Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 3: Do not post opinions that are heavily posted/have been on the front page recently'.
* No response posts about upvoted posts here.
* Posts relating to highly popular topics aren't allowed outside of the relevant megathreads. You can find a list of the topics and their respective megathreads in a post on the top of the sub.
* POSTS DIRECTLY ABOUT THIS SUBREDDIT ARE NOT ALLOWED OUTSIDE THE MEGATHREAD
* Please check the wiki linked here: https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/wiki/index/
* We ask that if a post fails to post do not just spam repost it; message mod mail.
Practically every attempt at implementing cycling licensing or any other sort of responsibility regulation has come to the conclusion that the miniscule damage and cost cyclists cause, let alone with evasion, is not even worth the bureaucratic effort. Bicyclists cause society less damage than it costs to print them a license plate. As a matter of fact society is better off the less people there are in cars and the more people there are on bicycles. Carbrains hate to hear it.
They still have the follow the law. There is no upfront licensing or insurance because it's less likely they will cause damage to others. Though, not impossible
But they definitely can get tickets and have their bike taken as evidence in some cases if they break rules.
Thing is [New Jersey](https://www.mensjournal.com/pursuits/cycling/nj-proposes-registration-and-25k-insurance-coverage-for-e-bikes-insurance-sector-pushes-back) is trying to do this for Ebike owners to make them carry at minimum Liability insurance however Insures are lobbying against it because at best they can only really charge $1-2 a month which would not cover the transaction and filing fees. My quote for insurance (simple bike insurance on my Ebike is 19$ for theft, 1.50 for liability, $3 for medical and $2 for for contact (at a $500 deducible). And they won't insure unless I carry theft protection. NJ law would require them to take a loss leader that they can't price gouge on.
Also consider that [60% of all bicycle reported accidents are single party incidents](https://www.bicyclelaw.com/nolo-bike-accidents-collisions-with-cars-at-intersections/#:~:text=involve%20only%20the%20cyclist%2C%20who%20loses%20control%20of%20the%20bike%20and%20crashes) (meaning no one else had a monetary loss except the cyclist).
What you are asking here would have to be 100% country wide subsidized insurance as there is no reasonable price that that would cover a cyclist without a flood insurance like federal subsidy.
You need a license now to ride a bicycle?
How many people are killed each year by guys on bicycles? Pedestrians are much more likely to die then people in cars by bikes.
If a crash is caused by a bicyclist and he/her drives away, how is the license or insurance going to change the outcome? Lmao 😂
Well, given that the point is to punish cyclists and make it harder to cycle, not to actually have a meaningful result, there's really no point in applying logic to the notion.
It’s more like when I wanna make a right turn on a green and some bicyclist decides he’s more important tries to squeeze in during the middle of my turn. Stuff like that. Just kinda weird decisions on challenging cars and I don’t exactly feel like accidentally killing a lad.
Edit so like I meant red light , I realize makes no sense if it’s on a green cuz obviously why would you even be there. My bad
>I don’t exactly feel like accidentally killing a lad
Well maybe don't take their right of way then. Just because you have a shiny green light doesn't mean you get to go before everyone else.
Do you not have insurance for accidents in your country? I mean this doesn't need to be for cycling only. You can cause or be a victim of an accident anywhere in life. In germany you need to have haftpflichtversicherung/liability insurance by law. That mean you are covered in any kind of situation. Costs next to nothing aswell.
I initially read this as: "..a $1000 used bill.." as in they couldn't even give you a new bill.
The wheel is turnin' but I think my hamster died some time ago, I'll see myself out
Oh yes you are right. Sorry I misinformed people. Private Haftplficht is what I meant. It's not mandatory but very common. I think it's also more sensible than a specialized mandatory cycling insurance. Just adds another barrier to a generally beneficial thing that you would want people to partake in.
Bicycles are not causing accidents lol. At least not enough to matter.
An accident involving a bicycle isn't having the cyclist just riding away, they're probably going to have to be scraped off the pavement and given a closed casket funeral.
I doubt insurance will help much. You'd be better off screaming at their corpse to pay for the small dent they caused.
Exactly! The whole point of a driver’s license is that the driver is operating a 2 ton machine at high speeds and unsafe behavior will cause the driver to kill others.
We don’t require pedestrians to have ‘Walking Licenses’ because they are not the ones causing danger by operating an up to 500lb body at 2-5mph.
It’s a battle of not having proper bike infrastructure where you live. Bicycles don’t destroy the roadways and don’t pollute, cyclists aren’t driving 2 ton weapons
So, I'm sure you are also lobbying for better bike and pedestrian infrastructure that would lead to less accidents, right? Because the responsible thing would be to protect bicycles from cars, right? Everywhere we should have infrastructure as in the Netherlands and in Copenhagen, right? And you want car drivers to be accountable by default in case of an accidents as in the Netherlands and have them to proof that they are innocent, right? And you want to forbid cars, that are not safe for other road users, right?
Because these are responsible things to do. Or maybe you are just a dude driving a car and ignoring all scientific studies about cars, bikes and road safety and building his opinion based on Facebook posts of car fanatic boomers and not really interrested in responsible actions.
Your opinion is unfortunately not super unpopular. It's just based on populism.
Even just a 2 hour course on road safety and hand signals.
But I’d say the same for joggers… I see people wearing black at night running with traffic on roads with no side walk… like zero common sense.
At least run against traffic so you can see the cars coming towards you and gives you a chance to get out of the way if a vehicle is close to you.
Drivers barely know the rules of the road for themselves, let alone for cyclists. Just two days ago I was cycling and stopped at a red light before turning left as I am legally supposed to be and the driver behind me started honking at me and yelling at me to get out of the way so they could make a right turn. Stuff like this is a weekly occurrence.
