Cyclists don't count as road users

[whole diary]

[ChrisB]

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!

Hmmm - a warden that patrols close to our office in the City always gives a ticket to cars parked on our closest dropped curbs - no residents for miles, it's all office blocks!

[Richard Fairhurst]

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

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

Yes, it does offer that as one of its products. But so does the ETA and I don't think anyone would claim they were the governing body for utility cycling.

Generally, Cycling UK^▸ (United Kingdom) (formerly CTC), local cycle advocacy groups (grouped in Cyclenation), and Sustrans are recognised as representative or advisory bodies for utility cycling. I have been to countless meetings discussing cycling with both national bodies such as the Canal & River Trust, and local statutory bodies such as Oxfordshire County Council or the Cotswold AONB^▸ (Areas Of Natural Beauty), and at none of these events has British Cycling been represented or shown any interest in sending a representative.

(Disclaimer: I'm a volunteer for Sustrans.)

[stuving]

Hmmm - a warden that patrols close to our office in the City always gives a ticket to cars parked on our closest dropped curbs - no residents for miles, it's all office blocks!

I was only giving you the (very) short version! That clause reads:

(3)A driver of a vehicle shall not at any time cause it to wait on a part of a road to which this section applies and the prohibition under this subsection shall be enforceable as if it had been imposed by an order under the said section 6.

(4)In the case where—

(a)residential premises have a driveway which is not shared by other premises; and

(b)the purpose of the dropped footway is to assist vehicles to enter or leave the road from or to the driveway,

the relevant borough council or Transport for London, as the case may be, may not issue a penalty charge notice in respect of any breach of the prohibition under subsection (3) above unless requested to do so by the occupier of the premises.

So in non-residential cases section (3) can lead to an immediate PCN. The section applies to the road next to a "dropped footway", and the stuff about section 6 links this to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the PCN rules.

[stuving]

And now ... another layer of confusion. Those extra parking offences in London only have effect if the council applies for an order to set up a Special Enforcement Area . So that's something else you need to know about.

Councils anywhere in England that have gone for civil enforcement can, it seems opt to have a Special Enforcement Area too. That includes these extra parking offences (but not, I presume, the direct control of access across the pavement). I wonder how many have done that.

But if you look at the relevant act (the Traffic Management Act 2004) in "SCHEDULE 7 Road traffic contraventions subject to civil enforcement", it only lists dropped kerbs for London, Exeter, and Essex! I can't see a missing amendment, so that leaves me a bit baffled. So does the list of councils that can apply for one of these SEAs (in Schedule 10):

(3)An application under this paragraph may be made—
(a)with respect to the whole or part of their area, by a county council in England;
(b)with respect to the whole or part of their area, by a county council or county borough council in Wales;
(c)with respect to the whole of their area, by a metropolitan district council;
(d)with respect to the whole of their areas, by two or more metropolitan district councils acting jointly;
(e)with respect to the whole or part of the Isles of Scilly, by the Council of the Isles of Scilly.

Doesn't that leave out unitary authorities?

Where a council gets one of these SEAs, they still have to decide whether to enforce or not. I can see the attraction of a uniform nationwide ban - at least we'd have a chance of knowing what the rules are!

[TaplowGreen]

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

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

Yes, it does offer that as one of its products. But so does the ETA and I don't think anyone would claim they were the governing body for utility cycling.

Generally, Cycling UK^▸ (United Kingdom) (formerly CTC), local cycle advocacy groups (grouped in Cyclenation), and Sustrans are recognised as representative or advisory bodies for utility cycling. I have been to countless meetings discussing cycling with both national bodies such as the Canal & River Trust, and local statutory bodies such as Oxfordshire County Council or the Cotswold AONB^▸ (Areas Of Natural Beauty), and at none of these events has British Cycling been represented or shown any interest in sending a representative.

(Disclaimer: I'm a volunteer for Sustrans.)

Thanks for the background and the declaration of interest! 

