I get the feeling that sooner or later someone in Parliment is going to ask why cyclists get to use the roads for 'free'. (yes, I know it's because we have a right to be there, but....)
Licence, tax or insurance? Licencing cyclists seems a bit draconian and unnecessary. Some sort of road tax is possible I suppose (which is a bit like a licence anyway -to use the roads). But why not compulsory
insurance? As a provider of 3rd party insurance anyway, the CTC could muscle in and offer all cyclists the insurance cover they need and at the same time gain thousands (millions?) of new members. The vastly increased membership would then surely carry more political weight for improving conditions for cyclists.
Compulsory insurance for ALL cyclists
-
Jon
Re:Compulsory insurance for ALL cyclists
Nigel,
You need to get the idea out of your head that motorists somehow own the roads. Just because they dominate them by driving large fast moving machines on them, endangering everyone else in the process, doesn’t mean that they own them. The reason they pay a vehicle excise duty, and require compulsory insurance, is simple because of that fact: they are large, dangerous and on the public roads. Why shouldn’t they be expected to pay? If they want to use the roads for ‘free’ then they can walk or cycle.
In any case the cost of the bureaucracy involved in any licensing/compulsory insurance/tax scheme would be far more than any revenue collected. Unless of course you are suggesting cyclists should pay disproportionately more than motorists?
You need to get the idea out of your head that motorists somehow own the roads. Just because they dominate them by driving large fast moving machines on them, endangering everyone else in the process, doesn’t mean that they own them. The reason they pay a vehicle excise duty, and require compulsory insurance, is simple because of that fact: they are large, dangerous and on the public roads. Why shouldn’t they be expected to pay? If they want to use the roads for ‘free’ then they can walk or cycle.
In any case the cost of the bureaucracy involved in any licensing/compulsory insurance/tax scheme would be far more than any revenue collected. Unless of course you are suggesting cyclists should pay disproportionately more than motorists?
-
nigel
Re:Compulsory insurance for ALL cyclists
Jon,
What I am actually proposing is a way of increasing membership to an unprecedented level and thus giving cyclists a more effective voice because the CTC would then be representing far more than 70,000 members.
What I am actually proposing is a way of increasing membership to an unprecedented level and thus giving cyclists a more effective voice because the CTC would then be representing far more than 70,000 members.
-
Jon
Re:Compulsory insurance for ALL cyclists
It's not going to happen. You cannot legislate people into joining the CTC. It's a membership organisation that happens to provide insurance as one of the benefits of membership.
Even if there was compulsory insurance the CTC probably wouldn't be able to cope with the extra membership; and insurance companies would be able to offer insurance more cheaply in any case. In fact it's possible to get the insurance more cheaply through other affiliated cycling organisations already.
Compulsory insurance would just discourage people from cycling.
Even if there was compulsory insurance the CTC probably wouldn't be able to cope with the extra membership; and insurance companies would be able to offer insurance more cheaply in any case. In fact it's possible to get the insurance more cheaply through other affiliated cycling organisations already.
Compulsory insurance would just discourage people from cycling.
-
nigel
Re:Compulsory insurance for ALL cyclists
It's not going to happen. Ok. Lets just carry on being a minority group and letting motoring organisations like the AA run transport policy in this country. Sorry.
-
Jon
Re:Compulsory insurance for ALL cyclists
At first sight something that might increase the membership seems good, but do we want to be like the AA? Most of their members aren’t interested in cars or motoring as such, they just want someone to fix the car if it breaks down. It’s rather iniquitous of the AA to claim to represent motorists interests when in the majority of cases that interest doesn’t extend beyond a tow home. The CTC’s membership may be small in comparison to the AA, but its claim to represent cyclists interests is much stronger because its members join because they have a genuine interest in cycling.
We don’t need more people joining the CTC just because they have to, what we need are more people out of their cars and walking or cycling. Compulsory insurance for cycles won’t do that - if they have to insure the bike the same as a car then they will stick with the car. What we need are things like safer roads and decent cycling facilities.