I cycle to work daily. Honestly I’d be fine with this as long as the costs of licensing, registration, and insurance reflect the actual potential damage of cycling, meaning it should cost next to nothing.
And then have the costs associated with car ownership actually reflect their damage to property and environment in the form of much higher insurance, registration, and gas prices.
I've never owned a car, but pay property taxes. I'd be happy to pay for licensing if it means I don't have to pay for street maintenance in the community, because it's not me damaging the streets.
It would put loads of people off taking up cycling. In turn that lack of critical mass would make things less safe for cyclists and encourage people like OP who think bikes don't belong on the road.
The point of insurance is pooled risk. Cars can do a lot of expensive damage and are expensive to repair/replace. That’s why drivers get insurance to spread that risk among all drivers. Drivers who don’t get into accidents essentially subsidize the damage costs for those that do.
Cyclists don’t factor cleanly into an insurance model because the potential damage that cyclists can cause is much smaller compared to cars. So, a comparable insurance rate for bikes would probably end up being absurdly low to the point that it’s not even worth pursuing.
Absolutely, and just like your car/truck the fees should be based on the likelihood of the user to need said insurance. Also all road users should be charged a fee based on how much damage their vehicle does to the surface.
And we city planners would point the finger right back at the general public, who come out in droves to oppose cycling infrastructure at every turn and come unglued at the measley amount of funding that cycling infrastructure gets.
That is simply untrue. Cyclists are much more likely to follow the law since otherwise they uhm die.
Studies have shown that if cyclists break the law they do it in the majority of cases to be safer (riding on the pavement), car drivers break the law to save time (speeding/parking where they shouldn't)
They break the rules at about the same rate as drivers. It just gets noticed more because you see them less often. That's usually just talking about signs and what not because drivers tend to break the rules a lot more when you account for things like speed limits.
There are bike paths all over my city but that has not helped the majority of cyclists to understand how one way streets, stop signs, or sidewalks work.
I’d love to see them required to be licensed.
>There are bike paths all over my city but that has not helped the majority of cyclists to understand how one way streets, stop signs, or sidewalks work.
most of them understand them better than you.
Cycling on a one way street poses no additional danger to anyone.
Stopping at a mandatory stop is incredibly dangerous for a cyclist... because a car will run them over.
And sidewalks are pretty much the only place a cyclist can be reasonably safe... from cars.
So no different then drivers than. I see drivers going down one way streets all the time cause it’s too inconvenient to go the other way, running stop signs all the time cause they aren’t paying attention, and blocking sidewalks cause there large cars are too large for their driveways
They don't. If I run into your car and scratch it, then I'm liable for paying to fix your car.
The likelihood of me causing a level of damage that I can't afford to pay for on my bike is much lower than when I'm in my car. Like if I'm biking and lose control running into a building, I probably won't do any damage but if the same happens when driving, then I'll likely cause $10s or $100s of thousand worth of damage.
Im from the cycling nation of the world and support cyclist having to have insurance, our infrastructure is really good, that doesnt exclude asshole from assholing nor from accident with other cyclist happening etc
Cyclist should be held accountable for accidents/damage they cause
Extra so for electric bicycles
No, we're holding cyclists accountable for accidents they cause. IN THIS CONVERSATION.
Improving the infrastructure for cyclists is a good thing and many locales are working on it. And there should be more.
Stop dodging the issue at hand and excusing reckless inconsiderate people on bicycles.
There are three reasons for auto insurance:
1) if your car is damaged and it’s not your fault, their insurance pays for it.
2) if you cause damage to someone else, your insurance pays for it
3) if there’s no discernible fault but your car is damaged, your insurance pays for it.
There basically no chance of a bicycle causing damage to anyone else. So why would they need insurance?
Should pedestrians have insurance too? Anyone who approaches the road in any capacity? Kids too? You never know, little Timmy might pull out on his trike in front of you, better make sure he has Geico...
Because licence and insurance has totally stopped cars killing tens of thousands every year. Let's focus on the road users who cause next to no damage and don't kill people.
>Because licence and insurance has totally stopped cars killing tens of thousands every year.
No one is saying that. The point of insurance is not to prevent accidents, is to protect each side when it happens.
Well you'll be glad to know that bicycles account for less than 3% of car accidents in spite of your anecdotes, so at least you'll know your fear and disgust are largely misplaced.
Up voted for genuinely unpopular opinion.
Just going to say that you mention cyclists not respecting their designated route.
From a UK perspective there are cycle lanes. Most are death traps and should be avoided. Cyclists have every right to be on the roads and that's exactly where I ride. Fuck those lanes. I have never been hit on the road. Been clipped in the lane more than once
I'm having a hard time visualising an accident involving a cyclist who just "continues their way... like nothing happened." Do you mean a driver was being unsafe and had to do a last second manoeuvre to avoid hitting a cyclist? Because that's probably what is going on. I've never seen a cyclist put themself in front of a car. I've only seen them assert their legal rights and be harrassed and threatened by drivers.
In rural areas there's typically no sidewalk. If you go for a walk, you're doing it on the shoulder (if you're lucky enough to actually get a shoulder).
But cars drive through them and people cross against the light. You can't really say pedestrians don't share the same street as cars when there's a not insignificant portion of the road that is intended for both pedestrian and vehicle use.
That’s not failing to respect a designated route. That’s making a u-turn without looking. Bike lane or not, “designated route” has nothing to do with it.
You said you’d witnessed “a couple” of vehicle crashes caused by bikes. Are they all from the illegal u turn?1
How would insurance help? If a car driver had done the same thing his insurance probably wouldn’t pay for the other car if the two vehicles never actually collided. Mandatory insurance hasn’t stopped drivers from colliding into each other.
