Should Insurance Be Required?

[ufkacbln]

Equally to look at another one;


As I was waiting at some traffic lights a driver came up on my left hand side to get to the front of the queue. She knocked my wing mirror off.She know what she had done as she turned drove off up a side street and was gone by the time the lights went green and I could move forward.

This makes me so angry! The damage was relatively minor and I can fix it myself but is there any recourse? I would recognise the driver if I saw her again but I am unlikely to. And even if I did if she denied it it is my word against hers!

Exactly the same issue that has not been solved by insurance

 

[PhilDawson8270]

@glenn forger

Ignoring the disagreement over the evidence supplied, and all other posts in this thread. I believe my opinion may have been diluted over the previous pages, so I will clarify.

• Insurance should NOT be compulsory
• Cyclists SOMETIMES hit another vehicle
• If a cyclist does not have the finances to pay a claim, it may be WISE to protect themselves with insurance

I am asking kindly with no hostility from previous posts, to address these 2 points, which you disagree with and why?

Do you believe that insurance should be compulsory?
Do you believe that cyclist can sometimes be at fault?
Do you believe that a cyclist with no financial ability to pay an at fault claim, should just refuse to pay for their damage?

Please do answer, as I genuinely do not know what your opinion is, or what you disagree with.

Thanks

 

[theclaud]

So the only allowed opinion is the one that fits with the majority, and must be pro-cycling with total bias? That no cyclist can ever cause an accident, and no cyclist can ever be too poor to be unable to pay for damage?

We've got our own dismal little contingent of anti-cyclists here already, without needing to have what are actually the dominant and also inherently biased pro-motorist/cyclist-hostile views imported from such obvious sources. I am already insured, thanks, but my view is that insurance for incidental damage to cars should be covered by, er, car insurance. This is slightly separate to a moral question about who should pay for what in a particular incident, which comes down to how much of an idiot you have been in causing the damage, whether the cost of repair is proportionate t the level of idiocy, and whether you can afford it or not. Cyclists simply aren't a threat to motorists.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

We've got our own dismal little contingent of anti-cyclists here already, without needing to have what are actually the dominant and also inherently biased pro-motorist/cyclist-hostile views imported from such obvious sources.

I am already insured, thanks, but my view is that insurance for incidental damage to cars should be covered by, er, car insurance.

Why should that be the case though? Why should damage done to cycles (with no injury), be paid for by the car insurance. Why should damage done to cars by a cycle, also be covered by the car insurance?

This is slightly separate to a moral question about who should pay for what in a particular incident, which comes down to how much of an idiot you have been in causing the damage, whether the cost of repair is proportionate t the level of idiocy, and whether you can afford it or not. Cyclists simply aren't a threat to motorists.

I certainly agree. The majority of incidents resulting in damage is usually the fault of the car, I do not dispute this at all. My point is simply that, sometimes cyclists make a mistake and hit a vehicle, and should be held liable.

If they pay for the damage themselves that is fine, but if they do not have the money to cover it. Insurance can protect the cyclist from litigation and court costs.

I am certainly not pro-compulsion, but think that it can also be beneficial to the cyclist to hold 3rd party liability cover.

 

[glenn forger]

You plainly didn't read the consumer action group link:

Hi Guys,

Just had a call from Churchill. The cyclist has admitted full liability, his insurers will pay in full direct to garage so I don't have to pay any excess & my NCD has been reinstated. I hope this thread has been of help to anyone else in a similar situation. It seems most of us are covered for 3rd party whilst walking and cycling on our home insurance

.

Cheers

 

[PhilDawson8270]

You plainly didn't read the consumer action group link:

Hi Guys,

Just had a call from Churchill. The cyclist has admitted full liability, his insurers will pay in full direct to garage so I don't have to pay any excess & my NCD has been reinstated. I hope this thread has been of help to anyone else in a similar situation. It seems most of us are covered for 3rd party whilst walking and cycling on our home insurance

.

Cheers

So his INSURANCE covered the costs?

 

[glenn forger]

So why did you post that link? Had you read it?

 

[PhilDawson8270]

So why did you post that link? Had you read it?

Will you please answer the post that I directed to you, so I can understand your disagreements and your viewpoint.

Until then, the only opinion of you I am able to form, is that you're intentionally trying to cause an argument.

 

[glenn forger]

No I'm not.

 

[glenn forger]

In order, no, yes, that's not a no or yes question.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Ok, so we pretty much have the same opinion.

My point isn't that it is a problem, and I apologise if that's how it appeared. Just that it can be beneficial to have some form of insurance to protect yourself from a civil claim.

 

[Profpointy]

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.

Imagine if a pedestrian had caused a cyclist to fall off !

 

[Profpointy]

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?

Insurance has little to do with it. Car owner sues cyclist for what, a grand maybe - and cyclist has to pay. Most working people can afford a grand, albeit would hurt somewhat, but we could pay. Hey, I'm down a grand if my bike gets nicked

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Insurance has little to do with it. Car owner sues cyclist for what, a grand maybe - and cyclist has to pay. Most working people can afford a grand, albeit would hurt somewhat, but we could pay. Hey, I'm down a grand if my bike gets nicked

They would have to wait a few months to get a grand from me, and probably many others.

But, for very little money, membership to BC, protects the cyclist from this outlay. A good idea, but certainly should not be compulsory if the cyclist would prefer to just deal with the courts and claims themselves.

 

[Profpointy]

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)

So maybe only "poor people" should have to have insurance. Anyone with over (say) a grand knocking about their bank account or reasonably able to save up a grand over a year can be exempt. !

I am being facetious by the way, but it's a logical challenge to your point arguably.