Bristol mayor George Ferguson believes that all cyclists should have insurance. While rejecting the suggestion that bikes should be fitted with number plates, he also said that more should be done to crack down on those riding on pavements, without lights or without a bell.
Ferguson, who is currently fighting for re-election on May 5, told the Western Daily Press that as a cyclist himself, he felt let down by those who ran red lights and annoyed motorists. “It only creates a war,” he said.
"The liberal – with a small 'l' – in me would resist number plates. I have a very nice bike and they'd look terrible.
"But I do think we should all have insurance, and I do think we should get tougher on those who don't use lights, don't have a bell and people riding on pavements.
"We should get a lot tougher about it but I would be resistant to screwing number plates onto bikes."
Ferguson also said he would like to see on-the-spot fines for those caught breaking the law.
The major, who was elected as an independent candidate in 2012, has previously shown support for cyclists through his backing of a rush hour lorry ban, and in 2013 he welcomed a petition calling for a Dutch-style network of bike lanes in Bristol.
He has been a major supporter of 20mph speed limits throughout the city and speaking at the Bristol Road Safety Summit in 2013, he also said that there was a case for greatly increasing the number of dedicated paths for pedestrians and cyclists. On that occasion, he added that, “In every case, the faster, more dangerous form of transport should take a particular responsibility.”
Add new comment
70 comments
In fact it is extremely common in the UK, as it is in almost all household insurance policies.
The sound of a beleaguered politician desperately trying to appeal to a bunch of pig-ignorant Evening Post commenters.
Oh god yes: did you read the evening post comments after this story was reported?
Yes. He's wearing red trousers people....
Precisely what cycling needs, more barriers to access.
In his defense though some things do seem like good ideas on the face of them. Like red for example, red is a nice colour. And trousers, trousers are good. I'd like a pair of red trousers. These thoughts can develop if left unchecked by uncaring friends and family.
Since the law does not seem to treat cyclists injured and killed as a big deal perhaps all cyclists being insured (and thus lawyer'd up) might be a form of addressing the issue? The cynic in me imagines it would just end up in lawyers being paid more and motorists still not realising that being in charge of over a tonne of steel driven at high speed is a serious responsibility.
When even a pro-cycling politician comes out with this sort of bollocks, you know you're in trouble.
So the call for insurance does it's rounds again, which is ony justifiable if it can be shown that cyclists present a greater risk to society than for example any other random violence our species delights in (assault is the 2nd largest cause of head injuries after traffic incidents).
So Mr Ferguson, evidence. Got any?
Along with the reminder that anecdotal evidence is not evidence*, and a collection of anecdotes does not make data.
* except as evidence of prejudice.
He said bell, (argument) ends.
He's wearing red trousers, I don't think we need to say anything more...
Pages