Should cyclists have to take out compulsory insurance?

Norman_Castle

!!!!!! wrote: »

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

Which are based on potential liabilities as assessed either by governments or individuals.

brat

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

Sounds like you need a history lesson..

brat

For me, all cyclists should have third party insurance. I've dealt with a few collisions where cyclists have been entirely at fault, mostly kids or drunken cyclists losing control of their bike, and, while the main concern at the scene is usually the welfare of the cyclist, there could be difficult issues beyond that, if the motorist or his insurers need to claim against the cyclist or their parents.

I've actually no knowledge of how such liability issues are finally ironed out, because we usually hear no more about them. But I know that if a cyclist smashed into my car, causing hundreds or thousands of pounds of damage, I wouldn't be happy about paying the bill or losing no claims.

custardy

brat wrote: »

For me, all cyclists should have third party insurance. I've dealt with a few collisions where cyclists have been entirely at fault, mostly kids or drunken cyclists losing control of their bike, and, while the main concern at the scene is usually the welfare of the cyclist, there could be difficult issues beyond that, if the motorist or his insurers need to claim against the cyclist or their parents.

I've actually no knowledge of how such liability issues are finally ironed out, because we usually hear no more about them. But I know that if a cyclist smashed into my car, causing hundreds or thousands of pounds of damage, I wouldn't be happy about paying the bill or losing no claims.

3rd party cover for cyclists is cheap as chips.
British cycling offer it with their memberships. alongside the discounts available.
You can often get 'free' membership.
I bought my last commuter via Halfords CTW. Used my British cycling discount and as such had free membership with that discount.

However there are bigger fish to fry

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article4406638.ece

I have to ask,are we so short of drivers in the UK that we employ someone with this background?

Mids_Costcutter

brat wrote: »

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.

I think that the 'minor error of judgement' point of view highlights a very casual attitude to driving which is sadly too prevalent in this country. Not bothering to concentrate on their driving because of any number of distractions within or outside the vehicle costs us all dearly. How many times do you hear the phrase 'otherwise law-abiding people' applied to those charged with road traffic offences?

andydiysaver

Retrogamer wrote: »

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?

yes, because I am a runner and if I run on the road it's a silly thing to do- and if I did want to be silly, I'd be dead worried looking over my shoulder all the time in case cars or fast moving cycles smash into my back!

andydiysaver

insurance market also has effect of self regulation - I have a good deal because I've never crashed my car- hazard a guess, I'm a better driver because I want to keep the layout low- where is the bad thing in cyclists thinking the same over their premiums versus their conduct on the roads and adjusting their cycling skills accordingly to get a better price?


I think that's a win win situation, only difference is we have to you don't so becomes more of an option to you, therefore any price a bad one...

custardy

andydiysaver wrote: »

yes, because I am a runner and if I run on the road it's a silly thing to do- and if I did want to be silly, I'd be dead worried looking over my shoulder all the time in case cars or fast moving cycles smash into my back!

Nobody ever teach you to face oncoming traffic?

brat

andydiysaver wrote: »

insurance market also has effect of self regulation - I have a good deal because I've never crashed my car- hazard a guess, I'm a better driver because I want to keep the layout low- where is the bad thing in cyclists thinking the same over their premiums versus their conduct on the roads and adjusting their cycling skills accordingly to get a better price?


I think that's a win win situation, only difference is we have to you don't so becomes more of an option to you, therefore any price a bad one...

Not sure I buy the idea that one drives more carefully because they don't want to pay more if they crash. Not crashing carries its own incentive.

In any case it's about £10 for bike insurance whether you use it or not. There's no incentive there not to crash.

I could however think of ways that cycle insurance would be massively abused if it was compulsory for all. I don't want us to go there.

TheSaint_2

I don't think it could ever be made to work. It would put off casual cyclists like me who do not commute on a bike but do go for a ride every once in a while. It would also put children off, and they need all the exercise they can get.


What we need instead are better designed and maintained roads, and police enforcement of traffic offenses committed by cyclists.