It seems there’s more cyclists on Winnipeg roads this summer, thanks to high gas prices, (somewhat) improved trail networks and increased awareness of the environmental and health benefits of riding a bike.
To ensure these new riders (especially commuters) remain safe, advocacy group Bike to the Future wants Manitoba Public Insurance to provide funding for cycling education programs for adults.
Seems like a reasonable request, especially when you consider that MPI paid out $8.2 million in injury claims for cyclists hit by vehicles in 2006, a fourfold increase since 2002.
However, MPI spokesman Brian Smiley told the CBC the corporation’s mandate is automobile safety.
“Obviously we can’t be everything to everyone,” he said. “Cyclists need to remember that as the public automobile insurer, we are obligated to providing funding towards safety towards automobiles.”
Hmm. So, MPI can find $1 million to donate to the Museum for Human Rights, but it can’t scrape together a few thousand for cycling safety? What if Gail Asper commits to riding her bike to work?
Related:
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: manitoba public insurance
[...] July 15, 2008 · No Comments Hat tip to Policy Frog. [...]
Smiley is usually a pretty good guy. This is crazy though. Cyclists are a major factor in automobile safety. We put up Deer crossing signs not so deers know where it is safe to cross, but to warn and help auto drivers. Providing a program to cyclists aids us drivers too. The last survey I saw showed that cyclists are more often at fault in accidents with vehicles then the vehicle driver. There are idiot drivers, and idiot cyclists. Just like every other program though the problem would be it would be the wrong cyclists that take the program. The idiots wouldn’t bother.
Thanks for raising this one, Policyfrog.
MPI is shortsighted not to contribute to a cycling safety course. The point is to reduce accidents with autos, which occur frequently because most people in cars don’t recognise riders’ right to be on the road (not the sidewalk) and because people on bikes often ride like fools. If they can give all sorts of rebates to people with vehicles (my cheque was for $8 this year- likely cost more to process the cheque), then why not a nominal amount to go to cycling safety?
If this proves too far from their mandate, perhaps they could develop a publicity campaign to improve motorist awareness of cyclists on the road.
MPI covers immobilizers because it prevents the greater cost of a stollen vehicle. They should also consider contributing to cycling safety to reduce the overall cost of accidents involving cyclists and cars. What’s that about an ounce of prevention?