Should Insurance Be Required?

[ufkacbln]

It all boils down to the same thing.

Car drivers want cyclists to have the same restrictions as they do. They see it as being fair.

They cannit understand that cyclists don't because they don't kill, injure or cause damage to the same scale. It's why buying a screw driver has less restrictions than buying a rocket launcher. The owners of rocket launchers will complain that a screw driver can kill.

Often more...

We have a petrol lhead at work who is always on about this, despite all the cyclists showing they have insurance!

Then there is "Road Tax" where he feels that £50 is a fair amount, but when asked if that is for all Class A vehicles he suddenly feels that cars don't need to pay "Road Tax" if they have low emissions.

 

[ufkacbln]

The other fun one with Road Tax was the I pay to use the roads therefore I have more right to use it....

Pointing out that 6 of us had vehicles in higher emission rackets and paid MORE than he did... however apparently that does not give us more rights than him

 

[Citius]

Pedestrians should have insurance. One stood on my foot the other day and scratched my shoe.

 

[PK99]

A friend on a CTC ride was brought down by another rider's carelessness. Broke his hip.
Outcome:
£40k+ compensation paid by ctc insurance

Compulsory or not, it is wise for cyclists to be insured.

 

[Drago]

All criminals who damage and steal things should be insured.

I can't help thinking that this thread may be a lame effort at trolling?

 

[SD1]

It all boils down to the same thing.

Car drivers want cyclists to have the same restrictions as they do. They see it as being fair.

They cannit understand that cyclists don't because they don't kill, injure or cause damage to the same scale. It's why buying a screw driver has less restrictions than buying a rocket launcher. The owners of rocket launchers will complain that a screw driver can kill.

Excellent point. Although I would point out that rocket launchers are not considered dangerous it's the combination of rocket and launcher that are. That bit of pedanticism aside, most of us do have insurance. Household insurance covers liability? At least I think it does?
​

 

[jnrmczip]

To an extent I think cyclists should have insurance but mostly for the fact of being in an accident and not being able to work and so on. But on the other hand I don't agree with insurance. As a driver I don't even agree with insurance not saying it shouldn't be there but I don't think I should be paying every year for something I don't use its basically like giving money away for free to a company who doesn't deserve it. I think if you don't have an accident you should be able to reclaim some of the money in some way. I understand it's there for a reason but for someone to get rich by me being a careful driver I don't think is ok.

 

[Markymark]

Cars never needed insurance. Not many things did. Trouble is crappy drivers kept doing more damage they could afford to cover with increasing occurrence so something had to be done.

Cyclists will never get to this point as they rarely cause damage and when they do it's usually affordable. Unrecoverable losses are too rare to warrant the cost for compulsory insurance unlike cars.

 

[400bhp]

A friend on a CTC ride was brought down by another rider's carelessness. Broke his hip.
Outcome:
£40k+ compensation paid by ctc insurance

Compulsory or not, it is wise for cyclists to be insured.

Who paid out there and for what?

The injured cyclist's insurance as a lump sum for a particular injury (broke hip in this case)?

The other cyclist's insurance, covering 3rd party liability and if so was this under specific cycling insurance or under his household policy?

Or something else?

You have to ask what are you wishing to insure? 3rd party liability for bodily injury and to cover property damage and/or property damage to ones own bike?

It's appropriate to have insurance, more so if you bring another cyclist down I suppose.

In terms of injury to another (non cyclist) party, then IIRC most household insurance will cover this? So, most cyclists will be insured whilst cycling.

 

[Brandane]

To an extent I think cyclists should have insurance but mostly for the fact of being in an accident and not being able to work and so on. But on the other hand I don't agree with insurance. As a driver I don't even agree with insurance not saying it shouldn't be there but I don't think I should be paying every year for something I don't use its basically like giving money away for free to a company who doesn't deserve it. I think if you don't have an accident you should be able to reclaim some of the money in some way. I understand it's there for a reason but for someone to get rich by me being a careful driver I don't think is ok.

There is an alternative, as outlined in the Road Traffic Act 1988 sect. 144.
All you need to do is find a spare £500,000 and lodge it with HM Government.

 

[sidevalve]

As usual the bleats about 'car drivers cause more accidents' and "cyclists are statistically are nearly perfect" seem to keep appearing. All that is IRRELEVANT. Sorry but rarity does NOT make it ok. It is nothing to do with 'being fair' it is in these times simple common sense. Cause an accident and it could cost you thousands - not many people have that amount of cash spare. Damage a car when filtering, even a wing mirror and it will be in the hundreds [sorry the world has moved on from the tenner at a breakers yard days]. It's simple for the car driver to sue - er no if the cyclist doesn't have the money then the driver has to suffer the loss [and that includes the loss of a NC bonus which is a large amount these days] through no fault of his own. Third party or public liability insurance is mandatory for many things other than vehicles [for example I show small stationary engines BUT I must have public liability insurance to do so and the number of people injured by stationary engines is even less than those injured by cyclists]. If you cause a driver to brake hard a passenger could suffer whiplash [no really - small children are easily damaged] and - assuming you don't just ride off how do you cover the compensation claim with no insurance ?
Cost ? Need be no more than the price of an inner tube [ this is where the advantage of being a bicycle comes in] and all you need is a small card similar to a credit card issued by the company to prove you are insured. It is you the company is insuring not the bike so talk of MOTs etc is just fanciful fudging of the real issue. Actually riding an unroadworthy bike is illegal [if the police ever bothered with it] even now Enforcement is also just a fudge - unless actually involved in an accident there is no need - only when found to be without insurance is the individual then in breach of the law.
Cyclists expect respect but always seem to be ready to find reasons not to fit in with what are really basic requests.
One last thought - if you were injured by a car driver with no insurance and he had no money to pay you would be rightly pretty upset about it - if the scenario is the other way around [never mind the 'Oh it doesn't happen' rubbish, SOMETIMES it does] do you really think it's ok for 'the other guy' to just accept it ?