Compulsory insurance for drivers exists because drivers routinely cause damage beyond their ability to pay. Cyclists don’t damage property nearly as frequently as drivers. Also, don’t confuse insurance with liability. People can still be financially liable even if not insured, and compulsory insurance doesn’t prevent the 2700 drivers that kill someone and drive off annually.
>That’s not failing to respect a designated route.
What do you mean its not? He got out of the bike lane and into the street to make a u turn!
Outside of the designated bike route.
The existence of the bike lane does not preclude the cyclist making a left turn or a U turn. The cyclist’s problem was failing to check before making the turn. Cyclists are allowed to leave the bike lane for many reasons, including turns. In many places, use of the bike lane isn’t mandatory in the first place.
Can you describe the other crashes? You said there were more.
What difference would it make? I see irresponsible drivers on a daily basis. Bikers too. They can both be licensed and insured, neither one will look up from their phone.
If there was nothing beyond the presence of the cyclist then it pretty much is your fault. That reminds me of a similar case in Australia, where we were supposed to feel sorry for the car driver who messed up an overtake. It was on the car driver for messaging up the overtake. I would bet that OP was the same.
Yes you have to be very careful especially going around corners because bikers try to squeeze in. We always give way to cyclists so we don't accidentally hit them when they're being stupid. It's because the margin of error for cyclists is serious injury while for cars its a scratch.
Often yes. Many also cover you even if you're just walking. I was hit by a drunk driver while walking along the sidewalk when I was younger and it was my dad's auto insurance that covered everything.
Yeah. If there's a motor vehicle involved (even if you're on a bike and hit a car.)
I'm currently fighting with my health insurance over a mountain bike crash that involved me and the ground and $80k in hospital bills. Hospital submitted it as "bicyclist hit stationary object." Health insurance goes, "That sounds like a potential motor vehicle accident. Therefore you need to go through your car insurance first."
I actually don't know. I'm fairly certain that eventually health insurance will cover everything other than my $5k out of pocket max. It just involves me doing a lot of calling different numbers, tracking down magic forms that always seem to disappear somehow since I've gotten multiple letters saying I have X days to return the attached questionnaire while there is no questionnaire attached, driving to the library to use the only fax machine in my town so I can fax the forms in, and then calling hospital billing and begging them to put a hold on the bills until my insurance reprocesses it.
And I supposedly have decent insurance, lol.
I believe more often than not, the at fault cyclist would be covered under their personal liability under their home or rental insurance and their injury would be covered under their medical insurance. I have yet to read an auto policy that covers bicycles.
That still only covers you if the driver was the one at fault. UM covers you if the other driver was at fault and was underinsured or uninsured, just like if they were insured you would be covered under their liability. If you were at fault you would still have no liability if your homeowners or renters insurance doesn't have it, and you would still be responsible for all of your deductible and OOP max of your health insurance.
To drive a motorcycle on the road you need a separate endorsement on your license.
Every vehicle you own requires separate insurance policies.
How is that double dipping?
The person in control of the giant metal box should be more aware of the vulnerable road users around them. If you're driving a car it's your fault if you hit a cyclist.
*This is an absurd take.*
Cars are deadly and can cause grave injury to others. Bikes are not and do not. **That's how licensing works.**
It is the responsibility of the party operating the dangerous equipment to become licensed, not the rest of society to be licensed to be around the dangerous equipment! If anything, drivers licenses should be much harder to get.
/end thread.
Sorry my bones don't heal fast enough for you to wedge in getting that starbucks latte and being nearly late for work.
Imagine the people downvoting like broken bones are just an inconvenience for them.
Lots of disagreements and agreements, but this is the first comment that's actually idiotic in the entire thread. Congrats!
Last I heard, 6-year-old don't drive their bikes on main roads. Dogs?
With your reasoning, I'm pretty sure you definitely need to get some...
Six yr olds absolutely ride bikes on streets. Dogs get loose and get hit by cars every day. If I’m driving my car and I hit a loose dog, is he insured? How do I make him pay?
Dogs don't drive bicycles.
This post is about cyclist and insurance.
Here is some content more suited for you... enjoy
[Sesame Street | Preschool Games, Videos, & Coloring Pages to Help Kids Grow Smarter, Stronger & Kinder](https://www.sesamestreet.org/)
By the way, those are NOT real people.
Oh, I see. You just want to single out cyclists. But I see pedestrians walking along the main road all the time and I know they’re not insured. One of them could jump in front of my truck at any moment and cause a crash that would kill dozens of people. Dogs and children are also free from any responsibility. They need to be insured if they want to exist in society. It’s only fair. Because I pay insurance on my mode of transportation, everyone should pay.
And once we figure out a plan to make the dogs pay, we’ll be able to set up a program to make deer and other wild animals responsible for the carnage they cause on the roadways.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bicycle specific insurance is much more common for theft protection (which is the majority of the cost), but often include a small part for general liability.
However, the majority of cyclists have general liability coverage from their home or rental insurance, and sometimes by their auto insurance.
Seeing a lot of comments from people that have bled over from FuckCars. They can get insane sometimes, anything car = bad and pedestrians and cyclists can do no wrong.
Cyclists can do wrong, but it's quite possible to bicycle and harm nobody. Whereas if you drive in any remotely busy area, you're harming a lot of people and there's really no way to avoid it. You're creating a demand for parking spaces, which makes walking more annoying and less convenient. You're creating risk for everyone else, because you're traveling much faster and in a heavier, more dangerous vehicle. You're creating carbon pollution (unlesss you're driving an EV powered entirely by renewables \[you're not\]). And, of course, you're even making life worse for other drivers, by creating traffic congestion.
