Should Insurance Be Required?

[PhilDawson8270]

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.

I never said anybody SHOULD have it, I said, insurance should NOT be compulsory.

If the cyclist wishes to protect themselves from litigation, through lack of finances, then insurance can be a wise choice.

The big problem though, is that those who consider insurance, and cycling membership, aren't the ones likely to cause the incidents.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

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. !

Assuming I was to hold the opinion of compulsory cyclist insurance (I do not have this opinion before somebody randomly misquotes)

Similar idea to how it works with cars! Poor people must have insurance, if you have a spare £500k you an lodge it with the government, and not need to purchase 3rd party insurance.

 

[theclaud]

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?


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.

You're seeing the world through an insurance-coloured mindset that only exists by virtue of the dominance of motor traffic, the extraordinary danger it presents to others, the extravagant demands it makes on public space, and the symbolic importance of vehicles for their owners. Cycling, walking, and the other harmless activities that constitute our everyday interactions in the street are simply not comparable. Occasional unintended minor damage to cars by cyclists or pedestrians is simply not an issue, any more than it is an issue that a visitor to your house might accidentally knock a glass of red wine over your carpet, or a group of kids might kick a ball awry and break a window.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

You're seeing the world through an insurance-coloured mindset that only exists by virtue of the dominance of motor traffic, the extraordinary danger it presents to others, the extravagant demands it makes on public space, and the symbolic importance of vehicles for their owners. Cycling, walking, and the other harmless activities that constitute our everyday interactions in the street are simply not comparable. Occasional unintended minor damage to cars by cyclists or pedestrians is simply not an issue, any more than it is an issue that a visitor to your house might accidentally knock a glass of red wine over your carpet, or a group of kids might kick a ball awry and break a window.

Good analogies, well put across point. I will accept this, and concede the point (to an extent),

 

[ufkacbln]

So his INSURANCE covered the costs?

His "HOME" Insurance paid the bill.

As most of us have home insurance that entirely solves the perceived problem

 

[Profpointy]

Assuming I was to hold the opinion of compulsory cyclist insurance (I do not have this opinion before somebody randomly misquotes)

Similar idea to how it works with cars! Poor people must have insurance, if you have a spare £500k you an lodge it with the government, and not need to purchase 3rd party insurance.

Yes but the point here is that vehicle claims can be seriously hefty - how about 3 months in hospital plus 6 months on zimmer frame / crutches with more surgery to come - my father in law. The odds of such a cycling claim are extremely remote. And also, bear in mind there's no point even suing "a poor person" as by definition, they can't pay if you win. It's paradoxically more important to have insurance (against big claims) if you're better off and have something (a house typically) to protect

 

[SpokeyDokey]

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 motorist would prefer to just deal with the courts and claims themselves.

But how many people would agree with that?

 

[Profpointy]

Good analogies, well put across point. I will accept this, and concede the point (to an extent),

This won't do at all. You can't go being persuaded by a reasonable argument, this being the internet and all. Let's have a (false) complaint of "ad-hominem" or ideally a comparison to Hitler at the very least.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

This won't do at all. You can't go being persuaded by a reasonable argument, this being the internet and all. Let's have a (false) complaint of "ad-hominem" or ideally a comparison to Hitler at the very least.

You don't even pay any road tax! Even Hitler would have paid road tax!


(Will that do?)

 

[anothersam]

Should Insurance Be Required?

No.