Should cyclists have to take out compulsory insurance?

frisbeej

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...

Yes, I'll ride so much more carefully to stop my insurance going up by £2 if I have an accident. Road rash, bruises and broken bones are such a poor deterrent....

Norman_Castle

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.

After a driver admitting being fully at fault after hitting me and having a lot of very helpful witnesses I didn't bother looking for damages as the damage to myself and my bike was minimal. If insurers had been involved its extremely likely I would have made a claim against the driver. I suspect many cyclists have had similar incidents. If all these claims were pursued it would almost certainly increase insurance premiums for motorists.

Tobster86

It'd be quite good of third party cycling insurance was shoehorned as a freebie into car insurance (possibly with the option of a comprehensive upgrade).

I'd imagine the insurer's liability costs could be outweighed by upgrade to comprehensive costs, and it would encourage uptake of cycling (people noticing that they're suddenly 'insured to ride a bike', which makes the prospect of it seem somehow more sensible, and they must immediately go out and get their money's worth, etc).

lisyloo

3rd party cycling insurance (or general negligence ins) is already included with home insurance.

brat

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

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?

Most driving actions and manoeuvres are done without any conscious thought, which is just as well. Driving by constantly responding to consciously made decisions would take too long for routine driving to be safe.
instead, we drive mostly carefully because the behaviours that we learn gradually become instinctive and subconscious.

The obvious problem with this normal driving behaviour is when a potential road hazard (eg cyclist or pedestrian) doesn't conform to the driver's expectations for hazards ahead. So a motorist might come round a blind bend on a rural road and unexpectedly find a cyclist pootling along in the road gutter. His instinct will allow him the best opportunity to react and respond quickly, but his failure to anticipate (through lack of expectation) may put him in a place where he has insufficient time to react.

One accident in our area involved a cyclist negotiating his way past a (70mph) dual carriageway slip road in the dark in heavy rain as part of a 17 mile commute. He was very well lit, one steady and two flashing reds, riding in the area between the verge and the nearside road edge line, maintaining a speed of 20mph.

As he was riding across the entry slip give way line, Car A was on the entry slip driving at about 50 to 55mph - a normal slip road speed. The driver looked ahead in the dark and saw rear lights from some vehicles ahead of him on the main road. Despite possibly recognising one of the light clusters as a cyclist's lights, his instinctive conditioning caused him to accept that because these lights were of vehicles ahead of him on the main road, he had no need to concern himself any more with them. So he indicated, looked in his mirror, then over his shoulder to check that lane one was clear before attempting to move in to lane one. As he entered lane one he looked forward to find that he was right on top of the cyclist. He shunted the cyclist forward and into lane two where he was run over and killed by Car B.


The driver was immediately aware of what he had done, and how it had happened. He was 'otherwise law abiding' but had made a mistake that many people could think they might have done in similar circumstances, when you're driving along the road with your mind elsewhere (as often happens). He pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving, which was the right thing to do, and he escaped a custodial sentence.

This is where cyclists are especially vulnerable when other road users would not be vulnerable. The cyclist is vulnerable to the 'otherwise law abiding' person having a 'momentary lapse of concentration'.
So the cyclist needs to add his or her own cushion of safety and be much more proactive in the perception of risk to themselves. So for the cyclist pootling in the gutter round the blind bend, they should move out towards centre lane or further if it allows them to be seen early. For the cyclist negotiating the slip road, they should cross to the nearside of the slip road at the earliest safe opportunity. Better still, don't use that sort of road.

Other accidents involving cyclists can and do incur a greater level of driver neglect, but the degree of neglect required to kill a cyclist compared to that required to kill another motorist is generally much lower.

InsideInsurance

lisyloo wrote: »

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.

Negligence standard is exactly the same on Home insurance as it is on Motor, it will cover your legal liabilities, for example the Direct Line wording is:

We will pay all amounts you become legally liable to pay as damages in your capacity as occupier of your home, or for any other reason, as a result of:

a) accidental death of or bodily injury to any person;
b) accidental loss of or damage to property,

which happened during the period of insurance shown in your schedule

As with all other civil matters you/ your insurers are under an obligation to attempt to settle matters before going to court. As you say, some insurers will decide to go for a 50/50 settlement rather than risk court because its too much of a flip of a coin and going to court adds costs so probability is you'd end up down if you issued in all these borderline cases rather than settle.

Home insurers are no different other than the fact they tend to deal with a lot less of these cases and so are less practiced. In fact in my claims handling days the Motor Claims team dealt with any 3rd party element (recovery or defense) from a Home Claim as it wasnt worth building the expertise in that area.

The RTA rarely comes into the matter for Motor insurance claims short of stolen vehicles/ fraud etc as insurers step up to their contractual responsibilities without needing to forced under the RTA.

moxter

Cash-Cows wrote: »

The fact that British Cycling give it away free with their membership fees shows the low risk that cyclists are to other road users / pedestrians.

Not quite. Rather it shows that the financial risk to them as a company is low as cycling collisions rarely cause much financial damage.

Consequently I'd be against compulsory insurance simply because as with most other things, insurance should be something each individual should be able to make the choice over whether to take the risk of not taking out no insurance - with a positive expectation value in the long term - versus the risk of a one-off costly accident.

On the other hand I do think the rules surrounding cyclists' obligations at the scene of an accident should be tightened up so that they match those of drivers. It's far too easy for a cyclist simply to refuse details and ride off.

wiltsguy_2

all other road users are insured, so why not!

wealdroam

wiltsguy wrote: »

all other road users are insured, so why not!

Even pedestrians? I didn't know that.

Anyway, what has 'other road users' being insured got to do with it?

InsideInsurance

moxter wrote: »

Not quite. Rather it shows that the financial risk to them as a company is low as cycling collisions rarely cause much financial damage.

I am not going to dispute that cycling collisions are generally low value but there are other elements that drive premium other than just the value and frequency of incidents.

For a start you have the number of incidents that the claimant either runs away from or decides to settle privately. Secondly with bundled insurances you often have cases where people forget/ dont realise they have insurance and so never claim. Thirdly you may well find the terms are such that its only an auxiliary policy so actually your Home cover has to pay out if it covers it and this only pays if you dont have Home cover or it has a dual insurance clause meaning costs are shared between all relevant insurances.

I know when doing a deal with one breakdown company the difference between their top level UK cover and their European cover was about £40 retail but wholesale they dont charge any extra at all for European cover because actually people rarely take their cars abroad, if they do then they often do more to make sure they are roadworthy etc than when they make a trip down to the local shops and in practice despite the much bigger coverage their claims experience is virtually the same.

Whilst we were looking to sell it as an insurance product if you were a bank or another non-insurance related company who intended to parcel it with other things then actually all the levels other than the bottom had the same wholesale price because so few people claim.

Its still Breakdown cover but their exposure changes with distribution method. It could well be the bundled insurance with the membership is similar


You may think its good to let it be a personal choice but how do you feel when the boot is on the other foot and you are one of the rare victims of a negligent cyclist and end up massively out of pocket because the cyclist exercised their choice not to have insurance and cannot afford to repay you your lost earnings etc?