Do you think cyclists should have compulsory third party insurance?

[jnb]

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]

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]

Nope.

 

[silverbow]

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]

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

 

[Rieley]

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

 

[dellzeqq]

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]

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]

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

 

[peanut]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

... 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.