We don’t need more people joining the CTC just because they have to, what we need are more people out of their cars and walking or cycling. Compulsory insurance for cycles won’t do that - if they have to insure the bike the same as a car then they will stick with the car. What we need are things like safer roads and decent cycling facilities.
-
nigel
Re:Compulsory insurance for ALL cyclists
Yes. What we need are safer roads and decent cycling facilities. In your own words Jon, it isn't goig to happen.
Whilst it may be disingeneous of the AA to claim to represent the views of millions of motorists, it doesn't stop them doing just that. Very effectively. By virtue of their millions of members they generate enough money to make them a powerful voice.
Take the case of Ashley Carpenter, the 'vengeful cyclist' who earlier this year slashed 500 car tryes because he was sick of having his life treated with such comtempt by motorists. The media had a field day and the AA were crawling all over the story offering opinions as to what to do with wayward cyclists. Where were the cycling organisations spokespersons? -nowhere; even though most, if not ALL cyclists, could easily empathise with Mr Carpenter. Where was the voice speaking up for the cyclists whose lives are threatened every day by dangerous motorists? -there wasn't one because nobody is particularly interested in hearing the comments of an organisation that only represents 70,000 people other than 70,000 cyclists.
Who cares if the CTC claimed to be representing millions when they were only actually speaking up for thousands. It doesn't matter, Jon. What we need is a much more powerful voice -and waiting for all those motorists to see the light and dump cars for bikes isn't going to happen in our lifetime if we just wait for membership to grow naturally whilst those kindly councils and employers just keep on getting more and more cycle-friendly.
Whilst it may be disingeneous of the AA to claim to represent the views of millions of motorists, it doesn't stop them doing just that. Very effectively. By virtue of their millions of members they generate enough money to make them a powerful voice.
Take the case of Ashley Carpenter, the 'vengeful cyclist' who earlier this year slashed 500 car tryes because he was sick of having his life treated with such comtempt by motorists. The media had a field day and the AA were crawling all over the story offering opinions as to what to do with wayward cyclists. Where were the cycling organisations spokespersons? -nowhere; even though most, if not ALL cyclists, could easily empathise with Mr Carpenter. Where was the voice speaking up for the cyclists whose lives are threatened every day by dangerous motorists? -there wasn't one because nobody is particularly interested in hearing the comments of an organisation that only represents 70,000 people other than 70,000 cyclists.
Who cares if the CTC claimed to be representing millions when they were only actually speaking up for thousands. It doesn't matter, Jon. What we need is a much more powerful voice -and waiting for all those motorists to see the light and dump cars for bikes isn't going to happen in our lifetime if we just wait for membership to grow naturally whilst those kindly councils and employers just keep on getting more and more cycle-friendly.
-
Jon
Re:Compulsory insurance for ALL cyclists
Nigel,
I agree that getting better conditions for cycling is difficult, but don’t mistake a media furore for campaigning. The AA likes media attention, it helps to sell memberships and make money, which is all they are really interested in.
The fact is that the CTC isn’t going to achieve the levels of membership that the AA or other motoring organisations have because there simply aren’t that many serious cyclists. Compulsory insurance isn’t going to make the less serious cyclist join the CTC. He will either give up/not take up cycling, or get the insurance direct from an insurance company who will be able to sell it more cheaply than the CTC once there is a market. We have a chicken and egg situation here: you wont get mass membership of cycle organisations without masses of cyclists, and you wont get masses of cyclist without better conditions for cycling. I am increasingly coming to think that it’s not campaigning but diminishing oil supplies and rising fuel prices that is going to curtail car addiction and encourage a move to alternative transport.
In the mean time the CTC campaigns for cycling at a more grass-roots level through such things as its network of Right to Ride representatives who operate at a local and regional level (I’ve just signed up to be the one for Runnymede in Surry, after having sat in on Council’s cycle forum for a while) for which it provides support and technical advice. It is also involved with other organisations with similar interests as part of umbrella campaigning groups like the Safer Streets Coalition. I’m not really qualified to comment on the CTC campaigning activities in detail, but take a look at the ‘Get Involved’ section of the campaigning section of the web site, or contact HQ.