Basically, it's kind of rude to carry a 5,000-pound cage around so you can travel at 40mph with air conditioning, and there's really no way to avoid that fact. Sometimes you gotta do it--not all trips are possible without driving--but you really should strive to minimize it as much as possible, and we should build our towns so that people can mostly avoid driving in their day-to-day life.
Well ya gotta start with mopeds and golf carts first…
I’m small enough towns I’ve seen people take their golf cart to the gas station, or their side-by-side. Neither ever having plates.
I see it all the time.
In fairness, 90% of bike riders are good and follow the rules.
The other 10% give all riders a bad name.
They ignore stop signs and red lights, race past pedestrians, scream at drivers etc.
I don’t know how to break it to you, but in North America, virtually all adult cyclists also have drivers’ licenses. They’re not some strange race or religious group that lives entirely apart from your culture and technology.
This is just an anecdote, but near where I live a cyclist (who was using headphones and texting while cycling relatively fast) invaded the sidewalk and seriously injured an old lady(broken bones and stuff) it was all on camera but they never found out who the guy was. At least with a car its easier to track down because license plates and car models and stuff.
So I kinda agree in that there should be a little bit more regulation. Personally I have seen some pretty deplorable behaviour from cyclists and people in motorcycles that is usually justified with "its just a bike, what harm can it do?" stuff from invading the sidewalk, going at excessive speeds with headphones on, no tail lights or reflective stuff when its dark, zero regard for animals and people to them just being where they shouldn´t be(cycling in high speed roads, cutting through areas under construction, grabbing onto vehicles at high speeds etc..)
Tbh in my experience people on bikes tend to be much less respectful towards pedestrians than cars. An 80 kg dude going at 20 km/h can seriously hurt himself or others and (again, in my experience) they tend to engage in a lot of unsafe activities like having their bike overloaded or having headphones/doing calls/being distracted.
As a cyclist myself, they also need to get the fuck off pavements (or sidewalks for you Americans). The amount of times a cyclist flies past me, practically brushing me on the way past. Pedestrians are unpredictable and could easily move at the last moment, largely because they don’t expect a bike to fly past them at 20mph (or more if it’s an electric bike).
Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 3: Do not post opinions that are heavily posted/have been on the front page recently'. * No response posts about upvoted posts here. * Posts relating to highly popular topics aren't allowed outside of the relevant megathreads. You can find a list of the topics and their respective megathreads in a post on the top of the sub. * POSTS DIRECTLY ABOUT THIS SUBREDDIT ARE NOT ALLOWED OUTSIDE THE MEGATHREAD * Please check the wiki linked here: https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/wiki/index/ * We ask that if a post fails to post do not just spam repost it; message mod mail.
You need a license to operate different kinds of heavy machinery. Because heavy machinery is dangerous. A bike weighs 30 lbs.
Practically every attempt at implementing cycling licensing or any other sort of responsibility regulation has come to the conclusion that the miniscule damage and cost cyclists cause, let alone with evasion, is not even worth the bureaucratic effort. Bicyclists cause society less damage than it costs to print them a license plate. As a matter of fact society is better off the less people there are in cars and the more people there are on bicycles. Carbrains hate to hear it.
They still have the follow the law. There is no upfront licensing or insurance because it's less likely they will cause damage to others. Though, not impossible But they definitely can get tickets and have their bike taken as evidence in some cases if they break rules.
“Have their bike taken as evidence in some cases” He was riding *THIS* when he made the illegal turn!
This is just typical car centric whining.
Thing is [New Jersey](https://www.mensjournal.com/pursuits/cycling/nj-proposes-registration-and-25k-insurance-coverage-for-e-bikes-insurance-sector-pushes-back) is trying to do this for Ebike owners to make them carry at minimum Liability insurance however Insures are lobbying against it because at best they can only really charge $1-2 a month which would not cover the transaction and filing fees. My quote for insurance (simple bike insurance on my Ebike is 19$ for theft, 1.50 for liability, $3 for medical and $2 for for contact (at a $500 deducible). And they won't insure unless I carry theft protection. NJ law would require them to take a loss leader that they can't price gouge on. Also consider that [60% of all bicycle reported accidents are single party incidents](https://www.bicyclelaw.com/nolo-bike-accidents-collisions-with-cars-at-intersections/#:~:text=involve%20only%20the%20cyclist%2C%20who%20loses%20control%20of%20the%20bike%20and%20crashes) (meaning no one else had a monetary loss except the cyclist). What you are asking here would have to be 100% country wide subsidized insurance as there is no reasonable price that that would cover a cyclist without a flood insurance like federal subsidy.
Interesting. I'll take a look...
Why would they need insurance? What damage to property is that bike gonna do
It's so annoying hearing people wanting more beuracery as if the current ones help or even work well for that matter.
You need a license now to ride a bicycle? How many people are killed each year by guys on bicycles? Pedestrians are much more likely to die then people in cars by bikes. If a crash is caused by a bicyclist and he/her drives away, how is the license or insurance going to change the outcome? Lmao 😂
Well, given that the point is to punish cyclists and make it harder to cycle, not to actually have a meaningful result, there's really no point in applying logic to the notion.
It’s more like when I wanna make a right turn on a green and some bicyclist decides he’s more important tries to squeeze in during the middle of my turn. Stuff like that. Just kinda weird decisions on challenging cars and I don’t exactly feel like accidentally killing a lad. Edit so like I meant red light , I realize makes no sense if it’s on a green cuz obviously why would you even be there. My bad
>I don’t exactly feel like accidentally killing a lad Well maybe don't take their right of way then. Just because you have a shiny green light doesn't mean you get to go before everyone else.
Do you not have insurance for accidents in your country? I mean this doesn't need to be for cycling only. You can cause or be a victim of an accident anywhere in life. In germany you need to have haftpflichtversicherung/liability insurance by law. That mean you are covered in any kind of situation. Costs next to nothing aswell.
