- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Cyclist at Marble Arch and Times cycle insurance headline (Simon MacMichael)Cycle insurance provider says cyclists shouldn’t have to take out insurance, as Lloyd’s of London boss argues insurance “not such a daft idea” while calling for all cyclists to wear “crash hats”
As the spectre of mandatory cycle insurance rears its head in the national press once again, in the wake of a suspended prison sentence handed out to a cyclist who left a female pedestrian with broken teeth and requiring her finger to be amputated, one specialist cycling insurance provider has spoken out against calls to make protection for people who ride bikes mandatory.
Responding to a column in the Times this week asking ‘Should cyclists have to take out insurance?’, ETA Services, a specialist bicycle insurance and breakdown cover provider, wrote on social media: “Even we cycle insurance providers say NO. Next question…”
Expanding on their stance in the comments under their post, the company continued: “We’re not saying that cycle insurance isn’t an extremely useful thing to have – after all, it’s our business. It’s the making it mandatory we have a problem with.”
Even we cycle insurance providers say NO. Next question... pic.twitter.com/MOnTmHNb3T
— ETA Services Ltd (@ETAservicesltd) September 6, 2024
Replying to one cyclist who said “third party insurance is a no brainer. Many cycling clubs include it with their membership”, ETA added: “The actuarial risk doesn’t justify making it mandatory. It’s like suggesting pedestrians should be forced to have it.”
Meanwhile, another social media wrote: “Here’s a scenario: A cyclist pulls up beside my car at some traffic lights, they lose their balance and fall against the side of my car, scratching the paintwork and denting the panel. They are clearly at fault. Should I have to pay for the repairs myself?!”
“In answer to your question, no,” ETA’s social media admin said. “However, it has nothing to do with the requirement for mandatory insurance.”
> Two thirds of people believe cyclists should be made to have insurance
The oddity of a cycle insurance provider speaking out against, well, cycle insurance came as the boss of the world’s largest insurance market – which, notably, does not provide cover for cyclists – suggested that pedestrians and people who ride bikes should consider taking out protection in case of a collision.
John Neal, chief executive of Lloyd’s of London, told the Telegraph that it is not “such a daft idea” to expect cyclists to take out insurance to protect themselves and other road users, while also arguing in favour of all cyclists wearing helmets.
“Having been knocked off my bicycle two and a half years ago, I know what it’s like to be hit by somebody. So I think you could do with a bit of protection as well,” Neal, who describes himself as a “keen cyclist”, said.
On the subject of helmets, he continued: “I can’t comprehend why anybody would not wear a crash hat riding a bike. I just couldn’t comprehend why people would not do that.”
The latest debate in the national media concerning cycle insurance, helmets, and number plates comes after a drunk cyclist who hit two women on a pavement in Cheshire before riding off, leaving one of the victims unconscious, with broken teeth and an injury to her little finger that later had to be amputated, was given a suspended jail sentence earlier this week.
Carwyn Thomas pleaded guilty to two charges of causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving and appeared before a judge at Chester Crown Court who called his actions “shameful” and sentenced the drunk cyclist to a 14-month prison sentence, suspended for two years.
The case has been leapt on by certain sections of the media, with Nick Freeman, the lawyer famous for obtaining not guilty verdicts for celebrities charged with driving offences and known by his Mr Loophole nickname, appearing on TalkTV to make the case for updated legislation and cyclists to be required to display a number plate.
The segment was broadcast on Monday morning, a clip from Mike Graham’s show having been since posted on YouTube by TalkTV with a factually incorrect title claiming Thomas “killed two”, a title that remains up and uncorrected more than five days later.
During the show Freeman said: “All we've got is the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, wanton and furious cycling, which was designed for horse carriages not for cycles.
“So we don’t really have any relevant legislation and what little legislation we have, such as not going through red lights, there’s no teeth behind it because you can’t identify the driver [rider] and even if you can identify them, there’s no real punishment. It’s a small financial penalty, so the law needs to be revised.
“If you don’t have legislation and you don’t make people accountable then they’re going to do whatever they want. It would be like taking number plates off cars, people would drive dangerously.”
While Freeman’s repeated calls for number plates over the years have mostly received a lukewarm response, there has recently been more backing politically for a new, up to date ‘dangerous cycling’ law.
A Conservative attempt to pass the legislation was halted by this year’s general election, while the Labour Party also said during the campaign that it “will change the law to protect people from dangerous cycling” if it won, although this statement was not seen in the party’s manifesto or King’s Speech, not that its omission from headline policy precludes future legislation.
Now, a spokeswoman for the Department for Transport said: “The safety of our roads is an absolute priority for this Government, and that's why we are committed to delivering a new Road Safety Strategy – the first in over a decade. We will set out next steps on this in due course.”
