How many Deliveroo drivers have commercial insurance?

[Aprisa]

Prompted by the police quickly pulling over one of the above who undertook me and then overtook the guy in front of me at about 45 in a 30 right next to the police car, I was wondering.

Why is it that even the legally covered Moped delivery driver are allowed to have a commercial policy in force for a job of work when they haven’t even demonstrated the basic skill of having passed their test?

I think they are some of the worst drivers on the road and it should not be encouraged for people to work without passing their test.

Can anybody enlighten me as to whether most are covered?

[joropug]

nearly all delivery drivers for local take aways will not be insured properly. It's almost impossible to get multi drop cover for a take away so most just risk it and will hope to lie to police if pulled over/insurer if they crash.

Bigger chains like Pizza Hut and Dominos I believe have a third party only cover that you can buy each shift (think it was like £5 a shift or something, was a long time ago). So you'll be legal but won't help you if you have a crash.

I would like to think given the huge amount of riders now, deliver and uber eats etc are doing something similar.

On another note, I see tons of illegal e-bikes being used for drop offs - Home Made ones that look lethal. They definitely won't be insured!

[EmilA]

There are companies like Zego who offer the required insurance cover for delivery drivers.

[Aprisa]

I take on board the above but it still doesn’t seem right that these companies would routinely offer insurance for someone who has not provided any evidence that they can even drive on the road to a reasonable standard?

[GranpaB]

Aprisa said:

I take on board the above but it still doesn’t seem right that these companies would routinely offer insurance for someone who has not provided any evidence that they can even drive on the road to a reasonable standard?

Should be the same for cyclists.

[Dingu]

Aprisa said:

I take on board the above but it still doesn’t seem right that these companies would routinely offer insurance for someone who has not provided any evidence that they can even drive on the road to a reasonable standard?

Why are insurance companies responsible for deciding who should and shouldn’t be on the road?

https://www.writetothem.com/

[Yellow Lizud]

You should not be allowed to do any paid driving job while only holding a provisional licence.

[Yellow Lizud]

Dingu said:

Why are insurance companies responsible for deciding who should and shouldn’t be on the road?

Because they should have some duty of care for other road users (and because insurance claims would probably be massively reduced!)

It should not be legal for Insurance companies to issue a policy for business use for a provisional licence holder.

[Dingu]

Yellow Lizud said:

Dingu said:

Why are insurance companies responsible for deciding who should and shouldn’t be on the road?

Because they should have some duty of care for other road users (and because insurance claims would probably be massively reduced!)

It should not be legal for Insurance companies to issue a policy for business use for a provisional licence holder.

They will be pricing to account for the risk and make an overall profit.

Is it moral to provide cover for someone with a careless driving conviction? Dangerous? Drink drive? Or should these people be effectively banned from the road due to a “duty of care” meaning insurers should all refuse to cover them.

Your second sentence agrees with me, it is for the government to decide who can and cannot do certain things.

ETA: I’m not disagreeing that the law should be different. Just where you said the problem should be fixed

Edited by Dingu on Thursday 3rd November 14:22

[donkmeister]

Aprisa said:

I take on board the above but it still doesn’t seem right that these companies would routinely offer insurance for someone who has not provided any evidence that they can even drive on the road to a reasonable standard?

Have they scrapped the CBT since I was on L-plates?

[Granadier]

I've always thought it was a massive loophole that a motorcyclist can work as a delivery driver while only holding a provisional licence. CBT is not the same as being fully qualified and tested. Surely anybody whose job centres around driving a vehicle on the public highway should be fully qualified to drive that vehicle.

[Captain_Morgan]

GranpaB said:

Aprisa said:

I take on board the above but it still doesn’t seem right that these companies would routinely offer insurance for someone who has not provided any evidence that they can even drive on the road to a reasonable standard?

Should be the same for cyclists.

& Grandparents.

[SydneyBridge]

How many car drivers that deliver have the correct insurance? Not many i imagine

[otolith]

Why shouldn't insurance be offered for a perfectly legal activity?

If you really want to limit risk to others, just put a cap on insurance premiums. Can't get third party for less than £x00 - no driving for you.

[Glosphil]

Captain_Morgan said:

GranpaB said:

Aprisa said:

I take on board the above but it still doesn’t seem right that these companies would routinely offer insurance for someone who has not provided any evidence that they can even drive on the road to a reasonable standard?

Should be the same for cyclists.

& Grandparents.

And young drivers.
Guess my age.

[Yellow Lizud]

Dingu said:

Yellow Lizud said:

Dingu said:

Why are insurance companies responsible for deciding who should and shouldn’t be on the road?

Because they should have some duty of care for other road users (and because insurance claims would probably be massively reduced!)

It should not be legal for Insurance companies to issue a policy for business use for a provisional licence holder.

They will be pricing to account for the risk and make an overall profit.

Is it moral to provide cover for someone with a careless driving conviction? Dangerous? Drink drive? Or should these people be effectively banned from the road due to a “duty of care” meaning insurers should all refuse to cover them.

Your second sentence agrees with me, it is for the government to decide who can and cannot do certain things.

OK fair enough, it should not be up to the insurance companies to decide who can and can't drive although they can of course decide who they will and who they won't insure.

However I do believe that the government should not allow insurance companies to insure a provisional licence holder for business use. (But I think we both agree on that)

[Yellow Lizud]

otolith said:

Why shouldn't insurance be offered for a perfectly legal activity?

As has already been pointed out, it is. My point is that it shouldn't be legal.

[Dingu]

Yellow Lizud said:

Dingu said:

Yellow Lizud said:

Dingu said:

Why are insurance companies responsible for deciding who should and shouldn’t be on the road?

Because they should have some duty of care for other road users (and because insurance claims would probably be massively reduced!)

It should not be legal for Insurance companies to issue a policy for business use for a provisional licence holder.

They will be pricing to account for the risk and make an overall profit.

Is it moral to provide cover for someone with a careless driving conviction? Dangerous? Drink drive? Or should these people be effectively banned from the road due to a “duty of care” meaning insurers should all refuse to cover them.

Your second sentence agrees with me, it is for the government to decide who can and cannot do certain things.

OK fair enough, it should not be up to the insurance companies to decide who can and can't drive although they can of course decide who they will and who they won't insure.

However I do believe that the government should not allow insurance companies to insure a provisional licence holder for business use. (But I think we both agree on that)

We do, my edit was too tardy

[otolith]

Yellow Lizud said:

As has already been pointed out, it is. My point is that it shouldn't be legal.

So the insurance issue is irrelevant.

As to whether it should be legal - it is legal, what tangible benefit are you looking to achieve by making it illegal?

[Rozzers]

I’d actually say that a rider with a CBT is at least as competent as someone with a car license.

I had a few friends who when laid off during lockdown took to delivery driving. Apparently after a few months even the local kebab shops wanted proof of proper insurance or it was no-go, as they had been warned by their own insurers that they may be liable if the driver was not covered. I’m aware that some joined group schemes with shift by shift insurance.

So the lack of insurance may not be as widespread as you think.

Now the anti social parking, driving and riding is another matter and I sympathise with anyone living near a busy delivering outlet.