Cyclists - Should they be insured?

[Longshot]

When motor vehicle insurance cost become realistic then perhaps we can look at the options for insuring other groups

Are you suggesting that it needs to go up further? If so, it won't happen. The incredibly high cost of motor insurance for younger or high risk drivers is already causing huge numbers to drive uninsured. That has the knock-on effect of increasing premiums for those who end up claiming on their own policy due to accidents caused by uninsured drivers. The whole situation is a vicious spiral that needs to be broken.

 

[mrBishboshed]

Perhaps we need to look at motor insurance first?
In 2010 - 2011 motor insurance policy payouts were subsidised by some 2 billion pounds from household and other insurance.
If we were to insure cyclists then all we would be doing is adding a further subsidy to motor insurance. When motor vehicle insurance cost become realistic then perhaps we can look at the options for insuring other groups

My main concern was that i would be pursued if i was unlucky enough to cause an accident without some form of insurance protection. I consider my self a safe driver/cyclist but you cant always allow for other peoples stupidity. And if the worse does happen the chances are someone will sue you in this compensation culture.

I recently read: "If a cyclist causes an accident to a road user, or any other person for that matter, then, unless the cyclist does happen to have insurance, the injured party can/will pursue the cyclist personally. There is no cyclists insurers bureau - ouch!"

You would not be able to make cyclist insurance mandatory unless you licence bicycles in a similar way you do with cars, motorcycles ect... Even then it would be a nightmare to enforce. I wouldn't put it past a government one day to try. It would create quite a bit of revenue.

 

[Dan B]

Are you suggesting that it needs to go up further? If so, it won't happen. The incredibly high cost of motor insurance for younger or high risk drivers is already causing huge numbers to drive uninsured.

Driving uninsured is a lot harder than it used to be, what with anpr and all that. It's also causing huge numbers to not drive at all, which sounds like a much better outcome if they're really that dangerous

 

[Steve H]

Having or not having insurance does not make someone more or less liable. If a cyclist causes damage through their mistake or negligence they can be pressed for damages. I therefore think insurance is a personal choice. I have insurance (CTC), but I don't think it should be compulsory for all cyclists. I think this would deter a lot of occasional / new cyclists from riding.

 

[ufkacbln]

My main concern was that i would be pursued if i was unlucky enough to cause an accident without some form of insurance protection. I consider my self a safe driver/cyclist but you cant always allow for other peoples stupidity. And if the worse does happen the chances are someone will sue you in this compensation culture.

I recently read: "If a cyclist causes an accident to a road user, or any other person for that matter, then, unless the cyclist does happen to have insurance, the injured party can/will pursue the cyclist personally. There is no cyclists insurers bureau - ouch!"

You would not be able to make cyclist insurance mandatory unless you licence bicycles in a similar way you do with cars, motorcycles ect... Even then it would be a nightmare to enforce. I wouldn't put it past a government one day to try. It would create quite a bit of revenue.

However in the meanwhile you would simply be subsidising the motorists still.

There is more than enough insurance cover out there already and it is cheap... until that subsidy is added

 

[Cycling Dan]

i cover my views in my vlog

 

[Dogtrousers]

What's the difference between a cyclist being insured and someone pushing a pram being insured or driving a mobility scooter or walking with a bag. In terms of risk, it's all about the same. If someone scratched my car with a pram I'd take exactly the same approach as with a cyclist (nothing as it happens but you get the gist). Should children take out insurance. Where exactly does it begin and end?

Your home insurance probably covers more than you think and the rest is up to you. If you're worried about the cascade effect of a severe wobble, take it out.

When I was a child ... well a teenager ... I destroyed the rear door of a parked Vauxhall Chevette estate (and my bike) by riding full tilt into it. It was covered on the house insurance. So that's relevant to two of your points.

Im with the CTC btw. And also slightly more sensible than I was then.

IIRC my parents' insurance covered not only errant children but the dog too, but the only crimes our dog was ever likely to commit were food stealing and excessive licking.

 

[sabian92]

Insured via British Cycling. 14 quid for a years cover - can't say no to that, considering CTC wanted over 40 (I think).

Like MrBishboshed, I'm a lump on a bike and if some dick walks in front of me (has happened, on purpose no less!) and if they get hit it's going to hurt.

Hopefully I never have to claim on it but nice to have the reassurance. If car insurance wasn't compulsory you'd probably still have it just in case.

 

[Hip Priest]

I'm insured via BC. I'd certainly recommend getting insured. But should it be compulsory? No.