Should cyclists have to take out compulsory insurance?

System

Careful, you can get your bike chain confiscated for siding with a non-cyclist

Tobster86

!!!!!! wrote: »

Careful, you can get your bike chain confiscated for siding with a non-cyclist

Nearly all of us 'cyclists' also drive cars. Sometimes with big V8s.

brat

!!!!!! wrote: »

Careful, you can get your bike chain confiscated for siding with a non-cyclist

Why do you insist on creating sides? As Tobster said, most cyclists also drive.

armyknife

!!!!!! wrote: »

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

You have an unsurprisingly blinkered binary view of the world, that without your trolling this would be a back-slapping club. :hmm:

brat

My 3rd party liabilities are catered for by British Cycling within their £30 per annum membership. The discounts gained through BC membership makes membership a no brainer.
I don't know how much it would cost to independently obtain 3rd party insurance, probably £10 per annum.

There are so many difficulties with compulsory insurance that makes it almost impossible to achieve easily, registration, legislation, bureaucracy etc. Unfortunately, it's always the responsible cyclists who take out insurance, which will have some bearing on its cheapness. It will be almost impossible to convince those who won't spend £5 on chain lube or £8 on adequate lighting that insurance is a good idea. Unfortunately it's that same group who are likely to be over-represented in terms of 3rd party liabilities.

Mids_Costcutter

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?

That's astonishing and I'm sure also very rare. What happened?

armyknife

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

That's astonishing and I'm sure also very rare. What happened?

He wanted to remain inside insurance, rather become outside it, so he added a few noughts? :-)

InsideInsurance

Tobster86 wrote: »

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

They wouldnt be liable if it were the actions indicative of a safe & responsible rider

InsideInsurance

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

That's astonishing and I'm sure also very rare. What happened?

The level of damages were rare but the third parties, including our insured/ their passengers, all suffered injuries and had fairly well paid jobs hence high loss of earnings claims (plus you then of course have legal fees etc that all inflate the claim) and decent vehicles

Its been too many years to remember the exact circumstances but in very brief they did something daft, running a red light I believe, which caused a vehicle to swerve to avoid hitting him but resulted in the vehicle being hit by oncoming vehicle. Cyclist wasnt hit at all but the two cars (and their occupants) sustained significant damages. Thankfully the cyclist stopped and there were witnesses that confirmed what he'd done.

Tobster86

InsideInsurance wrote: »

They wouldnt be liable if it were the actions indicative of a safe & responsible rider

That's my point. Insurance isn't mandated for cyclists because safe & responsible cycling largely eliminates serious third party risks.

Safe & responsible driving however cannot; you're in charge of a powerful piece of tonne-plus machinery and too much can go wrong despite the best intentions.


I still think cyclists should still consider third party insurance for lesser risks; this is my current situation.