Road cyclists need mandatory insurance

[hyphen]

Currently walking to find some duct tape.

Reason for that? a lycra clad gang coming in the opposite direction overtaking cars clipped one another and one of them fell into my path was lucky that I swerved and braked.

After he had finished wincing and hopping, his concerned face spoke the words to me "I've got no insurance".

Luckily it was just the wing Mirror knocked off its base so should be relatively easy to fix, but if he had dented the car it could have been a lot of money for him.

Now before the militants start up, I am a cyclist albeit offroad so any self righteous defenders can fk off.

Edited by hyphen on Sunday 5th November 11:12

[TheInternet]

Only road cyclists are liable to cause injury to other people and damage their property?

[hman]

Get the cyclists details
Report the accident to the police
Get a pro-forma estimate for the repair
Present it to the cyclist
If he doesn’t pay within 14 days (or any other reasonable period which you deem appropriate) - Small claims court.

Just because he doesn’t have insurance doesn’t mean he won’t have to pay for damages caused by his negligence.

[xjay1337]

hman said:

Get the cyclists details
Report the accident to the police
Get a pro-forma estimate for the repair
Present it to the cyclist
If he doesn’t pay within 14 days (or any other reasonable period which you deem appropriate) - Small claims court.

Just because he doesn’t have insurance doesn’t mean he won’t have to pay for damages caused by his negligence.

Yes but effort.

It really was the cyclists fault !! Finally in one of these threads.

I think they should have insurance too but it won't ever happen.

[anonymous-user]

I am a road cyclist.

I have £10m third party insurance cover via British Cycling membership.

I agree that it should be mandatory (cover, not necessarily by BC, other providers are available).

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/thirdpartyliabil...

[Johnnytheboy]

JPJPJP said:

I am a road cyclist.

I have £10m third party insurance cover via British Cycling membership.

I agree that it should be mandatory (cover, not necessarily by BC, other providers are available).

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/thirdpartyliabil...

I applaud your common sense.

I am now amusing myself trying to work out how a single cyclist could incur £10m of liability.

Cycle into Fort Knox carrying a nuclear device?

[xjay1337]

Johnnytheboy said:

I applaud your common sense.

I am now amusing myself trying to work out how a single cyclist could incur £10m of liability.

Cycle into Fort Knox carrying a nuclear device?

They'd never cause any liability cos nothing is ever the cyclists fault.

[bigdom]

xjay1337 said:

Johnnytheboy said:

I applaud your common sense.

I am now amusing myself trying to work out how a single cyclist could incur £10m of liability.

Cycle into Fort Knox carrying a nuclear device?

They'd never cause any liability cos nothing is ever the cyclists fault.

I have insurance for all vehicles I use on the road including my bicycle. Do I make mistakes, yes from time to time. We all have the ability to misjudge the gap, how fast another road user is going, will they look/indicate or just bloody stop!

However, I’ve never used any of my vehicles as a device to either intimidate or try to hospitalise another human being. It seems quite odd to me, some “enthusiasts” on here are so blinkered to just one form of transportation.

[Johnnytheboy]

It was a joke.

[jmorgan]

How are you going to police it?

[NatAsp]

The reason insurance isn't mandatory is because it creates a barrier to entry to something which has a beneficial impact both the environment and public health. If bikes had the potential to cause damage/harm on the same scale as motor vehicles then perhaps these factors would be overlooked, but the fact is that they do not.

Cases of death/serious damage caused by bicycles are extremely rare. As has already been pointed out, if a cyclist does damage you or your car then you should take their details and those of witnesses (exactly as you would for an insurance claim), and present them with an invoice for damages in writing. If they don't settle then you can take them to court to claim the money you are entitled to. The level of damage caused by a cyclist is highly unlikely to be unaffordable for them, even if they are a low earner and have to repay over a year. The damage someone could cause by their car on the other hand could run into tens or even hundreds of thousands and as such may never be reclaimable, hence insurance is so important.

This system is perfectly adequate for the time being. Yes, it is a little more for "effort" for you than an insurance claim, but a small price to pay to avoid the alternative (mandating insurance) which would be a complete nightmare to legislate and enforce, and likely have an overall negative impact, with only a select few benefiting.

In the future, advances to both transport and technological infrastructure, could allow mandatory insurance for certain types of cyclist, those who have potential to cause the most damage, to be effectively legislated and enforced. And personally I'd agree that this would be a good thing. Unfortunately it's not practical at the moment - there are too many potential grey areas and loopholes. Ironically though, serious road cyclists who travel at speed tend to have insurance anyway under their BC membership.

Personally I am insured to ride my bike. Earlier this year I had my first ever collision with a car, which was entirely my fault and due to a momentary lapse in concentration and a very unfortunate set of circumstances. I changed details with the driver and agreed with him over e-mail to cover 70% of the modest damages a cash settlement. If he'd claimed against my insurance he'd have received payment in full, but chose to ask me to send him the cash because claiming against the insurance would be "effort".

