Should cyclists have to take out compulsory insurance?

Retrogamer

!!!!!! wrote: »

By that token, lets use the same argument between cyclist and car. You'd have to drive pretty irresponsibly to injure a cyclist.

All a cyclist needs to do is try to squeeze through non existent gaps at speed, as happens and clip somebody from behind to send them spinning to the ground or even, as seen, pushing the pedestrian into the road into the the path of another vehicle. If you mix pedestrians and cyclists in a place not intended for both then the car/cyclist argument now becomes cyclist/pedestrian and collisions, resulting in injuries to the pedestrian.
A 5 figure compensation sum can be the result of a broken arm, twisted back or something else that appears minor, putting somebody off work for a few weeks.

How many third parties do you think claim from whiplash or other injuries in car related accidents when a car is at fault vs bicycle accidents when a bicycle is at fault?

System

I don't know. I assume that you know since you mentioned it.
I doubt that anybody has even thought of collating that information for the same reason we don't have figures for the number of people straining their finger when pressing the button on a Pelican crossing.

I.E. Nobody has found a need to collate such information

Norman_Castle

!!!!!! wrote: »

I don't know. I assume that you know since you mentioned it.
I doubt that anybody has even thought of collating that information for the same reason we don't have figures for the number of people straining their finger when pressing the button on a Pelican crossing.

I.E. Nobody has found a need to collate such information

Cycle insurers will base quotes on previous claims. They will need to be aware of whiplash injury claims from accidents where the cyclist is at fault.

System

In that case they are the people to ask as they will have the information, not me

JP08

Simple physics will answer your question re whiplash pretty well.

Assume bike and rider weigh in at about 120kg (heavy rider) and car and driver weigh in at 1200kg - makes the maths easier.

Therefore bike and rider would have to be travelling at 10 times the speed of whatever it takes for another car to hit you hard enough to cause whiplash. If that is, say 10mph or more, then the bike and rider would have to be doing 100mph + !

So we can deduce the answer is probably 0 cases of car driver whiplash as a result of collision with or by cyclist ...

armyknife

JP08 wrote: »

Simple physics will answer your question re whiplash pretty well.

Assume bike and rider weigh in at about 120kg (heavy rider) and car and driver weigh in at 1200kg - makes the maths easier.

Therefore bike and rider would have to be travelling at 10 times the speed of whatever it takes for another car to hit you hard enough to cause whiplash. If that is, say 10mph or more, then the bike and rider would have to be doing 100mph + !

So we can deduce the answer is probably 0 cases of car driver whiplash as a result of collision with or by cyclist ...

Not that physics or logic will stop non-cyclists trolling people in these threads.

InsideInsurance

Retrogamer wrote: »

Only the cyclist will benefit from having insurance so i don't think it's needed.

If they damage someone or something due to negligence, they are liable for the costs regardless if they have insurance or not. No insurance doesn't negate it.

Not having insurance doesnt negate it but it does ensure there is a fund to pay for the claim. It therefore benefits the victim if their loss of earnings claim is actually paid in full rather than £10/month for the next 200 years as the cyclist has no assets and minimal income.

Its not something that would have often come across my desk in my claims days but do recall seeing one claim where the total liability on the cyclist was a few hundred thousand pounds. How many cyclists are going to have that sort of money sitting around to pay to their liabilities off?

As you say though, policing the matter if you were to introduce compulsory insurance would be difficult short of introducing number plates for bikes or such

System

armyknife wrote: »

Not that physics or logic will stop non-cyclists trolling people in these threads.

I didn't realise that this was a closed group. my apologies for encroaching on the cyclists back-slapping club

Tobster86

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Its not something that would have often come across my desk in my claims days but do recall seeing one claim where the total liability on the cyclist was a few hundred thousand pounds. How many cyclists are going to have that sort of money sitting around to pay to their liabilities off?

Do you recall whether or not his actions that lead to the claim were indicative of a safe, confident & responsible cyclist?

frisbeej

!!!!!! wrote: »

I didn't realise that this was a closed group. my apologies for encroaching on the cyclists back-slapping club

Your posts are sensible, scenarios that could actually happen.


Proper trolling on these threads is suggesting that trains stop at crossings for cars etc..