After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
Latest Comments
- Simon E 5 min 15 sec ago
A SuperSix is definitely not an all-rounder....
- JLasTSR 11 min 43 sec ago
Since most of.my clothes come.from.charity shops.or the eBay nearly for.nothing clothing section I don't tend.to.worry if they wear out, I am also...
- chrisonabike 57 min 7 sec ago
Just get them to walk a treadmill - or better, ride exercise bikes to power path lighting.
- AidanR 1 hour 33 min ago
So his advisers were trying to move funds around to cover losses, but in a way that needlessly created additional liabilities? It would have been...
- levestane 1 hour 34 min ago
Reading this and watching the GCN review has made me realise that, for me, it's not the bike being steel (narrow tubes) that is the critical...
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 41 min ago
Given that the property is private a more elegant and less vandalistic approach would be to lock the bikes away somewhere and contact Lime to...
- David9694 3 hours 7 min ago
Try https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/24739976.overturned-car-chat...
- chrisonabike 3 hours 32 min ago
Yes - or:...
Add new comment
48 comments
Re careless versus dangerous driving, the issues could be solved by allowing the magistrates or judge to make a finding that the evidence was insufficient to prove the dangerous charge, but sufficient to find the accused guilty of careless driving. Similar to homicide cases, where manslaughter may be the verdict, rather than murder. It doesn't stop plea bargaining of course, but it ought to reduce the tendency of the CPS to opt for the lesser charged.
Can we please just "cut to the chase" here....
Bring back Capital Punishment for any minor cycling indiscretion the average BMW driver (or ex Tory MP) deems disproportionate???
Do they really think the average balaclava clad hoody rat drug dealer/phone snatcher on their emoto-bike would have any interest complying?
Yet again, many may realise an isolated incident fuels a rabid disproportionate furore amongst the car-driving cycling-haters to regurgitate and berate their feeble-minded audience(s)?
Hopefully the Tories will make this a manifesto pledge so it can be confined to the bin with all of the other rubbish.
That TalkTV video is still titled 'killed'.
I wonder if Mr Loophole's motive for making cyclists identifiable is so that he can make money getting them off the charges that they will then incur - after all, that's his main source of income.
For all his anti-cycling rhetoric, he has been known to defend cyclists (https://road.cc/content/news/mr-loophole-gets-cyclist-accused-causing-cr...).
That said, I think you give him too much credit - I think he simply wants the publicity.
Publicity to promote his services, it's how he makes a living after all
It would be a good thing to have Nick Freeman chained to one of those fences for 24 hours that they provide at sone junctions to protect pavement users from the motorists he so enthusiastically defends! It might give him some perspective on the relative threat posed by cyclists
Nothing wrong with the existing legislation, wanton and furious are rather better defined and more evocative than the hopelessly illdefined 'careless' and 'dangerous' used for car legislation.
I quite like the careless and dangerous. Did the accused see the victim? If yes, dangerous, if no, careless. If the victim does something erratic to endager themselves, they are no longer the victim.
But in practice in the UK that's all moot (at least for the driving case) because despite definitions alongside the laws AND the fact we've got an actual driving test / examiners we could use to rate the driving we see stuff like "I didn't see them" covering "I didn't bother to look". That's aside from the CPS being incentivised to bring / settle for the lesser charge.
The judgements are being made by people who aren't good drivers themselves, or are prone to say "...but we know that this happens all the time..." or in the case of cyclists being involved have very little idea of the risks and safe cycling strategies.
I think the idea we'll get better judgements with that system when a cyclist has hit someone is a bit of a stretch!
Of course that's really an argument for better understanding of our roads and more people having experience of cycling...
And we can now start taking driving licences off more than the accused, it's a perfect plan.
I can't see(!) that working very well. A driver simply has to declare that they didn't see the victim and they get the lesser charge. Also, I'd be concerned about a jury of typical drivers thinking that a cyclist displayed erratic behaviour by joining a road after the cessation of a bike lane or riding two abreast.
How about defining careless as driving that would fail a driving test and dangerous as a period of driving that would fail the driving test and contravenes laws or the Highway Code (e.g. exceeding the speed limit, using a mobile phone, being intoxicated etc).
You'd have innocent until proven guilty, prove the cyclist was behaving erratically. And if you do get the typical driver jury, there's an opportunity to remove more than one licence. I can't see rducing the number of drivers as ever being a contentious issue.
Sorry, but I don't like the idea of focussing on the victim's behaviour unless it was clearly unusual and even then, it should be considered as determining the ratio of fault. A child running into a road to fetch their football could be considered erratic, but it shouldn't excuse someone driving at 40mph down a residential street and hitting them.
