Cyclists need insurance ?
Discussion
I've been contemplating insurance for the GF and me for a while. She commutes daily and I'm more of a sports cyclist but it would seem for the relatively low cost it's worthwhile. However, I am concerned that it could be seen as another barrier to cycling (along with PPE) that could reduce the numbers that could get into cycling.
If you have legal cover on your buildings and contents policy it will probably cover you for this. 18 months or so ago I cycled in to the back of another cyclist when out with the local cycling club. Did several hundreds of pounds of damage to his bike. Having spoken to my household insurer they confirmed that I was covered by their policy as I had been negligent (by definition as I went in to the back of another cyclist).
Ultimately they didnt have to pay out because I was also covered by the Cycle Club insurance as I was a guest.
Ultimately they didnt have to pay out because I was also covered by the Cycle Club insurance as I was a guest.
Chrisgr31 said:
If you have legal cover on your buildings and contents policy it will probably cover you for this. 18 months or so ago I cycled in to the back of another cyclist when out with the local cycling club. Did several hundreds of pounds of damage to his bike. Having spoken to my household insurer they confirmed that I was covered by their policy as I had been negligent (by definition as I went in to the back of another cyclist).
Ultimately they didnt have to pay out because I was also covered by the Cycle Club insurance as I was a guest.
I took out personal liability insurance for a specific reason not related to cycling. I then extended the cover to include commuting and social cycling. It cost me an alteration fee, and matter of a few pounds, and there was no increase in subsequent renewals. It covered me for any claims for damage and personal injury of a third party, but nothing for any injury suffered by me. My bicycles were covered by another insurance.Ultimately they didnt have to pay out because I was also covered by the Cycle Club insurance as I was a guest.
It was cheap enough, and covered all sorts of weird and wonderful claims that could be made against me.
Type R Tom said:
I've been contemplating insurance for the GF and me for a while. She commutes daily and I'm more of a sports cyclist but it would seem for the relatively low cost it's worthwhile. However, I am concerned that it could be seen as another barrier to cycling (along with PPE) that could reduce the numbers that could get into cycling.
Might be worth getting her membership for British Cycling or Cycling Uk which gives you insurance. Fatball said:
The outrage here is it costing 30k to get 4.3k.
Brads67 said:
No, they just need a lawyer with half a brain. Unlike that chaps.
If he had put in a claim of his own he would not have faced this.
Wrong on both counts. Total legal costs £55,000 (winning side £30k, losing side £25k) for a payout of just over £4k in damages to the woman who got knocked over after stepping off the pavement onto a road without looking, straight in the path of an oncoming cyclist because she was playing with her mobile phone. Fortunately crowdfunding meant supporters of the guy raised all but the last £3k which he had to find himself. If he had put in a claim of his own he would not have faced this.
The cyclist explained when it first came out that although he was knocked unconscious and could therefore have sued the woman, he was opposed on principle of pursuing any damages as he thought it created a culture of silly claims, so he didn't approach a solicitor initially. Sounds laudable of him, doesn't it? Frankly aside from a few genuine legal experts, how many people on this forum, yourself included were aware until now that the implications of a judge's ruling in 2013 means that uninsured people who are exposed to a claim for damages but don't put in a counterclaim are liable for catastrophic legal costs if the person they injure sues them for damages? It all seems insanely unfair to me.
As for insurance, Cycling UK, previously Cyclists Touring Club offers individual and family third party insurance as part of their very reasonable annual membership and following this case it seems utter madness to get on a bike without paying the subs.
Chrisgr31 said:
If you have legal cover on your buildings and contents policy it will probably cover you for this.
It's not actually legal cover that you would need, but liability cover. Liability cover comes as standard with most buildings and contents policies. Legal cover is an optional extra which will pay your legal costs if you need to take someone else to court - eh if you need to claim from a cyclist who rides into the back of you. (Subject to certain caveats, like the case being one you have a reasonable chance of winning).
Chromegrill said:
Wrong on both counts. Total legal costs £55,000 (winning side £30k, losing side £25k) for a payout of just over £4k in damages to the woman who got knocked over after stepping off the pavement onto a road without looking, straight in the path of an oncoming cyclist because she was playing with her mobile phone. Fortunately crowdfunding meant supporters of the guy raised all but the last £3k which he had to find himself.
The cyclist explained when it first came out that although he was knocked unconscious and could therefore have sued the woman, he was opposed on principle of pursuing any damages as he thought it created a culture of silly claims, so he didn't approach a solicitor initially. Sounds laudable of him, doesn't it? Frankly aside from a few genuine legal experts, how many people on this forum, yourself included were aware until now that the implications of a judge's ruling in 2013 means that uninsured people who are exposed to a claim for damages but don't put in a counterclaim are liable for catastrophic legal costs if the person they injure sues them for damages? It all seems insanely unfair to me.
As for insurance, Cycling UK, previously Cyclists Touring Club offers individual and family third party insurance as part of their very reasonable annual membership and following this case it seems utter madness to get on a bike without paying the subs.
Apologies, should have made it clear I was talking about the winning side. The cyclist explained when it first came out that although he was knocked unconscious and could therefore have sued the woman, he was opposed on principle of pursuing any damages as he thought it created a culture of silly claims, so he didn't approach a solicitor initially. Sounds laudable of him, doesn't it? Frankly aside from a few genuine legal experts, how many people on this forum, yourself included were aware until now that the implications of a judge's ruling in 2013 means that uninsured people who are exposed to a claim for damages but don't put in a counterclaim are liable for catastrophic legal costs if the person they injure sues them for damages? It all seems insanely unfair to me.
As for insurance, Cycling UK, previously Cyclists Touring Club offers individual and family third party insurance as part of their very reasonable annual membership and following this case it seems utter madness to get on a bike without paying the subs.
ash73 said:
I wonder how fast he was going for them both to be knocked unconscious.
I doubt he was doing in excess of the speed limit and if he was riding along a main road then it's unreasonable to have to presume that every pedestrian is 2 milliseconds away from stepping into your path.Shows how bonkers the legal system can be, fair play to the bloke for not wanting to counter sue but hardly a glowing example of being rewarded for doing the right thing for the greater good is it...
ash73 said:
I wonder how fast he was going for them both to be knocked unconscious.
I don't think cyclists speed is relevant to being knocked unconscious. It's falling and hitting your head on the ground that does the damage. You could fall off your chair, bang your head and be knocked out just as easily.aka_kerrly said:
I doubt he was doing in excess of the speed limit and if he was riding along a main road then it's unreasonable to have to presume that every pedestrian is 2 milliseconds away from stepping into your path.
Agreed. But my understanding of the case is that he could easily have avoided hitting her with just a modicum of common-sense and self-restraint. Hence the decision.By the way; I'm a fanatical cyclist who spent years commuting to London.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff