I really don't know what to say...

[HJ]

Is there a requirement for 3rd party insurance for cyclists where Strict liability does apply?

I must admit, before reading the article you linked to, I didn't understand it properly.

Not as far as I know. As I say above you have to think about why we have 3rd party insurance drivers in the first place, laws don't just spring into existence out of nowhere. The reason drivers required to have insurance is because of the scale of damage they do, think about 7 people die on the roads every day, hundreds more are seriously injured, then there are the minor injuries and the damage to property. It is so common we don't even think about it, it has just become a fact of life, but in the nearly 200 years the bicycle has existed no one has suggested that cyclist are the cause of thousands of deaths a year, that they cause millions (billions?) of pounds of damage a year. So there has never been the need to require cyclist to have insurance by law, it is all about scale, cyclist simply don't cause enough damage for it to be needed!

If you cause damage to a 3rd party at present, the liability is with you, but how many of us consider that we have to go out and buy special insurance? The risk is so low, many insurance companies give away free general 3rd party cover with household insurance. When I am out cycling for leisure or transport (sporting activity is excluded) I am covered against 3rd party claims by my household insurance. If cycling posed a serious risk to others, you can be damned sure the insurance companies would be charging extra for it, they aren't going to take the risk of making a loss!!

 

[magnatom]

Not as far as I know. As I say above you have to think about why we have 3rd party insurance drivers in the first place, laws don't just spring into existence out of nowhere. The reason drivers required to have insurance is because of the scale of damage they do, think about 7 people die on the roads every day, hundreds more are seriously injured, then there are the minor injuries and the damage to property. It is so common we don't even think about it, it has just become a fact of life, but in the nearly 200 years the bicycle has existed no one has suggested that cyclist are the cause of thousands of deaths a year, that they cause millions (billions?) of pounds of damage a year. So there has never been the need to require cyclist to have insurance by law, it is all about scale, cyclist simply don't cause enough damage for it to be needed!

If you cause damage to a 3rd party at present, the liability is with you, but how many of us consider that we have to go out and buy special insurance? The risk is so low, many insurance companies give away free general 3rd party cover with household insurance. When I am out cycling for leisure or transport (sporting activity is excluded) I am covered against 3rd party claims by my household insurance. If cycling posed a serious risk to others, you can be damned sure the insurance companies would be charging extra for it, they aren't going to take the risk of making a loss!!

Aye, but I'm wondering about the situation where a student (who living in student accom) might not have insurance. What do they do if they strike a pedestrian down, of they don't have insurance? As Tynan's recent experience suggests a cyclist can still do some hefty damage. How would the student pay for any damages without insurance?

Situations like that are certainly rarer, but they do happen.

I'm not arguing against it, I can just see the argument for insurance being a requirement.

 

[BentMikey]

I think it's unlikely that cyclists would be required to have insurance, as at present. That's for two reasons - cyclists tend not to cause serious injury and damage to others' property, and they have *extreme* motivation to avoid collisions. Both quite unlike the same issues with motor vehicles.

 

[J4CKO]

Ill give you that one

Terrible bit of driving, pointless overtake that left you nowhere to go, Buses are a nightmare but ones that bend in the middle are a bigger liability.

 

[magnatom]

I think it's unlikely that cyclists would be required to have insurance, as at present. That's for two reasons - cyclists tend not to cause serious injury and damage to others' property, and they have *extreme* motivation to avoid collisions. Both quite unlike the same issues with motor vehicles.

I think in general that is true. I'm just wondering what would actually happen to that student? What would happen on the rare occasion where you send someone to hospital with serious injuries?

As you will be aware it's not cyclists you have to convince with this, so if that system comes in, I can to some extent understand the attitude, 'we'll give you that if you do this'.

 

[BentMikey]

Not having insurance doesn't prevent the other party from sueing for recompense.

 

[postman]

The driving was bad enough .

But hell when she asked you to buy a ticket .cos you were nearly on her bus .That takes the bisquit .

 

[magnatom]

Not having insurance doesn't prevent the other party from sueing for recompense.

Now this is where my understanding ends. What actually happens if you are sued but you don't have the money or insurance to cover it?

 

[magnatom]

The driving was bad enough .

But hell when she asked you to buy a ticket .cos you were nearly on her bus .That takes the bisquit .

Aye, I suppose I was almost a passenger!

 

[BentMikey]

MIB? Bankruptcy? I don't even know if the MIB covers collisions where a cyclist was uninsured.

 

[magnatom]

MIB? Bankruptcy? I don't even know if the MIB covers collisions where a cyclist was uninsured.

You see that's what concerns me. If a cyclist is uninsured and can't pay then there might be no compensation. Thus if Strict Liabilty does come in, I can understand calls for insurance.

The problem isn't the cost, it would be small (most of us are insured anyway) it would be the policing and running any system to check that cyclists were insured.

 

[HJ]

Aye, but I'm wondering about the situation where a student (who living in student accom) might not have insurance. What do they do if they strike a pedestrian down, of they don't have insurance? As Tynan's recent experience suggests a cyclist can still do some hefty damage. How would the student pay for any damages without insurance?

Situations like that are certainly rarer, but they do happen.

I'm not arguing against it, I can just see the argument for insurance being a requirement.

Mag, think about it, where is the need? OK so there maybe a knee jerk reaction from Clarkson Tendency but not an argument that would stand up to any questioning. Just look how long the policy on compulsory 3rd party insurance for dogs lasted...

 

[magnatom]

Mag, think about it, where is the need? OK so there maybe a knee jerk reaction from Clarkson Tendency but not an argument that would stand up to any questioning. Just look how long the policy on compulsory 3rd party insurance for dogs lasted...

Aye, but my question is valid. What would actually happen in the students case?

 

[HJ]

I think in general that is true. I'm just wondering what would actually happen to that student? What would happen on the rare occasion where you send someone to hospital with serious injuries?

As you will be aware it's not cyclists you have to convince with this, so if that system comes in, I can to some extent understand the attitude, 'we'll give you that if you do this'.

Under the current law you are liable to pay damages if you are negligent and you send someone to hospital with serious injuries. Unless of course you are driving, in which case you can kill someone and it is brushed off as just an accident...

 

[magnatom]

Under the current law you are liable to pay damages if you are negligent and you send someone to hospital with serious injuries. Unless of course you are driving, in which case you can kill someone and it is brushed off as just an accident...

Aye, so if Strict Liabilty was introduced, more would be liable and as a result more might not be able to pay if not insured?

I'm not trying to be funny here, just trying to play devils advocate and to get it straight in my head (which now has a couple of very nice Weihenstephan in it!