This is America where you get a $1000 usd bill for stepping into the emergency room
I initially read this as: "..a $1000 used bill.." as in they couldn't even give you a new bill. The wheel is turnin' but I think my hamster died some time ago, I'll see myself out
Well it sure helps if medical bills are not part of the equation.
You get insurance for specifically your car accidents not just accidents
Haftpflicht is only mandatory for the car owner
Oh yes you are right. Sorry I misinformed people. Private Haftplficht is what I meant. It's not mandatory but very common. I think it's also more sensible than a specialized mandatory cycling insurance. Just adds another barrier to a generally beneficial thing that you would want people to partake in.
Maybe they exist but are not mandatory so not many people if ant have them.
It’s America, not a civilized country that cares about its people.
Bicycles are not causing accidents lol. At least not enough to matter. An accident involving a bicycle isn't having the cyclist just riding away, they're probably going to have to be scraped off the pavement and given a closed casket funeral. I doubt insurance will help much. You'd be better off screaming at their corpse to pay for the small dent they caused.
Exactly! The whole point of a driver’s license is that the driver is operating a 2 ton machine at high speeds and unsafe behavior will cause the driver to kill others. We don’t require pedestrians to have ‘Walking Licenses’ because they are not the ones causing danger by operating an up to 500lb body at 2-5mph.
9/10 it's careless vehicle owners who cause them. 1/10 it's just an unavoidable accident where no one is at fault.
And the battle between cars and bicycles continues…
It’s a battle against irresponsibility and accountability. Not cars or cyclists.
It’s a battle of not having proper bike infrastructure where you live. Bicycles don’t destroy the roadways and don’t pollute, cyclists aren’t driving 2 ton weapons
So, I'm sure you are also lobbying for better bike and pedestrian infrastructure that would lead to less accidents, right? Because the responsible thing would be to protect bicycles from cars, right? Everywhere we should have infrastructure as in the Netherlands and in Copenhagen, right? And you want car drivers to be accountable by default in case of an accidents as in the Netherlands and have them to proof that they are innocent, right? And you want to forbid cars, that are not safe for other road users, right? Because these are responsible things to do. Or maybe you are just a dude driving a car and ignoring all scientific studies about cars, bikes and road safety and building his opinion based on Facebook posts of car fanatic boomers and not really interrested in responsible actions. Your opinion is unfortunately not super unpopular. It's just based on populism.
It sounds like you have irresponsibly failed to read the rules of the road and think cyclists aren't allowed to use roads.
Even just a 2 hour course on road safety and hand signals. But I’d say the same for joggers… I see people wearing black at night running with traffic on roads with no side walk… like zero common sense. At least run against traffic so you can see the cars coming towards you and gives you a chance to get out of the way if a vehicle is close to you.
It’s my experience that drivers don’t know what bike signals mean anyway
The “standard” right turn hand signal always confuses drivers. I just point in the direction I’m going.
Drivers barely know the rules of the road for themselves, let alone for cyclists. Just two days ago I was cycling and stopped at a red light before turning left as I am legally supposed to be and the driver behind me started honking at me and yelling at me to get out of the way so they could make a right turn. Stuff like this is a weekly occurrence.
You realise that the driver of the vehicle is responsible for not hitting pedestrians, right?
Exactly there are good ones on both and shitheads on both as well
For whatever reason, the moment you give humans wheels, they become giant turds.
I cycle to work daily. Honestly I’d be fine with this as long as the costs of licensing, registration, and insurance reflect the actual potential damage of cycling, meaning it should cost next to nothing. And then have the costs associated with car ownership actually reflect their damage to property and environment in the form of much higher insurance, registration, and gas prices.
I've never owned a car, but pay property taxes. I'd be happy to pay for licensing if it means I don't have to pay for street maintenance in the community, because it's not me damaging the streets.
It would put loads of people off taking up cycling. In turn that lack of critical mass would make things less safe for cyclists and encourage people like OP who think bikes don't belong on the road.
>people like OP who think bikes don't belong on the road What are you talking about? Who said that? Just making stuff up now?
The point of insurance is pooled risk. Cars can do a lot of expensive damage and are expensive to repair/replace. That’s why drivers get insurance to spread that risk among all drivers. Drivers who don’t get into accidents essentially subsidize the damage costs for those that do. Cyclists don’t factor cleanly into an insurance model because the potential damage that cyclists can cause is much smaller compared to cars. So, a comparable insurance rate for bikes would probably end up being absurdly low to the point that it’s not even worth pursuing.
i have bike insurance and ive been paid loads from it because car drivers are stupid.
Absolutely, and just like your car/truck the fees should be based on the likelihood of the user to need said insurance. Also all road users should be charged a fee based on how much damage their vehicle does to the surface.
Or, or, we could build bike paths. You're blaming cyclists for subpar infrastructure, you should be pointing your arrows at city planners.
And we city planners would point the finger right back at the general public, who come out in droves to oppose cycling infrastructure at every turn and come unglued at the measley amount of funding that cycling infrastructure gets.
Even with bike paths, they have to follow traffic laws. A lot of them don’t. They do what they want.
Let's start delicensing every driver that breaks the speed limit and see how many are left by the end of the week.
That is simply untrue. Cyclists are much more likely to follow the law since otherwise they uhm die. Studies have shown that if cyclists break the law they do it in the majority of cases to be safer (riding on the pavement), car drivers break the law to save time (speeding/parking where they shouldn't)
They break the rules at about the same rate as drivers. It just gets noticed more because you see them less often. That's usually just talking about signs and what not because drivers tend to break the rules a lot more when you account for things like speed limits.
Yep, a big part of the issue.
No, I’m blaming the cyclist for the accident he caused by breaking the rules of the road. As simple as that.
