Should cyclists have to take out compulsory insurance?

InsideInsurance

Tobster86 wrote: »

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.

Its the same, if all drivers were perfectly safe and responsible then that too eliminates third party risks as all that remains are Acts of God which is a 1st party risk not 3rd party.

The reality is that no one is perfect and we can all make poor decisions occasionally no matter the intention. Yes the consequences for drivers are much more likely to be more significant than for cyclists (from a 3rd Party perspective) but that doesnt mean that there is no risk and that the 3rd parties should be protected.

Reality is also that there are bad drivers and cyclists out there that arent responsible and as there is no way to identify those people reliably then we get the situation of compulsory insurance to cover both them and the momentary lapse of concentration of the normally reasonable drivers

Tobster86

I don't understand what you're still rattling on about.

The simple fact of the matter is that serious consequential damages when cycling are so negligably rare that it has never, in any country (to my knowledge), been seen necessary to mandate their insurance.

The situation with motor vehicles is utterly different, for reasons that are intuitive to any reasonable person.

Retrogamer

From the example you provided InsideInsurance of the cyclist being negligent and causing a lot of costs, that could also happen by someone running in front of a car on the road but no one would ever suggest pedestrians should all have liability insurance due to the risk factor for big costs is negligible

InsideInsurance

Tobster86 wrote: »

consequential damages when cycling are so negligably rare that it has never, in any country (to my knowledge), been seen necessary to mandate their insurance.

Switzerland did mandate insurance until recently but it was state provided and administration costs were disproportional so was cancelled and instead cyclists are encouraged (not mandated) to buy private insurance instead.

Not sure if any other country has but given some of the weird and wonderful rules in some countries I wouldnt be surprised if it technically wasnt covered, for bodily injury at least, in some countries where all RTA injury compensation comes from a state or Pool scheme rather than private insurance.

InsideInsurance

Retrogamer wrote: »

no one would ever suggest pedestrians should all have liability insurance due to the risk factor for big costs is negligible

I am sure some would suggest, much stranger things have been proposed previously.

If you get to the point of everyone having to be insured though you are more into the territory of state schemes than private companies. As per above, there are some countries where certain liability payments come out of state funds or Pools which include pedestrian caused accidents rather than private insurance.

Nasqueron

Retrogamer wrote: »

From the example you provided InsideInsurance of the cyclist being negligent and causing a lot of costs, that could also happen by someone running in front of a car on the road but no one would ever suggest pedestrians should all have liability insurance due to the risk factor for big costs is negligible

That doesn't really work as a counter example as the cyclist, in the example, jumped a red light thus breaking the law and caused the accident because of that, a pedestrian running out was stupid but not illegal.

I cycle and drive and have cycle insurance for what it's worth but only due to the value of my main bike and the fact I couldn't afford to buy a replacement if it was stolen

brat

Nasqueron wrote: »

That doesn't really work as a counter example as the cyclist, in the example, jumped a red light thus breaking the law and caused the accident because of that, a pedestrian running out was stupid but not illegal.

I cycle and drive and have cycle insurance for what it's worth but only due to the value of my main bike and the fact I couldn't afford to buy a replacement if it was stolen

I wonder how this scenario would play out in the Netherlands, where there is presumed liability on the part of the motorist.

Even here, in certain circumstances, the motorist may still find themselves facing a degree of liability, because a green light means "you may proceed only if it is clear and safe to do so."

armyknife

Everyone needs to be insured up to the gunwales, then the world would be a safer, happier place. :-)

esuhl

brat wrote: »

I wonder how this scenario would play out in the Netherlands, where there is presumed liability on the part of the motorist.

I imagine that "presumed" liability would mean that the motorist would be presumed to be liable in the absence of any other factors... But that jumping a red light would likely clear the motorist of any "presumption" that they were at fault.

brat wrote: »

Even here, in certain circumstances, the motorist may still find themselves facing a degree of liability, because a green light means "you may proceed only if it is clear and safe to do so."

Absolutely. If the motorist saw the cyclist and thought, "F*** it; I've got a green light so I'm not going to avoid a collision", then throw the book at him and lock him up for a long time!

A year-or-two ago, there was a news story about a cyclist coming across drunken idiots who deliberately tried to cause an obstruction to block the road. The cyclist shouted at them to get out of his way and said, "I'm not stopping!" and hit one of them. I think the drunk idiot sadly died... And the cyclist was found guilty of a serious crime. Even if idiots taunt you and try to deliberately cause an accident, you still have a legal and moral obligation to identify hazards and avoid an accident if you can.

But if the motorist saw the green light, and took "normal" precautions to make sure the coast was clear, then, surely the cyclist would be liable for breaking the law and not checking that the junction was clear. The cyclist must have expected the possibility of oncoming traffic if he cycled through a red light.

Retrogamer

Nasqueron wrote: »

That doesn't really work as a counter example as the cyclist, in the example, jumped a red light thus breaking the law and caused the accident because of that, a pedestrian running out was stupid but not illegal.

I cycle and drive and have cycle insurance for what it's worth but only due to the value of my main bike and the fact I couldn't afford to buy a replacement if it was stolen

The law is besides the point.

You don't always have to be breaking a law to be liable for costs due to negligence.