Cycling licence 'debate' reignited by Channel 4 show and Scotland Tonight

At which point cyclist insurance premiums are going to amount to little more than the admin fee plus a profit margin.

They, they, they.

I ride a bike ("serious road cyclist") and I drive a car when necessary. I'd like to see all road users to have third-party insurance — as I do in my car as required by law, and on my bike through Cycling UK family membership — so that in the event of someone causing damage to my property (car, bike or person), I'm not left out of pocket. Are you seriously suggesting that if you ride your bike into my car mirror and break it, I should *not* be able to claim if it were your fault?

Many years ago, a friend of mine was head-down on a mountain bike and rode into the back of a parked van — 100% his fault. He caused over £1000 of damage to the van roof and was personally liable as he had no insurance.

With my CUK insurance, I know that if any of my family were to accidentally cause damage to a car (or anything else, but cars are the most likely "victims" for expensive damage) through their own fault, we're covered. That doesn't take *any* responsibility away from the person driving the car to treat the cyclists with care, of course — the car in question could be parked, for example.

You are echoing exactly the same thought processes as those people that say cyclists jump red lights — gross generalisations that promote harmful and toxic division. Try to get out of that habit.

You can take the person to a small claims court in that situation.
Why do you say pedestrians should have insurance ?
Why do you think drivers are required to have insurance?

Troon wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting that if you ride your bike into my car mirror and break it, I should *not* be able to claim if it were your fault?

You can claim, you just have to claim against the person instead of an insurance company. I can't believe this has to be explained again, but the reason motorists have to carry third-party insurance and cyclists don't is that motorists are capable of writing off other vehicles at costs that could run into the tens of thousands, causing massive damage to buildings that could run into hundreds of thousands, and causing physical damage to other road users that could have lifelong consequences running into millions. The odds of a cyclist causing damage that would be more than a couple of hundred quid (and so for most people able to be met out of their own pocket) are so minimal that the law deems it unnecessary for them to have compulsory insurance.

Rendel Harris wrote:

You can claim, you just have to claim against the person instead of an insurance company. I can't believe this has to be explained again, but the reason motorists have to carry third-party insurance and cyclists don't is that motorists are capable of writing off other vehicles at costs that could run into the tens of thousands, causing massive damage to buildings that could run into hundreds of thousands, and causing physical damage to other road users that could have lifelong consequences running into millions. The odds of a cyclist causing damage that would be more than a couple of hundred quid (and so for most people able to be met out of their own pocket) are so minimal that the law deems it unnecessary for them to have compulsory insurance.

That is the point that people fail to grasp.  I have been involved in one collision where there was damage to my bike and a car.  (Motorist was 100% at fault).  The aftermath of the collision was that my bike was a write off... front wheel buckled, carbon fibre frame split in 3 places, handle bars buckled.  Cost to replace was into 4 figures.  The total damage to the car was a dent on the bonnet where I landed, the damage to their car would have cost maybe £200 if that.

An out of control cyclist crashing into a parked vehicle will damage that one vehicle, maybe costing a thousand pounds at a push.  An out of control car hitting a parked vehicle can, and quite often will, cause catastrophic damage to multiple vehicles and private property running into the tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds

Yeah right, its so easy to claim against a person rather than their insurance. Don't be ridiculous.

Actually it is, if you are fully comp'd your insurance co will do it for you, and set the bailiffs on them if they dont pay up.

If you arent, hire a solicitor, same deal.

Or just go via the small claims court process yourself, fill in a form, pay a fee, sit back & wait.

JimM777 wrote:

Yeah right, its so easy to claim against a person rather than their insurance. Don't be ridiculous.

Have you heard of the Small Claims Court at all? That's exactly what it's there for and lodging a claim against someone, as I know from experience (a landlord who witheld our deposit, a plumber whose work wasn't up to scratch, won both times), is simplicity itself, you just fill in a form online, pay the fee and wait for your court date. I suggest you might like to clue yourself up before calling other people ridiculous, otherwise that epithet might end up being applied to yourself.

Good luck with small claims courts; getting a judgement is one thing.. getting the guilty party to cough up the amount awarded is entirely something else; the time and expense to enforce a judgement is not worth it for the typical small claim; ask me how I know..

grOg wrote:

Good luck with small claims courts; getting a judgement is one thing.. getting the guilty party to cough up the amount awarded is entirely something else; the time and expense to enforce a judgement is not worth it for the typical small claim; ask me how I know..

Guess it depends on personal experience, both times I've been I've recovered not inconsiderable sums (£1400 and £450, respectively), taken me two hours including travelling time, and the other party paid within a day.

That assumes that the cyclist who bashed your car gave you his correct name and address. Yeah right.

Is your point that insurance or lack of it is a red herring in this debate, and that the base problem is that a lot of people are just gits with no respect for the property of others?

JimM777 wrote:

That assumes that the cyclist who bashed your car gave you his correct name and address. Yeah right.

And if cyclists had insurance, that would prevent them giving you a false name and address to save their no claims, would it? 

JimM777 wrote:

That assumes that the cyclist who bashed your car gave you his correct name and address. Yeah right.

That's on them though.

As pointed out, if someone on a horse, in a car with false plates, on a spacehopper or a pedestrian did so - how would that be different?  One of my bikes would be more expensive to replace than some cheap cars - and more easily damaged - so I've skin in the game there.

Personally I've got 3rd party cover through Cycling UK in case I cause damage and would recommend same to others.  But you can tell the scale of the problem by the fact that it's not bankrupting them.

If you want some kind of ID for everyone (tattooed on the back of their neck / on an implanted RFID so you can scan them before they scarper that's something else, no?

I'm only pointing out the obvious. If a conscientious cyclist damages a car, he will offer to pay for the damage and you don't need to take him to court. If on the other hand, he is a rascal, then good luck getting compensation from him.

