4 ms·

Start with mandatory insurance and bike registration. But I guess that's an 'unpopular' idea within cycling community.

by korzun 12y ago

hack_edu 12y ago
OK, now tell us how to police it. "Just do it" doesn't count. And then there's the fact that a large number of cyclists ride because they can't afford a car, let alone the insurance. How do millions of American's get around if you take their bike away, their only means of individual transportation?
- dllthomas 12y ago
  Insurance on a bike would presumably be quite significantly cheaper than that on a car.
- korzun 12y ago
  Same way DMV deals with mopeds. > they can't afford a car, let alone the insurance I assume they can afford medical bills after an incident? Or they can afford to pay for damage to vehicles? I had my brand new paint taken off across 2 panels because a cyclist tried to squeeze in between me and another car at a stop light and lost his balance. Then he casually cycled away. $2500 in damages. But good for him, he is 'too poor' to get insurance. Insurance for cyclist would be significantly cheaper than auto and motorcycle owners. Without it you are a financial disaster waiting to happen.
  - hack_edu 12y ago
    So the police and state must suddenly take on this effort? At what cost? Where do the police resources come from? Even then, what if the cyclist still can't afford it? They have to walk? Do they need insurance if they are late and have to run, maybe jay-walk a couple times? A working bicycle can be found for under $50 in even the most expensive cities, have $0 in operating costs, and will last for decades. There are likely no other personal transportation options which offer that. Get out of our bubble. Some people have $0 and literally can't afford anything in their budget or to plan more than a few weeks ahead... They can't account for unknown events, and frankly don't need to worry about going bankrupt because of an accident. Poverty is fucked up.
    - korzun 12y ago
      > Some people have $0 and literally can't afford anything Did you just find that out? Congratulations. Most of cyclists in NYC are probably making more than you. Save your tears. If you really cared and understood the dynamics of the 'poor' you would realize that stuff like this is there to protect them. Rich person can afford the expense of two broken legs. Poor person? Not so much.
      - hack_edu 12y ago
        You sincerely think that most cyclists in NYC make more than even the average HN reader? You must tip really well! ;) Stay in that bubble, and tell me more about the rich and entitled bicyclists that slow down your Uber.
mbillie1 12y ago
How does that help, other than economically discouraging cycling?
- korzun 12y ago
  > economically discouraging cycling If $10/month puts you off biking then you should not bike in highly populated areas. Period. This is classic case of poor financial planning. You don't need $10/month insurance? Too expensive right? Take a chance, then get injured and get hit with a $10,000 medical invoice. Good job saving $120/year, you showed them.
gohrt 12y ago
What problem does your solution solve?
- chrisbennet 12y ago
  It solves nothing. He's just hating on bikers.
- benjohnson 12y ago
  Bicycle licenses could come with mandatory training and licenses could be revoked for poor behavior. Licenses could be tied to mandatory insurance - to limit the exposure for government assistance programs.
  - soneil 12y ago
    So the solution is to revoke cyclists licences for poor behaviour, but not do the same to car drivers who commit vehicular manslaughter?
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      Vehicular manslaughter -- which most fatal accidents are not -- is a criminal offense which, when proven, results in a lot more than losing your license.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - korzun 12y ago
      Is that the only thing you are getting out of the discussion?
sirseal 12y ago
And then let's add some taxes to make this proposal even worse!
gordjw 12y ago
That seems like treating the symptom, not the problem. How will insurance or registration stop cyclists from getting hit by cars? It hasn't stopped cars from hitting each other.
- korzun 12y ago
  Because now you will be going via insurance process where drivers rates will be reviewed and adjusted. Hitting an insured 'bike' now introduces an actual process where parties at fault will end up paying. It's not going to be 'Oh I'm fully insured, registered and have a license. Who is this cyclist again?'.
  - soneil 12y ago
    The article's base premise of treating death by dangerous driving as an actual crime, would also fit the bill.
7952 12y ago
I have 3rd party cycle insurance and it costs about £20 per year. Bikes are orders of magnitude more safe to others than cars which is why mandatory insurance is such a silly pointless idea. Should pedestrians have insurance just in case they scratch a cars hood when they get hit?
- korzun 12y ago
  > Bikes are orders of magnitude more safe to others than cars which is why mandatory insurance is such a silly pointless idea. This makes no sense. This like saying that you don't need car insurance because you drive a small vehicle. Insurance is there to protect you, not just other vehicles.
  - aidenn0 12y ago
    Mandatory insurance is there to protect other vehicles. It's to ensure that the person at fault is financially capable of covering the costs of the damage they cause.
    - korzun 12y ago
      Okay.
ajtaylor 12y ago
And just what would be the point of bike insurance cover? Car insurance is primarily for property damage and/or medical issues. When's the last time you saw a bike cause serious property damage? And it's obvious that short of a cyclist hitting a pedestrian (rare but it happens) it's the cyclist that's going to need the medical attention - not the car driver. It's an unpopular idea because it makes no sense. It's needless paperwork, expense and bureaucracy for no real world benefit.
- korzun 12y ago
  Points were already mentioned else where so I will not iterate over them again. Last time? When the cyclist took off most of my paint with his handle bars and pedals trying to squeeze in. $2500 in body work out of my pocket. Insurance is not only there to protect other people, it's also there to protect you. That needless paperwork you speak off is exactly why it works.
  - ajtaylor 12y ago
    Is your insurance deductible $2500? If you had full insurance, as I assume you would from your comment, why not claim it? After all, it's there to protect you too. You can substitute cyclist for uninsured driver and the situation would be the same. Registration is the bulk of the "needless paperwork" I was referring to. Cyclists get that hurled at them pretty frequently (just this weekend to be exact), with the idea that rego fees cover road costs. And of course it's simply not true over most of the world. The bulk of money for roads comes from non-registration related sources.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

