Compulsory Bicycle Insurance - Yes or No?

[Baron99 779]

Story from Saturday's, (22.06.19), i newspaper. 

 

https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/uninsured-cyclist-insurance-debate-gemma-brushett/amp/#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s

 

The cyclist in question is looking at an apparent £100,000 bill for both compensation to an individual who he hit, (while she crossing the road & concentrating on her mobile), & for court fees. 

 

Apparently, British Cycling, while not calling for compulsory bicycle insurance, does encourage regular cyclists to buy insurance that includes public liability. 

 

Dept. of Transport figures from Oct 2018 show that 531 people were involved in collisions with cyclists in 2017, of which 120 were seriously injured & 3 were killed. 

 

Personally I think all road users should carry insurance.  According to the story, cyclists could get insurance for as little as £5.14 a month. 

[LizzieBirdswrth 0]

I think it would be a good idea to have compulsory insurance for cyclists. I mean, if they do cause an accident and are at fault then a successful claim against them could financially ruin them if they have to pay out of their own pocket. Having insurance would at least protect them from that.

[tinfoilhat 11]

Recommended maybe, compulsory? No. 

[altus 538]

8 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

Story from Saturday's, (22.06.19), i newspaper. 

 

https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/uninsured-cyclist-insurance-debate-gemma-brushett/amp/#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s

 

The cyclist in question is looking at an apparent £100,000 bill for both compensation to an individual who he hit, (while she crossing the road & concentrating on her mobile), & for court fees. 

 

Apparently, British Cycling, while not calling for compulsory bicycle insurance, does encourage regular cyclists to buy insurance that includes public liability. 

 

Dept. of Transport figures from Oct 2018 show that 531 people were involved in collisions with cyclists in 2017, of which 120 were seriously injured & 3 were killed. 

 

Personally I think all road users should carry insurance.  According to the story, cyclists could get insurance for as little as £5.14 a month. 

Let's get something clear about this case. The judge held both parties equally liable - the cyclist should have been ready for the pedestrian to suddenly walk into the road and the pedestrian shouldn't have walked into the road whilst looking at her phone. The reason the cyclist faces all the costs is because he doesn't believe in compo culture and so didn't put in a claim for compensation like the pedestrian did.

 

If your going to use this incident to claim cyclists should have compulsory insurance you should claim that pedestrians should have it too.

Edited June 23, 2019 by altus

[Bash Street 10]

Yes, I'll go with that, should be compulsory for riding a bike on the road.They do cause quite a few accidents and quite a few have a disregard for the highway code. I pulled up at a Pelican crossing the other day as it was on a red and the cyclist just went straight through, at speed.

One caused an accident a few weeks ago somewhere around Salisbury with a tank, bike was smashed to bits and the poor bloke was taken off to hospital, fortunately the tank driver was OK.😀 

7 minutes ago, altus said:

If your going to use this incident to claim cyclists should have compulsory insurance you should claim that pedestrians should have it too.

I have to disagree with this as cyclists are road users and pedestrians are not.

[Cyclone 10]

No.

But if the state want to provide it, then that would be useful.  Given that it's so cheap I don't see why they wouldn't want to.

 

They don't "cause quite a few accidents" and you've no evidence that "quite a few have a disregard for the highway code".

[Resident 1,185]

All vehicles using the public highway should be required to have identification plates & minimum 3rd party insurance inlcuding Bicycles, mobilty scooters. 

 

Militant cyclists will never accept such though. They wouldn't be able to ignore road traffic laws or commit acts of criminal damage with impunity. 

 

*INB4 Cyclone gets the massive hump and starts about motor vehicle users breaking the law, despite his own posts stating he breaks laws regardless of the transport method

 

9 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

No.

But if the state want to provide it, then that would be useful.  Given that it's so cheap I don't see why they wouldn't want to.

 

They don't "cause quite a few accidents" and you've no evidence that "quite a few have a disregard for the highway code".

Why would the state provide it? A bicycle isn't a government vehicle. 

I spend upwards of 9 hours on the road in and around S Yorks. There are 2 leaders in the 'race for worst road user' Taxis and cyclists. 

Edited June 23, 2019 by Resident

[ads36 214]

Impunity? 

 

We know the name of the poor sod who's been landed with this daft legal bill, how would number plates have helped identify him?

 

These kind of daft demands would just end up keeping people in their cars, and that really does cause problems (deaths)

Edited June 23, 2019 by ads36

[Cyclone 10]

Might as well just close this topic now.  There won't be any agreement between the vehement cycle haters and anyone else.

There's good reason not to have registrations for cycles.  Starting with the fact that children ride them from about the age of 6 or 7 on appropriate roads and that barriers such as those being suggested directly cause harm to society.  But the militant anti cyclists will never accept such though.  Fortunately cycle registration isn't and won't be a think, so all they can do is continue to be angry whilst sitting in a queue of their own making, fuming about the fact that there are so many people just like them, sitting in a car, creating congestion.

[nikki-red 307]

Please dont turn this into yet another cyclist-bashing thread.

Cheers.

[Baron99 779]

19 minutes ago, Bash Street said:

Yes, I'll go with that, should be compulsory for riding a bike on the road.They do cause quite a few accidents and quite a few have a disregard for the highway code. I pulled up at a Pelican crossing the other day as it was on a red and the cyclist just went straight through, at speed.

One caused an accident a few weeks ago somewhere around Salisbury with a tank, bike was smashed to bits and the poor bloke was taken off to hospital, fortunately the tank driver was OK.😀 

I have to disagree with this as cyclists are road users and pedestrians are not.

So as cyclists are road users then?

 

So what about the ones who insist on riding on ordinary, (not dedicated cycle paths), pavements? 

 

God knows what sort of costs a cyclist would be looking at for knocking down a pedestrian?

 

So compulsory insurance might be good idea. 

Edited June 23, 2019 by Baron99
Spelling

[Penistone999 10]

Yes, definitely compulsory