Motor insurance should include cycling cover?

[PaulSB]

I was skimming through one of those tedious "should cyclists be required to have insurance by law" threads on Facebook which contained all the usual responses.

Then I came across a post which I thought an interesting and sensible approach namely all motor vehicle policies must cover the policy holder while riding a bike. I've no idea what the cost might be but it seemed like an excellent thought to me.

Let's discuss not rant. I think I would support such a move.

 

[C R]

Most home insurance policies include personal liability and legal assistance, so most cyclists are covered that way anyway.

 

[kingrollo]

I think cycle insurance should be more like car insurance. In that you buy the insurance package and your car and you are pretty covered.

Not like cycle insurance - where some only covers public liability insurance - some covers theft but little else - some cover the bike all risks - but this is expensive.

And then the theft cover requires a special lock and has a whole host of disclaimers.

Car insurance you pretty much buy it and you're done.

 

[Oldhippy]

No because those who don't or choose not to drive would end up being railroaded in also having to have insurance to use a vehicle that requires no insurance which in turn could put new people off cycling and create a whole new industry of corporations pretending they care and scam you out of cash you don't need to spend.

 

[Alex321]

I think cycle insurance should be more like car insurance. In that you buy the insurance package and your car and you are pretty covered.

Not like cycle insurance - where some only covers public liability insurance - some covers theft but little else - some cover the bike all risks - but this is expensive.

And then the theft cover requires a special lock and has a whole host of disclaimers.

Car insurance you pretty much buy it and you're done.

You have multiple options with car insurance.

Third party only (minimum required by law), Third party Fire & Theft, Fully Comprehensive. And those vary as to what exactly is covered, depending on the provider - for instance, almost all comprehensive policies used to cover the policyholder when driving other people's car, but not all do any more.

 

[Alex321]

I wouldn't support such a move. For the reasons given by both CR and Oldhippy.

 

[vickster]

Most home insurance policies include personal liability and legal assistance, so most cyclists are covered that way anyway.

Usually at an optional extra cost though? Ditto for legal cover on car insurance

 

[kingrollo]

You have multiple options with car insurance.

Third party only (minimum required by law), Third party Fire & Theft, Fully Comprehensive. And those vary as to what exactly is covered, depending on the provider - for instance, almost all comprehensive policies used to cover the policyholder when driving other people's car, but not all do any more.

Fair point.

I do think the ommisions are more obvious though.

I just hear a lot of people who think they are covered against all outcomes because they have British cycling membership.

 

[vickster]

Fair point.

I do think the ommisions are more obvious though.

I just hear a lot of people who think they are covered against all outcomes because they have British cycling membership.

Hear where?

 

[newfhouse]

I think it would be a nice bonus if motor insurers added third party cycle insurance but I’d be uncomfortable with it being mandated in some way. What would happen to those without motor insurance - children, the elderly, those that don’t want or need a car? Would normalising insurance cover mean the uninsured would be treated less favourably if they were involved in a collision?

 

[TheDoctor]

Literally no country in the world mandates cycle insurance. It's unworkable and impractical.

 

[matticus]

Literally no country in the world mandates cycle insurance. It's unworkable and impractical.

To be fair, that's not what the OP is suggesting!

 

[Dogtrousers]

I don't know about the "all policies must cover the policy holder while riding a bike" but if they threw it in as a freebie to attract cyclists who also drive (and the motor insurance industry sure likes to try a gimmick to attract people) it might catch my eye when I was looking to renew.

Who knows, perhaps some of them already do. I don't pay much attention I'm afraid.

 

[figbat]

Why put it on car insurance? Why not a more general personal liability insurance that covers whatever risks the holder signs up for? Driving, cycling, hang gliding, archery, land access etc...?

 

[Sharky]

No - I can see loopholes and problems.

My car policy has two named drivers, so would that mean both of us would be covered when riding out together. When our kids were at home, we had our children as named drivers as well. So would we all be covered when riding a bike?

Even more complex, our eldest has a motobility car. She can't drive her self, but the insurance is an "open policy", meaning that anybody can drive the car with our permission.

So policy wording would need to be very specific to cover all possibilities.