So cyclists riding like assholes get immunity? No excuse for them or drivers who put others at risk.
Apparently. At least reading some of the comments.
Yas. “Immunity.” The cyclist will always get the worst of a crash with a car. This is all the disincentive they need.
Cyclists Arent immune to getting hit by cars, no
There are bike paths all over my city but that has not helped the majority of cyclists to understand how one way streets, stop signs, or sidewalks work. I’d love to see them required to be licensed.
>There are bike paths all over my city but that has not helped the majority of cyclists to understand how one way streets, stop signs, or sidewalks work. most of them understand them better than you. Cycling on a one way street poses no additional danger to anyone. Stopping at a mandatory stop is incredibly dangerous for a cyclist... because a car will run them over. And sidewalks are pretty much the only place a cyclist can be reasonably safe... from cars.
So no different then drivers than. I see drivers going down one way streets all the time cause it’s too inconvenient to go the other way, running stop signs all the time cause they aren’t paying attention, and blocking sidewalks cause there large cars are too large for their driveways
Yes, car drivers and cyclists should be expected to obey traffic laws equally. I fully agree.
Can't expect equal responsibility when cyclists are at such a disadvantage.
Except they shouldn’t, because cyclists can way more easily navigate a road than a car.
so does this mean i can do whatever the hell i like on my motorcycle too or?
I can easily navigate a machete so …
But drivers are required to have insurance. Thats the whole point. How come cyclist get a break when they cause accidents.
They don't. If I run into your car and scratch it, then I'm liable for paying to fix your car. The likelihood of me causing a level of damage that I can't afford to pay for on my bike is much lower than when I'm in my car. Like if I'm biking and lose control running into a building, I probably won't do any damage but if the same happens when driving, then I'll likely cause $10s or $100s of thousand worth of damage.
Because roadways aren’t built for them
Im from the cycling nation of the world and support cyclist having to have insurance, our infrastructure is really good, that doesnt exclude asshole from assholing nor from accident with other cyclist happening etc Cyclist should be held accountable for accidents/damage they cause Extra so for electric bicycles
Exactly!
No, we're holding cyclists accountable for accidents they cause. IN THIS CONVERSATION. Improving the infrastructure for cyclists is a good thing and many locales are working on it. And there should be more. Stop dodging the issue at hand and excusing reckless inconsiderate people on bicycles.
Seriously man? You want to make it Harder for people to do the right thing and ride their bikes? Sheesh.
There are three reasons for auto insurance: 1) if your car is damaged and it’s not your fault, their insurance pays for it. 2) if you cause damage to someone else, your insurance pays for it 3) if there’s no discernible fault but your car is damaged, your insurance pays for it. There basically no chance of a bicycle causing damage to anyone else. So why would they need insurance?
Should pedestrians have insurance too? Anyone who approaches the road in any capacity? Kids too? You never know, little Timmy might pull out on his trike in front of you, better make sure he has Geico...
Because licence and insurance has totally stopped cars killing tens of thousands every year. Let's focus on the road users who cause next to no damage and don't kill people.
>Because licence and insurance has totally stopped cars killing tens of thousands every year. No one is saying that. The point of insurance is not to prevent accidents, is to protect each side when it happens.
The reason cyclists don't need it is because the damage and danger they cause is almost nothing compared to drivers.
How often do cyclists cause damage they’re not able to pay for?
How many people can you kill by cycling poorly? Like pretty much just yourself. A car though? Much different. Stupid argument IMO.
“I have seen multiple accidents caused by bikes” This is a fuckin lie lmao. No you have not
Any intersection with lots of accidents is poorly designed. Blame the highway engineers, not the users.
Yes, I agree there is blame there too.
Well you'll be glad to know that bicycles account for less than 3% of car accidents in spite of your anecdotes, so at least you'll know your fear and disgust are largely misplaced.
They account for less than 3%(US) of traffic though. Not great numbers really
3% is a quarter of a million accidents just in the US per year.
An excellent reason to make our cities more bikeable.
And thats perfectly fine. Got nothing against it. But thats another topic.
Up voted for genuinely unpopular opinion. Just going to say that you mention cyclists not respecting their designated route. From a UK perspective there are cycle lanes. Most are death traps and should be avoided. Cyclists have every right to be on the roads and that's exactly where I ride. Fuck those lanes. I have never been hit on the road. Been clipped in the lane more than once
I'm having a hard time visualising an accident involving a cyclist who just "continues their way... like nothing happened." Do you mean a driver was being unsafe and had to do a last second manoeuvre to avoid hitting a cyclist? Because that's probably what is going on. I've never seen a cyclist put themself in front of a car. I've only seen them assert their legal rights and be harrassed and threatened by drivers.
Cool - screw the poor! ANY form of private transport should only be for those who can afford the running costs.
And pedestrians?
Pedestrians don’t share the same street as cars. At least not where I live. That’s what the sidewalk is for.
Pedestrians do cross streets
In rural areas there's typically no sidewalk. If you go for a walk, you're doing it on the shoulder (if you're lucky enough to actually get a shoulder).
Street crossings?
Street crossings count as pedestrian passages. That’s why they’re called crossings.
But cars drive through them and people cross against the light. You can't really say pedestrians don't share the same street as cars when there's a not insignificant portion of the road that is intended for both pedestrian and vehicle use.
Please describe this crash caused by a bike not respecting its designated route.
Simple. The bike lane is on the right, he tried to take a U turn and did no look to his left causing the car coming swerve and hit the sidewalk.
