Should Insurance Be Required?

[glenn forger]

After investigating the case, the MIB agreed that the untraceable driver was liable for the accident and that they would be able to compensate Mr P.

http://www.jmw.co.uk/services-for-y...ies/cyclist-involved-in-hit-and-run-accident/

 

[PhilDawson8270]

You said insurance is a good idea. If you can find a verifiable example of a cyclist causing an unrecoverable loss you would have a point. After all, if it's a problem there must be examples?

It also protects the cyclist.

Unless the cyclist has a spare few k lay around then how can all accidents be recovered?

Unfortunately not everybody is lucky enough to be as rich as you so to afford being able to pay for any accident

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

I am of the opinion that Complulsory Insurance for cyclists is one of those red herrings promoted by the media and motoring interest groups. I have yet to see any compelling evidence that cyclists cause major damages to cars and pedestrians that would warrant a compulsory scheme.

Such a scheme would be difficult and expensive to police and at a time when we want to get more cyclists on the road would be a hindrance to that aim.

That said I do think on a personal basis that if you are cycling on a regular basis then some form of insurance is a good idea.

As a member of British Cycling I have 3rd party insurance plus I have taken out insurance to protect my own bikes - but that is a personal choice.

While not compelling evidence, the car I rear ended last night at 20mph+ was perfectly undamaged,as luck would have it so was my bike.

I on the other hand have had a headache since it happened, a very tender right shoulder, helmet strap burn on my chin, swollen face a jaw I can barely chew food with,and a helmet that I won't be wearing again.

Insured though

 

[glenn forger]

It also protects the cyclist.

Unless the cyclist has a spare few k lay around then how can all accidents be recovered?

Unfortunately not everybody is lucky enough to be as rich as you so to afford being able to pay for any accident

Why get personal? You have an opinion, no need to attack those with others. I invited you to provide any evidence that would justify your claims. Your inability to do so is noted.

 

[martint235]

It doesn't work like that, just because a court rules in your favour, and orders them to pay. It doesn't mean you will get cash, if they can't afford to, or refuse. You need to go through another court process, costing even more money.

If they don't have the cash to pay the first lot, you reckon they can pay the next set of court costs + bailiff fees? Chances are you're not getting the money back

You mean the MIB (Motor Insurers Bureau)? They will cover uninsured costs etc, but each claim on that is covered by all drivers insurance policy, at which a certain % of the insurance cost goes towards.

No I mean a central Govt pot where the Govt shells out immediately and then takes whatever measures are necessary to reclaim the money. It could well take years but the Govt has time on its hands. This ensures the injured party gets there money immediately.

I've been taken to court by the Govt and it doesn't let up and it always gets its cash eventually

 

[classic33]

On another (non-cycling) forum that I am a regular member of, there has been a comment about what happens if cyclists hit drivers and cause damage while cycling. What recourse do drivers (or I guess any other road users and pedestrians) have against cyclists?

Stemming from this, a new thread has been started asking whether cyclists should (like car users) be required to hold insurance in order to use their bikes? What about some sort of road-worthiness test, like an MOT? Are there people out there riding old rust-buckets and are a liability and about to fall apart on the road? I can't work out how I feel about this because I don't know the pros and cons. What do you all think?

So two-part then... should cyclists have to have insurance? Should cyclists have to obtain some sort of pass in a road worthiness test?

My own instinctive thoughts are that cyclists have more need to be afraid of cars than vice versa, but I know that's not an answer. Perhaps house insurance with a third part liability cover would be sufficient? I'd love to hear some experiences and opinions

Who would a cyclist claim from when they're hit(T-boned at a junction) by a car that has no insurance or valid MOT. And the driver at the time, who isn't the owner is unfit to drive through drink and/or drugs. Has no licence, insurance to be actually be behind the wheel at the time?

One in five vehicles on the road at present is on illegally. Either no valid MOT or insurance. A short trip of nine miles will take me to an area where the industry estimated figure for uninsured vehicles is 47%, add uninsured/unlicenced drivers and its over 50%.

When those driving motor vehicles can claim to have got their own house in order, on this part, then let them look elsewhere. At present they're a good example of just what you can get away with. Despite what the law says.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Why get personal? You have an opinion, no need to attack those with others. I invited you to provide any evidence that would justify your claims. Your inability to do so is noted.

I am posting from a phone at the moment. However, a quick Google search finds various articles of insurance companies and individuals unable to recover costs from a cyclist.

It is difficult to post a list from the phone, but will do so when I'm at a PC.

I didn't intend for the post to sound personal, so I apologise if that is how our sounded. However, your stand seems to be that all cyclists can afford to cover the costs.

(I don't rlj, but if I jumped a light and hit a brand new merc at 20mph, I don't have the cash to cover it. Insurance isn't just there for the benefit of others, but also to protect the policy holder from liabilities)

 

[PhilDawson8270]

I've no idea how to discern the difference between a casual cyclist and a "road cyclist", whatever that is.

By causal cyclist, I'm referring to the guys who go out every couple of month when the weather is nice, or to pop to the local shop.

Making insurance compulsory is likely to force these kinds of cyclist off them, whereas it would have a smaller effect on the keen cyclist

 

[Booyaa]

No.

 

[byegad]

...Edit....

Unless these detractors can evidence that there's a significant problem of uninsured cyclists rampaging across the countryside and leaving people out of pocket, or of in roadworthy cycles being responsible for the slaughter of millions then its not even worth debating. Before solving a problem its traditional to first establish that one genuinely exists.

You are some kind of revolutionary with ideas like this. Bigotry is much simpler! See Maily Dail, the Sun and most other papers.

 

[Drago]

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?

The cyclists insurance, and if he's not insured then the cyclist himself. It ain't difficult to figure out.

 

[lee1980sim]

Couple of points, although I do have insurance so don't think I'm against it,

How will it be monitored / policed (bikes don't have number plates that the anpr camera can run traces on)

And will this mean forcing every 4 year old who dares to venture out on a bike to have insurance etc?

 

[PhilDawson8270]

The cyclists insurance, and if he's not insured then the cyclist himself. It ain't difficult to figure out.

Yes.

If the cyclist has no insurance is unlikely they still get anything. This is the same as a car.

Hence why I said it should not be compulsory, I never said it should. I said it is a good idea for regular road users to have it, but should not be forced.

 

[glenn forger]

your stand seems to be that all cyclists can afford to cover the costs.

What costs? I've asked you twice for examples. If it's a problem I'm willing to be convinced.

 

[Drago]

Yes.

If the cyclist has no insurance is unlikely they still get anything. This is the same as a car.

Hence why I said it should not be compulsory, I never said it should. I said it is a good idea for regular road users to have it, but should not be forced.

in the case of an uninsured car, the person out of pocket claims from the MIB.

In the case of an uninsured cyclist the car driver or their insurer sues them, the same way any one else gets sued over a civil debt. None of this is new or difficult to comprehend.