Should cyclists be under the same laws as car drivers?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by nurse, Sep 18, 2004.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Having just wittnessed an accident in which a young child was knocked down by a cyclist. It set me wondering If it had been a car the driver would have had to produce a licence, insurance, tax, MOT be breathelised and generally given a hard time by police/bystanders. But no cyclist got up got on bike and rode off.
    Though there were no major injuries to the child if the cyclist had been going faster that might not have been the case.
    Should cyclists be required to come up to the same laws as drivers.
  2. Along with rollerblades, skateboards and scooters? So what age do you need to be to ride a bike then? Will they be done for speeding?

    Sounds like a shit idea to me. I can run into someone and hurt them, do i need to be under the same laws?

    Your a real lefty aren't ya?
  3. If the child in question had been mown down by a motorist and left with brain damage or paraplegia (for example), the child (+ parents) could take the driver to court with a view to claim damages in respect of paying for help/ a wheelchair for the rest of his life. This in turn, could be claimed off the driver's insurance (if he had it).

    This doesn't seem to be the case with cyclists. Some do have insurance, but there is no legal compulsion. Therefore, the same kid, hit by a cyclist, may be unable to make a claim and would consequentially suffer.
  4. Don't talk shite - he could still be taken to court and the kid could still claim damages.

    However, if we were to believe your arguement, if a 10 yr old kid hit someone and put them in a wheel chair, 1) could the kid be liable, and 2) would he need insurance?
  5. If the person if uninsured, then they're unlikely to be able to pay out a £1m damages claim. I'd imagine that any money available from the government would be limited. I dunno if a 10 yr old kid would be liable, as they are below 16 or 18 - but does that mean that the parents are liable?

    I can see the direction this discussion is taking ... some lunatic will try and end up banning bicycles because they're dangerous. At the same time, the members of the general public need a way of being compensated for injuries. Don't take this to mean in any way that I am a supporter of the 'sue the pants off your firm' culture that is endemic in GB.
  6. The outcome would be parents not allowing there children to go out of the house in fear of them making themselves 'liable'....

    I have read some stupid threads on ARRSE, but this is fantastically bad and ill thought out. As i said before, if i walk into someone, they fall over and hit there head and get brain damage, i am liable, like the cyclist, to pay £1m? Do we need insurance to walk the streets now?
  7. Oh, and how much will the bike tax and MOT cost? And who will enforce it?
  8. I believe in Switzerland you need a Reg plate for the bike which must be renewed every year. i think this covers licencing / ID / and maybe insurance.

    Cyclists should be outright banned from using public footpaths. And before anyone jumps on me I'm a cyclist myself.
  9. I was under the impression that they were.
  10. In the Netherlands almost everyone has Public Liability insurance to cover just this sort of thing.
  11. As far as I know up until the age of 11 a bike is classed as a toy and can be used on footpaths. However 11 + the bike becomes a vehicle and should be used on the road or designated cycle path.

    If the cyclist in the first post was on the footpath and hit someone then it would be the cyclist at fault. However is the cyclist was on a road/cycle path then the pedestrian should be more aware.
  12. YES and they ARE, but most of them don't think they are.
  13. They are not subject to the same laws in entirety because cars are classified as mechanically propelled vehicles for the purposes of road traffic legislation whereas pedal cycles (that are not fitted with a mechanical or electrical propelled engine) are not classified as such.

    However, there will be a remedy in negligence which applies to all users of the road - I will not bore you with the details, but it would fit the scenario as you have described previously.

    To answer your question cyclists should not be under the same laws as car drivers, to do so would lead to massive restrictions, beauracracy, and increased time, effort and energy in the civil courts, mainly because small children (arguably the most significant users of pedal cycles) are below the criminal age of responsibility.

    The potential economic cost in lowering that age would be disproportionate in financial terms to the amount of money that will be continued to be paid out to cover the future accidents, such as you have described.
  14. When fox hunting is banned open season should be called on cyclists :twisted: Any one who wears skin tight lycra ,wrap round shades ,lumpy helmet ,and a bum bag with water bottles,disregards traffic lights/signes ,rides on pavements ,goes the wrong way down one way streets ,has no lights ,dodgy brakes and bald tyres,has no insurence road tax ,mot ,or licence ,rides in the middle of the fecking road ,and has the nerve to try and pass me on the inside when im turning left in my 44ton merc,deserves to be hunted down by dogs :twisted:

    Spank the monkey...... would you be a cyclist by any chance :wink:

  15. Gents i have read the first post and i will give my answer.
    Too F-ing true they should.
    It's not a UK problem it's a world wide problem.
    Put someone on a push bike and and their entire attitude changes.
    they belive they have a buhhda given right to go their own way and that all other road uses must give way. It's on par with steam gives way to sail.
    My elder brother 60+ just ceases to be a normal sensible road user when he gets on his bike and reverts to a pig ignorant thug.