Should Insurance Be Required?

[PhilDawson8270]

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.

An insurance company wouldn't take a cyclist to court, they should, but won't.

They're highly unlikely to recover their cost, they won't even go to court to defend many diving incidents.

I rear ended a car several years ago, claim was settled. 6 months later a pietistical injury claim was put in for whiplash.

They claimed to have missed several weeks of work. Being their employer I had substantial evidence this was false, their shift schedules, CCTV footage, etc. The claim cane 2 weeks after they were dismissed.

The insurance company with evidence, refused to go to court as the costs to defend were higher than a settlement, and they would be unlikely to recover their costs from the claimant.

They will know that there's little chance of recovering the money so won't risk it.

Plus if a driver only has 3rd party cover, the insurance company will have nothing to do with the incident. The driver will need to do it themselves. At which point does paying out several hundred for court fees and enforcement fees become viable when there's still a chance you will receive no cash even if you win.

Which part do you not follow?

 

[glenn forger]

An insurance company wouldn't take a cyclist to court, they should, but won't.

Got an example of that happening, he asked optimistically?

 

[jnrmczip]

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.

That's cheap haha. If anyone else would like me to do so then just ask. Can't help feel I'm just being ripped off. To be honest I think I'm going to get rid of the car as I use the bike. Only reason I have it is the kids

 

[shouldbeinbed]

Got an example of that happening, he asked optimistically?

An example of something not happening?

 

[glenn forger]

That's right, an example of an insurance company not taking a cyclist to court. Or an example of a cyclist causing an unrecoverable loss. Either will do, it kind of amounts to the same thing.

 

[ufkacbln]

WHiplash is intersting...

We dealt with a cowboy company called "Drive Assist" (not through choice)


We would get phone calls asking about injuries.

They would not accept no for an answer. Their favourite was "You must at least have Whiplash, everyone suffers from Whiplash"

We even had one guy explain that we were missing out on a substantial cash payment by not having Whiplash!

 

[alecstilleyedye]

my home insurance policy covers me for personal liability on the bike, and to join the local cycling club i have to have either ctc or bc insurance as well, so i'm over-insured really.

personally, i'd like to see cycling incorporated into the driving test; you have to do months riding a bike on the road before you're eligible to take a driving test. the insurance element could be made mandatory for all people applying for a licence and thus cycling on the road as part of their driver training. maybe some sort of 'citizen's insurance' that is paid for by national insurance contributions, that would cover any non-motoring third-party liability.

beware direct line's claim about uninsured drivers; if you've suffered a hit-and-run, or they can't find an uninsured third-party that will admit liability, you'll end up being liable for the claim and losing your no claims discount, same as any other insurance company…

 

[PhilDawson8270]

personally, i'd like to see cycling incorporated into the driving test; you have to do months riding a bike on the road before you're eligible to take a driving test. the insurance element could be made mandatory for all people applying for a licence and thus cycling on the road as part of their driver training.

Motorcyclists say the same thing, that will turn into a considerable number of hoops to jump through.

The problem is that kids these days spend their time sat in the house playing on the computer, instead of being out and about on their bikes. This is the age where they can get some experience of being out around a road, and hopefully it will stick with them when they eventually drive.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

That's right, an example of an insurance company not taking a cyclist to court. Or an example of a cyclist causing an unrecoverable loss. Either will do, it kind of amounts to the same thing.

Can you prove God doesn't exist? Can you prove that pink bananas don't grown naturally? Negatives can't be proven.

However, here are some links of anecdotal evidence, and articles.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/...eeded+following+accident+with+a+cyclist&mid=0

They have re-stated they will not take him to court.

The cyclist has stated he does not accept fault and has replied with some nonsense. As such I will need to go to court which is an additional 280 on top of the 60 fee already paid.

My concern here is that from what I have heard it is VERY hard to reclaim any money via this route so do I really want to chuck another 280 at it???

cyclist rode into the rear 1/4 of my car on a roundabout, mullered the rear quarter, then rode off. No luck with that one!!

Admittedly it is rare, but it can and does happen, that a cyclist is at fault in an incident.

Rare enough not to be compulsory, as I said I do NOT AGREE with compulsory insurance. But if the cyclist does NOT have the ASSETS or CASH to cover a claim, it may be wise to get it voluntarily.

I have insurance, not for the primary benefit of other road users. But, to protect ME from any litigation, as I do not have several thousand lay around to cover a possible claim should I make a mistake.

I honestly don't understand why you think it is so terrible that a cyclist who cannot afford to pay for claims themselves, should consider insuring themself against it? Please explain your viewpoint that no cyclist should ever get insurance? As that is the viewpoint you seem to be taking.

 

[glenn forger]

Implausible one-sided Anecdotes from a petrol head website is not verifiable evidence. You claimed you had links, post them or be quiet.

 

[alecstilleyedye]

Motorcyclists say the same thing, that will turn into a considerable number of hoops to jump through.

The problem is that kids these days spend their time sat in the house playing on the computer, instead of being out and about on their bikes. This is the age where they can get some experience of being out around a road, and hopefully it will stick with them when they eventually drive.

but the cost of a temporary motorbike is very high, relative to the cost of a licence, and also needs it's own test before you can ride that. a cheap roadworthy pedal cycle can be had for less than a ton (basic, no suspension flat bar hybrid), and which would probably cost a lot less second hand once they are no longer required by the learner driver…

 

[buggi]

I personally don't think it should be required because I believe a cheap form of transport should be accessible to all. You never know what financial hardships you may go through in life and your bike could be your only way of getting around. Plus we need to encourage people onto bikes, not off them.

 

[glenn forger]

It's more interesting that having boasted he had evidence all that Phils managed to find is a far fetched story from a pro speeding website where posters ask for help evading speeding fines.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Implausible one-sided Anecdotes from a petrol head website is not verifiable evidence. You claimed you had links, post them or be quiet.

You are quite frankly being ridiculous. What is implausible about a cyclist hitting a car? What is implausible about an insurance company refusing to spend into the thousands to recover £1400, from an uninsured person with no guaranteed assets?

Are you being intentionally obtuse? There is no "verifiable" source available.

Can you please post evidence of a car causing an unrecoverable loss to a cyclist? From a verified source? So I will not accept an article from any cycling site, or from any cyclist whose opinion is not then challenged by the other party. I assume you can't, and you will reply with "well you do it first".

 

[glenn forger]

You claimed you had loads of evidence. All you've posted is a highly improbably story from an extremely dubious source. How on earth do you reckon that driver discovered the cyclist's lack of home insurance?