That’s not failing to respect a designated route. That’s making a u-turn without looking. Bike lane or not, “designated route” has nothing to do with it. You said you’d witnessed “a couple” of vehicle crashes caused by bikes. Are they all from the illegal u turn?1 How would insurance help? If a car driver had done the same thing his insurance probably wouldn’t pay for the other car if the two vehicles never actually collided. Mandatory insurance hasn’t stopped drivers from colliding into each other. Compulsory insurance for drivers exists because drivers routinely cause damage beyond their ability to pay. Cyclists don’t damage property nearly as frequently as drivers. Also, don’t confuse insurance with liability. People can still be financially liable even if not insured, and compulsory insurance doesn’t prevent the 2700 drivers that kill someone and drive off annually.
>That’s not failing to respect a designated route. What do you mean its not? He got out of the bike lane and into the street to make a u turn! Outside of the designated bike route.
The existence of the bike lane does not preclude the cyclist making a left turn or a U turn. The cyclist’s problem was failing to check before making the turn. Cyclists are allowed to leave the bike lane for many reasons, including turns. In many places, use of the bike lane isn’t mandatory in the first place. Can you describe the other crashes? You said there were more.
Why? It's not cyclists causing accidents or hitting people. It's people in cars doing that.
[удалено]
Never hear about it. Chances are it's not as big of an issue as you think it is. I'm more worried about cars hitting me than a cyclist.
[удалено]
Lmao it really is a small issue because cars are more dangerous and more likely to kill someone. A bike isn't. Try again
[удалено]
Go ahead and Google how many pedestrian deaths were caused by cyclists in the US in the last 10 years.
What difference would it make? I see irresponsible drivers on a daily basis. Bikers too. They can both be licensed and insured, neither one will look up from their phone.
Nothing says freedom like “I had to sell me bicycle because I couldn’t afford the license/insurance fees”
If there was nothing beyond the presence of the cyclist then it pretty much is your fault. That reminds me of a similar case in Australia, where we were supposed to feel sorry for the car driver who messed up an overtake. It was on the car driver for messaging up the overtake. I would bet that OP was the same.
Well. Petition to have a referendum vote on it. I’m really interested how many signatures you’d get. Let us know.
in the NL the car is ALWAYS liable if they hit a biker. Therefore cars are very very careful here and accidents dont often happen.
So a bike riding on the wrong side of the road is the drivers fault? Well that sucks...
Yes you have to be very careful especially going around corners because bikers try to squeeze in. We always give way to cyclists so we don't accidentally hit them when they're being stupid. It's because the margin of error for cyclists is serious injury while for cars its a scratch.
Interesting. I did not know that. So how do you account for insurance scammers, it seems like that would be a nightmare to deal with...
I suppose it could happen but I've never heard of it being an issue I dont think the Dutch are quick to do that
Cyclists are also often vehicle owners. They’re already licensed, insured. No double dipping.
Car insurance protests you in a bicycle accident?
Often yes. Many also cover you even if you're just walking. I was hit by a drunk driver while walking along the sidewalk when I was younger and it was my dad's auto insurance that covered everything.
Yeah. If there's a motor vehicle involved (even if you're on a bike and hit a car.) I'm currently fighting with my health insurance over a mountain bike crash that involved me and the ground and $80k in hospital bills. Hospital submitted it as "bicyclist hit stationary object." Health insurance goes, "That sounds like a potential motor vehicle accident. Therefore you need to go through your car insurance first."
Will your homeowners cover it?
I actually don't know. I'm fairly certain that eventually health insurance will cover everything other than my $5k out of pocket max. It just involves me doing a lot of calling different numbers, tracking down magic forms that always seem to disappear somehow since I've gotten multiple letters saying I have X days to return the attached questionnaire while there is no questionnaire attached, driving to the library to use the only fax machine in my town so I can fax the forms in, and then calling hospital billing and begging them to put a hold on the bills until my insurance reprocesses it. And I supposedly have decent insurance, lol.
[удалено]
I believe more often than not, the at fault cyclist would be covered under their personal liability under their home or rental insurance and their injury would be covered under their medical insurance. I have yet to read an auto policy that covers bicycles.
I added this in after I posted https://www.bikelaw.com/2016/06/does-auto-insurance-cover-bicycle-accidents/
That still only covers you if the driver was the one at fault. UM covers you if the other driver was at fault and was underinsured or uninsured, just like if they were insured you would be covered under their liability. If you were at fault you would still have no liability if your homeowners or renters insurance doesn't have it, and you would still be responsible for all of your deductible and OOP max of your health insurance.
Never head of my car insurance covering accidents while on my bike. Where do you get that?
I have Progressive According to Bike Law’s website it seems prevalent https://www.bikelaw.com/2016/06/does-auto-insurance-cover-bicycle-accidents/
Sounds like you could answer that better than the commenter since you know what type of policy you have.
To drive a motorcycle on the road you need a separate endorsement on your license. Every vehicle you own requires separate insurance policies. How is that double dipping?
Exactly and you need a course before they give you that.
“The more corrupt a nation, the more numerous its laws.”
I'm suspicious of this post. That's all I'm saying
Meaning?
Thake my downvote good sir, you've earned it! Take it! I don't need it anymore.
I'd be okay with this but many of the drivers near me don't even have insurance, so I'd expect even fewer cyclists to get it.
They should. Who is supposed to take care of them if they're injured for life?
The bad driver who hurt them.
The driver/their insurance if they were at fault, no body if the cyclists were at fault.
Exactly my point.
What if it was the cyclists fault?
The person in control of the giant metal box should be more aware of the vulnerable road users around them. If you're driving a car it's your fault if you hit a cyclist.
This is the second stupidest comment I've read in this thread.
*This is an absurd take.* Cars are deadly and can cause grave injury to others. Bikes are not and do not. **That's how licensing works.** It is the responsibility of the party operating the dangerous equipment to become licensed, not the rest of society to be licensed to be around the dangerous equipment! If anything, drivers licenses should be much harder to get. /end thread.
