lol not going to happen
Posted via RS Mobile

oh boy the hippies are NOT gonna like this!

as much as i want this to happen, i dont see it happening

I would envision insurance costs for cyclist would be to cover pedestrians and other road vehicles, not specifically to cover the cyclists bike, although I assume that would be an option. My car has been hit by a cyclist before, would be nice to have them have to pay for it through ICBC.

With the above said, as in my original post, I would love to see how he would plan on implementing this. I don’t see it being that big of an issue, tossing money at ICBC, I’m sure they would be excited and try to make it work, but I’m also not aware of all the red tape that would need to be looked at so I can’t say for sure.

For me I’m more interested in a licensing program and license plates to identify cyclists. This would take away the “anonymous” mentality, and hopefully cut down on the assholes out there, and make it safer for the people who ride properly.

Again though, just trying to imagine how the above would be policed, and I’m not sure I see it working out. I support the idea though and would love to see more research into it. I believe somewhere in Europe just started requiring bikes to have licenses and registration, cant find on line where though……

As for the sea wall question, for me, I would say yes. It’s a small area with generally “higher” traffic and potential for accidents. Don’t I remember reading about several pedestrians being hit by cyclists on the sea wall just this last summer? I’m pretty sure one was a child, and one was an older man who actually ended up dying from his injuries.

I support this idea, but while the idea is interesting, if a kid say like 6 who wants to ride a bicycle...
I doubt parents would insure their kids just so they can ride a bike for those few days of the season. Even temporary 1 day insurances are hard to justify... Kids wouldn't be riding bikes at all then?

As much as I like it, this is not going to work.

places that have a predominantly larger ridership using bicycles have licensing systems in place like china.... its not meant to couple with insurance but its meant for tracking and liabilities.. which i'm all for. way too many stupid cyclist to justify this.

bike insurance + transponders on bike lanes = WIN.

Suzanna Anton's promises are retarded so far. "Oh lets spend more taxpayer dollars on a useless tram that only tourists will use" Waste of space she is.

Gregor has my vote because he is a bro, but I'm really hoping he someday makes this bike license and insurance thing mandatory and punishable by law. Lots of people bitch about the idea because they don't seem to understand why it is necessary. People are saying "It will cause less cyclist traffic" Why? It's not like it's going to cost 500$ to get a bicycle license. It will obviously be a written test and the insurance would doubtfully be more then 10$ a month. And it would only apply to people who ride in busy heavily traffic filled areas. So it wouldn't apply to people riding on residential streets and paths(Hopefully). And if that were to be the case, then maybe more people would stop using the major roads and use the designated bike roads adjacent to almost every major route in this city. And if the insurance covered Theft it would be the best insurance you could possibly have(Although it would be highly unlikely and probably cost triple and be a waste of claim adjusters time.)

I also agree with it, if they are using the road they should be insured. Also if possible some of that cost can go to maintaining the bike lanes that were put in for them.

In the surrey now today a cyclist who fell off his bike and broke his thumb after being clipped by a car was awarded $136,000
Posted via RS Mobile

I have never been interested in voting or gave half a shit as who wins, but god dammit im gonna go and vote for him.

interesting concept, but implementation will be a challenge
see also: mandatory helmet law

dont most of u hate icbc...this will just give them another source of revenue.

anyone remember just riding a bike around afterschool in and our of the neighbourhood?
or what about riding a tricycle around the complex..
or what if I just ride on the seawall and be done...

tough to implement
will be met with stupid opinions. like the HST

What about the 10 year old kid biking home from school gonna make him pay? Gonna make his parents pay? How's that gonna work?
Posted via RS Mobile

You realize its illegal to ride a bike on the sidewalk right? You should take your car out of the traffic jam caused by this cyclist and drive it on the empty sidewalk. :fullofwin:

I'm peeved by cyclists who ride on main roads and streets when there are designated bike routes a few blocks away designed for cyclists' safety with decreased car traffic volume. I stay out of designated bike routes because I know there will be lots of annoying bikes blocking me, and I would expect cyclists try and stay off main roads to stay away from heavy traffic. I cycle commute occasionally and its actually a pretty nice system of bike friendly routes set up throughout the city.

The costs needed to insure cyclists would never fly, the program would not be sustainable.

lol homeless people will be fucked.

The seawall in stanley park is dangerous as fuck. You combine clueless tourists with jockhead idiots racing their buddies on a TIGHT bike lane, while dodging old fogeys and clueless bitches prancing around in high heels thinking the world revolves around them.... yeah

It's for people who ride their bikes with traffic. And I think the main purpose is to hold cyclists accountable for laws they break while cycling so they can stop avoiding legal loopholes in car related incidents.

Have selective patrolling where you know it matters. Around downtown hire 3 guys to hand out at least 5 times their daily wage in the amount of fines. Depending on how/if they meet the quota add or remove one each week.
In less busy areas one guy per area and if they can meet the quota keep him and if not reassign to diff/busy area.

if we would pay for insurance for bikes, i would vote it if it includes theft as so many bikes gets stolen each year other than that, it is a bad idea

If they want us to pay for insurance like cars its only fair if we get the same insurance coverage as cars..... right? :concentrate:

ICBC operates at a profit because the average cost to insure a vehicle is $1500-2000 per year and the vast majority of individuals drive, whereas the maximum reasonable annual fee for insuring a bicycle would be $100-150 per year with a fraction of the customer base. Therefore, profit margins would be slimmer and the customer base smaller for bicycles compared to motorized vehicles. On top of that, ICBC needs to design, equip and implement a licensing and insurance program for cyclists.

Even ignoring the fact that the majority of people in government will not support placing what would be perceived as burdens on cyclists, since the long term goal is to increase the number of riders, and ignoring the issues with defining who needs to license and insure, it would never be profitable. If it's not profitable, ICBC won't agree to it.

ill put 1 training wheel on my bike and call it a tricycle.

but seriously Cyclists should be made to get a license if they are going to ride on the road. 90% ignore all the laws then freak out when we almost smoke them.

It's a ridiculous idea, pretty dumb.