual dent left in a car when a cyclist being unobservant, collides with one?
Also, they collect pedestrians reasonably often, and other cyclists not quite as often - why shouldn't they also be entitled to claim easier compensation? So third-party insurance definitely IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion).

Surely the amount of damage caused to third parties by cyclists, or pedestrians or horse riders (or dogs, or lawnmowers or surfboarders or kite flyers or football players or whatever other group of people)

There is a good argument for this, where damage/injuries can be quite possible. Dangerous dogs for example.
Also those partaking of what insurers consider dangerous sports just so the NHS can claim any costs against them being hospitalised - but that is another discussion. Why should our taxes be spent putting these oafs back together, and sometimes if they become disabled, taxes be spent on them for the rest of their lives.

[JayMac]

Also those partaking of what insurers consider dangerous sports just so the NHS can claim any costs against them being hospitalised - but that is another discussion. Why should our taxes be spent putting these oafs back together, and sometimes if they become disabled, taxes be spent on them for the rest of their lives.

Why? Because they've paid for health care and welfare benefits in the event of injury or disability. National Insurance, Income Tax, in fact almost any taxation. So it's their taxes paying for treatment, not yours. You want to start excluding people from treatment for what you consider dangerous activities? I believe you smoke ChrisB, or did. Very dangerous activity is that. I take it you have a separate insurance policy to cover you in the event of smoking related illness.

As for branding these people 'oafs' for having a hobby. Really? 

[ChrisB]

NI covers general run of the mill illnesses - these sports didn't exist when the NHS was invented, so could be argued that these sports aren't included. Maybe a higher rate before being covered? (and yes, although smoking was taking placve at the time the NHS was invented and thus could be argued that the NHS was covering it at inception), I would have no problem with paying higher NI if that was generally accepted.

[TaplowGreen]

If cyclists wish to be treated the same as other road users then they should be responsible enough to do what is compulsory for all other road users and take out insurance.

I often hear the "cyclists should have compulsory insurance" argument but I have never heard an argument as to why.  Having insurance doesn't make anyone any more responsible or improve the safety of anyone on its own. 

The reason that motor vehicles must have third party insurance is because they cause a significant amount of damage to third parties (both people and property) and that the monetary compensation recoverable under the law for that damage is very often much more than the driver is in a position to pay.   Without compulsory motor insurance, a significant number of people would be harmed and would receive no compensation of that harm and a significant number of drivers would be ruined by bankruptcy after being sued by their victims.

Surely the amount of damage caused to third parties by cyclists, or pedestrians or horse riders (or dogs, or lawnmowers or surfboarders or kite flyers or football players or whatever other group of people) whilst not zero is several orders of magnitude less than the damage caused by motor vehicle drivers, both in the number of incidents resulting in damage significant enough for legal recovery to be worthwhile and the quantum of damage (ie the typical damage caused by a public footballer might be a broken window or by a cyclist a broken arm damages awarded for that sort of damage might well be recoverable without bankrupting the liable party, whereas in a motor vehicle it is quite easy to cause multiple deaths and/or demolish a building and/or write off hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of other motor vehicles)

Just taking damage to signposts and lampposts as an example, local authorities suffer millions of pounds worth of damage to those assets per year and compulsory insurance allows the recovery of a great deal of it.  Do you really think that horse riders and cyclists are demolishing millions of pounds worth of lampposts every year and that the absence of insurance of those people is meaning that the council tax payer has to pick up the tab?  Is Network Rail being frustrated at its lack of ability to recover compensation for all their bridges damaged by cyclists crashing into them?   

You could say that everyone should have compulsory insurance for liability of any sort to third parties. But the law has only made it compulsory for certain groups (ie motorists, employers to employee etc).  To change the law to include cyclists in that group I think you ought to have to demonstrate that there is a significant evil which the law needs to remedy. 

I'm afraid that your entire pretext here is (intentionally or unintentionally) rather uninformed and straw man. British Cycling (the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) governing body) offers and recommends insurance covering third party liability, and contact sports such as football and rugby do the same via their own governing bodies.............as a rugby club, my own organisation would not be permitted to participate in competitions without it.

The mere fact that the cost of motor vehicle claims is of a larger order of magnitude is hardly a reason for others not to have it......very few rugby injuries cause sufficient damage to make a claim, but those that do are generally of a catastrophic nature, costing millions of £, a similar scenario perhaps to a cyclist causing an accident/injury to an individual leaving them paralysed - if that cyclist is uninsured, who picks up the bill?