I'm not overly precious about splitting hairs on lines of demarcation or who sells it to me, for me it's more important that people are responsible enough to ensure that they are adequately insured to cover every eventuality, or at least as many as possible. I'm a keen cyclist and I've had 3rd party insurance for some time.

Of course there will be people who will beat their chests, take positions and insist that they're not going to/don't need to, probably the same ones who act irresponsibly and give the rest of us a bad name......they may find themselves having to foot a very large bill one of these days.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Of course there will be people who will beat their chests, take positions and insist that they're not going to/don't need to, probably the same ones who act irresponsibly and give the rest of us a bad name......they may find themselves having to foot a very large bill one of these days.

Presumably, they would then feel like a fat billed beaty bust? 

[Tim]

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).

If a cyclist dents your car door then you ought to be entitled to compensation and the problem in recovering it that I suspect you will have is finding the cyclist responsible.  It isn't that the cyclist is uninsured.

What does a dent in a car door cost?  A few hundred pounds maybe.  An amount that is unlikely to ruin you if you don't recover it and an amount that is unlikely to ruin the cyclist if he/she does pay up.

Motor vehicles can cause much more expensive damage.  I've seen houses and railway bridges demolished.  My argument starts from a generally libertarian position  that governments should interfere with the lives of citizens as little as possible and only be moved to interfere when the need to do so is overwhelming.  Because the damage caused by motor vehicles is several orders of magnitude more than that caused by cyclists, the case of government action is made with respect for motor vehicles but not with bikes. 

[Tim]

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.

I don't get your logic.  You seem to be in agreement with me that the total damage caused by cyclists is much less than that caused by motor vehicles.  But then you are saying that that difference in damage is can't be used to justify treating cyclists and motor vehicles differently.  And yet you use a supposed difference the scale of damage between cycling and rugby to justify treating them differently.

 

[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.

I don't get your logic.  You seem to be in agreement with me that the total damage caused by cyclists is much less than that caused by motor vehicles.  But then you are saying that that difference in damage is can't be used to justify treating cyclists and motor vehicles differently.  And yet you use a supposed difference the scale of damage between cycling and rugby to justify treating them differently.

 

I'm sorry but you're just being deliberately oblique/disingenuous for the sake of it now.

For clarity, my point is this - yes motor vehicles do cause much more damage than cyclists, but that does not mean that cyclists never cause any damage/injury at all, far from it. My point in referring to rugby was that (thankfully) serious injuries are very rare, however insurance is there for when it does happen, and that is the parallel I was drawing with cyclists.

The purpose of insurance is not to increase individual's responsibility, it's to cover risk.

If the day ever comes when a cyclist causes you injury or damage (and I sincerely hope that it doesn't), I'm sure you will be understanding if they are unable to adequately compensate you. £35 a year seems a small price to cover against this eventuality.

I'm sorry if these seems a little brusque however the aura of self righteousness surrounding a lot of (fellow) cyclists gets very tiresome.

My last word on the subject. Have a good day.

[JayMac]

Many, many under 16s use bicycles. How do they go about getting third party insurance?

My 10 year old nephew recently had a coming together with another cyclist. Clothes and bicycles were damaged. My nephew was probably at fault.

I know you've rather huffily dropped the mic TaplowGreen, but how does a 10 year old go about insuring himself against future incidents?

Parents policy with 'named cyclists'? What if Mummy and Daddy don't cycle? Can a child be expected to understand and agree to an insurance policy with all its legalese?

Compulsory insurance for cyclists is a non starter. You want it for yourself as an adult? Fine, your prerogative. Just don't force it on those of us who think it unnecessary.

What next? Pedestrians some times accidentally injure other pedestrians. Public liability insurance for everyone who dares step outside?

[Tim]

TaplowGreen.  Just for info.  I am not a cyclist.  I have an (uninsured!) bike in my shed.  It has a puncture and been unridable since 2005.  Self righteous cyclists annoy me too.  

