Motor insurance should include cycling cover?

[Dogtrousers]

Don't you mean "even more reluctant", Matt? A negligible minority of drivers moan about this; about the same as moan about cyclists not paying 'road tax'.

Yes, it would be a bit of a sledgehammer of a change in insurance policy to crack a nut of some people bellyaching on twitter and in the comments section of a random local newspaper. And they'd carry on bellyaching regardless as fact doesn't enter into it - witness the "road tax" argument which is prevalent despite it being utter bollocks.

Never wrestle with a pig. You will both get dirty and the pig enjoys it.

 

[matticus]

Never wrestle with a pig

Talking of which ...

Look. I didn't say "THIS is why we must try this AMAZING idea"; I just said it would be one positive from the scheme.

Sheesh ...

 

[matticus]

p.s.

and in the comments section of a random local newspaper

It's pretty much EVERY newspaper: local and otherwise! And a number of my colleagues. And ...

 

[Dogtrousers]

Talking of which ...

Look. I didn't say "THIS is why we must try this AMAZING idea"; I just said it would be one positive from the scheme.

Sheesh ...

You're enjoying this aren't you?

 

[matticus]

You're enjoying this aren't you?

The pig-wrestling? Always!

 

[a.twiddler]

When I first started driving many moons ago, my comprehensive insurance permitted me to drive other vehicles, but only with minimum 3rd party cover, for any type of vehicle for which I had a full licence, with the owner's permission. This only applied to the policyholder, not named drivers.
That would in my case have been such things as motorcycles with or without a sidecar, mopeds, three wheelers, vans or minibuses. Of course these would already have had to have a current insurance in the name of their owner. If I wanted to drive another vehicle which I owned, that had to have its own insurance policy. I think that more recent policies have restricted cover for driving other vehicles to ones of the same type, ie cars. These days, it is probably another chargeable "extra".

So if you have a car, and you are insured for cycling under its policy, does that limit you to a named bicycle with a specific identification such as a frame number, or does it cover you for any bike that you own? Many who post on CC will have several bikes, so it's not just a theoretical query.
Based on my experience at least, named drivers didn't get additional cover like the policyholder does, so would such a policy compare well for value for money compared with a standard car insurance plus a separate cycling insurance policy?

Just curious. it looks like it could get complicated.

 

[Smokin Joe]

It's quite likely that it would also encourage policy-holders to cycle.
And if EVERYONE's policy had this, that would be a much bigger push.

Y

I bet it wouldn't.

 

[Dogtrousers]

does that limit you to a named bicycle

Naming bicycles isn't something that appeals to me. But some people do it.
https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/does-your-bike-have-a-name.204322/

 

[matticus]

I bet it wouldn't.

Would too.

 

[a.twiddler]

If anyone can cycle regardless of insurance, why would having some kind of cycle cover with your car insurance encourage you to cycle if you didn't do it before?

 

[jay clock]

It's quite likely that it would also encourage policy-holders to cycle.

I cannot remember a single motorist ever saying to me they would love to cycle but they haven't got insurance so it puts them off

 

[harlechjoe]

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

Pleasingly I am covered through on my home insurance against theft but wonder if people who rent are covered for bicycle theft , or whether they can take out home insurance on what is another persons property. When cycling I have third party cover through British Cycling.

 

[C R]

Pleasingly I am covered through on my home insurance against theft but wonder if people who rent are covered for bicycle theft , or whether they can take out home insurance on what is another persons property. When cycling I have third party cover through British Cycling.

When we used to rent we had home insurance. It didn't cover the property itself, but it covered our possessions against damage and theft, and it also included personal liability and legal assistance.

 

[boydj]

Like most house contents policies, my home insurance gives me several million pounds of public liability cover when cycling. My bikes are also specified in the valuables section of the policy and so are covered for theft and accidental damage away from the home.

Most adult cyclists are drivers, but the majority of drivers are not cyclists. Although it would be only a small additional cost on car policies, I don't think it's justifable or necessary for car policies to cover the policy holder when cycling.

 

[PaulSB]

My own view would be it will always be impossible to persuade all cyclists to carry insurance and I don't suggest this should be the case. I don't have any statistics for claims against cyclists be they insured or uninsured. I venture out on the road and park my bikes away in the garage confident I am covered by BC and my Home Contents policy. Confident? Well yes I am. Is this misplaced? I think it probably is. I'm confident in the cover I have for my bikes against theft, damage, accident etc. because I research this carefully as part of the buying decision on my Buildings and Contents cover. It is a deal breaker. Now BC. Well I know BC provides me with insurance cover but for what? I have this warm cosy feeling that if things go wrong I can call BC and they will support and help me and I'm "covered." Not quite sure what this would mean in practice.

If a motor policy was available which included comprehensive cover for bikes I would be very interested. I think it would be clearer to me whether or not I had appropriate cover if I was dealing with a motor insurer if only because I'm familiar with reading their documentation. I'd find it attractive to bring all my cycling related insurance together in one policy rather than have it spread across two and potentially find a trapdoor through which my particular need might fall.