A proposal from Cycling England suggesting that in an accident the more powerful form of vehicle has the assumption of blame. So, roughly speaking
Lorry > Van > Car > Motorbike > Bike > Pedestrian
As it's come from the chap at Cycling England, that's who is catching the brunt load of the backlash...
Comments
I obviously belong in the lower order of the food chain, and I'm on a number of cycling mailing lists after having taken it up seriously this year. I've not encountered "lycra louts", which I believe are more prevalent in London (most of the commuters I have seen are either on a mountain bike, and struggling, or are 40+ people on road bikes sensibly tapping out a pace on the road).
I personally don't jump lights, or filter dangerously on a bike...I'm simply not on the right machine, and after a few years on a motorbike I'm well aware of just how much it's going to hurt if a car wings me (not to mention the repair bill). I don't cycle on pavements (apart from the odd queue jump) as I'm quite simply going far too quickly, even for cycle lanes really. I've seen a couple of people push their luck on pavements, which I don't really approve of, if for no other reason than most of them in Reading are in a worse state than the road, and definitely not decent cycling terrain.
I think a lot of the problem is that cyclists don't really have insurance (most bikes are chained to Home Insurance, and are covered for theft/damage only, no 3rd party liability), and to all intents and purposes are un-traceable (and according to Johnathan Gabriels Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory: Anonimity + Audience = Total Fuckwad). Trying to register bikes would be utterly futile, and completely against the aims of the government to promote it as a form of transport. The best solution I can see is separation of traffic and bikes, backed up with stricter enforcement of basic road sense for cyclists (e.g. don't jump lights, or undertake). I'm not against fixed fines, though that puts the onus on the police enforcing the law...
Just after having wrote that, I watched some bloke very slowly cycle the wrong way down Oxford Road, squeezing past cars coming the other way :-(
Cyclists in London do behave like retards presumably because there is no accountability for their actions. The threat on over a ton on metal slamming into them at high speed obviously doesn't do it. I think rural cyclists do generally behave better but that maybe because there is less for them to do wrong. Car drivers are penalised and vilified for any accident involving a cyclist regardless of fault and this does little for the popularity of cyclists.
I believe they have a system in Holland that everyone is required to carry a personal public liability insurance. This means the damaged cause by cyclists is covered by the cyclist's insurance if the fault lies with them. This probably makes them more mindful of traffic law as it will cost them financially to be in the wrong.
While I still cycled into Reading, half of the cyclists looked like commuters and were pretty sensible. The other half were dangerous cunts: wobbling all over the road, riding through red lights, filtering like suicidals, riding up behind buses with no stopping distance, riding across ped crossings while people were using it, changing lanes without looking over their shoulder, pulling out behind parked cars, using their plimsoles to stop because they're going downhill too fast, weaving on and off pavements, stopping in the middle of the road (not on the white line, in the middle of the lane) to turn right etc etc. I've seen all that, time and again.
The proportion of fucking idiot motorists is much smaller because there are more of them and if you fuck up, it costs you a lot of money. So, as Fish said.
The problem with pro cyclists is most of the time they only see pro cyclists. They don't see the retarded danger monkey commuters who have no road sense.
Separating is the best way but it's costly. Fines won't work. It barely works for motorists.
Hang on, I've just realised I'm agreeing with Pete again. Damn me.
It's virtually impossible to get bike-specific insurance in the UK. When I got my TT bike I had to add it to my house insurance (for a premium that is more than my motorbike, though I appreciate that most bikes do not cost that much). I would far rather have a specific policy for it (after all, it's worth about as much as the motorbike).
I have no issues with having specific insurance for bikes (and removing it from house insurances), however you still end up with the enforcement issue. Most people won't, you can pick up a bike for so little that for most people they will simply see it as too expensive. The only people who would get it are the ones far less lightly to need it (and hence with the more expensive bikes).
I disagree about the number of car-driving idiots though. I see literally hundreds of people on mobiles, or texting, or reading, or plain and simply not paying attention (I see them them both on the motorbike and bike, typically driving on a white line in between lanes... I had a woman today texting while going along the A4, then suddenly swapping lane as she nearly missed her turn...no indicator, nothing). The police could quite easily pay for themselves by setting someone on the Oracle roundabout with a camera, and pick out everyone driving while on a phone, no seatbelt etc etc. £60 fine each...job done :-D
I did some reading up in this area last night. I have 3rd party cover on my bikes via member ship of CTC (and Cycling England as well). Membership to either is about £35-40 a year, which is not too bad. I did find specific policies for bicycles, however the cheapest I could find was £220 for my 2 bikes (total value of about £3000). Compare that to my motorbike insurance of £90...
(...though to be fully fair, that did include race insurance and "breakdown cover", which equates to them calling a taxi and getting you taken to the nearest bike shop, or home. It's something I'd bear in mind if I were doing long distance cycling un-supported...)
To match Hollands system as Fish mentioned above would involve getting everyone on a bike to join either CTC or Cycling England, and I can't see that happening. It's too easy to pick up a bike for next to nothing.. No-one is going to spend £80 on a bike (which in all probability will dissolve when put in contact with water...), then cheerfully fork out another £40 for insurance, and it would be impossible to force it without some kind of registration system, which would never work.
To be fair I think the Dutch system of having PLI if you're cycling on the roads is vastly more practical than separation... I mean how would you achieve it in Reading?
Reading has a number of issues regarding transport, so separation here in the short term would be impossible. There are too many channels into the town centre that are undersized (Oxford Road, the bridges, Cemetery Junction, University Area).
That said, there are a number of routes that are suitable for most bikes...you have the Kennet and Thames paths, bus lanes on Queens Road, the A4 and Basingstoke Road. In a magical fantasy-land you could add bus lanes to Oxford Road (you could demolish both sides and overall improve the ambience of the place) and add a bike crossing to one of the bridges...you'd end up with a reasonably decent network into and out of town for most cyclists via either the rivers, or the bus lanes...
For the record, I would shoot anyone cycling through the pedestrianised areas...
I think you'll find similar issues in lots of towns across the UK... I think the first step along the road to effective separation would have be a massive reduction in the number of cars on the road. Always a politically popular choice that one.
Not against the idea in principle just seems that in cultural terms alone there is a long, long way to go in order to achieve anything that even vaguely resembles a viable solution.