I'm not sure what point you are seeking to make by citing lawnmower injuries.

Insurance mitigates risk, it doesn't seek to remove it or apportion blame, nor is it about remedying "evils". Since cycling (particularly on the highway) is to a greater or lesser extent a risky activity, considerably more so than the other sports I mentioned, it makes sense to provide protection against a risk to all those concerned.

[ellendune]

If cyclists wish to be treated the same as other road users then they should be responsible enough to do what is compulsory for all other road users and take out insurance.

No insurance is only required for 'motor vehicles' other 'carriages' (= road users (see post below for definition)) do not require insurance.

Probably seen all those cyclists on the pavements.....

I don't know about the rest of the country, but in and around Exeter you are much more likely to see a variety of motor vehicles on the pavements. Apparently it is much cheaper and/or more convenient that using a properly designated parking area.

AIUI^▸ (as I understand it) It is not illegal to park on the footway (correct legal definition for that part of a highway that is used only by pedestrians). It is however illegal to drive on the footway.  So provided you can demonstrate that you lifted your car onto the footway without driving on it. That is perfectly legal!

Do they have parking cranes on hand in Exeter?

[grahame]

It is however illegal to drive on the footway. 

Does that means it's illegal to drive across the footway onto a driveway?  Could be a lot of people in trouble?

[JayMac]

Case precedent (where the Highways Act 1835 section 72 has been cited) has exempted crossing a footway to access property.

[stuving]

AIUI^▸ (as I understand it) It is not illegal to park on the footway (correct legal definition for that part of a highway that is used only by pedestrians). It is however illegal to drive on the footway.  So provided you can demonstrate that you lifted your car onto the footway without driving on it. That is perfectly legal!

It is illegal in Greater London under the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974:

15 As to parking on footways, grass verges, etc.

(1)Subject to subsections (3), (4), (7) and (11) of this section and without prejudice to the provisions of any other enactment, any person who, on or after the appointed day in or on any urban road in Greater London parks a vehicle so that one or more of its wheels is resting on—
(a)any footway;
(b)any land (not being a footway) which is situated between two carriageways in any such road; or
(c)any grass verge, garden or space not falling within the foregoing paragraph (a) or (b);

shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 [£100] on the standard scale].

Outside London councils can do something to ban it, but extending the blanket ban is now under consideration by the Government. There's a House of Commons Library Briefing Paper on this (Number SN01170, 10 February 2016 "Pavement and on-street parking in England"), and it's by Louise Butcher - you may be familiar with her papers on railway topics.

Here is one paragraph:

Some on-street and pavement parking will be seen as causing an obstruction and can be dealt with by the police or traffic wardens. However, most enforcement will be by local authorities who have assumed control for decriminalised/civil parking enforcement under Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. As part of this process they can designate ‘Special Parking Areas’ (SPAs) in which vehicles parked on street or on the pavement can be ticketed for contravening parking regulations (e.g. parking on a yellow line), rather than for causing an obstruction. Some local authorities, i.e. Exeter, took their own Private Act powers to ban pavement parking within their areas.

I think that says that the 2004 act can't ban pavement parking, only a one-off local private act can do that.

The paper says the Road Traffic Act 1974 contained a provision for a total ban, but the regulations for it were never implemented. It also says the Road Traffic Act 1988, which replaced the 1974 act, copied the provision for a ban, but it has now been repealed by the Road Traffic Act 1991. Clever, huh?

The other act cited here and elsewhere is the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, via a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO^» (Trowbridge - next trains)) made under it. However, that act explicitly says it covers the use of roads and nowhere else, which may not prevent its use but may preclude a true blanket ban.

[ChrisB]

It is however illegal to drive on the footway. 

Does that means it's illegal to drive across the footway onto a driveway?  Could be a lot of people in trouble?

I have read of cases where the kerb is not dropped & property owners have created themselves a driveway/parking area in their front garden & failed to apply to the council to drop the kerb. Driving over the fiitway then does give rise to council enforcement/action

[PhilWakely]

I don't know about the rest of the country, but in and around Exeter you are much more likely to see a variety of motor vehicles on the pavements. Apparently it is much cheaper and/or more convenient that using a properly designated parking area.

