Should cyclists have to take out compulsory insurance?

Johnmcl7

InsideInsurance wrote: »

You may think its good to let it be a personal choice but how do you feel when the boot is on the other foot and you are one of the rare victims of a negligent cyclist and end up massively out of pocket because the cyclist exercised their choice not to have insurance and cannot afford to repay you your lost earnings etc?

I've been a member of a variety of motoring and cycling forums for a while and yet to see such a case so rare is understatement and following that logic where there could be a one in a million strange incident it could also happen with a pedestrian, horse rider, dog, cat, bird, squirrel, none of which require compulsory insurance either

John

Marco_Panettone

InsideInsurance wrote: »

You may think its good to let it be a personal choice but how do you feel when the boot is on the other foot and you are one of the rare victims of a negligent cyclist and end up massively out of pocket because the cyclist exercised their choice not to have insurance and cannot afford to repay you your lost earnings etc?

The same way I would if the negligent party was running, I imagine.

Tobster86

wiltsguy wrote: »

all other road users are insured, so why not!

I do like it in forums when someone reads the first post, and spouts their poorly thought through, ill-reasoned, and short opinion which has been thoroughly discussed in the five pages of posts they've not bothered to read.

InsideInsurance

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

I've been a member of a variety of motoring and cycling forums for a while and yet to see such a case so rare is understatement and following that logic where there could be a one in a million strange incident it could also happen with a pedestrian, horse rider, dog, cat, bird, squirrel, none of which require compulsory insurance either

Exactly the same conversations are had about if horses should have insurance.

I assume with other animals, you are talking about if they cause a vehicle to swerve rather than if a bird flies into a car windscreen and the only loss is the damage to the screen? Generally the law would require the driver to prioritise the other road users over the life of the animal and so would be negligent in swerving and causing an accident -v- running over the bird.

Pedestrians are another class where arguably there could be a need for compulsory insurance. By that point you are much closer to saying that perhaps there should be a governmental pool to pay for all third party losses from road accidents and commercial insurance gets reduced to fire, theft & AD. Of course it then opens up the question of how the Pool should be funded.

A friend got runnover as a teenager whilst on holiday, was about 6 months later when he got a series of bills from the third party, ambulance etc all holding him responsible for the losses.

Marco_Panettone

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Pedestrians are another class where arguably there could be a need for compulsory insurance. By that point you are much closer to saying that perhaps there should be a governmental pool to pay for all third party losses from road accidents and commercial insurance gets reduced to fire, theft & AD. Of course it then opens up the question of how the Pool should be funded.

That's still assuming the level of risk is equal - it quite clearly isn't. You have MUCH more chance of doing serious damage in a heavy, fast-moving motor vehicle than as a pedestrian, or as someone on a bike. You could walk into things at normal speed all day every day and not cause any damage at all. You cannot drive into things at normal speed in the same way.


Please stop suggesting the laws of physics don't exist.

InsideInsurance

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

That's still assuming the level of risk is equal - it quite clearly isn't. You have MUCH more chance of doing serious damage in a heavy, fast-moving motor vehicle than as a pedestrian, or as someone on a bike. You could walk into things at normal speed all day every day and not cause any damage at all. You cannot drive into things at normal speed in the same way.


Please stop suggesting the laws of physics don't exist.

Stop ignoring the fact that a pedestrian or a bike cannot cause heavy fast-moving motor vehicles to collide with other objects/people etc thus resulting in a lot of damage.

Also remember that even a low speed/ light impact can cause major injuries if your unlucky, hence the story of the woman that hit someone with a supermarket trolley and killed him (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/568974/Michael-Buckley-Melanie-Buck-M-S-Christmas-Marks-Spencer-trolley-rage-court)

Yes these are fairly low risk events and costs should reflect that. Personally I think its better that a low cost insurance is in place than you find others vastly out of pocket because a cyclist isnt insured.

Just because there is a common Pool to pay for claims doesnt mean that everyone has to pay into it equally and you could do a risk based assessment to determine individual contributions but are more likely to find a fairly flat rate cost for anyone other than a motor vehicle.

Marco_Panettone

Only the person at the wheel of the vehicle can control where it goes and how fast it travels. It is the sole responsibility of the driver to operate their vehicle safely in the environment they exist in.

brat

For me, cycle insurance is the perfect example of how insurance can work well.
I only insure myself against something that I can't afford to replace or cover costs should the unimaginable happen.
So my house is insured, but my bike is not insured for theft. I'm insured to provide financial assistance to my family should something happen to me, but I don't insure my wife's engagement ring.

Cycle insurance is very unlikely to be used, but if I crashed into a pedestrian causing them serious injury with a year off work recuperating, I'd like to know that I have insurance that would (hopefully) deal with those issues.

InsideInsurance

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Only the person at the wheel of the vehicle can control where it goes and how fast it travels. It is the sole responsibility of the driver to operate their vehicle safely in the environment they exist in.

I guess if this is the level of thinking capable of some cyclists its no wonder that others think they should have insurance.

For the purposes of not hitting an idiotic but ultimately vulnerable cyclist (not saying all cyclists are idiotic but some are just like some car drivers are) it may be necessary to swerve and as a result hit another car. Two cars hitting each other in all probability are going to cause less lasting damaging than thinking "well the cyclist ran the light/ pulled out of the junction without giving way so I'll just hit him as its his fault" and so driving over a cyclists head.

Irrespective of the person hits the cyclist or hits the other car the cyclist is liable for the accident. Technically if he just runs over the cyclist then his own losses are likely to be less and the other vehicle will have no losses. I am sure you arent suggesting that other motorists should just run over cyclists though because they had it coming?

Marco_Panettone

InsideInsurance wrote: »

I guess if this is the level of thinking capable of some cyclists its no wonder that others think they should have insurance.

For the purposes of not hitting an idiotic but ultimately vulnerable cyclist (not saying all cyclists are idiotic but some are just like some car drivers are) it may be necessary to swerve and as a result hit another car. Two cars hitting each other in all probability are going to cause less lasting damaging than thinking "well the cyclist ran the light/ pulled out of the junction without giving way so I'll just hit him as its his fault" and so driving over a cyclists head.

Irrespective of the person hits the cyclist or hits the other car the cyclist is liable for the accident. Technically if he just runs over the cyclist then his own losses are likely to be less and the other vehicle will have no losses. I am sure you arent suggesting that other motorists should just run over cyclists though because they had it coming?

It isn't necessary to swerve. It might be necessary to brake. It is ALWAYS necessary to look for ALL road users and anticipate other people's movements, even if these movements are 'incorrect'. When riding I shouldn't have to ride well away from parked cars because legally it's someone else's responsibility not to open doors into my path. However, to stay safe I ensure I'm able to safely anticipate other people's illegal/dangerous actions. This is the same when I'm driving.


If a driver chooses not to drive in a safe manner, and moves their vehicle into the path of another one, or into a wall, that is THEIR responsibility. The presence of someone on a bike, or a horse, or just a dog or child in the road does not change this fundamental operation of a vehicle.