Start with mandatory insurance and bike registration. But I guess that's an 'unpopular' idea within cycling community.

by korzun 12y ago

Start with mandatory insurance and bike registration. But I guess that's an 'unpopular' idea within cycling community.

OK, now tell us how to police it. "Just do it" doesn't count. And then there's the fact that a large number of cyclists ride because they can't afford a car, let alone the insurance. How do millions of American's get around if you take their bike away, their only means of individual transportation?

dllthomas 12y ago
Insurance on a bike would presumably be quite significantly cheaper than that on a car.
korzun 12y ago
Same way DMV deals with mopeds. > they can't afford a car, let alone the insurance I assume they can afford medical bills after an incident? Or they can afford to pay for damage to vehicles? I had my brand new paint taken off across 2 panels because a cyclist tried to squeeze in between me and another car at a stop light and lost his balance. Then he casually cycled away. $2500 in damages. But good for him, he is 'too poor' to get insurance. Insurance for cyclist would be significantly cheaper than auto and motorcycle owners. Without it you are a financial disaster waiting to happen.
- hack_edu 12y ago
  So the police and state must suddenly take on this effort? At what cost? Where do the police resources come from? Even then, what if the cyclist still can't afford it? They have to walk? Do they need insurance if they are late and have to run, maybe jay-walk a couple times? A working bicycle can be found for under $50 in even the most expensive cities, have $0 in operating costs, and will last for decades. There are likely no other personal transportation options which offer that. Get out of our bubble. Some people have $0 and literally can't afford anything in their budget or to plan more than a few weeks ahead... They can't account for unknown events, and frankly don't need to worry about going bankrupt because of an accident. Poverty is fucked up.
  - korzun 12y ago
    > Some people have $0 and literally can't afford anything Did you just find that out? Congratulations. Most of cyclists in NYC are probably making more than you. Save your tears. If you really cared and understood the dynamics of the 'poor' you would realize that stuff like this is there to protect them. Rich person can afford the expense of two broken legs. Poor person? Not so much.
    - hack_edu 12y ago
      You sincerely think that most cyclists in NYC make more than even the average HN reader? You must tip really well! ;) Stay in that bubble, and tell me more about the rich and entitled bicyclists that slow down your Uber.