 

[PhilDawson8270]

A potential issue is the increased cost of vehicle repairs.

Trying to squeeze through a gap while filtering? Taking off my mirror will be costing me close to £160 to replace the heated, electric mirror. Plus if it's the driver side, I then have increased travel costs as I can't use the car without the drivers side mirror. How many cyclists can pocket the cost? Sue them, if they don't have the money to pay after a court rules against them, then I still get nothing.

I DON'T AGREE with compulsory insurance as I believe that it will reduce the number of cyclists, but I do think it's logical for a cyclist using the road to be insured. Not just for the benefit of car drivers, but for their own protection also.

 

[Markymark]

Loads more things are likely to cause more damage. Kids cause damage. Walking can cause injury. All should be insured. Or not.

driving causes so much damage it needs special provision. Everything else is on a rough par.

 

[Markymark]

As usual the bleats about 'car drivers cause more accidents' and "cyclists are statistically are nearly perfect" seem to keep appearing. All that is IRRELEVANT. Sorry but rarity does NOT make it ok. It is nothing to do with 'being fair' it is in these times simple common sense. Cause an accident and it could cost you thousands - not many people have that amount of cash spare. Damage a car when filtering, even a wing mirror and it will be in the hundreds [sorry the world has moved on from the tenner at a breakers yard days]. It's simple for the car driver to sue - er no if the cyclist doesn't have the money then the driver has to suffer the loss [and that includes the loss of a NC bonus which is a large amount these days] through no fault of his own. Third party or public liability insurance is mandatory for many things other than vehicles [for example I show small stationary engines BUT I must have public liability insurance to do so and the number of people injured by stationary engines is even less than those injured by cyclists]. If you cause a driver to brake hard a passenger could suffer whiplash [no really - small children are easily damaged] and - assuming you don't just ride off how do you cover the compensation claim with no insurance ?
Cost ? Need be no more than the price of an inner tube [ this is where the advantage of being a bicycle comes in] and all you need is a small card similar to a credit card issued by the company to prove you are insured. It is you the company is insuring not the bike so talk of MOTs etc is just fanciful fudging of the real issue. Actually riding an unroadworthy bike is illegal [if the police ever bothered with it] even now Enforcement is also just a fudge - unless actually involved in an accident there is no need - only when found to be without insurance is the individual then in breach of the law.
Cyclists expect respect but always seem to be ready to find reasons not to fit in with what are really basic requests.
One last thought - if you were injured by a car driver with no insurance and he had no money to pay you would be rightly pretty upset about it - if the scenario is the other way around [never mind the 'Oh it doesn't happen' rubbish, SOMETIMES it does] do you really think it's ok for 'the other guy' to just accept it ?

As usual the bleats about 'car drivers cause more accidents' and "cyclists are statistically are nearly perfect" seem to keep appearing. All that is IRRELEVANT. Sorry but rarity does NOT make it ok. It is nothing to do with 'being fair' it is in these times simple common sense. Cause an accident and it could cost you thousands - not many people have that amount of cash spare. Damage a car when filtering, even a wing mirror and it will be in the hundreds [sorry the world has moved on from the tenner at a breakers yard days]. It's simple for the car driver to sue - er no if the cyclist doesn't have the money then the driver has to suffer the loss [and that includes the loss of a NC bonus which is a large amount these days] through no fault of his own. Third party or public liability insurance is mandatory for many things other than vehicles [for example I show small stationary engines BUT I must have public liability insurance to do so and the number of people injured by stationary engines is even less than those injured by cyclists]. If you cause a driver to brake hard a passenger could suffer whiplash [no really - small children are easily damaged] and - assuming you don't just ride off how do you cover the compensation claim with no insurance ?
Cost ? Need be no more than the price of an inner tube [ this is where the advantage of being a bicycle comes in] and all you need is a small card similar to a credit card issued by the company to prove you are insured. It is you the company is insuring not the bike so talk of MOTs etc is just fanciful fudging of the real issue. Actually riding an unroadworthy bike is illegal [if the police ever bothered with it] even now Enforcement is also just a fudge - unless actually involved in an accident there is no need - only when found to be without insurance is the individual then in breach of the law.
Cyclists expect respect but always seem to be ready to find reasons not to fit in with what are really basic requests.
One last thought - if you were injured by a car driver with no insurance and he had no money to pay you would be rightly pretty upset about it - if the scenario is the other way around [never mind the 'Oh it doesn't happen' rubbish, SOMETIMES it does] do you really think it's ok for 'the other guy' to just accept it ?

ffs. How much will compulsory insurance cosy to administer? I would wager at least 10 times the unrecoverable losses that currently occur.

Let's make everyone pay £50m to solve a £5m problem. Any money spent woukd be better spent on the £250m problem of uninsured cars

 

[PhilDawson8270]

There was the video recently of the cyclist hitting the back of a stationary driving instructors car.

If that cyclist is not insured, who foots the bill for the repair? The loss of earnings/hire of a suitable vehicle while it's being repaired?