I agree that getting better conditions for cycling is difficult, but don’t mistake a media furore for campaigning. The AA likes media attention, it helps to sell memberships and make money, which is all they are really interested in.
The fact is that the CTC isn’t going to achieve the levels of membership that the AA or other motoring organisations have because there simply aren’t that many serious cyclists. Compulsory insurance isn’t going to make the less serious cyclist join the CTC. He will either give up/not take up cycling, or get the insurance direct from an insurance company who will be able to sell it more cheaply than the CTC once there is a market. We have a chicken and egg situation here: you wont get mass membership of cycle organisations without masses of cyclists, and you wont get masses of cyclist without better conditions for cycling. I am increasingly coming to think that it’s not campaigning but diminishing oil supplies and rising fuel prices that is going to curtail car addiction and encourage a move to alternative transport.
In the mean time the CTC campaigns for cycling at a more grass-roots level through such things as its network of Right to Ride representatives who operate at a local and regional level (I’ve just signed up to be the one for Runnymede in Surry, after having sat in on Council’s cycle forum for a while) for which it provides support and technical advice. It is also involved with other organisations with similar interests as part of umbrella campaigning groups like the Safer Streets Coalition. I’m not really qualified to comment on the CTC campaigning activities in detail, but take a look at the ‘Get Involved’ section of the campaigning section of the web site, or contact HQ.
-
nigel
Re:Compulsory insurance for ALL cyclists
Jon, I've often thought about getting involved with the 'right to ride' stuff but I'm not the best communicator in the world and the last thing the CTC needs is another ranting and raving nutter on a bike (I can get quite het up sometimes!). I hope this doesn't sound like a cop-out; I regularly challenge MP's and newspapers by letter.
As regards nothing changing until the oil runs out, I suspect you may have a longer wait than that. People will still be driving cars fast and badly even then; it's just that the fuel will be from a different source. I think it's important to realise that safer roads have nothing whatsoever to do with green issues and pollution. I often think that even if EVERYONE suddenly started riding bikes today we'd still have lots of problems and aggression because the same idiots would just be using a different mode of transport.
regards,
Nigel
As regards nothing changing until the oil runs out, I suspect you may have a longer wait than that. People will still be driving cars fast and badly even then; it's just that the fuel will be from a different source. I think it's important to realise that safer roads have nothing whatsoever to do with green issues and pollution. I often think that even if EVERYONE suddenly started riding bikes today we'd still have lots of problems and aggression because the same idiots would just be using a different mode of transport.
regards,
Nigel
-
mike6
Re:Compulsory insurance for ALL cyclists
Nigel, you say "cyclists use the roads for free".
I am certainly paying my share, but if you can tell us how to evade council tax without the weight of law coming down upon our ears, please share the good news.
I am certainly paying my share, but if you can tell us how to evade council tax without the weight of law coming down upon our ears, please share the good news.
-
nigel
Re:Compulsory insurance for ALL cyclists
Mikey, I didn't say "cyclists use the roads for free" at all. Stop trying to wind me up and stick to the subject.
-
james
Re:Compulsory insurance for ALL cyclists
actually you did but it doesn't look like you meant to
best wishes
james
best wishes
james
-
nigel
Re:Compulsory insurance for ALL cyclists
No, no, no, guys. A misunderstanding seems to have arisen because I was pre-empting a typical response by cyclists that I have heard in the past, by saying (in brackets) "yes, I know it's because we have a right to be there, but..."
This isn't ME saying this... erm... I've re-read it and confess it IS confusing but that's only because you're not me!
Now... about that war in Iraq...
This isn't ME saying this... erm... I've re-read it and confess it IS confusing but that's only because you're not me!
Now... about that war in Iraq...
-
Karen Sutton
Re:Compulsory insurance for ALL cyclists
How on earth could compulsory insurance for cyclists be enforced when so many motorised vehicles are driven without insurance? (and their insurance is far more important in my view)