Also, are you suggesting removing the licences from clueless jury members? If so, then that goes into a recursion as you'd surely be asking a jury to determine whether the jury member is fit to drive.
A child running into the road in a residential street is not erratic. It should be expected and driving style change to accommodate this.
I agree, but I'd expect quite a few drivers to disagree.
Where do you draw the line between a typical hazard and erratic? Possibly how easy it is to predict for an experienced road user.
I'm not a legal expert, but I'm sure definitions could be written up. Some sort of expected behaviour in context to the surrounding. I'm sure circumstances could dictate the definition, getting run over by a car at 20mph take more planning and skill than being run over by a car doing 40mph on a built up, residential road.
I prefer using driving examiners as expert testimony. Ask the examiner about the alleged driving and whether that would fail a driving test - if so, then that counts as at least careless driving. It'd hammer home the idea that the driving test is the minimum driving skill that's required to use public roads.
Yes. Think this would cover our demand to have rights to challenge evidence and ask questions etc. Only issue I can see is cost / logistics of getting people who have a job into court.
It would be a massive stretch under our current culture though. I think jurors (if they're honest) know that after passing the test people may grow in *confidence* but some decline in skill - at least those tested in a driving test. (Practice makes... habit.)
And judge cases accordingly.
Pay for the driving examiners' time with a car insurance surcharge. There's also the possibility of employing an ex-examiner full time if necessary - could be an alternative to them retiring or if they're no longer willing to sit with learner drivers.
In theory, the extra cost should be offset by better driving standards, so the insurance companies should be able to offer lower premiums if people aren't crashing so much.
Careless driving is that below the standard expected of a careful & competent driver.
Dangerous driving is that FAR below the standard expected of a careful & competent driver.
What, therefore, is a careful & competent driver?
A careful & competent driver is a one who, with regard to the day, date, time & place concerned, would pass the prescribed test to be issued with a license to drive the category of vehicle in question.
Definitions are already there in law. Some in the actual sections of statute, some in the introduction or interpretation, and others in precedent (case law).
Yes, but we seem to have a problem with courts and juries not following that thought process and instead accepting excuses such as "the sun was in my eyes" or "a momentary lapse of concentration". As far as I know, those excuses wouldn't let you pass a driving test, but we somehow accept them when people's lives are at risk.
As far as I know, those excuses wouldn't let you pass a driving test, but we somehow accept them when
people'scyclists' lives are at riskWell... as HP says, unless each and every time the magistrates / jury are walked through the relevant definitions:
(First problem - this calls for the judgement of what a careful and competent driver would think - and AFAIK there is no test that those so judging are either careful and competent themselves or can understand what a careful and competent driver would judge!)
AND some explanations like the further guidance here (which I don't think are actually in the law itself - but not a lawyer and haven't read through all the road traffic acts and case law etc...):
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-fatal-offences-and-ba...
... then this is going to be moot and we're more likely to get a "feel" judgment - a "how does it seem to you?"
We know this because in fact if you read that guidance - or even just the RTA - this doesn't sit very well with (what is reported as) evidence and judgements.
Of course - there is "case law" there in the sense that there are a wealth of precedents for what would seem to be extreme leniency / benefit of doubt!
Alternatively - perhaps people *are* instructed in what by itself doesn't constitute dangerous driving and are simply applying those (see the latter part of the link above). The standard of proof is quite high - there are some requirements for "causation" (which is reasonable but another hurdle). "Someone died - ah, could be an accident though. Driver had never passed a test - doen't by itself mean the driving was dangerous. Has previous? Only admissible for sentencing - we judge each event on its merits. Evidence they were pissed or high? You have to demonstrate this was sufficient to cause impairment, don't you?"
Could you let me know where you got this defintion from.
You would hope so. Unfortunately it just doesn't happen. I regularly drive <20mph in residential streets dropping down to <10 if I see youngsters. I have to deal with ijits bearing down on me blasting their horn etc.
The problem with "careless driving" and "dangerous driving" is that it fails to recognise that careless driving is always dangerous, where as dangerous driving is only sometimes careless.
The problem is that the more severe charge is harder to quantify in court. Hence unless clear and obvious, the lesser charge is usually brought to court because they are more likely to secure a conviction. Because if a defendant is aquitted of dangerous driving, they are unlikely to be facing careless charges, will therefore not be found guilty of said non-existent charges and therefore walk free.
The typical interpretations are that dangerous or reckless driving charges are for deliberate acts, careless driving is for non-deliberate or hindered by external factors.
Especially when a lot of the offences classed as careless are in fact totally deliberate actions.
Can't see it happening; certainly not under this government with it's commitment to active travel and green policies. An increase in cycling is key to their success, so they won't take any mesures which will discourage it.
Pages