If cyclist insurance etc was compulsory, then as is the case for most motorists, in the event of an accident, the cyclist would be covered by third party insurance, and for most incidents, the insurance would work as intended. Of course, as for cars, there would be those who would not insure themselves. None of this implies that I am in favour of compulsory cyclist insurance etc.

JimM777 wrote:

I'm only pointing out the obvious. If a conscientious cyclist damages a car, he will offer to pay for the damage and you don't need to take him to court. If on the other hand, he is a rascal, then good luck getting compensation from him.

If cyclist insurance etc was compulsory, then as is the case for most motorists, in the event of an accident, the cyclist would be covered by third party insurance, and for most incidents, the insurance would work as intended. Of course, as for cars, there would be those who would not insure themselves. None of this implies that I am in favour of compulsory cyclist insurance etc.

If insurance for cyclists was compulsory then insurance companies would doubtless introduce the same rules as for cars, i.e. there would be an excess to pay and premiums would go up in the event of any claims required. Why would your "rascal" give you correct details when it would mean s/he would have to pay an excess and an increased premium? 

I didn't say that the real rascals would conform. My original post was simply pointing out that your argument against compulsory cyclist insurance, that, without such insurance, one could take the cyclist to court, was not a very convincing argument, because of the difficulties involved (as someone else has pointed out). And to make a small claim you have to first shell out over £90, which you may not get back.

In the other hand, if there was compulsory cyclist third party insurance, properly regulated, the cost per cyclist should be reasonably small so that might tend to encourage cyclists to follow procedure in the event of an incident. Of course there would always be a few rotten apples.

Just because I don't find your argument against compulsory cyclist insurance convincing does not imply I am in favour of such insurance. I think the cost of maintaining and properly policing such a scheme would be grossly excessive compared to any overall benefit.

I've heard that drivers cause lots of damage but as this short thread shows, it's a rare thing
https://road.cc/content/forum/car-crashes-building-please-post-your-loca...

It's interesting how some motorists repeatedly bleat about uninsured cyclists causing damage to cars, yet how many of them would provide their insurance details if for example they scraped someone elses parked car in a supermarket?  Or if they clipped the wing mirror of a parked car as they were driving past?  Or damaged a fence? (I know a farmer who had to replace around £2k of fencing damaged by a motorist who caught a verge, and was pulled into the verge damaging multiple fence posts and a gate and they drove away)

How many of them would check to see if anyone was watching, and if no one was watching, just drive off leaving their victim to deal with the costs of their actions?  Why would they do that?  Because they know that in their car they have an excess to pay and a loss of no claims discount..... then it doesn't cost them anything and in their mind "well the other person can claim from their insurance".

And you have a serious misunderstanding of third party insurance..... Third party insurance indemnifies you against claims against you, it most definitely does not ensure you are not left out of pocket if someone damages your bike.  In the same way that if a motorist who is insured Third party crashes their car into another vehicle/object.... their insurance will pay for the damage that the motorist caused, it will not pay for any damage to the motorists car.

TriTaxMan wrote:

And you have a serious misunderstanding of third party insurance.

I don't: I think you misread my sentence. I said "I'd like to see all road users to have third-party insurance […] so that in the event of someone causing damage to my property (car, bike or person), I'm not left out of pocket"

It may be that the clause I've omitted above was the cause of your misinterpretation. If so, I apologise.

I've heard of motorists that after clipping a parked car, stop and looking very contrite in front of passersby, write on a piece of paper and place the note under a wiper of the parked car; the owner returning to their car finds the note has fake details..

grOg wrote:

I've heard of motorists that after clipping a parked car, stop and looking very contrite in front of passersby, write on a piece of paper and place the note under a wiper of the parked car; the owner returning to their car finds the note has fake details..

I've heard stories of notes being found that read "Lots of people saw me hit your car so they think I'm leaving you my details but I'm not." One disgraceful suggestion I've seen, which nobody should ever follow, is always to ask black cab drivers for their business card whenever one takes a ride with them; in the event of scraping someone's car, simply write "Sorry, please contact me" on the back of one and slip it under the wiper.

Ironically, the clearest demonstration (for me) that cycling insurance is not necessary, also highlights that for an adult, its a no-brainer to have it. 

I'm talking about cost. Third party liability insurance comes with my BC membership, and is literally something stupid like £20 a year. That's the scale of perceived risk a cyclist is deemed to carry.

Which brings me to self-insurance. As many have already stated, the chances are, I am positioned to directly cover the costs of any damage my indiscretions may cause. 

...and "they" (ie  the angrier and more vocal element of the drivist community) will all calm the f*ck down and patiently wait behind for a safe overtaking opportunity without objection if cyclists were to be registered. 

Of course they will because it's the ability to make a claim in the (unlikely) event that a cyclist damages/writes off their car,  and the ability to identify road traffic offenders through reg plates (which has been so effective in stamping out speeding, mobile phone use, RLJing, insurance dodging etc amongst drivists) that is their main concern here.  Not cyclist bashing because they get "held up" occasionally & don't like it.  No, definitely not that.

I find that asking one of those drivers "If you got all of your wishes and cyclists had to have licences, insurance, registrations, paid VED to use the roads..... will you give cyclists respect?" it tends to end any discussion about it.

You do occasionally get one who says "No, even if they have to do all of that I won't give cyclists any respect until they stop breaking the rules of the road"..... always said with zero irony....... as if all motorists obey the rules of the road 100% of the time

Even "respect" doesn't matter though when they don't notice you're even there.  As so many say.  I'm even willing to believe this occasionally on account of all the other big, non-moving, often brightly coloured stuff (houses, bridges, bollards) that people drive into all the time to their own detriment.