# Do you think cyclists should have compulsory third party insurance?



## jnb (19 Aug 2009)

Copied from another forum I frequent (where their poll http://forum.downsizer.net/viewtopic.php?t=44935 followed on from an earlier discussion about cyclist caused accidents)

"Do you think cyclists should have compulsory third party insurance?"


----------



## MartinC (19 Aug 2009)

Society needs cyclists to have 3rd Party insurance about as much as it does pedestrians and will have about as much trouble defining and administrating them. Just because driving a car requires this it doesn't create a need for cyclists to do the same.


----------



## marinyork (19 Aug 2009)

Nope.


----------



## silverbow (19 Aug 2009)

Very well put. As James May said, 'If you invented the motorcar today it would never get a license' (or something very similar).

But, I do think that there is some mielage (excuse the pun) in investigating Bikes have ownership papers, Road fund Licenses and Insurance. (bear with me on this). Because, by having this formal requirement the Bicycle is directly contributing to the national budget annually and there can not be ignored. I know there are plenty of indirect benefits of bicycles, but paying a fee to use a bike, that is direct and it only needs accountants to prove it.

But as it stands, 3rd Party insurance, No.


----------



## Theseus (19 Aug 2009)

And let's not forget the kiddies, are they to be forced to pay this so they can ride to school?


----------



## Rieley (19 Aug 2009)

No. We didn't need it 40 years ago - we shouldn't need it now! The world has gone barmy


----------



## dellzeqq (22 Aug 2009)

The world has gone barmy. I think you're daft if you don't have it simply because of the counterclaim thing - but making it compulsory will simply put people off cycling


----------



## Twanger (22 Aug 2009)

I think there's a case for making it compulsory for everyone, everywhere, to have third party insurance to cover any liabilities they may find themselves faced with.

So I voted yes.


----------



## yenrod (22 Aug 2009)

silverbow said:


> As James May said, 'If you invented the motorcar today it would never get a license' (or something very similar).


----------



## peanut (22 Aug 2009)

I thought that this would be easy to answer but I was surprised how long I thought about the answer to this question.

I think on balance 3rd party insurance would be a good idea but I cannot see how it could be implemented in practice. 

Clearly it could not be expected that children are insured yet they are arguably the most likely to be the source of an accident. Should parents foot the bill ? 

The idea of being insured against 3rd party risks is a good one as any of us could be the cause of a serious accident but like pet insurance I don't see how it could be fairly implemented.


----------



## thomas (23 Aug 2009)

I think people would be wise to have it, but I don't think it should be compulsory.

You would find, a lot of people may have some sort of cover via their home insurance for personal liabilities.


----------



## byegad (23 Aug 2009)

I have 3rd party cover, well actually I have two. My CTC membership gives 3rd party liability as does my ETA cycle recovery scheme. 

I would consider riding without any but the thought that I'm covered from liability is reassuring when faced with idiot behaviour by pedestrians. I don;t really care about damage to motor vehicles, maybe I should.

I do not believe it should be compulsory. Anything which inhibits cycle use whether it is paper work or compulsory hemet use is not going to help in making British transport a less carbon intensive activity.


----------



## Will1985 (23 Aug 2009)

Twanger said:


> I think there's a case for making it compulsory for everyone, everywhere, to have third party insurance to cover any liabilities they may find themselves faced with.


This is the UK, not the USA.


----------



## PBancroft (23 Aug 2009)

Part of me is tempted to say that yes, all cyclists should have insurance (and that is how I voted) but I don't necessarily think that it should be a specific cycling insurance. I do wonder how a _road users_ insurance scheme might function. Insurance against me driving my car (which I still do), or if I cause or am part of an accident as a pedestrian, as well as covering me as a cyclist. 

If introduced as a standard replacement for car insurance, I could see potential, but obviously a lot of gaping flaws. Not least of which would be relating to younger cyclists... 

... perhaps younger road users having limited cover as a part of their parents road user's cover?


----------



## purplepolly (23 Aug 2009)

Kaipaith said:


> ... perhaps younger road users having limited cover as a part of their parents road user's cover?



Then parents would never let the children out alone because it might affect their ncd  Maybe an extension to the current MIB funding could cover youngsters.

The downside is that this would be a major change to current motor insurance principles and would involve costly changes to computer systems. Paid for by the policyholders.


----------



## PBancroft (23 Aug 2009)

purplepolly said:


> The downside is that this would be a major change to current motor insurance principles and would involve costly changes to computer systems. Paid for by the policyholders.



There are plenty of ways in which the roads we all use could be safer, but are frequently ruled out because its too expensive, or inconvenient.

I guess its just a case of deciding whats worth more - money or lives. Unfortunately society decided a long time ago, and I can't see that changing.


----------



## marinyork (23 Aug 2009)

Kaipaith said:


> There are plenty of ways in which the roads we all use could be safer, but are frequently ruled out because its too expensive, or inconvenient.
> 
> I guess its just a case of deciding whats worth more - money or lives. Unfortunately society decided a long time ago, and I can't see that changing.