[IndustryInsider]

Yes, agreeing with BNM, for me it's a great idea in theory, but in practice rather more difficult to implement sensibly.  I ride over 1000 miles a year so count myself as a reasonably regular cyclist and I must admit I'd never even thought about insurance.  I don't consider it a stance of self-righteousness on my part, just that it never entered my head.  I will certainly now consider it.

However, are you seriously expecting Ethel, who gets her bike out once a week to cycle a quarter mile to the shop in the village, to have to join British Cycling and spend nearly £40 a year? Or the same for somebody who is living on the breadline, can't afford a car or bus fees and has a battered old bike they sometimes use, when it's not stuck in the shed with a puncture, to cycle to work because it saves them ten minutes on walking?

By all means encourage more regular and serious cyclists to join British Cycling (who I'm sure do pretty well financially out of providing this cover as part of their membership), but demands of making it compulsory are, for me, fanciful in the extreme.

[TaplowGreen]

Many, many under 16s use bicycles. How do they go about getting third party insurance?

My 10 year old nephew recently had a coming together with another cyclist. Clothes and bicycles were damaged. My nephew was probably at fault.

I know you've rather huffily dropped the mic TaplowGreen, but how does a 10 year old go about insuring himself against future incidents?

Parents policy with 'named cyclists'? What if Mummy and Daddy don't cycle? Can a child be expected to understand and agree to an insurance policy with all its legalese?

Compulsory insurance for cyclists is a non starter. You want it for yourself as an adult? Fine, your prerogative. Just don't force it on those of us who think it unnecessary.

What next? Pedestrians some times accidentally injure other pedestrians. Public liability insurance for everyone who dares step outside?

As it's you Bignosemac I will pick up the mic  

I'll just ask you one question - if you were out on your pushbike, cycling along and were perhaps momentarily distracted by ecstatic thoughts of all we have to look forward to once GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) have finished "Building a Greater West", and in your euphoria failed to see someone using a pedestrian crossing, mowed them down causing serious injuries, how would you finance the consequent claim for compensation?

Similarly, if you were the victim and the perpetrator was uninsured and unable to compensate you, how would you feel?

As for your points re: children, parents can be held responsible for their child's negligence if they aren't overseeing them properly.

As for pedestrians, not really road users are they?

[ChrisB]

Many, many under 16s use bicycles. How do they go about getting third party insurance?

Parents policy with 'named cyclists'? What if Mummy and Daddy don't cycle?

If one would consider 10 year old cyclists able to cause damage that their parents are unable to cover, then your suggestion above is the way to go. Anyone can insure, whether or not they take part in whatever is insured, and you know that.

[Richard Fairhurst]

To my mind it's a matter of the wider social good.

In a risk-averse world then there is some logic in everyone having insurance against everything. Cyclists who cycle recklessly, pedestrians who walk out into traffic (or let their dog do so), home-owners with parrots who might shout offensive words at passers-by causing trauma, and so on.

But there are costs as well as benefits: not just the financial cost of administering all this, but the wider cost of the inevitable reduction in cycling that it would bring (just as Australia saw cycling numbers drop in the 1990s when a compulsory helmet law was introduced). And that would mean more congestion, more pollution, more motor vehicle accidents, more land set aside for car parking.

Personally I believe a lot of the solution is to 'normalise' cycling by providing safe, segregated cycling infrastructure that anyone can use, just as the Dutch and Danish do, and just as we're starting to see in London. When it's possible and normal to cycle safely across town without having to behave assertively, when there's peer pressure from everyday cyclists to call out the bad behaviour of the Lycra-clad minority, and when cyclists are a frequent enough sight around town that motorists know to look out for them and thereby fewer conflicts arise, I think the insurance issue will become largely irrelevant.

Anyway, on a cheerful note, this bike shop strikes the right tone in its response to the SoS for Transport: https://twitter.com/RKWinvisibleman/status/820946734943764480