Do you think it should be the law that all cyclists be forced to pay insurance to ride a bike?

Question

-oh,.eh,. then you have the new head helmet law,.(which says all cyclists under 18 must wear a helmet. while riding a bike,.)

Answer 1

Hey, build proper separate bike paths and I will buy an annual pass to use them if I have to.

Answer 2

h**l no, Insurance should stay with vehicles. This is the reason I will be riding my bike to work soon. No loan payment, no insurance payment, no outrageous yearly registration fees, no smogging. Just a little light maintenance and supplies. I disagree with helmet laws, except for children. I do think that there should be classes on how best to ride a bike in heavy traffic and likewise how to drive with bikers on the road. I also think that the city should spring for bike lanes, better lighting for city roads and bike lane maintenance on all roads excluding inside neighborhoods. The amount of cash made off of drivers could easily pay for these things.

Answer 3

No. Mandatory automobile insurance covers the damage that the vehicle may do to others. In the case of automobiles that is potentially a large sum because of a car's weight and speed. In the case of bicycles, the damage potential is miniscule in comparison. Most cycling accidents I have seen damage the cyclist and his bicycle much more than any other person or property.

Helmets are a good idea whether they are required by law or not. Hopefully people will be smart enough to wear one every time they ride without some legislature forcing it upon them. But then, that's why we have the Darwin award.

HTH

Answer 4

this is obviously some frustrated driver looking to get even with cyclist for some perceived wrong doing.

Answer 5

why the h**l would you pay insurance to ride a bike. some people ride a bike for the fact that its way cheaper no gas no insurance and no maintenance

Answer 6

absolutely not! that's like paying a walking insurance fee. The reason for auto insurance is because the damage they cause and are caused to them when an accident occurs is normally more than what the average driver has in savings to cover. not to mention hospital bills, property destroyed, missed work...etc etc etc.

In contrast, biking accidents cause huge monetary expense due to accidents much less frequently.

Helmets I agree with. They may look silly but wearing one may have saved my life when a freak accident threw me off my bike and sent the back of my head onto the pavement... ouch.

Answer 7

Sorry, no such helmet law in Michigan like that. Walking, swimming, skateboard, skiing... insurance too? People that don't exercise, overweight, smoke, eat at mickey Ds should all pay 40% extra health insurance right?

Answer 8

Extra ins. for drivers who yak on the phone, eat, listen to blasting music etc. while driving?

What's poor little Susie going to do? She's only 5 years old and doesn't have a job?

Runners need ins. too. Out there running and stuff - how dare they?

Do the Amish insure their carts? What about horses in general?

And all those kids on scooters.

Heelies - yeah let's make ins. needed to use these shoes too, just like roller bladers etc.

Wow, this is sounding ridicules... oh yeah, YOU brought it up.

Answer 9

Yes.  Motorcyclists have to, so why shouldn't cyclists?  Besides, if cyclists are (supposedly) treated to the same traffic laws as cars (i.e. being allowed to ride down the street), then they should be liable for potential damage done to cars (such as dents, scratches, scrapes, etc).

Answer 10

no, i think that is just stupid. i heard they are trying to do that in the uk. i can see maybe having a helmet but insurance no.

Answer 11

NO!  Thats what life/medical insurance is for.  I think we are over insured as it is.  But I think the helmet law is a good idea, but should not have age discrimination on it.  You would need protection at any age.