I had to say something

[matticus]

In the first 15 years after police were given powers to seize vehicles of uninsured drivers (2000-2015), they seized two million vehicles

That's good to hear, but worth putting into context with how much damage such drivers do:

Every 20 minutes someone in the UK is injured by an uninsured or untraced ‘hit and run’ driver, with many suffering life-changing injuries. This equates to 26,000 injuries each year or nearly one in every five road traffic casualties.

How often do uninsured cyclists inflict life-changing injuries on 3rd parties?

 

[Jameshow]

Where did you pull that figure from? When insurance was brought in for motor vehicles do you think 90% of drivers went back to walking? I dont mind a discussion But quoting magic figures to bolster your point is quite ridiculous.

90% is often used as a random figure to suggest a large number of people! Figure if speaking.

 

[Alex321]

Re your last point - strictly speaking you are only obliged to have 3rd party injury insurance for a car (or at least that used to be the case, even if few sell the legal minimum). Such car insurance wouldn't have covered it. admittedly (virtually) no one has that bare minimum these days

It would have covered it. I was the cyclist, the crash was my fault, and I caused damage to the third party car.

 

[steveindenmark]

OK the 10 year old wants a bike, perhaps a hand me down, but first his parents need to get him an insurance policy costing, what £25 before he can legally have a go. And to what end ? Maybe he'll scratch someone's bumper when he gets run over

Same logic for someone with a bike he uses once a month. Renewal time, doesn't bother, so next time he takes the car

Hey, I've not ridden for a while, and whilst I might keep up a policy just on the off chance a lot of people wont

Again you are making suppsitions to bolster your point. Instead of this child getting run over. What if he rides along the road and scrapes alongside a parked car causing £300 worth of damage. Who should pay for the damage? Our policy is in with the house insurance and covers the family and about 9 bikes. It costs about £30 a year.

 

[Alex321]

Where did you pull that figure from? When insurance was brought in for motor vehicles do you think 90% of drivers went back to walking? I don't mind a discussion But quoting magic figures to bolster your point is quite ridiculous.

Well 90% was certainly plucked from the air.

But he was talking of occasional or casual cyclists, and yes many of those will just say "Ok, I'll not bother with a bike then".

 

[classic33]

Again you are making suppsitions to bolster your point. Instead of this child getting run over. What if he rides along the road and scrapes alongside a parked car causing £300 worth of damage. Who should pay for the damage? Our policy is in with the house insurance and covers the family and about 9 bikes. It costs about £30 a year.

You're covered by one of the means already mentioned then, not the compulsory method you're advocating.

 

[steveindenmark]

Well 90% was certainly plucked from the air.

But he was talking of occasional or casual cyclists, and yes many of those will just say "Ok, I'll not bother with a bike then".

That is a decision they would have to make.

 

[Profpointy]

If you or one of your family run your bike into my car and damage it. How will you pay to repair it? Or will you just sneak off. If you collide with me, as a moped rider did and put me off work for 3 months . Cause me permanent damage how will you pay? He is looking at a claim of about 30k.mk

Its not silly to have insurance. People dont seem to realise the damage they can do with a bike or are quite happy to ignore their responsibilities if they are involved in an accident.

Do you think pedal cycling has vastly more likelihood of injuring someone else than any other everyday activity? be

Motor vehicles kill thousands each year. Cycles do not - maybe 1 in the UK each year. Unless and until it's decided that very low risk things in general should have to have 3rd party cover it seems bizarre to specifically select cyclists, which tbh sounds more like Daily Mail targeting than anything else.

Motorcars, running a factory, keeping pet lions, employing staff - fair enough. But to require cyclists to have insurance but not dog owners, people setting off fireworks in their garden, doing DIY, being a pedestrian walking down the street, smoking, drinking alcohol. Hey small children cause all sorts of damage, perhaps even more so when they're NOT cycling.

Why is cycling so much worse than the above?

Just to emphasise, I'm not running a "whataboutery" point but just comparing with low risk (to others) activities in general

 

[Profpointy]

Again you are making suppsitions to bolster your point. Instead of this child getting run over. What if he rides along the road and scrapes alongside a parked car causing £300 worth of damage. Who should pay for the damage? Our policy is in with the house insurance and covers the family and about 9 bikes. It costs about £30 a year.

Why are you specifically targeting cycling as a high risk to others activity?

Presumably you don't mind the child not being insured when he's not on the bike - perhaps kicking a football, playing tag with his friends, chucking a stick for the dog. What if someone in a supermarket car park scratches your precious car with a trolley?

 

[Alex321]

That is a decision they would have to make.

It is.

But the point is that compulsory insurance would discourage such people from cycling, when we should be trying to encourage them to do it more.

 

[Profpointy]

It is.

But the point is that compulsory insurance would discourage such people from cycling, when we should be trying to encourage them to do it more.

unless you hate cyclists of course, or likely "out groups" generally

 

[Oldhippy]

The world is going mad I tell you. Next some will advocate walking insurance. Insurance is the biggest racket in town akin to printing money.

 

[boydj]

But I would also imagine there are many who have not. It should be compulsory.

The reason it is not compulsory, as it is for motor vehicles, is that the cost of the damage a cyclist could cause is unlikely to exceed an amount that is recoverable from personal resources. Whereas motor vehicles and the damage they can cause...............

There is nothing to stop somebody making a personal claim against a cyclist in the same way they would against a driver - and many drivers prefer to pay up rather than go through insurance for minor bumps.

Compulsory insurance would be a major disincentive for cycling, and at what age would it start?

 

[bladesman73]

The world is going mad I tell you. Next some will advocate walking insurance. Insurance is the biggest racket in town akin to printing money.

It's just the crusties and the lazy who are upset that they're being fleeced by motor insurance companies. For some reason they have it in their thick skulls that if someone rides a bike they don't own a car and thus dont fork out for motor insurance like they do. Also they conflate the issue by making up shite about bikes all of a sudden being the instigators of death and destruction. I swear the UK is going mad, so many stupid nasty morons about.

 

[FishFright]

If you or one of your family run your bike into my car and damage it. How will you pay to repair it? Or will you just sneak off. If you collide with me, as a moped rider did and put me off work for 3 months . Cause me permanent damage how will you pay? He is looking at a claim of about 30k.
Its not silly to have insurance. People dont seem to realise the damage they can do with a bike or are quite happy to ignore their responsibilities if they are involved in an accident.

Do you think we should be forced to be insured for walking too ?