Safe Speed Forums

I wasn't trying to imply I had the answers. Quite the opposite actually. These are also hard questions. The second two are mostly covered (reasonably I think, given the way motor insurance works) by the MIB.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

are the injury figures just for pedestrians or is it for either of the parties involved?


which would be helpful to know before trying to argue that it's cyclists that need insurance.

Just the pedestrians.



I didn't mate. Rather the opposite.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

which would be helpful to know before anyone tries to argue that it's cyclists that need insurance.


it would also be interesting to know the injuries the cyclists sustained in the same accidents.

If we can find a good answer to: "What are we going to do when careless cycling takes out a bread winner?" then I'd suggest that the argument can be won.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

why are we fixating on cycling here. What happens when some careless pedestrian takes me out and then does a runner?

This is a cycling forum and the issue at hand is: Should cyclists carry insurance?

What's right or wrong for pedestrians doesn't help answer the question. Unfortunately.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

well if you think ignoring that cyclists are far more likely to be injured than cause injury has nothing to do with the question then fine.
So, the population of cyclists in country are responsible for less than 200 injuries per year. Presuming that you could even enforce compulsory insurance, the actual cost of the insurance would probably be around £1 + some ridiculous amount in administration charges. I'd also guess that lots of people will just not cycle (or let their kids cycle) rather than pay insurance. Is compulsory insurance worth the additional cost to our health system?

I'm sorry - you are massively overstating the case here. Whilst I understand you are an enthusiastic cyclist (and not a "militant") are you seriously suggesting that the sort of people who cycle for exercise (and usually buy pretty decent bikes) would be put off by the cost of insurance? Even if some were - if they were concerned about their health they would take exercise some other way.

To me the question as put "should cyclists have insurance?" - boils down to - if I or my property is damaged by the actions of someone riding a bike is it resonable for me to have to bear the cost? Personally I say not.

How are separating liability from insurance?

Are you assuming that practical liability depends on means that may not be available in the absence of insurance?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

If I understand you correctly the answer to the second question is yes - my experience of damage to property (not person - I don't personally know anyone who has suffered that) caused by the actions of cyclists (ie "liable") has been EXCLUSIVELY that the means to make redress were either not available, not available without legal action or not obtainable because the cyclist rode off. The worst case was a colleague who had a cyclist (of the hooligan variety) jump a pavement and put a large combination dent/scrape down the side of a very expensive car - repair costs over £2000 - cyclist was identifiable but poor - pursuing the matter proved not worth the effort.

I agree liability exists in the absence of insurance, but I suspect it is only the real enthusiast cyclist who would make redress from their own pocket if they felt they were in fact legally and morally liable.

no, I'm suggesting the 'serious' cyclist is by far the minority. Fred who rides to work in a suit or Doris who potters down to the shops or even little Timmy who's allowed to ride to school are the ones most likely to quit but just because they don't ride a lot doesn't mean they're not getting a health benefit from it - a benefit they wouldn't get sitting in a car/bus/train.


right, so exactly the sort of person who wouldn't have insurance anyway - sort of like those 1 or 2 million hooligans driving around uninsured. You're all worried about the tiny chance of a cyclist causing damage to you or your car and ignoring the far more likely scenario of the uninsured driver writing your car off and injuring you. Very strange.

I wasn't asked to consider the uninsured driver - I was commenting on the question in the thread title.

I could ask why you are diverting attention from it

But seriously - of course I know uninsured drivers are a problem of an entirely different order - but they CAN get arrested for it, and there IS a scheme for attempting to gain redress.

Getting my car damaged by a cyclist doesn't exercise me much in terms of worry actually, but I still can't see why, if someone damages my car as a result of THEIR actions, whilst occupying the road on a cycle, I should have as reasonable expectation of redress as if it was any other form of road transport. It's no big deal to me - but that was the question asked...

I regard the "health argument" as a red herring in the context of this question.

So if someone would be kind enough to tell me why pedestrians shouldn't have insurance (and they're just as likely to damage your car when you run them down) I'll then answer the cyclist question.

The reason anybody is COMPELLED to take up something, is usually because it is judged that not enough people take it up voluntarily. Here in the Lakes, there have been several cases of mountain bikers on downhill trails, coming into conflict with walkers.
Mostly the rider has been found to be to blame, AND has accepted liability, AND been insured. I believe this has come about because of advice from the sports governing bodies.
On the road, there is no advertising campaign to entice cyclists to insure, and yet the possibility exists as the Prof has shown for large amounts to become due.

If Jonsher is right, and cyclists are not to blame, then statistics will back this up, and insurers will not be looking at exorbitant premiums.
If however proper research showed that claims could be high, then Joe Bloggs and his family might find their hobby costs a little more than at present.
It might also prompt decent research into the issue of helmets as a possible means of mitigating injury, as if an insurance company were picking up the bill, they would take this aspect into consideration.

However, as I said before, the necessity for insurance companies to make a profit worries me, as the insured then picks up the burden, AND the company tries to evade their duty - therfore undoing the good which could come about.

There is a move afoot to make Fell Walkers have insurance to cover possible rescue in case of difficulties. Pedestrians could well be next!
Let's simplify it, and instead of having car insurance, or bike insurance, lets have personal insurance.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Oh come on! NOTE my emphasis (which you have copied) on "as a result of THEIR actions".

(Having said that, I was actually in a car driven by one of my mates who had a drunk bint RUN into the side of the car while it was stationary at a junction. He suffered a fair dent to his wing - drunk bint, like "some" cyclists just p****d off)

The important difference surely is that cyclists have a RIGHT to be in moving traffic on the road, pedestrians don't in any meaningful sense. So your "quote" above is not IMHO a valid parallel.

So I consider the question "should cyclists have insurance" one worth considering.

I think pedestrians are more likely to face litigation for CAUSING an accident where damage arises, rather than the actual damage.
A cyclist is more likely to be involved in incidents where a (minor) collision causes damage to property as has been illustrated by the Prof.

In the case of cars and bikes, the resulting damage is exacerbated by a vehicle!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

so I didn't have to brake hard for the kid today who thought he could outrun a 20mph bicycle ? The mother who pushed her son off the pavement and in front of me so the little dear wouldn't walk through a puddle was also a figment of my imagination? All the pedestrians who run past stationary traffic in L2 (coming from the right) without looking to see if there's anything in L1 don't exist other than in my mind? Need I go on?
Any one of those could have caused thousands of pounds of damage to my bike and/or seriously injured me.
So I ask again, why don't pedestrians need insurance?

As I and Ernest have said - cyclists are using vehicles.

Cyclists have a right to be on the road (which I defend by the way). Pedestrians don't. Your point about pedestrians is equally true of cars - pedestrians DO hurl themselves into cars as well (and come off even worse than when they do it to cyclists).

BUT pedestrians are NOT vehicles and do not expect "rights" in moving traffic - cyclists do. Therefore I think the question is reasonable and your pedestrian point is merely an avoidance of it.

(PLEASE don't take this personally - I'm only arguing!)

It is all a bit academic really.

How do you show that you are insured? Who does the checks?

I'd far rather see a concerted campaign on red-light cyclists and pavement cyclists than some vindictive anti-cyclist nonsense such as this. If it really was a problem the Daily Mail would have filled its boots with stories of uninsured cyclists conspiring to bring about the demise of Middle Class England was we know it.

(Although, as I don't read the Daily Mail, for all I know they have been...)