Yes, but this is not about license. It's about insurance and the vehicles driving in shared spaces. I agree. Licenses should be much harder to get.
What's the use of insurance if you're just mangled by shitty drivers? Fix the driving.
You should fix both.
Sorry my bones don't heal fast enough for you to wedge in getting that starbucks latte and being nearly late for work. Imagine the people downvoting like broken bones are just an inconvenience for them.
What about 6yr olds? What about pedestrians? Dogs? Should they all have insurance too?
Lots of disagreements and agreements, but this is the first comment that's actually idiotic in the entire thread. Congrats! Last I heard, 6-year-old don't drive their bikes on main roads. Dogs? With your reasoning, I'm pretty sure you definitely need to get some...
Six yr olds absolutely ride bikes on streets. Dogs get loose and get hit by cars every day. If I’m driving my car and I hit a loose dog, is he insured? How do I make him pay?
Dogs don't drive bicycles. This post is about cyclist and insurance. Here is some content more suited for you... enjoy [Sesame Street | Preschool Games, Videos, & Coloring Pages to Help Kids Grow Smarter, Stronger & Kinder](https://www.sesamestreet.org/) By the way, those are NOT real people.
Oh, I see. You just want to single out cyclists. But I see pedestrians walking along the main road all the time and I know they’re not insured. One of them could jump in front of my truck at any moment and cause a crash that would kill dozens of people. Dogs and children are also free from any responsibility. They need to be insured if they want to exist in society. It’s only fair. Because I pay insurance on my mode of transportation, everyone should pay. And once we figure out a plan to make the dogs pay, we’ll be able to set up a program to make deer and other wild animals responsible for the carnage they cause on the roadways.
I mean there are kids on bikes (probably like 10 year olds) on my street which is considered a main road.
What is a main road?
main road *noun* 1. a major road, typically one with a large amount of traffic.
LMAO. Got downvoted for answering correctly to the question that was asked...
it's reddit bro...
Yeah, I just think its hilarious.
Fuck off I'm not destroying anything. Cars however kill people and destroy shit when having an accident.
The great thing about bikes is you don’t need a license, plus a lot of people use them for duis
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How do you know they dont?
Have you ever heard of cyclist insurance?
Nearly all homeowners and renters policies will cover a cyclist if the cyclist is found liable for damage.
I have.
Maybe it's more common in places where people ride bikes a lot
You can do it in the US.
Bicycle specific insurance is much more common for theft protection (which is the majority of the cost), but often include a small part for general liability. However, the majority of cyclists have general liability coverage from their home or rental insurance, and sometimes by their auto insurance.
Seeing a lot of comments from people that have bled over from FuckCars. They can get insane sometimes, anything car = bad and pedestrians and cyclists can do no wrong.
Cyclists can do wrong, but it's quite possible to bicycle and harm nobody. Whereas if you drive in any remotely busy area, you're harming a lot of people and there's really no way to avoid it. You're creating a demand for parking spaces, which makes walking more annoying and less convenient. You're creating risk for everyone else, because you're traveling much faster and in a heavier, more dangerous vehicle. You're creating carbon pollution (unlesss you're driving an EV powered entirely by renewables \[you're not\]). And, of course, you're even making life worse for other drivers, by creating traffic congestion. Basically, it's kind of rude to carry a 5,000-pound cage around so you can travel at 40mph with air conditioning, and there's really no way to avoid that fact. Sometimes you gotta do it--not all trips are possible without driving--but you really should strive to minimize it as much as possible, and we should build our towns so that people can mostly avoid driving in their day-to-day life.
Hear, Hear! 👍👍
Well ya gotta start with mopeds and golf carts first… I’m small enough towns I’ve seen people take their golf cart to the gas station, or their side-by-side. Neither ever having plates.
I agree with you except for insurance. Hell no, no more insurance, no more infinitely deep pockets, no more long noses.
But fuck cars
I see it all the time. In fairness, 90% of bike riders are good and follow the rules. The other 10% give all riders a bad name. They ignore stop signs and red lights, race past pedestrians, scream at drivers etc.
tbh its not rhe licence I want for cyclists its required training so they know the rules of the road.
I don’t know how to break it to you, but in North America, virtually all adult cyclists also have drivers’ licenses. They’re not some strange race or religious group that lives entirely apart from your culture and technology.
This is just an anecdote, but near where I live a cyclist (who was using headphones and texting while cycling relatively fast) invaded the sidewalk and seriously injured an old lady(broken bones and stuff) it was all on camera but they never found out who the guy was. At least with a car its easier to track down because license plates and car models and stuff. So I kinda agree in that there should be a little bit more regulation. Personally I have seen some pretty deplorable behaviour from cyclists and people in motorcycles that is usually justified with "its just a bike, what harm can it do?" stuff from invading the sidewalk, going at excessive speeds with headphones on, no tail lights or reflective stuff when its dark, zero regard for animals and people to them just being where they shouldn´t be(cycling in high speed roads, cutting through areas under construction, grabbing onto vehicles at high speeds etc..) Tbh in my experience people on bikes tend to be much less respectful towards pedestrians than cars. An 80 kg dude going at 20 km/h can seriously hurt himself or others and (again, in my experience) they tend to engage in a lot of unsafe activities like having their bike overloaded or having headphones/doing calls/being distracted.
Completely Agree.
[удалено]
As a cyclist myself, they also need to get the fuck off pavements (or sidewalks for you Americans). The amount of times a cyclist flies past me, practically brushing me on the way past. Pedestrians are unpredictable and could easily move at the last moment, largely because they don’t expect a bike to fly past them at 20mph (or more if it’s an electric bike).
IDK where you live but that is the legal requirement in a lot of places.
I love riding my bike but never on roads made for cars, it’s just too dangerous