As is a running theme in these kinds of debates, the real problem are the morons that seem to make up the majority of the public, be they cyclists or drivers, who choose not to act with honesty and integrity.

Before making bold claims based on your emotional response to what's just happened to you, try to consider the bigger picture and ask yourself the question "has someone not thought of this before? Why might the outcome not have been in line with what I want to happen?". Also, bear in mind that the fact that you ride a bike does not somehow elevate your opinion above anyone else's, you have exactly the same capacity to come to an irrational conclusion as a non cyclist.

[okgo]

xjay1337 said:

They'd never cause any liability cos nothing is ever the cyclists fault.

You said you had to bend over to wipe your arse in another thread as you were so fat?

Get a bike! You'd love it.

[kowalski655]

Johnnytheboy said:

I applaud your common sense.

I am now amusing myself trying to work out how a single cyclist could incur £10m of liability.

Cycle into Fort Knox carrying a nuclear device?

Knock down a kid causing brain damage, with lifelong care needed, or a young City high flier earning a ton of cash, and 10 mil might just cover it!!

[yellowjack]

xjay1337 said:

They'd never cause any liability cos nothing is ever the cyclists fault.

So you'd be happy to ditch millions of pounds worth of third party liability from your motor insurance policy then? And take the risk of losing everything to a compensation claim for a lifetime's care for a brain injured child, for example? Which is exactly the sort of scenario insurers are considering when they provide large sums of third party cover in cycling policies.

As far as it goes, I think "car drivers need mandatory insurance" too. Oh. Wait. They do. But it doesn't stop thousands of them from driving without it on a daily basis. And FWIW I have insurance too, via my home insurance policy.

When the uninsured losses caused by cyclists amount to hundreds of thousands, or possibly millions of pounds annually, and it causes real hardship to their 'victims' and damages the economy, then I think it might become mandatory. Just as concern over the ability of drivers of early motor cars to meet their compensatory obligations led to compulsory motor insurance.

It must be very annoying for the OP, but it's not really any different from getting your car damaged in a car park and the twunt who did it leaves no note. Even when a motorist has insurance for just this sort of thing, some drivers will refuse to admit fault or report an incident in order to preserve their NCD. Do you think it would be any different for a minor bump involving a cyclist? Do you really expect human nature to change just because the human in question chose two wheels over four? Sadly I don't think it will. Google the recent story of a company director who hit a woman in Cornwall while driving to the station to catch a train. He knocked her into a ditch, was alleged to have stopped but left her to die, in order to catch a train for a business trip. Damage to his Land Rover Discovery was said to be significant, including steam/smoke from the engine when he reached the station car park. Yet he had no insurance, claimed that he believed he'd hit a wheelie bin, and has pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving, dangerous driving, and driving without insurance. He's a tt, as, in my experience, are most company director types. But hey, apparently if I say as much I'll be branded "bitter" and "jealous". But it's no wonder he had a £1million second home in Cornwall. He probably bought it with what he saved on never bothering to pay for car insurance. Which is contrary to the law already but that law made no difference. Does anyone honestly believe, deep down, that such a law for road cyclists would make a difference to the OP's predicament right now? Because I don't. And please don't read this wrong, as I wish it wasn't so. But how many times have you, or someone you know, been involved in a collision that wasn't your/their fault, and the other party has lied about the incident to try to get out of being found "at fault"? So while I think it's a great idea in principle, in practice I don't think it would make a lot of difference in "real life situations".

[xjay1337]

Too long. Didn't read.

BTW - while some car drivers have no insurance, this is the exception. Also it's illegal to drive without insurance.

Where as it would be perfectly legal to ride into the side of a Bentley without insurance and cycle off , or force said Bentley owner to pay for it himself.

okgo said:

You said you had to bend over to wipe your arse in another thread as you were so fat?

Get a bike! You'd love it.

I said I stand up and hike a leg.
If you're going to try to play internet detective then at least get it right.

I have a bicycle.

[WolfieBot]

I now have 3rd part insurance. After a mate had a head on with someone's bumper costing him £500 and another friend got sued for crashing into a pedestrian.

It costs £35 a year for the British cycling membership which includes it and gives you 10% off at halfords which has saved me £20 already.

No brainer for me!

[Marcellus]

I would have thought that most riders "in a group" would have some sort of 3rd party cover whether it be British Cycling membership, club insurance order their own

[Some Gump]

xjay1337 said:

They'd never cause any liability cos nothing is ever the cyclists fault.

God you're a constant retard.

Do you show the same level of ignorance when arbitrarily grouping the population based on race, age, gender etc as you do for mode of transport?

[xjay1337]

Some Gump said:

God you're a constant retard.

Do you show the same level of ignorance when arbitrarily grouping the population based on race, age, gender etc as you do for mode of transport?

Pot kettle.

[anonymous-user]

Would he have ranted if the neighbours 5 year old kid had rammed his car on their trike and demanded they had insurance.

Doubt it but that would be far more common than a 'roadie' colliding with a vehicle.