mbillie1 12y ago

How does that help, other than economically discouraging cycling?

korzun 12y ago
> economically discouraging cycling If $10/month puts you off biking then you should not bike in highly populated areas. Period. This is classic case of poor financial planning. You don't need $10/month insurance? Too expensive right? Take a chance, then get injured and get hit with a $10,000 medical invoice. Good job saving $120/year, you showed them.

gohrt 12y ago

What problem does your solution solve?

chrisbennet 12y ago
It solves nothing. He's just hating on bikers.
benjohnson 12y ago
Bicycle licenses could come with mandatory training and licenses could be revoked for poor behavior. Licenses could be tied to mandatory insurance - to limit the exposure for government assistance programs.
- soneil 12y ago
  So the solution is to revoke cyclists licences for poor behaviour, but not do the same to car drivers who commit vehicular manslaughter?
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    Vehicular manslaughter -- which most fatal accidents are not -- is a criminal offense which, when proven, results in a lot more than losing your license.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - korzun 12y ago
    Is that the only thing you are getting out of the discussion?

sirseal 12y ago

And then let's add some taxes to make this proposal even worse!

gordjw 12y ago

That seems like treating the symptom, not the problem. How will insurance or registration stop cyclists from getting hit by cars? It hasn't stopped cars from hitting each other.

korzun 12y ago
Because now you will be going via insurance process where drivers rates will be reviewed and adjusted. Hitting an insured 'bike' now introduces an actual process where parties at fault will end up paying. It's not going to be 'Oh I'm fully insured, registered and have a license. Who is this cyclist again?'.
- soneil 12y ago
  The article's base premise of treating death by dangerous driving as an actual crime, would also fit the bill.

7952 12y ago

I have 3rd party cycle insurance and it costs about £20 per year. Bikes are orders of magnitude more safe to others than cars which is why mandatory insurance is such a silly pointless idea. Should pedestrians have insurance just in case they scratch a cars hood when they get hit?

korzun 12y ago
> Bikes are orders of magnitude more safe to others than cars which is why mandatory insurance is such a silly pointless idea. This makes no sense. This like saying that you don't need car insurance because you drive a small vehicle. Insurance is there to protect you, not just other vehicles.
- aidenn0 12y ago
  Mandatory insurance is there to protect other vehicles. It's to ensure that the person at fault is financially capable of covering the costs of the damage they cause.
  - korzun 12y ago
    Okay.

ajtaylor 12y ago

And just what would be the point of bike insurance cover? Car insurance is primarily for property damage and/or medical issues. When's the last time you saw a bike cause serious property damage? And it's obvious that short of a cyclist hitting a pedestrian (rare but it happens) it's the cyclist that's going to need the medical attention - not the car driver. It's an unpopular idea because it makes no sense. It's needless paperwork, expense and bureaucracy for no real world benefit.

korzun 12y ago
Points were already mentioned else where so I will not iterate over them again. Last time? When the cyclist took off most of my paint with his handle bars and pedals trying to squeeze in. $2500 in body work out of my pocket. Insurance is not only there to protect other people, it's also there to protect you. That needless paperwork you speak off is exactly why it works.
- ajtaylor 12y ago
  Is your insurance deductible $2500? If you had full insurance, as I assume you would from your comment, why not claim it? After all, it's there to protect you too. You can substitute cyclist for uninsured driver and the situation would be the same. Registration is the bulk of the "needless paperwork" I was referring to. Cyclists get that hurled at them pretty frequently (just this weekend to be exact), with the idea that rego fees cover road costs. And of course it's simply not true over most of the world. The bulk of money for roads comes from non-registration related sources.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]