Should 3rd party insurance (£2.03 a month) be compulsory for road cyclists?

[molly44 10]

it would make most car driver think twice though, before they started to spout off about cyclist using the roads(and pavements ) illegally. it would be a level playing field for all, and as a cyclist myself i would welcome anything that made car drivers back off and give more space and consideration to law abiding cyclist.

Which on the whole they do but when tempers Frey car drivers can do much more damage with there one plus tonne car!

[truman 10]

it would make most car driver think twice though, before they started to spout off about cyclist using the roads(and pavements ) illegally. it would be a level playing field for all, and as a cyclist myself i would welcome anything that made car drivers back off and give more space and consideration to law abiding cyclist.

Which on the whole they do but when tempers Frey car drivers can do much more damage with there one plus tonne car!

 

I'm a bit confused with your post...how would cyclists having 3rd party insurance make car drivers back off..have I missed the gist of your post?

[SUPERDREAM 10]

I once had a cyclist ride into me and cause just under a grand's worth of damage to the front of my car, he went through a red light.

 

I'm also an occasional cyclist, my bike only cost £125. Just out of interest I thought I'd get a quote for insurance covering not only my own bike but also 3rd party/public liability cover, in case I ever have a collision that is my own fault.

It came to £24.40 for the year, which works out at £2.03 per month.

 

In a previous (similar, but closed & removed) thread, several people argued that because in most collisions, cyclists are unlikely to be at fault (statistically) and so they shouldn't need to be insured, if a cyclist causes damage or injury you can take them to court.

 

I think £2.03 a month is a more than fair price for cyclists and I can't think of an argument against it, if you take in to consideration how expensive a court case would be.

I know many people have bikes that cost more than £125 so I also got a quote for one costing £1250, which came out at £7.67 a month (£92.04 a year). You can't go wrong!

 

The question is, should cycle insurance be compulsory for road cyclists?

If not, at this price, why not?!!

 

 

EDIT: For those who will argue that you can't identify a cyclist/bike because you can't have reg plates on it (which you can), my suggestion would be the method in which cycle race participants are identified: They wear a number on their bib/vest. Make it compulsory to wear a lightweight hi-vis vest with the number on and you're killing two birds with one stone!

 

I have voted yes, and the reason is because cyclits can cause damage, and should be held accountable for their ridiculous antics. Peoples cars and insurance policies cost money, and its unfair to have to claim off your own policy just because some idiot on a pushbike damages your property.

[Cyclone 10]

Pedestrians can cause damage as well, should you require 3rd party insurance before being allowed of the house?

[RootsBooster 24]

Pedestrians can cause damage as well, should you require 3rd party insurance before being allowed of the house?

 

If they're going to run on the road then maybe

[quisquose 10]

I have voted yes, and the reason is because cyclits can cause damage, and should be held accountable for their ridiculous antics. Peoples cars and insurance policies cost money, and its unfair to have to claim off your own policy just because some idiot on a pushbike damages your property.

 

Or a pedestrian with a shopping trolley, or ...

 

The thing is that we are ALL liable for torts no matter how they happen, whether wheels are involved or not.

 

I don't think that people who are calling for mandatory cycle insurance have really thought this through, and it is motivated by something else.

 

1. Cyclists ARE liable for their damages.

2. Introducing mandatory cycle insurance would introduce another layer of costs on all of us. Insurance costs would rise.

3. It would be ignored.

4. It would be impossible to police.

5. We need to be encouraging people to use bikes instead of their cars, not discouraging them.

6. At what age would it become mandatory, 17? This must mean it becomes illegal to ride a bike before 17.

7. Do we really imagine that our motor insurance costs are so high because the cost of the costs of repairing scratches and dents that might run into the thousands? It's the third-party liabilities that run into the millions that make motor insurance expensive, and compulsory.

[sci fi 10]

If you were to enforce this you would ruin a good thing.

Cycling is free, to make some one pay insurance for their bicycle is pure greed ridden.

[Conrod 10]

If you were to enforce this you would ruin a good thing.

Cycling is free, to make some one pay insurance for their bicycle is pure greed ridden.

Why is it pure greed?

 

Let's say a cyclist who has no other means to pay smashes into my car and causes damage that will cost a few £k to repair - and yes, that is quite possible. Is it 'greedy' to want him to have an inexpensive policy, which might cost £2 a week, that would pay for the damage to my car? Or do you prefer that I would have to claim from my own insurance and lose my no claims bonus through no fault of my own?

[RootsBooster 24]

Why is it pure greed?

 

Let's say a cyclist who has no other means to pay smashes into my car and causes damage that will cost a few £k to repair - and yes, that is quite possible. Is it 'greedy' to want him to have an inexpensive policy, which might cost £2 a week, that would pay for the damage to my car? Or do you prefer that I would have to claim from my own insurance and lose my no claims bonus through no fault of my own?

 

The argument against this is that you can take a cyclist to court and persue compensation that way.

My response is why should I have to?

I don't see why anybody should have to potentially have time off work, pay fees & other costs, travel to to court etc, if none of it was their fault.

Not only that, insursnce may provide you with a courtesy car while your car is being repaired. Would an uninsured cyclist provide this?

[quisquose 10]

Why is it pure greed?

 

Let's say a cyclist who has no other means to pay smashes into my car and causes damage that will cost a few £k to repair - and yes, that is quite possible. Is it 'greedy' to want him to have an inexpensive policy, which might cost £2 a week, that would pay for the damage to my car? Or do you prefer that I would have to claim from my own insurance and lose my no claims bonus through no fault of my own?

 

But the cyclist is liable, and should be pursued and pay. This should happen more often than it does.

[quisquose 10]

The argument against this is that you can take a cyclist to court and persue compensation that way.

My response is why should I have to?

I don't see why anybody should have to potentially have time off work, pay fees & other costs, travel to to court etc, if none of it was their fault.

Not only that, insursnce may provide you with a courtesy car while your car is being repaired. Would an uninsured cyclist provide this?

 

It's your insurance company that should be pursuing the cyclist for the costs of his/her liability, not you.

 

The fact that insurance companies are too lazy to do this, because they can simply spread the costs of uncovered liabilities amongst the honest motorists that's the real problem, not the lack of mandatory insurance for cyclists or pedestrians and uninsured drivers.

 

Incidentally, it's the problem of the latter that dwarfs the others by a huge factor.

[Cyclone 10]

If they're going to run on the road then maybe

 

Pedestrians do all sorts of things on roads, they walk and run past cars all the times.