AIUI^▸ (as I understand it) It is not illegal to park on the footway (correct legal definition for that part of a highway that is used only by pedestrians). It is however illegal to drive on the footway.  So provided you can demonstrate that you lifted your car onto the footway without driving on it. That is perfectly legal!

Do they have parking cranes on hand in Exeter?

There is actually a local byelaw in Exeter prohibiting parking on pavements, with the exception of a handful of narrow residential streets (mine being one of them), where it is actually illegal to park 'wholely on the carriageway' - but I don't believe the council has the willingness/manpower/money to police this byelaw.

[stuving]

There is actually a local byelaw in Exeter prohibiting parking on pavements, with the exception of a handful of narrow residential streets (mine being one of them), where it is actually illegal to park 'wholely on the carriageway' - but I don't believe the council has the willingness/manpower/money to police this byelaw.

Why are these things so ridiculously complicated?

Exeter does have its own local act - it's the  Exeter City Council Act 1987 (c. xi), and section 30(1) covers "prohibition of parking vehicles on verges, central reservations and footways". Local acts, like most other acts and statutory instruments (but not private acts) are on legislation.gov.uk; this one isn't, for no obvious reason.

Devon County Council (DCC^» (Devon County Council - website)) is the civil enforcement authority for on-street parking restrictions within Devon, except for Torbay and Plymouth. This power is conveyed by a Statutory Instrument introduced by Government under the Traffic Management Act 2004. But the transfer of powers under the act covered the standard offences defined in general acts, not this one. So enforcement is still a matter for the police.

After much pestering, DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) finally came up with the The Traffic Management Act 2004 (Amendment of Schedule 7) (City of Exeter) Regulations 2012 - a very short SI indeed. So since then this ban is decriminalised and enforced like other parking offences.

AIUI^▸ (as I understand it) there are no signs to tell visitors (or locals) about this general ban.

[stuving]

Crossing the pavement to park is mostly a planning matter, but obviously that only really affects new access or new building. Planning includes highways requirements like visibility splays and avoiding conflicts with junctions, bus stops, and the like. It also applies stricter rules on classified roads: A- and B-roads, recognisable by their numbers, and C-roads which do exist but are hard to detect. It's on classified roads that being able to turn on-site can be required. But permission is a matter of assessment, so I'm sure different authorities will use this discretion differently.

London is again different. And here the curse of legal obscurity descends again.

There is a series of acts called the London Local Authorities Act 1990 and so on to the London Local Authorities Act 2012. After 1990 they appeared in 1990 (No. 2 act), 1991, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2007. But Richmond (aka LBRuT), for example, cites the act in its advice document as the 8th London Local Authorities Act. That's the 2004 one, obviously, and I know the 9th was in 2007. But no - it's actually in the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. Oh well.

As a result, in London you can get an order to desist from using a pavement crossing even if it's been in use for years. They can also give tickets for parking in front of a dropped kerb, but only if the resident complains! And there's no signs about any of this for out-of-town visitors.

[PhilWakely]

After much pestering, DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) finally came up with the The Traffic Management Act 2004 (Amendment of Schedule 7) (City of Exeter) Regulations 2012 - a very short SI indeed. So since then this ban is decriminalised and enforced like other parking offences.

AIUI^▸ (as I understand it) there are no signs to tell visitors (or locals) about this general ban.

There are signs on the edge of the city boundary, on selected roads and not particularly easy to see! So it is hardly surprising that folks new to the area do not know about it..........

[Richard Fairhurst]

I'm afraid that your entire pretext here is (intentionally or unintentionally) rather uninformed and straw man. British Cycling (the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) governing body) offers and recommends insurance covering third party liability

British Cycling is (to quote their website) "the internationally recognised governing body of cycle sport in the UK". Most cycling is not cycle sport. British Cycling is no more the governing body for everyday cycling than the FIA is the governing body for driving to the supermarket.

[TaplowGreen]

I'm afraid that your entire pretext here is (intentionally or unintentionally) rather uninformed and straw man. British Cycling (the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) governing body) offers and recommends insurance covering third party liability

British Cycling is (to quote their website) "the internationally recognised governing body of cycle sport in the UK". Most cycling is not cycle sport. British Cycling is no more the governing body for everyday cycling than the FIA is the governing body for driving to the supermarket.

......And the insurance it recommends & offers is for "daily cycling"

://www.britishcycling.org.uk/thirdpartyliability


But no worries Richard , I'm sure you know best