Should cyclists have to take out compulsory insurance?

Mids_Costcutter

So, do we agree that the onus should be on the road users who pose the greatest danger to others i.e. the motorised ones to have the best training and compulsory insurance?

brat

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

So, do we agree that the onus should be on the road users who pose the greatest danger to others i.e. the motorised ones to have the best training and compulsory insurance?

The insurance onus should be on the motor vehicle driver, because it is their duty to ask themselves, "how can I drive around vulnerable road users to keep them as safe as possible." So that means keeping a decent gap, predicting manoeuvers that may place a cyclist in danger, making big allowances for cyclists' necessary pothole avoidance movements, etc.

If a motorist leaves a 1.5 metre gap as he overtakes a cyclist on a pot holed road, and the cyclist swerves within his lane to avoid a large pothole thus colliding with the overtaking vehicle, it is unlikely that the motorist would face criminal prosecution, but I see no reason why s/he should escape full civil liability.
It would be nice if that awareness filtered through to motorists to make them a little more aware of their responsibilities around cyclists, but I'm afraid that most don't realise their culpability until after the event.

Criminal liability in respect of cycling collisions is a woefully weak preventative or punishment tool at the moment. In my opinion, in cases where a cyclist has been killed through alleged dangerous driving, too many jurors feel "there but for the grace of god go I", and sympathise with the driver because they feel that they could make a similar mistake in a similar situation. This can cause perverse outcomes at court.

Mids_Costcutter

brat wrote: »

Criminal liability in respect of cycling collisions is a woefully weak preventative or punishment tool at the moment. In my opinion, in cases where a cyclist has been killed through alleged dangerous driving, too many jurors feel "there but for the grace of god go I", and sympathise with the driver because they feel that they could make a similar mistake in a similar situation. This can cause perverse outcomes at court.

Why in dangerous driving cases would jurors sympathise (always?) with the driver, especially when they have all the facts in front of them? Driving a motor vehicle is a licensed activity for good reason. Is it perhaps the lack of enforcement that results in the prospect of criminal prosecution being a weak deterrent?

brat

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

Why in dangerous driving cases would jurors sympathise (always?) with the driver, especially when they have all the facts in front of them? Driving a motor vehicle is a licensed activity for good reason. Is it perhaps the lack of enforcement that results in the prospect of criminal prosecution being a weak deterrent?

Lack of enforcement must have an impact. Our area is seeing an increase in antisocial driving, which could well be due to the significant reduction in road policing numbers.

Re jurors at court, it's mostly only my personal experience. Two cyclist fatality court cases I've had involvement with led to not guilty verdicts despite the prosecution believing a guilty verdict to be nailed on. The feedback was that the jury were likely to have been swayed by the fact that the defence described the drivers as ordinary people going about their normal daily business who had made a 'minor error of judgement'. One was found not guilty of death by careless, the other managed to escape a death by dangerous charge.
Add to that the anecdotal reports of perverse not guilty verdicts in the cycling press, and that forms my opinion as above.

The Highway Code requires road users to take extra care around vulnerable road users. This means that the bar for careful and competent driving round cyclists and pedestrians is set high. A drop in the standard of driving which causes a minor collision with a motor vehicle may be seen as a minor transgression or momentary lapse in concentration, but that same standard is much more likely to be deemed careless or dangerous when the hazard faced is a cyclist or pedestrian.

lisyloo

Doesn't involve cycling but my FIL was driving at 30 in a 60 zone when a man running (with 5 greyhounds) ran across the main road and into his car. The car had the roof damaged by the mans head and was written off. Astonishing but it happened (I have pictures).
Fils insurers were not interested in claiming off the individual, firstly because he'd have to be proved negligent but secondly because the pedestrian might claim for personal injury.
Be aware that the negligent standard for home insurance is not the same as the civil liability risk that car insurers take. You might be found 50/50 liable by a car insurer simply because the situation needs to be resolved and that's the easiest way. That does mean a home insurer would pay out, they don't have the same obligations that car insurers do under the road traffic act.

The pedestrian did try to claim personal injury but was turned down and didn't pursue it ( complete try on). I would have like file insurer to pursue the pedestrian but it simply wasn't worth their while.

I don't think cyclists should be forced to have insurance.
I don't have it myself, but I do have medical cover, income cover and legal cover. I do think people should consider those but obvious the go beyond just cycling. Like me I suspect other cyclists have other hobbies too.

andydiysaver

due to unfortunate temperament of some of those more equal than others; at the risk of throwing a brick at a wasps nest, YES they should - all road users should - the motorbikes do the cars do the lorries do..... then we have the cyclists, who want in to using the roads, and that's fine by me - but if you join a club you join with full membership

Norman_Castle

andydiysaver wrote: »

due to unfortunate temperament of some of those more equal than others; at the risk of throwing a brick at a wasps nest, YES they should - all road users should - the motorbikes do the cars do the lorries do..... then we have the cyclists, who want in to using the roads, and that's fine by me - but if you join a club you join with full membership

You're failing to understand insurance requirements are based on potential liabilities.

custardy

andydiysaver wrote: »

due to unfortunate temperament of some of those more equal than others; at the risk of throwing a brick at a wasps nest, YES they should - all road users should - the motorbikes do the cars do the lorries do..... then we have the cyclists, who want in to using the roads, and that's fine by me - but if you join a club you join with full membership

Founding members of the club

System

Norman_Castle wrote: »

You're failing to understand insurance requirements are based on potential liabilities.

Insurance costs are based on potential liability

Insurance requirements are based either on government legislation, good sense or both

Retrogamer

andydiysaver wrote: »

due to unfortunate temperament of some of those more equal than others; at the risk of throwing a brick at a wasps nest, YES they should - all road users should - the motorbikes do the cars do the lorries do..... then we have the cyclists, who want in to using the roads, and that's fine by me - but if you join a club you join with full membership

It looks like you haven't read the thread.

Can you give rational reasons why someone cycling on the road would need insurance, but someone jogging / walking on the road wouldn't?