Should Insurance Be Required?

[dst87]

On another (non-cycling) forum that I am a regular member of, there has been a comment about what happens if cyclists hit drivers and cause damage while cycling. What recourse do drivers (or I guess any other road users and pedestrians) have against cyclists?

Stemming from this, a new thread has been started asking whether cyclists should (like car users) be required to hold insurance in order to use their bikes? What about some sort of road-worthiness test, like an MOT? Are there people out there riding old rust-buckets and are a liability and about to fall apart on the road? I can't work out how I feel about this because I don't know the pros and cons. What do you all think?

So two-part then... should cyclists have to have insurance? Should cyclists have to obtain some sort of pass in a road worthiness test?

My own instinctive thoughts are that cyclists have more need to be afraid of cars than vice versa, but I know that's not an answer. Perhaps house insurance with a third part liability cover would be sufficient? I'd love to hear some experiences and opinions

 

[Drago]

On another (non-cycling) forum that I am a regular member of, there has been a comment about what happens if cyclists hit drivers and cause damage while cycling. What recourse do drivers (or I guess any other road users and pedestrians) have against cyclists?

They either claim off the riders insurance, or if they don't have any they can sue them if the rider won't voluntarily cover the bill (or more likely the car drivers insurers would sue). Can't see how much easier it could be for car drivers to comprehend.

Unless these detractors can evidence that there's a significant problem of uninsured cyclists rampaging across the countryside and leaving people out of pocket, or of in roadworthy cycles being responsible for the slaughter of millions then its not even worth debating. Before solving a problem its traditional to first establish that one genuinely exists.

 

[dst87]

They either claim off the riders insurance, or if they don't have any they can sue them if the rider won't voluntarily cover the bill (or more likely the car drivers insurers would sue). Can't see how much easier it could be for car drivers to comprehend.

What about cyclists who hit a parked car while the owner isn't there, and just bugger off? I know this happens with drivers too, but is there an issue that as insurance is non-compulsory and anyone can get out on the road, there might be a higher number of cyclists doing damage then fleeing than car users? (I don't know, I'm playing devils advocate here...)

 

[Cuchilo]

Although I am covered by BC I don't think it should be compulsory . You could argue that everyone doing everything should be insured .

 

[Markymark]

The damage caused by uninsured cyclists is negligible to damage caused by uninsured cars.

The cost of uninsured cars adds around £40 per year for car insurance paid.

Tackling that would save them more money.

I have add several hundreds of pounds of work to my cars over the past 22 years from dinks to my car whilst parked in the road, in supermarkets and a minor bump n run.

Just got away with a claim with the other party had a friend claim to witness it and bring my fault. I had a genuine witness and it was touch and go tgat I won.

Drivers are blind to all of this bit cost them massively more. They bleat in about bije insurance because they don't like us on their roads. Completely disproportionate.

Any cost to set it up will cost massively more than it would save. I woukd suggest pedesteians cause just as much damage. Should they have insurance?

 

[summerdays]

On another (non-cycling) forum that I am a regular member of, there has been a comment about what happens if cyclists hit drivers and cause damage while cycling. What recourse do drivers (or I guess any other road users and pedestrians) have against cyclists?

Stemming from this, a new thread has been started asking whether cyclists should (like car users) be required to hold insurance in order to use their bikes? What about some sort of road-worthiness test, like an MOT? Are there people out there riding old rust-buckets and are a liability and about to fall apart on the road? I can't work out how I feel about this because I don't know the pros and cons. What do you all think?

So two-part then... should cyclists have to have insurance? Should cyclists have to obtain some sort of pass in a road worthiness test?

My own instinctive thoughts are that cyclists have more need to be afraid of cars than vice versa, but I know that's not an answer. Perhaps house insurance with a third part liability cover would be sufficient? I'd love to hear some experiences and opinions

A MOT is only good on the day it's done and I think if you know the right garage/mechanic then it's still not brilliant. You could drop your bike the minute you left the test centre /bike shop and it could be unsafe.

I think most of the arguments for any kind of legislation are usually in an attempt to reduce the number of cyclists on the road rather than any kind of worry about our safety. If they were that worried they would be looking out for cyclists and giving them lots of space on the road.

 

[Drago]

What about cyclists who hit a parked car while the owner isn't there, and just bugger off? I know this happens with drivers too, but is there an issue that as insurance is non-compulsory and anyone can get out on the road, there might be a higher number of cyclists doing damage then fleeing than car users? (I don't know, I'm playing devils advocate here...)

Then shown us the figures. Prove there's a national problem then we'll have something to talk about. This far you're basing the question on a supposition based upon an urban legend based upon a chimaera. As my old Grandpappy used to respond to questions like this, "and if my Aunt had balls she'd be my Uncle!"

 

[Markymark]

What about cyclists who hit a parked car while the owner isn't there, and just bugger off? I know this happens with drivers too, but is there an issue that as insurance is non-compulsory and anyone can get out on the road, there might be a higher number of cyclists doing damage then fleeing than car users? (I don't know, I'm playing devils advocate here...)

No. You are creatung events that happen far less often than cars doing the sane thing. They have insurance and it diesnt stop them.

 

[summerdays]

What about cyclists who hit a parked car while the owner isn't there, and just bugger off? I know this happens with drivers too, but is there an issue that as insurance is non-compulsory and anyone can get out on the road, there might be a higher number of cyclists doing damage then fleeing than car users? (I don't know, I'm playing devils advocate here...)

I've seen far more drivers than cyclists cause damage, and usually the damage is significantly worse due to the size of the vehicles involved.

 

[dst87]

Ok, you've basically said the same things I feel. I just wanted to know if there was something else I was missing, or any other arguments from the cyclist community that would also make sense to me.

I look forward to seeing the shoot storm of views that the other forum ends up with...

 

[Markymark]

It all boils down to the same thing.

Car drivers want cyclists to have the same restrictions as they do. They see it as being fair.

They cannit understand that cyclists don't because they don't kill, injure or cause damage to the same scale. It's why buying a screw driver has less restrictions than buying a rocket launcher. The owners of rocket launchers will complain that a screw driver can kill.

 

[Smokin Joe]

We have enough bloody rules and regulations to remember already, the last thing we need are a few more.

 

[DEFENDER01]

I think woman that use supermarket trolleys should have an insurance.

 

[slowmotion]

What do other countries do? I could be wrong but I think that they require neither insurance or licensing/testing. If so, they are probably being sensible.
Just guessing.

 

[ufkacbln]

Probably exactly the same as they would do of hit or damaged by the 10% of drivers on the road and driving either without insurance or in controvension of its terms