“Pure bile and prejudice”: Cyclists slam local government’s proposal to introduce “mandatory bike insurance” and urging cyclists to “encourage overtaking” in Spanish city

Cyclists in the Spanish city of Zaragoza have been outraged after the city’s municipal authority decided to introduce a proposal that calls for “mandatory insurance” for bicycles and other directives such as encouraging cyclists to “be overtaken” by other vehicle users, with many labelling this ordinance as “contrary to safety” and “unenforceable”, while also being steeped in “prejudice”.

The “Preliminary draft of the Urban Mobility Ordinance of Zaragoza” was passed earlier this week by the local governing body of Ayuntamiento de Zaragoza, with the initial proposal coming from the far-right party Vox and agreed to by the conservative People’s Party (PP), aiming to end the “legal uncertainty” when a cyclist is involved in an accident.

The ordinance is open to public consultation for 30 days, and if passed, it would make Zaragoza the only city in the world to introduce civil liability insurance for cyclists.

“Zaragoza would be an exception in the world,” said Colectivo Pedalea, a protest group of urban cyclists that has already started looking at legal measures to challenge this ordinance.

> Cyclists blast Italian government’s “extremely worrying” plans to introduce bike registration plates and insurance

It accused the government of “seeking to proactively hinder the growth of the bicycle as a means of transport and discourage people who want to opt for this means as a means of transport”.

It has also called for the resignation of Tatiana Gaudes, the Minister of Environment and Mobility for proposing “impositions outside of her competence” and “overlooking the development of the bicycle as an accessible, efficient, healthy and convenient means of transport for the city ​​and citizens”, while also scathingly stating that she’s “not up to the task”.

🚴‍♀️La #ordenanza de movilidad que prepara el Ayuntamiento de @zaragoza_es contempla, entre otras medidas, la obligación para los ciclistas de circular con un seguro de responsabilidad civil. Algo que no ha gustado al colectivo ciclista @PedaleaZaragoza

🎙️@DeborahSR5 pic.twitter.com/Afv3O9SOkQ

— RTVEAragón (@RTVEaragon) May 10, 2024

The official document lays out a number of instructions and new directives for cyclists, with the civil insurance being the most controversial. According to the proposal, cyclists will have to carry their insurance papers in physical or a digital format at all times, with the police having the power to stop any cyclist and ask them to show their insurance.

While PP Councillor José Miguel Rodrigo has said that the text “is not definitive” and is open to changes, as it stands, children could also be required to have insurance papers, even if they want to learn to ride a bike in the first place. The rule would also extend to second or third-hand bikes.

A Zaragoza-based active travel campaigner wrote on Twitter: “Every morning hundreds of kids ride their bikes to school… Are you seriously going to ask that every kid get civil liability insurance? Pure bile and prejudice against those who move through bikes in the city.”

Se va contrastando y plasmando en un documento el verdadero problema de movilidad de la ciudad: su diseño para el coche.
Es una irresponsabilidad seguir con ese camino como pretende @ppaytozaragoza con su borrador de ordenanza. #zaragoza #movilidad https://t.co/xNzGlzbZVV

— Colectivo Pedalea (@PedaleaZaragoza) May 11, 2024

The proposal also says that when when riding on road with other motor vehicles, cyclists “must encourage overtaking as long as this can be done safely and they may overtake vehicles when they are stopped or stationary”.

> Government agrees to introduce tougher laws for “dangerous cyclists” who kill or injure, as Transport Secretary says “it’s only right tiny minority who recklessly disregard others face full weight of the law”

Other proposed instructions include a 30km/hr speed limit on bike lanes, a 10km/hr speed limit in areas shared with pedestrians, maintaining a minimum one-metre space when passing pedestrians. Cyclists will also be able to access green areas only if the path is more than three metres wide, and they’re prohibited from entering gardens and planted areas.

Laura Vergara, a manager at Conbici, a cycling advocacy group in Spain, told Euronews Green that the ordinance is a disproportionate measure as there are “no accident statistics that demonstrate the need to provide mandatory insurance.”

She said that most people are already covered for bike accidents through other policies, like their home insurance, and that it would disincentivise environmentally friendly forms of travel. She also said that she believes that “the unviable measure that has generated a great public uproar and confusion among people” will not pass.

> Grant Shapps: Cyclists should have number plates, be insured and subject to speed limits

Elena Tomás, the spokesperson of Zaragoza en Común, a citizen platform for a more egalitarian and livable Zaragoza, also criticised the proposal put forward by PP and Vox. She said: “This ordinance discourages active mobility with a proposal, that of mandatory insurance for bicycles, which does not apply in any Spanish city, nor in any European one.

“We cannot give the same treatment to scooters and bicycles, and the ordinance should be focused from the point of view of sustainable mobility and lower the accident rate, not under the demands of Vox.”

What about cyclists elsewhere?

Previously, Switzerland had a form of mandatory insurance for cyclists but it was abolished in 2012 and most insurers have automatically included liability for bicycle accidents in their personal liability insurance.

In June last year, Italy’s transport minister Matteo Salvini, who also heads the Lega party forming part of the right-wing coalition, introduced a controversial road safety bill which would force cyclists to carry number plates on their bikes, pay insurance, and make helmets and indicators mandatory.

The move was described as “extremely worrying” by cyclists, and Salvini came under strong backlash. Within just 48 hours of introducing the bill, he backpedalled on the decision, saying that the measures were only intended for people riding scooters.

> Italy’s Deputy PM Salvini backpedals on number plates for cyclists – “It’s just for scooters”

And two years ago, then-transport secretary Grant Shapps threw British cyclists into a state of frenzy by announcing his wishes of cyclists having insurance, carrying licence plates on their bikes, and being subject to the same speed limits as motorists.

And then in an even hastier U-turn, the Tory cabinet minister appeared to contradict his widely-reported pledge to enforce tougher rules, just hours later saying that he was “not attracted to bureaucracy” of number plates for cyclists.

More recently, this previous week has been dominated by news of the UK government’s introduction of tougher laws to prosecute “dangerous cyclists” who kill or injure through dangerous or careless cycling, after ministers backed a series of amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill which aims to ensure people on bikes “face the same penalties as drivers and motorcyclists” responsible for the death of pedestrians.

> "30,000 people are killed or seriously injured on our roads every year, less than three involving a cyclist": Chris Boardman on dangerous cycling

The move has drawn sharp rebuke from cyclists and active travel campaigners alike, including Chris Boardman, who said: “There's over 1,700 deaths caused by, or involved in, vehicles every year, 30,000 killed or seriously injured. It’s important that we say that because there are three involving, not necessarily caused by, but three or less involving a bike rider.

“And as the Secretary of State [Mark Harper] said, this is such a tiny minority. More people are killed by lightning, or cows. And that same thing [cycling] is joyous. It's good for society. And we put the focus on this minuscule, negative thing. Absolutely, everybody should obey the laws of the road. But is this really the best use of our time to be talking about this now?”