That is true but I don't see what cycling insurance has to do with road safety. For me it is someone suggesting that large sums of money being spent on something that would probably have an infinitesimal effect on safety.


----------



## Dan B (23 Aug 2009)

The CTC can provide third party insurance for £36 on top of all their other membership benefits. Many household policies throw it in as a freebie too. That says _to me_ that the number of claims is basically negligible and therefore there's little or no case for making it compulsory if that's going to cost money


----------



## byegad (24 Aug 2009)

Let's be honest it's a common argument used by a certain type of motorist who wants to see us off the road. The damage caused to a car in collision with a cyclist is material only and largely cosmetic in many cases. The damage to the cycle is likely to be proportionately greater and then there is the damage to the cyclist. 

By and large most cyclists try to avoid any form of contact with a motor vehicle as we are going to come off worst. So why do they want us to be insured?


----------



## orbiter (24 Aug 2009)

Uncle Mort said:


> It's comparatively rare for cyclists to cause damage or injury but it does happen.
> 
> And cyclists can get sued - even in the UK.
> 
> I have third party insurance (through cycle club affiliation and a private policy that covers the whole family, not just while cycling), but I think it would be ridiculous and unworkable to make it compulsory.



Walk into someone the pavement and knock them over and you could reasonably be sued.

On moving to Holland, one of the first things recommended to me (with no specific reference to cycling) was 3rd-party insurance (at €5/month for two) to deal with that sort of incident. I'm still thinking about it. I certainly like to have 3PI for cycling, like Uncle Mort, just in case I hit someone/thing.

Compulsory insurance is only practical for cars because they are registered to an owner and have annual licences - but still there is reportedly a high number uninsured. I just don't believe it's viable for bikes, however many times it may be suggested.


----------



## dellzeqq (24 Aug 2009)

the great risk you run if you don't have third party is the counterclaim. Mateyboy in a Focus rams you. You send him a letter asking for dosh. His insurance company sends *you* a letter claiming damage to his bonnet, and psychological harm to his granny. What do you do? Having insurance to cover you, you can call their bluff and say 'sod off, I'll see you in court' - but, without, you run a risk.

That's not an argument for compulsory insurance - just an argument for each and every one of us having it


----------



## m23 (13 Sep 2009)

I was involved in a collision with a car earlier this year. 

The accident happened on my daily commute on a major roundabout. My usual practice was to wait until the lights changed and come off the cycle lane and out onto the roundabout as its safer just to set off from the lights at the front to avoid being side swiped by a driver, especially at rush hour.

As I circled the roundabout, a car appeared on my left (a dual carriageway dissects the roundabout road) and hit me side on. I was thrown right over the car at speed.

I judged the traffic light sequencing on the road that dissects the roundabout (and not the traffic lights on the roundabout, before the cycle lane) and I presumed that the cars would have stopped at the red as on other days this has always been the case.

In July I received a letter from the police stating that the officer involved thought that there was evidence to suggest that I had rode into the path of the car and that there was nothing to suggest the driver was at fault but as far as they were concerned the case was closed. There was no charges.

I have now received a claim for damages from a solicitors on behalf of the driver. The letter seems very standard, almost a template in which a few details have been amended. There is only one sentence in there that refers to my bicycle. The rest of the content talks about the incident as if I was driving a motor vehicle which is strange. There are no level of damages indicated in the letter. I presume that the driver has received the same letter from the police and acted on it. The letter is pretty direct stating that I have 21 days to respond and that they demand to have my insurance details. The issue is that I don't have any insurance for riding my bike. I wasn't even aware that you could even get insurance for this.

I also have a feeling from the wording in the letter that the driver is actually claiming for a personal injury. There is no way on this earth that the driver incurred any sort of injury from the collision. After all, I was the one that had to go to hospital in an ambulance. I had to have stitches in my arm and I have had lower back problems and knee problems since.

And to top this off I have now had another separate letter from the driver's insurance company asking for £3200 because they hold me accountable. They have given me 7 days to reply and organise a repayment schedule or they will pass it on their solicitors incurring significantly extra costs.

Even if I was held accountable, I find it ridiculous that there was anywhere near £3200 worth of damage done to the car, never mind a personally injury claim on top.

Honestly, this is a complete nightmare. I'm finding it hard to know which direction to take.


----------



## Davidc (13 Sep 2009)

No, not compulsory.

Having 3rd party insurance covering everything you do makes sense, and it's either a part of household insurance (mine's £2,000,000 and I checked it includes cycling) or available from various companies. My car insurance offers it as an extension at just over £2 a month, and I've received flyers in with credit card statements and the like offering it.

Trouble is, you only have to hit someone and be held responsible for it to be faced with big damages.

But compulsion - NO.


----------



## Velorum (13 Sep 2009)

I have it be default via CTC membership.

No way should it be compulsory. It would cost a fortune to administer and police with little real benefit.

Theres too much nanny state bureaucracy in this country as it is.


----------

