Do you think cyclists should have compulsory third party insurance?

[PBancroft]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.