Should cyclists have to take out compulsory insurance?

Rowan_moon

My husband was waiting for a group of cyclists to go so he could turn right on a country lane near our home. The last cyclist came round the corner (on a hill and narrow road) on the wrong side of the road and rode straight into husbands car. It was lucky he was just waiting to turn and not driving.

The cyclist was a bit bumped and bruised but very shaken (amazingly that was all), husband was very shaken and quite an expensive repair needed to car. Luckily cyclist had insurance and that covered it.

esuhl

I've yet to see a cyclist with a camera. But surely a camera would just provide some evidence as to what happened in the case of an accident?

Can having an impartial accurate recording be intimidating? How recklessly would someone have to drive to feel intimidated by their driving being recorded...?

Tobster86

Yes, there are examples on the Internet of videos where the cyclist or driver has clearly provoked a situation or overreacted for the sake of getting good footage, but let's not lump everyone with a camera into that group; for the same reasons that we object to all cyclists being lumped into the 'red light jumpers' group.

I use a camera, which I got after a spate of incidents of really s****y driving. I've since captured a few unpleasant things, and reported one. I spend a lot of time after each incident contemplating how it could have been avoided or prevented.

I'd really rather these incidents never occurred in the first place, much in the same way you hope your smoke alarm never has to wake you up to a fire.

All that said, there's always the potential to record unrelated random and amusing things.

Norman_Castle

All that said, there's always the potential to record unrelated random and amusing things.

Without a camera I missed recording a teenage cyclist heading towards me on a straight, clear, 8 foot wide cycle path who suddenly veered off the path and down a 45 degree bank and managed to land on his feet after going over the handle bars. No idea how or why this happened. I don't think it was intentional as the cyclist looked immensely confused.

DKLS

I don't think it should be compulsory but sensible for some cyclists, a mate was off work for 3 months after coming off his bike at speed, which he blamed on a lack of talent and going too fast on a damp road, but he has struggles as he is self employed and would have benefited from some form of insurance.

Marco_Panettone

DKLS wrote: »

I don't think it should be compulsory but sensible for some cyclists, a mate was off work for 3 months after coming off his bike at speed, which he blamed on a lack of talent and going too fast on a damp road, but he has struggles as he is self employed and would have benefited from some form of insurance.

Except he almost certainly wouldn't be covered, as he was at fault in the incident. Nearly all cycle insurance is 3rd party.


Insurance (or a lack of it) does not change whether or not someone is financially liable for damage they cause to others - it can protect the individual from an expensive bill though.

prowla

No, I don't think it should be compulsory.
I'm sure the insurance industry would love it though.

hugheskevi

I'm sure the insurance industry would love it though.

Possibly, but they are very welcome to my £10 p/a premium for public liability - taking into account administration and other overheads they can't be making much profit on these contracts.

It does however demonstrate the very small probability of cyclists being responsible for causing damage if they can do business at £10 / £12.50 p/a.

Retrogamer

DKLS wrote: »

I don't think it should be compulsory but sensible for some cyclists, a mate was off work for 3 months after coming off his bike at speed, which he blamed on a lack of talent and going too fast on a damp road, but he has struggles as he is self employed and would have benefited from some form of insurance.

I'm not sure any type of bicycle insurance would cover that.

If you crash your car and it's your own fault you can get the car repaired or paid out for, but you can't claim for personal injury if i remember.

System

Tobster86 wrote: »

The reason why it's a legal requirement for motor vehicles is because you don't have to get much wrong before the third party liabilities of your mistake far exceed what the average person could afford to pay,

Taking out a pedestrian on a pavement or pedestrian crossing can easily rack up a 5 figure injury compensation bill